[Advaita-l] Permanence of the self

[Venkatraghavan S]

>
> Dear Sri Venkatesh,
> This is a pertinent article that deals with this very kArikA - seems to me
> to be a very balanced analysis. Thought I would share it as it may be
> useful.
>
> https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/ibk1952/9/1/9_1_410/_pdf
>
> Regards,
> Venkat
> Namaste
>
> I am trying to understand this Sloka. I kindly request scholars here to
> help my understanding.
>
> At the end of the Alati Shanti Prakarana the Parama Guru of Adi Sankara
> Sri Gaudapada has said Naitad Buddhena Bhashitam. This was not spoken by
> Buddha. Some bad scholars think Buddha did not speak of Atman because it
> cannot be spoken in words. He remained silent. Silence is the highest
> teaching. But this is a wrong explanation for this Sloka.
>
> क्रमते न हि बुद्धस्य ज्ञानं धर्मेषु तायिनः ।
> सर्वे धर्मास्तथा ज्ञानं नैतद्बुद्धेन भाषितम् ॥ ९९
> and ज्ञानज्ञेयज्ञातृभेदरहितं परमार्थतत्त्वमद्वयमेतन्न  बुद्धेन  भाषितम् ।
> यद्यपि बाह्यार्थनिराकरणं ज्ञानमात्रकल्पना च अद्वयवस्तुसामीप्यमुक्तम् । इदं
> तु परमार्थतत्त्वमद्वैतं वेदान्तेष्वेव विज्ञेयमित्यर्थः ॥
>
> This is a difficult Sloka to understand with even Adi Sankara Bhashya on
> it. The Buddhists have understood the Emptiness of the world. This Advaitis
> can understand as Jaganmithyaatva the Unreality of the World. Even though
> the Buddhists are close to Vedantis because they reject outside Objects of
> the World but they have not understood the Brahma Satyatva the Reality of
> Brahman. The Only way to understand Brahman is through Vedanta. The
> Buddhists are missing this. They cannot understand Atman or Brahman without
> Vedanta. The Budhhist theory is Incomplete.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 6:48 PM, Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>> First of all, thanks a lot for taking the time to provide your comments in
>> this debate. Just a few initial responses:
>>
>> Sri Murali HR: "Do nothing."
>> Venkat: Perhaps you mean this exercise is futile and hence not doing
>> anything is better than otherwise? If so, maybe, but sometimes an exercise
>> in futility may produce unexpected results that still have value (in this
>> case, this very email chain has afforded me a better understanding). But I
>> understand the sentiment, thanks.
>>
>> Sri Subbu:"Shankara has grouped Bauddha along with others and called them
>> dvaitins. Check the archives of this forum to get the exact reference from
>> the Gaudapada karika bhahsya."
>> Venkat: Thank you sir. I will certainly do so.
>>
>> Sri Vidyasankar:" By this logic, non-cognizability is posited as a
>> necessary attribute of true
>> independent existence and then the same non-cognizability is used to
>> argue for non-existence."
>> Venkat: Thanks for articulating it so well! There is certainly circularity
>> in this chain of logic - "Existence requires cognisance. Cognisance
>> implies
>> change. Change implies non-existence."   The first leg of that chain -
>> that
>> existence requires cognizance to prove its existence is the weakest leg of
>> his argument, in my opinion. The problem with the second leg is whether
>> cognisance implies change in the cognising agent - so, even if one were to
>> argue that Brahman's existence is self-evident, can we say that Brahman
>> knows it *exists*? If so does it change by mere fact of its knowledge?
>>
>> Sri Venkatesh Murthy: "If 'nothing exists' means 'nothing exists
>> independently' it means 'everything is dependent on something'. But this
>> Dualism only."
>> Venkat: Its dualism, but probably qualified - in the sense that nothing
>> exists in and as of itself, but only in relation to something else, which
>> also does not exist in and as of itself. In terms of classification, one
>> may call it dualist, or nihilist.
>>
>> Sri Krishnamoorthy: "If everything ends in shunyatha- I mean emptiness or
>> nothingness-then why should one live at all?"
>> Venkat: I think you have hit on an important conclusion from Buddhism (or
>> at least my understanding of it, based on what my boss/friend says) -
>> there
>> is no ultimate reality, no conventional reality, no path, no seeker and
>> nothing to be known. Its precisely because when faced with that, people
>> naturally tend to ask why should one bother to live at all, that nirvana
>> as
>> a goal and sadhana as a means to achieve it are taught in the Buddhist
>> tradition - but if one were to actually walk that path, they do believe
>> there is no ultimate reality.
>>
>> Sri HS Chandramouli: "For such an entity there need not be any action
>> needed
>> to enable it. Just its presence itself could enable it. The nearest
>> illustration
>> is that of the Sun. In the absence of sunlight no visual cognition occurs.
>> The presence of the Sun enables such cognition without any action by the
>> Sun."
>> Venkat: First of all, thanks very much for your detailed mail - it was
>> certainly helpful to me and therefore no need to apologise. I think the
>> concept that my friend fails to appreciate is one of "self-evidence", that
>> is if some thing "is", you do not need anything else to prove it "is".
>>
>> Sri Balagopal: "Swami Paramarthananda Ji says that one has to sharpen
>> one's
>> intellect to at least begin understanding vedanta (advaita). How else the
>> 'eye' can see the 'eye' itself* !!. If one refuses to step up from one's
>> manda budhi (will happen only if one is willing to study vedant
>> 'sampradayically') god alone can save him ! They will never understand and
>> you will have either more whiter hair or the existing ones will begin to
>> fall !! Because after a stage it becomes a futile discussion instead of
>> fertile."
>> Venkat: Thanks sir. I completely understand and am quite wary about this -
>> which is why I will not indulge in this debate for too long, but for the
>> moment, the discussion is certainly helping me crystallise my thought
>> process.
>>
>> Once again, thank you for your thoughtful comments.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Venkat
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 11:49 AM, Srivathsa Rao <vathsa108 at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > DearSri Venkatraghavan,
>> >
>> > Even shankaracharya says,something cannot come from nothing....or form
>> > emptyness nothing can come.....then from where this bhudhi came
>> according
>> > to bhudhists?
>> >
>> > According to advaita there exists a jgnana called brahman,because of
>> which
>> > this world came to exists....who's special power of hiding this jgnana
>> so
>> > called maya ,helps him to create this world.....
>> >
>> > but according to bhudhists nothing exists....so for where this bhudhi
>> came
>> > to exist from emptyness?
>> >
>> > On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 5:14 PM, Srivathsa Rao <vathsa108 at gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> DearSri Venkatraghavan,
>> >>                                              Even bhudhists accept the
>> >> moksha through jgnana yoga,that means..they accept there exists a
>> >> jgnana,which gives them moksha.....
>> >> this jgnana can't be empty...as jgnana exists and empty exists are
>> >> contradictory ....
>> >>
>> >> this jgnana is called as brahman in vedanta...it exists and continues
>> to
>> >> exits....as moksha is eternal according to all religion,this jgnana is
>> also
>> >> eternal.....
>> >>
>> >> Vedanta says this jgnana of brahman is nothing but self 'I" .......as
>> >> this jgnana exists eternally ,"I "exists eternally....
>> >>
>> >> regards,
>> >> Srivathsa Rao I
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 1:44 PM, balagopal ramakrishnan via Advaita-l <
>> >> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Swami Paramarthananda Ji says that one has to sharpen one's intellect
>> to
>> >>> at least begin understanding vedanta (advaita). How else the 'eye'
>> can see
>> >>> the 'eye' itself* !!. If one refuses to step up from one's manda budhi
>> >>> (will happen only if one is willing to study vedant
>> 'sampradayically') god
>> >>> alone can save him ! They will never understand and you will have
>> either
>> >>> more whiter hair or the existing ones will begin to fall !! Because
>> after a
>> >>> stage it becomes a futile discussion instead of fertile.
>> >>> Well, as Venkat Ji said - it might help to sharpen one's; but, be
>> >>> cautious while wrestling - pigs don't know pigs stink!!
>> >>> Regards
>> >>> Balagopal
>> >>> *"shrotrasya shrotram manaso mano.." (Kena Up 1.2)
>> >>>
>> >>>      On Wednesday, 18 February 2015 1:22 PM, H S Chandramouli via
>> >>> Advaita-l <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>  Dear Sri Venkataraghavan,
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>  Reg 2) His second point was that if something did have true
>> independent
>> >>> existence, it would be impossible to cognize it. That is, the very act
>> >>> of knowledge implies an observer and the observed, and then it no
>> >>> longer is a non-dual system. Without being able to cognise that
>> >>> existence, it would be as good as it not existing at all.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>  Yes. Any act of knowledge implies an observer and the observed.
>> However
>> >>> when the observer and the observed are jada ( inert ) , that is
>> incapable
>> >>> of the act of cognition by themselves, an enabling entity is needed to
>> >>> enable such cognition. For such an entity there need not be any action
>> >>> needed to enable it. Just its presence itself could enable it. The
>> >>> nearest
>> >>> illustration is that of the Sun. In the absence of sunlight no visual
>> >>> cognition occurs. The presence of the Sun enables such cognition
>> without
>> >>> any action by the Sun. Just its presence enables it. We can now
>> consider
>> >>> the experience of all of us. We are aware of the Creation in our
>> waking
>> >>> state. When we pass on to the dream state, we cognize the dream
>> creation.
>> >>> Even though there is nothing in common between these two creations,
>> we do
>> >>> have the knowledge ( in the waking state where this analysis is being
>> >>> done
>> >>> ) that it is the same cognizing entity ( namely ourselves ) which
>> >>> experienced both the creations. We can now consider the deep sleep
>> state.
>> >>> We only have recollection of that state. The recollection is that no
>> >>> creation was experienced. Not even Time. Also we enjoyed unalloyed
>> pure
>> >>> happiness. Note that this is only a recollection in the waking state.
>> >>> Also
>> >>> our cognition is that it is the same entity ( namely ourselves ) which
>> >>> had
>> >>> earlier experienced the two types of creation that is having this
>> >>> recollection also. This is not logically possible unless there was
>> some
>> >>> other entity which “ witnessed “ all these three states independently
>> and
>> >>> enabled us to cognize the same as such . This enabling is not done as
>> an
>> >>> act on its part but happens just by its proximity or its presence
>> because
>> >>> it happens all the time automatically as it were and is universal.
>> Your
>> >>> Budhist friend also can vouch for it.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>  We can now consider our experience with the passage of time. Right
>> from
>> >>> our childhood days through to our last days we change so much both
>> >>> mentally
>> >>> and physically that it is practically impossible to recognize that it
>> is
>> >>> the same single entity ( namely ourselves ) which has experienced all
>> >>> these
>> >>> changes unless that is brought to our attention automatically and all
>> the
>> >>> time by a “ Witnessing Agent “ who is independent of the experiencing
>> >>> entity ( namely ourselves ) . This again confirms what was concluded
>> >>> previously that such a “ Witness “ is “ existent “ all the time and in
>> >>> all
>> >>> the states ( waking/dream/deep sleep ) which by its mere proximity or
>> >>> presence enables such cognition. This being a universal experience it
>> can
>> >>> be logically postulated that a “ permanent “ conscious entity exists
>> >>> which
>> >>> is what your Budhist friend is disputing. It is not necessary that
>> such
>> >>> an
>> >>> entity must itself be cognizable. It can be inferred. Even Budhists
>> admit
>> >>> inference as permissible in a postulation. If your friend does not
>> agree
>> >>> with this postulation he needs to logically refute such a possibility.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>  Having said this, I would like to add that going by pure logic this
>> can
>> >>> at
>> >>> best be a postulate only and not an assertion. That is the limitation
>> of
>> >>> logic by definition. The assertion that it IS so is possible only
>> through
>> >>> the Shrutis. But that is a different story. I am very sorry if this
>> has
>> >>> become too long. Please bear with me. I really did not want to make it
>> >>> too
>> >>> brief as I thought it could be misunderstood as it usually happens in
>> >>> forums like this where we do not know each other personally.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>  Regards
>> >>>
>> >>> On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l <
>> >>> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> > Dear all,
>> >>> > I work in an office where my boss is a Buddhist, of the Madhyamaka
>> >>> > tradition of Nagarjuna. We tend to have several lively debates on
>> the
>> >>> > nature of reality, and one of the questions that we have recently
>> >>> engaged
>> >>> > on is the concept of a permanent Brahman (self) onto which this
>> >>> universe,
>> >>> > including the BMI, is superimposed due to avidya.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Unsurprisingly, he opposes the very notion of a self, and more
>> >>> > fundamentally, the idea of permanence itself (even on a parAmArthika
>> >>> > basis). His view, coming from the Nagarjuna school is of shunyata,
>> or
>> >>> > emptiness (mutual interdependence of everything). And that emptyness
>> >>> itself
>> >>> > is empty.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > What are the arguments that I can make to prove the existence of the
>> >>> > Universal self to him?
>> >>> >
>> >>> > I am aware of Sri Shankara Bhagavatpada's argument in the Brahma
>> Sutra
>> >>> > Bhashya that to deny the self is illogical - the denier would have
>> to
>> >>> have
>> >>> > a self in existence with which to deny the self. And if he didn't
>> have
>> >>> a
>> >>> > self, then the denial wouldn't exist. However, and my understanding
>> is
>> >>> > limited here - How does this in itself establish the permanence of
>> the
>> >>> > self? At best, it seems to me that this argument proves that the
>> >>> denier's
>> >>> > ego at a fixed point in time, not the universal, permanent self. I
>> >>> suspect
>> >>> > he could also reject the idea of an individual self, instead saying
>> >>> that it
>> >>> > is the momentary mind that denies, in that example.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > I can point him to shruti vAkya pramAna, but to someone that denies
>> the
>> >>> > prAmanyam of shruti, that wouldn't be effective. Any suggestions?
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Regards,
>> >>> > Venkat
>> >>> > _______________________________________________
>> >>> > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>> >>> > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>> >>> >
>> >>> > To unsubscribe or change your options:
>> >>> > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>> >>> >
>> >>> > For assistance, contact:
>> >>> > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>> >>> >
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>> >>> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>> >>>
>> >>> To unsubscribe or change your options:
>> >>> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>> >>>
>> >>> For assistance, contact:
>> >>> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>> >>> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>> >>>
>> >>> To unsubscribe or change your options:
>> >>> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>> >>>
>> >>> For assistance, contact:
>> >>> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>>
>> To unsubscribe or change your options:
>> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>>
>> For assistance, contact:
>> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Regards
>
> -Venkatesh
>