Understanding Sada's position - 2

K. Sadananda sada at ANVIL.NRL.NAVY.MIL
Mon Aug 13 08:27:49 CDT 2001

Nanda: Sada, though you say both the subject and object are only
produced by consciousness you've not stated as to how/why it produces
them. How can consciousness produce the diversity of the objects that
we see? And what's the logic in the predictable order in which it
produces them? ie right now I have this computer in front of me, if I
close my eyes and open them, why is the computer still there? Why
does not consciousness produce a sailboat in front of me? To merely
say that it had already produced the computer and so it remains, is
not enough - for what caused it to produce the computer in the first
place? And before I came into the office and sat in front of the
computer, in the couple of hours prior to that how/why did
consciousness produce my house, the road on which I walked to the
railway station, the train in which I came to work in, the building
of my office, my cubicle etc? Since you say the subject too is
created by consciousness, why should it always be constant? Why isn't
the principle of diversity which we find in objects, not at work in
the subject? Why can't I be Nandu now in my cubicle in London and a
lion in the next moment in the Kalahaari? What's the logic behind the
sustained meaningful expereince of me and the world that I live in?

Also how would you explain other people? By your logic even people
external to you are only created by your consciousness and have no
existence in themselves. If so whom are you writing these posts on
Vedanta to - for there's nobody apart from consciousness for you to
teach Vedanta to. This way you should totally reject everthing other
than consciousness -  yourself and all that's external to you : your
near and dear ones, eating, sleeping etc. Can your heart/body agree
with what your mind has intellectually conceptualized? Or can you
ignore even the pangs of the body and the heart as they are only
imagination and abide in consciousness only? And who'll abide - since
you yourself has no existence apart from consciousness which
"pervades" you?
Sada:  Nanda- what you are asking does pertain to essentials of
advaita Vedanta. Cause for creation? Why particular thoughts -
computer thoughts and not boat thoughts - etc.  Without going into
details whatever is discussed under advaita Vedanta doctrine is all
applicable here since I have not deviated an iota from the doctrine.
All questions pertain at vyavahaara level.
Creation is cyclic process and hence no beginning or an end.  avidya
is anaandi and your vasana-s dictate the particular thoughts. Why
computer and why not a boat while the guy who has boat and not
computer may ask a reverse question - why boat and not a computer.
These are explained by ones  own vaasana-s or kaaraNa shariira.  How
did one became many? How could consciousness which is one without a
second could produce unconscious entities such as computers and boats
etc.  You are familiar advaita explanations.  My explanations are no
different for the doctrine of advaita.

According to Advaita, this is all projection of the mind at the level
of Iswara for totality and at jiiva at individuality.  Ultimately if
you go through my analysis, Iswara and the world, both are notions at
the individual mind level.  When I take the  world of plurality as
real, I also create an Iswara who is the creator of this world.
Iswara and the world of reality as creation go together.  When I
reject the reality of the world and shift my attention to the very
substratum, the world and Iswara both become apparent both merge into
me.  That is true knowledge.  All are in me and I am in all of them
applies as a fact only at that time.

   How does the split occurs in the mind as subject and object - if
consciousness is only one?.  Vedanta answers in two ways - there is
no split in reality but only it appears as such.  That split is seen
only in vyavahaara level and at paaramaarthika level there is no
creation either - it is one without a second.  There cannot be any
valid connection  between the two -one can say it is anirvachaniiyam,
inexplicable or one can say it is all liila or play of the
consciousness. Play ground is the mind.  Either explanation is not
really an explanation since from absolute point there is no split
either and hence any need of explanation.  Vyavahaara is not real,
and hence any split is only apparent and explanation is not
absolutely valid since that is also unreal.  Appearance is only at
the intellect level.  Those who are ignorant takes the apparent as
real and those who know will take it as it is.  But even the
intellect on which the apparent appears itself is of the same degree
of reality.  Hence explanations at the intellectual level have no
more validity at the paramaarthika level when there is no apparent
plurality needing any explanation.  The question of 'how' - is trying
to seek a connection between one and the many.  Since there is no
really many, the question has no validity since it is seeking to
relate non-relatable things - vyaavahaarika and paaramaarthika.
Hence Shankara rightly says anirvachaniiyam.  Ramanuja subscribes to
'Liila' of the Lord.  Liila cannot be questioned either.  The buck
stops there. It is explaining something where explanations which fall
under the category of again naama ruupa or concepts, fall short of
the truth.
If producing the subject/objects (samsaara) was the true nature of
consciousness, then it'll always produce them - then where's liberation? Or
if liberation according to you is the mere intellectual appreciation that
the subject and object have no existence apart from the consciousness which
perceives them, how durable is this knowledge? Can it exist when your
attention is distracted or in deep sleep? Or can it still exist if you lose
your memory or if your mind gets weak due to old age? So when you lose that
understanding will you become bound again? Also since consciousness in your
concept of liberation will keep producing objects where's the meaning in an
absolute then - for by definition itself absolute means the changeless -
Being - in contrast to the changing world that the normal man experiences -
becoming. Is this the ideal of immortality and the escape from the cycle of
rebirths that the Upanishads talk about?
Sada: Plurality by itself is not problem- samsaara comes with moha or
delusion and not just illusion.  Illusion is seeing many in one.
Delusion involves taking the illusion as real and operate on that
understanding.  There lies the samsaara.  In the jiivanmukta state
where the  upaadhi's are still functioning - that is the mind and
intellect, one still sees the plurality.  But there is no more moha
or delusion to take the apparent plurality as reality. Ones the
body-mind complex drops even this apparent plurality disappears -
that is videha mukti.  I am just that absolute I am, one without a
second.   This is what I learned from Vedanta.
      Nanda, rest of the arguments is of no relevance to me.  What I
am teaching is only advaita only.  I have made already clear that I
am not talking about intellectual understanding but realization of
what intellect understand or factual knowledge.  As you know I  donot
have any knowledge of other philosophies for me to agree or to
disagree.  When  I will be discussing Shankara Bhaashya related to
refutation of Budhhism in Brahmasuutra, I will present Shankara's
thoughts.  Till then I will refrain from any discussion of the
subject that I do not know.

Nanda: In a way your arguments are similar to that of Vijnaanavaada
Buddhists. ButVasubandhu in his Vijnaaptimaatrattasiddhi though
misguidedly dabbles a bit...
Sada: The rest of part II of Nanda's comments is removed since I am
not qualified to comment on that vijnaanavaadins arguments.  Those
who are interested can look up Nanda's original post.

In summary to this part II - if I can restate, based on my discussion
in response to Part I , what I have presented is only doctrine of
advaita.  Existence of the world when the mind is absent is an
indeterminate problem and one can have an explanations as
'sR^ishhhTi-dR^ishhTi or dR^ishhTi-sR^ishhTi or ajaata vaada etc -
These I consider are different explanations of what is apparent.
Being an indeterminate problem,  any explanation that which has no
absolute existence is just to satisfy the intellect.  What ultimately
needs however is how to account how one existence-consciousness
appears to be many with consciousness and as well inert computers and
boats floating around.  Shastra has provided explanation for that.

Hari OM1
K. Sadananda
Code 6323
Naval Research Laboratory
Washington D.C. 20375
Voice (202)767-2117

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list