Re: The Ultimate Question
> If we are already
> perfected beings with infinite power, why the veil of imperfection and
> bodily limitation - is there an explanation in Vedanta about why/how (or
> maybe I should say '*what* is the process by which') we 'lost' this
> knowledge of Oneness to begin with?
This is a question I ve been thinking abt for a long time as well ....
if we are such infinitely powerful beings, why the hell do we have to
go thru so much trouble to realise it in the first place .. the sheer
inefficiency of this system is something i cant come to terms with ..
then i read this interesting idea that gives a similar perspective to
somik's comments ...
it doesnt quite resolve the question .. but it did help me reconcile
to the fact that this is just the way things are ... and its not that
bad ...
it says that god could have created a perfect universe where all
creatures are self realized and everythng is hunky dory ... but he
decided instead to create the concept of free will ... just to add a
little spice to the game of life ...
by giving us the 'freedom of choice' ... he let loose a universe of
possibilities ....
so when we are deluded into thinking that we re lesser beings ... it
is 'our' choice to do so ... when we constantly tell ourselves this,
we start believing it ...
we are also free to 'believe' just the opposite .. something which
swamiji's speeches on practical vedanta stated categorically ... we
are pure , we are all powerful ...
infact .. this is pretty powerful gift ... one of being able to make
up your own mind for yourself using your own intelligence and
discrimination ..
of course this really messes things up pretty badly too ... because
most of the time we seem to choose the former path (i dont know why),
its kind of fun to stand back and realize how much more fun and
exciting it is ... instead of being served everything on a platter ..
we re being asked to find the truth on our own terms .. its tougher
... but if and when we do reach it ... it will feel so much more real
...
apologies if i didnt make sense here ... have a good summer
pratik
ps : i read abt this idea from a book called 'the star wars universe
and philosophy' ... its a really cheeky little book where some
philosophy profs have written some funny papers abt the underlying
philosophy behind star wars ... nothing too original but a good read
on hot summer afternoon ...
for more serious inquiries, readers should refer to the christian
philosopher St Augustine's book free choice of the will ...
posted by somik at 1:03 AM
15 Comments:
Under the aegis of Vedanta, there are many schools of thought. Advaita Vedanta (of Sri Shankaracharya) is just one of them. The question asked actually creates a problem for advaita vedanta, since there is no answer to this question in that school. So one needs to then examine if the conclusions of advaita vedanta are actually the true purport of the vedantic texts authored by Sri Vedavyasa, and if not, then perhaps the answer lies in the interpretation of another school, that completely confirms to the intent of Sri VedaVyasa.
One has to refer to the texts of Vedanta - the Upanishads, Brahma Sutra and Bhagavad Gita to get the answer from the horse's mouth. These 3 are accepted by all schools of Vedanta (including by Sri Shankaracharya) as their primary sourcebooks.
If we examine these texts, we find that there is no such postulate in the Vedas that we are already perfected beings with infinite power. Rather, the opposite is stated - we are limited beings with limited power, suffering from all kinds of problems in this world. Just to quote one example from Mundaka Upanishad (3.1.2):
samaane vrkshe purusho nimagno anishayaa shochati muhyamaanah
jushtam yadaa pashyati anyam isham
asya mahimaanam iti viita shokah
"Although the two birds [jivatma and paramatma] are in the same tree, the eating bird [jivatma] is fully engrossed with anxiety and moroseness as the enjoyer of the fruits of the tree. But if in some way or other, he turns his face to his friend who is the Lord [paramatma] and knows His glories - at once the suffering bird becomes free from all anxieties."
Even in the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna does not tell Arjuna at any place that he is a being with infinite power. Rather, He confirms everywhere that He is the infinite Lord with infinite power, and everyone else is finite and dependent on Him.
Come to think of it, the purpose of any (true) philosophy is to explain our experience, not contradict it and common sense experience says that we are limited. Vedanta being a philosophy of truth, it cannot contradict our experience.
Another contradiction in this theory of oneness is the existence of this maya or illusion that supposedly prevents us from realizing that everything is One. Does this illusion exist? If it does, everything cannot be one, since both maya and Brahman exist (so there is already duality here). If it does not exist, then where is the question of its covering Brahman to create the superimposition of finiteness on the infinite Brahman?
Thus, based on all the three pramanas - pratyaksha (sense experience), anumana (logic) and shabda (Veda), advaita Vedanta is contradicted.
Bhagvad Gita, Chapter 7, Verse 16:
Krsna describes people of righteous acts being four-fold, the afflicted, the knowledge-seeker, wealth-seeker and the knower.
Then, in verse 18:
All these (four) are noble; but the knower, I deem to be My very Self; for, with an integrated self, he has resorted to Me alone, the goal without parallel.
On Maya, Krsna is clear on this too, in verse 25 of the same chapter:
Veiled by the delusive power of My Yoga-Maya, I do not stand revealed to all. This deluded world knows not Me, unborn and immutable.
Seems to me this implies that once true knowledge has dawned, Maya cannot exist anymore, relative to the knower. It seems to be a validation of the non-dual concept.
The Upanishads have the famous statement, "Tat Tvam Asi" - "I am That" - validating the Advaita point of view further.
Does that mean Dvaita is incorrect? Hardly.
From the Gita, Krsna says, in 6.21:
I give unswerving faith to each devotee who seeks to worship with faith whatever divine form (of his choice).
As a mental construct, it is much easier to grasp the finite form than the infinite, and as a much easier process to understanding the infinite, it has been known to work, from the lives of the masters of the Dvaitic schools.
While old school Dvaita needed to negate Advaita to exist, I think the new school Dvaita sees that it can co-exist with Advaita.
My response will be in several parts, taking one sentence at a time.
Part 1 – response to:
"While old school Dvaita needed to negate Advaita to exist, I think the new school Dvaita sees that it can co-exist with Advaita."
Response:
The philosophy of Vedanta is an eternal, immutable truth, as Sri Krishna says in 4.1 (avyayam yogam). It is avyayam - does not change with time. Hence, its philosophy cannot be “new” or “old”, existing in different versions. Either a philosophy is Vedanta, or it isn’t, and the criterion for that is to see if it comes from the prasthAna-traya of Sri VedaVyasa – Bhagavad Gita, Brahma Sutra and Upanishads. Krishna Himself in His form as VedaVyasa is the compiler of Vedanta (“VedAnta-krit aham” – Gita 15.15).
The question then is if there can be multiple, divergent philosophies, all being “VedAnta”. The answer is clearly no, as Krishna says in 2.41 “vyavasAyAtmika-buddhi eka iha” – on this path, right knowledge comes in only one form, whereas wrong knowledge comes in an unlimited no. of forms “avyavasAyinAm buddhayah anantAh”.
So according to Sri Krishna’s own words, there is no possibility of mutually contradictory philosophies co-existing with one another. If they do, then it is at least not VedAnta.
What exactly is dvaita? “Svatantram asvatantram cha dvividham tattvam ishyate” – it is the tenet that there are two orders of reality – one independent (svatantra-tattva) and the other dependent (asvatantra-tattva). The independent reality, as explained in the Bhagavad Gita and other Vedantic texts is Sri Krishna Himself (also known by various other names like Vishnu and Narayana). The dependent reality consists of everything else – the jivatmas (finite, individual souls like us) and jada-vastu (inanimate entities such as matter, energy, Veda, time, etc).
Advaita (of Sri Shankaracharya) says that there is only one tattva – an attributeless, qualityless, formless entity, and everything else (including this world with its individual jivatmas) is an illusion. It does not factually exist. The only thing that exists is that “One”.
How then can both the schools – Dvaita and Advaita – co-exist? Only one of the two schools can be correct, about what is the true purport of the Vedantic texts.
In the next part, we will see what the cited verses from Gita and Upanishads mean.
How then can both the schools – Dvaita and Advaita – co-exist? Only one of the two schools can be correct, about what is the true purport of the Vedantic texts.
This question was once taken to Sri Ramakrishna by the two factions. Each hoped Sri Ramakrishna would invalidate the other. He is said to have replied, "In the ocean of divinity, the devotion of the Dvaitas manifests in the form of icebergs, as an example that stands out for all humanity. When the light of knowledge shines bright, that iceberg melts and merges back into the ocean."
Both groups were disappointed that he had not invalidated the other. I was trying to figure out which camp I should be in many years back and asked a monk I liked as to what he was. He replied, he was a sarvavaadi - he would learn and accept all. Over the years, I've been trying to grasp this, and I am convinced that this is the path for me.
As for only one tradition being Vedantic, the unbiased interpretation of the Gita is yet to be written. I do not know what that would look like. The closest you can get to that would be pure Sanskrit to English translations. And I am not sure how useful that is for the lay person.
Srila Prabhupada's commentary for the Gita shows a clear Dvaitic interpretation and emphasizes some issues that were dear to him - for example, the passages on categorization of food clearly correlate vegetarianism with Sattvic while it is not conclusive from the Sanskrit verses at all, and given the context at the time, Kshatriyas and Brahmins were known to eat meat.
The Advaitic masters show a clear Advaitic bend (surprise!). Swami Yogananda's interpretation shows a bend toward Kriya Yoga and Christ Consciousness - two of the topics he identified with. Gandhi's entire interpretation turns the Mahabharat into a metaphorical battle in the mind, and he used this to emphasize non-violence, as that was the cause dearest to him.
It is limiting to think that there is only one interpretation possible.
Everyday, the Gita reveals a new meaning, through our lives. Our approach to studying it therefore has to be an open-minded one, that is cognizant of the context behind the text and the interpretation.
I don't find any contradiction in accepting your point of view and calling myself a Dvaitavaadi, and at the same accepting the Advaitic point of view and calling myself an Advaitavaadi. I would like to be a Sarvavaadi, so I can enjoy both sides.
This question was once taken to Sri Ramakrishna by the two factions. Each hoped Sri Ramakrishna would invalidate the other. He is said to have replied, "In the ocean of divinity, the devotion of the Dvaitas manifests in the form of icebergs, as an example that stands out for all humanity. When the light of knowledge shines bright, that iceberg melts and merges back into the ocean."
I respect what Sri Ramakrishna personally feels, or what philosophy you feel comfortable with. The issue I was mentioning however, is Vedanta. Vedanta means the philosophical conclusion of Vedas [vedAnAm antah nirNayah]. Unless there is establishment of dvaita or advaita based on Veda, any philosophy, no matter who said what, will remain one's personal private opinion. It will not be Vedanta. Vedanta means what Sri VedaVyasa has established through the prasthana-traya. Even the words "dvaita" and "advaita" are Vedic words, which can only be understood the way Vedas have explained them. If there is no reference to the shastras, then we will be left with private opinions, not the Vedic philosophy.
By saying that the light of knowledge will melt the iceberg (with the iceberg corresponding to the philsophy of dvaita), Sri Ramakrishna has already said that dvaita is only valid as long as one is in ignorance. His statement is not an acceptance but a clear rejection of dvaita. As I mentioned, dvaita holds the five-fold differences [jiva-jiva, jiva-ishwara, ishwara-jada, jiva-jada, jada-jada] to be absolutely real, and not a relative truth. The differences have always existed, and will always exist, even after the dawn of knowledge. Hence, relativizing the validity of dvaita only as long as one is in ignorance of real knowledge, is a rejection of dvaita. It is like saying "As long as you are under ignorance, you can accept dvaita. But when knowledge dawns, everything will be shown to be One, and there will be no dvaita." This is pure advaita philosophy.
Both groups were disappointed that he had not invalidated the other. I was trying to figure out which camp I should be in many years back and asked a monk I liked as to what he was. He replied, he was a sarvavaadi - he would learn and accept all. Over the years, I've been trying to grasp this, and I am convinced that this is the path for me.
As I mentioned, Sri Ramakrishna has already rejected dvaita, by saying that the devotion of dvaitins will melt when knowledge dawns. On the other hand, Sri Krishna says in Gita that one who is in knowledge surrenders to Him [jnAnavAn mAm prapadyate - Gita 7.19] Knowledge marks the start of true devotion, not the end.
As for only one tradition being Vedantic, the unbiased interpretation of the Gita is yet to be written.
Could you point out one instance where Sri Madhvacharya's interpretation of Gita is biased?
I do not know what that would look like. The closest you can get to that would be pure Sanskrit to English translations. And I am not sure how useful that is for the lay person.
Only pure Sanskrit-to-English translations are guaranteed to be useful for not just the lay person, but for everyone, since there is no guarantee otherwise that someone is not postulating his own private philosophy in the name of Bhagavad Gita.
Srila Prabhupada's commentary for the Gita shows a clear Dvaitic interpretation and emphasizes some issues that were dear to him - for example, the passages on categorization of food clearly correlate vegetarianism with Sattvic while it is not conclusive from the Sanskrit verses at all, and given the context at the time, Kshatriyas and Brahmins were known to eat meat.
I will not argue about this point since my intent is to stick to the original question of whether advaita can explain how Brahman can be covered by maya. For this issue, what Srila Prabhupada says about vegetarianism is not relevant, perhaps a separate discussion can be held on it. But yes, he does give emphasis to specific issues dear to him.
But since we were discussing about dvaita and advaita, I would like to point out that neither Sri Madhvacharya (the original propounder of dvaita) nor Sri Shankaracharya would agree about both philosophies being the purport of Vedanta.
The Advaitic masters show a clear Advaitic bend (surprise!). Swami Yogananda's interpretation shows a bend toward Kriya Yoga and Christ Consciousness - two of the topics he identified with. Gandhi's entire interpretation turns the Mahabharat into a metaphorical battle in the mind, and he used this to emphasize non-violence, as that was the cause dearest to him.
That's true. However, my claim is that unlike advaitins, you cannot find even one example of biasedness in Sri Madhvacharya's commentary (you're invited to show otherwise). It is consistent with the rest of the Mahabharata (unlike Mahatma Gandhi's commentary, etc) and with all the other Vedic literatures, and is completely faithful to the original intent of Sri Krishna.
It is limiting to think that there is only one interpretation possible.
It is not my own statement, it is Sri Krishna's own statement in Gita - vyavasayatmika buddhi eka iha [on this path, knowledge made resolute based on proper pramanas is only one]. (Gita 2.41)
Everyday, the Gita reveals a new meaning, through our lives. Our approach to studying it therefore has to be an open-minded one, that is cognizant of the context behind the text and the interpretation.
Open-mindedness towards all interpretations is necessary when beginning one's study. However, the study, if done properly, should lead to determining which interpretation is the proper one, and rejection of interpretations that are not faithful to the intent of Sri Krishna and Sri VedaVyasa, and which have internal contradictions. This is again, mentioned by Krishna Himself - When your intelligence [yadA te buddhi] becomes fixed [nischalA], having crossed all false knowledge [moha vyatitarishyati] undisturbed by all the various philosophies floating around all claiming to be right [shruti-vipratipannA], that is when you would have attained the fruit [tadA gantAsi nirvEdam] of all that you have heard or are hearing [shrotavyasya shrutasya cha]. (Gita 2.52/53)
If at the end of one's study, one is still accepting mutually contradictory philosophies in the name of Gita, is it open-mindedness or confused-mindedness?
I don't find any contradiction in accepting your point of view and calling myself a Dvaitavaadi, and at the same accepting the Advaitic point of view and calling myself an Advaitavaadi. I would like to be a Sarvavaadi, so I can enjoy both sides.
You are of course free to accept what you feel works for you. My response was only about the issue of what Vedanta says. I hope that I've been able to clarify that accepting dvaita does not mean considering it valid only until knowledge has not dawned. That is not dvaita at all. Dvaita accepts the distinction between Parabrahman and Jivas (and the latter's dependence on the former) to be an absolute fact which cannot be transcended in experience, at any time, even after the dawn of knowledge.
By saying that the light of knowledge will melt the iceberg (with the iceberg corresponding to the philsophy of dvaita), Sri Ramakrishna has already said that dvaita is only valid as long as one is in ignorance. His statement is not an acceptance but a clear rejection of dvaita.
This is another classic case of subjective interpretation (as if there could be any other). That an iceberg does exist and stands out is true. That it melts back into its source is equally true. We could argue ad infinitum on this point.
On the other hand, Sri Krishna says in Gita that one who is in knowledge surrenders to Him [jnAnavAn mAm prapadyate - Gita 7.19] Knowledge marks the start of true devotion, not the end.
Agreed. The million dollar question is - who is Him? A Dvaitavaadi would persist in saying its Krsna (and would be right). An Advaitavaadi would persist in saying its the self (and would be right).
It is not my own statement, it is Sri Krishna's own statement in Gita - vyavasayatmika buddhi eka iha [on this path, knowledge made resolute based on proper pramanas is only one]. (Gita 2.41)
Isn't this interesting? The interpretation you present breaks the flow of the previous verse. Here's what mine says..
2.39: O Partha, this wisdom has been imparted to you from the standpoint of Self-realization. But listen to this (wisdom) from the standpoint of Yoga, endowed with which wisdom you will get rid of bondage of action.
2.40: Here there is no waste of an attempt; nor is there any harm. Even a little of this righteousness saves one from great fear.
2.41: O scion of the Kuru dynasty, in this there is a single, one-pointed conviction. The thoughts of the irresolute ones have many brances indeed, and are innumerable.
Compare again, "single, one-pointed conviction" and "on this path, knowledge made resolute based on proper pramanas is only one."
Apart from the fact that these are Sri Sankara and Sri Madhavacharya's interpretations, it seems to me that the latter interpretation is out of sync with the theme that Krsna is discussing - where exactly did the pramanas come in? I don't see that in the Sanskrit original. Wouldn't you agree that is then a personal interpretation, by your logic?
You keep referring to "mutually exclusive philosophies." This is a matter of perspective. At the level of realization, this is an irrelevant distinction. Until then, I suppose it matters. So for what its worth, I've found an affinity for commentaries that provoke my thinking. I've liked Sankara's commentary for its depth and consistency. And I've liked many others as well. There are some that I did not like that I'd rather not name as I found them dogmatic.
Advaita, Dvaita and Visishtadvaita all derive from the Vedas, believe in God and in cycles. Vyasa's sutras form the basis for all three schools. Help me understand how you claim to know what Krsna and Vyasa meant and in the same breath expect me to take that as an unbiased understanding. For your very act of knowing is predicated on your context. Note that I make the same statement about Sankara's commentary.
Finally, help me understand what your position is on the Upanishads? From your arguments, I would assume you reject most of them for they are unmistakably advaitic (unless there is another interpretation that I should be aware of).
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
What exactly is dvaita? "Svatantram asvatantram cha dvividham tattvam ishyate" – it is the tenet that there are two orders of reality – one independent (svatantra-tattva) and the other dependent (asvatantra-tattva). The independent reality, as explained in the Bhagavad Gita and other Vedantic texts is Sri Krishna Himself (also known by various other names like Vishnu and Narayana). The dependent reality consists of everything else – the jivatmas (finite, individual souls like us) and jada-vastu (inanimate entities such as matter, energy, Veda, time, etc).
Advaita (of Sri Shankaracharya) says that there is only one tattva – an attributeless, qualityless, formless entity, and everything else (including this world with its individual jivatmas) is an illusion. It does not factually exist. The only thing that exists is that "One".
Does this also imply that the tattvas are not interchangeable, as opposed to simply being dependent? As in, can the asvatantra tattva be a manifestation of the svatantra tattva? In which case, advaita could still be valid in the framework of Vedanta. This shloka(atleast the part you have mentioned) does not discount this possibility. Could you let us know where the exact distinction is made and a categorical statement made about whether the dependent reality can absolutely not be just another facet of the independent one? I think you made some mention of it when you spoke of the five-fold differences [jiva-jiva, jiva-ishwara, ishwara-jada, jiva-jada, jada-jada].
I d be grateful if you could give me the detailed reference.
Also my knowledge of the Bhagavad Gita is very limited. But one shloka(Bhagavad Gita (4-24)) that does seem to validate an Advaitic viewpoint:
Brahmarpanam brahma havir brahmagnau brahmana hutam brahmaiva tena gantavyam Nibrahma-karma-samadhina.
Brahman is offering Brahman through Brahman for the sake of Brahman. He who thinks that the act of offering as Brahman, the sacrificer as Brahman, the fire into which the sacrifice is made as Brahman and is thus fully engrossed in Consciousness obtains Brahman Itself.
Thanks
Sounds like we have a group of Jnana yogis here!
Ultimatley I don't think anyone is going to budge in their thinking, b/c the two sides of this discussion are quoting from translations that already support their position (back to Somik's original point of no unbiased text)
Omkar, if you can PROVE to me your source is not biased, this requires you to also not be biased. If you are not biased, you must have trascended your conciousness and individual identity, in which case you must be realized.
I for one will continue to follow the simple truths of the butcher Vyadha -- may one day I attain your state of realization!
Om Shanti Shanti Shanti
This is another classic case of subjective interpretation (as if there could be any other). That an iceberg does exist and stands out is true. That it melts back into its source is equally true. We could argue ad infinitum on this point.
It is again not my interpretation, it is what Sri Shankaracharya himself says. It is one of his most fundamental tenets that the world of duality we see around us is an illusory-reality (which he calls vyavahArikA-satya) which is sublated at the dawn of knowledge, when the only thing that exists is that One attributeless, qualityless entity (which he calls paramArthika-satya, or absolute reality, which he identifies with nirguna brahman). Thus, he says that except for that paramArthika-satya (absolute truth) everything else is vyavahArika (a reality that will be sublated in the future and shown to be an illusion). He gives the example of mistaking a rope for a snake in the dark room. The snake is vyavahArika, existing only as long as there is darkness. When the light is switched on, what is seen is the rope (which is paramArthika-satya). The snake NEVER EXISTED FACTUALLY. Its existence is an illusion, and negated when darkness gives way to light.
Please note that everything I have written here is what Sri Shankaracharya or Sri Madhvacharya have said in their works about advaita and dvaita respectively. I have not allowed my personal opinions to come in anywhere. Until you read Sri Shankaracharya's works, I am not sure about the utility of carrying on this discussion further, since I am not sure whose commentary you support. You have already positioned a stand that differs fundamentally from Sri Shankaracharya's stand. If you differ from Sri Shankaracharya's commentary, then you must have a valid commentary on the whole spectrum of Upanishads, Brahma Sutras and Gita to support your claims for advaita, and your affiliation with Vedanta. Otherwise, there is no reference to the Vedic texts, and hence this will not be Vedanta any more. There are an infinite number of personal philosophies that can be made up for sure, with endless arguments as you say. My concern however is with Vedanta.
Agreed. The million dollar question is - who is Him? A Dvaitavaadi would persist in saying its Krsna (and would be right). An Advaitavaadi would persist in saying its the self (and would be right).
I am not sure what is the connotation of the English word "self" for you. The original Sanskrit word that you mean, I presume, is AtmA. Now, AtmA can mean jIvAtmA or paramAtmA. When you mean the "self", do you mean Krishna is paramAtmA or jIvAtmA? If you mean paramAtmA, then I don't know why you feel a dvaitin would not agree with it, since dvaita accepts Krishna to be the paramAtmA within every jIvAtmA's heart. ("ishwara sarva-bhutAnAm hriddeshe arjuna tishtati" says Krishna) If you mean jIvAtmA, then you are contradicting Gita - every time Krishna is referenced, He is addressed as BhagavAn. Arjuna calls Him as "param brahma", He Himself says He is "bhutAnAm Ishwarah". There are scores of verses that establish this, and even Sri Shankaracharya does not consider Krishna to be a jIva.
It is not my own statement, it is Sri Krishna's own statement in Gita - vyavasayatmika buddhi eka iha [on this path, knowledge made resolute based on proper pramanas is only one]. (Gita 2.41)
Isn't this interesting? The interpretation you present breaks the flow of the previous verse.
Intesresting. I thought it was the advaitic interpretation that has no flow. Here's the dvaitic position in brief, which should allay your doubts:
You quoted:
2.39: O Partha, this wisdom has been imparted to you from the standpoint of Self-realization. But listen to this (wisdom) from the standpoint of Yoga, endowed with which wisdom you will get rid of bondage of action.
Here, Sri Krishna says that thus far, He explained in brief knowledge of the Absolute truth [sAnkhya], and now He is going to describe the path [yoga] by which Arjuna will actually realise that knowledge, and by it, get rid of karma-bandhana. Yoga is the practical path/mArga/sAdhanA to be followed to realise the knowledge [sAnkhya] previously described.
2.40: Here there is no waste of an attempt; nor is there any harm. Even a little of this righteousness saves one from great fear.
Krishna first glorifies yoga. He emphasizes that even a little performance of yoga [svalpam api asya] will go a long way towards alleviating the great fear of samsAra [trAyate mahatO bhayAt]. No effort gets wasted. This is elaborated later in the 6th chapter.
2.41: O scion of the Kuru dynasty, in this there is a single, one-pointed conviction. The thoughts of the irresolute ones have many brances indeed, and are innumerable.
Naturally, the following questions arise right at the outset:
1. There are a vast number of people, all claiming that their path is right. Some say chArvaka, some say bauddha, some say jaina, some say advaita, some say dvaita, etc etc. Are all of them right? Is this yOga You are going to explain to me just one of the innumerable right paths to mOksha? Or is it the only path?
2. What is the guarantee that it is a valid path?
Krishna says that on this path of Yoga [iha], that I am just about to explain, the knowledge [buddhi] that is made resolute based on pramANAs [vyavasAyAtmikA] is only one [eka]. In other words, right knowledge is only one. On the other hand, wrong knowledge, or knowledge that is not made resolute based on pramanas [buddhayah avyavasAyinAm] comes in an infinite variety [anantAh].
Now, your objection to this was:
Compare again, "single, one-pointed conviction" and "on this path, knowledge made resolute based on proper pramanas is only one."
Apart from the fact that these are Sri Sankara and Sri Madhavacharya's interpretations, it seems to me that the latter interpretation is out of sync with the theme that Krsna is discussing - where exactly did the pramanas come in? I don't see that in the Sanskrit original. Wouldn't you agree that is then a personal interpretation, by your logic?
Pramanas come in within the word "vyavasAyAtmikA", which means "pramANa-nirNItArtha-nishchayAtmikA". Let me explain this a bit. As you would agree, the Vedic seers were not blind believers in a dogma. There are many terrorists today who also have strong one-pointed conviction in what they believe in. Does this make their belief "vyavasAyAtmikA buddhi"? No, because their beliefs are not based on pramaNAs. They have blind belief.
A pramANa is a valid means for arriving at the truth. All schools that affiliate themselves with Vedanta recognize three pramANAs (proofs):
1. Pratyaksha - Direct sense experience, the result of the senses coming into contact with a sense object.
2. AnumAna - Logic.
3. Shabda - The apaurusheya (eternal, unauthored) Veda.
Of these, the principal guide to understanding Brahman is Shabda, since Brahman is beyond our material senses, and logic is always based on axioms, which come either from sense perception, or Shabda. Brahma Sutra 1.1.3 says "ShAstra-yonitvAt" - Brahman is shAstra-yOnI - can only be understood from apaurusheya Veda, since Brahman is adhokshaja (beyond material senses and instruments). Eventually, the truths of shAstra are meant to be experienced by practicing the Vedic path. But that experience only follows if one practices the right path laid out in apaurusheya Veda.
So ultimately, pratyaksha and anumAna end up supporting shabda. The three pramANAs go together, though knowledge of Brahman comes initially only from Veda.
So unless you establish your path based on apaurusheya Veda, it will always be someone's personal opinion, and hence subject to defects, since all humans are defective. But Veda, being unauthored, is not subject to flaws or defects. (By the way, you cannot object to this since apaurusheyatva of Veda is accepted not just by all Vedantic schools - like advaita and dvaita, but also by all other Vedic schools like mimAmsakas, vaishishekAs, nyAya, etc)
Without reference to Veda, any talk about Brahman, dvaita or advaita remains a mere personal opinion, since it is from Veda only that these words come. Hence, even if one has strong conviction in some philosophy, unless it is established as the purport of Veda, it has no basis for validity (and is definitely not Vedanta at least). This is what makes the terrorists' conviction "avyavasAyAtmikA" and Krishna's teaching "vyavasAyAtmikA".
A corollary of this: If you come up with an interpretation of Bhagavad Gita that contradicts other parts of Gita or any of the Upanishads, Vedas, Brahma Sutra, etc, then that interpretation is not even Vedanta, what to speak of being "vyavasAyAtmikA". There must be a uniformly consistent framework based on all these literatures supporting your claims.
It is for this reason that any school claiming to be affiliated with Vedanta always tried to show that it is faithful to the Vedic texts, by writing commentaries on the Vedic texts. Without that, it loses its authority. Hence, your claims must have the support of pramANAs (sense experience, logic applied on Veda, and Veda itself).
So going back to the two questions that may be raised as doubts, they are answered by Krishna in this verse:
Ans to Q1. There is only one right knowledge, which is based on apaurusheya Veda. (Note that this comes up later in the last verse of 16th chapter where Krishna says "tasmAt shAstram pramANam te kArya-akArya-vyavasthitau" - therefore, let shAstra be your pramANa to decide what is to be done and what is not to be done)
Ans to Q2. The guarantee of the validity of the path of yoga is that it is in complete conformance with apaurusheya Veda. In fact, Sri Krishna picks verses right out of the Upanishads in some cases, such as 2.20, which is picked from Katha Upanishad.
At this point, you may ask "Fine, I understand that I can reject paths that are not in conformance with Veda (such as chArvaka, bauddha, jaina etc). Still, the problem is not completely solved, since there are multiple guys out there who claim to follow Veda, and they come up with diverging tenets. How do I prevent myself from being confused here?"
This potential doubt is addressed by Krishna in the next 3 verses, where He outlines a general principle, while specifically criticizing the mimAmsaka view (which was very prevalent in those days), which claims to be based on Veda, yet misses to capture the true meaning of Veda. He also explains what makes these people miss the true meaning of Veda. I shall not go into its details, since it's a separate topic.
Thus, we see that there is a perfect logical progress in Sri Krishna's exposition, which comes out brilliantly in the dvaita commentary. It is the advaita commentary which switches context suddenly here. Sri Shankara begins a new thread of karma yoga here which (for him) has nothing to do with sAnkhya.
As a side note, advaita is completely contradictory to pratyaksha and anumAna (not just shabda).
You keep referring to "mutually exclusive philosophies." This is a matter of perspective. At the level of realization, this is an irrelevant distinction.
It is not, since there is no possibility of realization unless one is correct about the true purport of Vedas, and follows the right path. Krishna describes the state of realization in 2.53 as resulting after achieving the state of vyavasAyAtmikA buddhi. If knowledge is not based on pramANAs, where is the question of vyavasAyAtmikA buddhi? Without having vyavasAyAtmikA buddhi, where is the question of ultimate realization? You can check up in the 16th chapter how Krishna describes people who propose "Ishwaro aham". I am only pointing you to verses to establish that Krishna does not teach advaita philosophy in the Gita, so please don't take any of this personally.
Until then, I suppose it matters. So for what its worth, I've found an affinity for commentaries that provoke my thinking. I've liked Sankara's commentary for its depth and consistency.
So let us go back then to Rashmi Raghu's question, which is what I wanted to answer, by asking her to also look at other interpretations besides advaita. Since you feel there is depth and consistency in Sri Shankaracharya's commentary in Gita (though you seem to differ fundamentally from him on a vital issue), I would be interested to know the advaitic answer to this question, raised by her:
Quoting her: If we are already perfected beings with infinite power, why the veil of imperfection and bodily limitation - is there an explanation in Vedanta about why/how (or maybe I should say '*what* is the process by which') we 'lost' this knowledge of Oneness to begin with? (can a perfect God be covered by imperfections? that seems silly).
I would like to add a few additonal (but related) questions. According to advaita, after realization, there is no difference perceived, no duality at all. ie, the person should not perceive duality since he has crossed all dualities. In your terminology, "there is no iceberg". How then does he see a pen and paper on which he writes a commentary on Gita and says it proclaims advaita? If he sees the pen and paper, he is already within duality. If he perceives people/disciples for whom he is writing a commentary, he is already perceiving a difference between himself and them. How is it that after the "realization", he comes back into this world of duality, and sees people wallowing in ignorance, and things like pen and paper, and his hand by which he writes a commentary on Gita? How does he fall back into mAyA?
Can any advaitin show the Vishwa-roopa to show that he is indeed non-different from whatever you connote by "the Self"? Is there even a single entity besides Sri Krishna in the entire spectrum of Veda who has shown vishwa-roopa?
So far, no advaitin has been able to answer me these questions based on shAstra, logic or sense perception. There are several others, but this is more than sufficient.
And I've liked many others as well. There are some that I did not like that I'd rather not name as I found them dogmatic.
I hope the one I use in the study group isn't one of them. However, for your convenience, I have (hopefully) desisted from quoting from texts you find dogmatic. If you feel anything I wrote was dogmatic, I would be happy to know the pramANas that refute my position. After all, I am an aspiring seeker.
Advaita, Dvaita and Visishtadvaita all derive from the Vedas, believe in God and in cycles. Vyasa's sutras form the basis for all three schools. Help me understand how you claim to know what Krsna and Vyasa meant and in the same breath expect me to take that as an unbiased understanding.
For your very act of knowing is predicated on your context. Note that I make the same statement about Sankara's commentary.
I don't of course expect you to accept my statement at face value. It is only after an open study of all the three schools that you can make any claims about someone being biased or unbiased. I have studied the commentaries of all the three schools on Gita, and it is after doing so that I feel that Sri Madhvacharya's works (unlike advaita) is in complete conformance with the all the literatures compiled by Sri VedaVyasa - not just Brahma Sutras and Upanishads only, but also the Vedas, Mahabharata and the Puranas. His personal writings within his commentary are negligible, it is filled with quotes from the entire spectrum of Sri VedaVyasa's works to bring out the true purport of Gita with soundness and completeness. On the other hand, I find that most advaitins base their philosophy on bits and pieces of verses like "tat tvam asi", which they elevate to the status of "maha-vakyas", ignoring the context and sometimes even are grammatically unsound.
Many advaitins also ignore other works of Sri VedaVyasa like the Mahabharata and BhAgavata.
The above is entirely my experience, and I do not wish to generalize it to you. You have to decide based on your own study. I may be wrong, but I did not feel that you are familiar with Sri Shankaracharya's works, since the vyavahArika-paramArthika division is central to his philosophy. Or perhaps you follow some other advaitin, in which case, you need to first find out if you have complete commentaries on Bhagavad Gita, Upanishads and Brahma Sutra, like Sri Shankaracharya.
Finally, help me understand what your position is on the Upanishads? From your arguments, I would assume you reject most of them for they are unmistakably advaitic (unless there is another interpretation that I should be aware of).
Yes, Upanishads are not "unmistakably advaitic". Rather, like Gita, a proper comparative study may cause you to reevaluate your position and feel it is unmistakably dvaitic. There are scholars who have done Ph.Ds on this issue. In any case, I am no one to reject any Upanishad if they don't conform to what I believe. Sri Shankaracharya, Sri Ramanujacarya and Sri Madhvacharya (as well as others like Sri Baladeva Vidyabhushana) have considered 10 Upanishads to be important enough to write commentaries on, and I accept these 10 for sure, since all classical schools of Vedanta have written commentarues on these 10. There are many other texts which have come to be known as Upanishads over time, though they weren't factually - even some Buddhist texts, so you can imagine the situation! So by focussing on these 10, one would not venture into spurious texts.
As a pointer, I am giving you a link to a comparative study of the Ishavasya Upanishad Bhashyas of Sri Shankaracharya and Sri Madhvacharya by a scholar whose Ph.D thesis was this issue! This is the smallest of the 10, so should take the least time for you. He understood both commentaries from acharyas of the respective schools, and he is not affiliated with either school, so I presume you would at least admit his objectivity.
(www.archive.org/details/TheIsavasyaUpanisad)
Does this also imply that the tattvas are not interchangeable, as opposed to simply being dependent?
Yes, every jivAtmA is individually eternal, and the paramAtmA is also a separate eternal Being. Neither of them is interchangeable with any jada-vastu (inanimate entity such as matter, time, Veda, etc).
As in, can the asvatantra tattva be a manifestation of the svatantra tattva?
The relationship between svatantra-tattva and asvatantra-tattva is like that of an object and its reflection. They are two separate entities, but one of them (the reflection) is unilaterally dependent on the other (the object) for its existence. Because of this object-reflection relationship, the jivAtmAs have some similarities in their svarUpa with the paramAtmA. For example,
- The jivAtmAs are eternal (sat), like the paramAtmA.
- The jivAtmAs are conscious (chit), like the paramAtmA.
- The jivAtmAs when freed from ignorance, experience bliss (Ananda), like the paramAtmA.
So both are sat-chit-Ananda.
But the eternality of the jivAtmAs depends on the eternality of the paramAtmA. Without His eternality, and His will, no jivAtmA would be eternal. Of all the eternals [nityAnAm], He is the independently eternal [nityah]. Of all the conscious entities [chetanAnAm], He is the independently conscious entity [chetanah]. He alone [ekah] fulfills the desires of all the jivAtmAs [bahunAm kAmAn vidadhAti].
Thus, the Katha Upanishad 2.2.13 says -
nityO nityAnAm chetanas chetanAnAm
ekO bahunAm yo vidadhAti kAmAn
So the jivAtmAs are not a physical manifestation of the paramAtmA, they share an eternal bimba-pratibimba [object-reflection] relationship.
In which case, advaita could still be valid in the framework of Vedanta.
This shloka(atleast the part you have mentioned) does not discount this possibility. Could you let us know where the exact distinction is made and a categorical statement made about whether the dependent reality can absolutely not be just another facet of the independent one? I think you made some mention of it when you spoke of the five-fold differences [jiva-jiva, jiva-ishwara, ishwara-jada, jiva-jada, jada-jada].
I d be grateful if you could give me the detailed reference.
I hope that the object-reflection analogy above clarifies this point. This is also mentioned elsewhere in the Katha Upanishad and in the Rig Veda 7.47.18:
"rUpam rUpam pratirUpo babhUva tadasya rUpam pratichakshaNAya" - With reference to each form of Jiva, He (the Lord) is the original form. His form is for this one (the jIva) to perceive.
Bhagavad Gita 2.12 - the first teaching by Krishna is of this co-eternality of jivAtmAs and Him - "Not only was I not non-existent, but so were you and all these kings, and never will there be a time when any of us cease to exist. All of us are eternal."
Also my knowledge of the Bhagavad Gita is very limited. But one shloka(Bhagavad Gita (4-24)) that does seem to validate an Advaitic viewpoint:
We are all very limited. It is by the grace of the AchAryas that we can penetrate the depth of Vedic knowledge.
Brahmarpanam brahma havir brahmagnau brahmana hutam brahmaiva tena gantavyam Nibrahma-karma-samadhina.
Brahman is offering Brahman through Brahman for the sake of Brahman. He who thinks that the act of offering as Brahman, the sacrificer as Brahman, the fire into which the sacrifice is made as Brahman and is thus fully engrossed in Consciousness obtains Brahman Itself.
Due to lack of time, I will only point out what is the problem with the advaita interpretation. To understand the actual meaning, you need to understand the entire sequence of verses from 4.15 to 4.24. This verse is another classic example which seemingly supports advaita, only when pulled out of context, without regard to the surrounding verses.
Please try to ask yourself these questions, and see if you get any help from advaita:
1. First of all, look at the previous verse (4.23) - from it, we can see that Krishna is talking about a realized yogi, who is freed from attachment [gatasangasya muktasya] and is situated in realized knowledge [jnAna-avasthita chetasah]. Now the question is - why should he perform yajna at all [yajnAya Acharato karma] if he is realized? What is the purpose and goal of yajna for him? Why should he do anything at all?
2. A yajna involves several things - it involves an instrument to offer (arpaNam) items such as ghee, butter, grains, etc (havih) into the fire (agni) by the performer of the yajna. Now, if the performer is one who is in advaitic realization, then how does he see the ghee, the fire, the instrument by which he pours the ghee into the fire, and his own hand? If he sees all these jada-vastus, how then has he realized that Oneness which advaita claims is the highest truth?
3. In what way are these objects Brahman? If they are all Brahman, why use different names like havih, arpaNam, agni, etc for them?
4. If all the items mentioned above are Brahman, then what does it mean to "obtain Brahman" for him?
5. What is this "consciousness" that he is engrossed in? What does he perceive?
6. If this person sees all these items to be Brahman (whatever that is supposed to mean), then what is the guarantee that he will not put his own hand into the fire, since he himself is Brahman and the fire is also Brahman? Would it matter to him if he himself were to be thrown into the fire, since both are Brahman? If this proposition sounds preposterous to him, then it means he is different from the fire. If not, then you can try this as an experiment with the next realized advaitin you meet! (By the way, I don't mean this personally - I am only pointing out the philosophical implications of accepting the above translation)
7. Is Vedanta supposed to explain our experience or explain it away?
My eyeballs are getting weary. Thats usually a sign that I need to step back.
We could argue ad nauseaum and I don't see that either you or I are doing anything beyond repeating ourselves.
I think we can both agree that there are three claims to connection with Vedanta - Dvaita, Visishtadvaita and Advaita. Of these, Dvaita and Visishtadvaita do have the largest following.
We can also agree to disagree on the legitimacy of claims. While your position is that Madhavacharya and the Dvaitic interpretation of Vedanta is the only legitimate one (the gold standard), I continue to differ, in that other interpretations have occured and Advaita being one of them, has stood the test of time.
I hardly think either side has to "win," though I find the story of Sankaracharya's debate with Mandan Mishra (and Ubhay Bharati) fascinating, leading to Mandan Mishra's conversion to the Advaita camp.
I would rather have you in my world giving me a diverse opinion and also have the advaitins with their opinions. And I am ok with both sides making their case of being connected to Vedanta. As long as you stick to your stated position, I won't have anything new to add.
Have a good one, Omkar!
Continuing with part 2 of my original response:
Bhagvad Gita, Chapter 7, Verse 16:
Krsna describes people of righteous acts being four-fold, the afflicted, the knowledge-seeker, wealth-seeker and the knower.
Then, in verse 18:
Let us not miss verse 17 - "Of all these [tEshAm] the jnAni is pre-eminent, being devoted to Me alone, with his mind ever engaged in My worship [nitya-yukta eka-bhakti]. I am exceedingly dear to him [jnAninah atyartham aham priyah] and he is dear to Me [sah cha mama priyah]."
Does it even remotely suggest that there is no difference between the jnAni and Krishna?
Taking your own translation of 7.18:
All these (four) are noble; but the knower, I deem to be My very Self.
This simply glorifies the true bhakta who considers himself unable to live without the Lord, and vice versa. Had this been a statement of identity, then why does Krishna say in the very next verse that the jnAnI surrenders to Him? "jnAnavAn mAm prapadyate". Why does the previous verse talk of single-pointed devotion [eka-bhakti] and how dear the jnAnI is to the Lord (and vice versa)? Bhakti requires a separation of identity of the lover (bhakti) and the beloved (bhagavAn). If they are one and the same, where is the question of bhakti and surrender?
On Maya, Krsna is clear on this too, in verse 25 of the same chapter:
Veiled by the delusive power of My Yoga-Maya, I do not stand revealed to all. This deluded world knows not Me, unborn and immutable.
Seems to me this implies that once true knowledge has dawned, Maya cannot exist anymore, relative to the knower. It seems to be a validation of the non-dual concept.
Rather, it is the opposite. First of all, it shows that yoga-mAyA (durgA-devI) is under Him. This was practically demonstrated by Sri Krishna at the time of His appearance in Kamsa's prison. DurgA-devI managed to fool the guards and Kamsa Himself, who couldn't figure out what had happened, and foolishly tried to kill DurgA herself.
This is also mentioned in Padma PurANa:
"The Lord [mahEshvarah] veils Himself [AtmAnah pravrittim] and bounds/covers up men's understanding [loka-chittasya bandhanam kurutE] by His own inscruptable power [sva-sAmarthyEna] and with the aid of DurgA-devI [dEvyA cha]."
When knowledge dawns, DurgA-devI (who is the presiding deity over tamo-guNa) ceases to cover the ignorance of the jIvAtmA, who perceives the paramAtmA (Sri Krishna) by His grace.
It is upto the advaitins to justify how the jivAtmAs, who they say are Brahman Himself, could fall under the spell of their own mAyA!
The Upanishads have the famous statement, "Tat Tvam Asi" - "I am That" - validating the Advaita point of view further.
1. I presume you meant to say "tat tvam asi" means "You are that", not "I am that".
2. By the way, "tat tvam asi" is not even the complete sentence, this is a fraction of the whole sentence from ChAndogya Upanishad. The complete phrase is: "sah yah eSo'NimA etadAtmyamidam sarvam sah AtmAtat tvam asi shvetakEto".
3. And guess what, the rules of sandhi allow "atat tvam asi" ("You are not that") as an equally valid split as "tat tvam asi", leading to a diametrically opposite meaning.
4. The advaitic interpretation again ignores the context, and elevates a partial vAkya to the status of a "mahA-vAkya". What is the context?
Shvetaketu, the son of UddAlaka was wayward in his youth and neglected his study of the Vedic lore. He is admonished by his father and then goes through a course of study and returns with an air of all-knowing superiority. He had read all that was to be read. But he had no illumination of the truth or the aim and purport of the sacred lore. He had not realised that the very eminence of learning attained by himself was a gift from the Supreme Power.
After humbling his pride with a few searching questions, the father instructs him in the deepest mysteries of the cosmos. The context thus shows that the purpose of the Upadesha was to rid the young man (and through him humanity in general) of the notion of self-importance and awaken in him a sense of recognition of the constant presence of a Power greater than all the worlds and all the living beings therein, controlling all. The malady of Shvetaketu was his egoism which prevented him from being alive to the philosophical truth and vision that the end and aim of mastering the sacred lore was the discovery and realisation of the Supreme Being.
It would this be clear that the whole purpose of the Upadesha would be lost if, in the context of Shvetaketu's attitude of spiritual conceit born of ignorance of the Supreme Being, his father had made him prouder still by putting it into his head that he was the same as the Supreme Being of the cosmos! This itself should suffice to clinch the issue as to what the nature of the above verse should have been.
The context has a vital interpretation on the correct interpretation of this phrase. Looking at a bit of the bare text out of relation to its given context and not placing it in complete syntactic, logical and other necessary relations with other parts of the full text has led to an altogether unwanted conclusion about its purport and one that is quite reverse of what was intended!
There are several more arguments, about why the advaitic interpretation is even grammatically unsound, if you are still not satisfied.
Does that mean Dvaita is incorrect? Hardly.
From the Gita, Krsna says, in 6.21:
I give unswerving faith to each devotee who seeks to worship with faith whatever divine form (of his choice).
As a mental construct, it is much easier to grasp the finite form than the infinite, and as a much easier process to understanding the infinite, it has been known to work, from the lives of the masters of the Dvaitic schools.
1. The verse is 7.21, not 6.21.
2. This verse has nothing to do with the definition of dvaita.
3. When you say "infinite", you have already contradicted advaita, since the advaitic Brahman is not "infinite" but completley devoid of all qualities and attributes. Infinite means infinite number of something. When I say that the set of natural numbers are infinite, I mean that if I try to enumerate them, there are so many that I will never finish: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,... which is why you can call this set as infinite.
Similarly Brahman is infinite because He is ananta-guNa-poorNa ("brihanto hi asmin guNAh" iti brahma), full of an infinite number of auspicious qualities.
Advaitins ignore even this etymological definition of Brahman. The advaitic Brahman is not infinite but closer to the Buddhist shUnya.
4. Again, the context is being ignored. Krishna does not say here that anyone can worship any form he likes. He is talking about the devatAs other than Him. He has just said in 7.20 - "Deprived of true knowledge [hrta-jnAnAh], and entertaining material desires [kAmaih] they worship other devatAs [prapadyante anya devatAh]."
To those who wish to still worship other devatAs, Krishna says it is He only who reinforces their faith, and it is He only who fulfills their material desires (the devatAs are His instruments only). So it is not "whatever divine form", it is "whichever devatA they want to worship". There is a big difference in these two. You cannot arbitrarily concoct a form to worship - the object of worship must be a Vedic devatA. He further says that the fruits obtained by such people are temporary [antavat tu phala teshAm], and even if they attain that devatA's abode, they are still within samsAra, and have to fall back to earth after their punyas are over [kshine punye martya-lokam vishanti]. So even the results accruing from such worship are deemed petty, since even the devatAs are all to eventually die [see 8.15-16].
Sorry, I did not see your post before posting my previous response. I too have no intention to debate with people who strongly believe they have found the right path. Nor do I intend to interrupt the focus of your study group.
My original post was a reply to Rashmi Raghu's question. I hope that if nothing else, at least I have been able to clarify what "dvaita" means.
If you feel advaita is the path for you, please go ahead. There is no winning or losing in brahma-jignAsA, each discussion paves the way for further exploration of Veda for everyone.
With all respects to you, I will end this thread here. Thank you for your patience in reading my posts.
"If we are already perfected beings with infinite power, why the veil of imperfection and bodily limitation - is there an explanation in Vedanta about why/how (or maybe I should say '*what* is the process by which') we 'lost' this knowledge of Oneness to begin with? (can a perfect God be covered by imperfections? that seems silly)."
A nice question. For any enquiry we need three things - a subject - an object and a separation between the two. The first postulate is "I am imperfect and God is Perfect". The question is 'How He - the Perfect - became I - the Imperfect?' If indeed 'perfect' 'became' 'imperfect' it - the Perfect no longer remains Perfect because it has already become imperfect and the Universal truth is that the Clock cannot be set back.
Therefore, if we believe that 'It' is indeed 'Perfect' it is for ever or never. Conversely, if we believe that we are indeed 'imperfect', there is no way that we can 'become' 'perfect' by reversing the process.
The basic flaw lies in the so called 'process of becoming'. We assume that this process to be real. Vedanta calls the process as 'Maya' - that which does not endure 'as such' even for a second. It's nature is to ever change.
I am giving hereunder a quote of Swami Vivekananda on what 'mukti' is - "Nature's (prAkRti's) task is done, this unselfish task which our sweet nurse, Nature, had imposed upon herself. She gently took the self-forgetting soul by the hand, as it were, and showed him all the experiences in the universe, all manifestations, bringing him higher and higher through various bodies, till his lost glory came back, and he remembered his own nature. Then the kind Mother went back the same way she came, for others who have also lost their way in the trackless desert of life. And, thus is she working, without beginning and without end. And thus, through pleasure and pain, through good and evil, the infinite river of souls is flowing into the ocean of perfection of self-realization." Quote from the book 'Patanjali Yoga Sutras' Commentary by Swami Prabhavananda and Christopher Isherwood (Page164).
The 'Perfect' never 'became' 'Imperfect' - the chit whose real nature is to be happy 'Ananda', as it were, experimented with itself - like a baby trying to find its own limbs. In the process it identified itself with the limbs and forgot its true nature. That's why we are making an endless search for happiness at wrong places.
Dr S Radhakrishnan would say that the Perfect is the ultimate irrationality - which cannot be explained by rational process. Either You believe or You don't. God did not ask You to believe in Him. We believe in Him because we find ourselves punies against the forces of nature. This 'considering' oneself 'helpless' in this World, leads one to ask the question 'Why Perfect became Imperfect'.
Poet Kabir would sing 'AvE na jAvE marE nahIn janmE'. The Perfect is always Perfect. The 'Imperfect' is our assumption. All that we need to get out of the assumption.
No one can answer that 'nice' question.
Post a Comment
<< Home