What's new

Advaita Philosophy - Use of an Idea to change a Nations thinking

Logic note

FULL MEMBER
Joined
Dec 2, 2007
Messages
596
Reaction score
0
At the time of Adi Shankara's life, Hinduism had begun to decline because of the influence of Buddhism and Jainism. Hinduism had become divided into innumerable sects, each quarrelling with the others. The followers of Mimamsa and Sankhya philosophy were atheists, insomuch that they did not believe in God as a unified being. Besides these atheists, there were numerous theistic sects. There were also those who rejected the Vedas, like the Charvakas.

How one Philosophy or an Idea can change the whole society is an interesting study into the intellectual deveolment and expectaion of Masses
. Looking forward to understand this phenomenon
 
consolidated the Advaita Vedanta, an interpretation of the Vedic scriptures that was approved and accepted by Gaudapada and Govinda Bhagavatpada siddhānta (system). Continuing the line of thought of some of the Upanishadic teachers, and also that of his own teacher's teacher Gaudapada, (Ajativada), Adi Shankara expounded the doctrine of Advaita — a nondualistic reality.

He wrote commentaries on the Prasthana Trayi. A famous quote from Vivekacūḍāmaṇi, one of his Prakaraṇa graṃthas (philosophical treatises) that succinctly summarises his philosophy is:[2]

Brahma satyaṃ jagat mithyā, jīvo brahmaiva nāparah — Brahman is the only truth, the world is illusion, and there is ultimately no difference between Brahman and individual self

This widely quoted sentence of his is also widely misunderstood.[citation needed] In his metaphysics, there are three tiers of reality with each one sublating the previous. The category illusion in this system is unreal only from the viewpoint of the absolutely real and is different from the category of the Absolutely unreal. His system of vedanta introduced the method of scholarly exegesis on the accepted metaphysics of the Upanishads, and this style was adopted by all the later vedanta schools. Another distinctive feature of his work is his refusal to be literal about scriptural statements and adoption of symbolic interpretation where he considered it appropriate. In a famous passage in his commentary on the Brahmasutra's of Badarayana, he says "For each means of knowledge{PramaNam} has a valid domain. The domain of the scriptures {Shabda PramaNam} is the knowledge of the Self. If the scriptures say something about another domain - like the world around us - which contradicts what perception {Pratyaksha PramaNam} and inference{Anumana PramaNam} (the appropriate methods of knowledge for this domain) tells us, then, the scriptural statements have to be symbolically interpreted..."

Adi Shankara's contributions to Advaita are crucial. His main works are the commentaries on the Prasthanatrayi (Brahma Sūtras, Bhagavad Gītā and the Upanişads) and the Gaudapadiya Karikas. He also wrote a major independent treatise, called Upadeśa Sāhasrī, expounding his philosophy.

[edit] Prerequisites

[edit] The necessity of a Guru

Advaita vedānta requires anyone seeking to study advaita vedānta to do so from a Guru (teacher).[3] The Guru must have the following qualities (see Mundaka Upanishad 1.2.12):

1. Śrotriya — must be learned in the Vedic scriptures and sampradaya
2. Brahmaniṣṭha — literally meaning established in Brahman; must have realised the oneness of Brahman in everything and in himself

The seeker must serve the Guru and submit questions with all humility in order to remove all doubts (see Bhagavad Gita 4.34). By doing so, advaita says, the seeker will attain moksha (liberation from the cycle of births and deaths).

See also: Guru-shishya tradition

[edit] Sādhana Chatuṣṭaya

Any mumukṣu (one seeking moksha) has to have the following four sampattis (qualifications), collectively called Sādhana Chatuṣṭaya Sampatti (the fourfold qualifications):

1. Nityānitya vastu viveka — The ability (viveka) to correctly discriminate between the eternal (nitya) substance (Brahman) and the substance that is transitory existence (anitya).
2. Ihāmutrārtha phala bhoga virāga — The renunciation (virāga) of enjoyments of objects (artha phala bhoga) in this world (iha) and the other worlds (amutra) like heaven etc.
3. Śamādi ṣatka sampatti — the sixfold qualities of śama (control of the antahkaraṇa[4][5]), dama (the control of external sense organs), uparati (the refraining from actions; instead concentrating on meditation), titikṣa (the tolerating of tāpatraya), śraddha (the faith in Guru and Vedas), samādhāna (the concentrating of the mind on God and Guru).
4. Mumukṣutva — The firm conviction that the nature of the world is misery and the intense longing for moksha (release from the cycle of births and deaths).

Advaita vedānta categorically states that moksha, or liberation, is available only to those possessing the above-mentioned fourfold qualifications. Thus any seeker wishing to study advaita vedānta from a teacher must possess these.

[edit] Epistemology

[edit] Pramāṇas

Pramā, in Sanskrit, refers to the correct knowledge, arrived at by thorough reasoning, of any object. Pramāṇa (sources of knowledge, Sanskrit) forms one part of a tripuṭi (trio), namely,

1. Pramātṛ, the subject; the knower of the knowledge
2. Pramāṇa, the cause or the means of the knowledge
3. Prameya, the object of knowledge

In Advaita Vedānta, the following pramāṇas are accepted:

* Pratyakṣa — the knowledge gained by means of the senses
* Anumāna — the knowledge gained by means of inference
* Upamāna — the knowledge gained by means of analogy
* Arthāpatti — the knowledge gained by superimposing the known knowledge on an appearing knowledge that does not concur with the known knowledge
* Āgama — the knowledge gained by means of texts such as Vedas (also known as Āptavākya, Śabda pramāṇa)

[edit] Ontology

[edit] Kārya and kāraṇa

The kārya (effect) and kāraṇa (cause) form an important area for investigation in all the systems of Vedanta. Two kāraṇatvas (ways of being the cause) are recognised:

1. Nimitta kāraṇatva — Being the instrumental cause. For example, a potter is assigned Nimitta kāraṇatva as he acts as the maker of the pot and thus becomes the pot's instrumental cause.
2. Upādāna kāraṇatva — Being the material cause. For example, the mud is assigned Upādāna kāraṇatva as it acts as the material of the effect (the pot) and thus becomes the pot's material cause.

Advaita assigns Nimitta kāraṇatva to Brahman vide the statements from the Vedas (only two are given below):

Sarvāṇi rūpāṇi vicitya dhīraḥ. Nāmāni kṛtvābhivadan yadāste — That Lord has created all the forms and is calling them by their names (Taitiiriya Aranyaka 3.12.7)

Sa īkṣata lokānnu sṛjā iti — He thought, “Let Me create the worlds” (Aitareya Upanishad[6] 1.1.1)

Advaita also assigns Upādāna kāraṇatva to Brahman vide the statements from the Vedas (only two are given below):

Yathā somyaikena mṛtpinḍena sarvaṃ mṛnmayaṃ vijñātaṃ syādvācāraṃbhaṇaṃ vikāro nāmadheyaṃ mṛttiketyeva satyaṃ — Dear boy, just as through a single clod of clay all that is made of clay would become known, for all modifications is but name based upon words and the clay alone is real (Chandogya Upanishad[7] 6.1.4)

Sokāmayata bahu syāṃ prajāyeti — (He thought) Let me be many, let me be born (Taittiriya Upanishad[8] 2.6.4)

The Chandogya Upanishad[7] 6.2.1 states

Ekamevādvitīyaṃ — It is One without a second

Thus, based on these and other statements found in the Vedas, Advaita concludes that Brahman is both the instrumental cause and the material cause.
[edit] Kārya-kāraṇa ananyatva

Advaita states that kārya (effect) is non-different from kāraṇa (cause). However kāraṇa is different from kārya. This principle is called Kārya-kāraṇa ananyatva (the non-difference of the effect from the cause). To elaborate,

* If the cause is destroyed, the effect will no longer exist. For example, if from the effect, cotton cloth, the cause, threads, are removed, there will be no cloth, i.e., the cloth is destroyed. Similarly if in the effect, thread, the cause, cotton, is removed, there will be no thread, i.e., the thread is destroyed. This is brought out by Adi Shankara in the Brahmasūtra Bhāṣya , commentary on the Brahma sutra,[9] 2.1.9, as:

Ananyatve'pi kāryakāraṇayoḥ kāryasya kāraṇātmatvaṃ na tu kāraṇasya kāryātmatvaṃ — Despite the non-difference of cause and effect, the effect has its self in the cause but not the cause in the effect. The effect is of the nature of the cause and not the cause the nature of the effect. Therefore the qualities of the effect cannot touch the cause.

* During the time of its existence, one can easily grasp that the effect is not different from the cause. However that the cause is different from the effect is not readily understood. As to this, it is not really possible to separate cause from effect. But this is possible by imagining so. For example, the reflection of the gold ornament seen in the mirror is only the form of the ornament but is not the ornament itself as it (the reflection) has no gold in it at all. Adi Shankara says in the Chāṃdogya Upaniṣad Bhāṣya, commentary on the Chandogya Upanishad, 6.3.2:

Sarvaṃ ca nāmarūpādi sadātmanaiva satyaṃ vikārajātaṃ svatastu anṛtameva — All names and forms are real when seen with the Sat (Brahman) but are false when seen independent of Brahman.

This way Advaita establishes the non-difference of effect from cause. To put it in a nutshell,

Kārya is not different from kāraṇa; however kāraṇa is different from kārya

In the context of Advaita Vedanta,

Jagat (the world) is not different from Brahman; however Brahman is different from Jagat

[edit] Salient features of Advaita Vedanta

[edit] Three levels of truth

* The transcendental or the Pāramārthika level in which Brahman is the only reality and nothing else;
* The pragmatic or the Vyāvahārika level in which both Jiva (living creatures or individual souls) and Ishvara are true; here, the material world is completely true, and,
* The apparent or the Prāthibhāsika level in which even material world reality is actually false, like illusion of a snake over a rope or a dream.

[edit] Brahman

According to Adi Shankara, God, the Supreme Cosmic Spirit or Brahman (pronounced as /brəh mən/; nominative singular Brahma, pronounced as /brəh mə/) is the One, the whole and the only reality. Other than Brahman, everything else, including the universe, material objects and individuals, are false. Brahman is at best described as that infinite, omnipresent, omnipotent, incorporeal, impersonal, transcendent reality that is the divine ground of all Being. Brahman is often described as neti neti meaning "not this, not this" because it cannot be correctly described as this or that. It is the origin of this and that, the origin of forces, substances, all of existence, the undefined, the basis of all, unborn, the essential truth, unchanging, eternal, the absolute. How can it be properly described as something in the material world when itself is the basis of reality? Brahman is also beyond the senses, it would be akin a blind man trying to correctly describe color. It (grammatically neutral, but exceptionally treated as masculine), though not a substance, is the basis of the material world, which in turn is its illusionary transformation. Brahman is not the effect of the world. Brahman is said to be the purest knowledge itself, and is illuminant like a source of infinite light.

Due to ignorance (avidyā), the Brahman is visible as the material world and its objects. The actual Brahman is attributeless and formless (see Nirguna Brahman). It is the Self-existent, the Absolute and the Imperishable (not generally the object of worship but rather of meditation). Brahman is actually indescribable. It is at best "Sacchidananda" (merging "Sat" + "Chit" + "Ananda", ie, Infinite Truth, Infinite Consciousness and Infinite Bliss). Also, Brahman is free from any kind of differences. It does not have any sajātīya (homogeneous) differences because there is no second Brahman. It does not have any vijātīya (heterogeneous) differences because there is nobody in reality existing other than Brahman. It has neither svagata (internal) differences, because Brahman is itself homogeneous.

Though Brahman is self-proved, Adi Shankara also proposed some logical proofs:

* Shruti — the Upanishads, the Bhagavad Gita and the Brahma Sutras describe Brahman in almost exact manner as Adi Shankara. This is the testimonial proof of Brahman.
* Psychological — every person experiences his soul, or atman. According to Adi Shankara, Atman = Brahman. This argument also proves the omniscience of the Brahman.
* Teleological — the world appears very well ordered; the reason for this cannot be an unconscious principle. The reason must be due to the Brahman.
* Essential — Brahman is the basis of this created world.
* Perceptible feeling — many people, when they achieve the turīya state, claim that their soul has become one with everything else.

[edit] Māyā

Māyā (/mɑːjɑː/) According to Adi Shankara, Māyā is the complex illusionary power of Brahman which causes the Brahman to be seen as the material world of separate forms. It has two main functions — one is to "hide" Brahman from ordinary human perception, and the other is to present the material world in its stead. Māyā is also said to be indescribable, though it may be said that all sense data entering ones awareness via the five senses are Māyā, since the fundamental reality underlying sensory perception is completely hidden. It is also said that Māyā neither completely real nor completely unreal, hence indescribable. Its shelter is Brahman, but Brahman itself is untouched by the illusion of Māyā, just like a magician is not tricked by his own magic. Māyā is temporary and is transcended with "true knowledge," or perception of the more fundamental reality which straddles Māyā.

Since according to the Upanishads only Brahman is real, but we see the material world to be real, Adi Shankara explained the anomaly by the concept of this illusionary power Māyā.

[edit] Status of the world

Adi Shankara says that the world is not true, it is an illusion, but this is because of some logical reasons. Let us first analyse Adi Shankara's definition of Truth, and hence why the world is not considered true.

* Adi Shankara says that whatever thing remains eternal is true, and whatever is non-eternal is untrue. Since the world is created and destroyed, it is not true.
* Truth is the thing which is unchanging. Since the world is changing, it is not true.
* Whatever is independent of space and time is true, and whatever has space and time in itself is untrue.
* Just as one sees dreams in sleep, he sees a kind of super-dream when he is waking. The world is compared to this conscious dream.
* The world is believed to be a superimposition of the Brahman. Superimposition cannot be true.

On the other hand, Adi Shankara claims that the world is not absolutely false. It appears false only when compared to Brahman. In the pragmatic state, the world is completely true—which occurs as long as we are under the influence of Maya. The world cannot be both true and false at the same time; hence Adi Shankara has classified the world as indescribable. The following points suggest that according to Adi Shankara, the world is not false (Adi Shankara himself gave most of the arguments, Sinha, 1993):

* If the world were false, then with the liberation of the first human being, the world would have been annihilated. However, the world continues to exist even if a human attains liberation.
* Adi Shankara believes in Karma, or good actions. This is a feature of this world. So the world cannot be false.
* The Supreme Reality Brahman is the basis of this world. The world is like its reflection. Hence the world cannot be totally false.
* False is something which is ascribed to nonexistent things, like Sky-lotus. The world is a logical thing which is perceived by our senses.

Consider the following logical argument. A pen is placed in front of a mirror. One can see its reflection. To one's eyes, the image of the pen is perceived. Now, what should the image be called? It cannot be true, because it is an image. The truth is the pen. It cannot be false, because it is seen by our eyes.

[edit] Īshvara

Īshvara (pronounced as /iːʃvərə/, literally, the Supreme Lord) — According to Advaita Vedanta, when man tries to know the attributeless Brahman with his mind, under the influence of Maya, Brahman becomes the Lord. Ishvara is Brahman with Maya — the manifested form of Brahman. Adi Shankara uses a metaphor that when the "reflection" of the Cosmic Spirit falls upon the mirror of Maya, it appears as the Supreme Lord. The Supreme Lord is true only in the pragmatic level — his actual form in the transcendental level is the Cosmic Spirit.

Ishvara is Saguna Brahman or Brahman with innumerable auspicious qualities. He is all-perfect, omniscient, omnipresent, incorporeal, independent, Creator of the world, its ruler and also destroyer. He is causeless, eternal and unchangeable — and is yet the material and the instrumental cause of the world. He is both immanent (like whiteness in milk) and transcendent (like a watch-maker independent of a watch). He may be even regarded to have a personality. He is the subject of worship. He is the basis of morality and giver of the fruits of one's Karma. However, He himself is beyond sin and merit. He rules the world with his Maya — His divine power. This association with a "false" knowledge does not affect the perfection of Ishvara, in the same way as a magician is himself not tricked by his magic. However, while Ishvara is the Lord of Maya and she (ie, Maya) is always under his control, the living beings (jīva, in the sense of humans) are the servants of Maya (in the form of ignorance). This ignorance is the cause of the unhappiness and sin in the mortal world. While Ishvara is Infinite Bliss, humans are miserable. Ishvara always knows the unity of the Brahman substance, and the Mayic nature of the world. There is no place for a Satan or devil in Hinduism, unlike Abrahamic religions. Advaitins explain the misery because of ignorance. Ishvara can also be visualized and worshipped in anthropomorphic form as deities such as Vishnu, Krishna or Shiva.

Now the question arises as to why the Supreme Lord created the world. If one assumes that Ishvara creates the world for any incentive, this slanders the wholeness and perfection of Ishvara. For example, if one assumes that Ishvara creates the world for gaining something, it would be against His perfection. If we assume that He creates for compassion, it would be illogical, because the emotion of compassion cannot arise in a blank and void world in the beginning (when only Ishvara existed). So Adi Shankara assumes that Creation is a sport of Ishvara. It is His nature, just as it is man's nature to breathe.

The sole proof for Ishvara that Adi Shankara gives is Shruti's mentions of Ishvara, as Ishvara is beyond logic and thinking. This is similar to Kant 's philosophy about Ishvara in which he says that "faith" is the basis of theism. However, Adi Shankara has also given few other logical proofs for Ishvara, but warning us not to completely rely on them:

* The world is a work, an effect, and so must have real cause. This cause must be Ishvara.
* The world has a wonderful unity, coordination and order, so its creator must have been an intelligent being.
* People do good and sinful work and get its fruits, either in this life or after. People themselves cannot be the giver of their fruits, as no one would give himself the fruit of his sin. Also, this giver cannot be an unconscious object. So the giver of the fruits of Karma is Ishvara.

[edit] Status of God

To think that there is no place for a personal God (Ishvara) in Advaita Vedanta is a misunderstanding of the philosophy. Ishvara is, in an ultimate sense, described as "false" because Brahman appears as Ishvara only due to the curtain of Maya. However, as described earlier, just as the world is true in the pragmatic level, similarly, Ishvara is also pragmatically true. Just as the world is not absolutely false, Ishvara is also not absolutely false. He is the distributor of the fruits of one's Karma. In order to make the pragmatic life successful, it is very important to believe in God and worship him. In the pragmatic level, whenever we talk about Brahman, we are in fact talking about God. God is the highest knowledge theoretically possible in that level. Devotion (Bhakti) will cancel the effects of bad Karma and will make a person closer to the true knowledge by purifying his mind. Slowly, the difference between the worshipper and the worshipped decreases and upon true knowledge, liberation occurs.

[edit] Ātman
The swan is an important motif in Advaita. It symbolises two things: first, the swan is called hamsah in Sanskrit (which becomes hamso if the first letter in the next word is /h/). Upon repeating this hamso indefinitely, it becomes so-aham, meaning, "I am That". Second, just as a swan lives in water but its feathers are not soiled by water, similarly a liberated Advaitin lives in this world full of maya but is untouched by its illusion.
The swan is an important motif in Advaita. It symbolises two things: first, the swan is called hamsah in Sanskrit (which becomes hamso if the first letter in the next word is /h/). Upon repeating this hamso indefinitely, it becomes so-aham, meaning, "I am That". Second, just as a swan lives in water but its feathers are not soiled by water, similarly a liberated Advaitin lives in this world full of maya but is untouched by its illusion.

The soul or the self (Atman) is identical with Brahman. It is not a part of Brahman that ultimately dissolves into Brahman, but the whole Brahman itself. Now the arguers ask how the individual soul, which is limited and one in each body, can be the same as Brahman? Adi Shankara explains that the Self is not an individual concept. Atman is only one and unique. Indeed Atman alone is {Ekaatma Vaadam}. It is a false concept that there are several Atmans {Anekaatma Vaadam}. Adi Shankara says that just as the same moon appears as several moons on its reflections on the surface of water covered with bubbles, the one Atman appears as multiple atmans in our bodies because of Maya. Atman is self-proven, however, some proofs are discussed—eg., a person says "I am blind", "I am happy", "I am fat" etc. The common and constant factor, which permeates all these statements is the "I" which is but the Immutable Consciousness. When the blindness, happiness, fatness are inquired and negated, "I" the common factor which, indeed, alone exists in all three states of consciousness and in all three periods of time, shines forth. This proves the existence of Atman, and that Consciousness, Reality and Bliss are its characteristics. Atman, being the silent witness of all the modifications, is free and beyond sin and merit. It does not experience happiness or pain because it is beyond the triad of Experiencer, Experienced and Experiencing. It does not do any Karma because it is Aaptakaama. It is incorporeal and independent.

When the reflection of atman falls on Avidya (ignorance), atman becomes jīva — a living being with a body and senses. Each jiva feels as if he has his own, unique and distinct Atman, called jivatman. The concept of jiva is true only in the pragmatic level. In the transcendental level, only the one Atman, equal to Brahman, is true.

Adi Shankara exposed the relative and thus unreal nature of the objective world and propounded the truth of the Advaita {One without a second} by analysing the three states of experience of the atman — waking (vaishvanara), dreaming (taijasa), and deep sleep (prajna).

[edit] Salvation

Liberation or Moksha (akin to Nirvana of the Buddhists) — Advaitins also believe in the theory of reincarnation of souls (Atman) into plants, animals and humans according to their karma. They believe that suffering is due to Maya, and only knowledge (called Jnana) of Brahman can destroy Maya. When Maya is removed, there exists ultimately no difference between the Jiva-Atman and the Brahman. Such a state of bliss when achieved while living is called Jivan mukti. While one is in the pragmatic level, one can worship God in any way and in any form, like Krishna or Ayyappa as he wishes, Adi Shankara himself was a proponent of devotional worship or Bhakti. But Adi Shankara believes that while Vedic sacrifices, puja and devotional worship can lead one in the direction of jnana, true knowledge, they cannot lead one directly to Moksha.

[edit] Theory of creation

In the relative level, Adi Shankara believes in the Creation of the world through Satkaryavada. It is like the philosophy of Samkhya, which says that the cause is always hidden into its effect—and the effect is just a transformation of the cause. However, Samkhya believes in a sub-form of Satkaryavada called Parinamavada (evolution) — whereby the cause really becomes an effect. Instead, Adi Shankara believes in a sub-form called Vivartavada. According to this, the effect is merely an apparent transformation of its cause — like illusion. eg., In darkness, a man often confuses a rope to be a snake. But this does not mean that the rope has actually transformed into a snake.

At the pragmatic level, the universe is believed to be the creation of the Supreme Lord Ishvara. Maya is the divine magic of Ishvara, with the help of which Ishvara creates the world. The serial of Creation is taken from the Upanishads. First of all, the five subtle elements (ether, air, fire, water and earth) are created from Ishvara. Ether is created by Maya. From ether, air is born. From air, fire is born. From fire, water is born. From water, earth is born. From a proportional combination of all five subtle elements, the five gross elements are created, like the gross sky, the gross fire, etc. From these gross elements, the universe and life are created. This series is exactly the opposite during destruction.

Some people have criticized that these principles are against Satkaryavada. According to Satkaryavada, the cause is hidden inside the effect. How can Ishvara, whose form is spiritual, be the effect of this material world? Adi Shankara says that just as from a conscious living human, inanimate objects like hair and nails are formed, similarly, the inanimate world is formed from the spiritual Ishvara.

[edit] Status of ethics

Some claim that there is no place for ethics in Advaita, because everything is ultimately illusionary. But on analysis, ethics also has a firm place in this philosophy—the same place as the world and God. Ethics, which implies doing good Karma, indirectly helps in attaining true knowledge. The basis of merit and sin is the Shruti (the Vedas and the Upanishads). Truth, non-violence, service of others, pity, etc are Dharma, and lies, violence, cheating, selfishness, greed, etc are adharma (sin).
 
At the time of Adi Shankara's life, Hinduism had begun to decline because of the influence of Buddhism and Jainism. Hinduism had become divided into innumerable sects, each quarrelling with the others. The followers of Mimamsa and Sankhya philosophy were atheists, insomuch that they did not believe in God as a unified being. Besides these atheists, there were numerous theistic sects. There were also those who rejected the Vedas, like the Charvakas.

How one Philosophy or an Idea can change the whole society is an interesting study into the intellectual deveolment and expectaion of Masses
. Looking forward to understand this phenomenon
Little things can make big differences.

It depends who passes on the idea and to whom it's passed to.

The prevalent theory is that we are connected to everybody by a maximum chain of 6 people. Try it out. You know someone who knows someone who knows someone who knows Neil Armstrong.

There are some people who know act as a bridge to a lot of people. Once an idea comes to them they transmit it ahead and the chain is charged and spreading a new ideology.
 
Nice article on Advaita Philosophy:


Hindus on the hard problem


We had earlier mentioned the interesting discussion we had with Marc and kalashajA on what the western philosophers admit is the hard problem of consciousness. Our other acquaintance of the clan of the kAshyapa-s, had asked me if the Indians had contributed anything to the problem. He intuitively felt they had done so, but could not place a finger on it. Marc, R and I had some further discussion, and realized I knew less of it than I thought I did. As a result it was not certain that I had a defensive argument for all my original stances on the matter, and definitely consider it an area of my thought that is still shaping. However, in answer to the kAshyapa's queries, and for some discussions with our friend graced by the wife of mahArudra, I tried to represent the Hindu approach to this problem. To me it appears that the Hindus have made a deep foray into this matter exploring areas that are not chartered by modern western philosophers. To describe this domain of thought of the archaic Hindus and to certain extant their yavana cousins I resort to the term ekAntika, adapting it from the early pA~ncharAtrins of the sAttvata region. ekAntika can be broadly said to include philosophical theories such as: advaita, vishiShTAdvaita, samvit-prakAsha and allied pA~ncharAtric thought, pratyabhij~na and the yavana monism. Here, I seek not to discuss the entire history; at some point if we are alive, time permitting, I will detail the history of Hindu philosophy from the particular point of the action of mantra-tantra shAstra that is the under-girding of the whole Hindu religious practice. Here we shall only look at some Hindu ideas including advaita, which is one of the ekAntika philosophical theories that is widely studied by hindus since its expansive elucidation by sha~Nkara bhagavatpAda and his successors. I do not want to even pretend being anything close to an expert on this system, but only dwell on points relevant to the issue of consciousness.

One might characterize advaitic thought and it is related vaiShNava version of shri adishesha thus:
1)
The universe is mAyA, which is unreal. adishesha calls it the mAyA of viShNu. Yet viShNu is called the cause for origin, persistance and destruction of the universe- so there is a contradiction here. Traditional advaitins resolve this contradiction by creating a distinction between: 1.1) the pure brahman that is in every way unconnected to the diversity of existence, other than being the ultimate reality behind it AND 1.2) the Ishvara or viShNu who seemingly generates the world and after its course of evolution destroys it. This Ishvara or viShNu and the world he emanates is real only to the extant that the unchanging brahman due to the delusion caused by mAyA appears to be Ishvara or viShNu.

2) The specific entities of the world, like the atomic particles (aNu-s and paramANu-s) appear to exist in the world because of the limiting adjuncts -upAdhi-s produced by delusion. For this advaita uses the analogy that the sun reflected in different pools of water appears as many suns, some of which may move or change shape with the movement of water. Thus, the single brahman appears in the diverse objects of the world under all the boundary conditions that distinguish apparently existing entities. Then the advaitins use the analogy of the serpent and rope. Just as a rope is mistaken to be a serpent and may be destroyed, but in reality there was neither origin nor destruction of the serpent. Thus, the universe has no cause for origin and destruction; it is merely an illusion- the result of mAyA.

3) This brahman which is the only single ultimate reality is pure independently existing consciousness which is undivided and indivisible. [The key point to note here is that the whole bhUta-chaitanya-vAda or "neural origin of consciousness" debate is axiomatically eliminated in the advaita system because it begins with the axiom that the only reality of existence is the independent consciousness]

4) Consciousness of an individual, the Atman is the same as the brahman. It is the basis of first person experience of smell, sight, taste, touch perception and the like. But because there is no reality to existence there is nothing for the Atman to act upon and hence it does not act. However, just as the sun reflected in water appears to be distorted or moves the Atman *seems* to act due to the activity of the mind (manas) and the intellect (buddhi). The Atman though omnipresent becomes manifest in the buddhi/manas just as the rAhu (shadow of Earth) while always present become visible only while "eating" the moon in an eclipse. Thus, the Atman comes to be believed as the agent and recipient, though it is not, because it is reflected in the manas and buddhi which are the cause of action and reception.

5) The delusion of mAyA operates in the projection of something from our consciousness to the level of our expression as language. That which is an undivided in consciousness emerges in divided state in linguistic expression- by the very fact that this expression has the dual nature of an object and subject.

6) When the awareness is refreshed regarding the absence of subject-object distinction. i.e. the Atman is not the agent and that there is nothing to act upon, then the identity of Atman and brahman is made and that is mokSha.

7) The realization of Atman and its equation with brahman cannot be done by knowing the Atman as an object. If this were so then the subject perceiving the Atman will be greater than it and one need an entity greater than that to perceive it. Ad infinitum. Thus, the brahman cannot be realized as an object of the senses. It does not mean that the brahman is not known objectively-- when it is thus perceived it is seen as the things of the world other than Atman. To perceive brahman by itself requires what is termed brahmavidyA that leads to mokSha.

From the summary of this Hindu ekAntika system one can see that Hindu tackled some very important aspects of the "Hard problem": 1) They correctly realized it was a hard problem 2) While they produced a theory that considered the consciousness as the independent reality, they had a model for its specific connection to the neural process (buddhi, manas ityAdi). This model was robust enough to stand the modern developments in biological understanding. 3) They actually showed how linguistic expression does not reproduce the unity that is in consciousness. 4) They suggested an actual solution to the hard problem within their Weltanschauung that cannot be attained by modern western thought due its own limitations.

Yet, the advaita stream of Hindu ekAntika thought had its problematic issues- the biggest being the non-reality of atomic particles and thus the world. It was here the great tantrics of pA~ncharAtra and kula paths raised Hindu thought to its highest pinnacle since the veda (we will continue the second part of this excursion by attempting to put these concepts in words, though we might fail). The importance of the tantras stems from the fact they actually represent a high point Hindu philosophy. The unfolding of path the kaulika perfection ...

mAnasollAsa
 

Back
Top Bottom