Shoonyavaada and Mayavaada - 8

HARI AUM
Humble prostrations to all.

Let’s now analyze the final mail of Shrisha Rao. We will split the last mail of Shrisha Rao into two or three to have a detailed analysis on the same.

... continued from previous part.
Previously, it was claimed that the existence of the Atman of the mAyAvAdIin the form of knowledge is untenable, as nothing that would be called"knowledge" is possible of the Atman.

We have already discussed this and proved that Atman is of the nature of eternal knowledge or Consciousness – that knowledge which knows itself but doesn’t have any distinction of knower and knowledge – it is not a non-existent entity because absence of self-knowing knowledge or self-luminous Consciousness is against sruthi, yukthi and anubhava. Thus this statement of the dvaitin is completely wrong. Also, the dvaitin is criticizing only the “knowledge” aspect of the Atman whereas forgetting that the word CHIT also means Consciousness or BODHAM. If this meaning is taken, then the essence of the moksha stated by Advaita will become pretty clear.

Sri Raghuttama Tiirtha says:
j~nAtR^ij~neyashUnyasyApi j~nAnatvAN^gIkAre ko doshha? iti chet.h,vAchya, vaktR^i, vihInasya vachanasya; bhojya, bhoktR^i, vihInasyabhojanasya; gamya, gantR^i, vihInasya gamanAderapyaN^gIkArApAtAt.h "(In fact, according to the Mayavadins, in the state of Mukti, there is no knower, nor an object of knowledge, but mere knowledge. `But what is the objection to such a belief?'

-- they say. We reply: It is like this, that there is no subject matter of speech, nor a speaker, yet there is speech; or there is no eatable, nor an eater, and yet there is eating; there is no place to go, and there is no goer, yet there is going. All these absurdities will have to be admitted, if it be said that in Mukti there is no knower, nor an object of knowledge, but that there still is knowledge.)"

“There is no knower” doesn’t mean the KNOWER or SUBJECT of Self ceases to exist because sruthi is also against it. When we say there is no knower but Atman of the nature of CHIT or JNAANA or eternal knowledge alone exists is that there is no distinction in the Self at that time. The statement never means that there is no subject at all but only means that the Subject itself is of the nature of knowledge. It cannot be argued that “knowledge” being an action cannot be the same as the knower – because we all experience this very well in dream as well as in examples of “walking”.

Thus Knower or Subject alone exists who is of the nature of Consciousness or KNOWLEDGE in its absolute sense – the absolute sense means that knowledge which exists on its own & is purely knowledge alone – not requiring any other entity for its existence. Thus there is no absurdity in it.

For eg:- in the state of deep sleep, the knower is alone present of the nature of Knowledge – thus we can say that there is KNOWLEDGE alone (as the knowledge of one’s own existence is known after waking up). We say that there is no knower as such there because there is nothing to know over there. Only when objects are there, the subject gets its existence. Thus the Subject of KNOWER exists as KNOWLEDGE without any distinctions. This is not at all absurd but very much logical only.

JI don’t really know from where the Dvaitin got the explanation of Moksha as per Advaita as “Knowledge alone exists without knower”. Advaita says that when the triputi merges into the SAKSHI, that is the state of Moksha or realization wherein only the Self of the nature of CHIT or JNAANA exists – nothing else exists. Here the knower, knowledge and object of knowledge merge into the witness of this triputi.

Any action/transaction requires a witness which should not be involved in the action. Thus for the triputi which consists of Subject, Object and Action – there should be a witness which is not involved at all. This witness is what sruthi calls as Kutastha. Kutastha is the witness Consciousness that is unaffected by the activities it witnesses. The witness-hood itself is only an illusion when the main illusion of actions seem to exist. This witness has to be Conscious in nature else it cannot illumine other entities (the witness has to experience its own existence in order to illumine other existence). Thus the Kutastha Chaitanya is JNAANA or CHIT. JNAANA is not very loosely translated as KNOWLEDGE by acharyas. We will just see one sloka of Panchadashi where Vidyaranya explains JNAANA.

Siddham brahmani satyatvam jnaanatvam tu pureritam
Svayameva anubhootitvaat ithyaadi vachanaih sphutam

If SATYATVA or “Real” nature of Brahman is proved, then JNAANATVAM or Conscious nature has already been proved clearly by the statement “Svayam eva anubhootitvaat” (It experiences itself and doesn’t require any other illumination).

Since Brahman of Advaita is a real entity and not SHOONYA VASTHU, therefore JNAANA means “it experiences its own existence” and not that knowledge of TRIPUTI alone exists.

evaM cha Atmano nityaj~nAnasvarUpamastItyasya vAN^mAtratvenamoxeshUnyavAdimatAnmAyAvAdimatasyanakashchidvisheshha, itisthitam.h

Thus, also (as claimed earlier), as the claim that the Atman exists in the form of eternal knowledge is an empty utterance, it is concluded that there is no difference between the shUnyavAdI and the mAyAvAdI conceptions of moxa.

The concept of Moksha as per Advaita is pretty clear – the triputi vanishes and only the SAKSHI CHAITANYA exists as “self-existing knowledge or CHIT or JNAANA”. This has already been shown through vidyaranya’s statement. Thus it is wrong to say that “eternal knowledge” or “CHIT” or “JNAANA” is a mere “word” alone without any meaning & that this word is same as “shoonya” of shoonyavaadin.

As per Advaita, Moksha is “Brahma vid brahmaiva bhavathi” – he who knows Brahman becomes Brahman.

Again this can also be explained empirically from vidyaranya’s statement itself – Svaroopena sthithir mukthiritheeryathi – “staying in one’s own natural state is called MOKSHA” (Panchadashi 10.4). One’s own nature as per Advaita is “Sat CHIT ANANDA” and hence this Moksha is very much different from “shoonya”.

Thus there is difference between “shoonya” of shoonyavaadins and “Brahman” of Advaita in terms of Moksha.

At this, the opponent may object, saying that there are very significantand important differences between shUnyavAda and mAyAvAda in terms ofmeans and method of sAdhanA for the seeker. This issue is addressed thus:

nApi tatsAdhanavailaxaNyAditi dvitIyaH paxo yuktaH shUnyavAdibhiH shUnyAdvaitatsAxAtkArasyeva mAyAvAdibhirapibrahmAdvaitasAxAtkArasyaiva moxahetutvokteH

"Nor is there any difference between these two schools in their methods of Sadhana. The Sunyavadins say that the realization ofthe Sunya is the method of getting Mukti. The Mayavadins say therealization of Brahma-Advaita is the method of Mukti." Lacking differences in Brahman and shUnya, the methods of sAdhanAtherefore are not distinct.

We have already seen that Brahman and Shoonya are not one and the same but they are distinct. Since the goal is different, therefore “realization of the goal” is also different --- thus the means too are different only.

To once again emphasize, Advaita never really believes in SADHANA because “Moksha is realization of one’s own very nature of Brahman” – there is nothing really to achieve, but just to realize one’s own nature & that everything is Brahman alone (there is only Brahman and no duality at all). This is very important because as per Advaita, the path is not important but the path also is only an illusion itself --- reality alone is REAL and this REALITY has been veiled by ignorance (again an illusion), this ignorance has to be removed to remember/realize one’s own very nature – removal of ignorance is what is the goal of all sadhanas.

Thus “I am already THAT” but just have to realize it (as I seem to have forgot it).

nanu, astu tR^itIyaH paxaH mAyAvAdino hi `brahmaiva tattvam.h' iti bruvate shUnyavAdinastu shUnyameveti tathA cha na dvItIya- paxoktadoshhaH brahmasAxAtkArashUnyasAxAtkArayorvishhaya-vailaxyaNyAdevavailaxaNyasiddheH evaM cha kathaMtayoravisheshha, iti chet.h ? na shUnyavAdyabhimatashUnyAn.hmAyAvAdyabhimatabrahmaNo visheshhoktervyAhatatvAt.h kuta,ityata Aha -- `nirvisheshhatva', iti

"The objector may say, ``There is a third alternative. TheMayavadins say that Brahman alone is the Tattva or the substance,but the Sunyavadins do not believe in any substance. They say itis Sunya or Void, there is no substance. Therefore, there is adifference in the realization of a substance like Brahman, and inthe realization of a non-entity like Void or Sunyam. Thus theobjects sought by these two schools are different. One seeksBrahman, which is a substance; the other seeks Sunyam, which isno substance.'' To this, we reply:-- ``The Sunyam of theSunyavadin has no difference from the Brahman of the Mayavadin.''Why so? Because as the author says:
-- nirvisheshhatvAN^gIkArAt.h

Because [the Brahman] is accepted to be without attributes. "The Mayavadins believe that Brahman has no attributes, and that,therefore, it is as good as a Sunyam or Void.''"

Brahman as per Advaita is nirvishesha or without attributes. This “without attributes” is because Brahman is UNLIMITED or ANANTHA. Anything which has an attribute is limited by the attribute. Let’s say the body has the attribute of “fatness”. This means the body is limited by “fat”. Any limited entity is not Brahman as any limited entity cannot give happiness (as per Sanatkumara’s statement to Narada in Chandogya that Na alpe sukham asthi and Taittiriya Statement of Satyam jnaanam anantham brahma). Thus Brahman cannot be unlimited. If Brahman is unlimited, then it cannot have any attributes.

It cannot be argued that unlimitedness means that “when attributes are present, fullness of the attribute” because such fullness will only lead to absence of the attribute. Let’s say it is said that Brahman is full in terms of space as it is all-pervasive. This means Brahman pervades space and is present everywhere. If Brahman is present everywhere, then from Brahman’s perspective, there is no space at all because space means “limited”. This will lead to “absence of space”. It also cannot be argued that this is only from Brahman’s perspective and not from jeeva’s perspective because since Brahman is considered as independent by Dvaitins, Brahman’s perspective is final. If there is no space as per Brahman’s perspective, then there will be no space as per Jeeva too.

Thus Advaita is well justified in accepting the correct definition of “unlimited” or ANANTHA and thereby concludes to say that Brahman is Nirvishesha. This has support from sruthi also which denies “all characteristics in Brahman” as Neti, Neti --- Avaakmanasagocharam etc.

By this, the commentator shows how a doubt arising from a statement can be resolved by another interpretation of the same statement. As seen below, he does this repeatedly. nanu mAbhUt.h brahmaNo nirvisheshhatvAchchhUnyAdvisheshhaHshUnyasya brahmaNo visheshhaH kiM na syAd.h ? iti mandAshaN^kAMapi apAkaroti -- `nirvisheshhatva', iti Even granting that there is no difference between Brahman and shUnya in terms of lack of attributes, since Brahman has no attributes, yet is it not possible that differences exist in other respects? To remove such a foolish doubt, also, it is said, `nirvisheshha', thus.

Brahman as per Advaita is nirvishesha or without attributes. This “without attributes” is because Brahman is UNLIMITED or ANANTHA. Anything which has an attribute is limited by the attribute. Let’s say the body has the attribute of “fatness”. This means the body is limited by “fat”. Any limited entity is not Brahman as any limited entity cannot give happiness (as per Sanatkumara’s statement to Narada in Chandogya that Na alpe sukham asthi and Taittiriya Statement of Satyam jnaanam anantham brahma). Thus Brahman cannot be unlimited. If Brahman is unlimited, then it cannot have any attributes.

It cannot be argued that unlimitedness means that “when attributes are present, fullness of the attribute” because such fullness will only lead to absence of the attribute. Let’s say it is said that Brahman is full in terms of space as it is all-pervasive. This means Brahman pervades space and is present everywhere. If Brahman is present everywhere, then from Brahman’s perspective, there is no space at all because space means “limited”. This will lead to “absence of space”. It also cannot be argued that this is only from Brahman’s perspective and not from jeeva’s perspective because since Brahman is considered as independent by Dvaitins, Brahman’s perspective is final. If there is no space as per Brahman’s perspective, then there will be no space as per Jeeva too.

Thus Advaita is well justified in accepting the correct definition of “unlimited” or ANANTHA and thereby concludes to say that Brahman is Nirvishesha. This has support from sruthi also which denies “all characteristics in Brahman” as Neti, Neti --- Avaakmanasagocharam etc.

By this, the commentator shows how a doubt arising from a statement can be resolved by another interpretation of the same statement. As seen below, he does this repeatedly. nanu mAbhUt.h brahmaNo nirvisheshhatvAchchhUnyAdvisheshhaHshUnyasya brahmaNo visheshhaH kiM na syAd.h ? iti mandAshaN^kAMapi apAkaroti -- `nirvisheshhatva', iti Even granting that there is no difference between Brahman and shUnya in terms of lack of attributes, since Brahman has no attributes, yet is it not possible that differences exist in other respects? To remove such a foolish doubt, also, it is said, `nirvisheshha', thus.

Brahman as per Advaita, even though is nirvishesha, but still is an existent entity. IT has “SVAROOPA” or nature which is different from attribute. This nature is very well mentioned as SAT CHIT ANANDA ANANTHA in sruthi and puraanas. These are the very nature of Brahman even as burning is the nature of fire – these are not attributes but very nature of Brahman. IT again cannot be argued that “these different terms” mean duality as one term expects the other term and thus these words denote AKHANDA or non-divisible entity of Brahman. A detailed analysis of this can be found in Panchadashi, Sarvajnaatman’s Sanskhepa Sareeraka as well as Advaita Makaranda of Lakshmidhara (in the commentary of Svayam prakaasha yathi, these are made clear where he quotes from sanskhepa sareeraka).

nirvisheshhatvAN^gIkArAt.h
Because [the Brahman] is accepted to be without attributes.

shUnyasya shUnyavAdinA.api, iti sheshhaH nirvisheshhaMsvayaM bhAtaM, ityAdi tadvachanAt.h kiM cha yaddhi yatovyAvartate tattdvyAvartakadharmayogenaiva tatovyAvR^ittaM dR^ishhTaM, yathA ghaTapaTaH
"There is no difference between the Sunyavadin and the Mayavadin, for the Sunyavadins also admit that their Sunya has no attributes, like the Brahman of the Mayavadins. For they say their Sunyam is Nirvisesam. Thus Sunyam and Brahman might be different, if there had been any differentiating attributes. A pot is different from a cloth, because of their possessing different attributes.

na cha brahmashUnyayoH kashchidvyAvartakadharmo.asti kuta, ityata Aha, `nirvisheshha', iti nirvisheshhatvAN^gIkArAt.h
Because [the Brahman] is accepted to be without attributes.

kiM cha na tAvadbrahmaNaH shUnyAdvisheshho viruddhalaxhayogAd.h,iti vaktuM yuktam.h "But Brahman and Sunyam cannot be different from each other, because Brahman has no attributes and the Sunyam also has no attributes; since both have no attributes, there can be nothing to distinguish them. Therefore, both are identical."

We have to remember that any entity which is relative is temporary and limited. Any limited entity is only an illusion & not Brahman. Unlimited-ness can come only for absolute entity where there is no duality whatsoever. Brahman also is mentioned as Neha nana asthi kinchana – there is no duality at all --- therefore Brahman alone is absolute. Relative is only an illusion seen in the absolute. Thus absolute is adviteeya Brahman alone.

It cannot be argued for the above statement of Neha nana asthi kinchana that “here duality is negated only in Brahman as Sankara’s bhashya too takes the meaning of IHA as HERE or IN BRAHMAN”, because of the usage of the word “KINCHANA” or WHATSOEVER. Since duality is completely negated in BRAHMAN, this means that all the three bhedhas of svagatha or internal, sajaatheeya or similar entities and vijaatheeya or among different species are negated in Brahman --- thus this also leads to ADVAITA alone.

From the paaramarthika view point, there is nothing other than Brahman to even speak about. Thus everything is only at the empirical viewpoint. From empirical viewpoint, Brahman doesn’t have any attribute but still its nature is SAT, CHIT and ANANDA.

These words are really important and we have to understand them properly in order to avoid confusions and wrong notions. SAT is mentioned to show that Brahman is ever present and not like shoonya. The reality or absolute has to be existent beyond time which is indicated by the word SAT. This is as per Lord’s statement that “Na abhaavah vidhyathe satah” or there is no cessation of existence for SAT. We never experience our own non-existence or absence and hence the reality of Brahman which is our own very nature is SAT or EXISTENT.

Since Brahman is absolute, it has to experience its own existence and that entity which illumines its own existence is called CHIT or Consciousness. CHIT means that Brahman has sphurana or experiences its own existence without any other light.

ANANDA is mentioned to show that Brahman is not sorrowful and limited but unlimited as unlimited entity alone gives SUKHAM (na alpe sukham asthi – yo vai bhooma tat sukham – there is no happiness in limited but that which is unlimited alone is SUKHAM – thus says Sanatkumara to Narada in Chandogya).

These three entities cannot remain without one another. SAT means it is unlimited and existent – SAT can exist only when it experiences its own existence – thus SAT is CHIT also. If SAT is unlimited, it is ANANDA and ANANTHA too. Thus one entity is mentioned or pointed out as SAT CHIT ANANDA. Since these are not the attributes of Brahman but the very nature of Brahman, it doesn’t affect the “nirvisheshatva” of Brahman.

We have to clearly understand that “nirvisheshatva” comes only when there are visheshaas to be negated or denied. Thus this definition is also only temporary from the empirical view point. From the absolute stand point of Brahman, there is no vishesha so that Brahman has to be termed as “nirvishesha”.

sa kIM jagatkAraNatvAdirUpataTasthalaxaNayogo vA satyatvaj~nAnatvAdilaxaNayogo vA ? nAdyaH mAyAvAdibhiH shuddhabrahmaNo jagat.hkAraNatvAdyanaN^gIkArAt.h kuta, ityata Aha -- `nirvisheshhatva', iti aj~nAnopahitasya jagatkAraNatvAN^gIkArastu shUnyavAdo.api samaH; samvR^itiyogena shUnyasyApi shUnyavAdibhirjagatkAraNatva aN^gIkArAt.h yathA.ahuH shUnyavAdinaH, `vishvAkAraM samvR^ittyA yasya tatpadamaxayam.h', iti yathoktamanuvyAkhyAne, `na hi laxaNabhedo.asti nirvisheshhatva tastayoH' iti
"If you say, there is difference in the attributes of Brahman andSunyam, then we ask, where is that difference? If you say Brahman has the attribute of creating, preserving, and destroying the universe, and that Sunyam has no such attribute, to this theauthor replies again in the same words:"

Here the Dvaitin is understanding wrongly or misinterpreting Advaita. Brahman has no attributes as per Advaita but only SVAROOPA. SVAROOPA is different from attributes in that attributes are temporary and remain in an entity only for a particular time period whereas SVAROOPA is that which is ever present and non-removable or indifferent from the entity. Example of svaroopa is “burning power of fire” which is always present in fire. A detailed analysis of this can be had from Satya Darshanam of Hariram.

Advaita says that creating, preserving and destroying is the attribute of Brahman only temporarily. This is only the THATASTHA LAKSHANA of Brahman and not SVAROOPA of Brahman. Thus these are not svaroopa of Nirvishesha Brahman but just temporary definition of Brahman for explaining it or pointing it to the seeker.

nirvisheshhatvAN^gIkArAt.h

Because [the Brahman] is accepted to be without attributes.
"According to you, Mayavadin, Brahman does not create, etc., really. (It is only an imaginary creation. The Suddha Brahman is not the cause of creation, for you say it is Ignorance, supervening on Brahman, which is the cause of creation of the universe. In this respect also there is no difference between the the Sunyavada and the Mayavada. For the Sunyavadins say that it is due to the supervening of Samvriti on Sunyam that there is creation, as in the following line, `vishvAkAraM cha samvR^ityA yasya tat.h padaM axayam.h'."

As per Advaita, there is no “real creation” at all happening. There is not even “imaginary creation” as such a creation also cannot withstand logic. Thus Advaita believes only in “no creation” or AJAATHI VAADA but takes resort to VIVARTHA VAADA wherein the world is said to be apparent transformation of Brahman (even as rope seems to be transformed into snake – no real transformation happens) for explaining it to the initial seeker who will not be able to apprehend the reality that “there is no world at all created”. This in itself is a very big difference from shoonyavaada and advaita.

Also, as per Advaita, the world has an existence for the temporary time period. IT is given a temporary reality status and not said as “completely ideas only” like Shoonyavaada. This is another very big difference as Shoonyavaada says that there is no external world apart from ideas – they deny even temporary reality for the world whereas Advaita gives reality status to the world but a temporary one. Finally, Advaita believes in Ajaathi vaada or “no creation theory” which also is different from the creation concept of Shoonyavaada.

As stated in the anu-vyAkhyAna, "In fact, there are no distinguishing marks between Sunyam and Brahman."

As already proved, there are many-many differences between shoonya and Brahman but it is only lack of open-mindedness of the dvaitin which causes him to outright reject Advaita by claiming that Advaita and shoonya are same only.

If only the dvaitin had shown at least some interest and open-heartedly followed the sadhanas of Advaita before questioning it, he would have easily realized the ultimate reality beyond doubt.

na dvitIyaH mAyAvAdibhirbrahmaNaH paramArthataH satyatvAdianaN^gIkArAt.h kuta, ityata Aha, `nirvisheshha', iti
The second case (where, unlike the shUnya+samvR^iti, Brahman creates a real universe because of His own potency, thus showing a difference from the shUnyavAdI) is also not applicable. Because the mAyAvAdI does not accept the reality of the Brahman's attributes (like the ability to Create, etc.). Why? To this the following answer is given, `nirvisheshha', thus.

nirvisheshhatvAN^gIkArAt.h
Because [the Brahman] is accepted to be without attributes.

Shoonyavadins say that it is out of shoonya and ideas that world is created but Advaita says that Brahman creates the world out of its potency or the power of Maya. Here the dvaitin attacks by telling that the power of creation or Maya itself is not accepted really in Brahman thus there is no difference between shoonyavadins creation and advaita’s creation. This is wrong because Advaita never really denies the world at the empirical level, it is only at the ultimate level that advaita accepts “no-creation” and “no real Maya” theory. At the empirical level, Advaita does accept Maya but just gives it a temporary status. The world is also given a temporary status. Thus temporary Maya creates temporary world – there is illogicality here and this is equally valid from Advaita viewpoint as both have temporary status only. Since both have temporary status, we can very well eliminate and say that “Maya creates the world”. This is very much different from shoonyavaada where “shoonya creates the world”. Maya as per Advaita is indescribable but is distinct from both real and unreal (Anirvachaneeya) but shoonya is “unreal”. Thus there is difference between both concepts and what the dvaitin argues is wrong.

Even though Brahman is nirvishesha but still it can seem to be savishesha from the empirical view point. This is like a dumb person speaking in dream which is very much logical. Nirvisheshatva is not just removing all attributes but removal or negation of attributes from paaramarthika level. When that world which itself is not there is mentioned, then itself it is empirical level where all attributes are accepted in Brahman (but given a temporary or illusory status). This Brahman which is enjoined or has attributes of creation etc. is called Saguna Brahman or Ishwara whereas Nirguna or Nirvishesha Brahman is just the witness of this activity of “creation” etc. In this way also there is no fault in such a view.

Thus either we can give the Maya or world a “temporary” status or we can consider these attributes of “creation” etc. in Saguna Brahman --- both ways there is no fault in Advaita or Nirvishesha Brahman as it is the SAKSHI or witness in both these cases (the SAKSHITVA is not real but also illusory attribute depending on the illusory objects which it witnesses – this SAKSHI is called KUTASTHA in Advaita to distinguish it from Nirvishesha Brahman which never can become “witness” but seems to be the witness as Kutastha).

Next, the dvaitin attacks Sat, Chit and Ananda of Brahman by putting forth that these are attributes of Brahman – we have already discussed that these are not attributes but the very nature of Brahman. We will see into the dvaitin’s argument and the response to it (in detail if possible as this is a very important concept – we have already dealt this while replying to Koushik’s mail but still will try to repeat or recollect again on the same) in the next mail. We will try to answer the dvaitin’s arguments in the next couple of mails which will take us to the end of Shrisha Rao’s mail – then we will see in one or two mails a comparison of Shoonyavaada and Advaita as well as where do the other schools of Vedanta go wrong in analyzing Advaita).

Prostrations to all.

HARI AUM

Thanks
Hariram
Let a moment not pass by without remembering God