Truth and Falsity in Advaita

 

In Advaita terms like ‘mithya'/false, avidya/ignorance and their synonyms are sprinkled about with abandon but what is their existential import in the life of a seeker?  When I encounter lies, untruth, falsity in my everyday existence I take, when I am at my best, a moral attitude.  I am affronted, I reject this version of reality, this cannot stand.  Can I accept that adhyasa/superimposition is false in the same manner or do I rather think that it is hyperbolic to do so?Adhyasa may be at the core of the deep structure of reality, the discovery of which I am deeply interested in, yet not be opposed to the validity, in its own terms, of the everyday.  One reality underlies the other without negating it.

Tantric Saying: What is here is there, what is not here is not anywhere.

B.G. 13.2 : Are the Scriputures Useless?

There may be a profound lack of interest for the student of advaita in the rather hypothetical conundrum: what is the point of the scriptures if they are surpassed by the state of liberation? Are they rendered vacuous? Hardly is the firm answer. The vast majority of people, sincere seekers though they be, are not realized. They flounder in a state of avidya or primal ignorance. They need a guide to action even if the perfection of that action, so to speak, ends in inaction there being no identification with the motions of the gunas or the persistent dispositions of the erstwhile agent.

“Similarly, in our case let the scriptures be useless when the knowers of the field become identified with God; and purposeful within the sphere of ignorance.” further: “Nor do the scriptures become purposeless, because the scriptures are applicable to the commonly known unenlightened person. It is indeed in the case of the ignorant person- not in the case of the enlightened one - that there occurs the perception of identity of the Self with the effect (i.e. enjoyership) and the cause (agentship) which are not-Self.”

What isn’t treated here is the ethical problem which is created by the Perfected ones being beyond good and evil. Can they commit what would be regarded as sin by normal ethical standards? Persuading others that they remain pure has been the practice of many false teachers in all traditions. Of course they are scoundrels who manipulate the gullible who also may be willing participants in an illusion.�

Bhagavad Gita: Real and Really Real B.G. 13.2

Q: What does ignorance/avidya really mean? A: It is not being aware of the true nature of things or working on false assumptions. Now the paradox is that as a working hypothesis those fundamental assumptions can be perfectly effective. They represent the norm of the commonly shared understanding of reality. In plain terms the philosopher distinguishes between what is ‘real’ and what is ‘really real’. More technically ‘ignorance’ is a metaphysical condition not an epistemological one. There is no question of there being an organic defect. In Plato’s thought the same disjunction occurs between what is real i.e. unchanging truth and what is false/unreal constantly changing and in dispute, what never is. Q: How is ignorance to be overcome? A: By knowledge.

“If one has realized here, then there is truth; if he has not realized here, then there is great destruction.” (Kena Up. 2:5)

Following the rubric of this particular verse B.G. 13:2

“And, O scion of the Bharata dynasty, understand Me to be the ‘Knower of the Field’ in all the fields. In My opinion, that is Knowledge which is the knowledge of the field and the knower of the field.”

To put it in philosophical terms the question boils down to an investigation of self knowledge and self identity. Allied to that inquiry is the ‘Binding Problem’ as succinctly defined by Wikipedia as: “The consciousness and binding problem is the problem of how objects, background, and abstract or emotional features are combined into a single experience.” Shankara goes through the usual pattern of point and counterpoint in his explication of the Advaitin view. Identification with the body-mind and its experiences is the primal form of ignorance. It is akin to the confusion of a stump of a tree at dusk being taken for a man. A simple analogy but like all analogies it can be taken up too linearly and not as a focus on a clarification.

Objection: “The stump and the man, which are verily objects of perception, are superimposed on each other through ignorance by their perceiver. On the other hand, in the case of the body and the Self, the mutual superimposition occurs verily between a knower and an object of perception. Thus the application is not equally applicable.

The conclusion that the objector offers is that the experiences of the body are those of the Self and that there is no other knower other than the body-mind. Shankar’s counter reveals an important aspect of the teaching methods that prevail in Vedanta. Instruction is tailored to the student’s presumed level or the reader’s likely level. Shankara therefore in the response draws on the common assumption, un -argued for, of the permanence of the Self. If the Self is identified with the perturbations of the mind, death, and disease then it can no longer be regarded as permanent. As I have observed in a previous post the philosophical argument for the permanence of consciousness and its independence of mental modifications is explicated in Upadesa Sahasri. Here in this commentary the discussion on that level is curtailed which brings the objector to his next ‘gotcha’.

“Objection: Well, if this be so, then owing to the nonexistence of the world and the mundane creatures, there will arise the defect of the uselessness of the scriptures, etc.”

That is an important sticking point for the skeptical and it requires separate treatment. More anon.

The Disappearance of the World in Advaita Vedanta

 

It’s important to read the Upanishads carefully and distinguish between literal and metaphorical utterances.  They were not written in the manner of philosophical documents which carefully make these distinctions.  Certainly we are at the very edge of language, the apophatic, that is a given; yet if we hold that on realisation the world disappears because the organs of perception are trumped then we stray into nonsense.  Swami Satchidanandendra observes:

“For once the true nature of the Self is known, there can no longer be any more experience of the true nature of the Self is known, there can no longer be any more experience of the means and objects of empirical cognition.  For the final means of knowledge put an end to the condition of the Self as a knower whose knowledge comes through the empirical means of knowledge. And in putting an end to this condition, the final means of knowledge itself ceases any longer to be a means of knowledge, just as the means of knowledge, present in a dream cease to be such on waking. (B.G. Bhasya II.69)

Realisation of the Absolute is not anywhere found either to destroy or create any reality.  What it is invariably found to do is to put an end to Ignorance.  So here also, the sense of not being the Absolute and the sense of not being the totality of all that exists, which are induced by Ignorance alone, should be put to an end by realisation of the Absolute.  (Brhad.Up. Bhasya: I.iv.10)

(from ‘The Method of the Vedanta’ pgs. 62/3)

The imputation here is not that all ordinary means of knowledge are transformed into clairvoyance or clairaudience.  The organs remain intact but now there is no identification of the Self as the agent.  ' Only the Gunas are acting’ (B.G. 14.19)

Hypostasis (Reification) in the Pancapadika of Padmapada.

 

This beginningless Ignorance is referred to in the Vedas, Smrtis, Epics and Puranas as Name and Form, the Undeveloped, Ignorance, Maya, Nature (prakrti), Non-perception, the Unmanifest, Darkness (tamas), the Cause, Dissolution, Power, the Great Sleep (mahasupti), Sleep (nidra), the Indestructible, the Shining Ether.  In different places it is spoken of in many different ways.  It is spoken of as preventing the manifestation of Consciousness in its true form as the Absolute and then producing the appearance of the individual soul.  It is spoken of as the wall on which are painted the pictures of the impressions resulting from our meditations, rituals and acquired skills in previous lives.  It is spoken of as that which remains in dreamless sleep as the mere latent impression of its power of projection, concealing the light of Consciousness.  (P.P. pg.98 f./20 - version of Sri Swami Satchidanandendra Saraswati in his 'The Method of the Vedanta)

It is clear from that list of epithets that Padmapada the purported author of the Pancapadika holds to a view of Avidya (Ignorance) that is hypostatic (reifying).   He draws this conclusion based on the Vedic tenet that only Knowledge banishes Ignorance.   There is such a thing as Knowledge therefore there must be Ignorance as its polar opposite.  Sri S.S.S. demurs.  Ignorance is just the very action of superimposition (adhyasa) and not an occult force bringing Ignorance into existence.  He writes:

“The author of the Pancapadika does not use the word Ignorance to designate that phenomenon of superimposition or erroneous cognition, which is well known as being subject to correction and cancellation through knowledge.  Why instead of doing that, he applies the term Ignorance to the Undeveloped Principle, which belongs to the realm of knowable objects, is a mystery.”

To clarify, in my understanding of him, Sri S.S.S. is objecting to an unwarranted expansion of the term ‘ignorance’ to the metaphysical sphere. An analogical use has become a metaphor and treated as an existent entity.

 

 

Deep Dreamless Sleep and the Witness (Saksin)

 “How can there be any special property in Me who am changeless by nature and witness the modifications of the minds of all without any exception?  (How can again there be any change in Me) who witness the mind and its functions in the waking state as in dream?  But as there is the absence* of both the mind and its functions in deep sleep, I am Pure Consciousness, all-pervading and changeless.”  (# 3, 4 Chap. XI  Nature of the Witness: Upadesa Sahasri)

*Therefore witnessing the mind and its functions is not in the nature of the Self. (note by translator Swami Jagadananda)

This is a very important observation.  The knowledge in the form of ‘I have been in a state of deep dreamless sleep’ can only arise if there was what I have called a dark samadhi i.e. a perfect non-reflexive awareness which is contentless.   The analogy proposed by Tripura Rahasya is of a mirror coated with tar perfectly reflecting that blackness.  One understands the purport of that image while doubting the physics.  In any case the Witness aspect of Pure Consciousness is a detached knowledge of the mental modifications.  The mind is not conscious, counter intuitive as that is to the avidya (ignorance) stricken.

“It thinks as it were” (Br.Up.)

Maya, remarks on

 Sankara’s use of the analogy of perceptual illusion was ontological/epistemological rather than psychological.  In his preamble to the Brahma Sutra Bhasya he considers the puzzle of how the inert unconscious object comes to somehow be ‘in’ the consciousness of the subject.  This is the launch pad for the rest of his transcendental postulate.  The initial question then is - How must things fundamentally be for things to appear as they do?  His  assumption is that what is out there is real and is within us as it actually is and is grasped by perception.  The snake/rope is a focused analogy for the transference/superimposition of the object on the consciousness of the subject.  In a later Advaitic work ‘Vedanta Paribhasa’ this capacity of the object is called its perceptuality.  A single unity of being unites the object and the subject.  They share the same substratum of pure Consciousness.  The limiting adjunct of the object and limiting adjunct of the subject can flow together.  This is the source of the ‘cit jada granthi’ i.e. the knot of the inert and the conscious.

Where does avidya or personal Maya come into this?  It is the natural tendency of the sensing subject to place its identity where it feels it is.

Corne van Nijhus writes maya

“The existence of an object can only be proven when it is perceived. But suppose there is an object that has never been seen. No one would recognize that object as valid!  ! There must first be some consciousness to observe this object, to prove its existence. So every object depends on Consciousness to be validated. So the object is Mithya“

In Advaita the ‘ajnatta satta’, the unknown object, is recognised as a reality.  Perception is regarded as a disclosure or the removal of the darkness veiling an object.  That unknown object is out there awaiting disclosure and is distinguished from the object that is real only during the time that it is being known/experienced.  Fleeting emotions are examples of this.

Changeful Panoply of Consciousness (Upadesa Sahasri)



84. Disciple: If this is so, Sir, what is my fault when the mental changes resembling sound etc., and resulting in the reflection of Knowledge, My own nature, are produced in Me who am of the nature of changeless and eternal Consciousness?

85. Teacher: It is true that you are not to be blamed. Ignorance, as I told you before, is the only fault.

(from Chap.II Upadesa Sahasri Knowledge of the Changeless.)

Ignorance in Vedanta (avidya) has a specific meaning. The central example of ignorance is taking something to be what it is not. We mis-take the rope for a snake, the nacre (shell) for silver, the stump for a man etc. It does not have the meaning of being ignorant of the finer points or any point of string theory for instance, a particular blank spot in other words. What the Teacher is saying is that there is a natural tendency to get fascinated by the changing panoply of consciousness and to look for a central permanent element in those phenomena. This is a structural tendency, but it is not ontological because it can be altered. How?

Avidya - Upadesa Sahasri (6)

A key term that appears early and often is 'avidya' or 'ignorance as is the usual translation. What does it mean in the context of Advaita? Ignorance is something that is displayed and the central paradigm case of that is the taking of something to be that which it is not. In other words a mistake displays your ignorance. The real nature of what we thought we knew escaped us. Now one might say that this is a very narrow definition of 'ignorance' almost amounting to a technical use which is correct because of course there are 'unknown unknowns' which we are not in the slightest danger of confusing with anything else. They do not exist for us.

The analysis of 'avidya' follows through to the manner in which is displayed. This is known as 'adhyasa' or 'superimposition' and here we get to the classic example of the snake/rope. The attributes of a snake i.e. being coiled, are projected/superimposed on to the harmless rope.

Moola-Avidya/Primal Ignorance

The moola-avidya people hold that avidya-sakti is a powerful primitive force, a force that prevents us from realising our true nature as existence//consciousness/bliss. Opposed to them are advaitins of the school that maintain that avidya is another name for superimposition. This is a simple characterisation of the divergence of views but I think it is fair to say that understanding ignorance as a force or a real existent arises from moving from an analogy i.e. ‘like a cloud’ to a metaphor,‘is a cloud’ . It may be just that simple.

Ignorance essentially is a non-cognitive relationship. We may know in general what the outlines of a topic are but the core of it is opaque to us. It also is the case that we may be in a state of complete ignorance in the case of the unknown unknown or the perfectly camouflaged. It just isn’t there for us. I would suggest that avidya/adhyasa is more like the known unknown that can be pointed to via the finger-post of a transcendental postulate. Start from the hard question - how is consciousness possible? On the face of it it ought to be impossible and there are various arguments for this ranging from causal closure to the gulf between the extended and the non-extended or cerebral events and qualia. Yet it happens. Here the outlines of a known unknown begin to become clear. We are at the start of atma-vichara or sefl-inquiry.