OM

Ajnanatimirintasyajnananjanasalakaya

Cakshurunmilitam yena tasmai

srigurave namah

ADVAITA VEDANTA

D Krishna Ayyar

APPENDIX 1
EXPLANATORY NOTES

Note 1

Note No.1 - Can Brahman be known

(1) A problem faced by the Advaita preceptor is to explain the apparent contradiction between the Taittiriya Upanishad Mantra II.1.i which says “The knower of Brahman attains Brahman” , Brhadaranyaka Upanishad II.iv.5 which says that Brahman is to be known, and many similar passages and, on the other hand, the later passage in Taittiriya Upanishad itself II.9.i which says that words, along with the mind, return, unable to reach Brahman , Kenopanishad I.5. “It cannot be known by the mind” and various other Upanishad passages like Brhadaranyaka 4.4.20 which talk of Brahman as “ aprameyam” i.e., unknowable. Kenopanishad I.4 – “That (Brahman) is surely different from the known; and again, It is above the unknown.” In fact, in Brhadaranyaka Upanishad, IV.iv.20 says “Through the mind alone It is to be realised” (“manasa eva anudrashtavyam”) and the immediately following IV.iv.21 says “It is unknowable” (“etat apramayam”)”.

(2) How we reconcile the apparently contradictory statements is explained below.

a) One approach is to say that Brahman cannot be known means that Brahman cannot be known as an object but there are methods by which we are made to recognise Brahman. (It should be known as not known. And if it is known as known, it is not known. Before study of Vedanta, the disciple says, ‘I don’t know Brahman; I want to know Brahman’. After study of Vedanta, the disciple says, ‘I don’t know Brahman; I don’t want to know Brahman.’) No one will deny that he exists as a conscious being. Initially, one may mistake the mind as one’s true nature, but when a constant “I” is invoked as the same entity witnessing the changing conditions of the mind, one recognises the ultimate witness-consciousness (sakshi). And “knowing Brahman” means that from the study of Sastra, we have to understand that the Sakshi is none other than the all pervading consciousness. To put it succinctly, the Existence and Consciousness aspects of Brahman is self-evident. But the Infinity aspect, we have to learn from Sastra. When it is said that Brahman is different from the known, it means that all known things are finite and since Brahman is the only infinite entity, one cannot know it as an object but one has to identify with it. When it is said that Brahman is different from the unknown, it amounts to saying that it is not a thing to be obtained; it is one’own nature and attainment of Brahman is a matter of recognition of one’s own true nature. How to recognise Brahman without knowing It as an object is stated in Kenopanishad II.4 – “ Being the witness of all cognitions and, by nature, being nothing but Consciousness, Brahman is indicated by the cognitions themselves, in the midst of cognitions, as pervading all of them. (“pratibodhaviditam matam”).

b) Another approach is to say that Sastra does not reveal Brahman in positive terms. (there is no vidhimukha bodhana). Cf. Brhadaranyaka Upanishad II.iii.6 – “ Now, therefore the description (of Brahman) – ‘Not this, not this’. Because there is no other and more appropriate description than this ‘not this, not this’”. Internally, we negate all names and forms like the body, sense organs, the mind and intellect and arrive at the unnegatable pure Consciousness. (Cit). Externally we negate all names and forms and arrive at the unnegatable pure Existence (Sat). And we learn from Sastra that Sat is Cit; Cit is Sat and through the Mahavakyas like “ Tattvamasi” one owns up one’s true nature as “aham brahma asmi”. In other words, Mahavakyas do not reveal any new entity. The consciousness available in us, the Atma, is self-evident. What mahavakyas do is to remove the wrong notion that it is limited.

For defining anything in positive terms, there are five methods. (1) If it is an object that is of common experience, when we refer to it by its name, the listener understands what we are talking about. E.g., all of us have experienced the sun. So, when anybody wants to convey information about the sun, he does so mentioning the name, ‘sun’ and the listener understands what object he is referring to. This is called definition by ‘roodi’. Or we can define a thing by its attribute ( ‘guna’). E.g., Jasmine flower can be defined by its fragrance. Or we can define a thing by its function (‘kriya’) E.g., a knife can be defined by its the work of cutting. Or we can define a thing by the species to which it belongs (‘jaati’). E.g., we can define mango as a member of the tree species. Or we can define a thing by its relationship with something else (‘sambandha’). E.g., we can define Rama as Dasaratha’s son. In the case of Brahman, none of these is of any use, because, according to Sastra, Brahman is not an object of experience (‘Bahman is aprameya’), It is attributeless (‘nirguna’), It is actionless (‘akarta’, ‘nishkriya’) it is one without a second (’advayam’) and it is relationless (‘asanga’).

(d) However, there is one pseudo-positive method. We said that Brahman cannot be defined by relationship, because Brahman is asanga. While this is so, in so far as real relationship is concerned, it is not so, when it comes to a question of unreal relationship. As an unreal relationship between adhishtanam and adhyasa, Brahman can be defined. We can define rope as the adhishtanam of the unreal snake perceived on the rope ; we can define the waker’s mind as the adhishtanam of the dream world. Similarly Brahman is defined as the adhishtanam of the unreal world – Brahman, the Existence as the substratum of the nama roopas. Asangatvam (Brahman’s relationlessness) is not affected because the relationship between the real and the unreal is itself unreal.

(e) In fact, in this connection, there is a debate. The opponent says that if the relationship is unreal, the definition is also unreal. The proponent answers “what does it matter if the definition is unreal as long as it gives knowledge”. The opponent asks “if definition is unreal, the knowledge it gives is also unreal,; what is the use of unreal knowledge?” The proponent answers, “Because ignorance is unreal, unreal knowledge is adequate to remove unreal ignorance. To cure dream disease, dream medicine will do; in fact, dream medicine alone can cure dream disease. Samsara is caused by ignorance of Brahmatvam. Moksha is not a real event. One is ever liberated ( nitya mukta). What happens is that the false notion that one is limited is negated by the knowledge that one is the infinite Brahman. Both the ignorance of Brahmatam and the knowledge ‘Aham Brahmasmi’ (jnanam) are antahkarana vrittis and as such are unreal. Unreal knowledge is adequate to remove unreal, ignornce. (Aham brahmaasmi jnaanam is unreal but the ‘aham brahma’ referred to is real; it is the infinite consciousness).

(3) (a) If we accept certain basic statements of Advaita Vedanta, there are certain methods by which we can recognize Bahman. Negation (‘neti, neti,’ ‘nishedha mukha bodhana’) is one of these methods. Sastra says that Brahman is limitless and is the unchanging consciousness. (‘anantam’, ‘nitya caitanyam’). I am functioning as the knower (pramata). If Brahman should be limitless, It cannot be a prameyam, because prameyam is limited by pramata; prameyam is not pramata. So we have to negate all known objects ( all prameyams); but this is an endless job. The best way to negate prameyams is to negate pramata. If there is no pramata, there is no prameyam. When I sleep, I am not pramata; when there is no pramata, there is no world – there is no prameyam for me. But even when the is no pramata, there is consciousness. This consciousness, what I called the sakshi, is to be recognized as Brahman. This is the pramatrutva nisheda method. The recognition of Sakshi is also the aim of the panca kosa viveka.

(b) If we accept the Advaita Vedanta statement that Brahman is the nondual Existence (advayam, sat ), we have to look for the unchanging element in and through the changing objects. We say ‘pot is’, ‘cloth is’, ‘tree is ‘, ‘man is’, etc. What is unchangingly available is the ‘is’, the existence aspect. This Existence is to be recognized as the nondual substratum of the plurality of nama roopas, the pots, clothes, tress, men etc., When I am holding a pot, I am holding Brahman. When I perceive a tree or a river or a mountain. the real thing I see is Brahman. As the susbstratum of all nama roopas which are responsible for presenting the universe to us as a plurality of differentiated objects of the universe, there is the unchanging, all pervading existence. This existence (sat) has to be recognized as Brahman. (That is why in Hindu religion, we have the worship of trees like Aswatta, rivers like the Ganga , mountains like Mount Kailasa. While a jnani can recognize the Brahman, the Existence behind any tree, river or mountain, for the common man, the puranas provide mythological episodes connecting certain trees, rivers, mountains etc. with Gods and such trees, rivers and mountains become the object of common worship.)

(c) If we accept the Advaita Vedanta statement that Brahman is the unchanging consciousness, (‘nitya caitanyam), we have to look for the unchanging common element in cognitions. “I know the pot’, ‘I know thee cloth”, ‘I know the tree’, ‘I know the man’ and so on. The objects of cognition (prameyas) and the modifications of the mind (‘vritis’) by which they are cognised by the mind assuming the shape of the objects are changing. But what is unchanging is the consciousness behind the changing vritis of the mind, but for which conciousness the mind cannot become a cognitive agent. This consciousness (cit) has to be recognized as Brahman

THIS IS APPENDIX 1