"Looking for brahman", confusion

Another habit is to look for brahman. To look for where is brahman.

Sarvam khalvidam brahma, then why look for brahman?

The truth is that, one does not know brahman, so looks for brahman, but one need not look for brahman for two reasons.

1.       All that is here is brahman ( knower, known and knowledge all the three, subject object both)

2.       Brahman vastu is available for knowledge as oneself the atma.

In the example of clay and pot, if we take a few jugs and mugs, the entire world of jugs and mugs can be resolved into one reality clay, it if it pointed out that the pot form is only mithya and clay is the satyam.

In the case of atma gnanam, the brahman is not available as an object, like clay is available. I can show you a pot, then I can ask you to look at clay. You look at clay and then you understand that pot is clay. Hence you are now able to gather the understanding of pot and clay, and understand clay as satyam and pot as mithya, and henceforth resolve all that is made of clay into one clay in your understanding, so you continue to see pots and jugs, but you know there is only clay.

But brahman is not available as an object like clay, so when I show you a tree and say, tree is brahman, sky is brahman , wall is brahman, that it is brahman, is not available for your knowledge. I can only point out that tree is wood, and if you look further, wood is some cellulose, you keep going ad infinitum, any object has its existence in an object which is not that object. Tree, has its existence depending on non-tree. Table, on non-table ( wood). Wood on non-wood ( celloluse).. and so on. That is the nature of jagat. Applies to our own body also.

That search for satyam, is since the means of knowledge is not recognized to be the shabda pramana of the shastra.

The shastra offers this knowledge, says tat tvam asi. You are that brahman. The Drk Chaitanya, the conscious being who is the witness, oneself the atma, the knower of all that is objectified, this person that you are, is that brahman. You need not know yourself like to how you came to know clay. Clay was not already evident, it had to be pointed out that the pot is indeed clay, you had to look,in your mind, you had to understand that all the while, while looking at a pot, you saw clay.

But atma is not an object of sight, but atma is yourself, you who are evident in every sight.

So pratibodha viditam matam. In every sight you are. And in fact who you are, is not limited to the upadhi of being  ,seer consciousness. This again is a pramana vakya, known only through shastra pramana. And it is an assimilable gnanam (knowledge), since this is not contradicted by your own experience.

If you see, you are the waker, dreamer and sleeper, but the ‘I’, has ONLY anvaya ( invariable co-presence), but NO vyatireka (co-variable absence) w.r.t to the waker, dreamer and sleeper.

When waker is, I am, but when I am waker always not IS, since when dreamer is I am, but I am not the waker, rather I am the dreamer.

So while ‘I’ atma has invariable co-presence with ‘waker’, when waker is absent, ‘I’ still IS as dreamer or sleeper. So being a waker, or a seer, is not intrinsic to ‘I’. Just goes a long way in making it clear that ‘I’ is indeed brahman. Helps us assimilate the shastra provided gnanam, by removing any obstructing doubts generated by other means of knowledge. Its not just assimilation, in fact every experience proves that atma is sat , it is satyam. Which means unchanging, as the waker, dreamer, sleeper, undergoes no change. In all thoughts ‘ I’ am. And that I is unchanging. So nature of ‘I’ is anantam, it is satyam and obviously it is ‘chit’ as one Is a conscious being. So our experience not ‘NOT contradicts’ shastra pramana, in fact it validates pramana. And the guru himself/herself uses these prakriyas to help us assimilate the gnanam that is conveyed, the fact that one is purnam brahman. Upanishad itself does that, through statements like pratibodha viditam matam.

Your own body mind, undergoes change, but you are not changing with it, you are aware of the changes to body mind. So it is an assimilable gnanam, that you can indeed be the changeless adhistanam. Adhishtanam does not mean layer underneath as clarified in this post http://vedareflections.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-upadhi-and-adhistana-brahman-is-the.html

, but rather means all pervading brahman.

So, you are that brahman which is all pervading (all pervading is a lakshana, from brahmans standpoint brahman alone is).

This is understanding. You can settle in this understanding, that knower, known , knowledge all the 3 are brahman. By having name and form, brhaman undergoes no change whatsoever, so this problem of pure and impure consciousness is not really there.

Shastra stands vindicated when it says sarvam khalvidam brahma.

Om Namah Shivaya.

The upadhi and the adhistana – brahman is an the underneath layer confusion

I am a person, with a body and a mind. This is to be understood as an upadhi.

One has to clearly understand the nature of an upadhi as well as the nature of the adhistAnam atma.

We have to be clear, when examples are used. Usually example of a pot and clay, or a jewel and gold are used.

Here sometimes people confuse thinking that the adhistanam of an upadhi is like a substance, like a substance of a pot is clay. Clay is not an underneath layer of pot. Someone did not take the clay and changed the shape of the clay to make it a pot. The clay was in the form of a lump and was shaped to a pot.

From point of view of clay, clay is alone there. Clay does not acknowledge, name or form or function. As far as clay is concerned there is no change in form etc.

Clay as a lump is clay. Clay as a pot is clay. Pot is broken, clay becomes clay fragments, it still remains clay. As far as clay is concerned it is never subject to any change at all.

This is a pramana vakya that clarifies the meaning which is attributed to be the nature of the adhistAnam atma. We take the required meaning from the clay pot example.

Atma has never undergone any change, nor is it even subject to change. Even to call atma ‘changeless’ is talking from the standpoint of change alone.

That atma is oneself.

If that atma is oneself, then how do you place the upAdhi.

What is the relationship of the upadhi, the body mind upadhi w.r.t the adhistAnam.

The relationship is satyam and mithya. Satyam is independent of mithya.

Mithya depends on satyam for its existence. All the way  it depends on satyam.  In fact knowing satyam, satyam alone exists.

Hence mithya cannot be said to be non-existent, and cannot be said to have any existence of its own as its existence is brahman.

So this individual , aham, I , while is looked upon as a person, with a body mind, if the truth is known cannot be looked upon as anything but atma. In fact whatever you look upon is the atma, the looker is atma, what is looked upon is atma, this knower known duality is mithya and atma is satyam. So atma transcends duality , is non dual, it is both imminent in duality as well as at the same time, transcends the duality, as the atma never underwent any change, neither it can change, in fact the word change doesn’t exist in its dictionary, the word changeless itself it is said to be is only a lakshanam, a lakshyArtha, a definition used to point to the nature of the vastu. That vastu is yourself. You are self evident, so you are not subject to anything.

How do we know all these, how these are figured out? Its not figured out by human mind, it is known through shastra pramana, and independent means of knowledge.

In fact there is a question all of us may have, what is the use of all this Vedanta. The answer is very simple, we all want to be something, to become someone, to be something that we want to be. You have a problem, centered around yourself, or centered around someone you value, something you value, you have a problem about it, which makes you unhappy, so you seek a solution, ultimately to make you happy about that.

What vedanta offers it says, whatever that is , that you want to be, a fulfilled person, in all respects, in all situations, that you are already, without doing anything, no matter what happens, or doesn’t happen, whether you do anything or don’t do anything, whatever may be the case, “ you are what you want to be” . This is not known, but those who want to know can know, a means of knowledge is available, it can be made use of.

So even those looking for a practical benefit, this knowledge gives you the freedom to act freely and do what must be done with no hesitation.

Nature of pramana - part 2

In the previous post we established that the prama may not take place in a doubt free manner, when there are certain inadequacies on the part of the pramata or the pramana.

In the case of atma gnanam, we rely on vedanta as a pramana. vedanta is a pramana ONLY when it is taught by a shrotriya brahmanishta guru, in fact minimum should be a shrotriya ( provided he doesnt add his own flavor or misunderstanding in the soup).

Words from a shrotriya brahmanishta guru serve as a pramana.

The question of inadequacy of pramana arises, only if the guru is not a shrotriya.

Here since we are in the AVG parampara, and have exposure to greats such as Swami Paramarthananda and Pujya Swamiji, we need not explore the inadequacy of pramana.

Therefore what we need to examine is the inadequacy of the pramata, or oneself, which comes in the way of nischaya gnanam.

Here I am attempting to first list then discuss the possible inadequacies. In the subsequent posts I will try and expand each of these inadequacies.

1. Absence of systematic exposure,leading to incomplete shravanam ( clarity about tvam pada, tat pada and aikya gnanam)

2. Absence of medha shakti ( memory power)

3. Understanding the wrong meaning of the usage of a word. ( Not understanding the meaning of words in the manner in which it is suppossed to be understood)

4. Perceived opposite experiences/knowledge, that appear to contradict the knowledge

5. Opposing emotional states that contradict the knowledge

6. Lifestyle and living mode leading to attitudes the contradict the knowledge

7. Strong beliefs , not based on experiences/knowledge, that contradict the knowledge

8. Influence/advise/opinions of other people that contradicts the knowledge

Nature of Pramana- Part 1

I am seeking with the grace of lord dakshinamurti to understand and explore the nature of any pramana or means of knowledge.

What I seek to do, is not to enter any vedantic enquiry, or vedantic context of pramana, rather simply look at the nature of pramana, in ordinary human experience and gain certain understanding of how a pramana works, and later based on that understanding, extend the understanding to the vedantic context.

As we already know, a pramana implies both the presence of pramata (knower) and prameya (known). The knowledge that takes place in the buddhi of the pramata is what we call in sankrit the word for 'knowledge' is prama. So prama is the root word.

When the pramata, prameya and pramana come together, in ideal conditions, prama takes place in the pramatas buddhi. Over here the pramata does not have a choice.

For instance If Ram is standing on the banks of a river, and a boat appears in front. Ram has no choice or control as to the appearance of the boat. Ram was not looking for a boat on the river. But Ram was available with his eyes open, available to 'see' through his 'eyes'. So Ram, is the pramata, the pramana is his eyes, and the prameya is the boat. The prama is that , ' I see a boat'.

Let us examine this simple situation further.

What is it that we would call nischaya gnanam (doubtless knowledge) of the boat?

If the conditions were dark in the evening, it is possible that Ram has mistaken a log of wood for a boat.

On the other hand if Ram were having a cataract in his eyes , in that case also, it is possible that he mistook a log of wood for a boat.

Therefore Ram might have a conviction, that I indeed saw a boat. If this boat was somehow involved in a court case, a murder case near the river, on the exact same time Ram was standing by the river, Ram in that case gets called to the court. The advocate questions him " Mr Ram , it was late in the evening, it was dark, remember you cannot lie in a court of law. Are you sure that you saw a boat?".
Now while Ram would all this while have been 'sure' that he saw a boat, now he can be doubtful. He might think , "Yes, The advocate is right. It was the late evening, there was some darkness. It is indeed possible that it was a log of wood. Although I am almost sure it was a boat, I cant be completely sure."

So here, Ram suffers from the inadequacies surrounding the pramana, the conditions that rule the pramana. The pramana, the 'eye' itself is in good condition, but there are other obstructing factors, that prevent the pramana from operating in such a manner as to create doubt free knowledge. Or nischaya gnanam.

In general there can be absence of nischaya gnanam due to following inadequacies -

> Inadequacy of pramana

Example would be a cataract in the eye.

> Inadequacy surrounding pramata
LAte evening darkness or perhaps even Ram might be feeling sleepy and is not paying attention

> Inadequacy of prameya
This has to be examined. The prameya is the way it is. If it is a log of wood covered in smoke, and you arent sure of it is a boat, then even then, the best knowledge you can get is that it is 'either a log of wood , or a boat'. So really speaking we do not judge how the prameya should be, so this is not appplicable.

So prama may not take place if there is inadequacy on part of the pramata or the pramana.

In the next post we can see, how this translates into the vedantic context, and what are the types of inadequacies that may obstruct atma gnanam.