Vedanta - Its two unique aspects

Atma is a to be known, it is the subject matter of vedanta shAstra.

In other words, every shAstra deals with some kind of knowledge, vedanta shAstra deals with atma, as the subject matter.

Vedanta also equally deals with ishvara as the subject matter.

The same shAstra deals with both atma, as well as ishvara as the subject matter of its contents, the reason being, that , the knowledge that is available in the shAstra, is one that equates atma to ishvara.

Hence both atma-the self, and ishvara- the universal manifest orderly cause of this creation i.e. the total, are both the subject matter.

Any knowledge has to reveal some vastu. Since vedanta reveals atma, and ishvara, again one must not mistake that two different vastu are revealed, rather one vastu alone is revealed, since this is essentially an equation between atma and ishvara.

So summarising, the first unique aspect of vedanta is that, it has both ishvara and atma as its subject matter, by revealing only one vastu, which is essentially an equation between atma and ishvara.

The second unique aspect of vedanta is as follows.

Any shAstra, or source of knowledge, deals with knowledge of an object, or about an object, which becomes evident to atma, or the knower, oneself.

Since in the case of vedanta, atma itself is the object of knowledge, vedanta becomes very unique, since atma is ever the subject, and never an object, that being the case, it is very puzzling as to how can vedanta become a means of knowledge for atma, which is the subject.

Moreover, it is a fact, that atma is self evident, which means, it does not need to be revealed, everyone always knows that I 'am' , and I am is self evident , doesnt require to be known, hence if it is said that atma is the subject matter of vedanta, this still remains a puzzling aspect.

If one were to say, alright, perhaps atma is already known, but there are certain aspects about it , which one doesnt know, and shAstra talks about those aspects, even that though initially may seem promising, on inquiry this is also found to be illogical.

how can you say so, one may ask.. it is a very logical thing to say, one may argue, One may give an example that, look, suppose I know my son, however there are certain things about my son that even I dont know, and someone , some friend of his tells me, I get to learn a new aspect about him, hence isnt that possible in the case of atma. Perhaps shAstra reveals aspects about atma, which I did not know.

If one is to examine this above argument, it is found to be faulty, the reason being that atma is formless subject. Only objects can have attributes, can have aspects, can be categorised, and can have more attributes about it that can be known. However atma is the formless subject , with no attributes that are 'knowable', If it did have attributes, these attributes would be knowable through a means of knowledge, if it had 'non knowable' attributes, then again it is a logical fallacy, since what is 'non knowable' through any means, is essentially non existent.

So clearly atma is the formless attributeless vastu, being the very content of the subject.

This being the case we can safely negate the assumption that shAstra reveals some aspect of atma, as atma has no aspects.

So atma is self revealing, and atma has no aspects, then the question remains that this being so, how can atma become the subject matter of vedanta shAstra.

Earlier we had said that vedanta gives knowledge of both atma and ishvara. And it equates ishvara and atma.
Hence this can give a clue as to what vedanta reveals.

Vedanta does not reveal anything new, atma being self evident.
However all vedanta does, is, it equates this self evident atma, to ishvara.

And when vedanta says ishvara, it bears upon itself the responsibility to define what ishvara means,

So ishvara is explained in so many words in vedanta, the famous sentences being  " the Upanisadic statement “that from which everything comes into being, by whom they are sustained and unto whom they go back” does not mention any cause other than Brahman. It also quotes: “This (universe) was indeed the unmanifest (Brahman) in the beginning. From that alone the manifest (universe) was
born. That (Brahman) created itself by itself. Therefore, it is said to be the self-creator.”

Asadvä idamagra asét|Tato
tadätmänaggssvayamakuruta|Tasmättatsukåtamucyata iti| Yadvai
tat sukåtam|Taittiréya Upaniñad, 2.7.1.

This is what is said to be ishvara.

Thus when ishvara is equated to atma, then quite clearly, this cause which is called brahman is said to be the self evident atma, oneself.

So this is the second unique aspect of vedanta is that, the knowledge of vedanta is in the form of an equation which has a two sides, and atma that is self evident is equated to being ishvara, the cause for this creation.

Hence no new vastu is revealed rather an equation is made, the equation itself conveying some knowledge.

However any knowledge has to be logically assimilable. One should be able to logically assimilate the knowledge.

In the next post, we can discuss , how this knowledge that atma , is nothing but the one who "desired created all that is here" can indeed be logical.

Knowing and Being

Knowing and being has its reality in the same non dual self. You are that self. The knowing self that you are is the one being, and everthing that IS, draws its being from this one being. This is why we are able to equate jiva and ishvara , known as the mahavakya. The mahavakya is the means to this removal of ignorance, and mistaking the body to be the self. 

By removal of the mistaken notion, one becomes as though, a jivanmukta, liberated while living. This is the pratigna or apropos of the vedas. Hence vedas is indispensable for every human, as every human seeks this freedom alone, in all pursuits.

Vedantic enquiry

Vedantic enquiry

A vedantic enquiry reveals that the self is a formless, is of the nature of pure consciousness  and is independent plus self existent.
The enquiry begins with neti neti, I.e. negating the conclusions that the self is as good as this body.
The self is seen as the knower or kshetrajna, while the body is the known and a portion of the kshetra.
Knowerness is a merely status w.r.t. The known.
Self is just pure consciousness.

This self is called as brahman.

With respect to the kshetra , ब्राह्मण  is said to be , looked upon as the cause. All the kshetra is said to have sprung from brahman itself as the material cause.
Pure brahman is the unchanging material cause. Brahman with the vinas in state of laya is the changing material cause that is mithya. Brahman w.r.t the maya is nimitta or efficient slash intelligent cause also. Called as ishvara.

This completes the bodh, revealing that the self alone is ishvara, which is brahman.

Total absorption with the lord

Total absorption with the lord, or bhakti can only be in the form of surrender.

It is a misnomer to claim that dvaita bhakti and advaita bhakti are at loggerheads.
When properly understood, dvaita bhakti and advaita bhakti are found to be only technically different, but in terms of the attitudinal impact, are same in their total purity.

In dvaita bhakti, we dedicate each and every action of ours to the lord alone, the lord being the total source of all actions, the lord has given us the means of actions, the knowledge required for action, even righteous desires are nothing but a pure expression of the lord alone. The lord alone provides the results of the action. By dedicating ones actions to the lord, and accepting the results as the lords order alone, a karma yogi bhakta, attitudinally surrenders to the lord,and enjoys the same kind of benefit in terms of his mental attitude as an advaita bhakta.

The sole difference between a dvaita and advaita bhakta is essentially the fact that what is an assumed and deliberately cultivated "attitude" for a dvaita bhakta, the same attitude is born of "knowledge" for the advaita bhakta.

For an advaita bhakta, there is only one nirguna brahman, which is indeed the lord. There is no notion of a separate jiva and a separate ishvara, there is only the one, the self and that is ishvara, expressing itself as the cause and the effect, from a mithya standpoint.

So from that standpoint, every action is already absorbed into the lord alone, brahman alone as the sole cause, and brahman alone as the experiencer, brahman alone as the very order of karma and its consequences or fruits.

This total absorption is what we call as advaita gnanam, and the attitude for this jnani is no different from a karma yogi bhakta who has given up the individual ego in an act of total surrender , an attitude of total surrender.

Experience does not give self knowledge

Experience cannot give knowledge of the self. Per shruti, the self is attributeless, nameless, formless.
Any experience reveals only name, form or attribute of some kind. Hence self knowledge cannot be gained by experience.
In fact shruti negates the very "experiencer" status of the self as mithya.

This being the case, experience has nothing to do with how the self is, hence one needs a different kind of means of knowledge, namely the shruti.

Hence never put the burden of knowing oneself, or judging oneself, on any experience you may have, You are free to have a variety of experience based on your karma,s but that doesnt tell us anything about the self, it has no link to the nature of the changeless self, that is consciousness.

While experience cannot give self knowledge, no experience in itself contradicts self knowledge, in fact every experience proves that the words of the shruti are indeed true. This can be understood by exposure to traditional vedanta, where the guru uses veda as a pramana.

Self, the most intimate, closer than the closest

The self , I, or atman is the most intimate entity. Whatever one does in life, one does for the sake of the self. Hence the effect of ignorance is devastating, since one mistakes oneself, and runs or bases life upon this mistaken notion around oneself.

Thus the urgency of knowing oneself as limitless and self existent assumes not just importance, but a choice less necessity.

If one were to analyse the self using the shruti, which is the valid means of self knowledge, unfolded by a sampradayavid guru, the self is said to be attributeless, pure consciousness, always the subject, i.e. not available as an object, or non object. This self is purnaH or fullness.

The object is the self itself appearing to have attributes. Self itself appearing with name and forms.

By knowing the self as it is, then alone is a person satisfied with oneself, as one is.

The life is a journey towards gaining, assimilating this knowledge, gained from the right means of knowledge and strengthened using logic and experience.

Essence of upanishadic wisdom

Introduction

The Upanishads are the revelatory texts found in the vedas.

The vedas are series of mantras , verses that contain both ritualistic knowledge of means and ends, knowledge of karmas that are not available to direct perception or inference, but importantly also have various mantras and verses, that communicate the nature of reality.

As per the upanisadic knowledge, the reality is non dual, eternal, all pervading, limitless, complete, changeless, and of the nature of awareness or consciousness.

This reality is called “brahman” or “ishvara”, and the individual self, I, is none other than this reality brahman alone.

The upanisad communicates this knowledge , of oneness of the individual self, and the reality that is brahman, in a number of statements, the statements carrying this equation are called as ‘mahavakyas’.

The upanisads have a number of verses containing the mahavakya, and are mostly in the form of a question answer, between a guru and sishya.

A guru is the one who has received and internalized this knowledge of the upanisad, from his guru, in a traditional manner, which means by means of a teaching methodology. The upanisadic verses are not understandable by mere reading, but require teaching. The teaching involves a specific teaching methodology, wherein the teacher makes use of certain tools called as prakriyas which are meant to create the appropriate knowledge and communicate the reality conveyed by the mahavakya ( oneness of individual self and brahman). Hence the guru must be from a traditional parampara or teaching tradition.

A student is one who is interested in spiritual truth, or interested in knowing the reality. There are various levels of readiness for a student to gain this knowledge, a students readiness is called adhikaratvam.

A student maybe a uttama, madhyama or manda adhikari. Highly qualified, medium qualification, low qualification. There are also completely uninterested or unqualified who do not fall under the category of a student.

In order to achieve qualifications, the student has to live a disciplined life guided by values. The student must recognize moksa as a goal, and must understand that this goal is achievable via knowledge gained from guru and upanisad or sastra.

The bhagavad gita, which was taught by lord Krishna to arjuna, in the battlefield of the kurukshetra, is the greatest guide for every spiritual aspirant to gain this qualification, and ultimately this knowledge also.

What is this knowledge?

The upanisad teaches, that all that is here, is one vastu. This vastu is called brahman, or ishvara, or para vastu, parabrahman, paramatma, and so on.

The nature of this vastu is taught. This vastu brahman is :

a.       Limitless

b.      Of the very nature of existence

c.       Of the very nature of consciousness

d.      All pervading

e.      Non dual

f.        Changeless

g.       Attribute less and Formless

The individual self is indeed this brahman. Hence it can be said from standpoint of individual that brahman is :

a.       Non doer

b.      Non receiver of the fruits of actions

c.       Consciousness that happens to be the witness of 3 states of waking dreaming and sleeping

d.      Consciousness that is the truth of the subtle, and gross body as well as the causal body

The same brahman from the standpoint of the entire universe is parameshvara, or bhagavan, or maya devi. From total standpoint same brahman is:

a.       Cause of the universe

b.      Existence pervading all objects

c.       Conscious spark in all living beings

d.      Order that governs the entire universe

e.      Intelligence that puts together a functioning universe

f.        The truth of all names and forms, hence essentially it is every name and form

The difference between individual and universal self is only in terms of the bodies being an individual or universal body.

Per the veda, the names and forms are not intrinsic to brahman, rather superimposed on brahman.

This superimposition is not real, it is merely an appearance, such as the appearance  of a snake on a rope, or pearl in an oyster .

Same way due to ignorance of the true self that is attributeless, and partless whole, names, forms, and material attributes are superimposed on the self.

By understanding that the universal self, is attributeless consciousness, which is none other than self evident atma, I , the ignorance of there being an individual self goes away.

Since there is only the universal , non dual brahman, which is oneself, all names and forms are understood as functional reality, that is a superimposed , and not real, or mithya.

Brahman is the truth or satyam, and names and forms laden universe, is none other than brahman appearing to have these attributes, brahman appearing to be the individual and the total. This appearance is not real, and hence as good as non existent, being false.