Vedanta - Two unique aspects part II

In the first part of this post, I had called out the two unique aspects of vedanta.

One is that it gives knowledge of atma, and ishvara both, by using an equation, thus one vastu alone is the subject matter, revealing about both atma and ishvara.

Second one being, atma being subject, and not have any aspects also, the nature of the knowledge it gives, is by drawing an equation between self evident atma, equating it to ishvara, the one who manifests himself as the universe. Point being the vastu here is self evident, and hence the knowledge is simply an equation alone made to a self evident vastu.

There alone we had raised a valid doubt, that how can oneself, the atma be the one who has expanded himself from within himself manifested the universe.

After all if I look at this mind and body, there is no way it has all capabilities to do so.

Here alone shAstra points out the nature of the equation. When shAstra says atma is ishvara , it has already minused out the individual body mind, as "objects" of atma, the knower, and also delegated the knower status to be also only in association with "body mind", hence the truth of the knower alone is said to be atma, consciousness.

This atma is what is said to be ishvara, the one who manifested this entire universe from within himself.

But it is also logically not feasible, if we simply say atma manifested, since in our experience, atma is non changing, it doesnt undergo any change. Hence to make this assimalable, shAstra has to have something more in it, and being flawless, shAstra does talk more about this equation.

ShAstra proclaims that atma, is said to be ishvara, with something extra, which makes it ishvara, this extra is called as "maya shakti", which is power to create the universe.

Now this maya shakti is not an additional material outside of atma, it is atma itself as the material and atma itself as the intelligent cause also.

This means that out of atma with maya shakti alone entire universe as arisen and resolves into.

Now what we call as ishvara, is nothing but atma itself, when looked upon as the cause of the universe, i.e with maya shakti.

Now the doubt can be how come same vastu atma, is both attributeless, and also has maya shakti.

Here also the nature of the this maya shakti is explained . The maya shakti is mithya. The nature of the manifestation, is mithya, which means like gold ornaments, chaing bangle, ring etc. have their truth in one gold, same way entire universe has its truth or satya in atma, and same way as gold is unchanging, same way atma is also unchanging.

It is only from the standpoint of ring, chain, bangle that we say gold is the cause, from its own standpoint, neither is gold the cause, nor has it undergone any change, same way from pov of atma neither it is the cause, nor is their any manifestation, it alone is.

From the standpoint of manifestation , maya which is mithya, atma is satya.

So it all becomes clear when we see two standpoints, satya and mithya.

From satya standpoint, truth, there is one unchanging atma, consciousness IS, oneself.

From mithya standpoint there is a manifest universe, and that manifest universe is mithya, which has its being in satya, the atma. 

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.