Post by radha on Apr 6, 2012 5:54:00 GMT 5.5
OM SRI GURUPYO NAMAHA:, RESPECTFUL PRANAMS TO SRI MAHA PERIVA.
Characteristics of Advaita Vedanta
Necessity of a Guru
See also: Guru-śişya tradition
According to Śankara and others, anyone seeking to follow the philosophy of Advaita Vedānta must do so under the guidance of a Guru (teacher).[7] The Guru must have the following qualities (see Mundaka Upanişad 1.2.12):
Śrotriya — must be learned in the Vedic scriptures and sampradāya
Brahmaniṣṭhā — literally meaning 'established in Brahman'; must have realised the oneness of Brahman in everything, and in himself/herself.
The seeker must serve the Guru, and submit questions with all humility in order to remove all doubts (see Bhagavad Gita 4.34). By doing so, Advaita says, the seeker will attain mokşa ('liberation from the cycle of births and deaths').
According to Adi Śankara, knowledge of Brahman springs from inquiry into the words of the Upanişads, and the knowledge of Brahman that Sruti provides cannot be obtained in any other way. It is the teacher who through exegesis of Sruti and skillful handling of words generates a hitherto unknown knowledge in the disciple. The teacher does not merely provide stimulus or suggestion.[8]
[edit]Sādhana Chatuṣṭaya
Any mumukṣu (one seeking moksha) has to have the following four Sampattis (qualifications), collectively called Sādhana Chatuṣṭaya Sampatti ("the fourfold qualifications"):
Nityānitya vastu viveka (नित्यानित्य वस्तु विवेकम्) — The ability (viveka) to correctly discriminate between the eternal (nitya) substance (Brahman) and the substance that is transitory existence (anitya).
Ihāmutrārtha phala bhoga virāga (इहाऽमुत्रार्थ फल भोगविरागम्) — The renunciation (virāga) of enjoyments of objects (artha phala bhoga) in this world (iha) and the other worlds (amutra) like heaven etc.
Śamādi ṣatka sampatti (शमादि षट्क सम्पत्ति) — the sixfold qualities,
Śama (control of the antahkaraṇa).[9]
Dama (the control of external sense organs).
Uparati (the cessation of these external organs so restrained, from the pursuit of objects other than that, or it may mean the abandonment of the prescribed works according to scriptural injunctions).[10]
Titikṣa (the tolerating of tāpatraya).
Śraddha (the faith in Guru and Vedas).
Samādhāna (the concentrating of the mind on God and Guru).
Mumukṣutva (मुमुक्षुत्वम्) — The firm conviction that the nature of the world is misery and the intense longing for moksha (release from the cycle of births and deaths).
Adi Shankara states in Tattva bodha (1.2) that moksha is available only to those possessing the above-mentioned fourfold qualifications. Thus any seeker wishing to study advaita vedānta from a teacher must possess these.
[edit]Order of Precedence of Authority
The order of precedance regarding authority of Vedic Scriptures is as follows,
Śruti, literally "hearing, listening", are the sacred texts comprising the central canon of Hinduism and is one of the three main sources of dharma and therefore is also influential within Hindu Law.[11]
Smṛti, literally "that which is remembered (or recollected)", refers to a specific body of Hindu religious scripture, and is a codified component of Hindu customary law. Post Vedic scriptures such as Ramayana, Mahabharata and traditions of the rules on dharma such as Manu Smriti, Yaagnyavalkya Smriti etc. Smrti also denotes tradition in the sense that it portrays the traditions of the rules on dharma, especially those of lawful virtuous persons.)
Purāṇa, literally "of ancient times", are post-vedic scriptures notably consisting of narratives of the history of the universe from creation to destruction, genealogies of kings, heroes, sages, and demigods, and descriptions of Hindu cosmology, philosophy, and geography.[12]
Śiṣṭāchāra, literally "that which is followed by good (in recent times)".
Atmatuṣṭi, literally "that which satisfies oneself (or self validation)", according to which one has to decide whether or not to do with bona fide. Initially this was not considered in the order of precedence but Manu and Yājñavalkya considered it as last one.
That means, if anyone of them contradicts the preceding one, then it is disqualified as an authority to judge. There is a well known Indian saying that Smṛti follows Śruti. So it was considered that in order to establish any Theistic Philosophical theory (Astika Siddhanta) one ought not contradict Śruti (Vedas).
Adi Sankara has chosen three standards, called Prasthānatrayī, literally, three points of departure (three standards). Later these were referred to as the three canonical texts of reference of Hindu philosophy by other Vedanta schools.
They are:
The Upanishads, known as Upadesha prasthāna (injunctive texts), (part of Śruti)
The Bhagavad Gita, known as Sādhana prasthāna (practical text), (part of Smṛti)
The Brahma Sutras, known as Nyāya prasthāna or Yukti prasthana (part of darśana of Uttarā Mīmāṃsā)
The Upanishads consist of twelve or thirteen major texts, with many minor texts. The Bhagavad Gītā is part of the Mahabhārata. The Brahma Sūtras (also known as the Vedānta Sūtras), systematise the doctrines taught in the Upanishads and the Gītā.
[edit]Ways of knowing
[edit]Pramāṇas
Pramā, in Sanskrit, refers to the correct knowledge, arrived at by thorough reasoning, of any object. Pramāṇa (means of knowledge, Sanskrit) forms one part of a tripuṭi (trio), namely,
Pramātṛ, the subject; the knower of the knowledge
Pramāṇa, the cause or the means of the knowledge
Prameya, the object of knowledge
In the Bhāṭṭa school of Mimāṃsā of Advaita Vedānta, the following pramāṇas are accepted (the Prābhākara school do not accept Anupaladbhi ):
Pratyakṣa — the knowledge gained by means of the senses
That which is immediately perceived to be so; This knowledge can be corrected, i.e. if one perceives a piece of rope to be a snake.
Anumāna — the knowledge gained by means of inference
That which is perceived as true through previous knowledge, i.e. to knows that it is a fire because you see smoke in the sky (the two are related through a universal law)
Upamāna — the knowledge gained by means of analogy or comparison.
That which is perceived as true since it compares to previous, confirmed, knowledge. To know that something is something, i.e. a cat, because one has seen cats before.
Anupaladbhi - the knowledge gained through the absence of the object
That which is true through a negation. Claasic e.g. karatale ghato nasti - the pot is not on the palm. The pot could be elsewhere. So the place (on the palm) of its absence is also important.
Arthāpatti — the knowledge gained by superimposing the known knowledge on an appearing knowledge that does not concur with the known knowledge.
I.e. To see someone gain weight while knowing they are fasting, imposes the knowledge that the person is secretly eating.
Śabda — the knowledge gained by means of texts such as Vedas (also known as Āptavākya, Śabda pramāṇa)
[edit]Nature of being
[edit]Kārya and kāraṇa
The kārya (effect) and kāraṇa (cause) form an important area for investigation in all the systems of Vedanta. Two kāraṇatvas (ways of being the cause) are recognised:
Nimitta kāraṇatva — Being the instrumental cause. For example, a potter is assigned Nimitta kāraṇatva as he acts as the maker of the pot and thus becomes the pot's instrumental cause.
Upādāna kāraṇatva — Being the material cause. For example, the mud is assigned Upādāna kāraṇatva as it acts as the material of the effect (the pot) and thus becomes the pot's material cause.
Advaita assigns Nimitta kāraṇatva to Brahman with the statements from the Vedas (only two are given below):
sarvāṇi rūpāṇi vicitya dhīraḥ, nāmāni kṛtvābhivadan yadāste — That Lord has created all the forms and is calling them by their names (Taitiiriya Aranyaka 3.12.7)
sa īkṣata lokānnu sṛjā iti — He thought, "Let Me create the worlds" (Aitareya Upanishad[13] 1.1.1)
Advaita also assigns Upādāna kāraṇatva to Brahman vide the statements from the Vedas (only two are given below):
yathā somya! ekena mṛtpinḍena sarvaṃ mṛnmayaṃ vijñātaṃ syād vācāraṃbhaṇaṃ vikāro nāmadheyaṃ mṛttiketyeva satyaṃ — Dear boy, just as through a single clod of clay all that is made of clay would become known, for all modifications is but name based upon words and the clay alone is real (Chandogya Upanishad[14] 6.1.4)
so'kāmayata bahu syāṃ prajāyeyeti — (He thought) Let me be many, let me be born (Taittiriya Upanishad[15] 2.6.4)
The Chandogya Upanishad[14] 6.2.1 states
ekamevādvitīyaṃ — It is One without a second
Thus, based on these and other statements found in the Vedas, Advaita concludes that Brahman is both the instrumental cause and the material cause.
[edit]kārya-kāraṇa ananyatva
Advaita states that kārya (effect) is non-different from kāraṇa (cause). However kāraṇa is different from kārya. This principle is called kārya-kāraṇa ananyatva (the non-difference of the effect from the cause). To elaborate, if the cause is destroyed, the effect will no longer exist. For example, if from the effect, cotton cloth, the cause, threads, are removed, there will be no cloth, i.e., the cloth is destroyed. Similarly if in the effect, thread, the cause, cotton, is removed, there will be no thread, i.e., the thread is destroyed. This is brought out by Adi Shankara in the Brahmasūtra-Bhāṣya, commentary on the Brahma-Sutra,[16] 2.1.9, as:
ananyatve'pi kāryakāraṇayoḥ kāryasya kāraṇātmatvaṃ na tu kāraṇasya kāryātmatvaṃ — Despite the non-difference of cause and effect, the effect has its self in the cause but not the cause in the effect. The effect is of the nature of the cause and not the cause the nature of the effect. Therefore the qualities of the effect cannot touch the cause.
During the time of its existence, one can easily grasp that the effect is not different from the cause. However that the cause is different from the effect is not readily understood. As to this, it is not really possible to separate cause from effect. But this is possible by imagining so. For example, the reflection of the gold ornament seen in the mirror is only the form of the ornament but is not the ornament itself as it (the reflection) has no gold in it at all. Adi Shankara says in the Chāṃdogya Upaniṣad Bhāṣya, commentary on the Chandogya Upanishad, 6.3.2:
sarvaṃ ca nāmarūpādi sadātmanaiva satyaṃ vikārajātaṃ svatastu anṛtameva — All names and forms are real when seen with the Sat (Brahman) but are false when seen independent of Brahman.
This way Advaita establishes the non-difference of effect from causing action. To put it in a nutshell,
kārya is not different from kāraṇa; however kāraṇa is different from kārya
In the context of Advaita Vedanta, Jagat (the world) is not different from Brahman; however Brahman is different from Jagat.
[edit]Salient features
[edit]Three Orders of Reality (Ontologically)
The transcendental or the Pāramārthika level in which Brahman is the only reality and nothing else;
The pragmatic or the Vyāvahārika level in which both jiva (living creatures or individual souls) and Iswara are true; here, the material world is also true, and,
The apparent or the Prāthibhāsika level in which material world reality is actually false, like illusion of a snake over a rope or a dream.]Brahman
According to Adi Shankara, God, the Supreme Cosmic Spirit or Brahman is the One, the whole and the only reality. Other than Brahman, everything else, including the universe, material objects and individuals, are false. Brahman is at best described as that infinite, omnipresent, omnipotent, incorporeal, impersonal, transcendent reality that is the divine ground of all Being. Brahman is often described as neti neti meaning "not this, not this" because Brahman cannot be correctly described as this or that. 'It' (grammatically neutral, but exceptionally treated as masculine) is the origin of this and that, the origin of forces, substances, all of existence, the undefined, the basis of all, unborn, the essential truth, unchanging, eternal, the absolute. How can it be properly described as something in the material world when itself is the basis of reality? Brahman is also beyond the senses, it would be akin a blind man trying to correctly describe color. It, though not necessarily a form of physical matter, is the substrate of the material world, which in turn is its illusory transformation. Brahman is not the effect of the world. Brahman is said to be the purest knowledge itself, and is illuminant like a source of infinite light.
Due to ignorance (avidyā), the Brahman is visible as the material world and its objects. The actual Brahman is attributeless and formless (see Nirguna Brahman). It is the Self-existent, the Absolute and the Imperishable. Brahman is actually indescribable. It is at best Satchidananda (merging "Sat" + "Chit" + "Ananda", i.e., Infinite Truth, Infinite Consciousness and Infinite Bliss). Also, Brahman is free from any kind of differences or differentiation. It does not have any sajātīya (homogeneous) differentiation because there is no second Brahman. It does not have any vijātīya (heterogeneous) differentiation because there is nobody in reality existing other than Brahman. It has neither svagata (internal) differences, because Brahman is itself homogeneous.
Adi Shankara also proposed some logical proofs:
Shruti — the Upanishads and the Brahma Sutras describe Brahman in almost exact manner as Adi Shankara. This is the testimonial proof of Brahman.
Psychological — every person experiences his soul, or atman. According to Adi Shankara, Atman = Brahman. This argument also proves the omniscience of the Brahman.
Essential — Brahman is the basis of this created world.
Perceptible feeling — many people, when they achieve the turīya state, claim that their soul has become one with everything else.
Georg Feuerstein summarizes the advaita realization as follows: "The manifold universe is, in truth, a Single Reality. There is only one Great Being, which the sages call Brahman, in which all the countless forms of existence reside. That Great Being is utter Consciousness, and It is the very Essence, or Self (Atman) of all beings."[17]
Māyā
Māyā (/mɑːjɑː/) According to Adi Shankara, Māyā is the complex illusionary power of Brahman which causes the Brahman to be seen as the material world of separate forms. Maya has two main functions — one is to "hide" Brahman from ordinary human perception, and the other is to present the material world in its (Brahmam) place. Māyā is also said to be indescribable, though it may be said that all sense data entering ones awareness via the five senses are Māyā, since the fundamental reality underlying sensory perception is completely hidden. It is also said that Māyā is neither completely real nor completely unreal, hence indescribable. Its shelter is Brahman, but Brahman itself is untouched by the illusion of Māyā, just as a magician is not tricked by his own magic. Māyā is temporary and is transcended with "true knowledge," or perception of the more fundamental reality which permeates Māyā.
Since, according to the Upanishads, only Brahman is real, and yet the material world is seen as real, Adi Shankara explained the anomaly by the concept of this illusionary power of Māyā.
Status of the world
Adi Sankara says that the world is not real (true), it is an illusion, but this is because of some logical reasons. Let us first analyze Adi Sankara's definition of Truth, and hence why the world is not considered real (true).
Adi Sankara says that whatever thing remains eternal is true, and whatever is non-eternal is untrue. Since the world is created and destroyed, it is not real (true).
Truth is the thing which is unchanging. Since the world is changing, it is not real (false).
Whatever is independent of space and time is real (true), and whatever has space and time in itself is not real (false).
Just as one sees dreams in sleep, he sees a kind of super-dream when he is waking. The world is compared to this conscious dream.
The world is believed to be a superimposition of the Brahman. Superimposition cannot be real (true).
On the other hand, Adi Sankara claims that the world is not absolutely unreal (false). It appears unreal (false) only when compared to Brahman. In the pragmatic state, the world is completely real—which occurs as long as we are under the influence of Maya. The world cannot be both true and false at the same time; hence Adi Shankara has classified the world as indescribable. The following points suggest that according to Adi Sankara, the world is not false (Adi Shankara himself gave most of the arguments, Sinha, 1993):
If the world were unreal (false), then with the liberation of the first living being, the world would have been annihilated. However, the world continues to exist even if a living being attains liberation.(but it is possible that no living being attained the ultimate knowledge (liberation) till now.
Adi Sankara believes in karma, or good actions. This is a feature of this world. So the world cannot be unreal (false).
The Supreme Reality Brahman is the basis of this world. The world is like its reflection. Hence the world cannot be totally unreal (false).
False is something which is ascribed to nonexistent things, like Sky-lotus. The world is a logical thing, a fact which is perceived by our senses and exists but is not the truth.
Consider the following logical argument. A pen is placed in front of a mirror. One can see its reflection. To one's eyes, the image of the pen is perceived. Now, what should the image be called? It cannot be true, because it is an image. The truth is the pen. It cannot be false, because it is seen by our eyes.
Īsvara
Īsvara (pronounced [ˈiːʃvərə], literally, the Lord) Parama Īshvara means "The Supreme Lord"— According to Advaita Vedanta, when man tries to know the attributeless Brahman with his mind, under the influence of Maya, Brahman becomes the Lord. Isvara is Brahman with Maya — the manifested form of Brahman. Adi Shankara uses a metaphor that when the "reflection" of the Cosmic Spirit falls upon the mirror of Maya, it appears as the Ishvara or Supreme Lord. The Ishvara is true only in the pragmatic level. God's actual form in the transcendental level is the Cosmic Spirit.
Ishvara can be described as Saguna Brahman or Brahman with attributes that may be regarded to have a personality with human and Godly attributes. This concept of Ishvara is also used to visualize and worship in anthropomorphic form deities such as Shiva, Vishnu or Devi by the dvaitins which leads to immense confusion in the understanding of a monistic concept of God apart from polytheistic worship of Vishnu, Shiva and Shakti in Hinduism .
Now the question arises as to why the Ishvara created the world. If one assumes that Ishvara creates the world for any incentive, this slanders the wholeness and perfection of Ishvara. For example, if one assumes that Ishvara creates the world for gaining something, it would be against His perfection. If we assume that He creates for compassion, it would be illogical, because the emotion of compassion cannot arise in a blank and void world in the beginning (when only Ishvara existed). So Adi Shankara assumes that Creation is recreation or play of Ishvara. It is His nature, just as it is man's nature to breathe.
The sole proof for Ishvara that Adi Shankara gives is Shruti's mentions of Ishvara, as Ishvara is beyond logic and thinking. This is similar to Kant's philosophy about Ishvara in which he says that "faith" is the basis of theism. However, Adi Shankara has also given few other logical proofs for Ishvara, but warning us not to completely rely on them:
The world is a work, an effect, and so must have real cause. This cause must be Ishvara.
The world has a wonderful unity, coordination and order, so its creator must have been an intelligent being.
People do good and sinful work and get its fruits, either in this life or after. People themselves cannot be the giver of their fruits, as no one would give himself the fruit of his sin. Also, this giver cannot be an unconscious object. So the giver of the fruits of Karma is Ishvara. See, Karma in Hinduism for more information.
Status of God
To think that there is no place for a personal God (Ishvara) in Advaita Vedanta is a misunderstanding of the philosophy. Ishvara is, in an ultimate sense, described as "false" because Brahman appears as Ishvara only due to the curtain of Maya. However, as described earlier, just as the world is true in the pragmatic level, similarly, Ishvara is also pragmatically true. Just as the world is not absolutely false, Ishvara is also not absolutely false. He is the distributor of the fruits of one's Karma. Whenever we talk about Brahman, we are in fact talking about God. God is the highest knowledge theoretically possible. Devotion (Bhakti) will cancel the effects of bad Karma and will bring a person closer to the true knowledge by purifying his mind. Slowly, the difference between the worshipper and the worshipped decreases and upon true knowledge, liberation occurs.
[Source--Wikipedia
Characteristics of Advaita Vedanta
Necessity of a Guru
See also: Guru-śişya tradition
According to Śankara and others, anyone seeking to follow the philosophy of Advaita Vedānta must do so under the guidance of a Guru (teacher).[7] The Guru must have the following qualities (see Mundaka Upanişad 1.2.12):
Śrotriya — must be learned in the Vedic scriptures and sampradāya
Brahmaniṣṭhā — literally meaning 'established in Brahman'; must have realised the oneness of Brahman in everything, and in himself/herself.
The seeker must serve the Guru, and submit questions with all humility in order to remove all doubts (see Bhagavad Gita 4.34). By doing so, Advaita says, the seeker will attain mokşa ('liberation from the cycle of births and deaths').
According to Adi Śankara, knowledge of Brahman springs from inquiry into the words of the Upanişads, and the knowledge of Brahman that Sruti provides cannot be obtained in any other way. It is the teacher who through exegesis of Sruti and skillful handling of words generates a hitherto unknown knowledge in the disciple. The teacher does not merely provide stimulus or suggestion.[8]
[edit]Sādhana Chatuṣṭaya
Any mumukṣu (one seeking moksha) has to have the following four Sampattis (qualifications), collectively called Sādhana Chatuṣṭaya Sampatti ("the fourfold qualifications"):
Nityānitya vastu viveka (नित्यानित्य वस्तु विवेकम्) — The ability (viveka) to correctly discriminate between the eternal (nitya) substance (Brahman) and the substance that is transitory existence (anitya).
Ihāmutrārtha phala bhoga virāga (इहाऽमुत्रार्थ फल भोगविरागम्) — The renunciation (virāga) of enjoyments of objects (artha phala bhoga) in this world (iha) and the other worlds (amutra) like heaven etc.
Śamādi ṣatka sampatti (शमादि षट्क सम्पत्ति) — the sixfold qualities,
Śama (control of the antahkaraṇa).[9]
Dama (the control of external sense organs).
Uparati (the cessation of these external organs so restrained, from the pursuit of objects other than that, or it may mean the abandonment of the prescribed works according to scriptural injunctions).[10]
Titikṣa (the tolerating of tāpatraya).
Śraddha (the faith in Guru and Vedas).
Samādhāna (the concentrating of the mind on God and Guru).
Mumukṣutva (मुमुक्षुत्वम्) — The firm conviction that the nature of the world is misery and the intense longing for moksha (release from the cycle of births and deaths).
Adi Shankara states in Tattva bodha (1.2) that moksha is available only to those possessing the above-mentioned fourfold qualifications. Thus any seeker wishing to study advaita vedānta from a teacher must possess these.
[edit]Order of Precedence of Authority
The order of precedance regarding authority of Vedic Scriptures is as follows,
Śruti, literally "hearing, listening", are the sacred texts comprising the central canon of Hinduism and is one of the three main sources of dharma and therefore is also influential within Hindu Law.[11]
Smṛti, literally "that which is remembered (or recollected)", refers to a specific body of Hindu religious scripture, and is a codified component of Hindu customary law. Post Vedic scriptures such as Ramayana, Mahabharata and traditions of the rules on dharma such as Manu Smriti, Yaagnyavalkya Smriti etc. Smrti also denotes tradition in the sense that it portrays the traditions of the rules on dharma, especially those of lawful virtuous persons.)
Purāṇa, literally "of ancient times", are post-vedic scriptures notably consisting of narratives of the history of the universe from creation to destruction, genealogies of kings, heroes, sages, and demigods, and descriptions of Hindu cosmology, philosophy, and geography.[12]
Śiṣṭāchāra, literally "that which is followed by good (in recent times)".
Atmatuṣṭi, literally "that which satisfies oneself (or self validation)", according to which one has to decide whether or not to do with bona fide. Initially this was not considered in the order of precedence but Manu and Yājñavalkya considered it as last one.
That means, if anyone of them contradicts the preceding one, then it is disqualified as an authority to judge. There is a well known Indian saying that Smṛti follows Śruti. So it was considered that in order to establish any Theistic Philosophical theory (Astika Siddhanta) one ought not contradict Śruti (Vedas).
Adi Sankara has chosen three standards, called Prasthānatrayī, literally, three points of departure (three standards). Later these were referred to as the three canonical texts of reference of Hindu philosophy by other Vedanta schools.
They are:
The Upanishads, known as Upadesha prasthāna (injunctive texts), (part of Śruti)
The Bhagavad Gita, known as Sādhana prasthāna (practical text), (part of Smṛti)
The Brahma Sutras, known as Nyāya prasthāna or Yukti prasthana (part of darśana of Uttarā Mīmāṃsā)
The Upanishads consist of twelve or thirteen major texts, with many minor texts. The Bhagavad Gītā is part of the Mahabhārata. The Brahma Sūtras (also known as the Vedānta Sūtras), systematise the doctrines taught in the Upanishads and the Gītā.
[edit]Ways of knowing
[edit]Pramāṇas
Pramā, in Sanskrit, refers to the correct knowledge, arrived at by thorough reasoning, of any object. Pramāṇa (means of knowledge, Sanskrit) forms one part of a tripuṭi (trio), namely,
Pramātṛ, the subject; the knower of the knowledge
Pramāṇa, the cause or the means of the knowledge
Prameya, the object of knowledge
In the Bhāṭṭa school of Mimāṃsā of Advaita Vedānta, the following pramāṇas are accepted (the Prābhākara school do not accept Anupaladbhi ):
Pratyakṣa — the knowledge gained by means of the senses
That which is immediately perceived to be so; This knowledge can be corrected, i.e. if one perceives a piece of rope to be a snake.
Anumāna — the knowledge gained by means of inference
That which is perceived as true through previous knowledge, i.e. to knows that it is a fire because you see smoke in the sky (the two are related through a universal law)
Upamāna — the knowledge gained by means of analogy or comparison.
That which is perceived as true since it compares to previous, confirmed, knowledge. To know that something is something, i.e. a cat, because one has seen cats before.
Anupaladbhi - the knowledge gained through the absence of the object
That which is true through a negation. Claasic e.g. karatale ghato nasti - the pot is not on the palm. The pot could be elsewhere. So the place (on the palm) of its absence is also important.
Arthāpatti — the knowledge gained by superimposing the known knowledge on an appearing knowledge that does not concur with the known knowledge.
I.e. To see someone gain weight while knowing they are fasting, imposes the knowledge that the person is secretly eating.
Śabda — the knowledge gained by means of texts such as Vedas (also known as Āptavākya, Śabda pramāṇa)
[edit]Nature of being
[edit]Kārya and kāraṇa
The kārya (effect) and kāraṇa (cause) form an important area for investigation in all the systems of Vedanta. Two kāraṇatvas (ways of being the cause) are recognised:
Nimitta kāraṇatva — Being the instrumental cause. For example, a potter is assigned Nimitta kāraṇatva as he acts as the maker of the pot and thus becomes the pot's instrumental cause.
Upādāna kāraṇatva — Being the material cause. For example, the mud is assigned Upādāna kāraṇatva as it acts as the material of the effect (the pot) and thus becomes the pot's material cause.
Advaita assigns Nimitta kāraṇatva to Brahman with the statements from the Vedas (only two are given below):
sarvāṇi rūpāṇi vicitya dhīraḥ, nāmāni kṛtvābhivadan yadāste — That Lord has created all the forms and is calling them by their names (Taitiiriya Aranyaka 3.12.7)
sa īkṣata lokānnu sṛjā iti — He thought, "Let Me create the worlds" (Aitareya Upanishad[13] 1.1.1)
Advaita also assigns Upādāna kāraṇatva to Brahman vide the statements from the Vedas (only two are given below):
yathā somya! ekena mṛtpinḍena sarvaṃ mṛnmayaṃ vijñātaṃ syād vācāraṃbhaṇaṃ vikāro nāmadheyaṃ mṛttiketyeva satyaṃ — Dear boy, just as through a single clod of clay all that is made of clay would become known, for all modifications is but name based upon words and the clay alone is real (Chandogya Upanishad[14] 6.1.4)
so'kāmayata bahu syāṃ prajāyeyeti — (He thought) Let me be many, let me be born (Taittiriya Upanishad[15] 2.6.4)
The Chandogya Upanishad[14] 6.2.1 states
ekamevādvitīyaṃ — It is One without a second
Thus, based on these and other statements found in the Vedas, Advaita concludes that Brahman is both the instrumental cause and the material cause.
[edit]kārya-kāraṇa ananyatva
Advaita states that kārya (effect) is non-different from kāraṇa (cause). However kāraṇa is different from kārya. This principle is called kārya-kāraṇa ananyatva (the non-difference of the effect from the cause). To elaborate, if the cause is destroyed, the effect will no longer exist. For example, if from the effect, cotton cloth, the cause, threads, are removed, there will be no cloth, i.e., the cloth is destroyed. Similarly if in the effect, thread, the cause, cotton, is removed, there will be no thread, i.e., the thread is destroyed. This is brought out by Adi Shankara in the Brahmasūtra-Bhāṣya, commentary on the Brahma-Sutra,[16] 2.1.9, as:
ananyatve'pi kāryakāraṇayoḥ kāryasya kāraṇātmatvaṃ na tu kāraṇasya kāryātmatvaṃ — Despite the non-difference of cause and effect, the effect has its self in the cause but not the cause in the effect. The effect is of the nature of the cause and not the cause the nature of the effect. Therefore the qualities of the effect cannot touch the cause.
During the time of its existence, one can easily grasp that the effect is not different from the cause. However that the cause is different from the effect is not readily understood. As to this, it is not really possible to separate cause from effect. But this is possible by imagining so. For example, the reflection of the gold ornament seen in the mirror is only the form of the ornament but is not the ornament itself as it (the reflection) has no gold in it at all. Adi Shankara says in the Chāṃdogya Upaniṣad Bhāṣya, commentary on the Chandogya Upanishad, 6.3.2:
sarvaṃ ca nāmarūpādi sadātmanaiva satyaṃ vikārajātaṃ svatastu anṛtameva — All names and forms are real when seen with the Sat (Brahman) but are false when seen independent of Brahman.
This way Advaita establishes the non-difference of effect from causing action. To put it in a nutshell,
kārya is not different from kāraṇa; however kāraṇa is different from kārya
In the context of Advaita Vedanta, Jagat (the world) is not different from Brahman; however Brahman is different from Jagat.
[edit]Salient features
[edit]Three Orders of Reality (Ontologically)
The transcendental or the Pāramārthika level in which Brahman is the only reality and nothing else;
The pragmatic or the Vyāvahārika level in which both jiva (living creatures or individual souls) and Iswara are true; here, the material world is also true, and,
The apparent or the Prāthibhāsika level in which material world reality is actually false, like illusion of a snake over a rope or a dream.]Brahman
According to Adi Shankara, God, the Supreme Cosmic Spirit or Brahman is the One, the whole and the only reality. Other than Brahman, everything else, including the universe, material objects and individuals, are false. Brahman is at best described as that infinite, omnipresent, omnipotent, incorporeal, impersonal, transcendent reality that is the divine ground of all Being. Brahman is often described as neti neti meaning "not this, not this" because Brahman cannot be correctly described as this or that. 'It' (grammatically neutral, but exceptionally treated as masculine) is the origin of this and that, the origin of forces, substances, all of existence, the undefined, the basis of all, unborn, the essential truth, unchanging, eternal, the absolute. How can it be properly described as something in the material world when itself is the basis of reality? Brahman is also beyond the senses, it would be akin a blind man trying to correctly describe color. It, though not necessarily a form of physical matter, is the substrate of the material world, which in turn is its illusory transformation. Brahman is not the effect of the world. Brahman is said to be the purest knowledge itself, and is illuminant like a source of infinite light.
Due to ignorance (avidyā), the Brahman is visible as the material world and its objects. The actual Brahman is attributeless and formless (see Nirguna Brahman). It is the Self-existent, the Absolute and the Imperishable. Brahman is actually indescribable. It is at best Satchidananda (merging "Sat" + "Chit" + "Ananda", i.e., Infinite Truth, Infinite Consciousness and Infinite Bliss). Also, Brahman is free from any kind of differences or differentiation. It does not have any sajātīya (homogeneous) differentiation because there is no second Brahman. It does not have any vijātīya (heterogeneous) differentiation because there is nobody in reality existing other than Brahman. It has neither svagata (internal) differences, because Brahman is itself homogeneous.
Adi Shankara also proposed some logical proofs:
Shruti — the Upanishads and the Brahma Sutras describe Brahman in almost exact manner as Adi Shankara. This is the testimonial proof of Brahman.
Psychological — every person experiences his soul, or atman. According to Adi Shankara, Atman = Brahman. This argument also proves the omniscience of the Brahman.
Essential — Brahman is the basis of this created world.
Perceptible feeling — many people, when they achieve the turīya state, claim that their soul has become one with everything else.
Georg Feuerstein summarizes the advaita realization as follows: "The manifold universe is, in truth, a Single Reality. There is only one Great Being, which the sages call Brahman, in which all the countless forms of existence reside. That Great Being is utter Consciousness, and It is the very Essence, or Self (Atman) of all beings."[17]
Māyā
Māyā (/mɑːjɑː/) According to Adi Shankara, Māyā is the complex illusionary power of Brahman which causes the Brahman to be seen as the material world of separate forms. Maya has two main functions — one is to "hide" Brahman from ordinary human perception, and the other is to present the material world in its (Brahmam) place. Māyā is also said to be indescribable, though it may be said that all sense data entering ones awareness via the five senses are Māyā, since the fundamental reality underlying sensory perception is completely hidden. It is also said that Māyā is neither completely real nor completely unreal, hence indescribable. Its shelter is Brahman, but Brahman itself is untouched by the illusion of Māyā, just as a magician is not tricked by his own magic. Māyā is temporary and is transcended with "true knowledge," or perception of the more fundamental reality which permeates Māyā.
Since, according to the Upanishads, only Brahman is real, and yet the material world is seen as real, Adi Shankara explained the anomaly by the concept of this illusionary power of Māyā.
Status of the world
Adi Sankara says that the world is not real (true), it is an illusion, but this is because of some logical reasons. Let us first analyze Adi Sankara's definition of Truth, and hence why the world is not considered real (true).
Adi Sankara says that whatever thing remains eternal is true, and whatever is non-eternal is untrue. Since the world is created and destroyed, it is not real (true).
Truth is the thing which is unchanging. Since the world is changing, it is not real (false).
Whatever is independent of space and time is real (true), and whatever has space and time in itself is not real (false).
Just as one sees dreams in sleep, he sees a kind of super-dream when he is waking. The world is compared to this conscious dream.
The world is believed to be a superimposition of the Brahman. Superimposition cannot be real (true).
On the other hand, Adi Sankara claims that the world is not absolutely unreal (false). It appears unreal (false) only when compared to Brahman. In the pragmatic state, the world is completely real—which occurs as long as we are under the influence of Maya. The world cannot be both true and false at the same time; hence Adi Shankara has classified the world as indescribable. The following points suggest that according to Adi Sankara, the world is not false (Adi Shankara himself gave most of the arguments, Sinha, 1993):
If the world were unreal (false), then with the liberation of the first living being, the world would have been annihilated. However, the world continues to exist even if a living being attains liberation.(but it is possible that no living being attained the ultimate knowledge (liberation) till now.
Adi Sankara believes in karma, or good actions. This is a feature of this world. So the world cannot be unreal (false).
The Supreme Reality Brahman is the basis of this world. The world is like its reflection. Hence the world cannot be totally unreal (false).
False is something which is ascribed to nonexistent things, like Sky-lotus. The world is a logical thing, a fact which is perceived by our senses and exists but is not the truth.
Consider the following logical argument. A pen is placed in front of a mirror. One can see its reflection. To one's eyes, the image of the pen is perceived. Now, what should the image be called? It cannot be true, because it is an image. The truth is the pen. It cannot be false, because it is seen by our eyes.
Īsvara
Īsvara (pronounced [ˈiːʃvərə], literally, the Lord) Parama Īshvara means "The Supreme Lord"— According to Advaita Vedanta, when man tries to know the attributeless Brahman with his mind, under the influence of Maya, Brahman becomes the Lord. Isvara is Brahman with Maya — the manifested form of Brahman. Adi Shankara uses a metaphor that when the "reflection" of the Cosmic Spirit falls upon the mirror of Maya, it appears as the Ishvara or Supreme Lord. The Ishvara is true only in the pragmatic level. God's actual form in the transcendental level is the Cosmic Spirit.
Ishvara can be described as Saguna Brahman or Brahman with attributes that may be regarded to have a personality with human and Godly attributes. This concept of Ishvara is also used to visualize and worship in anthropomorphic form deities such as Shiva, Vishnu or Devi by the dvaitins which leads to immense confusion in the understanding of a monistic concept of God apart from polytheistic worship of Vishnu, Shiva and Shakti in Hinduism .
Now the question arises as to why the Ishvara created the world. If one assumes that Ishvara creates the world for any incentive, this slanders the wholeness and perfection of Ishvara. For example, if one assumes that Ishvara creates the world for gaining something, it would be against His perfection. If we assume that He creates for compassion, it would be illogical, because the emotion of compassion cannot arise in a blank and void world in the beginning (when only Ishvara existed). So Adi Shankara assumes that Creation is recreation or play of Ishvara. It is His nature, just as it is man's nature to breathe.
The sole proof for Ishvara that Adi Shankara gives is Shruti's mentions of Ishvara, as Ishvara is beyond logic and thinking. This is similar to Kant's philosophy about Ishvara in which he says that "faith" is the basis of theism. However, Adi Shankara has also given few other logical proofs for Ishvara, but warning us not to completely rely on them:
The world is a work, an effect, and so must have real cause. This cause must be Ishvara.
The world has a wonderful unity, coordination and order, so its creator must have been an intelligent being.
People do good and sinful work and get its fruits, either in this life or after. People themselves cannot be the giver of their fruits, as no one would give himself the fruit of his sin. Also, this giver cannot be an unconscious object. So the giver of the fruits of Karma is Ishvara. See, Karma in Hinduism for more information.
Status of God
To think that there is no place for a personal God (Ishvara) in Advaita Vedanta is a misunderstanding of the philosophy. Ishvara is, in an ultimate sense, described as "false" because Brahman appears as Ishvara only due to the curtain of Maya. However, as described earlier, just as the world is true in the pragmatic level, similarly, Ishvara is also pragmatically true. Just as the world is not absolutely false, Ishvara is also not absolutely false. He is the distributor of the fruits of one's Karma. Whenever we talk about Brahman, we are in fact talking about God. God is the highest knowledge theoretically possible. Devotion (Bhakti) will cancel the effects of bad Karma and will bring a person closer to the true knowledge by purifying his mind. Slowly, the difference between the worshipper and the worshipped decreases and upon true knowledge, liberation occurs.
[Source--Wikipedia