A Ramanuja-‘scholar’ exhibits his ignorance of Advaita

A Ramanuja-‘scholar’ exhibits his ignorance of Advaita

The author of an article, trying to pose himself as a well-read scholar, says about Advaita, Advaitic experience, etc:

(For the Tamil passages of the author see here: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/advaitin/conversations/messages/71527) 

As per Advaita, after aparoksha jnana, the vyavaharika perceptible world will cease to appear to the Jnani. Why, for him even his body will not be perceptible. In such a situation what will he teach to whom? Advaita has prescribed an upasana of a deity for securing such (advaitic) knowledge. Advaitic Jnana is the meditating upon that deity and becoming that very deity itself. Since the meditation of that deity results in liberating jnana there is the need for that deity to give moksha.   

He says further:

     

(For the Tamil passages of the author see here: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/advaitin/conversations/messages/71527) 

The teachings of Rishis in the Upanishads are all only doctrinal aspects of a particular subject. One cannot conclude that the one who teaches these doctrinal aspects and one who hears them have attained the experience that the doctrinal aspects talk about. Thus, if one teaches and another listens, it only means that both have not had the Advaitic experience. If the teacher gains the experience, for him the  hearer of the teachings ceases to exist. Similarly if the hearer gains the experience, for him the teacher ceases to exist. Therefore we cannot identify anyone as ‘these are the ones with advaitic experience.’ This is because the one who has had the Advaitic experience cannot directly perceive anyone in the world.  Even if others see him, since he cannot perceive others’ forms, the teaching is impossible (to be imparted). Just as the dream seen in sleep ceases to be upon waking, the perceived world disappears for the one who has had the aparoksha jnana. Even though others can see him, how is one to prove that he has had the direct realization? Hence none who has had the experience (of advaita) can ever impart that knowledge to anyone. One can at best say ‘this person is a knower of the tenets of advaita.’

The author’s above complete wrong understanding of Advaita is laughable.The above ‘understanding’ about the Advaitic realization, the state of the realized person, etc. of the ‘scholar’ may be assessed in the light of the following just three (out of dozens of similar) passages from Shankara’s bhashya:

The author is not aware that Advaita admits Jivanmukti (liberation while being alive). In several places across the prasthana traya bhashya, Shankara has given unmistakable pronouncements about the aparoksha anubhava (not merely a knowledge of advaitic tenets, which the author has said as ‘advaita koTpaaDu’, which is only paroksha jnana in advaita. Only aparoksha anubhava will result in mukti in advaita. Here are just three samples from Shankara’s bhashya which prove that the author has not understood anything correctly about Advaita:

Brahmasutra Bhashyam 4.1.15:

अपि च नैवात्र विवदितव्यम् — ब्रह्मविदा कञ्चित्कालं शरीरं ध्रियते न वा ध्रियत इति । कथं हि एकस्य स्वहृदयप्रत्ययं ब्रह्मवेदनं देहधारणं च अपरेण प्रतिक्षेप्तुं शक्येत ? श्रुतिस्मृतिषु च स्थितप्रज्ञलक्षणनिर्देशेन एतदेव निरुच्यते ।

Here Shankara says: A Jnani will have the aparoksha anubhava of (1) being Brahman and (2) at the same time be in a body too. No one can deny this, continues Shankara, ‘This alone is spoken of as Sthitaprajna lakshana in the shruti and smritis.’

Thus, there is evidence in Shankara’s own words for the factual possibility of aparoksha anubhava for the Advaitin. And naturally he will be living in the world and interacting with it. Surely only if he can see others, other objects, can he interact.

Bhagavadgita bhashyam 4.34:

तद्विद्धि प्रणिपातेन परिप्रश्नेन सेवया ।

उपदेक्ष्यन्ति ते ज्ञानं ज्ञानिनस्तत्त्वदर्शिनः ॥ ३४ ॥

तत् विद्धि विजानीहि येन विधिना प्राप्यते इति । आचार्यान् अभिगम्य, प्रणिपातेन प्रकर्षेण नीचैः पतनं प्रणिपातः दीर्घनमस्कारः तेन, ‘कथं बन्धः ? कथं मोक्षः ? का विद्या ? का चाविद्या ? ’ इति परिप्रश्नेन, सेवया गुरुशुश्रूषया एवमादिना । प्रश्रयेण आवर्जिता आचार्या उपदेक्ष्यन्ति कथयिष्यन्ति ते ज्ञानं यथोक्तविशेषणं ज्ञानिनः । ज्ञानवन्तोऽपि केचित् यथावत् तत्त्वदर्शनशीलाः, अपरे न ; अतो विशिनष्टि तत्त्वदर्शिनः इति । ये सम्यग्दर्शिनः तैः उपदिष्टं ज्ञानं कार्यक्षमं भवति नेतरत् इति भगवतो मतम् ॥ ३४ ॥

In the above bhashyam Shankara emphasizes who are ‘Tattva darshi-s’ – they are not merely endowed with jnana (paroksha jnana, the knowledge of the tenets of Advaita, as the ‘scholar’ has claimed above) but also ‘tattva darshana shiilaaH’ which means aparoksha jnani-s who have the ‘aham brahma asmi’ anubhava. Only they can teach the tattva successfully, Shankara emphasizes.

This bhashya too demolishes the ill-conceived notion of the Tamil author that ‘someone having the Advaitic anubhava won’t be able to teach others because he can’t see others’ 🙂  That such an idea is laughable can be readily seen from the Lord’s explicit teaching and the use of the adjective ‘tattva darshi’ over and above the epithet ‘jnani’ and Shankara’s commentary.

Bhagavadgita bhashyam 4.20:

यस्तु प्रारब्धकर्मा सन् उत्तरकालमुत्पन्नात्मसम्यग्दर्शनः स्यात् , सः सर्वकर्मणि प्रयोजनमपश्यन् ससाधनं कर्म परित्यजत्येव । सः कुतश्चित् निमित्तात् कर्मपरित्यागासम्भवे सति कर्मणि तत्फले च सङ्गरहिततया स्वप्रयोजनाभावात् लोकसङ्ग्रहार्थं पूर्ववत् कर्मणि प्रवृत्तोऽपि नैव किञ्चित् करोति, ज्ञानाग्निदग्धकर्मत्वात् तदीयं कर्म अकर्मैव सम्पद्यते इत्येतमर्थं दर्शयिष्यन् आह —

त्यक्त्वा कर्मफलासङ्गं नित्यतृप्तो निराश्रयः ।

कर्मण्यभिप्रवृत्तोऽपि नैव किञ्चित्करोति सः ॥ २० ॥

त्यक्त्वा कर्मसु अभिमानं फलासङ्गं च यथोक्तेन ज्ञानेन नित्यतृप्तः निराकाङ्क्षो विषयेषु इत्यर्थः । निराश्रयः आश्रयरहितः, आश्रयो नाम यत् आश्रित्य पुरुषार्थं सिसाधयिषति, दृष्टादृष्टेष्टफलसाधनाश्रयरहित इत्यर्थः । विदुषा क्रियमाणं कर्म परमार्थतोऽकर्मैव, तस्य निष्क्रियात्मदर्शनसम्पन्नत्वात् । तेन एवंभूतेन स्वप्रयोजनाभावात् ससाधनं कर्म परित्यक्तव्यमेव इति प्राप्ते, ततः निर्गमासम्भवात् लोकसङ्ग्रहचिकीर्षया शिष्टविगर्हणापरिजिहीर्षया वा पूर्ववत् कर्मणि अभिप्रवृत्तोऽपि निष्क्रियात्मदर्शनसम्पन्नत्वात् नैव किञ्चित् करोति सः ॥ २० ॥

The gist of the above is: the Aparoksha Jnani will have no ‘I am the doer’ bhaava, but even though he (the body mind apparatus) is engaged in hectic activity, ‘abhi’ prefix for ‘pravrutti’ shows that, ‘he’ is really not doing anything. Naturally, for being engaged in karma, he should be able to see other people, objects, etc. Shankara says he will be doing that for the sake of ‘loka sangraha’, emancipation of the people. If he cannot see the loka, as contended by the author of the Tamil article, how can he do loka sangraha?

The other mistaken idea of the author

//Advaita has prescribed an upasana of a deity for securing such (advaitic) knowledge. Advaitic Jnana is the meditating upon that deity and becoming that very deity itself. Since the meditation of that deity results in liberating jnana there is the need for that deity to give moksha.//

is also refuted by Shankara’s words:

Nowhere in the Advaita bhashyas has Shankara said that a deity is to be meditated upon for realization of the Advaitic Truth. A deity-meditation is not precluded for it serves the purpose of chitta shuddhi. However, the one to be meditated, nididhyasanam, is the nirguna Brahman-Atman which alone results in the aparoksha advaita jnanam. In fact the proposition of the Tamil author is directly refuted by Shankara’s words:

In Kenopanishad pada bhashyam, introducing the crucial mantra 1.5, Shankara makes a purvapaksha:

 आत्मा हि नामाधिकृतः कर्मण्युपासने च संसारी कर्मोपासनं वा साधनमनुष्ठाय ब्रह्मादिदेवान्स्वर्गं वा प्राप्तुमिच्छति । तत्तस्मादन्य उपास्यो विष्णुरीश्वर इन्द्रः प्राणो वा ब्रह्म भवितुमर्हति, न त्वात्मा ; लोकप्रत्ययविरोधात् । यथान्ये तार्किका ईश्वरादन्य आत्मेत्याचक्षते, तथा कर्मिणोऽमुं यजामुं यजेत्यन्या एव देवता उपासते । तस्माद्युक्तं यद्विदितमुपास्यं तद्ब्रह्म भवेत् , ततोऽन्य उपासक इति ।

Atma being a samsari, indeed is someone who is fit to perform karma or upasana and wishes to attain to the state of gods or heaven. Therefore the upaasya is different such as Vishnu, Ishwara, Indra or Prana and could be Brahman but not the Atma who is only upasaka, since holding the upasaka and upasya as non-different contradicts what practice prevails in the world. Just as others, the tarkikas hold the Atma to be different from Ishwara and just as Mimasakas also meditate/propitiate devatas by sacrifices, holding the devata to be different from the upasaka/sacrificer, that which is known as an object is upasaya can be Brahman but never the upasaka can be Brahman.

Replying to the purvapaksha the Vedantin says this mantra 1.5 of the Kenopanishat is to remove such a misconception of difference between upasaka and upasya and teaches that one should realize Brahman as oneself and not as someone else, upasya.  In the course of the discussion Shankara does not deny the idea of multiple gods such as Vishnu and Ishwara, even Prana, Indra, etc. being meditated as Brahman. In other words, a deity can be meditated only as different from oneself and such a meditation can never culminate in the Advaitic aparoksha jnanam as conjectured by the Tamil author.

Thus, the author’s complete ignorance of the fundamental tenets of Advaita has resulted in his expressing totally incorrect ideas about Advaita. He is not only ignorant but also propagating that ignorance to others who are his gullible followers who fall for his ‘knowledge’ and end up imbibing that ignorance of their mentor. ‘andhenaiva neeyamaanaa yathaa andhaah’, the blind leading the blind.

[The article from where the Tamil passages are sourced was shared with me over a month ago by a friend who is an acquaintance of the author of the Tamil article.]