[Advaita-l] Permanence of the self

[Venkatraghavan S]

Dear all,
First of all, thanks a lot for taking the time to provide your comments in
this debate. Just a few initial responses:

Sri Murali HR: "Do nothing."
Venkat: Perhaps you mean this exercise is futile and hence not doing
anything is better than otherwise? If so, maybe, but sometimes an exercise
in futility may produce unexpected results that still have value (in this
case, this very email chain has afforded me a better understanding). But I
understand the sentiment, thanks.

Sri Subbu:"Shankara has grouped Bauddha along with others and called them
dvaitins. Check the archives of this forum to get the exact reference from
the Gaudapada karika bhahsya."
Venkat: Thank you sir. I will certainly do so.

Sri Vidyasankar:" By this logic, non-cognizability is posited as a
necessary attribute of true
independent existence and then the same non-cognizability is used to
argue for non-existence."
Venkat: Thanks for articulating it so well! There is certainly circularity
in this chain of logic - "Existence requires cognisance. Cognisance implies
change. Change implies non-existence."   The first leg of that chain - that
existence requires cognizance to prove its existence is the weakest leg of
his argument, in my opinion. The problem with the second leg is whether
cognisance implies change in the cognising agent - so, even if one were to
argue that Brahman's existence is self-evident, can we say that Brahman
knows it *exists*? If so does it change by mere fact of its knowledge?

Sri Venkatesh Murthy: "If 'nothing exists' means 'nothing exists
independently' it means 'everything is dependent on something'. But this
Dualism only."
Venkat: Its dualism, but probably qualified - in the sense that nothing
exists in and as of itself, but only in relation to something else, which
also does not exist in and as of itself. In terms of classification, one
may call it dualist, or nihilist.

Sri Krishnamoorthy: "If everything ends in shunyatha- I mean emptiness or
nothingness-then why should one live at all?"
Venkat: I think you have hit on an important conclusion from Buddhism (or
at least my understanding of it, based on what my boss/friend says) - there
is no ultimate reality, no conventional reality, no path, no seeker and
nothing to be known. Its precisely because when faced with that, people
naturally tend to ask why should one bother to live at all, that nirvana as
a goal and sadhana as a means to achieve it are taught in the Buddhist
tradition - but if one were to actually walk that path, they do believe
there is no ultimate reality.

Sri HS Chandramouli: "For such an entity there need not be any action needed
to enable it. Just its presence itself could enable it. The nearest
illustration
is that of the Sun. In the absence of sunlight no visual cognition occurs.
The presence of the Sun enables such cognition without any action by the
Sun."
Venkat: First of all, thanks very much for your detailed mail - it was
certainly helpful to me and therefore no need to apologise. I think the
concept that my friend fails to appreciate is one of "self-evidence", that
is if some thing "is", you do not need anything else to prove it "is".

Sri Balagopal: "Swami Paramarthananda Ji says that one has to sharpen one's
intellect to at least begin understanding vedanta (advaita). How else the
'eye' can see the 'eye' itself* !!. If one refuses to step up from one's
manda budhi (will happen only if one is willing to study vedant
'sampradayically') god alone can save him ! They will never understand and
you will have either more whiter hair or the existing ones will begin to
fall !! Because after a stage it becomes a futile discussion instead of
fertile."
Venkat: Thanks sir. I completely understand and am quite wary about this -
which is why I will not indulge in this debate for too long, but for the
moment, the discussion is certainly helping me crystallise my thought
process.

Once again, thank you for your thoughtful comments.

Regards,
Venkat


On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 11:49 AM, Srivathsa Rao <vathsa108 at gmail.com> wrote:

> DearSri Venkatraghavan,
>
> Even shankaracharya says,something cannot come from nothing....or form
> emptyness nothing can come.....then from where this bhudhi came according
> to bhudhists?
>
> According to advaita there exists a jgnana called brahman,because of which
> this world came to exists....who's special power of hiding this jgnana so
> called maya ,helps him to create this world.....
>
> but according to bhudhists nothing exists....so for where this bhudhi came
> to exist from emptyness?
>
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 5:14 PM, Srivathsa Rao <vathsa108 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> DearSri Venkatraghavan,
>>                                              Even bhudhists accept the
>> moksha through jgnana yoga,that means..they accept there exists a
>> jgnana,which gives them moksha.....
>> this jgnana can't be empty...as jgnana exists and empty exists are
>> contradictory ....
>>
>> this jgnana is called as brahman in vedanta...it exists and continues to
>> exits....as moksha is eternal according to all religion,this jgnana is also
>> eternal.....
>>
>> Vedanta says this jgnana of brahman is nothing but self 'I" .......as
>> this jgnana exists eternally ,"I "exists eternally....
>>
>> regards,
>> Srivathsa Rao I
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 1:44 PM, balagopal ramakrishnan via Advaita-l <
>> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Swami Paramarthananda Ji says that one has to sharpen one's intellect to
>>> at least begin understanding vedanta (advaita). How else the 'eye' can see
>>> the 'eye' itself* !!. If one refuses to step up from one's manda budhi
>>> (will happen only if one is willing to study vedant 'sampradayically') god
>>> alone can save him ! They will never understand and you will have either
>>> more whiter hair or the existing ones will begin to fall !! Because after a
>>> stage it becomes a futile discussion instead of fertile.
>>> Well, as Venkat Ji said - it might help to sharpen one's; but, be
>>> cautious while wrestling - pigs don't know pigs stink!!
>>> Regards
>>> Balagopal
>>> *"shrotrasya shrotram manaso mano.." (Kena Up 1.2)
>>>
>>>      On Wednesday, 18 February 2015 1:22 PM, H S Chandramouli via
>>> Advaita-l <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>  Dear Sri Venkataraghavan,
>>>
>>>
>>>  Reg 2) His second point was that if something did have true independent
>>> existence, it would be impossible to cognize it. That is, the very act
>>> of knowledge implies an observer and the observed, and then it no
>>> longer is a non-dual system. Without being able to cognise that
>>> existence, it would be as good as it not existing at all.
>>>
>>>
>>>  Yes. Any act of knowledge implies an observer and the observed. However
>>> when the observer and the observed are jada ( inert ) , that is incapable
>>> of the act of cognition by themselves, an enabling entity is needed to
>>> enable such cognition. For such an entity there need not be any action
>>> needed to enable it. Just its presence itself could enable it. The
>>> nearest
>>> illustration is that of the Sun. In the absence of sunlight no visual
>>> cognition occurs. The presence of the Sun enables such cognition without
>>> any action by the Sun. Just its presence enables it. We can now consider
>>> the experience of all of us. We are aware of the Creation in our waking
>>> state. When we pass on to the dream state, we cognize the dream creation.
>>> Even though there is nothing in common between these two creations, we do
>>> have the knowledge ( in the waking state where this analysis is being
>>> done
>>> ) that it is the same cognizing entity ( namely ourselves ) which
>>> experienced both the creations. We can now consider the deep sleep state.
>>> We only have recollection of that state. The recollection is that no
>>> creation was experienced. Not even Time. Also we enjoyed unalloyed pure
>>> happiness. Note that this is only a recollection in the waking state.
>>> Also
>>> our cognition is that it is the same entity ( namely ourselves ) which
>>> had
>>> earlier experienced the two types of creation that is having this
>>> recollection also. This is not logically possible unless there was some
>>> other entity which “ witnessed “ all these three states independently and
>>> enabled us to cognize the same as such . This enabling is not done as an
>>> act on its part but happens just by its proximity or its presence because
>>> it happens all the time automatically as it were and is universal. Your
>>> Budhist friend also can vouch for it.
>>>
>>>
>>>  We can now consider our experience with the passage of time. Right from
>>> our childhood days through to our last days we change so much both
>>> mentally
>>> and physically that it is practically impossible to recognize that it is
>>> the same single entity ( namely ourselves ) which has experienced all
>>> these
>>> changes unless that is brought to our attention automatically and all the
>>> time by a “ Witnessing Agent “ who is independent of the experiencing
>>> entity ( namely ourselves ) . This again confirms what was concluded
>>> previously that such a “ Witness “ is “ existent “ all the time and in
>>> all
>>> the states ( waking/dream/deep sleep ) which by its mere proximity or
>>> presence enables such cognition. This being a universal experience it can
>>> be logically postulated that a “ permanent “ conscious entity exists
>>> which
>>> is what your Budhist friend is disputing. It is not necessary that such
>>> an
>>> entity must itself be cognizable. It can be inferred. Even Budhists admit
>>> inference as permissible in a postulation. If your friend does not agree
>>> with this postulation he needs to logically refute such a possibility.
>>>
>>>
>>>  Having said this, I would like to add that going by pure logic this can
>>> at
>>> best be a postulate only and not an assertion. That is the limitation of
>>> logic by definition. The assertion that it IS so is possible only through
>>> the Shrutis. But that is a different story. I am very sorry if this has
>>> become too long. Please bear with me. I really did not want to make it
>>> too
>>> brief as I thought it could be misunderstood as it usually happens in
>>> forums like this where we do not know each other personally.
>>>
>>>
>>>  Regards
>>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l <
>>> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Dear all,
>>> > I work in an office where my boss is a Buddhist, of the Madhyamaka
>>> > tradition of Nagarjuna. We tend to have several lively debates on the
>>> > nature of reality, and one of the questions that we have recently
>>> engaged
>>> > on is the concept of a permanent Brahman (self) onto which this
>>> universe,
>>> > including the BMI, is superimposed due to avidya.
>>> >
>>> > Unsurprisingly, he opposes the very notion of a self, and more
>>> > fundamentally, the idea of permanence itself (even on a parAmArthika
>>> > basis). His view, coming from the Nagarjuna school is of shunyata, or
>>> > emptiness (mutual interdependence of everything). And that emptyness
>>> itself
>>> > is empty.
>>> >
>>> > What are the arguments that I can make to prove the existence of the
>>> > Universal self to him?
>>> >
>>> > I am aware of Sri Shankara Bhagavatpada's argument in the Brahma Sutra
>>> > Bhashya that to deny the self is illogical - the denier would have to
>>> have
>>> > a self in existence with which to deny the self. And if he didn't have
>>> a
>>> > self, then the denial wouldn't exist. However, and my understanding is
>>> > limited here - How does this in itself establish the permanence of the
>>> > self? At best, it seems to me that this argument proves that the
>>> denier's
>>> > ego at a fixed point in time, not the universal, permanent self. I
>>> suspect
>>> > he could also reject the idea of an individual self, instead saying
>>> that it
>>> > is the momentary mind that denies, in that example.
>>> >
>>> > I can point him to shruti vAkya pramAna, but to someone that denies the
>>> > prAmanyam of shruti, that wouldn't be effective. Any suggestions?
>>> >
>>> > Regards,
>>> > Venkat
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>>> > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>>> >
>>> > To unsubscribe or change your options:
>>> > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>>> >
>>> > For assistance, contact:
>>> > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>>> >
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>>> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>>>
>>> To unsubscribe or change your options:
>>> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>>>
>>> For assistance, contact:
>>> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>>> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>>>
>>> To unsubscribe or change your options:
>>> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>>>
>>> For assistance, contact:
>>> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>>>
>>
>>
>