Hindus consider the Vedic texts as sacred. Adi Shankra is a 9th century Hindu mystic and commentary of the Vedic texts that explain the philosophical view of Advaita Vedanta. Different authors debate on Shankara's intent of writing concerning Oneness of Brahman and Atman and the interconnection between them. The main discussion in this essay is to explicate and qualify the truth based on Shankara’s writings. The paper will investigate whether Shankara exaggerates delusional nature of the external world as well as how one comes to know the connection between Atman and Brahman.
According to Shankara, direct experience is the final venue of knowledge. The experience comes after exhausting preliminary and necessary methods such as Vedas readings, abandoning desires, and instruction by a guru. Shankara asserts that one must first know Athman then Brahman prior to establishing a connection between the two. Some of the preliminary steps include one must be a human, have discernment, recognize the external world as an illusion, have faith in sacred texts, and believe in the guru.
The Crest Jewel of Wisdom highlights the above steps and the Aparokshanubbuti. What does Shankara mean that the eternal world is an imagination? The statement confuses many people in the preliminary steps. The book “A Concise Dictionary of Indian Philosophy,” provides the description of imagination as ‘Maya’. Maya is a temporary concept such as a body and not real and eternal as Brahman. The body has the potential of leading others astray from reality. Shankara in his writings enumerates the steps to know Atman. The preliminary steps are as follows, control of the senses, control of the mind, renunciation, silence, space, time, posture, restraining root, equipoise of the body, firmness of vision, control of vital forces, mind withdrawal, concentration, self-contemplation, and complete absorption (Shearer 23). One achieves most of the steps during mediation.
Mediation is the fundamental effort of sustained focus on a specific object like one’s breath or the nature of Oneness. Meditation is the main ingredient for one to know Atman. No one can realize Atman the absolute existence and knowledge without constant practice. A person that seeks knowledge should meditate upon Brahman to attain the desired goal. A meditation on the nature of Brahman will help one to understand Atman. One example of Shankara’s stance on the usefulness of reason or cognition is the meditation on Brahman. One can know Atman through reason or direct experience.
Shearer (24) disagrees with Shankara when he states that for a person to realize Atman an individual must perceive the world as imagination. Nakaso (577) suggests a fault on the translator can lead to that depiction since it seems that the things of the external world such as the physical text of scriptures appear better as potential deceiver instead of illusion. English language uses the word illusion to suggest a deceptive context. The scriptures appear deceptive if one thinks that the physical texts are real, while scriptures are potential deceiver to what is real.
Nakaso (577) believes that scriptures are a potential gateway instead of illusion since illusion contains only the deception side of the world that can lead an English reader astray from Shankara’s meaning. Nakaso (579) focuses on a different aspect of Shankara’s stance as one comes to know Atman. According to the author, as one understands Atman through the intuitive type of knowledge one can lift the veil of ignorance. When ignorance clouds a person vision one is not able to figure Atman. An intuitive leap will enable one to have self-establish character and self-revealed. One continues to study the scripture to the point of exhaustion. A person will experience the lifting of the veil of ignorance in the belief that he has Atman all along.
The traditional interpretation of self-Atman and the identification of Brahma is a form of idealism that emphasizes on either pure consciousness or Hegelian Absolutism. The concept of pure consciousness does not make sense to the common person due to transcendent creative principle on the empirical world to repudiate historical Buddha. Johnson and Sherwood (185) present an alternative interpretation on the concept of self in the Upanishads that will place the whole quest of Upanishads seers in a comprehensible perspective.
The early robust polytheistic naturalism of the Vedic poets move gradually searches for deeper principle of intelligibility. Nasadiya Sukta bears eloquent testimony to the irrepressible quest. Aryan mind provokes the changing panorama to seek a unifying principle that manifest diversity. Some spiritual quest manifests the spirit of man. The early settlers perceive a dichotomy between nature and spirit or man and nature. The main of thrust of Upanishadic seers is to unify principle of intelligibility in the multiplicity of objects and events. A conspicuous shift toward the historical and Trans temporal, unify the source of the universe. Maurer and Swami (352) regard Brahma as the final principle of intelligibility that depicts logical absurdity and conceptual coherence.
According to Maurer and Swami (352), one must know Atman first, Brahman second and Oneness third. One uses the same basic principles to know Atman and Brahman. Shankara states that there are fruitless, fruitful, and final steps for one to know the interconnection. Atman and Brahman are distinct from each other and for one to understand each of them; one should avoid distractions in the external world. A person can experience a fruitless venture in the belief that the physical world has the ultimate reality. In that case, one will miss out to know Atman and Brahman and their interconnection since it would be difficult to accomplish the first steps. It is incorrect to rely on one teacher to have ultimate knowledge since one can only gain real knowledge through a clear insight and not the teachers.
Johnson and Sherwood (186) say that it is wrong to learn from one guru at the start of the journey since at some point one will travel alone. In the beginning, one comes to the knowledge that Atman and Brahman are unique from each other through meditation and revelation. At the final step, one exhausts all other resources until you come to the revelation that Brahman and Atman are one.
Shankara commentators are three-fold where each uses own method that include direct experience, revelation, or intuition. All three contend on knowing Oneness through direct experience. Johnson and Sherwood (188) bring to light the issue of an individual failure to recognize the connection between Atman (individual) and Brahman automatically. Individuals that recognize the connection have no other duty other than exist and continue remaining conscious to Atman and Brahman. Brahman is a part of individuals since birth where it seems easier to establish something in comparison to being part of the organization.
Upanishads (par. 4) raises the question whether coming to know Oneness is a direct or indirect experience. It can be direct experience since one acknowledges the existence of Brahman through intuitive knowledge. It can be through indirect experience since there are many steps to accomplish before acknowledging Brahman that appears to use an indirect route. To acknowledge Oneness, one can experience the connection between Atman and Brahman according to guru through directly or indirectly. If one has to undergo a sequence of process to know the interconnection then, a person uses an indirect route. It is precise to note that we know Brahman through direct experience.
Nakaso (580) likes to maintain Shankara original language of direct experience as a way to learn the interconnection. The concept of direct experience compares to the Christian revelations that occur in the same way. Christians receive revelations from God through direct experience. Shankara fails to consider a direct experience of The Oneness as a mere illustration that requires possible clarification.
Nakaso (581) confesses of having experiences interpreted as having connection between Atman and Brahman. One of the experiences comes to Shearer (14) after having extensive medication coupled with fasting from food and sleep as suggests in the first steps. After some period, the author has a revelation of ultimate truths communicated to them at a high rate. At first, the author does not comprehend the directions of the revelations. According to the author, something is true after having extensive discussion about it with another person to test the hypotheses and evaluate whether it holds true.
The experience of truth is different in that scenario since it appears as intuitive unquestionable truth. Maurer and Swami (7) experience a similar feeling of The Oneness in an immediate fashion while having an intimate conversation with another person. The author experiences during the intimate conversation enable a feeling of interconnection. Shankara says that the nature of Atman is in the internal mind and pervades through time.
Atman is a temporal part of the external world since the formation of physical vesture appears as delusion. The body can lead an individual astray from knowing Atman since he is permanent and not transient. Atman is eternal and true while the body is temporal and delusional. Shankara gives an encompassing view of Brahman in that there is no material cause of this phenomenon in the entire universe. Shankara describes Brahman as quiescent, euonymus, bliss, and knowledgeable.
Nakaso (580) describes Brahman as a metaphorical and not a physical being since he is ineffable. The distinction between Atman and Brahman is the use of non-dualistic philosophy where Brahman is perfect and absolute while Atman is imperfect and finite. The interconnection between Atman and Brahman according to Shankara is that we are all the same. Individuals are unique like Atman in the collection of our essences combines to make a supreme Atman. All individuals are distinct, as they possess different dreams, desires, hopes, dreams, and wishes.
The unique motives that describe individuals are different show that we have different essences. Shankara refutes that claim when he cites that wishes and desires are not who we essentially are. It is possible that the interconnection between Atman and Brahman achieves full knowledge of truth and liberation in essence it is a connection of perfect knowledge.
Works Cited
"Upanishads." Encyclopedia of Occultism;Parapsychology. 2001, John Bowker, "Upanishads." The Columbia Encyclopedia, 6th Ed.. 2014, "Upanishads." Myths;Legends of the World. 2001, "Upanishads." World Encyclopedia. 2005, Elizabeth Knowles, and "Upanishad." Oxford Dictionary of Rhymes. 2007. "Upanishads." Encyclopedia.com. HighBeam Research, 1 Jan. 2001. Web. 21 Nov. 2014. <http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Upanishads.aspx>.
Johnston, Charles, and Sherwood J. B. Sugden. "The Dramatic Element in the Upanishads." Monist (2013): 185-216. Print.
Ller, F. Max. The Upanishads,. Oxford: Clarendon, 1879. Print.
Maurer, Walter Harding, and Swami Nikhilananda. "The Upanishads, Aitareya and Brihadaranyaka." Translated from, The Journal of Asian Studies: 352. Print.
DeRoche, James F. "Walking The Way: 81 Zen Encounters With The Tao Te Ching." Translated from , Library Journal 138.7 (2013): 90. Print.
Sui Pheng, Low. "Lessons From Lao Tzu's Tao Te Ching For The Facilities Manager." Facilities 21.11/12 (2003): 280-288. Print.
Primary Source:
"Who Am I: Self-Knowledge According To Advaita Vedanta." Interbeing 4.1 (2010): 17-28
Upanishads by Satinder Dhiman translated by8th century Indian philosopher called Sankara expounded in English by Advaita Vedanta
