Shedding Light On the Atman

SHEDDING LIGHT ON THE ATMAN

By Todd F. Reinhard

When discussing ultimate spiritual topics, it is necessary to keep in mind at all times that words and concepts do not suffice. Any attempt we make to describe the transcendental is ultimately futile, for the boundless cannot be encapsulated within a concept, a word, a name, or a form. Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that human beings from time immemorial have attempted to wrap their minds around and to articulate the nature of some “thing” beyond their human natures—some “thing” that transcends the psycho-physical entity which they regard as “themselves”. This vain striving to capture the “truth”, to make the infinite finite, is a reflection of our spiritual nature. Indeed, we can label this quest for ultimate knowledge as “science”, or we can call it “religion”, but regardless of what we call it, it is spiritual. Some may argue that it is not a spiritual quality, but rather an intellectual quality of humanity that compels one to verbally describe ultimate principles. This is a typical Western philosophical stance, since it is common for the Westerner to equate the “soul”, or transcendental entity or principle, with the “mind”. (It is of interest to note that the word “Psychology”, which has been defined in the West as the “Study of Mind”, literally means “Study of the Soul”; this indicates that the mind and soul are perceived as one in the same in the West.) The Indian Vedantin, however, with razor-sharp intellect, vehemently denies that the mind is the transcendental principle; for him, the mind is but a gross entity emanating from and controlled by subtler and subtler entities—the most subtle of all being the Atman, the TRUE SELF, the WITNESS (Sakshi).
According to the Advaitist Vedantin, the true spiritual aspirant must eventually become intimately familiar with the workings of his “inner equipment”. He must first hear of it, then rigorously contemplate upon it, and then, through meditation, use the equipment to overcome the equipment. This is the science of Vrtti Jnana, or “Ripple (Emanation) Knowledge”. To understand this science, one must first understand that the Atman is regarded as Absolute; it is timeless, spaceless, causeless, changeless, and infinite; it is the Sakshi, or “Witness”. It is Pure Consciousness. It is the substratum for all phenomenal motion and action, whether physical or psychological. The phenomenal motions and actions themselves are referred to as “vrttis”, or “ripples”. All of these ripples emanate from the Sakshi, the most subtle of all subtleties. The Antahkarana is likened to a ray that consists of four aspects, which emerge when the Sakshi (Atman) expresses: 1) Ahamkara (the ego), 2) Chitta (roughly translated as the “subconscious”), 3) Buddhi (the intellect), and 4) Manas (the mind). It is more useful to think of these aspects in terms of their functions than in terms of distinct entities, for in truth, there is no independent substance to any of them. They arise together and coexist in the phenomenal internal world, so to speak. Nevertheless, for the sake of communication, we will speak of them as if they are independent and arise sequentially.
The ahamkara is the first aspect of the Antahkarana to emerge when the Sakshi (Atman) expresses. It is the subtle “limited I-consciousness” and functions in two ways: 1) by Avarana, it veils the Sakshi from which it has emerged, and 2) by Vikshepa, it projects as something different from itself, expressing as cause (karana) and effect (karya), or subject and object. Because of the ahamkara, during waking consciousness (jagrati-sthata), we identify ourselves with our limited body and minds and perceive a phenomenal universe of multiplicity. During deep sleep (sushupti), vikshepa ceases, but the avarana persists. The karya (effect) withdraws back into the karana (cause), the object back into the subject. The ultimate “goal” of the practitioner is to get behind this deceitful ahamkara and merge with the Sakshi, the Real Self, the Real “I”.
The Chitta is less subtle than the Ahamkara and is responsible for remembering and forgetting. The forgetting process is called “Apohana”, and the process of recollection is called “Smrti”. The Chitta receives knowledge from the Buddhi (to be discussed next) and stores it. The process of forgetting (apohana) is actually the taking of knowledge from the front of consciousness and placing it in the background. Remembrance (smrti) occurs when the information is taken from the background and given back to the forefront.
The Buddhi is less subtle than either the Chitta or Ahamkara and is responsible for making decisions and directing the Manas, the grossest aspect of the Antahkarana. In short, the Manas works in conjunction with the five sense organs (jnanendriya)—the eyes, ears, nose, skin, and tongue—and serves as a plate upon which the impressions gathered by the jnanendriya are imprinted. The Manas goes forth, as it were, collects the impressions from the jnanendriya, sorts, and changes them into concepts. The Manas then hands these concepts over to the Buddhi, which subsequently rejects most of them. The concepts that the Buddhi keeps comprise our knowledge. As already mentioned, the Buddhi then, through the process of apohana, puts the knowledge into the background of consciousness.
The Antahkarana can operate in two modes: 1) by the process of abhijna, it can look outside and obtain external knowledge. This process involves the gross coming out of the subtle, such as described above, where the Manas evolves from the Ahamkara. 2) by the process of pratyabhijna, it can turn inward and obtain Self knowledge. This process involves the gross going back to the subtle, where the Manas involves to the Ahamkara and ultimately to the Sakshi, the Atman.
As pointed out above, the purpose of Vrtti Jnana is to realize the Sakshi (i.e. merge with the Witness), and this realization demands Mano Nasa, the killing of the mind. (Here, the “mind” aspect is synonymous with the Antahkarana gestalt.) However, the process of killing that mind requires the concentrated use of that very mind—that is, the mind kills itself. When that is accomplished, Pure Consciousness alone exists, beyond all of the concepts, ripples, Vrttis just described. The method is to merge all objects (the gross vrtiis) back into the absolute subject, the Witness—that is, Pure Consciousness. To do this, one must first make use of the Buddhi Vrtti to fully digest and assimilate the material expounded here. She must then make use of the Chitta Vrtti to REMEMBER. Once the Sakshi is located, all Vrttis dissolve into it. With that, comes the experience of “Neti Neti”…”Not this, Not this”.

Advaita Vedanta: As It Exists

ADVAITA VEDANTA: AS IT EXISTS *

By Todd F. Reinhard

“Ontology”, a familiar word in philosophy circles, refers to the study of existence. Indeed, Ontology, along with its kindred disciplines, Epistemology and Axiology—the study of knowledge and the study of ethics, respectively—comprise the very fabric of Philosophy. Ontology, the topic of the current discussion, is that discipline that demands an answer to the questions “What does it mean for something to Exist…for something to Be?” The philosophical sloth responds with some questions of his own: “Why should I bother with such a ridiculous question? Isn’t existence self-evident?” In turn, the Advaitin Vedantin replies resoundingly, “Well, yes…and no….”
The Indian philosophy of Advaita Vedanta is that branch of Vedanta that posits “non-duality” as the basis of reality and was popularized and expounded by Shamkara (ca. 788-820). (To be sure, there have been many Advaitists since Shamkara who have made significant contributions and amendments to Advaita Vedanta, and Shamkara himself was not the first to suggest the notion of “non-duality”; however, his teachings are usually regarded as the most clear and thorough.) Hence, the present essay is centered on Shamkara’s teachings.
So, introduction aside, let us return to the question of interest “What does it mean for something to exist?” Another way of phrasing the question—perhaps a more riveting way—is “What is Real? What is True?” In order to do full justice to these questions, the Advaitist considers three “Levels of Being” **, namely, 1) Reality (Paramarthika), 2) Appearance, and 3) Unreality. To distinguish the three levels, it is necessary to understand the notion of “badha”, which is usually translated as “contradiction”, “cancellation”, or “sublation”. In short, “badha”, or “sublation”, refers to a radical change in the value one mentally assigns to a content of consciousness because a new experience has contradicted her previously held beliefs about that content. It is a psychological process whereby one rectifies erroneous judgments in light of new experience and subsequently attaches belief to that new experience. Although the change in belief is radical, it must be emphasized that intellectual and ethical reasons accompany the rejection-replacement action. According to Shamkara, this process of sublation serves as a criterion for distinguishing between the various levels and sublevels of being. In effect, the more something can be sublated or contradicted, the less “reality” or “being” it possesses. Likewise, the more “reality” something possesses, the less it is susceptible to contradiction or sublation.
So, what is Ultimately Real for the Advaitist? That experience is Ultimately Real, which can never be contradicted by other experience; that experience is none other than Brahman—the experience of complete transcendental identity. Brahman is an experience that is utterly indescribable and boundless, for it exists beyond the limitations of mind, word, and concept. Nevertheless, many make efforts (no matter how futile they may be) to describe Brahman and commonly refer to It as “Sat-Chit-Ananda”, meaning roughly “Infinite Existence, Infinite Knowledge, Infinite Bliss”. Still others describe Brahman via negativa as “neti neti”, “not this, not this”. THIS is Brahman, and THIS ALONE is REAL for the Advaitist. Shamkara refers to this Ultimate Reality as “Paramarthika”.
The second Level of Being is called “Appearance”, which can be usefully broken down into three sublevels, namely, 1) the “Real Existent”, 2) the “Existent”, and 3) the “Illusory Existent”. The “Real Existent” and the “Existent” are broken down still further among “existential relations”, among “particular objects”, and among “concepts”. “Existential relations” within the domain of the “Real Existent” refer to those relationships that involve love and theistic religious experiences. These experiences are infused with feelings of high devotion and selflessness. Nevertheless, since they involve consciousness of separation, they can be sublated by the overarching Reality of Brahman (Paramarthika). “Particular objects” as a sublevel of the “Real Existent” refers to those objects which participate in Reality yet retain an individuality of their own. Works of art, music, poetry and other creative expressions find themselves in this category. These contents of consciousness can only be subordinated by Ultimate Reality. “Concepts” that occupy the “Real Existent” refer to logical relationships, such as the law of contradiction, that are necessary in organizing propositional truths and statements of fact. Such concepts can only be sublated by the Ultimate Reality, which transcends the very mind that relies upon them.
We now come to the sublevel of Being that constitutes our “normal, day-to-day experience”. This level was termed by Shamkara as “Vyavaharika” and refers to all experiences that can be sublated by “Reality” (Paramarthika) as well as by their own counterparts that exist within the “Real Existent”. (For example, among “existential relations”, love and religious theistic devotion are “more real” than conventional relations that exist at the level of the “Existent”.) Among “existential relations” relegated to the domain of the “Existent” (Vyavaharika) we have those relationships that are strictly formal or conventional—lacking in any significant feeling of unity or devotion. Within these relationships, we identify ourselves with our body and mind, completely distinct from others. Among “particular objects”, likewise, we perceive them as multiple, differentiated, and separate. We do not experience their participation in reality; they are mere objects of perception. “Concepts”, within the “Existent” realm refers to those logical relations that function only in restricted systems, such as mathematics, logic, geometry, etc. Unlike the “concepts” that belong to the realm of the “Real Existent”, such as the law of contradiction, there is no universal necessity attached; the “Existent” concepts function solely as analytic statements.
The final category that falls under the main heading of “Appearance” we will label the “Illusory Existent”, which Shamkara called “Pratibhasika”. This is the set of experience that contains dreams, hallucinations, fancies, and the like. These experiences in themselves lack empirical truth, but nevertheless point to an empirical reality. For example, one may dream of a snake. Later, she awakens and discovers that there is no empirically real snake. Yet that snake did exist within the context of the dream, and it pointed to something that does have an objective reality in the empirical world—somewhere. The content of the dream or hallucination, by and large, is dependent upon the content of empirical reality. As one might expect, “Reality”, the “Real Existent”, and the “Existent” can sublate all experience that falls under the heading of the “Illusory Existent”.
The third and final Level of Being is labeled “Unreality”. “Unreality” is that which cannot manifest as a datum of experience simply because it is a blatant self-contradiction—a logical impossibility. For example, a “square circle” or a “dark light” cannot possibly exist. The “Unreal” points to nothing and is incapable of concrete emergence. In brief, “Unreality” is “non-being” and therefore, “non-existent”--It neither can nor cannot be sublated.
A salient feature of these three Levels of Being is that it is impossible to establish causal relations among them; in fact, it is this complete lack of causal relationship that defines them as distinct “levels” in the first place. However, the curious fact remains that, from the level of “Ultimate Reality”, (Paramarthika), there can be no distinct levels at all, for “levels”, as finite concepts, exist only in the mind! Hence, we necessarily arrive at the conclusion that Advaitist philosophy itself exists only in the realm of “Appearance”, which is always tainted by Maya, a product of ignorance (avidya) and superimposition (adhyasa). (The Indian concept of Maya is a rich topic and is outside the scope of the current discussion. For now, it suffices to understand Maya as a metaphysical power of Brahman that brings about the world of multiplicity (that is, the “Level of Appearance”). Like Brahman—but for different reasons-- it is beginningless (anadi), unthinkable (acintya), and indescribable (anirvacaniya). Epistemologically, it is the power that veils and perverts “Ultimate Reality”.)
A final worthy ontological note is that Shamkara, unlike several of his successors in later Vedanta, did not believe in “subjective idealism”—the doctrine that the contents of empirical consciousness can be fully accounted for in terms of consciousness activity. In other words, Shamkara did not support the notion that the objects of experience can be reduced in toto to the perceptive subject. Hence, Shamkara is a kind of “soft realist”. He stated emphatically, “An object is perceived by an act of the subject. The object is one thing, and the subject another.” (Those who are familiar with the Buddhist school of Vijnanavada and Prakasanda’s doctrine of “Emergence is Perception”, which is espoused throughout Valmiki’s Yoga Vasistha, should note that these “subjective idealist” systems of thought are incompatible with Shamkara’s bent toward “realism”.)
In closing, it should be underlined that, contrary to what many believe, Advaita Vedanta does not deny the existence of the world. For the Advaitist, the world does exist, for it is a content of experience, and as such, it must exist. As we have seen, the world is neither “Real” nor “Unreal”—it is “Apparent”. Only from the standpoint of the transcendental Absolute can one justifiably refer to the world as “illusion”. Before that level has been experienced, however, it is foolhardy to deny the existence of the world…and once that level is reached, all philosophical, empirical, relative, conceptual systems will dissolve and be transcended.


* For a more thorough discussion on the Levels of Being, please consult Advaita Vedanta, A Philosophical Reconstruction, written by Eliot Deutsch, from which most of the above information was obtained.

** A “Conceptual Spool” for the above discussion:

LEVELS OF BEING

I Reality (Paramarthika)— transcendental experience of pure spiritual unity; it cannot be contradicted

II Appearance

1. “Real Existent”
A. among “existential relations”—love, theistic religious experience
B. among “particular objects”—works of art, music, poetry; they participate in reality
C. among “concepts”—necessary, indispensable; e.g. law of contradiction

2. “Existent” (Vyavaharika)
A. among “existential relations”—conventional, formal relationships
B. among “particular objects”—any object that is perceived as an independent entity; no participation in reality
C. among “concepts”—logical relations employed in a formal logistic system

3. “Illusory Existent” (Pratibhasika)—dreams, hallucinations, fancies

III Unreality—self-contradictory in nature; e.g. a “square circle”; it cannot appear as a datum of experience