A Critique of Advaita Vedanta-2

 A Critique of Advaita Vedanta- Part 2

Dr K.Loganathan, Nov 2012

A Critique of Advaita Vedanta- 7

We have completed an exposition of the essential and foundational ideas of Advaita Vedanta and how ultimately it is based on the assumption that the Upanishdic Maka Vakkyas cannot be wrong at all, they speak only Satyam, the absolute TRUTH. Leaving aside the various and very detailed projections of how the normal appearance of the world as a collectivity of various individual objects of different structural forms and names are effected by the DCM, we shall begin now a critique of Advaita Vedanta as articulated in KN, still widely read and appreciated.

Is the self the Body ?

We shall take up first the observation of the Vedanties that an average person equates his self with the body, the teekaanma vaatam, and which is a delusion that is the cause of the endless existential repetition, being thrown into embodied existence repeatedly. Symbolically we represented this as (s = D) and which is a delusion (s : D) to destroy which TMS, the author of KN brings in the experiential facts of dreams during sleep and also dreamless sleep and so forth.

Now how valid are these observations and claims?

First we notice that if a person identifies himself as nothing else but the body then he is a materialist the very ancient Lokayata and modern and Western positivists who do not admit anything other the sensorial. The real is what is accessible to the senses and their extensions. Thus the self is not a substantial and psychic entity that is sentient but rather the physical body that is insentient. The consciousness which underlies the linguistic behavior is also a material process as it is also a product of various kinds of material processes the neurological genetic and so forth.

Now if this is the essence of Materialists or Positivists as such, pointing out that there are dreams and dreamless experiences does not in fact bring out the reality of the psychic entity and which according to the Vedanti is another product of DCM where as a matter of fact the self is Brahman and nothing else. The positivist can in fact counter these observations that the dream experiences and such other related experiences are all material processes, chemical neurological and so forth. Just as the normal sensory perceptions are physical processes involving the senses and the brain processes so are the dream and dreamless experiences.

So the Vedantic claim that such materialists are deluded i.e. (s : D) does not hold at all. What we have is NOT delusion but rather a BLINDNESS, a refusal to recognize that an average person SEES and in that shows himself as distinct from the physical body.

Seeing and Perceiving

There is a fundamental difference between seeing and sensing or sensorial perceptions. For one thing ‘seeing’’ is intentional and for another what is seen is appropriated as a TEXT with its characteristic DUALITY of structure i.e. the Surface Structure(SS) and Deep Structure ( DS) and which brings in the Pedagogic Hermeneutics of Tolkaappiyar (Nuun NeRi) and so forth.

When a person sees and names an object ( This is a dog etc ), it is not simply because of sensing I,e allowing the various sense-data impinge upon the senses. In such a sensing there will not be a consciousness of an object as such and such, SavikaRpa form of consciousness of Indian logicians. A selectivity is always present in the seeings and which discloses the presence of INTENTIONALITY regulating the selectivity and hence the object- perception

Now the presence of intentionality grounding the seeings also follows from the fact that there is temporality of time consciousness, the Intentional Time or the KuRippuk Kaalam of Tolkaappiyar. Such a temporality of time consciousness is NOT an epiphenomenon of the various kinds material processes including here the neurological and so forth. That which enjoys the intentionality is every seeing has to be a psychic entity, something capable of projecting into the future an existential possibility of itself for itself. To intend is to project the self as a one of such and such states in the future. Such existential projections are not possible by the material processes no matter how complex the brain and neurological networks. There has to a distinnct substantial entity, the self, the psychic entity that sees and enjoys the presence of various kinds of objects.

The Body is a Text

Now we can see that with these clarifications where the differences between sensing and seeing emerge clearly, we can also establish that the self is different from the body though under certain conditions it identifies itself with the body. For if we take the body as a TEXT with the DUALITY of Structure (SS and DS), then it follows that a person can see himself as a psychic entity distinct from the body by interpreting the SS features and noting the self as the DS. The TEXTUALITY of the body discloses the presence of self as the DS just as the contours on the face would indicate the conditions of the mind or the soul,

Thus without bringing in the notion of delusion and so forth we can show that there is a psychic entity inhabiting the body and which sometimes identifies itself with body and sometimes with the mind and so forth. Thus it appears that the correct representation of the relationship between the self and body is (s =l D) and which is not at all a delusion as claimed by the Vedanties.

A Critique of Advaita Vedanta- 8

There is an entity that’s the self and it is a sentient entity, something capable of consciousness and though it identifies itself with the physical body but it is not the body because deluded into thinking so. Now if the self is distinct from body and where we can say it inhabits the body and departs from it at the point of death, is it really the Brahman and is it only because of the workings of DCM that it is seen different from Brahman? Are the different individual selves illusory like the reflections of the same Sun in different pots full water, mere reflections and not anything substantial?

We shall now attend to these theses of Advaita Vedanta and show that they are also untenable and that there iare numerous selves that are real and remain distinct from BEING even at the point of Moksa. At no point the self becomes the Brahman and hence advaitic interpretation of Maka Vakkyas quite wrong.

In the criticism above we have drawn attention to the fact there is a difference between ‘seeing’ and ‘sensing’ and that it is the self that sees over and above sensing. Now we can explore this basic activity of seeing by the selves and demonstrate that seeing as such is a complex phenomenon and hierarchically organized. Through the correct of hermeneutic efforts, a self can widen and deepen the seeing and finally end up with the Absolute Seeing --- the SEEING as such and which is the SEEING of BEING Himself/Itself.

The Seeings and SEEING

In my book Azivil UNmai I have classified the seeings into a hierarchically organized competence where the Sensory Seeing is the first and basic. Then comes what I call Nuuliyap Paarvai the Hermeneutic Seeing where it is also quite natural and where everything seen is seen as a TEXT with a its duality of structure the Surface Structure (SS) and Deep Structure (DS) When an object is appropriated as a TEXT, from the features of the SS we interpret and access the DS. In the example we have given we said the self is the DS interpretively understood as the DS of the body taking the various behavioral dispositions as the SS features.

Now we can also access deeper and deeper visions like Dream Seeing, Transductive Perceptions where deep dreams are experienced and in the course of which we encounter the various archetypes and the events in the world as dramas played out by these archetypes. In Tantric Psychology these visions are called the visions of the Third Eye, the Nutaliyap Paarvai, Now in the Tantric Psycholgy even higher kinds of visions of seeing are recognized such as the Parap Paarvai(Transcendent Seeing) Ararut Paarvai ( the vision where only Love dominates all visions) and Kalaatiita Paarvai , the visions that seek out transcending Time itself. It is only after all such visions that a self reaches the SEEING and which is the same as that of BEING( Brahman etc).

Now what is the difference between these seeings and SEEING?

As Meykandar points out while there is a that-ness and this-ness i.e. Cuddu or referentiality in all seeings no matter how deep it is, the final SEEING results only when there is no cuddu at all i.e. there is no that-ness this-ness and so forth. In other words at the point of SEEING there is NOTHINGNESS only as an Other and there is no this-ness or that-ness. The SEEING does not have anything ALIEN to encounter as a that and so forth.

This is the natural SEEING of BEING who sees without any alienness ---- It stands ONE-WITH all and SEES without any fissure or alienness. The self beginning with the sensory seeing progresses and acquires higher and higher kinds of seeing finally ending up with SEEING and at which point in seeing it coincides with BEING.

Is Atman Actually Brahman?

Now this raises the question: at the point where the self enjoys the same seeing as BEING i.e the SEEING free of any reference, and which is Moksa as nothing above that state is possible, is the atman the same as BEING(Brahman) as claimed by the Advaities?

Now certainly it cannot be for enjoying the same limiting vision i.e. the SEEING does not mean the sameness of substance. Two different psychic entities can in principle enjoy the same kind of vision remaining however substantially different.

Also the self seeks out Moksa and this pressure is already there in the mind of all souls and because of which they seek out metaphysical understanding and which allows them to elicit higher and higher kinds of visions that ultimately results in enjoying the SEEING above which there is nothing, The metaphysical struggles come to a CLOSURE and hence the self begins to enjoy Moksa.

We can represent this understanding as follows. Let the finite self of limited seeing be represented as ‘s’ and it developing into the Moksa Self as “S” where the development process can be represented as (s > S). Thus with this we can capture the whole development towards Moksa as (s > S =l B) i.e. he finite and delimited self or atman develops and becomes the Supreme Self, the Self that enjoys the same SEEING as BEING and at which point the self identifies itself with BEING. In this kind of self identification the self retains its individuality and hence its substantially.

While the Advaitic Monism is called PoruL attuvitam, the identify in vision is called Arivattuvam. The latter denies that Atman is Brahman and upholds its substantially.

Thus we recover here the critique of Advaita by Meykandar where he notes the meaning of Advaita itself i.e non-difference implicates anniya naati- a substantial difference between Atman and Brahman

A Critique of Advaita Vedanta- 9

We have seen that in the identification of self with the physical body there is no delusion but only a restriction of vision to the sensory. We have also seen that there is no delusion in the substantial reality and individuality of selves and that even in Moksa the self exists as distinct from BEING(Brahman) but enjoys the same SEEING as that of BEING(Brahman) It is this sameness of SEEING that accounts for the sense of oneness in Moksa but which oneness is ARivattuvitam and NOT the PoruLattuvitam, the oneness of substance, the Monism of Sankara’s Maya Vatam, the notion that the world of individuals with different names and forms is Mythiya, an illusion. This ARivattuvitam is also the same as Suddhatvaita of Saiva Siddhanta.

So far we have seen that there is no justification for invoking the Delusion Creating Mechanism in our metaphysical explorations and that what matters is the widening and deepening of visions, the seeings. So this raises the question of the Advaita Theory of Delusory Perceptions --- the Anirvasanak Kiyaati and the notion Avidya proposed as the reasons. Let us recall the symbolic representation for an easy discussion of the matter.

A typical illusory perception is seeing a rope a snake and so forth and which can be represented as

(Ua)(Vx,y)(a =l x):y) where ‘U’ is the universe of individual particulars, “V” the universe of concepts and x and y the concepts of ‘rope’ and ‘snake’. The symbols ‘=l’ and ‘ : ‘ stand for ‘identification’ and ‘delusion’ respectively.

What the Vedanties do is to generalize from this valid understanding of delusion to all perceptions -- the universe of individual particulars concepts identifications and so forth. They see as B: W( U V) and so forth i.e it is Brahman that is seen as the worlds of names and forms and all because of DCM i.e. the delusion creating mechanism. We are as per the claim of these Advaities, deluded into thinking that there are innumerable individuals including selves and that there are universes of concepts and so forth where as a matter of fact there is only Brahman, the Supre Radiance and nothing else.

How valid is this central claim of Advaita Vedanta?

It is illegitimate to generalize and say that even veridical perceptions such as “This is rope” (a =l x) is a delusion as the concept ‘x’ is a mental construction, a kaRpitam as the Advaities would claim. However such constructive efforts are not delusions like perceiving the rope as a snake and so forth. For one thing there is an asymmetry here ---- while the rope perception destroys the snake imposition, the reverse does not happen. There is stability in the rope perception while there is only instability on the snake perception.

Furthermore there is a fundamental difference in the epistemic quality. While snake perception might have raised the issue of truth and falsity till it recedes, this is not the case with the rope perception. It remains stable and raises the question about the TRUTH of the perception where it is said to be true by all if it is a fact and not so if it is not. The delusion such as the snake perception annuls this epistemic possibility for it cannot be communicated and its TRUTH value affirmed.

This is precisely the reason why the snake-perception is said to be delusory while the rope perception not.

The veridical perceptions are truth functional and being objective, a FACT can elicit universal affirmation or denial. In other words while delusory perceptions are subjective, something that happens to an individual under certain environmental and psychological conditions, veridical perceptions are not so for here the object perceived is there in the world as an independent and objective reality COMMON to all individuals and who encounter it and make pictures of it for the purpose of NAMING it as such and such.

The naming process is not an object creating process but rather an object apprehending process. In apprehending an object as there, there are two stages ---- the NiruvikaRpam and SavikaRpam as noted even by Tolkaappiyar.

When we note the presence of an object simply as there we note it as ‘ This” or “That” the Cuddu. The object remains purely concept free but simply as there as an individual particular. Here we do not have any mental constructions but simply noting as something there one encounters. It is only later where by comparing that object with many others and its many appearances that the INVARIANT features are isolated and conceptualized as such and such. It is here that we have the birth of concepts like ‘rope’; ‘snake’ ‘dog’ ‘cat’ and so forth. Thus for the naming process there must be many different objects and they must persist over time and space with an identity for it to be perceived as such and such. So the universe of objective particulars ‘U” cannot be a product of Delusion.

In such a process of encountering objective particulars, apprehending them as such and such naming them with words and so forth, there is no delusion at all but only a process of understating the world of objective particulars.

As additional support for this analysis we can bring in the birth of SIGN Language and the paralinguistic fealtures that accompany verhal behavior. In the use of SIGN language whether by the dumb and mute or the normal people we make pictures of facts whether actions or objects and which are not delusions. Word meanings are like pictures and mappings of real objects out there in the world common to all. Hence the SavikaRpa UNarvu, the conceptual apprehensions is not at all delusory. So is the world of NiruvikaRpa uNarvu the Universe of objective particulars.

No Avidya but only Ignorance

Now if the subjective conditions of the perceiver that results in delusory perceptions is Avidya then there is no such an Avidya during veridical perceptions where the naming proceeds from concept-free noting of objects as there and naming them as such and such by isolating what are distinctive and invariant in the object. Here there is LEARING both about the presence of such individuals as well as the distinctive features of the objects. The fact that there is learning as such discloses the presence of not Avidya but IGNORANCE which is a DARKNESS in the soul. The objects in the world light up the consciousness of the souls and with that destroy the presence of ignorance as such.

This also brings us to the presence of Malam in the soul that is the root cause of this blindness and hence the ignorance. Over all then we are recovering not the Monism of Advaita but the triadism of Saiva Siddhanta

A Critique of Advaita Vedanta- 10

We shall now come to the central claim of Advaita Vedanta and which has been severely criticized even by other Vedanties. In the extension of the workings of Delusion Creating Mechanism to the whole universes of names and forms the Advaties invoke the Maka Vakkyas “Aham Brahmam Asmi’ and Tat Twam Asi’ and so forth and say that only these Maka Vakkyas are Satryam, Absolutely True all else being asattiyam- not true. They also interpret these Maka Vakkyas to mean and equation of Atman and Brahman and NOT an identification of atman with Brahman(BEING). Symbolically we can represent this difference as follows. The Advaitic claim is (s = B) i.e. the self is the SAME as Brahman and that it is because of delusion we do not see this identity. The other possibility is (s > S =l B) where the finite self becomes the Supreme Self S and at which point it identifies itself with BEING( Brahman) Here the self as S retains its individuality but only it stands non-alien with BEING.

Advaities are Deluded

Now it appears to me that the Advaities are in fact deluded inot thinking that the Maha Vakkyas mean Monism i.e. the substantial identity of Atman and Brahaman where else the TRUTH is self identification with BEING on becoming the Supreme Self. Now since a delusion disappears on seeing the TRUTH, so it is here: once we see the TRUTH that self becoming the Supreme Self identifies itself with BEING(Brahman) the equation of Atman and Brahman, the monistic interpretation disappears just like the snake-perception disappears when the rope-perception returns.

But how can we show the meaning of Maka Vakkyas is in fact self identification and not the Advaitic self equation?

We recall here that there is no Avidya but only Ignorance or a Blindness caused by the inherent presence of Malam, a reality that blinds the souls and causes blindness and hence limitedness of visions. The souls begin with sensory perceptions and when they remain fixated to it, fail to access other forms of seeings that are also inherently possible such as Hermeneutic Seeing, Dream Seeing enjoying the visions of the Third Eye such as the Distance Vision and so forth.

Now in all these there is a projection into the future where a possibility for the self to be is projected as its own possibility and when the self grabs it and seeks to become that where virtually it can say “ I want to become X’ or “I am X” then there comes to prevail an INTENTION that sustains its behavior till it becomes in fact the projected.

Temporality of Time Consciousness

It is here we locate the birth of Time Consciousness as such. This intentionality the self seeking to become what it is not yet but something it can be, installs the Temporality of Time Consciousness or what is the same Intentional Time and which is the basis for the self to measure out the world time of Astronomy and so forth. The temporality arising out of Intentional projections gives the selves the competence to measure world time where repetitions are noted and time intervals established.

Thus we see here that it is self projections such as “ I am X” or what’s the same “ I intend to be X’ is the source of time consciousness in the selves. This also shows that once the self is intention-less it also loses its competence to measure time and would SEE the world without Time. Time consciousness will not be a factor in the seeing of the soul and where such a seeing is also the SEING of BEING.

Maka Vakkyas and Funsamental Temporality.

Here we can distinguish between the normal Intentionality and Fundamental Intentionality and corresponding to these the ordinary temporality and Fundamentality Temporality. It is here that we see the meaning of the Maka Vakkyas also. First we notice that Aham Brahman Asmi and Tat Twam As both mean the same except that while the first is a statement in the first person, the second is on the second person. Both are in fact statements of Fundamental Intentionality where the self as the Supreme Self, S, the self that has freed itself of the vision delimiting Makam seeks now to identify itself with BEING(Brahman). The ordinary self projections of “ I am X” or ’Thou art X’ become in the limiting case “ I am Brahman” (Akam Brahman Asmi) or “ Thou art Brahmna or That” ( Tat Twam Asi )

Thus we see in this way the Maka Vakkyas are neither true nor false for they are not statements or propositions but rather verbalizations of Fundamental Intentionality, what the souls intend to become at the limiting point.

Now if this is the true meaning of the Maha Vakkyas, then it follows that Advaitic interpretation of self equation with Brahman is erroneous and hence an illusion. Thus it becomes clear that the Advaities have deluded themselves in interpreting the meaning of Maha Vakkyas the way thay have done and have fooled themselves and the world a victim of their DCM

Thus it becomes very clear that the Monism of Advaita Vedanta is not only untenable but highly injurious to geneine metaphysical life as it uproots the reality of the world and the deities and hence religious culture itself.

A Critique of Advaita Vedanta- 11(Final)

We have seen the Monism of Advaita Vedanta is untenable as it has been shown even in the past since the day Ati Sankara proposed his Maya Vatam or Monism. There has been a series of criticisms both in Sk and Tamil. But despite all these the Advaita Vedanta has shown a tenacity disclosing a certain human need more than an account of metaphysical truths. In the Tamil world Advaita Vedanta became popular only since 1600 AD when the Tamils lost their political powers to foreigners including Muslims Europeans and so forth, Perhaps it was this helplessness situation that made Advaita Vedanta with it’s the World is a Mythya quite attractive, a method of drugging themselves philosophically to accommodate themselves to the extremely depressive political and social situations.

This however is not a criticism but rather seeking to explain why such self-contradictory metaphysical system that has already been severely criticized by Meykandar and a host of other brilliant philosophers should re-emerge in Tamil that abounds with countless number of treatises in Saiva Siddhanta with its Fundamental Ontology of Triadism so ooposed to the Monism of Advaita Vedanta

Now the question that needs to be answered is: How is the Fundamental Ontology of Triadism of Saiva Siddhanta so well established in Tamil philosophical literature is forgotten by the proponents of Advaita Vedanta in Tamil and that too not by Brahmins but by native Tamil scholars like Tandava Myrtti SwamikaL IIsuur Caccitanata Swamikal and so forth?

The Fundamental Ontology

The question of Fundamental Ontology is: What things are there eternally uncreated and indestructible, things that enter into the fabrication of all objects but which in themselves are unfabricated or composed as such? While Advaita claims that only Brahman is real all else being false or delusions, the Saiva Siddhanties(SS) claim that Pati( BEING = Brahmna) Pasu( the selves) and Pasas ( binding fetters like Malam and so forth) are Anati, eternally there and uncreated but which enter into the fabrication of all objects.

Now which of these fundamental ontologies is the TRUE one and why?

In our critique of Advaita Vedanta we have pointed pot that the Advaities do not recognize the truth of multiple visions and that they are hierarchically organized and where while all begin with sensory perceptions the higher kind of perceptions or visions or seeings are not normally accessed. As one accesses the Hermeneutic Seeing where whatever seen and appropriated is a TEXT with SS and DS then on accessing the DS through the features of the SS one can also access the presence of the psychic entities the deities God and so forth initially as intuitions but later with higher visions as visible realities.

Here we must recall a great Tamil Maka Vakkya of Appar: KaaNpaar aar KaNNutal kaaddaak kaalee? Who can ever see anything unless shown by BEING the Third Eyed Siva?

Once we initiate metaphysical inquiries noting that there are different kinds of visions one deeper than the earlier, the existence of hierarchically organized seeings, we can also intuit the presence of a SHOWING always there , a showing by BEING and because of which the selves see in fact. There is a dialectics in Nature where the psychic entities including here the animals see only because there is a SHOWING by BEING. Thus the focus on the seeings of the souls discloses also the presence of a SHOWING and hence the presence of the showing BEING and seeing souls. Thus in the fundamental ontology we secure the presence of Pati(BEING) and Pasu( the souls) as Anati, eternally there uncreated and indestructible.

In the limiting case where the soul enjoys the same SEEING as BEING, there is no more SHOWING by BEING as such as the soul begins to enjoy the Njaanam, the Absolute Illumination that brings to a closure the SHOWING by BEING as such.

This SAMENESS of SEEING, as we have pointed out rules out the Monism of Advaita, the Dualism of Dwaita and the Vishistadvaita of the soul integrating itself totally into the body of Brahman etc. There is a sameness and Oneness but only in SEEING and not in substance.

The Presence of Malam and the Pacas.

Thus we see an asymmnetry in the dynamics of the souls and BEING where BEING shows the souls see and LEARN and thereby destroy the inherent ignorance and with that acquire the higher and higher visions. The SHOWING by BEING serves as a PULL unto higher and higher visions and hence higher metaphysical worlds,

Here when we raise the question: Why the souls have to LEARN, destroy ignorance and thus access the higher kinds of visions and all as SHOWN by BEING, we see the souls unlike BEING are infected with Malam, a DARKNESS creating stuff that BLINDS the souls or delimits and circumscribes their visions. While BEING is FREE of this Malam i..e is Nimalam , the souls are not- they are Samalan, inherently infected with Malam.

This Malam and related metaphysical entities are the Pacas, the fetters that bind the souls to the phenomenal world delimiting their visions. The souls LEARN because of the SHOWING of BEING and which showing provides the various projects for the souls and hence the motivational dynamics. The soul through such learning slowly frees itself of this Malam and thus become the Supreme Self S and at which point BEING graces the soul with its own SEEING thus bringing to a closure the whole of the evolutionary movement of the soul across various of births.,

It is the presence of Malam in the soul and as inherent to it, that necessitates the whole DANCE of BEING, the creation of the cosmos the various processes there the souls being given various kinds of bodies with different cognitive facilities and so forth.

This is the MEAING of creation- why the world as such and existence for the souls as embodied creatures and so forth. The cosmos is not a DELUSION to fool the souls and where the souls are not actually Brahman but deceived by the DCM into thinking otherwise. The individual selves are Anati, uncreated and eternal and because already infected with Malam require the Dance of Siva(BEING) to redeem themselves and enjoy Moksa and with that escape from being thrown into endless existential repetition.

This is Saiva Siddhnata in essence where it defeats again the Advaita Vedanta of Ati Sankara retold here by TMS and many others.

concluded