Chapter 3 - Methods of Knowledge according to Advaita Vedanta - Notes

Pg - 85 chapter 3 onwards

Pg 85

EXT: anti-knowledge - Interesting way to characterize ajnAna. This distinction is done, to ensure we dont mix ajnAna as opposite of svarupa jnAna of Brahman. 

na tatra sūryo bhāti na candratārakaṃ     nemā vidyuto bhānti kuto'yamagniḥ .

tameva bhāntamanubhāti sarvaṃ     tasya bhāsā sarvamidaṃ vibhāti  - Ka. 2.15

pg 87

vijñānamayaḥ prāṇeṣu hṟidyanta̱rjyotiḥ puruṣaḥ - Br.Up. 3.7

Pg 88

QUOTE

2. The nature of knowledge (jnana) Knowledge arises when there is a modification (vrtti) of mind

(antabkaraiia) in the form of the object. It is an expression of Pure Consciousness through the mental mode (antal~karana-vrtti) corresponding to the object. Being thus illumined, the mental mode manifests the object to the self. Primarily, knowledge is Pure Consciousness.

Its expression through the mental mode is secondarily called knowledge. It is in the sense of this modal consciousness (vrtti-caitanya or vrttijnana) that the term knowledge (jflãna) is generally

UNQUOTE

EXT: Basic explanation of Advaita epistemology - very simple and very useful. 

VP Quote - 

Of these, the means known as perception refers to the instrument of valid perceptual knowledge, which knowledge, according to Vedanta, is nothing but Pure Consciousness, for the Sruti says, '"The Brahman that is immediate3 and direct40 (Br. III. iv. i). ' Aparoksat' (direct) in this text stands for ‘ aparoksam.’ 

Pg 89 - 

EXT: Definition of svarupa jnana is given here. Knowledge we attain from brahmavidya is vritti jnana but this helps us in recognition of the Self as Brahman (pratyabhijna)

Pg 90 - 

QUOTE

Knowledge spontaneously arises when the object and the appropriate means of knowing it are present. It does not rest on the cognizer’s choice to know, or not to know, or to know otherwise.

UNQUOTE

EXT: This shows the Self is helplessly omniscient. It reveals anything that presents to itself. 

QUOTE

Unlike knowledge, contemplation and meditation are mental acts with regard to an object. They do not necessarily correspond with the object. For example, one can meditate on an image of Visnu as Visnu. But knowledge must conform to its object. As the object is, so is its cognition. Knowledge does not act upon an object, but reveals it, whereas an action affects or tends to affect the object. Moreover, an action, mental or physical, depends upon the will of the agent

UNQUOTE

EXT: Valid perceptual knowledge if pure consciousness, as per VP then why does objective knowledge lead to cessation of suffering ? 

The whole world is nothing but Brahman, superimposed with names and forms by ajnAna. Now the knower - the jeeva, is essentially consciousness, but despite being unlimited consciousness, due to ignorance has limited knowledge of objects - which have been superimposed on the unlimited Brahman. Hence the need for the mental mode or vritti, and sense organs, to convey information (content) to vritti - to create knowledge. 

This knowledge is a metaphor for the actual knowledge, which is pure consciousness, which is identical with jeeva and the world the jeeva sees. 

Pg 91 - 

What is direct perceptual knowledge ? 

QUOTE

Knowledge is direct, that is, perceptual, when the object is known directly.

UNQUOTE

EXT: This is basic rule w.r.t subject its directly known. W.r.t object depending on how it presents to mental mode (vritti) its direct or indirect. If I see lotus - then its direct since mind covers the lotus in the vritti form and Self is the helpless witness of mental vritti. 

Cognitive perspective-taking refers to the ability to make inferences about others' thoughts and beliefs. Affective perspective-taking is the ability to make inferences about others' emotions and feelings.

QUOTE

In visual perception, for instance, the mind reaches out in the wake of the organ of vision to the object, becomes unified with it and assumes its form. This mental modification unveils the object, unites it with the percipient and leads to its immediate cognition.

UNQUOTE

EXT: There is the Self - Sakshin - which is beyond cause-effect relation. Due to inscrutable Maya - there is the mental apparatus, in which Self is manifest. But since it's a manifestation of the consciousness in the Mental apparatus - there is finite limited conditioning that is seen. This first limitation is ego - the empirical Self, which is the "knower". 

Pg 92

QUOTE An external object is directly known when it is presented to the cognate sense-organ and is unified with the mental mode, which again unites it with the knowing self. It is to be noted that all knowledge, mediate or immediate, is due to the modification of mind. The mind, as it is, does not convey any knowledge.

UNQUOTE

EXT: This is why Sri Sankara says "all metaphysical knowledge is ultimately unreal - as its mental modification only"

QUOTE The cognition of happiness is a mode of the mind. It is perceptual knowledge because the cognitive mode invariably coincides with the object, the state of happiness UNQUOTE

EXT: I am happy is a direct cognition of the happy thoughts, which are directly illumined by the Self. 

Pg 93

QUOTE

The coincidence of the affective and the cognitive mode means the coincidence of the Consciousness underlying each. 

UNQUOTE

EXT: Important articulation - direct knowledge is not just of objects but also emotions (which are mental reactions to external conditions). All knowledge is possible due to simultaneous unity of consciousness of knower with consciousness limited by the known. This underlying unity is key to direct knowledge. 

QUOTE

The mental modifications (pari~ama)—cognitive, affective, or conative—are invariably revealed by the witness-self as soon as they arise. So there cannot be an unknown mental modification. In the

words of Patafljali: ‘Because the self-intelligent ãtman (puru~a), the Lord of the mind, is immutable, the modifications of the mind (citta-vrtti) are invariably known to it.” 5 The recognition of changes is due to an unchanging observer.

UNQUOTE

EXT: This shows how Self will helplessly illuminate the mental modifications. There is no thought ever unknown to the antaryamin - as the inner witness he is the Karma phala dhAta - Ishwara is Atman. 

QUOTE

An external object may be either known or unknown, but not the mental mode. As pointed out by Vidyaranya: ‘The states of being known or unknown do not hold good with regard to the mental modes (vrttis) as in the case of external objects.”PD 8.23

UNQUOTE

EXT: PD 8.23. Unlike a pot, the intellect is neither an object of cognition nor of non-cognition. For it cannot grasp itself - no object can do so - so it cannot be cognised; since, again, it removes ignorance settled on objects it cannot be said to be non-cognised (for if you know what is produced you know what produced it as well).

This is a unique observation which reveals the nature of the Mind itself ! - Its like Maya neither known nor unknown - sad-asad vilakshana. 

Pg 93/94

QUOTE

Being reveled by the witness Self mental modifications are known. 

UNQUOTE

EXT: This is profound statement very effortlessly given to us. 

QUOTE A thing as mind is known only through its modifications. UNQUOTE

But if there is such a thing as mind, which is the container of the thoughts - then its unknown as what it really is. Because in the absence of thoughts - there is no mind. 

With anvaya vyatireka we can prove that mind is nothing other than thoughts. - The vivarna position. 

Pg 94

QUOTE

Immediacy is the characteristic mark of perception. It can by no means be mediate. Such instances of complex cognition as, ‘I see there a piece of fragrant sandalwood’, ‘Ice appears cold’, ‘The orange looks sweet’, are explained by Advaita Vedãntä as cases involving coordination of perceptual and non-perceptual modes. Each is a composite of two distinct cognitions, one immediate, the other mediate.

UNQUOTE

VP quote on sandalwood perception

A fragrant piece of sandal,” is also immediate in respect of the piece of sandal,4 and mediate in respect of the fragrance, because the latter being incapable of apprehension by the eye - VP.1

Pg 95

QUOTE

The Advaitins do not accept the Naiyayikas’ interpretation of this

type of complex cognition as an integral visual perception of the

fragrant sandalwood piece. According to the Naiyayika school, with

the sight of the piece of sandalwood its fragrance is also perceived

by the eyes due to the past experience that sandalwood is fragrant.

Although the organ of vision has no normal connection with frag

rance, which is not its object, yet a supernormal connection (alaukika

jñana-lak~ai~a sannikar~a) is formed between the two in this case as

a result of previous knowledge.’

UNQUOTE

EXT: This is similar to the notions of the perceptual pyschologists of modern times. 

e.g. The warm cup of coffee and making new acquaintance. 

e.g. Perceptual pyschologists working in VR projects, share this view and they try to make UI modelled on this thinking - for holo lens, occulus. 

EXT: Simple Refutation below

QUOTE

Moreover, had the cognition of the unpresented element, e.g., the sweetness of an orange been a perception, that is, a gustatory experience, then a person could rest satisfied even with the sight of an orange without tasting it with the palate.

UNQUOTE

Pg 98

QUOTE

We have noted above (chap. 2, sec. 10) that consciousness is immanent in every phase of existence. While it is hidden in all physical objects, it is manifest more or less in every sentient being. In a human individual it finds expression as distinct self-awareness, which is the only immediate

and direct cognition in the strict sense. An object becomes directly known through its association with the immediacy of subject consciousness. The mental mode brings about the association.

UNQUOTE

EXT:  this is key. In humans or any being which manifests self-awareness, through mental mode - there is direct knowledge of immediate knowledge. This is one of the reasons why its said human birth is special. Once this cognition of one's nature of Self being pure consciousness is known - the magical connection to karma cloud is severed. 

Pg 99

QUOTE

The withdrawal or removal of subsidiary ajnana means only the temporary uncovering of what is perceived by an individual. This is why the removal or the withdrawal of the veil (avarana-bhañga or avarana-abhibhava) is necessary each time a person perceives something.

UNQUOTE

EXT: Removal of ignorance is limited to the limiting adjunct - the mental mode or vritti arises for this purpose and it reveals the object - thus perception is enabled. If object is there, eyes work, mind goes out to the object but the mental modification in the form of the thought - i.e. name, form of the object does not arise - there can be no removal of ignorance w.r.t the object. 

Pg 100

QUOTE The darkness of ajnana or non-consciousness in its two aspects of unknowingness and unknownness UNQUOTE

EXT: Two types of avarana removal with mental mode or vritti ~ This is pot, I know that to be the pot. 

QUOTE

Impelled by its outgoing tendencies consequent upon the impressions of past karma, the mind runs after sense-objects. The sense organsare also naturally inclined to their respective objects.

UNQUOTE

EXT: This is Ka. Up. 

parāñci khāni vyatṛṇat svayambhū-stasmātparāṅpaśyati nāntarātman .

kaściddhīraḥ pratyagātmānamaikṣa-dāvṛttacakṣuramṛtatvamicchan .2.1.1.

2-I-1. The self-existent injured the out-going senses. Therefore one sees externally and not the internal Self. Someone (who is) intelligent, with his eyes turned away, desirous of immortality, sees the inner Self.

Pg 101

QUOTE - the other organs are but the channels of buddhi UNQUOTE

Br. Up 4.3-7 Bhasyam Extracts

Br.Up. 4.3.7 Bhasyam

The word 'this' has been used with reference to the self, since it is directly known to us. 'Vijnamaya' means identified with the intellect : the self is so called because of our failure to discriminate its association with its limiting adjunct, the intellect, for it is perceived as associated with the intellect. as the planet Rahu 1 is with the sun and the moon. The intellect is the instrument that helps us in everything, like a lamp set in front amidst darkness. It has been said, 'It is through the mind that one sees and hears' {I. v. 3). Every object is perceived only as associated with the light of the intellect, as objects in the dark are lighted up by a lamp placed in front : the other organs are but the channels for the intellect

QUOTE

It is to be noted that the consciousness under lying the object is identical with the consciousness underlying the mental mode which is coincident with it.

UNQUOTE

EXT: Important Repetition

Pg 103

PD texts Chapter 8 ~ 11. (But will it not go against Sureshvaracharya's opinion expressed in the following Vartika?) 'According to the authoritative books on Vedanta an object of cognition, in matters of external objects, is that Samvit or consciousness which is the result of the act of cognition.'

12. Here by 'Samvit' or consciousness what Sureshvaracharya means is the resultant reflected consciousness, for the great Sankaracharya himself (Sureshvara's guru) in his Upadeshasahasri has made the distinction between Brahman-Chaitanya and the 'resultant'-Chaitanya amply clear.

13. Therefore the reflection of consciousness produced on the pot is the cause of its cognition; and the knownness or knowledge of this cognition, exactly as its ignorance, is the work of the Brahman-Chaitanya.

QUOTE from PD 8.6 

The consciousness reflected in the mental mode coincident with the jar manifests simply the jar. The fact that the jar is known is manifested by Brahma-caitanya.

Pg 104

QUOTE

The jar and its knownness become manifest simultaneously. It is because of self-luminous Pure Consciousness that the subject knows and the object is known.

UNQUOTE

Pg 106

Savikalpa and Nirvikalpa

EXT: NOTE: The Tvam padartham is self-effulgent consciousness, this knowledge is self revealed, even in the vritti form " I am". The statement also gives rise to the knowledge that this Self - i.e.. consciousness is non-different than the word Tat padam (i.e. Brahman), also. So the unity of the consciousness of Tat-and Tvam, is established, by the knowledge of its eternal identity - provided by Sabda Pramanam.

VP Quote

tacca pratyakṣaṃ dvividham   savikalpakanirvikalpakabhedāt 

tatra savikalpakaṃ vaiśiṣṭyāvagāhi jñānam . 

yathā ̎ghaṭamahaṃ jānāmi̎ ityādijñānam

nirvikalpakantu saṃsargānavagāhi jñānam . yathā ̎so'yaṃ devadatta̎ḥ ̎tattvamasi̎  ityādivākyajanyaṃ jñānam.

The perception spoken of above is of two kinds: determinate (savikalpaka) and indeterminate (nirvikalpaka). Of these, the former is that knowledge which apprehends relatedness (of the substantive and the qualifying attribute) (vaisistya); for example, knowledge such as, “I know the jar.” Whereas indeterminate perception is that knowledge which does not apprehend this relatedness; for example, knowledge arising from sentences like, ‘‘This is that Devadatta,” or ‘‘Thou art That” (Chd. VI. viii. 7—xvi. 3)

EXT: This is a point of difference between VisistAdvaita and Advaita in epistemology. 

Consciousness as pure immediacy is criticized by Sri Ramanuja, as Advaitin contends that Consciousness is an independent reality divested of attributes, as its a thing in itself. Sri Ramanuja says that an object can only be cognized due to its attributes, not as a thing in itself - the difference between nirvikalpaka bodham and savikalpaka bodham are not of kind but only of degree of familiarity - one has with the object of cognition. First time acquantance is nirvikalpaka bodham, subsequent familiarity is savikalpaka. 

However Advaitins contend that this indeterminate knowledge is not adjectival to begin with. The knowledge this flower is red, is characterized by the redness of the flower, whereas when we say this is that devadatta - what is really done is recognition of the Devadutta by rejecting the incidental notions qualifying him. Same is done with Tat-Tvam-Asi. 

So the Advaitins purpose in viewing consciousness as the thing in itself, is to establish the mind, which due to manufacturing defect goes outward - to become one with the Self, which is the only reality - everything else being an appearance on it. 

Pg 108

EXT: Recognition is valid knowledge - as its arrived at the present moment and its based on cognition at present moment - except past provides aid for recognition at the present. 

This is how Svarupa pratyabhijna arises due to previously listened to Vedanta vAkyas. 

QUOTE

Vedãnta-paribhãsã as ‘that knowledge which has for its object something that is not already cognized and is uncontradicted.’

UNQUOTE

EXT: apurvata - here implies its not been known as it really is. 

Recollection and Recognition is valid knwoledge. There is no recognition without recollection however, there can be recollection without recognition - hence it cant be valid knowledge. 

Pg 109

QUOTE

for the criterion of the unity of the underlying consciousness is that the limiting adjuncts must occupy the same space at the same time.

UNQUOTE

EXT: Its a very technical way of saying that recollection is mere revival of past impression, without no present cognition involved. One can recollect how they felt when they met first time, but that does not mean that is how they feel now. 

QUOTE

The veil of ajnana, according to Advaita Vedänta, is twofold: (i) veiling the existence of the object (asattvapadaka) and (2) veiling its manifestation (abhAnApAdaka). Mediate knowledge removes the first veil. As a result, we can know that the object exists but cannot know its nature because of the second veil.

UNQUOTE

EXT: Very important. This shows how perceptual knowledge - mediate does not lead to avarana bhanga, whereas perceptual knowledge which is immediate - leads to saakshaatkaara.