'Avidya' in Advaita and 'Gumma' of Purandara Dasa

Reponse to Mr.V.Subrahmnian by Shri Kesava Rao Tadipatri
Art by Chi: Nidhi Athreya

Note: KR denotes Shri Kesava Rao's response
Shri Hari Vayu Gurubhyo namaH

A response will be given to the following mail from Mr. V Subrahmanian, who wrote in Advaita list.
'Avidya' in Advaita and  'Gumma' of  Purandara Dasa
KR : Firstly Purandara Dasa is neither an Advaitin nor a neovedantin. It is quite a strange thing to derive advaita meaning from his compositions. To a hammer, the whole world looks like a nail. This is another example for
"ignoring kavihrudaya(the heart of the composer)"

Secondly, Avidya or ignorance doesn't have to be the kind that Advaitins speak of where only adhyAsa or AbhAsa is spoken of as Avidya. Not even having any awareness itself is also Avidya or ignorance.

 While listening to the innumerable compositions of  Sri Purandara Dasa, a well-known saint-composer in Kannada (and Sanskrit) of songs on a variety of  Deities of the Hindu Dharma,
KR: AND especially Madhva school. He is vehemently opposed to"jaganmithyA vAda" and "jIva-Isha aikya". For ex. see:
"karava mugida mukhyaprANa...
jIveshvaraikyavu jagatu mithyaveMdu I vidha pELuva mAyigaLaLiyeMdu...
illi mAtra bheda alli oMdE eMba kShullakaranu piDidhallu muri eMdu..."

(MukhyaprANa joined his palms in the form of namaskara, imploring the Lord to obliterate mAyAvAdis saying that - the jIva and Ishvara are same and the universe is mithya. And He is also imploring the Lord to break the teeth of those who say that - only HERE (in bondage) there is difference, but THERE (after liberation) all are same... This is like the transferred epithet - what is meant is not to affect the people, but only such arguments)

one song, in particular stands out as a fine analogy to the avidya of Advaita, nay, the Vedanta.
KR: Let us see how that happens.

To call it 'Avidya of Advaita' would create an impression that it is something unique to Advaita and that it is not founded on the Scripture, the Veda.
KR: It can only be called so, because  'Avidya of Advaita' is not founded in scriptures and also is against proper reasoning completely.

  While working on the above idea, it came as a fortuitous revelation when another song of Purandara Dasa surfaced during a search on the net which came in handy to make the analogy a perfectly complete one. Thus, with the two songs taken as a pair, the task of presenting a method to easily understand the concept of Avidya is rendered simple.
KR: In fact, quite contrarily, together they completely rout out any such concept, as will be shown. How there is a big time miss, will also be shown.

The two songs are first presented, in Kannada, and a translation of sorts is provided in the sequel.

 1. *gummanelliha** **tOramma** *
The following is quoted in the original mail.

 (rAga toDi Adi tALa)

gummanelliha toramma
summanaMjisabEDamma ||pa||
panchAsatkOTi vistIrNada bhUmiya
vanchane illade tirugi baMdene nAnu
hanchisi koTTene avaravarige nA
hAMgu nODidaru kANene gummana ||
sindhuvinoLage AnaMdadi malagidde
oMdu nAbhikamaladi bommana puTTiside
aMdhakAradi pOgi obbane malagide
hAMgu nODidaru kANene gummana ||
IrELu lOkava udaradoLage iTTu
tOride brahmANDava bAyali nAnu
ghOra rUpadi baMda gALi asurana koMde
hAMgu nODidaru kANene gummana ||
akrUrage vishvarUpava tOride
ghakkane rathavEri madhurage pOde
sokkida rajakana koMdu maDiyanuTTe
hAMgu nODidaru kANene gummana ||
billuhabbake pOgi mallara maDuhide
alli mAva koMdu mutyage olide
chelva gOpAla shrI puraMdara viThalana
bAri bArige nI bedarisabEDamma ||

2. gummana kareyadire (rAga shaMkarAbharaNa aTTa tALa)

gummana kareyadire , amma nInu
gummana kareyadire ||pa||
summane iddEnu, ammiya bEDenu
mammu uNutEne , amma aLuvudilla || a ||
heNNugaLruvallige hOgi avara
kaNNu muccuvudillave
chiNNara baDiyenu , aNNana baiyenu
beNNeya bEDenu , maNNu tinnuvudilla ||
bAvige hOge kANe , amma nAnu
hAvinoLADe kANe
Avina moleyUDe , karugaLa biDe nODe
dEvaraMte oMdu ThAvige kUDuve ||
magana mAtanu kELuta , gOpI dEvi
mugULunageya naguta
jagadoDeya shrI puraMdaraviThalana
bigidappikoMDalu mOhadiMdAga ||
The translation for the second song is:
 *//gummana* *kareyadire* ammA nInu * Don't send for gummA, mother,
 *gummana* *kareyadire* * please don't send for him
 summane iddEnu ammiya bEDenu * I'll keep quiet and won't pester you for milk
 mammu uNNuttEne amma aLuvudilla * I'll eat food made for me and I won't cry
heNNugaLiruvallige pOgi avara * I won't go to the places where women assemble
kaNNu muccuvadillavE * and I won't close their eyes from behind
ciNNara baDiyenu aNNana baiyenu * I won't beat the young ones and curse my brother
beNNeya bEDenu maNNu tinnuvadilla * I will eat neither butter nor sand
bAvige hOge kaNE amma nA nA * I won't go near the wells, mother,
hAvi noLagADe kaNE * I won't play with snakes
aavina mole yUDe karugaLa biDe nODe * I won't set free the calves
dEvaraMte baMdu ThAvinil^ kUDuve * and play with the udders of cows I'll sit before you like an angel

magana mAtanu kELuta gOpidEvi * After listening to these entreaties
muguLu nageyu naguta * yaSOdA smiled tenderly
jaga doDeyana SrI puraMdara viThalana
bigidappi koNDaLu mOhadindAga * and affectionately hugged the child,
purandara viThala, the Lord of the universe.

KR: mOhadindAga does not mean "affectionately", but it means being deluded. Why so? It is quite so for the following reasons. 
1. How can the Lord, who showed Yashoda the universe in his mouth twice, be scared of "Gumma"? Not possible. It is obvious that He is pretending. 
2. Note what Dasaru is saying. It is not krishna, who was deluded by "Gumma", but rather Yashoda was deluded by His words. Did she ever think - "How can One, who as an infant killed pUtana and as a baby itself killed so many demons like shakaTAsura can ever be scared of any Gumma ?" Not at all. Why ? 
3. Remember another song of dAsaru -
 ADisidaleshOde jagadOddhArana... 
That is the kind of blessing and bliss the Lord wanted to give her, such great joy of being a mother!! Whenever He showed over-Lordship, He right away deluded her, making her not to know/remember that.

[...."gumma" or "bUchivADu" or "pUcchANDi"are terms used to scare infants and toddlers when they get out of line .. Mother Yashoda  too fed up with the antics of Krishna, invoked the name of gumma and the scared child Krishna begs her not to call him.//] 
KR: Is that so? If one really thinks so, then that is a big miss. Then there is a danger to consider "nindAstuti" (compositions saying that the Lord is merciless and He does not deserve titles like bhaktavatsala, etc.) as real ninda.

 It would be enriching this write-up to include the names by which this 'gumma' is called in other languages such as Hindi, Marathi, Malayalam, Gujarati, Bengali, etc.  This would make the write up more inclusive. 
KR: OK, I will add 4 more languages - "hauwa" in Hindi, "bujhavane" in MaraThi and "abhuva" or "abhva" or "maroli" in Sanskrit. Some one can simply use "rAkshas" in quite a few languages. In English - "monsters under the bed". There is another expression also in Hindi "kauwa kATegI (the crow will bite)" to scare the babies/children.


The first song is a proof for 'gumma' not being a real entity. Krishna says at the outset:  'O Mother, show me where is Gumma. Do not frighten me with no Gumma around.'  Then in the rest of the stanzas of the song Krishna details the various loka-s of the prapancha and declares: 'I have searched for 'Gumma' everywhere, in all the loka-s including Vaikuntha.  But 'Gumma' is nowhere to be found.' In every refrain He declares this thereby showing that the fabricated entity called 'gumma' is just a lie. 
KR: The first song is meant not for Yashoda, but to tell those who get deluded understanding from the pretending behavior of Lord Krishna. It is again Kavihrudaya that has to be known by other obvious works of the same composer. Also, how many do we come across, who, after growing up come and tell their mother "Show me gumma or bUchoDu and don't scare me with gumma or bUchODu", as this statement is meaningless, because
 1. The mothers won't scare the grown-ups with gumma
2. The mothers don't travel back in time to get the choice of scaring or not. 
If there was a protest for past behavior, then the song would have been something like "gummaneMdu yAke anjisidammA". 
Now many parts of the same song are missed out by Mr. V Subrahmanian in Advaita list (Another big miss)-
 "I lay down in the ocean and gave birth to Brahma in the lotus from my navel. In the utter darkness [of the pralaya], I slept all alone. I placed 14 worlds in my stomach and showed the universe in my mouth. I killed the monster of whirlwind (Trinavarta). I showed VishvarUpa to AkrUra and right away sat next to him and went to Mathura in the chariot. I killed the haughty washerman. I went to bow festival and killed the wrestlers. Then I killed my uncle, Kamsa." 
Please note that these words are not what Krishna meant to tell Yashoda. Why? Firstly some of the incidents (like showing universe in the mouth and killing Trinavarta) already took place before Krishna apparently spoke the words of second song. So, it cannot be claimed that they were achieved after the second song. Secondly, Krishna would not even intend to tell her some incidents (like those depicting His over-Lordship), when He wants to give a different kind of joy by deluding her. Why would He tell her about His over- Lordship? If there is an objection "Why did Krishna show the universe to her in His mouth?", the answer is - 
1. Yashoda had that puNya to see that
2. "dyulokachAriNassarve pashyAntR^iShaya eva cha"
(The Devatas and Rishis, who have divyadR^iShti and who deserve also will see that, as per their yogyata.
3. Even after showing that the Lord again caused the spell on her and made her unaware of that, so that she can enjoy her motherhood.

This is the proof of an entity called 'Gumma', summoned by Yashoda, for frightening Krishna and getting Him to obey, being an illusory, unreal one. 
KR: Yashoda herself was frightened by Putana, killed by Krishhna. Yet Sri Purandara dasaru wanted to show to the world, how the Lord cast a spell on Yashoda to make her think that Krishna was an ordinary child. Another couple of wrong understandings in this case are to think that - 
1. Krishna, as a child, was really frightened.
2. This is proof of an entity called 'Gumma'. 
The right ones are to think: 
1. Krishna, as a child, was never frightened, but gave that feeling to Yashoda.
2. This is proof of "the fear caused by the entity called Gumma".
 Also, Yashoda did not summon any "Gumma", but she used that concept.

Yet, is the unreal entity 'gumma' without any effects? No.  The second song proves this. 
KR: Why is this mix up between 'real or unreal entity' and 'effect or lack there of'? If some one tries to scare a well  formed youth with a real teddy bear, will that have any effect? Now the above kind of argument is - 
"It is not unreal, because there is effect." 
Then by a similar counter-argument, one will say - 
"The teddy bear is unreal, because there is no effect." 
What a mixup?

 Yashoda now and then 'calls' Gumma, tells Krishna, 'Look, Krishna, if you do this..Gumma will come and harm you/take you away, etc.' And Krishna says, in His own words and in His own way: 'O Mother, please never ever summon gumma. I shall obey what all you ask me to do and not to do.' 
KR: Again total absence of knowledge of "paurvAparya prasanga (the aspect of antecedents and subsequents)". 
Krishna showed His fearlessness even before that. To save the face of the objector, let us take a common child, for whom this Gumma incident can be applied. 
Now the svArasya grows, when we use their argument of calling the universe "mithya", by using "Gumma". The child, who believed in one mithya Gumma in his childhood, grows up to believe in millions of mithya Gummas, since this entire universe is mithya! What is worse, the Lord, who taught the Gita to Arjuna, in His supposedly wiser talk of refuting the mithya Gumma, lists or comes up with various "mithya" incidents (Gummas) like - "lying down in the ocean, giving birth to Brahma in the lotus from navel, sleeping in the utter darkness all alone, placing 14 worlds in his stomach and showing the universe in his mouth, killing the monster of whirlwind (Trinavarta), showing VishvarUpa to AkrUra, killing the haughty washerman, killing the wrestlers and killing his uncle, Kamsa."

 It is the experience in all households that the mother of an infant of say up to three years regularly invokes this 'gumma' fiction and succeeds in getting her child eat the food, get up from sleep, stop running out of the house, refrain from soiling its clothes, and so on. In Tamil 'gumma' is commonly known as "poocchaanDi'. In some Telugu / Kannada speaking sections it is 'gogga' / 'bhUchivADu' and so on. 
 In the 'gumma' phenomenon we have a fine example of:
 1. An unreal entity
2. Producing effects that are perceivable
3. And yet the entity itself not being something akin to a hare's horn or vandhyAputra.  For, this kind of an entity cannot even be invoked for any purpose.
4. Krishna undertook a thorough search and concluded that the 'gumma' was just a fantasy, a creation, with no substance behind it.  In other words, a search is essential to know that the 'gumma' is nothing. Alternatively, in real life children grow up only to find out that their mothers have only taken them for a ride. There is an end to 'gumma' when the truth is known.
 KR: This is where the entire argument culminates to a point, where the whole thing is fit to be thrown to a dust bin. First of all, Krishna did not undertake any search and it is pathetic that the purpose of the song itself is missed.
Also, Mr. V Subrahmanian is wrong in his perception of seeing difference between Gumma and hare's horn.
Why and how?
The same kind of effect can also be produced by telling the babies/kids
"molada koMbu cuccibiDatte" ... KannaDa
"kuMdETi kommu guccestuMdi" ... Telugu
"sasA che shiMg Tonchale/ruchale" ... marAThi
"shashaviShANam chetsyati"... Sanskrit
"khargosh ki sImg ghuseDdegi / bhoMkegi / chubhegi" ... Hindi
"The hare's horn will pierce" ... English
"muyal koMbu kuttuM ?" ... tamiL 
So, the non-existing hare's horn also can produce the same effect. Now what? Isn't Gumma same thing like a hare's horn or vice versa? How are they not akin to each other? The babies do not know that the hare's horn doesn't exist. They get scared from the way it is told, the mother's voice, expression, etc. This is basic.

Thus the Avidya of the Advaita system is -
 1. An unreal entity 
KR: Avidya is real. If not, there is nothing to worry about and there is no need for any sAdhana.

2. Produces the effect of samsara and
KR: One should not get mixed up between

A. Existence and non-existence
B. Producing effect and not producing effect.
C. Permanent and temporary
D. Sublated and not sublated
E. Real and unreal.

3. Is not an atyanta abhAva entity like the hare's horn. 
KR: Thinking that there is hare's horn ia one of the outcomes of avidya. Hare's horn itself is not compared to avidya. Hare's horn doesn't exist, but avidya does. Of course, avidya is not atyanta abhAva, but it becomes "pradhvamsAbhAva", when one goes to moksha. One can speak of "avidya" of a person. But no one will speak of "Hare's horn of a person" (It is not associated with any person). We need to go with vastu sthiti, but not puruSha tantra.

 4. It is only when enquiry, Vedanta vichara, on the authority of passages like: 'so anveShTavyaH, savijij~nAsitavyaH' is undertaken and the tattva sAkShAtkAra had, one will realize that AvidyA was not, is not and will not be. When the sAdhaka attains siddhi, or realization, i.e. matures, grows up, he discovers that there is no such entity called Avidya; Brahman alone was, is and will be. 
KR: When one, thru God's grace, gets rid of avidya in mokSha, he will not have avidya, but avidya itself will not cease to exist. It is there for those, who are in bandha. That very fact makes it real. It is meaningless to say that "...realize avidya was not...". He had avidya and so he was in bandha. He gets rid of it and so he is in moksha.

Now, superimposition or adhyAsa is caused by avidya. What superimposition did Gumma cause? As Gumma goes away, you are ending up with lot more Gummas (since this entire world, with all its contents is Gumma for an Advaitin). In a similar way, will one end up with many "avidyas",when this avidya ends?

The example for such an entity is the well-known 'gumma', very popular with every mother from time immemorial, across all cultures.  Purandara Dasa has immortalized the 'gumma' through his two songs reproduced above. Avidya is also anAdi, no one knows when it began even as the 'gumma' is also without a beginning. 
KR: Sri Purandaradasa has proved that "no matter how it is told, there are some, who understand it correctly and some, who don't". 
One speaks of anAditva of real entities only. Neither gumma is anAdi, nor hare's horn is anAdi. The wrong notion about them is anAdi and the wrong imagination can produce effect. 
However, avidya is anAdi and real.

The two songs together provide an excellent example of a mithyA entity such as Avidya. 
KR: Back to square 1. Avidya is not mithya. The definition of mithya itself is invalid as it does not speak of any "vastu sthiti".

The pair of songs most graphically brings out the *'*adhyArOpa -apavAda*-*nyAyaH' of Vedanta. 
KR: Just reminder - ...of "Advaita's" vedanta concept.

The (second) song where Mother Yashoda invokes now and then the illusory 'Gumma' to make young Krishna obey, is the 'adhyAropa' or deliberate superimposition of 'Gumma'. 
KR: Incorrect. For superimposition, two real etities that are very similar are needed (like rope and snake or nacre and silver). Here Gumma is not real. There isn't another entity, which looks like "Gumma" (which doesn't exist).

Yashoda knows very well that Gumma is a non-entity; yet she invokes the name just to create a fear in Krishna.  She also knows very well that this stage of Krishna's infancy will soon pass off and He will be a grown up boy when He himself will realize that the Gumma is just a fiction. 
KR: So, what? The fiction is used for many purposes, from disciplining the kids to giving the joy of stories to the kids. Lot of fiction things have a purpose. Just because, they have a purpose, do they cease to be fiction? No. They do not get into non-fiction category. Also, the word fiction is not an appropriate usage a somethings, which are fiction today (like travel to moon was a fiction a century ago and became a reality later). The better and exact word is "atyanta abhAva or sadAbhAva".

The other (first) song of Purandara Dasa serves the purpose of the 'apavAda' or subsequent negation of what was deliberately superimposed/introduced earlier. 
KR: There is a heavy mix-up between superimposition and sadAbhAva. In case of superimposition, two real entities (that too similar) are involved. Also an observer is involved. It is wrt an observer. In case of sadAbhAva, only that entity is involved. It is vastusthiti. It is not wrt any observer. 

Exactly in the same way the Vedanta introduces the concept of Maya, Avidya, Ajnana, Ishwara, IcchA (God's Will), etc. , all of which are synonyms, in order to explain the world-illusion. 
KR: The word 'saindhava' has many meanings. Of these let us take the two meanings - horse and salt. Just because the word saindhava has these two meanings, does it mean the horse and salt are synonyms? The word 'Maya' has many meanings and that does not mean that they are all synonyms. Ishvara ichchha is a super set. Every thing happens as per God's will - be it illusion or non-illusion. The world is not an illusion. Avidya and ajnAna of each person is different and are as per God's will. However God's will is not limited just to that. In MokSha, avidya ceases - this does not mean "Ishvara ichchha ceases". All squares are rectangles, but not vice versa. 
God's will encompasses everything. One must imagine proper set, subset concepts.

Once the aspirant grows up, matures into a Knower, there is no longer any need for these concepts introduced earlier. They stand negated in the most natural course just like a boy just by growing up realizes the unreality of Gumma and need not be specifically taught about its mithyAtva. 
KR: Examples are not proofs. They are meant only for better understanding as given in shastra-s. If someone gives the examples given in shastra, then they have to be understood as given there only. If some other examples are given, they should not contradict pratyakSha or shAstra. One must take based on context. For ex, the world is like a dream (means temporary), like a spider-web (means the Lord puts it out and takes it in), like a mirage (means those who run after the forbidden pleasures will face destruction not being able to achieve the true joy of mokSha), etc. 
The following is typical Advaita argument - 
=========
"vishvaM mithyA dR^ishyatvAt shuktirajatavat" (The world is illusory because one can see it like silver in nacre). 
1. One sees silver in nacre, but the silver is not real. It is not completely unreal as the real silver is there elsewhere. 
2. Similarly one sees the world, but the world is not real (like that silver).=========
 This argument has a big flaw. Note that one has the knowledge of real silver prior to this sublation. So, does the advaitin have the knowledge of real world prior to seeing this? If so, where is the real world? 

The analogy is not yet complete. 
KR: When it becomes complete, the picture will even be clearer and the problems with Advaita become even clearer.

There is this most important similarity too. In the first song where Purandara  Dasa 'introduced' Gumma, this illusory Gumma produced or rather succeeded in producing fear on each occasion it was invoked and a general psychosis about Gumma too. This psychosis is essential so that each time Gumma is invoked, the earlier fear-experience is recalled to the boy's mind and this begets obedience. However, from the grown-up boy's standpoint, will the Gumma, the initial fear and the fear-samskara-s be recognized as real?  No. The entire gamut of Gumma, the initial fear and their samskaras, all get sublated, lock, stock and barrel.
 KR: However, as mentioned above this tiny Gumma gets replaced by many "Gummas" in this world, as per Advaita, since this world is an illusion for them. 
In dR^iShTAnta, the mother creates fear in the child by speaking about the Gumma. The child sees mother,
but no Gumma. The grown-up child realizes that the invisible Gumma never existed. There is no adhishThAna for the Gumma. All the children do not see the same Gumma. There is no scope for any verification for the existence of Gumma - meaning Gumma is not pratyakSha siddha.

In dArShTAntika, as per Advaita, the Mother like God shows the Gumma like world. The child like Jiva does not see the Mother like God, but sees the Gumma like world. The j~nAni realizes the visible world does not exist (only for him). The Mother like God is adhiShThAna for this Gumma like world. All the children like Jivas see the same Gumma like world. There is scope for the verification for the world - meaning the world is pratyakSha siddha.

 This is what exactly happens in the case of the world-illusion too. Samsara, termed as anAdi, beginningless, is caused by avidyA/mAyA, Ishwara-IcchA, and sustained by it.  [Not only this, it is this mAyA/Ishwara IcchA alone that holds the key to liberation too. The Veda, the Knowledge-source for liberation, the Guru, and Ishwara the provider of the Veda and the Guru, all belong to the realm of Maya.  
KR: What is worse, now the Mother has to become a split personality. The Mother_N like NirguNa Brahman cannot and will not do any thing. So, the Mother-S like SaguNa Brahman (who is nothing but the Mother_N,who entered the Gumma like world) has to tell the children like Jivas (who are infact His own variations) that the world is only a Gumma. When the children like jIvas realize this, the Gumma ceases to be a Gumma and the variations cease to be variations.Wow! That is something!

Now, the veda, Guru and Ishvara belong to realm of Maya and all three strive to remove this Gumma of Maya, which does not exist for them. What is the proof for all this? Examples like a snake-like rope and a silver-like nacre. How can examples be a proof? No worries, someone can give more examples like Gumma in Sri Purandara dAsaru's song and claim that as another proof! 

Avidya, after causing the initial superimposition, adhyAsa, maintains this adhyAsa birth after birth, action after action in each birth, experience after experience in each birth, on the basis of 'pUrvapUrva-adhyAsaH uttarottarasaMsArasya(janmanaH) kARaNaM' 'the earlier adhyAsa is the cause of the subsequent samsara/birth-life-death cycle'.  Just like the boy, under the spell of the 'gumma-fear', goes into obedience, compliance, mode, the jiva- Counsciousness, under the spell of anAdi avidyA is constantly in the samsara-friendly mode and successfully thrives in bondage.  And owing to his good-fortune when he performs saattvic action and develops the desire to get released from samsara, he gets a Guru, the opportunity for shAstra shravaNa, etc. and finally 'attains' moksha.  He no longer is under the spell of maya, avidya. The mUla-avidyA is dispelled by aparokSha j~nAna and he is free. 
KR: Now, the whole thing is starting with an assumption -The whole world is superimposition only. 
It is like saying "since there is scope to confuse a rope for a snake, every snake that I see is a superimposition only. That has to be a rope".

What if it is really a snake? No, it cannot be since in the example, it is not a snake. If there is scope for some to mistake the snake for a rope, then why not it be the case that some mistake the real world to be mithya? I heard from couple of people, who were alive during Hitler's days, seriously told "If we said, Hitler will come if you don't drink milk, even the six-month-old baby used to drink milk" "If we mentioned the name Hitler, even the six month old baby, drinking milk, used to stop drinking." 
So, in such circumstances, will these people think that Hitler is only a fiction like Gumma? Why are these childish arguments? 
There is no need for million words.

Now the second assumption - Avidya maintains this adhyAsa/superimposition, birth after birth - like someone mistaking a rope for a snake again and again.

Then the third assumption - every jIva does the same mistake. Every one thinks that the rope is snake and everyone thinks that the world is real. Now one has to mistake something else for the world. 
What is that something? 

The fourth assumption -

'the earlier adhyAsa is the cause of the subsequent samsara/birth-life-death cycle' (like Gumma is cause of the fear).

That is also not true. A non-existing thing can cause the feelings. How can it cause the samsAra itself?

The boy, under the spell of the 'gumma-fear', goes into obedience, compliance, mode. Now, when the boy gets out of that spell, does he also get out of that obedience, compliance mode? NOT AT ALL. Also, is it the goal of the boy to get out of that obedience, compliance mode? NOT AT ALL. 
However, look at the comparison that Advaita is giving for the jIva -

The jiva-Counsciousness, under the spell of anAdi avidyA is constantly in the samsara-friendly mode. Now, when the jiva-Counsciousness gets out of the spell of anAdi avidyA, does he also get out of samsara-friendly mode? SURELY. Also is it the goal of the jiva-Counsciousness to get out of samsara-friendly mode?SURELY. 
Thus, the example itself fails miserably.
 Now talk about building castles in air - when this is all Gumma, what is the meaning of the expressions like "good-fortune, performing saattvic action, developing the desire to get released from samsara, getting a Guru, the opportunity for shAstra shravaNa", etc? What is attaining mokSha as per Advaita? Realising that the non-existent Gumma mAya is non-existent. He is free!

Now the fate of the Guru - shishya relationship. Is the Guru aware of the non-existence of this Gumma/mAya/world? If he is, then he can't see the shishya as different, so can't teach. If he is not, then how can he teach what he is not aware of?

Thus, we have a fine analogy for the Vedantic Maya/avidya/Ishwara IcchA in the 'Gumma' of Sri Purandara Dasa. The two have so many common features. 
KR: We have seen above how miserably the analogy fails and how uncommon is the commonness.

The full worth of the analogy would not have manifested if only the more popular song:
'gummana kareyadire' had been composed and available to us. Fortunately, again due to Ishwara IcchA, we have the other song, although not very popular, *gummanelliha tOramma ,*to complete the analogy. 
KR: Yes, it is very fortunate. The "Gumma like Ishwara IcchA" has helped to expose the flaws in the Advaita mode of thinking. Since the other song is there, the flaw in Advaita is obvious.

If someone says "That person is holding a flag, but there is no flag", that is a meaningless statement. If Ishvara is inside mithya, but is fully aware of mithya and not a victim of mithya, then either he has to claim that or someone else has to claim that, thereby indicating that such a person is aware of what Ishvara is not. It is a heavy confusion and a double tongue arguing against and for the existence of Gumma. To justify that confusion, a strang argument is brought with its causational effect, yet being non-existent. One should not believe in Gumma, but yet has to surrender to Gumma like Ishvara ichchha.

 It is pertinent to note that Sri Shankaracharya has said that this avidyA/aj~nAna is mithyA, unreal, in the adhyAsa bhAShya, the prelude to the Brahmasutra Bhashya: 
KR: On what basis? No Brahmasutra says that AvidyA is mthyA. No vedic statement says AvidyA is mithyA. This assumption is made and all the arguments are built on that? It is like building castles in the air only.

 *mithyA.aj~nAnanimittaH - *mithyA-aj~nAna-nimittaH meaning that adhyAsa/saMsAra is caused by the basic ignorance, avidyA, which is unreal, mithyA. 
KR: The assumption can never be a proof. It is pramANatrayaviruddha.

We are able to appreciate the purport of this with the help of the 'Gumma'-analogy provided by Purandara Dasa. 
KR: The Gumma analogy completely rejects the mithyAtva. People may have seen fun-based web picture/diagram, where an icon of mouse or cat or some box will be there. When ever, the mouse is moved to that location, the icon moves to a different location.

The Advaitic definition of Mithya is like that icon only. You disprove by going to that definition of mithyAtva.
Immediately that icon moves to another location and they say "you have misunderstood the definition of Advaita.
That is not what Advaita says. It is this". You go there and it slips to another location. That is smart!

Sri Vyasarayaru has taken various definitions of Mithyatva and showed the flaws in all of them. Then they come and say one of the following two.

1. No dvaitins have understood the correct Advaita position.
2. All the dvaitins are purposely misstating the Advaita
position.
Why do they say or do this?
They say that it is neither "sat"(real) nor "asat"(unreal).
Now, they have a big problem. If U is universal set, A is a subset and A' is complement of A. Then every element must belong to either A or A'.
Now look at the pitiable state/fate of this "mithyA". It has to hide either in "sat" or in "asat".
1. When it hides under "sat", it comes with the garb of "trikala bAdhitatva" or "vyAvahArika satya", etc.
2. When it hides under "asat", it comes with the garb of "asat entities that have causational effect", etc.
All that they are doing is to make either vague remarks or subdivide existing group.

Also, in case of 2, It is not the "asat entities that have causational effect", but rather the "mental attitude, etc towards the asat entities", which are having the causational effect. The mental attitude, etc. are not asat. So, the causational effect is from sat entities only.

It is not that Advaitins do not have an analogy for the phenomenon of 'an unreal entity can produce a real effect'.  Sri Shankaracharya has Himself provided several analogies in this regard, both from scripture and from worldly parlance. 
There is a double problem for Advaita here. Firstly, no amount of analogies will constitute a proof. Advaita has to first prove its case and then give the analogies. Firstly, the case isnot proven. Then the analogies also failed as shown. For the analogies, listed below, the flaws will be shown.

But how (to restate an objection raised above) can the Vedânta-texts if untrue convey information about the true being of Brahman? We certainly do not observe that a man bitten by a rope-snake (i.e. a snake falsely imagined in a rope) dies, nor is the water appearing in a mirage used for drinking or bathing...

This objection, we reply, is without force (because as a matter of fact we do see real effects to result from unreal causes), for we observe that death sometimes takes place from imaginary venom, (when a man imagines himself to have been bitten by a venomous snake,). 
When a doctor sees such a case, and he has to give a statement, which one of the following two will he give?
1. The cause of death is determined to be imgainary venom.
2. The cause of death is determined to be the fear of imaginary venom.
I am sure the doctor will go with 2, but not 1.
Should the founder of a philosophical school have more precision or less precision?

and effects (of what is perceived in a dream) such as the bite of a snake or bathing in a river take place with regard to a dreaming person. - 
It has been already mentioned that it is neither the bite of the snake nor the poison that had the effect. It is the fear from that, which had that effect.

But, it will be said, these effects themselves are unreal!- These effects themselves, we reply, are unreal indeed; but not so the consciousness which the dreaming person has of them.
 KR: That is a big jump. Initally it was told that unreal things caused real effects. Then it is told that the real effects are unreal!

This consciousness is a real result; for it is not sublated by the waking consciousness. 
KR: The question of "sublation" comes only for the cases of things that are known to pratyakSha. Also, sublation is wrt a person and it involves two real entities, one actually present there and one, whose knowledge is there from elsewhere. So, the question of sublation does not even arise. Also, the effects are neither sublated nor unreal. Also, if consciousness means the jIva/chetana itself, it never changes anyway.

The man who has risen from sleep does indeed consider the effects perceived by him in his dream such as being bitten by a snake, bathing in a river, &c. to be unreal, but he does not on that account consider the consciousness he had of them to be unreal likewise.-(We remark in passing that) by this fact of the consciousness of the dreaming person not being sublated (by the waking consciousness) the doctrine of the body being our true Self is to be 'considered as refuted 1 
KR: What a conglomeration? This is what is called wandering all over. In one breath, things like 'unreal things having causational effects', sublation, 'dreams and their effects', back and forth switching between reality and unreality of the effects themselves, 'consciousness of a dreaming person and waking consciousness and considering if it is sublated', 'the doctrine of the body being true self refuted', etc are mentioned with a total mixup.

1Q. Do unreal things have causational effects ?
1A. No

2Q. Is Sublation relevant?
2A. No. It is subjectve(puruShatantra), but not objective (vastu sthiti). The mistake of Advaita here is that it is not talking about vastusthiti, but rather puruSha tantra. Their very first premise is that one should not do that and that is exactly what they are doing.

3Q. Will 'dreams and their effects' support Advaita?
3A. No. When a person is dreaming, it is a fact that the person is dreaming. The objects in the dreams are not made of matter that we normal know, like mud, flesh and blood, etc. But they are made of mental impressions or vAsanas, etc. The mental reactions to these are real. Thus, the effects from these are also real.

4Q. Is consciousness of a dreaming person different from that of a waking person?
4A. The consciousness or jIva is same while dreaming or wakeful. Then where is the question of differentiating them?

5Q. Is consciousness of a person (while dreaming or wakeful) sublated ?
5A. They claim it to be 'no'. Then why is it brought here? To say that the jIva is not mithya. However, the sublation should not even be linked with reality. The mixup between sublation and reality is to be overcome first.

6Q. Is body itself true self?
6A. Of course, not. Neither Dvaita nor Advaita says that the body is jIva. In case of Dvaita, it is jIva-jaDa bheda and both are sat. In case of Advaita, body is mithya and jIva is sat.

 Scripture also (in the passage, 'If a man who is engaged in some sacrifice undertaken for some special wish sees in his dream a woman, he is to infer therefrom success in his work') (Chandogya Up. 5.2.9) declares that by the unreal phantom of a dream a real result such as prosperity may be obtained. 
KR: That is a very wrong understanding. If merely "by the unreal phantom of a dream a real result such as prosperity may be obtained.", then why should people go thru the hassle of performing yagas, vratas, pujas, etc. People can just look forward to such dreams and someday 'the unreal phantom of such dream' will yield the result, such as prosperity!

It is clearly mentioned -

'atha pratisR^ipyANjalau...
yadA karmasu kAmyeShu...
tasmin svapna nidarshane'.

"After performing the homA and going thru the required procedures, if that kAmya karma is done, and when the person lies down on the west of homA fire either on deer skin or bare floor and then in the dream a strI
appears, then it is a dR^iShTAnta or indication that there will be prosperity." 
So, the result is not from the dream. The dream is only an indicator. The result is from that particular kAmya
karma.

And, again, another scriptural passage, after having declared that from the observation of certain unfavourable omens a man is to conclude that he will not live long, continues 'if somebody sees in his dream a black man with black teeth and that man kills him,' intimating thereby that by the unreal dream-phantom a real fact, viz. death, is notified. 
KR: This is completely awry. Even the western philosophy does not claim that the omens cause the events. The omens only indicate them. (The usage of 'even' is to indicate that by virtue of going thru a long history of philosophical debates of such high level over centuries, the Advaita, is expected to have much higher philosophical rigor than any western school)

The Merriam-webster dicionary defines the word 'omen' as "an occurrence or phenomenon believed to portend or show the character of a future event : AUGURY, FORETOKEN, PRESAGE". So, omen is only an indicator.

Mr. Subrahmanian seemed to come out of the vortex atleast in this one case, when the expressions like "omen", "is notified" are used. But that is not to be so. Why is "notification" brought as an example for "causation"?

The black man with black teeth in the dream is not made of flesh and blood. But that image is made of mental impressions. That was only a foretoken. It does not cause death. The rooster crows before sunrise indicating the upcoming sunrise. No one says that the rooster's crowing caused the sunrise.

It is, moreover, known from the experience of persons who carefully observe positive and negative instances that such and such dreams are auspicious omens, others the reverse. 
KR: Enough was said. Neither the auspicious omens cause positive things nor the reverse cause the negative things. Is it difficult to understand this simple thing?


And (to quote another example that something true can result from or be known through something untrue) we see that the knowledge of the real sounds A, &c. is reached by means of the unreal written letters. 
KR: That is again very wrong. The written letters are not unreal. When a letter A is written, how come every one sees the same letter A. The Advaita supporters meant to say that the sound of "A" and the lines/figure of "A" are two different things and the lines themselves do not give the sound. That is fine. That does not make the lines unreal. The instruction from someone else along with the memory (to connect letters and sound) will do the mapping process. Just because there is mapping between two real things, why should one be called unreal?

Nor can it be maintained that such states of consciousness do not actually arise; 
KR: Yes, please do not maintain that such states of consciousness do not actually arise. They ACTUALLY arise. That means that they are real. In line of that -

 for scriptural passages such as, 'He understood what he said' (Khata. Up. VII, 18, 2), declare them to occur, and certain means are enjoined to bring them about, such as the hearing (of the Veda from a teacher) and the recitation of the sacred texts. Nor, again, can such consciousness be objected to on the ground either of uselessness or of erroneousness, because, firstly, it is seen to have for its result the cessation of   ignorance, and because, secondly, there is no other kind of  knowledge by which it could be sublated. 
KR: Is the above argument brought in to support Advaita or to refute Advaita? I guess that it was meant to be the former, but I am afraid that it is ending up to be the latter. The means are real, the results are real, the acts are real. What else? It is amusing that "Avdaita-haana" and "Advaita- apasiddhAnta" are accomplished by the above argument. Since the satyatva(or reality) has come to stay, the Advaita had to find a way out and that was to label it as vyAvahArika satya. That is not indicative of insistence in knowing truth, but indicative of pUrvAgraha.

Thus Shankara has Himself given a number of examples, both from scripture and from daily-life to disprove the proposition of non-Advaitins that a mithyA vastu cannot produce a real effect. * *
 KR: The examples are as much self-destructive as the Advaitic principle itself. As shown in all the prior postings, the "mithyA vastu" does not produce real effect. The definition of mithyA itself is unsupported and illogical. If by "mithyA vastu" an unreal vastu is meant, then as stated, an unreal vastu does not produce real effect, but the real mental reactions, etc. cause the real effects. So, the whole approach of Advaita crumbles down in this manner.

Once we are able to provide an analogy for the Vedantic avidya that is mithyA, all objections against the (advaita) Vedanta formulation stand refuted automatically and do not require a separate effort in that direction. 
KR: Several flaws as usual.
 1. Analogies do not prove a theory. Analogies are used to better understand a concept.

2. In this particular write-up, the person has defined mithyA as "an unreal thing that causes real effect". Firtsly in all the examples, this point itself is thoroghly refuted. The ignition key itself didn't fit in. 
3. Where in scriptures is it stated that the "Vedantic Avidya" is mithyA? Nowhere. 
4. When Vedantic Avidya itself is not mithyA, are the analogies for vedantic avidyA or for mithyA? 
5. When not even one objection is getting refuted, where is the question of all objections standing refuted. 
6. What good will a directionless effort bring in?


 No one can hold the defect of 'dR^iShTAnta - abhAvaH' *against the Advaitic Avidya. This is because Avidya is such a unique entity that takes care of the entire saMsAra-mokSha vyavasthA. 
KR: The above analysis seems to imply that it is impossible to provide an analogy to the unique entity Avidya. Yet a claim was made by the author that 'Shankara has Himself given a number of examples, both from scripture and from daily-life'. Even Gumma was stated to be an analogy. So, the imposibility became a possibility? 
If Avidya itself takes care of the entire saMsAra-mokSha vyavasthA, where and what is the role for God?

It is called *sva-para-nirvAhakaH, *that which manages everything else in samsara and itself as well and also can finally extinguish itself.  * * 
KR: Is Avidya a sentient being or a non-sentient being? If it is former, what is the standing for this being?How can the sentient being extinguish itself? If it is the latter, how can a jaDa manage everything else and itself? A jaDa does not have such capability? If it extingusihes itself, is the extinction wrt one being or all beings? Since in advaita, there is only one sentient being, its extinction for any one Being should result in extinction for all! Thus the sAdhana of one enlightened soul should help all the beings!

To better understand the Advaitic analogy structure, let us see this analogy, describing their principle.

(1) The rectangle is an unequal sided square, for being an equilateral triangle.
(2) The rectangle is an unequal sided square, for being an isosceles triangle.
(3) The rectangle is an unequal sided square, for being a scalene triangle.
(4) The rectangle is an unequal sided square, for being a right triangle.

When an objection is raised that there is no such thing as "unequal sided square", the following explanation is given.

====== pUrva pakSha statements ===

"An unequal sided square" is one, which is neither equal sided nor unequal sided. 
Since it is unequal sided, it is not equal sided. Since it is a square, it is not unequal sided. 
If a question is raised 'how can such figure exist', we say 'Why can't such a figure exist?' If one takes an equilateral triangle, it is not unequal sided. If an equilateral triangle is sublated by a scalene triangle, then the scalene triangle is not equal sided. 
Thus, to show that such is possible, an equilateral triangle from some one else's bag is taken out. 
Look, we not only find in that bag an equilateral triangle, but also a scalene triangle.

We have in our bag also, all kinds of triangles - equilateral, isosceles, scalene and right triangles. Sometimes people mistake one for the other, when the differences are very small. For ex, a triangle having 59, 60 and 61 degree angles will be mistaken for an equilateral triangle, causing sublation (like rajju-sarpa and shukti-rajata).

======== 
It is clear that the above kind of approach is full of logical problems. The flaw is very obvious in the above example. But in mithyAvAda, it is not that obvious, hence a great number of polemic works emerged and back and forth discussions have taken place. Two kinds of realities and obscuring the realities, etc have created lot of confusion. The seeker of truth must not yield to any pUrvAgraha.

This concludes this series.


Shri KrishNArpaNamastu.

Comments

Post a Comment