Advaita : The Game Changer

Shankara's Advaita Vedanta beautifully harmonizes all the great philosophical traditions that came before it. Due to this, Advaita shares many similarities with Mahayana Buddhist doctrines like the "Two truths doctrine" of Nagarjuna (the greatest Buddhist philosopher of all time) and the Buddhist philosopher Dignaga's "Vijnanavada". Because of these similarities, Shankara was even criticized as Prachanna Buddha (Buddha in disguise) by the traditional Hindu philosophers. Similarly, Advaita also shares many similarities with great traditional Hindu philosophical schools of thought like "Yoga", "Sankhya", "Nyaya", and "Purva-Mimamsa". 

In reality, the Advaita doesn't refute other philosophies but just brilliantly supersedes them. Advaita has fundamental metaphysical and ontological superiority compared to all the previous philosophical explanations of reality given before. If you consider Einstein's general theory of relativity and Newton's Law of gravitation, Einstein's model explains gravity better than Newton's. But Einstein's model doesn't refute Newton's law of gravitation it just supersedes/refines it. You can still derive the Newtonian gravitational model from general relativity by making two simple assumptions. Newton's model still holds in the majority of cases and is widely used. Just like that Advaita explains reality better compared to other philosophies. 

Now let's see where Buddha comes in on all this. Buddha was against complex philosophizing. Buddha keeps on insisting not to waste time discussing the ultimate nature of reality, he asked his disciples to just follow his teachings and get enlightened and realize it themselves.

For many questions related to the nature of reality, Buddha refused to answer (Buddha's noble silences). It is not because Buddha doesn't know the answer, but the answer cannot be logically presented in language. It can only be realized. Language and logic belong to the transactional/relative realm of reality, just like the water in the dream is useless to quench thirst in the waking world, language and logic are useless in accurately describing the absolute reality. If we want a 100% logically correct explanation for absolute reality, none of the philosophies can provide that. This is why even after his enlightenment, Buddha deliberated for some time thinking about whether he should teach what he realized at all.

So the natural question one would ask is if Buddha's initial teachings are enough for enlightenment and none of the philosophies can describe the real nature of reality, what is the need for any later development of Buddhist philosophies after Buddha (Collection of these later philosophies branched out as Mahayana Buddhism) and most importantly even after the development of very sophisticated Mahayana Buddhist philosophies why you needed a philosophy like Advaita. 

Let's tackle these questions one by one. The reason why Buddha's initial teachings were later expanded is that Buddha's initial teachings have dangerous consequences if you grasp them wrongly. Greatest Mahayana philosopher Nagarjuna compared it to picking up a snake by the wrong end. Buddha's teachings presented two dangerous problems, first problem is Buddha's Nobel silence is interpreted by sceptics of Buddha as he doesn't know the answer or he isn't truly enlightened. So Buddhism ran into the risk of being easily dismissed after Buddha's lifetime. 

500 years after Buddha, Nagarjuna tried to clear this scepticism by interpreting Buddha's silence philosophically and trying to show why Buddha's silence was the correct answer to those questions. He argued reality, including ourselves and everything we know, is essentially empty; there is nothing. This system of Mahayana Philosophy is called "Madhyamaka (Shunyavada)". 400 years after Nagarjuna, the next prominent Buddhist philosopher Vasubandhu came forward with another main philosophical system of Mahayana Buddhism, the "Yogacara (Vijnanavada)" which suggested, as Nagarjuna said external objects are unreal but the mind is real and that objects which appear to be external and material are in fact ideas or states of consciousness. Yogacara is considered the highest peak of Buddhist philosophy to this day. This is where the story gets interesting. 

Even though Mahayana's attempts to interpret Buddha's Nobel silence clarified the first dangerous consequence of misunderstanding Buddha's teaching it unfortunately just intensified the second dangerous consequence of misunderstanding Buddha's teachings. Buddha's teachings of Anatta (no-self) sounded dangerously close to Nihilism (nihilists claim human life is essentially meaningless). Mahayana school's emphasis on the broader emptiness/Nothingness of the world in addition to Anatta(no-self) made the claims Buddhism is nihilistic even more credible. Buddha and Buddhist philosophers after him established what we perceive as reality is an illusion with formidable logic. So when they refuse to positively assert what happens when we wake up from this illusion, Buddhism ended up presenting a very grim and depressive conclusion to the masses. 

So there was on the one end, traditional Hindu philosophies which have optimistic conceptions of what happens after enlightenment but they couldn't logically refute Buddhist philosophies. On the other end, Buddhist philosophies seem to possess irrefutable proof on their side but seem to have a pessimistic conception of what's after enlightenment. So when the hero of our story Shakhara comes into the picture this was the condition of Indian philosophy. Shankara's Advaita philosophy with mind-blowing logic explains the true nature of reality, what is the root cause of suffering, how can you be free from suffering, what happens at the moment of enlightenment, and positively assert what is after enlightenment. That is the beauty of Advaita, it is a complete philosophy. 

Solace of My Life

The philosopher-saint Shankara was just a 16-year-old child prodigy when he challenged the most sophisticated Buddhist and orthodox Hindu systems of thought with his radical philosophy "Advaita Vedanta" 1200 years ago. In his works, he logically proves that the true nature of reality is Advaita (non-dual) and how realising this will free you from suffering. His works explore the relationship between matter and consciousness and provide a very eloquent solution by investigating the relationship between the Knower, Known and Knowledge. Trying to understand and realise his teachings has been the solace of my life, and it will be the solace of my death.

My Commentaries for Non Dualistic Quotes

 

Very interesting quote from Rupert. But it makes perfect sense. To have any experience, you need two things; one is consciousness and the other is the activity of the mind. So when you push the mind out of the equation, there can't be any experience. During deep sleep when the mind is not active, there is no experience. Similarly, you can never experience the ultimate reality because to realise the ultimate reality, the mind which projects the false version of reality you see now needs to cease. So when ceasing of the mind is a prerequisite, you can't experience truth; you can only be the truth. At the ultimate level, there is no subject-object duality; the subject alone remains. That is what all the non-dualistic traditions like Advaita Vedanta, Mahayana Buddhism and Taoism point to.

Where I stand between Theravada and Mahayana?

When it comes to Buddhism, I align myself more with the Mahayana school of Buddhism instead of the Theravada school. Does the Theravada work? Yes, it does. But, it leaves many questions unanswered. For example, Theravadans limit themselves with No-self(Anatta); they don't extend that to the world. But, Mahayanist considers No-self as part of the broader emptiness of the world to explain reality better. Theravadans have no answer for what is after Nirvana. Theravadans would argue the whole point of Buddhism is to be free from suffering. Once that goal is realised (Nirvana), there is no point in talking about what's after. Many schools of Mahayana reject the dualistic concepts that separate Samsara and Nirvana and promote a form of liberation beyond this duality. The beauty of Mahayana is that it is more philosophically comprehensive, even though both schools solve the problem of suffering.

Figure 1: Buddha

I differ from Theravadans, who believe only in the initial teachings of Buddha (The first turning of the wheel of Dhamma). I believe in the importance of all the three turnings of the wheel of Dhamma. Not just the first turning, the second turning which begins with the teachings of Nagarjuna about Sunyata (Emptiness) and the third turning which begins with the teachings of Vasubandhu about Yogachara (consciousness only) are also equally important. 

Great teachers always produce great students. Denying the knowledge of enlightened Mahayana masters who followed Buddha is, in a sense denying the teaching of Buddha. Buddha himself laid out the criteria for Dhamma: "Check whether it leads to dispassion, virtue, wisdom, concentration, Nirvana? If so, then take it and run with it". So even if you don't believe that Mahayana texts are the actual teaching of Buddha, you can't say that they don't contain Dhamma since they pass Buddha's criteria for Dhamma. Conversely, everything which is Dhamma is Buddha's words. It's not about a historical person and his close disciples, but about a more general principle.

How to be really happy ?

What we all constantly experience is a restless mind which is full of cravings and desires. When we get what it craves, we feel happy for a while. So, we naturally assume objects in the external world bring happiness and keep chasing them. But in reality, happiness is your inherent nature. The restless mind stands in between as a curtain that obscures you from your real self that is forever happy. When your mind gets what it wants, all that happens is your mind calms down for some time. Once the curtain has lifted, your inner bliss just shines forth. That is why you feel happy. So, the most logical path to being happy is not chasing things externally but learning how to calm your mind.

You are the consciousness that is sitting on the banks of the river of mind watching. As long as you remain that way, you are in eternal bliss; there is no suffering. All your suffering starts when you jump into the river and start clutching things that are floating away. So just be the witness. That is the only way to permanent happiness.

Is Science Finally Joining the Party of Dualism?

Until now, science is firmly rooted in the notion that everything can be explained by matter and its properties alone. But leading cognitive scientists like David Chalmers are now claiming, this usual material reductionist approach is not effective in understanding consciousness. They are proposing that consciousness should be another fundamental reality in addition to the physical world. This school of thought is not new. The same theory was well studied long ago in Indian dualistic philosophy called "Sankhya". Science is just late to the party. How late? At least 3000 years late. 

Figure 1: Hard problem of consciousness

Now, the fun fact is, the two highest peaks of human knowledge, Advaita Vedanta of Hinduism and Yogacara Buddhism (A major school of thought in Mahayana Buddhism and highly influential in Tibetian Buddhism) have gone beyond this dualistic understanding. They both prove that reality which appears dualistic is non-dual and the physical world is just a projection of that non-duality. This projection is what creates the illusion of duality. So, science has a very long way to go. But I'm happy that science is finally taking baby steps in the right direction.

The Magnificent Century: Kösem

I was reading "1001 Arabian Nights" the other day and started to get curious about the lives of imperial women under Islamic empires. While watching a documentary about it, I accidentally stumbled upon the Turkish TV series "The Magnificent Century: Kösem" on YouTube. I clicked out of curiosity, but was quickly engrossed in the plot and ended up watching the entire series. It follows the life story of "Kösem Sultana", one of the most powerful and influential women in Ottoman history and a prominent figure during the era known as the Sultanate of Women. 

Her ordeal is extraordinary. She was kidnapped at the age of 15 and presented as a concubine to Sultan Ahmed who was then just a prince. From an unknown concubine, she became Sultan Ahmed's favourite consort then legal wife. Finally, for the first time in Ottoman history, she became regent of the empire after Sultan Ahmed's death. Through this tv series, I learned so much about not just ottoman history but also many facets of human nature. That makes this series very special to me. 

There are several technical aspects of this tv series I need to point out as well. First of all, each episode is two hours so each of them felt like a complete movie on its own. Adopting the two-hour episodes helped a lot to allow the story to be unravelled slowly revealing the evolution of different character traits vividly. I loved the costumes used, though some historians have commented that the costumes used were not appropriate to those times. The French influence was heavy in costumes but such influence in attires only became prominent after the visit of Nepolean's wife. Nevertheless, I fell in love with the Ottoman Kaftans used in the series. Critics blame several other historical inaccuracies in the series as well. Even I noticed that some inaccuracies like women giving birth on a bed. I had learned previously that the usual practice among the ottomans is sitting on a chair while giving birth. 

Watching this series was challenging because of the horrible subtitles. I felt proud of the work done by my brain for hearing nearly over 100 hours of Turkish while looking at the wrong English subtitle yet processing the correct meaning and then translating it to my mother tongue all in real-time. Good job my dear brain.. good job 👏👏

I already knew several historical facts about ottomans before this tv series, facts like ottoman emperors never marry and they bore children only via concubines. This 200-year-old tradition was only broken by Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent when he married his favourite concubine Hurrem. Another fact I learned is that when a new sultan ascends to the throne he will execute all his brothers to avoid any future competition for the throne. 

The Ottoman tradition of royal fratricide is truly shocking. Maybe that is why I loved Sultan Ahmed in this series because he decided against executing his only half-brother Mustafa who was still a toddler. This marks the first breach in the Ottoman tradition of royal fratricide and henceforth Ottoman rulers would no longer systematically execute their brothers upon accession to the throne. Sultan Ahmed is portrayed throughout the series as a very compassionate man and a passionate lover who was madly in love with Kösem. I was so touched by his character I told myself I would one day visit his final resting place the Sultan Ahmed Mosque a.k.a. Blue mosque build by him. 

I also really liked all the actors who played the role of Prince Mustafa. Every time he appears I feel pity for him. Since being a toddler, he lived with the constant fear of being executed. That is a horrible way to live. Imagine waking up every morning fearing whether you will get executed today. Constant fear and trauma since early childhood made him grow into a mentally unstable man. The scene where Mustafa points out to Kösem about her transformation from an innocent girl to a ruthless power-hungry woman makes you feel maybe he is the wisest of them all.  Finally, seeing the way he gets executed under orders of Sultan Murad is extremely heart-wrenching. 

Another important observation from the series is that the woman becomes extremely selfish after they have children. Their sole focus on life becomes the wellbeing of only their children. I still can't understand from where that amount of selfishness, ruthlessness and hatred for others comes from. I have noticed this phenomenon before as well. I have personally seen a lot of women change like this after childbirth. In all the mothers in this series, you can see that transformation. 

From the historic point of view, two other major changes happened during Kösem's period apart from the abolition of fratricide. One is the modifications in the pattern of succession to the throne from a system of primogeniture to one based on agnatic seniority.  Generally, since the time of Sultan Suleiman, the heir to the throne is the eldest surviving son. But under the influence of Kösem, the practice where succession to the throne passes to the Sultans's next eldest brother (even if the Sultan has own sons) was adopted. It could also be noted that Kösem might have adopted it for her gains since her sons were not eligible for the throne as Sultan Ahamed already had a son Osman from another consort. 

The second change was for the first time in ottoman history a woman was appointed as the regent. This happened first, when Kösem's son Murad took over the throne as he is a minor and later when her other son Ibrahim took over the throne as he is mentally unstable thus incapable to rule. Finally when grandson Meḥmed took over the throne since he was a minor until she was assassinated. The assassination was orchestrated under the orders of Meḥmed's mother since Kösem who has now become completely evil and power-hungry plotted to kill her grandson Meḥmed for gaining more power.

I loved all three actresses who played the roles of teen, adult and old Kösem. They vividly portrayed different shades of Kösem. First, the innocent, joyful, good looking teen. Then protecting, loving and ambitious wife and mother. Finally, powerful, arrogant and cruel regent.

The greatest lesson we all can learn from Kösem's life and death is "More you fight evil, you get so absorbed you become the same evil yourself". Young and innocent Kösem hated Safiye Sultana so much since she was evil and power-hungry and was plotting several times to kill her grandson Sultan Ahmed and his princes for power. Kösem was forced to fight against her to protect her husband and children. 

She vowed to Safiye that she’ll be a good-hearted sultana and will never kill her children but later in her life the thirst for power made her do just that. She became just like Safiye if not eviler, powerful and too controlling. Kösem needed the power to protect her kids and in the end, she lost her kids to protect her power. Don't hate someone too much, or you will be like them in the end.

I can imagine why Kösem became like that. She was once too kind but if she didn't change she would have been dead and buried by Safiye. She was forcefully taken away from her loving family then the man she loved so much died young leaving her without any love or motivation in life. The throne became her obsession and her desire to live.  

A lot of people felt if she retired early, maybe she wouldn't have died like this. But did she have any other choice? Aren't we all just victims of circumstance? You can't blame Kösem because in the ottoman palace you have to learn to survive. Kill or be killed. She was a great person in the beginning, but people still tried to kill her anyway. So it made her tougher, stronger, and meaner. If the love of her life Sultan Ahamed lived longer like Sultan Suleiman maybe we might have seen a completely different Kösem altogether. But at the end of the day, nothing is permanent, no king rules forever, whatever is meant to happen will happen.

This series is a great example of how a single work of art can spike interest in a nation and its culture around the world. People from different parts of the world got interested in visiting Turkey to see historical monuments and learn more about Turkish culture due to this series. It is evident if you look at comments sections of YouTube videos related to different Turkish monuments. After watching this series, I started to wish that someone would make a similar series based on Tamil history. If you have time to spare, don't miss this amazing series.