Upadesa Sahasri (Part 9)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 8

Chapter 11 Nature of Witness

11.1 and 11.2                                                                                                                          The mind and body system (MBS) is made of five elements and is by nature inert. As it is conscious, it means that the source of consciousness is outside. The outside source is Brahman which is of the nature of pure consciousness (Consciousness) due to which MBS appears conscious. Whereas sentient MBS is changing, Consciousness is unchanging. According to scriptures, the true nature, i.e., real ‘I’ (Self) of a human being is Consciousness. In other words, a human being is essentially Consciousness which is different from the sentient MBS and utterly unaffected by latter’s experiences comprising dualities.

Continue reading →

Brihadarankya Upanishad (Part 17)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 16

4.4.9 to 4.4.15                                                                                                                 The seekers of Brahman talk about many paths of knowledge. It is not correct. There is only one path of knowledge. A person should practice karma yoga and upasana yoga to become qualified for the path of knowledge. The Upanishad criticises those who perform different rites and rituals for material benefits. They are unwise and ignorant, live in darkness, and go from death to death.  Sooner or later, a person should do a course correction and set knowledge of Brahman as the highest goal. All other goals should be subservient to it and finally, the only goal should be Brahman- knowledge.         

Continue reading →

Quintessence of 10 Upanishads – 6 (kena 1)

Posted on by
8

[Part – 5 (Isha)]

kena Upanishad:

The word AtmA points to something that is all-pervasive — present everywhere, without gaps. There can be no “inside” or “outside” to It. Nor can there be anything “other” than Itself. For, if there is a second thing different existing alongside It, AtmA would cease to be all-pervasive. The Sanskrit word AtmA comes from the root ‘at,’ meaning “to move” or “to pervade,” and It naturally carries this sense of omnipresence.

When something exists as itself, in its own true form, we call that its intrinsic nature (svarUpa). When the very same thing appears in some other form, that appearance is called a manifestation (vibhUti). Words like manifestation (vibhUti), special appearance (visheSa), imagination (vikalpa), or fallacious appearance (AbhAsa) all point to the same basic idea. They describe not what a thing really is, but how it seems — like the different roles played by an actor putting on different costumes. Continue reading →

Anvaya-vyatireka – Part 3

Posted on by
Reply

Explicit rejection of the notion that the world disappears in deep-sleep,

*** Read Part 1 *** *** Read Part 2 ***

Q: So the statement by A. J. Alston is missing the point?

The real point that Śaṅkara is making is that, despite the fact that the mind, and apparently the world, are both absent in deep sleep, awareness (ātman) is always present. Hence, the real substrate of both mind and world is ātman/Brahman. Is this correct and, if so, what does Śaṅkara actually say here (including Sanskrit)?

A: Yes — that is exactly right, and stated that way it becomes clear that Alston’s objection (though sensible at the empirical level) is largely missing Śaṅkara’s point.

Śaṅkara is not arguing from absence of the world to non-existence of the world.
He is arguing from the invariance of awareness across all states to its status as the sole independent reality, with mind and world reduced to dependent manifestations.

Continue reading →

Chandogya Upanishad and Brahma Sutra Bhasya Part – 3

Posted on by
Reply

Part 2

BSB 1.3.40                                                                                                                    The light mentioned in Ch 8.12.3 refers to Brahman and not the ordinary light because of the context in which it is used. The subject-matter is Brahman that is free from sin (Ch 8.7.1). It should be sought by an aspirant of liberation. It is also alluded to in, “I shall explain this very one to you over again” (Ch Up 8.9.3). And this Self is declared by way of attainment of this Light for becoming unembodied as mentioned in the statement, namely, happiness and sorrow do not touch one who is unembodied (Ch Up 8.9.1). Supreme Light is used in Ch Up 8.3.4 and transcendental being in Ch Up 8.12.3.

Continue reading →

Manifestation/Appearance – A view

Posted on by
3

In Advaita Vedanta, it is said that the world is a manifestation/appearance of Brahman like ornament (world) and gold (Brahman) in gold-ornament metaphor. A hearer is puzzled as to how can the material world be envisaged as a manifestation/appearance of Brahman which is of the nature of pure existence (Existence) and is non-material. Existence is not perceived, world is perceived, whereas both gold and ornament are perceived. In this sense, the hearer argues that there is a disconnect of the gold-ornament from Brahman-world.
The counter argument from a co-hearer is that a metaphor is never similar to the thing illustrated for otherwise it ceases to be a metaphor. The principle is that in a metaphor, similarity is the focus and dis-similarity is ignored. In the instant case, dis-similarity due to material and non-material is ignored. What is the similarity then? Here comes the concept of mithya, i.e., neither nor unreal. Brahman is of the nature of Existence. It lends existence to the world which has no independent existence as it continuously changes. Brahman is real and world is mithya (ब्रह्म सत्यं जगन्मिथ्या). In the gold-ornament metaphor, ornament has no existence separate from that of the gold. Gold is real and ornament is mithya. Thus, there is a similarity (of mithyatatva)  between the illustration and the illustrated.
Agreement: In the gold-ornament metaphor to explain that the world is a manifestation/appearance of Brahman, the focus is on mithyatatva.

Upadesa Sahasri (Part 8)

Posted on by
Reply

In Part 7, it is said that the chapter 10 focuses on nidhidhyasana, i.e., meditation on vedantic teachings for their assimilation and to deal with contrary feeling. The following verses do it by of ‘glorification’ of I (Self) and is in the first person.  Brahmjnanavalimala is very similar to chapter 10.  It should not be mistaken as ego-boosting because every human being is entitled to it.

10.1 to 10.3                                                                                                                         I am the supreme Brahman which is changeless and is of the nature of pure consciousness. I am unborn, imperishable. I am deathless, unchanging, devoid of old age. I am not attached with mind and body though I as consciousness pervade them. As consciousness, I am within the body, but I am not confined to the body. I have no edge and no boundary. Like space, I am in all directions and all -pervading. Worldly ups and downs belong to mind and body and do not affect Me. I am ever free. I am the ultimate subject. I am beyond objects but illumine them. I am self-effulgent. I am beyond cause and effect. Cause and effect are in the realm of duality. I am non-dual. The understanding is that though duality is experienced it is mithya. Duality is subject to change. I am non-dual and not subject to change. I alone am real.

Continue reading →

Quintessence of 10 Upanishads – 5 (Isha)

Posted on by
6

[Part – 4 (Isha)]

Ritual actions prescribed by the scriptures will carry a seeker from one birth to another, perhaps under more favorable conditions. However, they cannot free one from saṃsāra, the endless cycles of birth and death. 

A seeker devoted solely to ritual worship does not attain “immortality”; at best, such practices will confer “longevity.” A combination (samuccaya) of action (karma) and worship (upAsanA) can enable the seeker to dwell in the divine realms of the gods s/he worships for a very long time.  Continue reading →

Brihadarankya Upanishad (Part 16)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 15

Part 17

Chapter 4
Section 4 Sariraka Brahaman
4.4.1 to 4.4.6                                                                                                                     YJV talks about transmigration. At the time of death, the physical body becomes weak (the weakness is figuratively attributed to Self) and the sense organs withdraw from their physical locations. The presiding deities of the sense organs leave and go to their respective abodes. The sense organs do not function and the perceptions of colour, sound etc cease. They are as good as dead in the current body and Self is figuratively said to senseless.

Continue reading →

Anvaya-vyatireka – Part 2

Posted on by
Reply

*** Read Part 1 ***

I decided that, by only making short posts (up to 1500 words) at the rate of one per week, readers might lose the thread (or lose interest) so I will now post longer ones that cover complete questions and answers. So this one is quite long, at over 1800 words.

The Bomb under the Bed

Here is the statement from Śaṅkara (translated by Alston in his book ‘Śaṅkara on the Creation’) that might raise doubts:

“The proposition to be proved is, ‘This whole duality seen by the imagined mind is itself nothing but mind’. The reason advanced is that when the mind is present, duality is also present (agreement, anvaya), and when the mind is not present, duality is not present (difference, vyatireka).” (Gauḍapāda kārikā 3.28-31)

Q: Using the Nyāya logic of anvaya-vyatireka to prove that the waking world is unreal because it disappears in deep-sleep does not seem remotely convincing. Yet Śaṅkara seems to go along with this, despite apparently being a master logician and philosopher. Are you able to explain this? If so, can you break down the argument into simple steps to show how it is possible to justify?

Continue reading →