Part 14 of the serialization of the presentation (compiled by R. B. Athreya from the lectures given by Swami Paramarthananda) of upadesha sAhasrI. This is the prakaraNa grantha which is agreed by most experts to have been written by Shankara himself and is an elaborate unfoldment of the essence of Advaita.
Subscribers to Advaita Vision are also offered special rates on the journal and on books published by Tattvaloka. See the full introduction
Q: I have an odd question, a question that I am not even sure how to formulate, it concerns consciousness. Why does Advaita philosophy insist on calling the ultimate reality consciousness? The word consciousness implies intelligence and thought – how do we know that anything outside of brains is in any way conscious? Does this mean that physical reality amounts to the “thoughts” of this consciousness? Can the transcendent consciousness send messages to an embodied consciousness?
I know that an advaitin will say that there is only a non-dual reality but I mean this (however unreal or relative a reality my individual reality may be from an ‘ultimate’ perspective’) in much the same way that, until you received this e-mail from me, you were not aware of any ‘message’ or meaning from me.
If I see a figure in clouds or a face in some wood-grain, should I see this as information with meaning? Does the consciousness ‘behind’ or ‘underneath’ everything communicate meaning with physical events (pictures, or ‘my thoughts’ , or even ambiguous hand-writing!) the way we normally communicate meaning with words and concepts? In other words–if the entire universe is consciousness, can anything be truly mindless or meaningless? Continue reading
SAND-2013 has undoubtedly matured.
There is a greater participation of Scientists well-known and respected in their fields of study spanning from Cognitive science to Computational Neuroscience, Lucid dreams to Non-linear mathematical models, Physics to Consciousness.
Susana Martinez-Conde from Barrow Neurological Institute was a pleasant surprise. A number of years ago I wrote to her and her colleague Stephen, after seeing their work on the Perception-Reality Disconnect, about how Non-duality considers the world as an illusion and if they would like to explore this line of thought. They had no interest and disposed off my mails as if it’s all quack science. They may not remember the correspondence, but the change in their perspective is very welcome!
The highly popular Non-dual Teachers like Francis Lucille, Rupert Spira and others were also there. Continue reading
Sarvajnatman, a well-reputed advaita Acharya of the 9th-10th century, was the author of samkshepa shArIraka. As the title indicates, this book is a brief presentation of Sankara’s sUtra bhAshya in four chapters corresponding to the four adhyAya-s of the brahma sUtra-s.
Sarvajnatman sums up the essential nature of brahman in ten words. They are:
nitya, suddha, buddha, mukta, satya, sUkshma, sat, vibhu, advitIya and Ananda
(eternal, pure, knowing, free, true, subtle, existent, auspicious, without a second and infinite (or happy)).
advaita teaches that you and brahman are one and the same. You being already brahman, the above ten words, therefore, describe you also. That means you, yourself, are Happiness. So Happiness should be known to you like you know the back of your hand. You do not have to search for or attain Happiness.
But an enigmatic question arises: Okay, I know that I am already eternally existing, knowing and ever happy brahman. How come then I don’t know the Happiness which should be present right here? What ghost of an obstruction would block me from feeling it, from seeing it?
The shAstra replies: Oh, Yea, something like the Ghost of Bharcchu can cripple you from seeing the very things that are right in front of you!
“The Ghost of Bharcchu? What’s that?,” you ask in wonderment.
निद्रा न विद्या ग्रहणम् न विद्या
गृह्णाति किन्चिन्न यथार्थ बोधे
निद्रा प्रदार्थ ग्रहणेतरा स्यात्
चिदेव विद्या विलसन्त्यशून्या—१४
nidrA na vidyA grahaNam na vidyA
gRihNAti ki~nchinna yathArtha bodhe
nidrA pradArtha grahNetarA syAt
chideva vidyA vilasantyashUnyA—14
निद्रा न विद्या = Self knowledge is not sleep; ग्रहणम् न विद्या= grasping (perceiving) of worldly objects is not self knowledge; गृह्णाति किन्चिन्न यथार्थ बोधे= In self knowledge, as it is, one does not grasp anything; निद्रा प्रदार्थ ग्रहण् इतरा स्यात्= It is different from grasping and non-grasping of objects; चिदेव विद्या विलसन्ति अशून्या = consciousness alone is self knowledge which is self effulgent and not a void.
What is knowledge of the self? Is it like the normal knowledge we gain in our worldly transactions or is it a sleep like state where nothing is known?
In this verse, bhagavAn RamaNa is refuting what self knowledge is not. He mentions it is not like the objective knowledge and sleep. On a positive note, he mentions it is where there is no grasping (of objects), the consciousness itself which is self effulgent is the self knowledge.
We have various sciences, art forms, various branches in Mathematics etc. We gain knowledge in these fields and consider ourselves knowledgeable. Is self knowledge akin to this type of grasping? Is it like a gross appreciation of the world? If not, then is it like sleep where one grasps nothing? Continue reading
13.5.2013
“All that now exists will die” (The goddess Erda, in Wagner’s opera Das Rheingold, 4th scene)
M: P, I have to commend you for the exacting work and research you have done on The Terrestrial Garden in such a short time. I am in substantial agreement, as you will see, with much of what you are saying, but take some exception with respect of part of the methodology (parallelisms mostly, rather than contrasts) you use, which has consequences to me either excessive or unwarranted. Also, agree that it is “pointless to look for the single Truth in this story”. I start with some observations in the way of contrasts (rather than parallelisms or analogies): ‘unlike’, rather than ‘like’, realizing that I am not actually discovering anything new to you.
1. Mythology vs. Mithya
2. Monotheist exoterism (Moses, Old Testament) vs. Esoterism (Jesus,
New Testament)
3. Right and wrong (ethics & morality; or ‘moralism’) vs. sat-asat
(metaphysics or spiritual science)
4. (Christian) God vs. (Hindu) Ishvara
5. a) Knowledge, empirical, religious, philosophical (‘categorial’) vs.
KNOWLEDGE (reality, realization)
5b) doctrine (theory) vs. method (practice)
1. We could consider, I think, The Garden of Eden, or Terrestrial
Garden, as a myth, like that of Prometheus, or the deeds of heroes –
as much in the East as in the West (puranas, sastras, sagas). They are
illustrative, imaginative stories applicable to man and society (or
collectivities). Not so mithya, which belongs to the spiritual or
metaphysical science of the Indian tradition exclusively, as you know
(that is, esoteric or sapiential: jñana). They (myth and mithya) are
quite different; though there is an overlap in the way we can make use
of them in order to bring out a deeper understanding of something
which may only be implicit in them. I think this is what phenomenological
analysis consists of (briefly, ‘the contents of consciousness’ – to be
elicited). Also, myth and mithya are in the same relationship as pratibhasika and vyavaharika – the first of each pair being merely illusory, subjective, imaginary. Continue reading
To explore the womb, or tomb, or dreams; all these are usual
Pastimes and drugs, and features of the press:
And always will be, some of them especially
When there is distress of nations and perplexity
Whether on the shores of Asia, or in the Edgware Road. (T. S. Eliot. Four Quartets, 3.5)
If you are reading this magazine*, I suggest that there is a high probability that you are not happy! It is an undeniable fact that the majority of people today are dissatisfied with what they perceive as being a mediocre existence. They may feel that they are limited by an unattractive and illness-prone body or by a mind that is imperfectly educated and unable to make intellectual leaps of understanding. There are very many things that we want – objects, partners, lifestyle, jobs etc – but few that we seem to be able to obtain. (And, even when we do obtain them, their rewards are invariably ephemeral.) Western society relies upon the media advertising all of these things, and thereby continually reinforcing the desires. Being repeatedly frustrated by this materialistic lifestyle, it should be hardly surprising that many turn towards the spiritual in the hope that this might bring about peace and a durable happiness. Continue reading
Q: I have a problem with the boredom of everyday life. Nothing seems to satisfy me. I just find it so difficult to be just here in the moment and be content with that. You say: go through life and work etc, but as a witness to it all.
Am I living in moment as I should? Should I give all my attention to each action, so that the ego is absent or should I just be the witness of everything every action on a moment to moment basis?
Maybe if I understand how to live in the moment better and had some clarification, that would help me stay present and focused on just living. My mind lives in the future.
(Note: I have reworded the question slightly but some of the replies quote from the original question. Apologies for any confusion!)
Answers are provided by: Sitara, Ted, Ramesam, Martin and Dennis. Continue reading
Everything that there is, is īśvara. That is why we can invoke mahāgaṇapati in a small mound of turmeric and even worship a milestone as īśvara. For us, trees, rivers, mountains, pillars, vāyu, ākāśa, bird, insect, snake, anything and everything is īśvara.
Though there are many Hindu’s who might not understand the philosophy, ask even a supposedly illiterate villager as to where God is, and prompt will come his reply “God is everywhere”. It is only the Hindu religion where all its practices have arisen from its underlying philosophy.
There are a number of philosophies, both in the past and the present, from the west, such as those of Aristotle, Socrates, Satre, Descarte etc. which are not religions; there are religions such as the Abrahamic, actively practised and proselytized, which do not have any meaningful philosophy behind them. That we are able to worship īśvara in every form, conceivable and inconceivable, is an example of applied philosophy practiced as religion.
We do not worship idols. We worship īśvara who is form manifest. We are not mere form worshippers. We worship the formless, on whom all the forms are superimposed. How can anyone worship the formless? The formless is to be understood as the truth and the substratum. The forms are the one that can be worshipped.
There are theologies that say there is one God. The problem with this thinking is which or whose “One God” is the true God. Everyone lays claims to their own God as the real, ultimate, and final one. It is this issue that has been plaguing the world. It is in the name of this issue that millions were persecuted in the past, and massacres are being committed currently.
We do not subscribe to this view of one God. We say there is ONLY God. All that there is, is only God; because he is the upādāna kāraṇa of this entire jagat. kāryaṁ sakartṛkaṁ kāryatvāt ghaṭavat. Therefore, all that is experienced is God indeed; even the experiencer is God, for there is nothing other than God.
This jagat, which is īśvara sṛṣṭi, so purposefully and well created, functions in an orderly manner. There are a number of orders that govern the functioning of the world. Let is look at some orders in order to understand yet another dimension of īśvara.
īśvara is the very order manifest in the jagat. In the light of this vision, everyone in the world, everything that happens, all stand validated. There is no one to blame, there is nothing to feel guilty about.
I would like to draw the attention of the readers to a very important difference between our vision and other religions. While the others consider dharma as the mandate of īśvara, we consider dharma as the very īśvara manifest. dharma as God’s mandate, is open to (mis)interpretation. dharma as God manifest, is to be understood and abidbed by. This means we are always within īśvara. If it has happened, it is within īśvaras order, irrespective of whether we consider what happened as just or not.