Monthly Archives: January 2014

Atman- mirror

Posted on by

1.19. Just as a mirror exists within and without the image reflected in it, so the Supreme Self exists inside and outside this body.

The idea is this: The image in the mirror has no real existence. It is a mere appearance. Only the mirror exists. Similarly, only the Self exists. Body, mind, etc have no real existence. It is only by being superimposed on the Self that they appear to exist. Just as the reflection cannot affect the mirror, so body, mind etc cannot affect the Self.

aShTAvakra saMhitA, Swami Nityaswarupananda, Advaita Ashrama, No ISBN.

Atma-j.āna, Self-knowledge (2)

Quote

Posted on by

(ii) Svarūpa-j.āna, knowledge of one’s true nature. What is the nature of this

Atman? Unfortunately we are aware of only the existence of the Atman but, owing to the covering of kāraṇa-aj.āna, we are not aware of its true nature, svarūpa. According to Shankara, the true nature of the Atman can be known only from Vedantic scriptures. The Upanishads state that the true nature of Atman is Brahman. This kind of knowledge is at first only a conceptual knowledge produced by mental vṛttis, modifications. But this vṛtti-j.āna is the starting point. According to Shankara, once this knowledge is gained, all that remains to be done is to stop identifying oneself with one’s body, mind, and so on.

This non-identification, practised with the help of the ‘neti, neti ’ process,begins as dṛg-dṛśya-viveka—discrimination between the seer and the seen—andculminates in a higher type of inner absorption, known as nididhyāsana.

Sureshwaracharya equates nididhyāsana with savikalpa samādhi. Beyond this lies nirvikalpa samādhi, in which akhaṇdākāra-vṛtti, a unitary mental mode, removes themūlāvidyā, causal ignorance. When the mūlāvidyā is completely removed, the Atman is realized as Brahman. When this happens, astitva-j.āna is replaced by svarūpa-j.āna.

The popular notion that in Advaitic experience the Atman ‘merges’ into Brahman is not quite true.

The Atman remains as self-existence. Owing to the coverings of aj.āna and its products, the Atman is at first experienced as ‘I exist’. But as the coverings are removed, the Atman’s self-existence expands until it becomes infinite. The same Atman that was at the beginning remains at the end also, only its coverings are gone; we then call it Brahman.

 

From: Four Basic Principles of Advaita Vedanta

by Swami Bhajanananda, Ramakrishna Mission

Source: Prabuddha Bharata — Jan/Feb 2010

Some Thoughts And Questions On ‘mokSha for all’

Posted on by

Our last ‘Thoughts and Questions’ proved so popular that we are offering a new topic for your consideration:

I received an interesting Question that touches on several aspects of creation and liberation for ‘everyone’. I posted the question at Advaitin discussion group because of my doubt about its value in gaining Self-Knowledge which is after all the one that matters for us here. The question is this:

“Is there any teaching anywhere in the scriptures regarding the enlightenment and ‘freeing’ of all jIva-s? What the questioner is getting at is: will the cycle of sRRiShTi – sthiti – laya ever come to an end, namely when there are no more jIva-s left to be enlightened? Or even: if this does occur at some point, will the process start all over again with a new set of jIva-s? If not, what happens then?”

My initial apprehension was that any ‘answer’ is clearly going to be in the same category as the various creation myths that we can find scattered about in the scriptures. However, a lively discussion ensued that eventually led to eka jIva vAda, a powerful but contentious theory that describes liberation of the jIva and the simultaneous end of creation.

I give below some of the salient points that have come up in those discussions: Continue reading →

Atma-j.āna, Self-knowledge (1)

Quote

Posted on by

This, again, is of two kinds: astitva-j.āna and svarūpa-j.āna.

(i) Astitva-j.āna, knowledge of one’s existence. If Atman and Brahman were completely hidden by aj.āna, then we would know nothing about our own existence or about other things, and we would be no better than a stone or a clod of earth. But, like the light of the sun coming through dark clouds, the light of the Atman comes through the coverings of aj.āna. It is this filtered light of Atman that gives us the notion ‘I exist’. My own existence, astitva, does not need any proof; it is self-evident, svataḥ-siddha.

This awareness of our own existence comes from the Atman in us.

It should be mentioned here that the ‘I’ or ego in us is the result of the association of the Atman, which is cit or pure Consciousness, and buddhi, which is jaḍa or aj.āna. This association is conceived as a ‘knot’, cit-jaḍa-granthi, or as a red-hot iron ball—fire stands for the Atman, the iron ball for buddhi—or as a transparent crystal appearing as red owing to the presence of a red flower near it.

When we say ‘I exist’, the ‘exist’ aspect comes directly from the Atman.

From: Four Basic Principles of Advaita Vedanta,  Sw. Bhajanananda,

Ramakrishna Mission, Source: Prabuddha Bharata — Jan/Feb 2010

  • Part 2 will be posted in a few days

Q. 358 – mAyA and avidyA

Posted on by

Q:
1) If Atman is perfect, how can it ever be deluded by mAyA?

2) What is the source of avidyA? If there is only brahman, how and why does avidyA exist?

Answers are provided by: Ted, Martin, Shuka, and Dennis.

A (Ted):
1) Atman (i.e. pure limitless awareness) is never really deluded by mAyA (i.e. ignorance), but rather only apparently so.  Given the non-dual nature of reality and, thus, the fact that Brahman-Atma is the only thing — though, of course, pure awareness cannot be said to be a “thing” at all due to its attributeless and unobjectifiable nature — that exists, mAyA is nothing other than Brahman-Atma itself.  That is, it is a power inherent in the very nature of Brahman-Atma.  Ironically, if Brahman-Atma, whose nature is limitless, were limited by the inability to apparently delude itself, it would not be limitless and, therefore, would not be Brahman-Atma :-). Continue reading →

The Purpose of Life, Part 5

Posted on by

Inquiry 5:  What Validity Has Vedanta?

 


The root problem is that in the end, even Advaitic teachings finally rely on ‘blind faith’ to put their point across. There’s nothing wrong in having faith. All religions ask for blind belief in the almighty to get you your promised ‘Kingdom of God’. It’s only in Advaita that folks try to push their case by saying: “No, it’s not pure faith, it’s by reason and discourse that we reach the truth etc”.

To quote Gaudapada in his Mandukya Upanishad kArikA, “That which is stated in the scriptures ‘and is supported by reason’ is true and nothing else”. The ‘reason/discourse’ argument for following Advaita is pure bunkum, in my opinion. It relies on blind faith not on a deity, but in an obscure ‘Self’.

 

The implication of this series of questions is that the self is wholly theoretical, that it is some philosophical conjecture cooked up and served to the mindless masses as a means of pacifying their angst over an apparently purposeless existence.  It further suggests that the self is either a half-baked notion to be accepted on blind faith or an intricate intellectual construct whose validity is so be settled through argument alone.

 

Vedanta, however, is neither a faith-based religion nor a theoretical philosophy.  True, its method of self-inquiry does require faith in its initial stages because the student’s understanding is still clouded by ignorance.  But the truth revealed by Vedanta is verifiable through a conscientious examination of one’s own experience.  This isn’t to say, of course, that self-knowledge is a discrete experience, but rather that the knowledge contained in experience and which can be culled from it through thoughtful, logical inquiry does serve to reveal the truth when it is properly understood and assimilated.

 

Actually, according to Vedanta, the quest for a discrete experience of the self is completely gratuitous.  The fact of the matter is that we are already experiencing the self every moment of our lives.  If reality is non-dual – which it is – then quite obviously there exists nothing other than the self that can be, ever has been, or ever will be experienced.

 

This assertion, of course, voicing as it does the fundamental understanding upon which the whole science of self-inquiry is based, begs an answer to the question, “How do we know that the nature of reality is non-dual?”

Continue reading →

Topic of the Month – Atman derivation

Posted on by

The word Atman is derived from the root Ad which means to pervade (Ad vyApane). Atman thus means the invisible reality or substance that pervades the individuated visible forms, just as gold is the substance that pervades the visible form of an ornament. This visible form in the case of living beings includes in it the physical phenomenon called body as well as the phenomenon known as the soul.

From Karma and Reincarnation, Swami Muni Naryanana Prasad, D.K. Printworld (P) Ltd., 1993, ISBN 81-246-0022-8. Buy from Amazon US, Buy from Amazon UK

Vision Of Truth (sad darshanam) – Part 16

Posted on by

तद् युष्मदोरस्मदि सम्प्रतिष्ठा

तस्मिन् विनष्टे अस्मदि मूल बोधात्

तद् युष्मदस्मन् मति वर्जितैका

स्थितिर् ज्वलन्ती सहजात्मनः स्यात्—१६

tad yuShmadorasmadi sampratiShThA

tasmin vinaShThe asmadi mUla bodhAt

tad yuShmadasman mati varjitaikA

sthitir jvalantI sahajAtmanaH syAt—16

 

tad yuShmadoH = third person and second person; asmadi sampratiShThA = depend

on first person;tasmin vinaShThe asmadi = first person eliminated; mUla bodhAt =

by knowledge of the source;tad yuShmadasman mati varjitaikA= the one division-less

without the notion of‘that’,’thou’, and ‘I’;sthitir jvalantI sahajAtmanaH syAt = the self shines

and emerges

The third person and second person depend on the first person. By the knowledge of the source, the one division-less without the notion of ‘that’, ‘thou’ and ”I’, the self shines and emerges.

The words ‘you’, ‘that/he she’ etc (the third and second person) have their basis in the first person. The other becomes the second or third person only with reference to the first person.

Continue reading →