Eight Upanishads (Topic-wise) Part 12

Part 11

5 Preparation

5-7 TaittiriyA Upanishad: SikshA Valli

5-7-1 Anuvaka 2 The Study of Pronunciation Chanting Veda mantras is a spiritual discipline. The science of phonetics defines the rules of pronunciation. If not properly learned, the mistakes will continue for future generations. One must memorize the mantras before chanting; reading from the book is not considered chanting. Learning is complete only when chanting is done from memory. Once memorized, fast chanting is practiced. In ancient times everyone thoroughly studied the Vedas (minimum of 8 years and maximum of 12)., they have various ways of chanting: word by word and words in different sequences: (1) 1-2, 2- 3, 3-4, (2) 1-2-2-1-1-2, (3) 1-2- 2-1-1-2-3-3-2-1-1-2-3-2-3-3-2-2-3-4-4-3-2-2-3-4, etc. While chanting in different permutations and combinations, rules of combination (Sandhi) are applied Thus, every Vedic student is thorough with every letter of the Vedas not just every word. In a ritual, chanting is at a medium pace to make every letter pronounced and heard clearly. While teaching, chanting is slow-paced, so the student correctly catches each letter. There are rules for combining and splitting the letters.

Continue reading

Is Reality Knowable?

The affirmation that reality is not knowable is itself an assertion of knowledge about reality. Does this not, though, amount to an example of the law of non-contradiction? To deny that it is so, involves the law of non-contradiction – so this proves that reality is knowable?

(X). The assertion “this sentence is false” is self-contradictory. From that contradiction, one cannot draw the conclusion that the sentence is in fact true. It is simply evidence of the fact that language can be used to construct self-contradictory statements.

(Martin) Rather than self-contradictory, isn’t the quoted statement in the original question a case of second-order language, that is, meta-language, as with so many paradoxes and apparent contradictions?

(X). Are you suggesting that, because it involves meta-language, it thereby avoids contradiction?

(Martin). Yes, but rather than meta-language (my mistake) the quoted passage is, seems to me, an elliptical statement. To complete it one should add: ‘by the conceptual mind’, i.e., ‘not knowable by the conceptual mind’. Real (ultimate) Reality, being non-dual, cannot be known (as you well know) as a conjugation or conjunction of a subject and an object. But it can be ‘Known’ through a unitary vision or intuition – the intuiting subject abating or subsiding as an individual by that very act. There is only one ‘Knower’ or Subject, and that is Reality Itself. ‘One without a second’. Does this prove that reality is knowable?” (under the text in bold letters). Yes, with that proviso.

(X) (Previously he had written: ‘I think one would have to insert ‘’by the conceptual mind’’ in two places to make it explicit that it is referring to conceptual knowledge, not non-conceptual non-dual knowledge. Or is your point that two different kinds of knowledge are involved in the original statement? In any case, I still don’t see how it constitutes a proof in the logical sense.’

(Martin) Correct, thank you. There is a tendency nowadays in Neo-advaita and other circles to put down the mind, let alone terms such as ‘intellectual’, ‘spiritual’, ‘metaphysical’ ‘mysticism’ (‘It’s just mind stuff’… only intellectual knowledge, or understanding’, etc.).

‘Experiential’, ‘experience’ alone are admitted in the vocabulary. I like, though, the expression ‘knowledge-experience’. All experience, and all understanding, reside in the mind (formerly, sometimes, ‘the Heart’), but the latter can be transcended.

(X) The irony is that putting down the thinking mind is itself a judgment of the thinking mind. One way to view it, which I find quite useful, is that the thinking mind can help reveal its own limits, and that can clear the way to insight that transcends the thinking mind. The classic metaphor is the wooden stick used to help burn the fire, and, at the end, the stick itself is thrown into the fire as well. The stick does not cause the burning, and it is ultimately itself burned, but that does not imply it is useless and should be tossed off into the bushes instead of skillfully used to facilitate the burning.

Bhagavad Gita – the meaning of sacrifice

In shloka 3.9, Krishna tells Arjuna,

Aside from action for the purpose of sacrifice, this world is bound by action. Perform action for the purpose of sacrifice, Arjuna, free from attachment.

In doing so, he instructs Arjuna that the only action he should perform should be “free from attachment.” This is known as ‘sacrifice’ because it is the act of renouncing or giving up attachments. Being free from attachment, one has knowledge of Brahman. As Krishna says in the fourth chapter (4.23),

The work of one who is free from attachment, who is liberated, whose thought is established in knowledge and is done only for sacrifice, one’s karma wholly melts away.

The concept of sacrifice comes from the Vedas, where recitation of a mantra was seen as the sacrifice. In the act of reciting, the breath and senses were viewed as the primary ‘offerings’. We can see, in the Upanishads, the elaboration of this idea. Chandogya Upanishad 1.3.3 declares – “one utters speech while neither breathing out nor breathing in”, and Kaushitaki Upanishad 2.5 similarly says – “as a person is speaking, they cannot breathe. At that time, they offer up the breath”. Prashna Upanishad 4.4 even calls inhaling and exhaling the “two offerings”.

About the senses and their role in the performance of sacrifice, Maitri Upanishad (6.10) tells us: “one who does not touch sense-objects is a renouncer” and “sacrificer to the Self.” A ‘sacrificer to the Self’ means being “established in knowledge”, which attachment to the senses deprives us of. So it is understood that one who has knowledge of Brahman or the Self is a ‘sacrificer’ – they have renounced their attachment to Maya.

Krishna also mentions offering up the breath and senses as examples of sacrifice [2]. Attachment to the senses contributes significantly to being entrapped by Maya and the ensuing desire which leads us to chasing the ‘fruits’ of our actions. Being attached, one performs actions with the desire to satisfy the senses through their objects. With the ‘fire’ of knowledge, this attachment is burnt and one discerns Maya, which the senses are part of.

In short, the “action” which Krishna discusses in 3.9, refers to acting with attachment, whereas “sacrifice” is without. The world “bound by action”, therefore, means Maya. In contrast, “action for the purpose of sacrifice”, to give up attachments, is the path of liberation. As Krishna explains in 4.23 – “one who is free from attachment…is liberated”.


[1] 4.26; 4.27; 4.29

Eight Upanishads (Topic-wise) Part11

Part 10

Chapter 5 Preparation

5-6 Prasna Upanishad

5-6-4 Prasna 3.10
Though all the questions have been answered, there is an extended answer for the 4th question. How does the prAna leave the body? As death nears, our thoughts are no longer determined by our will. The willpower becomes weak in old age and the latent tendencies become strong. UdAnA pulls subtle and causal bodies and they enter the next body, the blueprint of which is already available.

Continue reading

Q. 556 Unmanifest

Continue reading

Eight Upanishads (Topic-wise) Part 10

Part 9

Chapter 5 Preparation

5-6 Prasna Upanishad
5-6-1 Prasna 2.1 to 2.8

The subtle body is the most important of the three types of body. In the subtle body, PrAna is the most important. There is no gradation in it. All prAnAs are equally sacred, whether of a human or lower living beings. Meditation on Hiranyagarbha, the cosmic subtle body, is a powerful sAdhanA. There is respect for life which purifies the mind.
The second student, Bhargava asks a set of questions. How many divine principles sustain a living being? How many of them talk about their glory? Which one is the greatest? The teacher Pippalada replies that the divine principles are space, air, fire, water, earth, speech, mind, eye, and ear.

Continue reading

Q.555 State Express

(A few people might appreciate the joke! Google will give you the answer.)

Continue reading

The Darkness of Ignorance (Part 6)

*** Read Part 5 ***

‘Existence’ of Ignorance

So, does ignorance actually exist; a concrete ‘object’ in space and time? There is the occasional reference in the scriptures (e.g. in the Ṛg Veda) but these speak of related gods, supernatural events and so on. Where such a concept is a part of the pseudo-mystical precursor of Advaita teaching proper, I personally cannot accept it as a valid reference. E.g. I suggest that ‘before light, there was darkness’ does not count as a proof that darkness is an ontologically existent entity!

There are also references in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad and Sureśvara’s Vārttika on Śaṅkara’s bhāṣya but, again, this being the oldest of the Upaniṣads, there is a lot of ‘mystical’ material much pre-dating Śaṅkara’s systematization of the philosophy.

One of the quotations sometimes given to support the contention that scriptures cite ignorance as a real entity is Sureśvara’s Vārttika on Puruṣavidha Brāhmaṇa (1368):

ajñānaṃ saṃśayajānaṃ miśyājānamiti trikam
ajñānaṃ kāraṇaṃ tatra kāryatvaṃ pariśiṣṭayoḥ

This is translated as:

Ignorance, doubt-born knowledge, and mixed knowledge are the triad. Ignorance (ajñāna) is the cause there, while the other two (doubt-born knowledge and mixed knowledge) are effects.

Continue reading

Eight Upanishads (Topic-wise) Part 9

Part 8

Chapter 5 Preparation
5-5 Mundaka Upanishad
5-5-1 Mundaka 1.1.3 and 1.1.4

Saunaka, the disciple has appropriately approached the teacher Angi and asks him to teach Brahm-vidyA by knowing which everything is known. Saunaka is a householder. A householder is also entitled to receive Brahm-vidyA. In fact, in grihastha Ashrama one learns from life experiences, becomes mature, and then a seeker of Brahm-vidyA. Vedic tradition considers grihastha Ashrama important for the refinement and maturity of the mind especially for developing dispassion and discrimination. It contributes to spiritual growth under certain conditions. Besides fulfilling personal desires in a dharmic way, a person should contribute to society. Five great sacrifices are meant to contribute to society.

Continue reading

Advaita in the Vedas – conclusion and anthology

This post marks the end of the ‘Advaita in the Vedas’ series. While the series could continue indefinitely and branch out to the other Vedas, as was initially intended, it would inevitably end up covering already explored ground rather than adding anything new in the context of Advaita.

The series was always meant to provide an overview of Advaita in the Vedas, rather than an in-depth examination. Also, there’s nothing in the Vedas which the Upanishads fail to make more succinct. This means, by finishing the series here, there’s nothing left out or which remains unsaid – it’s all in the Upanishads. Continue reading