Quintessence of 10 Upanishads – 37 (chAn 4)

Posted on by
Reply

[Part – 36 (chAn 3)]

We may currently enjoy the most prosperous circumstances, but a time inevitably arrives when we lose everything and are thrown into a desperate state beyond all human succor: death. As death approaches, our physical and mental faculties fail. Friends and family cannot save us, our limbs grow motionless, and we are left uncertain of what awaits our departure.

To prepare, we must seek a competent teacher before such an eventuality arises. A true preceptor imparts direct Knowledge, guiding us in the practice of aligning our thoughts with the nature of Pure Beingness-Consciousness. We habitually anchor our minds to finite names and forms, chasing transient worldly objects and scattered thoughts. These are mere particulars.

Spiritual practice requires us to recognize the Universal, learning to see It hidden within the particulars. By bringing this underlying Reality to the foreground, the world of forms recedes into the background. As the mind rests on the Universal, our finite sense of individual identity dissolves into formlessness; the individual soul (*jīva*) turns into the Inner Self, and the external world resolves into Space. We remain as Pure Consciousness—with the cosmos as Its manifestation. This auspicious realization of Beingness-Consciousness is the path to Immortality.  Continue reading →

lakṣaṇa

Posted on by
Reply

The Language of Implication and the Definition of Brahman

A central challenge in Advaita Vedānta is a linguistic and conceptual paradox: how can we speak of a reality that is explicitly declared to be beyond the reach of words and thoughts? Scriptures like the Kena, Muṇḍaka, and Kaṭha Upaniṣads remind us that neither eyes, speech, nor the mind can directly reach Brahman. If we attempt to use ordinary language, we find it completely inadequate. In everyday life, words can only reveal objects through four distinct categories: species or genus (jāti), qualities (guṇa), actions or functions (kriyā), and relationships (sambandha).

Because Brahman belongs to no species, possesses no attributes, performs no actions, and has no relationship with anything else, it cannot be revealed directly by any word in our parlance. This is why Ādi Śaṅkara and the scriptural tradition must proceed stepwise, utilizing a sophisticated pedagogical method called adhyāropa-apavāda (provisional attribution followed by subsequent negation) and, crucially, the linguistic device of lakṣaṇa—indirect implication.

Continue reading →

Upadesa Sahasri (Part39)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 38

Chapter 19 Conversation between Atma and the Mind

19.19                                                                                                                            Owing to ignorance, people superimpose upon Atma such notions as relative existence, relative non-existence, qualified, unqualified, agent, non-agent, and so on. Yet Atma is birthless, imperishable, non-dual, and is never Itself superimposed upon anything.
The ignorant mind takes Atma and the world of duality to belong to the same order of reality. Consequently, it performs actions that produce punya and papa, which in turn become the cause of birth and death—that is, samsara. The cycle of samsara continues endlessly until the mind realizes that Atma and the world belong to different orders of reality. The mind is mithya, and all superimpositions are likewise mithya.

Continue reading →

“Knowingness … or Not” — A Response *

Posted on by
3

Dear Dennis,

Thank you for the 3-part article, “Knowingness … or Not.”

I must say, I was disappointed.

Knowing the thoroughness with which you normally approach a subject, and the attention to detail you bring to a task once you undertake it, I had hoped to see a scholarly critique of “Knowingness”—particularly one supported by shAstric evidence showing where the term falls short, together with possible suggestions for improvement or alternative vocabulary for consideration.

Instead, much of the investigation seems to have gone into tracing the frequency of its occurrence, rather than examining the more fundamental question: whether “Knowingness” is an appropriate rendering of jñAnam in the particular context in which I have used it. Continue reading →

Knowingness – Part 3

Posted on by
Reply

*** Read Part 2 ***

This is the second part of my search to find other users of the word ‘knowingness’, and the final part of the series.

Continue reading →

Upadesa Sahasri (Part 38)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 37

Part 39

Chapter 19 Conversation between Atma and the Mind 

19.07                                                                                                                               An ignorant mind believes that it can improve the status of I, the Atma. The wise person knows that the mind can neither improve Atma nor is there any need for such improvement, for Atma is already complete. Any improvement that occurs in time is destined to disappear with time. Therefore, every improvement in the mind, or brought about by the mind, is mithya. How can a mithya mind improve the real Atma? Therefore, Atma tells the mind to remain quiet and attend to its own welfare. Atma is self-effulgent. It requires no external support, including that of the mind, to shine. Rather, it is the mind that is illumined by Atma.

Continue reading →

Knowingness – Part 2

Posted on by
Reply

Usage of ‘knowingness’ in the teaching of Advaita
*** Read Part 1 ***

This is the first part of my search to find other users of the word. I separated the domains of my searches into the following categories: 1) Scriptures (i.e. prasthāna traya and bhāṣhya-s, and very well-known post-Śaṅkara works such as Pañcadaśī), and Traditional teachers such as Dayananda; 2) Ramana and disciples; 3) Nisargadatta and disciples; 4) Direct Path (Atmananda Krishna Menon and disciples); 5) Neo-Vedanta (Ramakrishna-Vivekananda and disciples); 6) Osho and disciples; 7) Neo-Advaita; 8) Miscellaneous (difficult to categorize or clearly not Advaita).

Continue reading →

Quintessence of 10 Upanishads – 36 (chAn 3)

Posted on by
Reply

[Part – 35 (chAn 2)]

An actor plays many roles in suitable costumes. Yet none of those define who he or she truly is. The actor remains unchanged when the play ends. Likewise, the world is a cosmic drama staged by Consciousness-Beingness (Cognizance). The objective forms within this world are transient and unreal; only Consciousness-Beingness is Real, serving as the intrinsic nature (AtmA) of all things.

This, in essence, is the instruction imparted by Sage Uddālaka to his son, Śvetaketu. Śvetaketu’s true reality is not his physical body. His father reveals to him: “You are That Consciousness-Beingness Itself (tat tvam asi); you are not what is merely perceived.” What we perceive are simply the functional forms through which Cognizance manifests.

  • The tvam (“you”) refers to the realm of name and form (nAma-rUpa).
  • The tat (“That”) refers to pure Consciousness-Beingness.

Thus, the core teaching is to recognize ourselves as the primary cognizance of “I am” and to view the world simply as the cognizance of “It is.” Any shift from this grounding—such as misidentifying with assigned names and forms—inevitably yields misery.

When the Upanishad discloses this supreme Truth through the mahAvAkya (“You are That”), every student of Advaita stands in Śvetaketu’s shoes. The name Śvetaketu signifies pure, luminous knowledge (śvetā-ketu). This capacity for understanding the Supreme Self is already present within us, yet it often becomes clouded.   Continue reading →

Upadesa Sahasri (Part 37)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 36

Part 38

Chapter 19 Conversation between Atma and the Mind

Introduction                                                                                                                        It is a ‘dialogue’ between Atma and the mind. Since Atma is free from all action, the dialogue is figurative. Where the text makes such statements, what is meant is that the MIND REALIZES THIS and ceases (for the moment) to identify with ahaṃkara. Nevertheless, this chapter presents a unique method of nidhidhyasana, the third stage of jnana-yoga, following sravana and manana. At this stage, the aspirant has gained clear knowledge of Atma but must assimilate it until it becomes living knowledge.
The aspirant knows that his essential nature is consciousness, which is distinct from the mind. Yet the locus of knowledge is the mind. Thus, a peculiar situation arises in which the mind instructs itself that the aspirant’s true nature is consciousness, which is different from the mind. The mind must further remind itself that consciousness is changeless and eternal, whereas the mind is mithya.

Continue reading →

Knowingness… or Not

Posted on by
Reply

I apologize for the length of this. I had intended a single post but, at over 4600 words, it is clearly much too long, so it will now be in three parts. (My target length is 1500 words per post.) Please postpone comments until the end, except for Ramesam to confirm or deny that my AI-assisted summary of his understanding is essentially correct).

In his series ‘Quintessence of 10 Upanishads’, Ramesam has used the word ‘knowingness’ quite a few times. For example, in Part 27 (Taittirīya Part 2), it occurs 11 times and, in Part 30 (Aitareya Part 1), 25 times!

On 5th Aug, I made the following comment on Part 3 of the Aitareya series (https://www.advaita-vision.org/quintessence-of-10-upanishads-32-aita-3/):

I also see that you have used the word ‘knowingness’ again. When I read your first post, on Aitareya, I began my search to find our previous discussions about this (to me meaningless) word. Unfortunately, I could not immediately locate it and have embarked upon a long process of building a local AI to help me to track it down. As soon as I do so, I will aim to generate a separate post to talk about it.

Continue reading →