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 →

Quintessence of 10 Upanishads – 35 (chAn 2)

Posted on by
Reply

[Part – 34 (chAn 1)] 

The chAndogya Upanishad expresses the conclusion (at the end of the previous part) in an elegantly generalized form as follows:

वाचारम्भणं विकारो नामधेयं मृत्तिकेत्येव सत्यम् ॥   — mantra 6.1.4, chAndogya Upanishad.

[Meaning:  All products being just words, a mere name; the clay alone is real.]

In other words, ‘form’ lacks independent reality. While the substance is only one, the forms in which it presents itself could be many.

The world we perceive is an ensemble of forms. Earth is one form, water another; the same applies to fire, air, and space. Together, these constitute the five fundamental elements. Every object—animate creatures, inanimate items, rocks, mountains, and rivers—is a derived form of these primary elements.

For earthenware such as pots, pans, cups, and jars, the underlying root substance is clay. Similarly, gold is the root substance for ornaments like rings, bangles, bracelets, and necklaces; water is the root substance for waves, foam, spume, and spray. Each set of objects appears to have its own distinct material foundation. 
Continue reading →

Upadesa Sahasri (Part 36)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 35

18.201–18.206
The opponent argues that liberation is not realized simply by knowing the meaning of TTA, just as boiled milk-rice cannot be produced from cow dung. Knowing about food is not the same as eating it.
Shankaracharya clarifies that indirect knowledge is produced by understanding sentences regarding the non-Self. However, in the case of the Self, knowledge is immediate, as illustrated by the story of the tenth man.
The opponent argues further that what is conditionally evident cannot be self-evident. If the knowledge of the Self depends on knowing the meaning of TTA, how can Advaita claim that the Self is self-evident?
Shankaracharya maintains that the Self is self-luminous. TTA does not reveal the Self; strictly speaking, the Self reveals TTA. The sentence TTA removes ignorance regarding the ego. When the ego is negated, Self-realization occurs. This is figuratively called the immediate knowledge of the Self.

Continue reading →

Antaḥkaraṇa

Posted on by
4

The Seeker’s Internal Compass to Reality

In the modern spiritual landscape, there is a persistent myth that the mind is the enemy of enlightenment—a barrier that must be bypassed, transcended, or even destroyed before one can realize the Truth. Traditional Advaita Vedānta, as systematized by Ādi Śaṅkara, offers a much more nuanced and empowering perspective. While it is true that the mind is the locus of our self-ignorance, it is also the only instrument through which liberation can be achieved. As the Amṛtabindu Upaniṣad famously declares, ‘To men, their mind alone is the cause of bondage or emancipation’.

To navigate the spiritual path effectively, a seeker must understand the technical architecture of this ‘internal organ,’ known in Sanskrit as the antaḥkaraṇa. Rather than being a single, solid entity, the antaḥkaraṇa is a functional complex comprising four distinct elements: manas, buddhi, citta, and ahaṃkāra. Understanding how these functions operate is the first step in converting the mind from a source of confusion into a tool for Self-knowledge.

Continue reading →

Quintessence of 10 Upanishads – 34 (chAn 1)

Posted on by
Reply

[Part – 33 (aita 4)]

9.  chAndogya Upanishad

The prefix “pari” contributes significantly to enhancing the dimensionality of a word in the Sanskrit language. For example, prashna means question. By adding the prefix pari to prashna to make it pariprashna (used in Bhagavad-Gita, verse 34, Ch 4), it means questioning from all sides. Other examples are draShTu (view) and paridraShTu (a 360 degree view) as used in prashna Upanishad; pasyanti (look) and paripasyanti (all-round look) as used in muNDaka Upanishad; pUrNam (perfect) and paripUrNam (perfect from all angles); samApti (complete) and parisamApti (complete in all respects). 

How the prefix ‘pari’ modifies a noun is like what the qualifier “spherical” does when we say “spherical symmetry” instead of simply saying ‘symmetry.’ The teaching of Advaita in a sense comes to a parisamApti in the chAndogya Upanishad.

Two of the four famous Great Statements (mahA vAkya-s), namely, “This Self (Atman) is brahman” (from mANDUkya Upanishad) and “bahman is The Absolute Knowingness” (from aitareya Upanishad) have already been introduced. Expanding on those statements, chAndogya comes up with the third Great Statement.  From a doctrinal perspective, the third statement completes the instruction on Non-dual Oneness. The Upanishad aims at showing the path to attain the experiential understanding of brahman through the third Great Statement. It is up to the seeker to ingest the message and achieve Self-realization.

The Great Statement being told here is what the Sage Uddalaka taught to Svetaketu. Maharshi Sanatkumara revealed the same to the Sage Narada. Creator Prajapati imparted the same teaching to the Lord of gods (Indra).  Continue reading →

Upadesa Sahasri (Part 35)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 34

Part 36

18.170–184
In a series of verses, Shankaracharya explains how Tat Tvam Asi (TTA) should be taught and understood. As in the case of any sentence, in order to understand the meaning of TTA, one must understand the meanings of the words Tat, Tvam, and Asi.
The direct or literal meaning of Tat is Isvara, the creator, sustainer, and destroyer of the universe. Tvam means you, the individual (jiva), and Asi signifies that Tat and Tvam are identical, that is, Isvara = Jiva.
An equation is meaningful only when its two sides are apparently different but essentially the same. If the two sides are apparently identical, the equation serves no purpose. Thus, 5 + 4 = 10 – 1 is meaningful, whereas 9 = 9 is not. For one who understands addition and subtraction, both 5 + 4 and 10 – 1 resolve into 9, thereby validating the equation.

Continue reading →

Quintessence of 10 Upanishads – 33 (aita 4)

Posted on by
Reply

[Part – 32 (aita 3)]

The aitareya Upanishad reveals a radical and liberating truth: we are not bound by an endless cycle of rebirth and death. By examining the nature of birth, the essence of the seer, and the illusory nature of creation, the text guides the seeker to the realization that all existence is nothing other than pure Consciousness (prajñAnam).

The aitareya Upanishad clarifies that the “three births” associated with human existence occur entirely within a single lifetime:

  1. We begin as seed within the father’s body. The first birth occurs when he impregnates the mother, depositing the seed.
  2. We exist as a fetus within the mother, nourished as an integral part of her body. When fully developed, she delivers us into the world. This is our second birth.
  3. As we grow, mature, and assume adult responsibilities, the father’s body eventually decays and passes away. By taking over his role and fathering the next generation, the father is reborn through us. This continuation marks the third birth. 

Continue reading →

Knowledge and Experience

Posted on by
4

Clearing the Minefield of Modern Advaita

For many modern seekers, the spiritual path feels like a journey from the ‘dry’ realm of intellectual study to the ‘wet’ realm of mystical experience. There is a pervasive belief, often propagated by Neo-Vedantic and Western satsang circles, that acquiring Self-knowledge through the scriptures is a ‘merely intellectual’ achievement—a collection of concepts that must eventually be ‘transformed’ into a direct, non-dual experience through meditation or samādhi.

However, traditional Advaita Vedānta, as systematized by Ādi Śaṅkara, offers a radical correction to this view. In this tradition, the ‘gap’ between knowledge and realization is non-existent for the prepared mind. To understand why, we must carefully define our terms and examine the relative value of knowledge and experience in the pursuit of liberation (mokṣa).

Continue reading →

IkSaNa and pravesha shrutis in Advaita

Posted on by
1

A Q&A on terminology, textual frequency and the problem of Sanskrit word-search

Here is a record of a short dialogue with ChatGPT on Ikṣaṇa-śruti and Praveśa-śruti, subsequently expanded to examine an interesting question: How far can we trace the use and development of these terms in Advaita literature?

*****

Question: What are Ikṣaṇa-śrutis and Praveśa-śrutis?

ChatGPT: In Advaita Vedānta, Ikṣaṇa-śruti and Praveśa-śruti are useful classifications of Upaniṣadic passages dealing with creation and the relationship between Brahman and the created universe.

1. Ikṣaṇa-śrutis — “seeing/willing” passages

Ikṣaṇa is derived from the root √īkṣ, “to see, behold, consider.” In the context of creation, it conveys the idea of seeing, intending, willing, or resolving that creation should manifest.

A classic example is:

स ईक्षत लोकान्नु सृजा इति ।
sa īkṣata lokān nu sṛjā iti
“He thought: ‘Let me create the worlds.’”
— Aitareya Upaniṣad 1.1.1 

Another famous example is:

Continue reading →

Duryodhan Syndrome

Posted on by
Reply

There is an article titled Duryodhan syndrome: Know right yet choose wrong in The Times of India. Duryodhan knew that his actions were wrong and violated all canons of ethics. Yet he was helpless and chose to act that way and ultimately became the greatest loser. The article describes this phenomenon as Duryodhan Syndrome and summarizes it as “the painful gap between moral awareness and moral action.” This syndrome is not uncommon; many people suffer from it.
What is the reason for this contradiction?
Arjuna raises a similar question in Bhagavad Gita 3.36, and Krishna answers it in 3.37. Arjuna asks why a person knowingly commits sinful actions, as though impelled by some irresistible force. Shankaracharya compares the force to the authority that a king exercises over a servant. Krishna replies that the primary cause is desire, which, when frustrated, transforms into anger. Desire arises from the predominance of rajas in a person’s nature. Krishna describes desire as a great devourer and the eternal enemy of knowledge because it blinds a person to what is right.
Earlier, Bhagavad Gita 2.63 describes the slippery slope that follows unchecked anger:
“From anger comes delusion; from delusion, failure of memory; from failure of memory, the loss of understanding; and from the loss of understanding, one perishes.”
(Translation by Swami Gambhirananda.)