The Three Orders of Reality

Posted on by
Reply

Paramārtha, Vyavahāra, and Pratibhāsa

In the study of Advaita Vedānta, the seeker is often confronted with an apparent paradox. On one hand, the scriptures declare that “all is Brahman” (sarvam khalvidam brahma) and that reality is non-dual. On the other hand, our daily experience is one of persistent multiplicity—a world of separate objects, people, and suffering. To resolve this without denying our direct experience, the tradition, as systematized by Ādi Śaṅkara, utilizes a vital pedagogical framework: the three levels of reality.

This framework—comprising paramārtha (absolute), vyavahāra (transactional), and pratibhāsa (illusory)—is not a description of three different “worlds,” but rather three ways of viewing the same non-dual reality based on our current state of understanding. Understanding these levels is the key to navigating the “path through the jungle” toward Self-knowledge.

Continue reading →

Quintessence of 10 Upanishads – 28 (taitti 3)

Posted on by
1

[Part – 27 (taitti 2)]

Unlike all other living creatures, we as human beings are uniquely blessed with the ‘Knowing principle’ within us. It is this consciousness that distinguishes us from the rest of the natural world. Our ultimate human purpose is to discover this ‘unembodied Knower’ within ourselves (1.2.22, kaTha Upanishad).

In order to help us in this process, the Upanishad starts with a description of how the Self is spoken of as though It has “descended,” step by step, into the condition of the food-body. Having apparently identified with the food-body, It comes to be mistaken for the body itself. Shaṅkara illustrates this through the analogy:

मूषानिषिक्तद्रुतताम्रप्रतिमावत् । — Shaṅkara in his commentary on mantra 2.1.1, taitti. Continue reading →

Upadesa Sahasri (Part 29)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 28

Use of words for Brahman
Brahman is not an object of knowledge. Being free from attributes, It is beyond words and ideas. Up Sah 18.24 states that word or idea can refer to objects of knowledge and not to non-objects. Brahman is known and realized as the innermost self and the ultimate subject and is therefore not an object of cognition. The Self is known as that remains after negating all objects by the process of neti, neti (18.25). The same idea is reiterated in 18.28 which says that word can apply to ego which is possessed of species and not to Self which has no classification, i.e., swagata, sajatatiya and vijatiya. Self is devoid of any differentiation.                                                                                               Then the question is why are words used to describe It?

Continue reading →

Satyam and Mithyā

Posted on by
Reply

Decoding the Reality of the World

In the study of Advaita Vedānta, no single sentence is as frequently quoted or as foundational as the one attributed to Ādi Śaṅkara: brahma satyam jaganmithyā jīvo brahmaiva nāparaḥ. Translated, it declares: “Brahman is the reality; the world is mithyā (not in itself real); and the individual self is not different from Brahman”. To grasp the essence of this philosophy, one must dive deeply into the precise technical meanings of the two pivotal terms: satyam and mithyā.

For many seekers, these terms are the source of significant confusion. Does mithyā mean the world is a total hallucination? If Brahman is the only satyam, why do we still experience a solid, material universe? The resolution to these paradoxes lies in Advaita’s unique “two-level” approach to reality, which distinguishes between absolute truth (paramārtha) and transactional experience (vyavahāra).

Continue reading →

Quintessence of 10 Upanishads – 27 (taitti 2)

Posted on by
Reply

[Part – 26 (taitti 1)]

The Supreme Self is all-pervading. Yet, because of our mistaken belief that “I am the body,” we identify the all-pervading Self with the body and take ourselves to be the individual (jIva). Thus, we create for ourselves a fallacious ‘self.’

Next, we create an inferior ‘self’ by claiming ownership over whatever we perceive—my spouse, my family, my house, and so on. As a result, we confine ourselves to a single form (the fallacious ‘self,’ mithyAtmA), reduce everything else into multiple finite forms (the inferior ‘self,’ gauNAtmA), and contract the Supreme Self into the form of God (Ishwara). Consequently, our attention remains absorbed in forms, while the formless Reality goes unnoticed.

The taittirIya Upanishad teaches us to recognize the Supreme Self as universal Beingness, ever-present Knowingness, and unbounded Infiniteness—Its intrinsic nature.

यो वेद निहितं गुहायां परमे व्योमन् । सोऽश्नुते सर्वान् कामान् सह । ब्रह्मणा विपश्चितेति । — mantra 2.1.1, taittirIya Upa.  Continue reading →

Upadesa Sahasri (Part 28)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 27

In Part 27, the arguments of a Prasamkhyavadi who maintains that repetition is necessary was introduced. Sri Shankara responds.
1 TTA is taught on the authority of scriptures and reasoning (18.04). The formerly ignorant student becomes wise and claims ‘I am Brahman’ (18.05) and the notion of agentship is given up (18.06).
2 The Sruti talks about the method of ‘not this’, ‘not this’, and on such negation, Self is revealed by the scriptures as Existence, Consciousness (18.26). Action and its results are enshrined in earlier portion of Veda and not in the latter portion (18.19).

Continue reading →

Quintessence of 10 Upanishads – 26 (taitti 1)

Posted on by
Reply

[Part – 25 (mANDU 4)]

taittirIya Upanishad

The aim of every seeker (the individual ‘self’ or the sense of ‘me’) is to experientially realize the Supreme Self (paramAtmA).

But who is the seeker that has to realize the Self?

The seeker is located neither at the ‘self’ nor at the Self! The surprising truth is that the one who realizes and the one to be realized are not two. Both the seeker and the sought are none other than the Supreme Self (brahman) Itself.

If both the seeker and the sought are brahman, there can be no real need for one to capture or attain the other. It would then appear meaningless to go in search of brahman.

Yet the scriptures instruct us that one’s ‘self’ (AtmA) should realize the Self (AtmA) with the self (AtmA) in the Self (AtmA). It is as though the scriptures speak of four different “self-s.” The Bhagavad-Gita expresses the same idea:  Continue reading →

Upadesa Sahasri (Part 27)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 26

Part 28

Chapter 18 That Thou Art (TTA)
This is the biggest chapter containing 233 verses. The title of the chapter is derived from one of the Great Upanishadic Statements which proclaims that the essential nature of Jiva (individual soul) is the essential nature of the God. The Jiva is essentially Self whose nature is Consciousness and the God is essentially Existence and that ultimately Consciousness and Existence are the same. In the opening two verses, Sri Shankara offers salutations to the Self which witnesses the modifications of the intellect. The modifications arise from and subside in consciousness. He pays obeisance to his Grand preceptor (Teacher of his Teacher) who established the authority of the Upanishadic teaching by refuting the opposite doctrines. The verse 3 reasons that the Sruti, out of compassion and affection akin to a mother’s love, teaches that an individual soul is eternally free. The chapter discusses many concepts related to TTA. This post and those to follow discuss verses serially but also includes other verses with similar concepts.

Continue reading →

Who am I?

Posted on by
Reply

Sākṣī and ahaṃkāra in Vivekacūḍāmaṇi

(This is not a ‘Key term’ in the ‘Terms and Definitions’ series but may be regarded as such, since it further clarifies the meaning of the concepts of enlightenment and liberation and specifically addresses the distinction between sākṣi and ahaṃkāra, and the relevance of prārabdha karma for the jñānī.)

(Regular) readers will recall the long series (11) of posts that I made over 6 years ago on the topic of pratibandha-s. These were extracted from the first volume of ‘Confusions in Advaita Vedanta: Knowledge, Experience and Enlightenment’. In particular, they discussed the teaching of prārabdha karma and its applicability to a jñānī and the topics of jñāna phalam and liberation. The question ‘Who am I?’ was asked in the context of thinking and communication.

The answer to the question was that it was effectively a ‘mixture’ of ātman and intellect. I said that:

The only explanation is that who-I-really-am, ātman, becomes associated with the inert intellect, and the now-conscious buddhi is the one that becomes the knower. The knower is ‘I’, the real Consciousness, as if reflected in the intellect (cidābhāsa). Or the knower is effectively a ‘mixture’ of Consciousness and intellect. I, the ātman, become a figurative knower by virtue of my association with the buddhi. It is in this sense that the ‘knower’ of ātman is none other than the ātman Itself.

Continue reading →

Quintessence of 10 Upanishads – 25 (mANDU 4)

Posted on by
Reply

[Part – 24 (mANDU 3)]

Speech or any utterance need not be made audibly through the mouth. For example, the mind speaks silently in the form of thoughts, ideas, and notions. However, if there is no underlying sound (shabda), nothing can be heard or known.

As the awake and dream states dissolve into deep sleep, shabda also dissolves with them. Consequently, meaning dissolves as well, because meaning cannot exist without sound. In this framework:

  • The internal idea or notion is the mAtra (vAcakam—the signifier; prmANa – the measurer).
  • The external image or object is the pAda (vAcyam—the signified; prameya – the measured).

An object appears only after a preceding thought about it manifests in the mind. For instance, when the thought of an “airport” arises (mAtra), the corresponding image manifests in the imagination (pAda).

When both mAtra and pAda dissolve in turIya (the Fourth), the Residuum is “Me.” This “Me” holds neither the idea nor the image of an airport; both nAma (notion) and rUpa (object) have figuratively melted away into the Self.  Continue reading →