Quintessence of 10 Upanishads – 23 (mANDU 2)

Posted on by
Reply

[Part – 22 (mANDU 1)]

An important aspect of our awake world is that we do not perceive it simply because it “exists out there,” much like we do not perceive a dream merely because it exists. A notion (pratyaya) first arises in the intellect, and we then project it outward to appear as an “object” external to us. This mechanism is common to both dream objects and waking objects. The same process underlies both sacred ritualistic acts and ordinary worldly activities. Through constant repetition and habitual engagement with objects day after day, we gradually become convinced that they are independently real and “exist outside as the world.”

Consider this: when the mind ceases to imagine waking-world objects and becomes occupied with dream objects, the waking world disappears from experience. When neither the waking world nor the dream world is conceived, no object is perceived at all; this is the condition of deep sleep.

If one remains as pure “Vision” alone, instead of identifying oneself as the ‘seer’ engaged with the objects ‘seen,’ one transcends the three states (avasthAtraya) — waking, dream, and deep sleep. Such transcendence is immortality. This state is called the Fourth (turIya). Ordinary worldly knowledge concerns itself only with the three states and can reveal no more than them. Higher Knowledge, the Knowledge of the Self, alone reveals turIya.   Continue reading →

‘Difference’ is not real

Posted on by
2

The post ‘Duality is mithyA’ (see here) is based on the verses 19.20 -22 of Upadesa Sahasri (US). Swami Parmarthananda has discussed (transcripts of his talks on Chapter 16 of US) the same topic with a different reasoning which according to him has scriptural support though he has not cited it. 
Advaita Vedanta acknowledges six means (Pramana) of knowledge of which direct perception and inference are important. I see red colour and green colour and say that the two colours are different which is my experience too. If asked whether I see the ‘difference’ as an object, my answer is in negative. That is to say, there is no direct perception of the ‘difference’. It also means that the ‘difference’ cannot be inferred, because for inference, there should be a previous direct perception. Other means of knowledge, namely, comparison, postulation, non-cognition also do not prove difference. Sabda Pramana i.e., scriptures, affirm that ‘difference’ is not real though it is experienced. QED

Upādhi: the ‘Limiting Adjunct’

Posted on by
Reply

One of the most persistent challenges for any student of Advaita Vedānta is reconciling the ‘Great Equation’—the scriptural declaration that the individual Self (Ātman) is identical to the non-dual Absolute (Brahman)—with our daily experience of being a finite, limited person. If reality is truly ‘not two,’ why do we feel so distinctly separate? The traditional teaching answers this riddle through a vital technical concept: the upādhi, or ‘limiting adjunct’.

Understanding the upādhi is essential because it serves as the mechanism through which the infinite appears to become finite, the one appears as many, and the actionless Witness appears to be an active doer and enjoyer.

The Meaning of the Term

Etymologically, the word upādhi is a compound of the Sanskrit roots upa (meaning ‘near to’ or ‘by the side of’) and ādhadāti (meaning ‘imparts’). In a general sense, the Sanskrit dictionary defines it as ‘that which is put in place of another thing; a substitute, phantom, disguise, or appearance’.

Continue reading →

Upadesa Sahasri (Part 23)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 22

Chapter 17   Right Knowledge

17.01 to 17.03 The author pays obeisance to Self and the teachers. Self is non-dual as It alone exists. It is of the nature of existence, consciousness and bliss. Other things depend on Self for their existence. It is witnessing consciousness and therefore omniscient. It is not an object. It is the ultimate subject and is to be known as such. Though supporting everything It is unattched, untainted and pure.  The author bows down to Self. He bows down to all the teachers who are conversant with words, sentences of the scriptures and have transmitted the knowledge of Self since ancient time. The author bows down to his own teacher whose words have sparked knowledge in him and destroyed ignorance as sunrays destroy darkness.

Continue reading →

Quintessence of 10 Upanishads – 22 (mANDU 1)

Posted on by
Reply

[Part – 21 (muNDaka 4)]

mANDUkya Upanishad 

(Gaudapada kArikA not included)

The muNDaka Upanishad, towards its conclusion, refers to the fifteen constituents of the human body, each of which resolves into its respective source at the time of liberation:

गताः कलाः पञ्चदश प्रतिष्ठा देवाश्च सर्वे प्रतिदेवतासु ।
कर्माणि विज्ञानमयश्च आत्मा परेऽव्यये सर्व एकीभवन्ति ॥ — 3.2.7, muNDaka Upanishad.

Meaning: To their sources repair the fifteen constituents (of the body) and to their respective Gods, go all the gods (of the senses). And the karmas, and the self that simulates the intellect, all become unified with the Supreme Undecaying. [Translation: Swami Gambhirananda.]

However, the prashna Upanishad, which precedes the muNDaka, speaks in its final question of sixteen parts constituting the individual. There thus appears to be a discrepancy between the two Upanishads regarding the total number of constituents. Shankara too does not explicitly explain the reason for this difference.

Continue reading →

Ahaṃkāra: The Making of the “I”

Posted on by
Reply

In our daily existence, the word “I” is the most frequently uttered and least understood term in our vocabulary. We use it to signify our successes, our failures, our bodies, and our deepest emotions. Yet, traditional Advaita Vedānta, as systematized by Ādi Śaṅkara, suggests that this “I” to which we habitually refer is not our true nature, but a mental construct known as ahaṃkāra. Understanding the nuances of this term is not merely a linguistic exercise; it is a fundamental requirement for the seeker who wishes to dismantle the illusion of a separate self and realize their identity as the non-dual Brahman.

Etymology and Basic Definition

The word ahaṃkāra is a compound derived from two Sanskrit roots: aham, meaning “I,” and kāra, meaning “making” or “uttering”. Literally, it translates as “the making of the I”. In common parlance, it is often equated with the Western concept of the “ego,” but its Vedantic definition is more precise: it refers specifically to the identification or attachment of the true Self (Ātman) with something else, typically the body, mind, or a social role.

Continue reading →

Upadesa Sahasri (Part 22)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 21

Part 23

16.45 to 16.50                                                                                                            Earlier the author has refuted different theories of the Buddhists. Advaita and Samkhya are similar in some respects and dissimilar in other aspects. The author refutes some theories of Samkhya philosophy. According to Samkhya, both purusha (consciousness), and prakriti (material and inert) are real. Purusha is action-free and unattached. Prakriti works for purusha and the latter is the enjoyer. There are many purushas, one for every jiva. Prakriti has three constituents, sattva, rajas and tamas. Samkhya further says that prakriti alone is the cause of creation. Purusha has no role. When the constituents are in equilibrium, the creation is unmanifest. Creation unfolds due to imbalance in three constituents.

Continue reading →

Q. 561 – Dangers of unsupervised teaching

Posted on by
Reply

Q: I recently had what I would call an experience of ‘dissociation’, accompanied by a profound sense of anxiety.  This has not happened before and maybe it was ‘psychotic’ rather than anything else. But research suggested that such an experience may follow prolonged periods of unsupervised self-enquiry. Can you tell me how to avoid a recurrence?  

(I have been following the teachings of Nisargadatta for the last 3 years of a 10-year period of self-enquiry meditation. I see in the Q&A postings that having no access to a teacher is a common theme and makes progress monitoring and understanding of book-based teachings difficult). 

Continue reading →

Quintessence of 10 Upanishads – 21 (muNDaka 4)

Posted on by
Reply

[Part – 20 (muNDaka 3)]

If thoughts were entirely absent during deep sleep, they could not reappear without a source. Therefore, we must admit that thoughts persist in a latent form during deep sleep. These are called tendencies (vAsanA-s), which manifest as mental modifications (vRtti-s) in the waking and dream states.

Thus, thoughts are present across all three states of consciousness. The “I,” as the seer, is itself associated with these internal components. Naturally, such a seer perceives a world that also appears to consist of multiple components. After all, the nature of the seen tends to reflect the nature of the seer. Since the seer appears composite, the seen too appears manifold. Consequently, our entire life becomes a relationship between a divisible seer and a divisible world—a situation that is inherently fraught with conflict, from which we seek release.

The way out of this turmoil, as suggested by the prashna Upanishad, is to cultivate a “spherical vision.” In such an all-encompassing vision, the multiplicity within both the seer and the seen dissolves. As a result, the notions “I am an individual” and “there is a world out there” come to an end. They resolve into that from which they have arisen—the Atman or brahman, which is indivisible and is Pure Knowledge itself. Just as space—and Consciousness as space-like—has no parts, Knowledge too is without parts.  Continue reading →

Upadesa Sahasri (Part 21)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 20

16.30-33 There is a Buddhist school of thought called nihilism which holds that nothing exists, neither the subject nor the object. This theory of emptiness is questioned by the author. That which witnesses and is aware of emptiness must exist. The witness exists even before beginning of deliberation on existence or non-existence or both. According to Advaita, the world of objects is a superimposition on the Self. There can be destruction of the superimposition but not of the entity (Self) on which is the superimposition. Existence of Self is undeniable. It is indestructible. It is one without second on which diversity is a superimposition.

Continue reading →