Avidyā

Posted on by
Reply

Navigating the Primal Muddle of Self-Ignorance

In the quiet moments of spiritual reflection, most of us are gripped by a persistent sense of limitation—a feeling that we are incomplete, finite, and somehow separate from the vastness of reality. Traditional Advaita Vedānta suggests that this entire predicament is rooted in a single, fundamental error: Self-ignorance. The Sanskrit term for this is avidyā, a concept so pivotal that it serves as the cornerstone for Advaitic metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics. Yet, despite its importance, it remains one of the most misunderstood and over-complicated topics in non-dual study.

For the serious seeker, unraveling the nature of avidyā is not a mere academic exercise; it is the key to unlocking the gate to liberation (mokṣa). This is precisely why my second volume in the series, Confusions in Advaita Vedānta: Ignorance and Its Removal, is dedicated to clearing the ‘minefield’ of misconceptions surrounding this term.

Continue reading →

Bhagavad Gita- 5.1 and 5.2

Posted on by
Reply

Arjuna to Krishna: You praise both renunciation of actions and again their performance Tell me for certain that one which is better between these two (5.1) Krishna: Both renunciation of actions and Karma-yoga lead to supreme good. Between the two, Karma-yoga, however, excels over renunciation of actions (5.2) [Translations by Gambhirananda] It may give a misplaced impression that yoga of karma. i.e., Karma Yoga is superior to yoga of renunciation, i.e., Jnana Yoga.

Chapter 4 has discussed both yoga of action and yoga of renunciation which are opposed to each other as they cannot be practiced by a person simultaneously. Arjuna raises a natural question (5.1), which is better? Krishna says (5.2) that both Karma Yoga and renunciation of action result in supreme good; however, Karma Yoga is superior to mere renunciation. Here, the first renunciation refers to renunciation by a knower of the Self which is distinct from renunciation by a non-knower. Shankaracharya uses the word ‘mere’ which is noteworthy. ‘Mere’ renunciation refers to renunciation by a non-knower who sits quietly and is apparently without action. It is tamasic (18.7) or rajasic renunciation (18.8). Nothing is achieved by mere renunciation (3.4). Therefore, he should first practice Karma Yoga which is stressed in 5.2. It is sattvic renunciation (18.9). By Karma Yoga, he acquires necessary qualifications for Jnana Yoga. Renunciation by a knower is on account of disidentification from non-Self and identification with action-free Self. 

Quintessence of 10 Upanishads – 20 (muNDaka 3)

Posted on by
Reply

[Part – 19 (muNDaka 2)]

Shankara writes:

ज्ञानप्रसादेन आत्मावबोधनसमर्थमपि स्वभावेन सर्वप्राणिनां ज्ञानं बाह्यविषयरागादिदोषकलुषितमप्रसन्नमशुद्धं सन्नावबोधयति नित्यसंनिहितमप्यात्मतत्त्वं मलावनद्धमिवादर्शम् ,  विलुलितमिव सलिलम्। 

तद्यदेन्द्रिय विषयसंसर्गजनितरागादिमलकालुष्यापनयनादादर्शसलिलादिवत्प्रसादितं स्वच्छं शान्तमवतिष्ठते, तदा ज्ञानस्य प्रसादः स्यात् । 

तेन ज्ञानप्रसादेन विशुद्धसत्त्वः विशुद्धान्तःकरणः योग्यो ब्रह्म द्रष्टुं यस्मात् , ततः तस्मात्तु तमात्मानं पश्यते पश्यति उपलभते निष्कलं सर्वावयवभेदवर्जितं ध्यायमानः सत्यादिसाधनवानुपसंहृतकरण एकाग्रेण मनसा ध्यायमानः चिन्तयन् ॥

[Meaning: The Grace of the Knowledge, though the intellect in all men is by nature competent to know brahman, still being polluted by such faults as love for external objects etc., thereby becoming unclear and impure, it does not, like a stained mirror and muddy water, grasp the entity of the Atman though always present nearby.

But when, through the removal of polluting taints such as desire—arising from contact with sense-objects—the intellect is made clear and calm like a mirror or still water, it becomes lucid. By this clarity of the intellect, the mind is purified, and the person becomes fit to realize brahman. Therefore, one sees brahman, which is partless, through contemplative meditation—having taken recourse to aids such as truth, having controlled the senses, and with a focused mind. (Translation adapted from S. Sitarama Sastri, 1905.)  Continue reading →

Upadesa Sahasri (Part 20)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 19

16.16 The cause pervades the effect, e.g., gold pervades the ornament. There has to be an uncaused cause for otherwise, there is infinite regress. Therefore, the theory of nihilism is not tenable. According to Advaita, the uncaused cause is the Self. It exists prior to anything, e.g., intellect. Even a total blankness, e.g. deep sleep has to be revealed by self-luminous entity, viz, Self which is of the nature of consciousness. The intellect which is dormant during sleep comes into being in the waking state. The Self exists prior to the intellect.

Continue reading →

Jīva

Posted on by
Reply

Understanding the ‘Individual Soul’ in Advaita Vedānta

In our daily lives, we rarely question the existence of the ‘I’ that thinks, feels, and acts. We feel ourselves to be separate individuals inhabiting a body, navigating a world of objects, and carrying a history of personal experiences. Traditional Advaita Vedānta, however, challenges this common-sense view with a radical assertion: ‘Brahman is the reality; the world is not in itself real; the individual self is none other than Brahman’ (brahma satyam, jaganmithyā, jīvo brahmaiva nāparaḥ). To understand this ‘Great Equation,’ we must delve into the definition and nature of the jīva, the term used for the apparent individual soul.

Continue reading →

Quintessence of 10 Upanishads – 19 (muNDaka 2)

Posted on by
Reply

[Part – 18 (muNDaka 1)]

We can infer from 1.1.1 of the muNDaka Upaniṣad that Knowledge of the Self is not restricted to renunciates alone — it is imparted to householders as well. After all, Śaunaka himself was a householder, not a monk. What really matters is not one’s external status, but an inner readiness: the student must be free from preoccupation with worldly concerns and firmly resolved to realize the Self, without distraction.

शौनको ह वै महाशालोऽङ्गिरसं विधिवदुपसन्नः पप्रच्छ कस्मिन्नु भगवो विज्ञाते सर्वमिदं विज्ञातं भवतीति ॥    —   1.1.3, muNDaka upa.

[Meaning: Saunaka, well known as a great householder, having approached Angiras duly, asked, ‘O Adorable Sir, (which is that thing) which having been known, all this becomes known?’ (Translation: Swami Gambhirananda).]

Śaunaka is asking for that Knowledge, knowing which everything else becomes known. This is not just any question — it is the most fundamental inquiry possible. In fact, the Upaniṣads — especially those that follow the muNDaka — can be seen as extended responses to this very question. The teacher appreciates the depth of the inquiry but also makes it clear that the student must have the steadiness to abide in what is taught. Continue reading →

Upadesa Sahasri (Part 19)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 18

Part 20

Chapter 16 Consisting of Earth

16.1 to 16.4 The verses establish that real I, the Self, which is of the nature of consciousness, is different from the gross body, the sense organs and the mind because they all are made of five fundamental elements, namely, earth, water, fire, air and space. They are devoid of consciousness and are inert. Take the gross body. Its solid part is made of earth, the grossest element. The title of the chapter is derived from the name ‘earth’. The liquid part is made of water. There is heat in the body which is due to the fire element. There is air inside the body, e.g., the vital forces. Lastly, the empty area inside the body is made of space.

There are five sense organs, eyes, ears, nostrils, tongue, and skin which reveal respective sense objects, namely, form and colour, sound, smell, taste, and touch. There is an illuminator-illumined relationship among each pair of sense organ and sense object. Each pair is unique. They do not mix, e.g., eyes do not hear. The sense objects are categorized according to pre-dominance of the five elements. A sense object will be revealed by a sense organ which has predominance of the same element as that of the sense object. The conclusion is that the sense organs are also made of the five fundamental elements and therefore inert. As such, the Self is different from them.

Continue reading →

Īśvara: Understanding the ‘God’ of Advaita Vedānta

Posted on by
2

For many modern seekers, the term ‘God’ carries heavy baggage, often tied to dualistic religions where a creator sits in a distant heaven, judging humanity from afar. When these seekers turn to Advaita Vedānta, they are often drawn to the uncompromising non-duality of Brahman—the formless, infinite, and attribute-less Absolute. However, as they delve into traditional scriptures like the Upaniṣads or the commentaries of Ādi Śaṅkara, they inevitably encounter the term Īśvara.

Far from being a ‘retrogressive step’ toward dualism, the concept of Īśvara is a sophisticated and necessary component of the Advaitic teaching methodology known as adhyāropa-apavāda (provisional attribution followed by subsequent rescission).

Continue reading →

Quintessence of 10 Upanishads – 18 (muNDaka 1)

Posted on by
Reply

[Part – 17 (prashna 4)]

muNDaka Upanishad 

The Self is of the nature of pure sentience. Hence, it can be known only through that which is likewise sentient—namely, an entity belonging to the same genre. By way of illustration, a magnet attracts iron filings but not a piece of wood; for attraction is possible only between entities that share a common nature.

The body, the senses, and even the vital force (prANa), being insentient, are incapable of apprehending the Self. The mind (antaḥkaraNa) alone, being endowed with reflected consciousness and possessing the capacity for cognition, serves as the appropriate instrument for the knowledge of the Self. Therefore, the mind alone is competent to grasp It.

Further, the Self that is sought to be realized is utterly indivisible and without any internal distinctions. It is free from all forms of differentiation — whether internal, external, or relational.

A tree, though seemingly a single entity, is divisible into multiple constituent parts such as roots, trunk, branches, leaves, flowers, fruits, and seeds. It is thus a “divisible whole.” Space, on the other hand, is not subject to such division and may be regarded as an “indivisible whole.” The Self is akin to the latter.  

Continue reading →