Mandukya Upanishad and Karika (Part 8)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 7

Chapter IV             

Alatasanti Prakaran (On Quenching of The Firebrand)

Introduction                                                                                                                         In this chapter, Gauḍapada consolidates the teachings of the previous three chapters and establishes the doctrine of non-origination (ajativada). He also examines and refutes rival philosophical systems to reinforce the Advaitic vision of non-duality. In the first two karikas, Gaudapada pays salutations to Narayana, the the Adi Guru, who initiated the lineage of teachers (guru-parampara). He was the first to teach non-duality, i.e., identity of jiva and Brahman. Gaudapada pays obeisance to asparsh-yoga which is without any contradiction. It is both beneficial and enjoyable because it culminates in liberation, which is of the nature of limitless bliss.

Continue reading →

Q. 564 – Belief in God

Posted on by
Reply

Q: Is it necessary to believe in God in order to practice Advaita Vedanta?

While I love the Bhagavad Gita, and think Krishna as he’s depicted in said book is great, I’m just really skeptical about the existence of God or Gods.

I know Advaita does make reference to Isvara, but do we need to worship him/her/it in order to be successful in spiritual life?

I guess it’s the problem of evil that really has me doubting the existence of God. There’s just too much gratuitous suffering in this world, and I often wonder why God, if he or she does exist, doesn’t do a thing about it?

A: The simple answer is ‘absolutely not’! (I have never believed in God, for example.)

If you think about it from an Advaita perspective, there cannot be a separate ‘god’, can there? Since reality is non-dual, it could only be the case that ‘you’ are ‘god’. (This is what tat tvam asi means – you, the jīva, are Īśvara.)

Continue reading →

Brahman: The Paradox of Neither Known Nor Unknown

Posted on by
1

In the Kena Upaniṣad, the teacher attempts to impart knowledge of Brahman. The eyes, speech, and mind cannot reach It. An object is ordinarily cognised through the mind and senses. Since Brahman is not an object of perception, the teacher says: We do not know Brahman as an object that can be described as such and such, nor are we aware of any process by which It can be taught as an object.

An object perceived by the senses can be taught by classifying it on the basis of its class, qualities, and actions. Brahman, however, does not fall within these categories. Therefore, the methods ordinarily employed to teach about objects are unsuitable for imparting knowledge of Brahman.

A different approach is required to impart this knowledge and bring the truth within the seeker’s comprehension. This is provided by the traditional teaching handed down by the ancient teachers. They have described Brahman through apparently paradoxical statements:

Brahman is different from the known and also different from the unknown. It is neither known nor unknown.

Shankarcharya resolves this apparent paradox.

Whatever is known as an object is limited, mortal, and subject to misery; hence, it is to be rejected as the ultimate reality. Therefore, when Brahman is said to be different from the known, it amounts to saying that It is not something to be rejected. Similarly, when Brahman is said to be different from the unknown, it means that It is not something to be attained as an object.                                                                                                

Since Brahman is neither an object to be acquired nor one to be rejected, the disciple’s desire to know Brahman objectively comes to an end. Instead, he understands the teacher’s instruction that nothing other than one’s own Self can be different from both the known and the unknown.
In this way, the teacher successfully imparts the knowledge that Brahman is the very Self of the seeker, which is pure consciousness.

Shankaracharya affirms the effectiveness of the above method.

 Brahman is to be known only through the traditional instruction imparted by preceptors. It cannot be known through mere argumentation, study or exposition, intelligence, extensive learning, austerity, sacrifices, or similar means.

Note: Main source: Eight Upaniṣhads with the Commentary of Shankaracharya translated by Swami Gambhirananda, Advaita Ashrama.

Self-Knowledge Is Not Self-Help

Posted on by
Reply

by Lawrence Rook

Non-Dual Therapy, Whatever the Client Believes

People come to psychotherapy because they are suffering. They may be anxious, depressed, struggling in relationships, or dissatisfied with their lives. Something is troubling them, and they want things to be different. But from a non-dual perspective, suffering does not come from what is happening in people’s lives. All suffering arises from ignorance and the sense of self: identification with the person they take themselves to be, the identity they have constructed from their thoughts, beliefs, memories and interpretations of experience. Advaita Vedanta points beyond this conceptual sense of self, raising a question that has implications for psychotherapy: what happens when, rather than improving the self we take ourselves to be, we begin to see through it?

This is where my approach to non-dual psychotherapy begins. Rather than primarily helping people construct a better version of themselves or make sense and give meaning to past experiences, I am interested in helping them see through the identities with which they have become entangled. The client does not need to share that understanding, have any interest in spirituality, or know anything about non-duality. The work begins with their actual experience and the difficulties they bring. But the understanding informing the work changes its direction.

Continue reading →

Mandukya Upanishad and Karika (Part 7)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 6

Part 8

Chapter III

Advaita Prakarana (On Non-duality)

K 15-20                                                                                                                                It is difficult to teach non-duality which is the final teaching of the Upanishad because the intellect is obsessed with worldly affairs which thrive on duality. There are three categories of students, the lowest, mediocre and the sharpest depending upon their maturity of intellect. A sharp intellect can understand that the world is like a dream, whereas Brahman alone is the reality. It is difficult for other two types of intellect. Therefore, the Upanishads introduce them to creation by using metaphors of clay-pot, gold-ornament, fire-spark, etc. As the teaching progresses, creation is negated by saying that effect is not different from the cause. Existence of the creation does not belong to it. The creation borrows it from Brahman which is the substratum and creation is a superimposition upon It.

Continue reading →

Mundaka Upanishad (3.2.9)

Posted on by
Reply

The Mundaka Upanishad (3.2.9) makes a bold statement, “Anyone who knows that supreme Brahman becomes Brahman indeed.”  This statement gives rise to two potential doubts:
The Issue of Action: The verb “becomes” implies a transformation or action. However, according to Advaita Vedanta, knowledge alone—not action—is the direct means to liberation.
The Issue of Essential Identity: The mantra might suggest that an ignorant person is not Brahman, whereas the fundamental premise of Advaita is the intrinsic identity of the Jiva and Brahman.

Continue reading →

Avasthā-Traya

Posted on by
Reply

The Three States of Consciousness in Advaita Vedānta

In Western philosophy and modern neuroscience, investigations into human consciousness almost exclusively take their stand in the waking state. The waking world of physical objects, people, time, and space is assumed to be the primary reality, while dreams are viewed as mere psychological or neurological by-products, and deep sleep is regarded as a passive state of unconsciousness. Traditional Advaita Vedānta, as expounded in the Upaniṣads and systematised by Ādi Śaṅkara, identifies a fundamental flaw in this approach: examining reality solely through the lens of waking experience provides only a fraction of the overall picture.

To arrive at an unobstructed understanding of the Self (Ātman), Advaita employs a rigorous analytical methodology known as avasthā-traya-prakriyā—the systematic enquiry into the three states of consciousness. By analyzing the waking state (jāgrat), the dream state (svapna), and the deep-sleep state (suṣupti), Advaita demonstrates how our sense of identity shifts across different realms of experience. Each state possesses its own unique field of operation, its own distinct ‘experiencer’ ego, and its own subjective universe.

Continue reading →

Quintessence of 10 Upanishads – 43 (brih 5)

Posted on by
Reply

[Part – 42 (brih 4)]

The sages often compare death to sleep: just as we wake up and dive back into the world, we are said to be reborn (with some or no gap) after death. But this does not mean we are helplessly caught in an endless cycle of birth and rebirth, because the story of individual bondage tying us down to this cycle is ultimately provisional.

The explanation of the three states of consciousness and latent impressions (vAsanA-s) is a pedagogical tool. It helps us make sense of our apparent individuality, yet none of these states possesses an independent reality outside of Consciousness itself.

What, then, is the substratum in which these states, impressions, and actions appear?

It is Consciousness itself—our essential nature—appearing as its own reflection. Birth and death, merit and demerit, joy and sorrow are merely images in a mirror. On their own, these reflections are insentient; they borrow their existence entirely from the Original. Recognize clearly that whatever appears is none other than your true Self.  Continue reading →

Mandukya Upanishad and Karika (Part 6)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 5

Part 7

Chapter III – Advaita Prakarana (On Non-duality)

This chapter discusses the word ‘advaitam’ occurring in the seventh mantra of the Mandukya Upanishad.

K 1–2
In the empirical world, there are two types of transactions: sacred and secular. Both involve duality. Secular transactions involve I and mine on the one hand and the world on the other. Sacred transactions involve I and mine on the one hand and God on the other.
In the sacred sphere, I worship God because I consider myself limited and insecure, while I regard God as all-powerful and compassionate. I am a devotee of God. The Vedas do prescribe devotion in their earlier portion. However, Gauḍapada says that remaining a devotee forever is not the final goal and that such a devotee is unfortunate, because devotion by itself is not a permanent remedy of human suffering. Self-knowledge alone is the permanent remedy. The Self is non-dual.

Continue reading →

Mūlāvidyā

Posted on by
Reply

Root-Ignorance, Post-Śaṅkara Metaphysics, and the Great Debate of Swami Satchidanandendra

In Advaita Vedānta, the ultimate truth is summarized in Ādi Śaṅkara’s famous dictum: brahma satyam jaganmithyā jīvo brahmaiva nāparaḥ—”Brahman alone is real; the world is a dependent appearance (mithyā); and the individual self (jīva) is non-different from Brahman”. This non-dual vision immediately confronts an inescapable philosophical paradox: if Reality is strictly one, unchanging, and self-luminous Consciousness, why do we experience a world of manifold division, bondage, and suffering?

The traditional answer points to avidyā (Self-ignorance). It is due to ignorance that we fail to recognize our true nature as Brahman and instead superimpose limitation upon ourselves. Yet, when philosophers analyze the exact nature, cause, and mechanics of this ignorance, they step into one of the most fiercely debated battlegrounds in Indian philosophy. At the center of this controversy is the concept of mūlāvidyā—often translated as “root-ignorance” or “primal nescience”.

Continue reading →