Monthly Archives: December 2019

‘sAdhana in Advaita’ – 1/6:

Posted on by

[This Series of posts is based on Shri Yellamraju Srinivasa Rao (YSR)’s Audio Talk in Telugu – An Overview of The Advaita Doctrine  –   4/192 .The write up here is a free translation after slight modifications and editing. The Talk was described by a seeker as “Powerful and Compelling.” I do not know if I could achieve that ‘force of persuasion and spirit’ in the translation. Yet I hope the Reader gets at least a flavor of the original Talk, if not the whole taste, in this English rendition.]

Any philosophical knowledge system comprises three components  – The Doctrine (siddhAnta), The Method or the Process (sAdhana) and The Results or the Fruit (siddhi). (‘siddhi‘ is attainment and need not be confused with ‘sAdhya’ which means aim or objective to be achieved).

The doctrine expounds the subject matter of the teaching. The method or the process is the effort we make to experience what is taught. The result or the fruit is the fructification of our effort, which is the im-mediated direct “experiential understanding” of what was taught.

We begin the study of any subject with an intention to learn and implement, and complete the study with an experiential understanding of the subject. We hope to experience a feeling of satiation at the end of the study. The effort to implement what we learn, sAdhana, therefore, is an important part of any teaching. ‘siddhAnta’ or the teaching is like a recipe, while ‘sAdhana’ is like cooking a dish following the recipe. In fact, the Sanskrit word sAdhana also means cooking! The siddhi or the fruit is the ‘contentment’ we get after eating the dish. Continue reading →

Who am I?

Posted on by

In the (very long) thread of Q. 479 ‘What should I read?’, Ramesam asked the question: Who do we (the posters) mean when we use the words ‘I’ and ‘you’?

He suggested that ‘I’ could mean Atman/Brahman, if used from the ‘as if’ pAramArthika viewpoint; it could mean the reflected Consciousness (chidAbhAsa); or it could mean the usually understood ‘named person’.

I suggest that it can ONLY mean the usually understood, named person. When ‘I’ speak to ‘you’ or when I write the word ‘I’ in a post, I cannot be Atman/Brahman. The pAramArthika Atman/Brahman is non-dual. It is neither actor nor enjoyer. It does no do anything. It does not speak and it does not write. When I write and use the word ‘I’, if I mean Brahman, I need to add additional words to make this obvious.

The chidAbhAsa concept is a metaphor to explain how it can be that I am really Atman/Brahman and yet appear to be a conscious, embodied, independent entity. It relates the appearance to the reality. But I am not a metaphor.

Similarly, when I address ‘you’, I am speaking/writing to the named individual ‘you’. I would scarcely have the temerity to write to Brahman (and what would be the point?)! And, again, it would not be meaningful to address a metaphor.

If anyone is NOT using the same criteria when they post, could they please do so henceforth! 😉

Communication is only meaningful when an (apparently) independent entity A speaks or writes etc. to another (apparently) independent entity B.  B doesn’t know in advance what A is going to say or write. All is empirically familiar and obvious. There is no need to complicate things unnecessarily. Occam’s razor reigns supreme!

The 4-M’s:

Posted on by

In any information transmittal in general, four elements have to be present, not counting the recipient who is the beneficiary. They are:

  • The Master or the Expert or The Knower;
  • The Message or the Content or the Doctrine;
  • The Method or the Model or the Technique; and
  • The Medium or the Means or the Instrument.

They are the four M’s we are referring to here.

The beneficiary usually places the Knower at a higher pedestal and such an attitude does help in developing a faith not only in the teacher but also in what is being taught, thus enabling the student to absorb the message with focus and full attention. Some times a student may get so attached to the teacher emotionally with devotion that her vision is blurred to distinguish between the Master and the other three M’s or between the message and the medium and so on. Continue reading →

Q. 479 What should I read?

Posted on by

Q: I am new to Advaita I am currently reading Drg Drsya Viveka and the works of Swami Vivekananda. I also sometimes listen to commentary from Swami Sarvapriyananda from the NY Vedanta Society. And I frequently read thru your website, but my internet connection is poor.

Which book of yours and maybe others would you recommend to help?

A: Don’t read Vivekananda. He is, unfortunately, a source of much confusion in Advaita, rejecting some key aspects and embracing teaching from Yoga (which is a dualistic philosophy). Here is a list of recommended books for beginners that I produced recently for someone: Continue reading →

Q.478 What is love?

Posted on by

Q: What is love in Advaita Vedanta? What is love for ‘god’? Despite the path of love’s many fruits, Is it not a dualistic concession? Without mAyA what is love?

A: Love is not really an ‘issue’ in Advaita. It may well be something that is spoke of frequently by modern (new-agey) teachers, because it is popularly an important subject in life, but it is necessarily a dualistic concept. There has to be a subject ‘lover’ and an objective ‘loved’. And of course the reality is non-dual. There is only the Self. In fact, the only scriptural reference I can think of is Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 4.5.6. Here, it is pointed out that a person loves his wife/husband/children etc. not for their sakes but for one’s own sake, i.e. the Self that is the Self of all. And it concludes with one of the most famous instructions in Advaita: “The Self, my dear Maitreyi, should be realized – should be heard of, reflected on and meditated upon. When the Self, my dear, is realized by being heard of, reflected on and meditated upon, all this is known.”

Love of God is certainly an interim element of the teaching for many, although perhaps the word ‘devotion’ is less emotive/confusing. This is more in the sense of surrender (of the fruit of action and so on).

You are right that it is a dualistic concept and therefore only of interim relevance in the teaching of Advaita. All concepts have to be given up in the end – including that of mAyA, and God… and Advaita!

Debate with a crypto – buddhist – 4

Posted on by

S. Again, you keep jumping into unfounded conclusions about Brahman and consciousness. These are your beliefs. We all have them. Reduction is not the same as truth or fact. It is an assumption. Our assumptions are often wrong (not the end of the world). You introduce two elements that are distinctly Indian in origin, Brahman, which you say is the ultimate reality, and consciousness, which you say can be objectless.

I don’t see how you can separate these things from the totality of phenomenon. When you reduce this to a single truth, you automatically elevate it into a hierarchical model and that highest element is Monism. Why do you insist on separating things out? The universe does not work like that, it is only our minds that are attempting to do so. The struggle of mind to sort out what doesn’t need sorting is where duality resides. Continue reading →