Author Archives: Bimal Prasad

Chandogya Upanishad and Brahma Sutra Bhasya Part 6

Posted on by
Reply

Part 5

BSB 4.1.4 and 4.1.5
Doubt: There are texts, “One should meditate about space as Brahman” and “The sun is Brahman”. The doubt is, whether self-identification should be resorted. The opponent says that one should identify oneself with those symbols as well (thinking thus: “I am the symbol which is Brahman”). Because Brahman is familiar as the Self and the symbols also are forms of Brahman. The aphorist clarifies that meditator should not identify himself with a symbol, for he cannot consider himself to be so. Brahman is taught to be identical with the individual Self after eliminating empirical characteristics like agent ship etc. from the latter, whereas meditation is prescribed without eliminating these. As the meditator and the symbols are both limited entities, self-identity with symbols is ruled out. There are supporting texts. “He who having known thus meditates about the sun as Brahman” (Ch 3.19.4). “He who meditates organ of speech as Brahman” (Ch 7.2.2). “He who meditates about resolve as Brahman” (Ch 7.4.3).

Continue reading →

Chandogya Upanishad and Brahm Sutra Bhasya Part 5

Posted on by
Reply

Part 4

Part 6

BSB 2.3.9
There is no possibility of origin of Brahman which is of the nature of Existence. It cannot originate from Existence for otherwise it leads to infinite regress. Moreover, there should be some distinguishing features for a causal relationship. Brahman cannot originate from non-existence (Ch 6.2.2). For creation, a primary origin-free material cause is to be admitted, and Brahman is the primary material cause.

Continue reading →

Upadesa Sahasri (Part 10)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 9

11.10 is about avasthatraya prakriya- teaching on the basis of three states of experience. Vedanta uses ordinary experience to reveal extraordinary fact. Self is the unchanging observer of the three states. Vasanas are mental impressions left over from the experience in waking state. They are seen in the dream. They are like colour of the cloth coloured in turmeric. Self, the observer and the illuminator of the vasanas must be different from them and their locus, the mind. In waking and dream states what we experience are the contents of the mind which are illumined by Self. It follows that in the waking state also; Self is different from them. Self is different from the triad, knower, known and knowing.

Continue reading →

Chandogya Upanishad and Brahm Sutra Bhasya (Part 4)

Posted on by
2

Part 3

Part 5

BSB 2.1.21 to 2.1.23                                                                                                      The opponent argues that texts like “Thou art that” (Ch Up 6.8.7) declaring identity of Brahman and jiva and “Let me manifest name and form by Myself entering the individual soul” (Ch Up 6.3.2) lead to absurdity. The argument is in four parts. Brahman creates the world. Jiva has sufferings in the world. Brahman and jiva are identical. Therefore, Brahman creates sufferings for Himself which is ridiculous. The Vedantin accepts the first two parts with a rider that suffering faced by a jiva is at transactional level. As regards the third part, the identity of Brahman and jiva is from the Absolute standpoint. That is to say, when the limiting adjuncts of a jiva are removed, there is identity.

Continue reading →

Upadesa Sahasri (Part 9)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 8

Part 10

Chapter 11 Nature of Witness

11.1 and 11.2                                                                                                                          The mind and body system (MBS) is made of five elements and is by nature inert. As it is conscious, it means that the source of consciousness is outside. The outside source is Brahman which is of the nature of pure consciousness (Consciousness) due to which MBS appears conscious. Whereas sentient MBS is changing, Consciousness is unchanging. According to scriptures, the true nature, i.e., real ‘I’ (Self) of a human being is Consciousness. In other words, a human being is essentially Consciousness which is different from the sentient MBS and utterly unaffected by latter’s experiences comprising dualities.

Continue reading →

Brihadarankya Upanishad (Part 17)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 16

4.4.9 to 4.4.15                                                                                                                 The seekers of Brahman talk about many paths of knowledge. It is not correct. There is only one path of knowledge. A person should practice karma yoga and upasana yoga to become qualified for the path of knowledge. The Upanishad criticises those who perform different rites and rituals for material benefits. They are unwise and ignorant, live in darkness, and go from death to death.  Sooner or later, a person should do a course correction and set knowledge of Brahman as the highest goal. All other goals should be subservient to it and finally, the only goal should be Brahman- knowledge.         

Continue reading →

Chandogya Upanishad and Brahma Sutra Bhasya Part – 3

Posted on by
Reply

Part 2

Part 4

BSB 1.3.40                                                                                                                    The light mentioned in Ch 8.12.3 refers to Brahman and not the ordinary light because of the context in which it is used. The subject-matter is Brahman that is free from sin (Ch 8.7.1). It should be sought by an aspirant of liberation. It is also alluded to in, “I shall explain this very one to you over again” (Ch Up 8.9.3). And this Self is declared by way of attainment of this Light for becoming unembodied as mentioned in the statement, namely, happiness and sorrow do not touch one who is unembodied (Ch Up 8.9.1). Supreme Light is used in Ch Up 8.3.4 and transcendental being in Ch Up 8.12.3.

Continue reading →

Manifestation/Appearance – A view

Posted on by
6

In Advaita Vedanta, it is said that the world is a manifestation/appearance of Brahman like ornament (world) and gold (Brahman) in gold-ornament metaphor. A hearer is puzzled as to how can the material world be envisaged as a manifestation/appearance of Brahman which is of the nature of pure existence (Existence) and is non-material. Existence is not perceived, world is perceived, whereas both gold and ornament are perceived. In this sense, the hearer argues that there is a disconnect of the gold-ornament from Brahman-world.
The counter argument from a co-hearer is that a metaphor is never similar to the thing illustrated for otherwise it ceases to be a metaphor. The principle is that in a metaphor, similarity is the focus and dis-similarity is ignored. In the instant case, dis-similarity due to material and non-material is ignored. What is the similarity then? Here comes the concept of mithya, i.e., neither nor unreal. Brahman is of the nature of Existence. It lends existence to the world which has no independent existence as it continuously changes. Brahman is real and world is mithya (ब्रह्म सत्यं जगन्मिथ्या). In the gold-ornament metaphor, ornament has no existence separate from that of the gold. Gold is real and ornament is mithya. Thus, there is a similarity (of mithyatatva)  between the illustration and the illustrated.
Agreement: In the gold-ornament metaphor to explain that the world is a manifestation/appearance of Brahman, the focus is on mithyatatva.

Upadesa Sahasri (Part 8)

Posted on by
Reply

In Part 7, it is said that the chapter 10 focuses on nidhidhyasana, i.e., meditation on vedantic teachings for their assimilation and to deal with contrary feeling. The following verses do it by of ‘glorification’ of I (Self) and is in the first person.  Brahmjnanavalimala is very similar to chapter 10.  It should not be mistaken as ego-boosting because every human being is entitled to it.

10.1 to 10.3                                                                                                                         I am the supreme Brahman which is changeless and is of the nature of pure consciousness. I am unborn, imperishable. I am deathless, unchanging, devoid of old age. I am not attached with mind and body though I as consciousness pervade them. As consciousness, I am within the body, but I am not confined to the body. I have no edge and no boundary. Like space, I am in all directions and all -pervading. Worldly ups and downs belong to mind and body and do not affect Me. I am ever free. I am the ultimate subject. I am beyond objects but illumine them. I am self-effulgent. I am beyond cause and effect. Cause and effect are in the realm of duality. I am non-dual. The understanding is that though duality is experienced it is mithya. Duality is subject to change. I am non-dual and not subject to change. I alone am real.

Continue reading →

Brihadarankya Upanishad (Part 16)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 15

Part 17

Chapter 4
Section 4 Sariraka Brahaman
4.4.1 to 4.4.6                                                                                                                     YJV talks about transmigration. At the time of death, the physical body becomes weak (the weakness is figuratively attributed to Self) and the sense organs withdraw from their physical locations. The presiding deities of the sense organs leave and go to their respective abodes. The sense organs do not function and the perceptions of colour, sound etc cease. They are as good as dead in the current body and Self is figuratively said to senseless.

Continue reading →