Author Archives: Bimal Prasad

Upadesa Sahasri (Part 15)

Posted on by
2

Part 14

14.26 During dream gross body is dormant and there is no external world. There is no external light or medium. The mind functions and sees, hears, thinks which are modifications of the mind. As the mind is inert, seeing, etc., is possible if there is an entity different from the mind and which lends sentiency to the mind. The said entity is Self which is of the nature of consciousness. In this sense, it is concluded that Self is directly known. The Self is the witness of the modifications of mind called the dream.

Continue reading →

Upadesa Sahasri (Part 14)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 13

14.11 Self alone remains after negating everything. No other effort is needed to know Self. It is self-revealing. The knowledge that Self is Brahman is enlightenment. On enlightenment, the (last) desire for liberation goes away resulting in contentment and peace.

14.12 Shankara advises that a seeker should aspire to think that he is all-pervading Self which is beyond mind and body system (MBS). MBS is the locus of miseries. I, the Self, am beyond miseries. Let the mind and body take action to remove miseries. Nothing can be added or subtracted from Self. How can Self do anything?

Continue reading →

Upadesa Sahasri (Part 13)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 12

Chapter 14 Dream and Memory
14.1 to 14.10
Advaita Vedanta is more a teaching than a philosophy. A fundamental Vedantic principle is that a real thing cannot be destroyed, and an unreal thing need not be destroyed. Only a seemingly real thing called mithya in Vedantic terminology can be destroyed. As the aim is to remove human suffering, it analyses human experience with the help of scriptures and reason. It says that though human suffering is experienced, it is mithya and can be removed. What we think about ourselves is not correct and further that experience may be deceptive as it does not necessarily match with the reality.

Continue reading →

Adhyatma-yoga

Posted on by
Reply

Adhyatma is adhi plus atma. It is a spiritual discipline. Yoga is of different types, e.g., Hatha-yoga which is about various bodily postures. Here it refers to mental discipline, i.e., concentration on and awareness of the Self. It is not dependent on any external factor. Instead, it is meditation on Vedantic teachings about Self.
The Lord of death mentions it (katha 1.2.12) and Shankaracharya explains. It is withdrawing the mind from the external objects and concentrating on the Self. The concentration of the mind is required because the Self is hidden (therefore hard to grasp) in the intellect surrounded by the body and senses. The body and senses are source of miseries. However, by meditating on the Self, an intelligent man perceives it in the intellect. Resultantly he goes beyond miseries, i.e., he gives up both happiness and sorrow because the Self is devoid of highs and lows. Though self-luminous and self-evident, it is hidden by the impressions on the mind arising from thoughts and actions. Hence the Upanishad says it is ‘hard to perceive’.

Continue reading →

Upadesa Sahasri (Part 12)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 11

Chapter 13 Eye-lessness
13.1 to 13.5
Yajnavalkya tells Gargi (Br Up 3.8.8): Brahman is not gross, not oily, nothing is inside outside, thereby suggesting all negations. What remains is not negated and is a positive entity, Brahman. A knower of Brahman is Brahman (Mun Up 3.2.9). An enlightened person is capable of using the word ‘I’ emperically and also at the Absolute level.
The author uses a rhetorical device of putting words in the mouth of Brahman. The verses are in the1st person. Brahman is of the nature of pure consciousness and is different from the gross and subtle bodies which are essentially inert. Therefore, Brahman speaks. Alternatively, an enlightened ego speaks:

Continue reading →

Upadesa Sahasri (Part 11)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 10

Part 12

12.6, 12.7 and 12.10                                                                                       Consciousness is independent of experience, but experience needs consciousness. There are two factors in experience. Consciousness and the mind. Consciousness is limitless.  But it is limited or conditioned by the mind. The conditioned consciousness is like a reflection in the mind. When the mind comes in contact with an object through sense organs, there are modifications in the mind called vrittis. The vrittis are illumined or revealed by the (reflected) consciousness. Illumined vrittis is experience.

A wise person knows that locus of ignorance is the mind and not the Self, his true nature, and further that the mind commits the mistake of false identification. Such a wise person is indeed the best of yogis and not anyone else. Heat of the sun on the body is an object of knowledge. Likewise, pain and pleasure and the mind where they reside are the objects of knowledge. It is wrong to superimpose them on Self. Self is neither sad nor happy. The bottom line is that the condition of the mind belongs to mind and not to Self. Sadness is natural.

Continue reading →

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

Part 11

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 →