Author Archives: Bimal

Manudukya Upanishad and Karika (Part 2)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 1

Mantra 3
The Self associated with the waker’s body is called Visva. Its field of experience is the universe obtaining in the waking state. Worldly objects are experienced because they are illumined by consciousness. Although consciousness is different from Visva, it appears to be related to external objects because of ignorance. In this sense, consciousness is said to be turned outward.
Visva experiences the waking world through nineteen instruments. They are the five sense organs, the five organs of action, the five vital forces, the mind, the intellect, the memory, and the ego.

Continue reading →

Mandukya Upanishad and Karika (Part1)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 2

Introduction

The Mandukya  Upanishad belongs to Atharva Veda. Though it has only twelve mantras, its teachings are profound. Gauḍapadacharya wrote the Karika on it. A Karika differs from a commentary. In a commentary, the commentator analyses each mantra and comments on it in detail. A Karika, on the other hand, presents the essential philosophical teachings.

The Karika consists of four chapters comprising a total of 215 verses (Karikas). Chapter I is called Agama Prakaraṇa. It is so called because it is based on the twelve mantras of the Upanishad. This chapter contains 29 Karikas. Chapters II, III, and IV are respectively Vaitathya Prakaraṇa (On the Unreality of the World), comprising 38 Karikas; Advaita Prakaraṇa (On Non-duality), comprising 48 Karikas; and Alatasanti Prakaraṇa (On the Quenching of the Firebrand), comprising 100 Karikas.
The Upaniṣhad and Karika are traditionally studied together along with the commentary of Shankaracharya.

Continue reading →

Upadesa Sahasri (Part39)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 38

Chapter 19 Conversation between Atma and the Mind

19.19                                                                                                                            Owing to ignorance, people superimpose upon Atma such notions as relative existence, relative non-existence, qualified, unqualified, agent, non-agent, and so on. Yet Atma is birthless, imperishable, non-dual, and is never Itself superimposed upon anything.
The ignorant mind takes Atma and the world of duality to belong to the same order of reality. Consequently, it performs actions that produce punya and papa, which in turn become the cause of birth and death—that is, samsara. The cycle of samsara continues endlessly until the mind realizes that Atma and the world belong to different orders of reality. The mind is mithya, and all superimpositions are likewise mithya.

Continue reading →

Upadesa Sahasri (Part 38)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 37

Part 39

Chapter 19 Conversation between Atma and the Mind 

19.07                                                                                                                               An ignorant mind believes that it can improve the status of I, the Atma. The wise person knows that the mind can neither improve Atma nor is there any need for such improvement, for Atma is already complete. Any improvement that occurs in time is destined to disappear with time. Therefore, every improvement in the mind, or brought about by the mind, is mithya. How can a mithya mind improve the real Atma? Therefore, Atma tells the mind to remain quiet and attend to its own welfare. Atma is self-effulgent. It requires no external support, including that of the mind, to shine. Rather, it is the mind that is illumined by Atma.

Continue reading →

Upadesa Sahasri (Part 37)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 36

Part 38

Chapter 19 Conversation between Atma and the Mind

Introduction                                                                                                                        It is a ‘dialogue’ between Atma and the mind. Since Atma is free from all action, the dialogue is figurative. Where the text makes such statements, what is meant is that the MIND REALIZES THIS and ceases (for the moment) to identify with ahaṃkara. Nevertheless, this chapter presents a unique method of nidhidhyasana, the third stage of jnana-yoga, following sravana and manana. At this stage, the aspirant has gained clear knowledge of Atma but must assimilate it until it becomes living knowledge.
The aspirant knows that his essential nature is consciousness, which is distinct from the mind. Yet the locus of knowledge is the mind. Thus, a peculiar situation arises in which the mind instructs itself that the aspirant’s true nature is consciousness, which is different from the mind. The mind must further remind itself that consciousness is changeless and eternal, whereas the mind is mithya.

Continue reading →

Upadesa Sahasri (Part 36)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 35

Part 37

18.201–18.206
The opponent argues that liberation is not realized simply by knowing the meaning of TTA, just as boiled milk-rice cannot be produced from cow dung. Knowing about food is not the same as eating it.
Shankaracharya clarifies that indirect knowledge is produced by understanding sentences regarding the non-Self. However, in the case of the Self, knowledge is immediate, as illustrated by the story of the tenth man.
The opponent argues further that what is conditionally evident cannot be self-evident. If the knowledge of the Self depends on knowing the meaning of TTA, how can Advaita claim that the Self is self-evident?
Shankaracharya maintains that the Self is self-luminous. TTA does not reveal the Self; strictly speaking, the Self reveals TTA. The sentence TTA removes ignorance regarding the ego. When the ego is negated, Self-realization occurs. This is figuratively called the immediate knowledge of the Self.

Continue reading →

Upadesa Sahasri (Part 35)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 34

Part 36

18.170–184
In a series of verses, Shankaracharya explains how Tat Tvam Asi (TTA) should be taught and understood. As in the case of any sentence, in order to understand the meaning of TTA, one must understand the meanings of the words Tat, Tvam, and Asi.
The direct or literal meaning of Tat is Isvara, the creator, sustainer, and destroyer of the universe. Tvam means you, the individual (jiva), and Asi signifies that Tat and Tvam are identical, that is, Isvara = Jiva.
An equation is meaningful only when its two sides are apparently different but essentially the same. If the two sides are apparently identical, the equation serves no purpose. Thus, 5 + 4 = 10 – 1 is meaningful, whereas 9 = 9 is not. For one who understands addition and subtraction, both 5 + 4 and 10 – 1 resolve into 9, thereby validating the equation.

Continue reading →

Duryodhan Syndrome

Posted on by
Reply

There is an article titled Duryodhan syndrome: Know right yet choose wrong in The Times of India. Duryodhan knew that his actions were wrong and violated all canons of ethics. Yet he was helpless and chose to act that way and ultimately became the greatest loser. The article describes this phenomenon as Duryodhan Syndrome and summarizes it as “the painful gap between moral awareness and moral action.” This syndrome is not uncommon; many people suffer from it.
What is the reason for this contradiction?
Arjuna raises a similar question in Bhagavad Gita 3.36, and Krishna answers it in 3.37. Arjuna asks why a person knowingly commits sinful actions, as though impelled by some irresistible force. Shankaracharya compares the force to the authority that a king exercises over a servant. Krishna replies that the primary cause is desire, which, when frustrated, transforms into anger. Desire arises from the predominance of rajas in a person’s nature. Krishna describes desire as a great devourer and the eternal enemy of knowledge because it blinds a person to what is right.
Earlier, Bhagavad Gita 2.63 describes the slippery slope that follows unchecked anger:
“From anger comes delusion; from delusion, failure of memory; from failure of memory, the loss of understanding; and from the loss of understanding, one perishes.”
(Translation by Swami Gambhirananda.)

Upadesa Sahasri (Part 34)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 33

Part 35

18.133–138                                                                                                              Advaita acknowledges six means of knowledge (pramana). They are perception, inference, comparison, postulation, non-cognition and testimony.  Does the Self require a pramana for its substantiation, like the non-Self? According to the opponent, a pramaṇa is required even though the Self is self-evident, and this would be so irrespective of whether ignorance is about the Self or something other than the Self.
Before responding, Sri Shankara analyses the meaning of the word ‘substantiation’ (siddhi). Does it mean ‘coming into existence’, ‘being known’, or something else?

Continue reading →

Upadesa Sahasri (Part 33)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 32

Part 34

18.97–98
In the waking and dream states, there are experiences respectively of the external world and the internal world. This proves the existence of consciousness in these two states. In deep sleep, however, there is blankness. From this, one inference could be that consciousness does not exist during deep sleep. Another inference is that consciousness does exist, but there is nothing to experience.
In such a situation, when reason and experience are inconclusive, Sruti is the pramaṇa. Sruti (Br. Up. 4.3.9) discriminates between Consciousness (pure consciousness), the knowing principle, and mental modifications, that is, experiences. Consciousness is self-luminous, which means that its illuminating power never ceases (Br. Up. 4.3.23). In deep sleep, there is apparently no experience because the mind is dormant and there are no mental modifications to be illumined. As a result, there is the experience of nothingness which proves the existence of Consciousness.

Continue reading →