Author Archives: Bimal

Upadesa Sahasri (Part 28)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 27

In Part 27, the arguments of a Prasamkhyavadi who maintains that repetition is necessary was introduced. Sri Shankara responds.
1 TTA is taught on the authority of scriptures and reasoning (18.04). The formerly ignorant student becomes wise and claims ‘I am Brahman’ (18.05) and the notion of agentship is given up (18.06).
2 The Sruti talks about the method of ‘not this’, ‘not this’, and on such negation, Self is revealed by the scriptures as Existence, Consciousness (18.26). Action and its results are enshrined in earlier portion of Veda and not in the latter portion (18.19).

Continue reading →

Upadesa Sahasri (Part 27)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 26

Part 28

Chapter 18 That Thou Art (TTA)
This is the biggest chapter containing 233 verses. The title of the chapter is derived from one of the Great Upanishadic Statements which proclaims that the essential nature of Jiva (individual soul) is the essential nature of the God. The Jiva is essentially Self whose nature is Consciousness and the God is essentially Existence and that ultimately Consciousness and Existence are the same. In the opening two verses, Sri Shankara offers salutations to the Self which witnesses the modifications of the intellect. The modifications arise from and subside in consciousness. He pays obeisance to his Grand preceptor (Teacher of his Teacher) who established the authority of the Upanishadic teaching by refuting the opposite doctrines. The verse 3 reasons that the Sruti, out of compassion and affection akin to a mother’s love, teaches that an individual soul is eternally free. The chapter discusses many concepts related to TTA. This post and those to follow discuss verses serially but also includes other verses with similar concepts.

Continue reading →

Upadesa Sahasri (Part 26)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 25

17.51-55                                                                                                                            A man desirous of knowing the truth should cultivate dispassion and refrain from loving the worldly objects for such a love is risky. It is mixed with pain because any worldly object is impermanent and its absence causes pain. The love causes bondage as desires are plenty and impossible to fully satisfy. He should approach a skilled teacher who has Self-knowledge, who is tranquil and established in Brahman- meaning he is anchored in Self while transacting in the world. In this sense, he is free from bondage of action. Such a teacher interprets the scriptures and impart knowledge (Ch Up 6.14.2 and BG 4.34). When a qualified student approaches a skilled teacher with humility in the prescribed manner, the teacher should accept him into his fold and impart knowledge of Brahman thereby enabling him cross Samsara which is like ocean of darkness.

Continue reading →

Upadesa Sahasri (Part 25)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 24

Part 26

17.32 to 17.35                                                                                                    Yajnavalkya explains (Br Up 3.4.1 and 3.4.2) that Brahman is not an object. It is the ultimate subject and is the Self. Ke U 1.5 says that Brahman is not an object and not perceived by the senses. The Self-knowledge is immediate whereby all knots of the heart are cut asunder (Mu. Up 2.2.8). Egoic attachments, emotional baggage which cause sufferings dissipate. etc. It is liberation. There could be an objection.  As Brahman is not perceived by senses and is not perceived by the intellect as emotions like pleasure, etc., It does not exist. The author explains with the help of the phenomenon of eclipse. The lunar and solar eclipses are caused due to shadows of the earth on the moon and of the moon on the earth respectively. The shadows are seen during eclipses. On non-eclipse days shadows are not seen. However, it does not mean that the shadows are not formed. Likewise, if consciousness is not experienced, it does not mean that It does not exist.

Continue reading →

Upadesa Sahasri (Part24)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 23

Part 25

17.17 and 17.18                                                                                                         During dream, one mind is divided into subject (knower), object (known) and instrument of knowledge. The divisions are unreal. Likewise, in the waking state, one consciousness appears differently when desires in the intellect causes action. The desires arise because the jiva thinks that it is incomplete though it is essentially complete. The desires and actions are revealed by consciousness. The waking state is a superimposition on consciousness, the substratum. The divisions in the waking state are as unreal as the divisions in the dream. The ideas of interior and exterior in the waking state are unreal like reading and writing which are interdependent. Reading depends on a written page without which nothing can be read and writing also depends on reading as we first read and then write. So, both of them are unreal as the sounds represented by written letters are all-pervasive and have no forms. Hence, they can neither be really written nor read.

Continue reading →

‘Difference’ is not real

Posted on by
3

The post ‘Duality is mithyA’ (see here) is based on the verses 19.20 -22 of Upadesa Sahasri (US). Swami Parmarthananda has discussed (transcripts of his talks on Chapter 16 of US) the same topic with a different reasoning which according to him has scriptural support though he has not cited it. 
Advaita Vedanta acknowledges six means (Pramana) of knowledge of which direct perception and inference are important. I see red colour and green colour and say that the two colours are different which is my experience too. If asked whether I see the ‘difference’ as an object, my answer is in negative. That is to say, there is no direct perception of the ‘difference’. It also means that the ‘difference’ cannot be inferred, because for inference, there should be a previous direct perception. Other means of knowledge, namely, comparison, postulation, non-cognition also do not prove difference. Sabda Pramana i.e., scriptures, affirm that ‘difference’ is not real though it is experienced. QED

Upadesa Sahasri (Part 23)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 22

Chapter 17   Right Knowledge

17.01 to 17.03 The author pays obeisance to Self and the teachers. Self is non-dual as It alone exists. It is of the nature of existence, consciousness and bliss. Other things depend on Self for their existence. It is witnessing consciousness and therefore omniscient. It is not an object. It is the ultimate subject and is to be known as such. Though supporting everything It is unattched, untainted and pure.  The author bows down to Self. He bows down to all the teachers who are conversant with words, sentences of the scriptures and have transmitted the knowledge of Self since ancient time. The author bows down to his own teacher whose words have sparked knowledge in him and destroyed ignorance as sunrays destroy darkness.

Continue reading →

Upadesa Sahasri (Part 22)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 21

Part 23

16.45 to 16.50                                                                                                            Earlier the author has refuted different theories of the Buddhists. Advaita and Samkhya are similar in some respects and dissimilar in other aspects. The author refutes some theories of Samkhya philosophy. According to Samkhya, both purusha (consciousness), and prakriti (material and inert) are real. Purusha is action-free and unattached. Prakriti works for purusha and the latter is the enjoyer. There are many purushas, one for every jiva. Prakriti has three constituents, sattva, rajas and tamas. Samkhya further says that prakriti alone is the cause of creation. Purusha has no role. When the constituents are in equilibrium, the creation is unmanifest. Creation unfolds due to imbalance in three constituents.

Continue reading →

Upadesa Sahasri (Part 21)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 20

16.30-33 There is a Buddhist school of thought called nihilism which holds that nothing exists, neither the subject nor the object. This theory of emptiness is questioned by the author. That which witnesses and is aware of emptiness must exist. The witness exists even before beginning of deliberation on existence or non-existence or both. According to Advaita, the world of objects is a superimposition on the Self. There can be destruction of the superimposition but not of the entity (Self) on which is the superimposition. Existence of Self is undeniable. It is indestructible. It is one without second on which diversity is a superimposition.

Continue reading →

Bhagavad Gita- 5.1 and 5.2

Posted on by
Reply

Arjuna to Krishna: You praise both renunciation of actions and again their performance Tell me for certain that one which is better between these two (5.1) Krishna: Both renunciation of actions and Karma-yoga lead to supreme good. Between the two, Karma-yoga, however, excels over renunciation of actions (5.2) [Translations by Gambhirananda] It may give a misplaced impression that yoga of karma. i.e., Karma Yoga is superior to yoga of renunciation, i.e., Jnana Yoga.

Chapter 4 has discussed both yoga of action and yoga of renunciation which are opposed to each other as they cannot be practiced by a person simultaneously. Arjuna raises a natural question (5.1), which is better? Krishna says (5.2) that both Karma Yoga and renunciation of action result in supreme good; however, Karma Yoga is superior to mere renunciation. Here, the first renunciation refers to renunciation by a knower of the Self which is distinct from renunciation by a non-knower. Shankaracharya uses the word ‘mere’ which is noteworthy. ‘Mere’ renunciation refers to renunciation by a non-knower who sits quietly and is apparently without action. It is tamasic (18.7) or rajasic renunciation (18.8). Nothing is achieved by mere renunciation (3.4). Therefore, he should first practice Karma Yoga which is stressed in 5.2. It is sattvic renunciation (18.9). By Karma Yoga, he acquires necessary qualifications for Jnana Yoga. Renunciation by a knower is on account of disidentification from non-Self and identification with action-free Self.