Author Archives: Bimal

Upadesa Sahasri (Part 35)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 34

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 →

Upadesa Sahasri (Part 32)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 31

Part 33

18.79–87
In these verses, Sri Shankara refines the theory of reflection. In the teaching of Tat Tvam Asi (TTA), the word ‘Tvam’ directly refers to the ego and indirectly to the Self. This requires a relationship between the Self and the ego. The Samkhya system is unable to explain because it does not accept the theory of reflection. Consequently, a teaching imparted directly to the ego cannot be said to be imparted indirectly to the Self. In Advaita, however, reflection establishes the relationship. It is not a relationship of seer and seen because the Self is devoid of activity. Reflection, on the other hand, is formed merely by the presence of the Self. The opponent’s further argument that there is a relation of non-difference between the Self and the ego is also untenable because there is no knowledge in the form, “Consciousness is my real Self.”

Continue reading →

Upadesa Sahasri ( Part 31)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 30 

Part 32

18.72–75 are omitted, as they primarily deal with the Buddhist doctrine of momentary consciousness.
Who is the Hearer? Who Says, “I am Brahman”?
The teaching of Tat Tvam Asi (TTA) can serve its purpose only if there is a hearer to whom it is addressed (18.111). Accordingly, verses 18.76–77 raise the question: Who is the hearer of the teaching?
Two possible answers are examined: the Self and the ego. The Self cannot be the hearer being actionless and beyond all empirical transactions. Nor can the ego, who is a sufferer, be the hearer in the ultimate sense and truthfully declare, “I am free.” Does it imply that scripture is not a valid means of knowledge and the teaching is purposeless? To remove this confusion, verse 18.78 introduces the concept of reflected consciousness.

Continue reading →

Upadesa Sahasri (Part 30)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 29

Part 31

18.44–46
The opponent raises the question: Who experiences transmigratory existence (saṃsara)? Who is the saṃsari? The Self cannot be the experiencer of saṃsara because It is changeless. Nor can the reflection be the experiencer, since it is not ultimately real. The intellect too cannot be the experiencer because it is inert.
Sri Shankara agrees that saṃsara is indeed experienced, but he maintains that it is not real. It appears to belong to the Self, which serves as its substratum. The classic analogy is that of the rope and the snake. The snake exists only as a mental projection and is therefore unreal. Nevertheless, it is experienced because of the rope, the substratum upon which it is superimposed. Similarly, saṃsara is experienced because it is superimposed upon the Self.

Continue reading →

Upadesa Sahasri (Part 29)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 28

Part 30

Use of words for Brahman
Brahman is not an object of knowledge. Being free from attributes, It is beyond words and ideas. Up Sah 18.24 states that word or idea can refer to objects of knowledge and not to non-objects. Brahman is known and realized as the innermost self and the ultimate subject and is therefore not an object of cognition. The Self is known as that remains after negating all objects by the process of neti, neti (18.25). The same idea is reiterated in 18.28 which says that word can apply to ego which is possessed of species and not to Self which has no classification, i.e., swagata, sajatatiya and vijatiya. Self is devoid of any differentiation.                                                                                               Then the question is why are words used to describe It?

Continue reading →

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 →