Author Archives: Bimal Prasad

Tat Tvam Asi (Part 7)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 6

Use of words for Brahman
Brahman is not an object, is free from attributes and, therefore, 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 knowledge. 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. The question is why are words used to describe It?

Continue reading →

Eight Upanishads (Topic-wise) Part 41

Posted on by
Reply

Part 40

Chapter 7 Brahma Sutra BhAsya
7-9 BSB 3.4.18 to 3.4.20 SanyAs prescribed by scriptures                                           Purva Paksha (PP) is a performer of Vedic rites and rituals. He holds that there is no Vedic sanction for sanyAs Ashrama. Vedic sanction is for only grihastha ashrama. An exception can be made for handicapped persons who cannot perform rituals. PP says that Brahmacharya Ashrama is a steppingstone for grihastha Ashrama. It is further argued that stages of life where celibacy is prescribed, they are allusions and not injunctions. The Vedic texts that those who give up fire are murderers of gods show that sanyAs is not prescribed by the Vedas.

Continue reading →

Tat Tvam Asi (Part 6)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 5

Who is the hearer? Who says, I am Brahman?
Teaching of TTA becomes useful (Up Sa18.111) if it is meant for a hearer. In 18.76/77, there is a question: who is the hearer of the teaching? Two possible answers, namely, the Self and the ego are examined. It is argued that Self cannot be the hearer because It is free from action. The ego which is miserable, and a sufferer cannot be the hearer because it cannot say, ‘I am free’. Does it mean that the scripture is not a pramAna and teaching has no value? To dismiss such a possibility, 18.78 suggests a solution by introducing chidAbhAsa.

Continue reading →

Eight Upanishads (Topic-wise) Part 40

Posted on by
Reply

Part 39

Chapter 7 Brahm Sutra Bhasya
7.7 BSB 3.3.53 and 3.3.54 The Self distinct from the body                                          Please see the post Vedanta and Hard Problem of Consciousness

7-8 BSB 3.4.1 to 3.4.17 Knowledge of Brahman is independent of rites                The aphorist establishes that karmAs do not produce knowledge of Brahman. In sutras 1 to 7, the opposite views (Purva Paksha) are presented which are refuted in sutras from 8 to 17 (Siddhanta).

7-8-1                                                                                                                             BSB 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 (Purva Paksha)                                                                     Knowledge itself cannot produce any result. Action is paramount. Knowledge is an aid to action. There is no result of knowledge in its own right. If there are any Vedic texts to the contrary, they are only figurative to glorify the knowledge. Knowledge of self is also an aid to action. The knowledge that self is different from body is an aid to action. Because the performer of rite believes that on fall of body at death, the self goes to higher loka due to punya earned on account of successful completion of rites.

Continue reading →

Locus of Primal Ignorance (Mool-avidyA)

Posted on by
1

In Up Sah 18.44, the opponent (Purva Paksha-PP) asks a question. Who experiences the transmigratory existence? It cannot be the changeless Self. It cannot be the inert intellect, nor can it be the reflection (of the Self in the intellect) which is mithya. ShankarAchAryA gives a short reply. The transmigratory existence is a delusion because of non-discrimination between Self and non-Self. It has an apparent existence (and experienced) because of real existence of the changeless Self and appears to be belonging to It (Self). 

Continue reading →