Author Archives: Bimal Prasad

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 →