Category Archives: Bimal

Upadesa Sahasri (Part24)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 23

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. 

Upadesa Sahasri (Part 20)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 19

Part 21

16.16 The cause pervades the effect, e.g., gold pervades the ornament. There has to be an uncaused cause for otherwise, there is infinite regress. Therefore, the theory of nihilism is not tenable. According to Advaita, the uncaused cause is the Self. It exists prior to anything, e.g., intellect. Even a total blankness, e.g. deep sleep has to be revealed by self-luminous entity, viz, Self which is of the nature of consciousness. The intellect which is dormant during sleep comes into being in the waking state. The Self exists prior to the intellect.

Continue reading →

Upadesa Sahasri (Part 19)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 18

Part 20

Chapter 16 Consisting of Earth

16.1 to 16.4 The verses establish that real I, the Self, which is of the nature of consciousness, is different from the gross body, the sense organs and the mind because they all are made of five fundamental elements, namely, earth, water, fire, air and space. They are devoid of consciousness and are inert. Take the gross body. Its solid part is made of earth, the grossest element. The title of the chapter is derived from the name ‘earth’. The liquid part is made of water. There is heat in the body which is due to the fire element. There is air inside the body, e.g., the vital forces. Lastly, the empty area inside the body is made of space.

There are five sense organs, eyes, ears, nostrils, tongue, and skin which reveal respective sense objects, namely, form and colour, sound, smell, taste, and touch. There is an illuminator-illumined relationship among each pair of sense organ and sense object. Each pair is unique. They do not mix, e.g., eyes do not hear. The sense objects are categorized according to pre-dominance of the five elements. A sense object will be revealed by a sense organ which has predominance of the same element as that of the sense object. The conclusion is that the sense organs are also made of the five fundamental elements and therefore inert. As such, the Self is different from them.

Continue reading →

Upadesa Sahasri (Part18)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 17

15.31. On the authority of Sruti (Tai Up 2.4 and 2.9), it is said that words fail to describe the Self. It is also explained on the basis of reason. Words describe an entity if it falls in one of the five categories, namely, species (e.g., tree), property (e.g., colour), action (e.g., servant), relationship (e.g., son) and convention (proper name). The Self does not belong to any of the five categories. This is why verbal description is difficult. All descriptions are from the standpoint of other entities which involves duality. If it is said not small one will think big. The only way to understand the Self is as I am Brahman.

15.32. The nearest entity comparable to the Self is the space. Like space, It is all-pervading and It accommodates everything in the sense that It is their substratum. Yet it is not attached to them. The Self is pure and formless. According to Vedanta, Self-knowledge is the supreme goal.

Continue reading →

Upadesa Sahasri (Part 17)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 16

15.9 to 15.13, 15.15 to 15.17
The Self is the light of pure consciousness. It is non-dual. A Self-realized person knows that there is one Self in all beings including a pipal tree (BG 10.26). The Self is homogeneous, undivided, without parts and all-pervading like space. As space accommodates everything, all beings are in one Self. The self is different from gross and subtle bodies as said in Isa Up 8. It is like a witness. The ideas of ‘me’ and ‘mine’ are thoughts of the mind. They do not exist in the Self which is a witness. Therefore, the Self is free from virtue and vice, pleasure and pain and old age. As intellect is the seat of aversion and fear, the Self is free from them and their impressions. It is pure, free from worldly afflictions.

Continue reading →