Category Archives: Bimal

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 →

Upadesa Sahasri (Part 16)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 15

Chapter 15 Impossibility of one being another

15.1 The essential nature of a jiva is not different from Brahman for otherwise the jiva will be essentially finite. Any amount spiritual practice can bring about only superficial changes and not changes in the essential nature. Finite cannot become infinite. If at all it becomes infinite, it will lose its essential nature which means destruction. In that case, liberation is ruled out. The conclusion is that jiva is essentially Brahman. A doubt may arise. If a jiva is already Brahman, what is the need of a teacher and scriptures? The answer is that they are needed to remove the ignorance about our true identity.

Continue reading →

Upadesa Sahasri (Part 15)

Posted on by
2

Part 14

14.26 During dream gross body is dormant and there is no external world. There is no external light or medium. The mind functions and sees, hears, thinks which are modifications of the mind. As the mind is inert, seeing, etc., is possible if there is an entity different from the mind and which lends sentiency to the mind. The said entity is Self which is of the nature of consciousness. In this sense, it is concluded that Self is directly known. The Self is the witness of the modifications of mind called the dream.

Continue reading →

Upadesa Sahasri (Part 14)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 13

14.11 Self alone remains after negating everything. No other effort is needed to know Self. It is self-revealing. The knowledge that Self is Brahman is enlightenment. On enlightenment, the (last) desire for liberation goes away resulting in contentment and peace.

14.12 Shankara advises that a seeker should aspire to think that he is all-pervading Self which is beyond mind and body system (MBS). MBS is the locus of miseries. I, the Self, am beyond miseries. Let the mind and body take action to remove miseries. Nothing can be added or subtracted from Self. How can Self do anything?

Continue reading →

Upadesa Sahasri (Part 13)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 12

Chapter 14 Dream and Memory
14.1 to 14.10
Advaita Vedanta is more a teaching than a philosophy. A fundamental Vedantic principle is that a real thing cannot be destroyed, and an unreal thing need not be destroyed. Only a seemingly real thing called mithya in Vedantic terminology can be destroyed. As the aim is to remove human suffering, it analyses human experience with the help of scriptures and reason. It says that though human suffering is experienced, it is mithya and can be removed. What we think about ourselves is not correct and further that experience may be deceptive as it does not necessarily match with the reality.

Continue reading →

Adhyatma-yoga

Posted on by
Reply

Adhyatma is adhi plus atma. It is a spiritual discipline. Yoga is of different types, e.g., Hatha-yoga which is about various bodily postures. Here it refers to mental discipline, i.e., concentration on and awareness of the Self. It is not dependent on any external factor. Instead, it is meditation on Vedantic teachings about Self.
The Lord of death mentions it (katha 1.2.12) and Shankaracharya explains. It is withdrawing the mind from the external objects and concentrating on the Self. The concentration of the mind is required because the Self is hidden (therefore hard to grasp) in the intellect surrounded by the body and senses. The body and senses are source of miseries. However, by meditating on the Self, an intelligent man perceives it in the intellect. Resultantly he goes beyond miseries, i.e., he gives up both happiness and sorrow because the Self is devoid of highs and lows. Though self-luminous and self-evident, it is hidden by the impressions on the mind arising from thoughts and actions. Hence the Upanishad says it is ‘hard to perceive’.

Continue reading →

Upadesa Sahasri (Part 12)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 11

Chapter 13 Eye-lessness
13.1 to 13.5
Yajnavalkya tells Gargi (Br Up 3.8.8): Brahman is not gross, not oily, nothing is inside outside, thereby suggesting all negations. What remains is not negated and is a positive entity, Brahman. A knower of Brahman is Brahman (Mun Up 3.2.9). An enlightened person is capable of using the word ‘I’ emperically and also at the Absolute level.
The author uses a rhetorical device of putting words in the mouth of Brahman. The verses are in the1st person. Brahman is of the nature of pure consciousness and is different from the gross and subtle bodies which are essentially inert. Therefore, Brahman speaks. Alternatively, an enlightened ego speaks:

Continue reading →

Upadesa Sahasri (Part 11)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 10

Part 12

12.6, 12.7 and 12.10                                                                                       Consciousness is independent of experience, but experience needs consciousness. There are two factors in experience. Consciousness and the mind. Consciousness is limitless.  But it is limited or conditioned by the mind. The conditioned consciousness is like a reflection in the mind. When the mind comes in contact with an object through sense organs, there are modifications in the mind called vrittis. The vrittis are illumined or revealed by the (reflected) consciousness. Illumined vrittis is experience.

A wise person knows that locus of ignorance is the mind and not the Self, his true nature, and further that the mind commits the mistake of false identification. Such a wise person is indeed the best of yogis and not anyone else. Heat of the sun on the body is an object of knowledge. Likewise, pain and pleasure and the mind where they reside are the objects of knowledge. It is wrong to superimpose them on Self. Self is neither sad nor happy. The bottom line is that the condition of the mind belongs to mind and not to Self. Sadness is natural.

Continue reading →

Chandogya Upanishad and Brahma Sutra Bhasya Part 6

Posted on by
Reply

Part 5

BSB 4.1.4 and 4.1.5
Doubt: There are texts, “One should meditate about space as Brahman” and “The sun is Brahman”. The doubt is, whether self-identification should be resorted. The opponent says that one should identify oneself with those symbols as well (thinking thus: “I am the symbol which is Brahman”). Because Brahman is familiar as the Self and the symbols also are forms of Brahman. The aphorist clarifies that meditator should not identify himself with a symbol, for he cannot consider himself to be so. Brahman is taught to be identical with the individual Self after eliminating empirical characteristics like agent ship etc. from the latter, whereas meditation is prescribed without eliminating these. As the meditator and the symbols are both limited entities, self-identity with symbols is ruled out. There are supporting texts. “He who having known thus meditates about the sun as Brahman” (Ch 3.19.4). “He who meditates organ of speech as Brahman” (Ch 7.2.2). “He who meditates about resolve as Brahman” (Ch 7.4.3).

Continue reading →