Category Archives: Q and A

Questions from visitors are answered by Dennis and other bloggers

Q. 556 Unmanifest

Posted on by
Reply

Q: I am trying to understand what is meant by ‘unmanifest’. Is it:

  1. an upādhi like deep sleep; i.e. a ‘state’ or a ‘subtle object’? Or, if it is not an upādhi, then presumably
  2. it is pure Brahman, with a label ‘māyā’ for the purpose of discussing creation. i.e. it is not a state or subtle object.

I think it’s #2, but I have heard that deep sleep can be equated with māyā upādhi (at the micro level) or the unmanifest. This seems a bit confusing to me as I view the deep-sleep experience as an occurrence within manifestation.

I believe the Gīta says something like… When Brahma-ji awakes it is manifestation and when he sleeps it is un-manifestation. This makes me think maybe it is like deep sleep. If this is the case, then what about before Brahma-ji? This would indicate that there is something other than or standalone from the unmanifest or prior to the unmanifest (Brahma-ji’s sleep state).

Some clarification would be greatly appreciated!

Continue reading →

Q.555 State Express

Posted on by
Reply

(A few people might appreciate the joke! Google will give you the answer.)

Q: I am trying to appreciate what is meant by the ‘unmanifest state’. Two ‘explanations’ present themselves:

1. The unmanifest is itself an upādhi like deep sleep. It’s a state or a subtle object

2. The unmanifest is not an upādhi. It’s pure Brahman, with a label ‘māyā’ for the purpose of discussing creation. It is not a state or subtle object

I think it’s #2, but I have heard that deep sleep is equated with the māyā upādhi (at the micro level) or the unmanifest. This seems a bit confusing to me as I view the deep sleep experience as an occurrence within manifestation. Can you please clarify?

2. I believe the Gīta says something like: When Brahmāji awakes it is manifestation and when he sleeps it is un-manifestation. This makes me think maybe it is like deep sleep! If this is the case, then what about before Brahmaji? This would indicate that there is something other than, or standalone from, the unmanifest or prior to the unmanifest (Brahmaji’s sleep state).

Some clarification would be greatly appreciated!

Continue reading →

Q.554 – Practice and Enlightenment

Posted on by
Reply

Q: I have been a seeker for the past 25 years and now realize that Advaita is the optimum path. I would like to study full time but still need to pay the rent! How can I gain Self-knowledge while performing a mundane job?  Simply ‘being in the present’ cannot bring about self-realization.

Also, is it correct that ‘cosmic ignorance’ produces māyā and the universe? Īśvara and māyā produce the guṇa-s, which then determine the jīva’s individual ‘make-up’? If this is right, it seems that individual karma must be related to Īśvara as well? But I read that Īśvara has no karma, although responsible for ‘creating’ the gunas. I am confused!

A: The bottom-line answer to your question is that no, there is nothing that you can ‘practice’ or actively ‘do’ in order to gain enlightenment. The ultimate reality is that there is no creation and no ‘individual you’. Reality is non-dual. Who-you-really-are is the non-dual Consciousness and therefore you could say that you are already enlightened.

Continue reading →

Q. 553 – Mind and Causality

Posted on by

Q: Does the mind play a causal role in enlightenment? If not, then it seems that no change can actually happen. But then we say that there is now Self-knowledge where before there was ignorance. If the mind is neither cause nor instrument, then surely there can be no Self-knowledge because no change can have occurred.

Furthermore, if the mind isn’t a factor, preparatory practices can be dispensed with and ultimately the understanding isn’t something which takes place in time. Is that what’s meant by the mind having no causal role? That realization isn’t something which happens in time? Am I missing something here please?

A: I think that your problem here is failing to differentiate absolute and empirical reality. The bottom line is that there is only Brahman or Consciousness. And you cannot say anything more. (Even that is too much.)

From the standpoint of empirical reality (vyavahāra), there certainly is causality. Enlightenment is the ‘event’ in the mind when the above is realized to be true beyond any shadow of a doubt. And there are certainly causes for this. The first of these is the preparation of the mind – sādhana catuṣṭaya sampatti. Then there is śravaṇa – listening to a qualified teacher or reading very good books; and manana – clarifying doubts by asking someone who knows the answers to your questions. These are all causes, hopefully leading to eventual enlightenment. Being enlightened is having knowledge of the Self. Not being enlightened is not having that knowledge. (Beware of thinking that there is a positive thing called ‘ignorance’ – I have just written a book about this.)

Continue reading →

Q.552 – Teaching and Seeking

Posted on by

Q: I’m currently reading ‘Back to the Truth’ and I can see you have presented a holistic view of Advaita. But I am curious. In your journey, having investigated all these schools, which do you prefer? Which teachers or schools do you think are best or have been most helpful to you? Or if you could choose just one school, book or guru to study, which would it be?  Also, what is your main spiritual practice? What aids have been most helpful to you?

Do you think that, reading books on Advaita becomes at a certain point not so helpful anymore; after you realize the only thing to truly do as ego is just self-enquiry and turning within?

A: I wrote ‘Back to the Truth’ nearly 20 years ago. I considered writing a second edition, in which quite a bit would change, but my publisher wasn’t interested. Instead, I began a series of books on ‘Confusions in Advaita Vedanta’. The scriptures (Upanishads, Bhagavad Gita and Brahmasutras) are the source of the teaching. Many modern ‘teachers’ are either unaware of this or simply do not bother to read them. Traditional teaching is the ONLY reliable, consistent, reasonable, proven method. This teaching was systematized by Adi Śaṅkara but, even here, many subsequent ‘traditional’ teachers have distorted, mistranslated or misrepresented him.

Continue reading →

Q.551 – Illusoriness of the world (again)

Posted on by

Q: Why exactly is the world considered illusory? In what sense is it illusory?

Objects change their form and so the form is unreal. We have ideas about objects but these are unreal being imagination only. The whole subjective world with a person as its center is born of imagination.

I can see that objects including the body-mind appear in this field of awareness and everything functions by itself. But the differentiation still exists. There is awareness and also its contents. So how are they illusory? Is it because they are dependent on awareness?

A: Advaita does not say that the world is illusory. (This is a mistranslation by some modern teachers.) Nor is it ‘imaginary’. The world is mithyā, which means that it derives its existence from Brahman. It is ‘name and form’ of Brahman just as we can say that a chair is name and form of wood.

Continue reading →

Q.550 – Alzheimer’s and Self-knowledge

Posted on by

Q: I read your answer to a previous question on this topic but am still not clear. What would be the state of all the knowledge of Advaita that I have acquired? E.g. I know now that I am not the doer and I should surrender the fruits of all my actions. But how can I still know this if I wake up with Alzheimer’s?

A: As I intimated in the answer to Q. 383, you have to differentiate between paramārtha and vyavahāra. In reality, there is only Brahman. There is only the appearance of people and world. They are mithyā. Their real substrate is Brahman.

We appear to have a body-mind and that body-mind is subject to disease, decay and death. This applies equally to the body-mind of the jñānī. The difference between the jñānī and the ajñānī is that the former knows that the body-mind is mithyā, while the latter doesn’t. Just as the body may suffer disease or even lose parts through accident, so the brain also is subject to illness and deterioration. Since the mind is associated with the brain, if the brain suffers loss, the mind will also. The memory may deteriorate or fail completely. This is the case irrespective of whether the jīva had previously gained Self-knowledge.

Continue reading →

Q. 549 – Consciousness is all there is

Posted on by

Q: Advaita tells us that Consciousness is what we are and it is always the case. Why is ‘knowledge’ necessary? Knowledge is knowing about something. Simple pointing out of the fact of Consciousness seems to be the only thing necessary. This is simple and immediate. I am Consciousness right now and nothing needs to be thought or said about it.

Since there is only Consciousness, and as Consciousness, there is nothing else to think about or that can be thought about, there are no ‘levels’ for Consciousness. So therefore, there isn’t a second ‘transactional’ world to know or think about.

A: But it is not Consciousness that is thinking about these things, is it? You are confusing absolute reality (which is Consciousness right now and there is no second thing etc.) with the obvious (to perception) world and thoughts that are in front of you (the jīva) right now. It is the apparent dichotomy between these that has to be rationalized by the mind, with the help of Advaita. Again, the concept of cidābhāsa is helpful here.

Continue reading →

Q. 548 – God and germs

Posted on by

Q: It is said that God is everywhere. So God is very much in the human body as well. He is in every cell/atom of a human body. My question is: what is the position /status of God, who is within the body, when  every cell/atom becomes infected? Is infection more powerful than God?

A: God is not ‘in the  human body’. The human body is name and form of Brahman. Similarly, bacteria are name and form of Brahman. There is ONLY Brahman in reality.

At the level of appearance (world etc.), God (Īśvara ) provides an interim explanation of the laws that govern the seeming creation.  One of these laws is that bacteria can infect bodies and affect their working, even to the extent of ‘killing’ them. But God, bodies and bacteria do not exist as separate entities in reality. They are all Brahman.

Continue reading →

Q.547 – Māyā an attribute of Brahman?

Posted on by

Q: Can Advaitins explain how Maya can be an attribute of the supposedly attributeless Brahman? Why was the creation needed if Brahman alone existed? What is Ishwara?

A (Martin): Maya is not an attribute of Brahman. Maya is a diffuse, or polyvalent, concept which gives rise to much confusion, particularly by translating it as ‘illusion’ (see below). This concept can be viewed from the psychological, epistemological, and ontological perspectives.

Purely from the standpoint of Shankara’s  Advaita Vedanta, Maya is tied in with the concept of ‘ignorance’ (avidya), which is prior to it; that is, avidya is the necessary condition for Maya. Once ignorance has been annihilated by knowledge, Maya disappears. That means that from the higher (of two) points of view, Maya does not exist. This is contrary to most post-Shankara authors, with the exception of Sureshvara, who taught that Maya is a positive entity or force. If that were the case, how could a positive entity be removed by knowledge? Swami Satchidanandendra, practically alone in the 20th Cent. has defended the former, Shankarian position.

Continue reading →