In Search of Brahman, Part 4

Hi everyone. 🙂

From the (as if) paramartha level, the level where one thinks and talks about ultimate Reality, can one (correctly) say anything positive about brahman? E.g. Brahman is … <whatever>. Or is it only correct to negate that which is not brahman (neti neti)?

In Search of Brahman, Part 3

Thanks to you guys for helping me see that I am going around in circles with my attempt to fathom Brahman. I often enjoy circling, the repetition is soothing. But it slows down the forward momentum of my path.

So for now I’ll put my Brahman obsession on the back burner. If Brahman comes up in my studies, I’ll think of it in the way that has given me least trouble over the years:

Brahman is what-really-is.

Dennis suggested my next stop be Swami P’s commentary on the Vivekachudamani. Onward ho!


Karma Yoga and Karma SanyAs

Part 3 of 3

Renunciation and its benefits

The knowledge that the Self is akartA is Karma SanyAs.  Renunciation of work refers to giving up the sense of doer-ship. There is a simple and effective method to get over the notion of doer-ship. Krishna advises Arjuna to dedicate all works to the Him while abiding in the Self. It enables one to get rid of the sense of doer-ship and to remain detached, i.e., no expectations and no desires.  Selfish action creates mental disturbances called vritties which again propels rAjasik action. Action dedicated to the Lord is ego-free. Ego-free action arrests creation of vritties. Continue reading

Modern Physics and nAma-rUpa:

Theoretical Physicist Prof. Sean Carroll talked on “The Mysteries of Modern Physics” at the Cambridge University two weeks ago (on Jan 24th 2020).
Much of what he talked for three fourths of the time is the popular stuff about the Classical and Quantum theories of Physics. I found the last 15-16 mins more interesting when he discussed “The Arrow of Time” and the possibility for the existence of life.
From the POV of Non-duality, the latest thinking he is working on is something to look forward to. It is about the emergence of spacetime from Quantum Mechanics and the concept of Entanglement giving raise to Geometry and Energy. The word pair Geometry and Energy strike a chord reminding us the famous vAcArambhaNa shruti (6.1.4, chAndogya). They bring to our memory the other Vedantic word-pairs:

Continue reading

Karma Yoga and Karma SanyAs

Part 2 of 3

Benefits of Detached Action

Krishna instructs Arjuna to perform action, i.e., engage in war and fulfill the obligatory duty. By performing work without attachment, one realizes the Supreme. He gives His example. There is nothing in the world for Him to achieve, yet He engages Himself in action.  For, otherwise all other people would follow Him and the creation will be destroyed.

A person who is content with whatever comes by itself (without desiring for it), who is free from delusion and jealousy, who is equipoise in both success and failure, is not bound by action even by performing actions. The mind is focused on the work. It is a working mind as distinct from thinking and wavering mind. As a result the work becomes skilled.  Attachment to the fruit of action creates impressions on the mind called samskArs which is the cause of cycle of birth and death.  Attachment smacks of selfishness and egoism. Conversely, detachment creates no samskArs and one becomes free from the cycle of birth and death. Detached, karma yogis perform works for purifying the mind, e.g., sacrifice, charity and penance. Continue reading

In Search of Brahman, Part 2

The scriptures tell us that everything is constantly changing … thus ultimately not-real.

EXCEPT for Brahman.

Why this EXCEPTion?

Why is it seen as impossible that everything, no exceptions, is constantly changing?

It would be great, for me, if we could discuss this drawing mainly upon common sense rather than doctrine. My issue with doctrine is that it is considered to be irrefutably correct and thus discourages, perhaps even prevents open investigation.



Karma Yoga and Karma SanyAs

                                          Karma Yoga and Karma SanyAs

 Part 1


An ordinary educated Hindu or a religious minded Hindu, even though he has not read Bhagwad Gita, is asked about Gita. In all likelihood he would say that it teaches mankind to work without attachment. He may or may not be very familiar with the term Karma Yoga, yet if he is pressed further, he may add that work without attachment means work without attachment to the fruit of work. Indeed, he is not off the target. The point is that karma yoga is the essence of Gita for most of the Hindus.  Even so, if a person reads it, then he comes across another term, i.e., Karma SanyAs. Though the term karma yoga is etched in the Hindu psyche, karma sanyAs is a relatively unfamiliar term for most of them. This article is an attempt to delve into karma yoga and karma sanyAs and also appreciate inter se similarities and dissimilarities. Continue reading

The Consolations of Bodhayana’s Sutras

It is now almost three weeks since I lost my father. A massive cardiac arrest took him within seconds of him even realizing that anything was wrong with his heart; there are things good and bad about such a passing (although in a deeper sense it is all good): the death is completely painless, but leaves you and those close and near to you in a situation that Hamlet the King so brilliantly defines in Hamlet.

Cut off even in the blossoms of my sin,
Unhousel’d, disappointed, unanel’d,
No reckoning made, but sent to my account
With all my imperfections on my head: Continue reading

Who am I?

In the (very long) thread of Q. 479 ‘What should I read?’, Ramesam asked the question: Who do we (the posters) mean when we use the words ‘I’ and ‘you’?

He suggested that ‘I’ could mean Atman/Brahman, if used from the ‘as if’ pAramArthika viewpoint; it could mean the reflected Consciousness (chidAbhAsa); or it could mean the usually understood ‘named person’.

I suggest that it can ONLY mean the usually understood, named person. When ‘I’ speak to ‘you’ or when I write the word ‘I’ in a post, I cannot be Atman/Brahman. The pAramArthika Atman/Brahman is non-dual. It is neither actor nor enjoyer. It does no do anything. It does not speak and it does not write. When I write and use the word ‘I’, if I mean Brahman, I need to add additional words to make this obvious.

The chidAbhAsa concept is a metaphor to explain how it can be that I am really Atman/Brahman and yet appear to be a conscious, embodied, independent entity. It relates the appearance to the reality. But I am not a metaphor.

Similarly, when I address ‘you’, I am speaking/writing to the named individual ‘you’. I would scarcely have the temerity to write to Brahman (and what would be the point?)! And, again, it would not be meaningful to address a metaphor.

If anyone is NOT using the same criteria when they post, could they please do so henceforth! 😉

Communication is only meaningful when an (apparently) independent entity A speaks or writes etc. to another (apparently) independent entity B.  B doesn’t know in advance what A is going to say or write. All is empirically familiar and obvious. There is no need to complicate things unnecessarily. Occam’s razor reigns supreme!

Q.476 – Metaphors

Q: Which metaphor in Advaita is the closest to truth? For example:

1.      If I take the “Snake in rope” metaphor, I must consider that “there-is-something” called rope, which is mistaken for something else (snake). So, in this metaphor, there is a TRUE rope and UNTRUE snake.

2.      If I consider the “Water in Mirage” metaphor, there is the UNTRUE water, but there is no substrate on which this is happening (there is no rope equivalent here).

3.      If I consider the “Dream” metaphor, there is the UNTRUE dream cosmos and dream characters and there is the TRUE dreamer in whose mind all this is happening. So the substrate is the dreamer’s mind – though it is “no-thing” in itself.

The doubt is…
Metaphor 1 gives an impression that there “is-something” out there, but we mistake it for something else and give it name & forms etc.

Metaphor 2 gives an impression that there is “nothing out there” and what we see is only inside our mind (the mirage has no substrate out there, but just an error in our mind).

Metaphor 3 is somewhat in the middle of metaphors 1 & 2 – Like metaphor 1, it has a TRUE substrate (the dreamer’s mind) but that substrate itself is just mind stuff (like metaphor 3) which can appear and disappear instantly, following no rules of any sort (rope will follow some rule, but a dream elephant may fly).

So is there something “out there” (some ineffable substrate – say energy) which is misunderstood as something else (say matter, forms) OR there is “nothing-out-there” and whatever we see is only our minds-stuff in motion?

Many thanks to the teachers for having this forum where seekers could ask their questions and helping others see the great truth! Continue reading