Chapter 6 JnAna and Moksha
6-4 Kaivalya Upanishad
6-4-1 Kaivalya 8 to 10
Brahman is the only reality. The empirical world has borrowed existence. Brahma, Vishnu, Siva, and Indra are manifestations of Brahman. The empirical world beginning with time and unfolding of vital forces and fire are manifestations of Brahman. By knowing that Brahman as Self, one conquers the tyranny of death that batters everyone. By Self-knowledge only, one can cross the scourge of time. There is no method other than this. Karma Yoga, UpAsanA Yoga and Bhakti Yoga are supportive disciplines for purifying the mind for gaining knowledge.
Q. 557 Detaching from the mind
Q: Many modern teachers of Advaita seem to make much of the need to detach ourselves from the mind, or even destroy it, before we can become enlightened. I am confused by instructions such as these. If there is only Brahman, then there isn’t actually any mind (or even world) to separate ourselves from. There are not really even any words to talk about this! Can you clarify?
A: This is a confusion of ‘levels’ of reality.
In reality, there is only Brahman. That is the ‘bottom line’ and nothing more can be said. (Even that is saying too much.)
But the empirical level – appearance of world and you in it – continues until death of the body-mind (i.e. when prārabdha karma expires). Your body-mind is inert (and mithyā), functioning only as a result of non-dual Consciousness ‘animating’ it. You are the Consciousness, not the body-mind.
But Consciousness itself does not do anything, does not know anything – there is nothing else! It is your inert mind, ‘animated by Consciousness’ that appreciates this. ‘Enlightenment’ is an event in the mind, when it realizes all of this to be true.
Continue readingPratiyogin
In connection with my recent series of posts on the topic of whether ignorance is a separately existent entity or simply means ‘absence of knowledge’ (https://www.advaita-vision.org/ignorance-or-absence-of-knowledge/), I am posting the result of my further discussions with ChatGPT on the related topic of ‘pratiyogin’.
You may well never have heard the word before and my view is that this should not overly concern you! It probably means that you have never (attempted to) read anything written by Madhusūdana. The text for which he is probably best known is Advaita Siddhi, which I have mentioned in the Confusions books as being virtually incomprehensible. I recently purchased his commentary on the Bhagavad Gītā (called Gūḍhārtha Dīpikā) because he translates every word prior to his comments. And I was dismayed to find, as early as his commentary on 2.16, the opening:
The asat, unreal is that which is delimited by time (kāla), space (deśa) and matter (vastu); as for instance a pot, which is subject to origin and destruction, is delimited by the (two) times, the before and the after (of its period of existence), it (pot) being a counter-correlative of its antecedent nonexistence (prāgabhāva) and nonexistence after destruction (dhvaṃsābhāva). And so on…
At least Swami Gambhirananda has the grace to translate this translation:
That is to say, the pot does not exist before production and after destruction.
Continue readingUpadesha SahAsri Chapter 19 Conversation between AtmA and the mind (Part 2)
19.14 (part) All controversies should be resolved into something which is finally existent. Take the example of enquiry. Before enquiry there are views and counter views, and they are resolved into a verdict which is the truth or the substratum. Likewise debate about existence and non-existence is resolved in substratum, i.e., AtmA.
19.15 Shankaracharya discards the theory of emptiness. The debate whether the perceived duality is non-existent (empty) or not is possible only if it is accepted that there is something which makes the debate possible.
Appearance and Existence don’t go together
Shri Prasanth Neti Ji writes in his comment on a post at FB-SAV:
Prasanth Neti: When bhAShya (i.e., Shankara’s Commentary) teaches “just like snake is a projection / appearance on rope, world is a projection / appearance in brahman”, the only intention of that teaching is to negate all [or any sort of] existence to snake and world.
It is unfortunate that Post-Sankara Vedantins teach or talk about projection / appearance as a positive phenomenon.
The sole purpose of teaching that ‘snake is only a projection’ is to negate any sort of existence to snake. But it is not at all intended to understand or talk about in the lines of “existence to appearance”!!
shAstra is apavAda-pradhAna (i.e., Vedanta is mainly based on “negation.”) Snake/World is a projection means, it does not exist. Period.
The implied negation is the heart of such teaching and there is no intention either to vouch for ‘appearance as a positively occurring phenomenon’ or to ‘vouch for existence of an appearance’.
Therefore, phrases such as ‘world, body, mind are not independently real but exist only as appearance’ is a misunderstanding of Vedānta – do not use the word existence along with appearance.
‘World, body and mind do not exist but brahman alone exists’ is the only intention when bhAShya teaches, ‘World is a Projection.”
Eight Upanishads (Topic-wise) Part 16
Chapter 6 JnAna and Moksha
6-2 Aitareya Upanishad
6-2-1 Aitareya 1.3.13 and 1.3.14
Ai 1.3.12 in chapter 5 has described the entry of Brahman in the body of jivA. The embodied Brahman is jivAtmA. The sentient jivA is a combination of consciousness (AtmA) and mind-body. And AtmA is not different from Brahman. It is an Upanishadic Great Statement ( Mahavakya). A jivA however forgets this fact due to the veiling power of mAyA. It is Self-ignorance. Sometimes, a jivA because of his punyAs earned in previous lives and the current life can get a qualified teacher who out of compassion imparts Brahm-knowledge. The student realizes Brahman as ‘id’ meaning ‘this’, i.e., his Self. The Upanishad calls the knowledge Idandra. As an adorable entity is not called by its direct name, the Upanishad uses the name Indra (not the deity Indra). The message is that by performing virtuous deeds as per scriptural injunctions, a jivA will one day develop mental maturity to know the futility of worldly goals and turn to spirituality and get Self-knowledge with the blessing of a teacher.
Any Questions?
At the time of writing, there are 556 questions that I, and other bloggers, have answered over the past 19 years. See https://www.advaita-vision.org/questions-and-answers/. Many topics have been covered and there is a good chance that, if you have a specific concern, then it will have been covered here. I also compiled the first 469 of these into a book – ‘Answers… to the Difficult Questions’ – see https://www.advaita-vision.org/answers/ – and added introductions and summaries to the overall topics. But I cannot believe that the visitors to this site no longer have any further questions! So please feel free to write to the ‘Contact-Us’ link at the bottom of the page if you have a particular problem (in Advaita!) that you would like answered.
Ignorance or Absence of Knowledge? – 7 (Final)
*** Go to Part 6 ***
The following question is concerned with the notion that ‘absence of a thing’ is an existent entity (another strange notion of post-Śaṅkara texts). This also formed an aspect of the discussions on the Advaitin List. It begins with my asking ChatGPT to translate the Devanagari text that formed part of the post by Sudhanshu on 6th Dec. 2024.
Dennis: Could you translate this argument into understandable English, please:
चतुर्विधानामभावानाम् , घटस्येतरेतराभावो घटादन्यो ष्टः — यथा घटाभावः पटादिरेव, न घटस्वरूपमेव । न च घटाभावः सन्पटः अभावात्मकः ; किं तर्हि ? भावरूप एव । एवं घटस्य प्राक्प्रध्वंसात्यन्ताभावानामपि घटादन्यत्वं स्यात् , घटेन व्यपदिश्यमानत्वात् , घटस्येतरेतराभाववत् ; तथैव भावात्मकताभावानाम् ।
AI: Here’s a simplified translation of the argument in understandable English:
We are discussing four types of “absence” (*abhāva*), starting with **mutual absence** (*itaretara-abhāva*). For example, the absence of a pot (*ghata*) is not the same as the pot itself. The absence of a pot is something else entirely, like a cloth (*paṭa*) or another object. In other words, the absence of the pot is not the nature of the pot itself—it is identified with something else, like the presence of the cloth.
Continue readingUpadesha SahAsri Chapter 19 Conversation between AtmA and the mind (Part 1)
Introduction It is a ‘dialogue’ between AtmA and the mind. AtmA is free from action. As such the dialogue is figurative. Nevertheless, it is a unique method of nidhidhyAsanA which is the third phase of jnAna yoga after sravan and manan. The aspirant has clear knowledge of AtmA and he needs to assimilate it to make it a living knowledge. The aspirant knows that his essential nature is consciousness which is different from the mind. The locus of knowledge is the mind. It is a peculiar situation where the mind tells itself that the real nature of the aspirant is consciousness which is different from the mind. The mind has to further tell itself that consciousness is changeless and eternal whereas the mind is mithya. It is as though the mind splits in two parts, one part takes the role of AtmA, the subject and the other part is the mind, the object. AtmA uses the mind to talk to the mind and while talking, considers Itself different from the mind. There are Upanishad’s sayings that a knower of Brahman is Brahman and AtmA is Brahman. A Self-realized person and AtmA are used interchangeably. In some verses, there are repetitions of the same idea. Repetition is not a defect when the teachings are complex and are to be assimilated.
Bhagavad Gita 3.10 and symbolism of the cow
There are some translations of shloka 3.10 of the Bhagavad Gita which look something like,
Prajapati, when creating beings and sacrifice, said, “By this, may you receive the bountiful cow whose milk satisfies all desires.”
As a result, the significance and meaning of the verse is not necessarily as clear.