Clearing some myths about mithyā

Posted on by

Adi Shaṅkara’s vision of advaita is most succinctly expressed in the following pithy statement: Brahma satyam, jagan-mithyā; jīvo-brahmaiva nāpara. (Brahman is Absolute Reality, satyam; the universe is dependent reality, mithyā; the individual, jīva, is none other than Brahman itself).

In this statement there is one word that has caused great confusion by being wrongly understood – much of the critical rejection of advaita (as well as the fundamentalist stand on non-duality adopted by some Western advaitins) can be avoided if this word is understood correctly. The word is mithyā.

Traditional advaita vedānta postulates two orders of reality: absolute and relative. The name given to the relative order of reality is mithyā, commonly mis-translated as ‘illusion’. Whereas the neo-advaita teachers accept only one level as valid (i.e. satyam), vedānta accommodates both levels. In the Taittiriya Upaniṣad it talks about two birds on the same tree: one enjoys the fruit of the tree, the other just witnesses. The Īśa Upaniṣad says that one should see everything as the Lord, but if that’s not possible due to attachment to the body then one should live a life performing one’s duty. The very structure of the Vedas themselves reflects this acceptance of a two-fold reality and prescribe (in the karma kāṇḍa section) the best way to live the worldly life and in the vedānta section it reveals the vision of truth. Satyam is the absolute level of reality, mithyā is the ‘as though’ real. Continue reading →

Gunas and History (Q. 318)

Posted on by

Q: 1. If the triple gunas are the matrix of the “reality”, aren’t they immutable and therefore truly real? (I have asked this question a while ago in our personal correspondence but I can’t access my old email and it still bothers me…).

2. What is the ontological status of the course of human history? Is it objective, or just a sort of shared mass illusion that somewhat gets transferred from generation to generation? I am aware of the imprecision of my language but hopefully you will understand my meaning.

A to Q1 (Peter):  Guṇas are the subtlest form of manifest matter and, being matter, are thus subject to change. So they are not immutable.

 Guṇas in their unmanifest and undifferentiated form are the triple śakti of māyā: jñạna, krīyā and dravya shakti, the undifferentiated and unmanifest powers of knowledge, action and materialisation. When these move into manifestation they get the names sattva, rajas and tamas. Continue reading →

Sankara Bhashyas vs. Prakarana Granthas – A View

Posted on by

My studies of Advaita, the ancient wisdom of Oneness without a second, began with the small precise Monographs that teach its core philosophical essence without making us feel Advaita to be a remote inaccessible concept.  The Monographs (called Prakarana Granthas) are usually written in simple Sanskrit words without complex or compound sentences pointing the seeker directly to the Ultimate Reality. Some of them contain excellent metaphors “for easy comprehension” of the abstruse and abstract teachings, some others provide tools for one’s own analysis of one’s experience and yet others provide a step by step guidance on the path of Knowledge holding the hand of the seeker gently and with compassion.

Continue reading →

One What?

Posted on by

Neem Karoli Baba, my first guru and inspiration on the spiritual path, famously said, “Sub ek,” which means ‘All one.’  I, as perhaps many of us, who heard and contemplated the phrase throughout the years, had my own concept of what that phrase meant.

Many drops, one ocean; many petals, one flower; many sunrays, one sun; many parts, one whole.

It was not until I encountered the teachings of Vedanta that I came to understand what Maharaji in fact most likely meant by ‘sub ek.’

From the perspective of the teachings of Vedanta, sub ek, does not mean many drops one ocean, what it means is the truth of the drops and the truth of the ocean is one alone.  One water.  The reality of the drops and the reality of the ocean is water.

It means that in reality there are not many separate things that actually exist.  There is only one thing that really and truly exists, upon which everything else depends for its apparent existence, and Tat Tvam Asi, You are That.

So what is this That, this one thing, that everything is and you are?

What is the one common denominator in the world of name and form?

Isness, existence.  In Sanskrit satyam.

Think about it.  Do you ever in your entire experience not exist?

Lord Krishna tells Arjuna in the Bhagavad Gita:  “There was never a time I did not exist, neither you, nor these kings.  Nor will any of us cease to exist in the future.”

(Chapter 2, verse 12)

Things—objects—which exist and are subject to coming and going in terms of time and space—come and go in existence itself.  That existence, which is only one and never ceases, that existence you are.

The recognition of one’s very being as that existence is called ‘jnanam’ or ‘self-knowledge.’   You are That right now, but take your Thatness to be a product of the body/mind, and it isn’t.

Is there ever a time you do not exist?  What is your experience?  You always are.

“Always I am (sat)

Always I shine (chit)

Never at any time am I not beloved to myself (ananda)

Therefore it is established that I am that One alone,

The meaning of the word satchitananda”

Advaita Makaranda (The Nectar of Nonduality) Verse 2

 

Vision Of Truth (sad darshanam) – 1

Posted on by

Ramana Maharshi was one of the greatest philosophers India has seen. One does not need an introduction as much has already been written about him.

He used to direct people to the nature of I, not as the body mind individuality but the very aware-full being. He would relentlessly ask his followers to enquire into the individuality by probing into the innermost recesses with a ‘Who am I’ thought.

This ‘who am I’ should not be taken as a mental, mechanical repetition. Knowledge will not dawn on a person, by forcefully exterminating thoughts and contemplating on ‘Who am I’. Man has become habituated to identifying with the body mind and ‘who am I’ enquiry by an unprepared mind will lead one nowhere.

It can provide a temporary tranquility which can be got even through listening to good music or visiting a hill station. This ‘who am I’ is nothing but claiming the content of our very being as the only truth by negating all that one is not. Once the non self is negated, there is nothing to do. The truth is apprehended as one’s own self. His advice hence was not to get lost in unnecessary thoughts and questionnaires but know oneself, as the truth behind the very ego, the individuality which he thinks he is. One is not the ego, but the very truth behind it.

Continue reading →

Understanding the Mind

Posted on by

A mind is the complex of cognitive faculties that enables consciousness, thinking, reasoning, perception, and judgement — a characteristic of human beings, but which also may apply to other life forms. (Wikipedia)

(in a human or other conscious being) the element, part, substance, or process that reasons, thinks, feels, wills, perceives, judges, etc.: the processes of the human mind. 2. Psychology. the totality of conscious and unconscious mental processes and activities. 3. intellect or understanding, as distinguished from the faculties of feeling and willing; intelligence. (Dictionary.com)

It is generally agreed that mind is that which enables a being to have subjective awareness and intentionality towards their environment, to perceive and respond to stimuli with some kind of agency, and to have a consciousness, including thinking and feeling. (Wikipedia)

———–

Advaita vedanta is frequently criticized by Western advaitins for its intellectual approach. Many things can be said about this but I would like to clarify here what Advaita Vedanta means by mind.

In the West quite a number of functions are subsumed under this one term ‘mind’. From the point of view of vedanta the above definitions are a bit of a mumbo jumbo. Two flaws in particular need to be pointed out. The first is to do with the use of the word ’consciousness’. Whereas Wikipedia says mind enables consciousness, vedanta states the opposite: consciousness enables mind. The other flaw is that there is no differentiation between all the various functions listed: ‘thinking, reasoning, perception, and judgement ‘.

I would like to take up this latter point here. Continue reading →

Tattvāloka at Advaita Vision

Posted on by

Advaita Vision is proud to announce a new collaboration with this prestigious journal from Sringeri Sharada Peetham, one of the four centres established by Sri Adi Shankara in the 9th century. Its principal objective is to spread the traditions and values taught in the scriptures. The journal is issued monthly and showcases Vedic knowledge and wisdom, with articles written in simple style by well-known authors from India and overseas. It has a readership of over 100,000.

Initially, we will be serializing a presentation of upadesha sAhasrI. This is the prakaraNa grantha which is agreed by most experts to have been written by Shankara himself and is an elaborate unfoldment of the essence of Advaita. This presentation is compiled by R. B. Athreya from the lectures given by Swami Paramarthananda in Chennai.

Subscribers to Advaita Vision are also offered special rates on the journal and on books published by Tattvaloka. See the full introduction and part 1 of the new series.

The Karma Yoga Attitude is One of Worship

Posted on by

The other night I saw a film titled ‘One Track Heart.’ It is the story of the evolution of the kirtan singer, Krishna Das, from hippie, to seeker, to devotee of the Indian saint, Neem Karoli Baba, to lost soul, to family man, to drug addict; and then back to devotee and kirtan singer again. It is very much the story of redemption, a theme with which so many of us resonate.

After the movie Ram Dass gave a beautiful and eloquent talk about his own relationship with his guru, Neem Karoli Baba. Ram Dass indicated that it is Maharaji whose messenger he is. 

Ram Dass’s talk reminded me of the teaching of Karma Yoga that Lord Krishna gives to Arjuna in the Bhagavad Gita.

 Continue reading →

Am I awake yet? – Fred Davis

Posted on by

So, am I awake yet, or what?

by

Fred Davis

 

I edit Awakening Clarity, a Nondual blog, and as a result of that I get emails from the four corners of the worlds.  A fair number of them express confusion.  The writer has had some sort of spiritual experience.  And now they want to know where they are on the spiritual map.  One response that arises here when someone asks me something along the line of, “Hey, am I awake, or what?” is exactly this:

“If you’re concerned about whether you’re awake or not, then you’re not–at least not right now.”  Such a question simply would not occur to conscious awakeness. Generally, in fact, given the nature of the situation the person is writing in about, and their choice of language their letter contains convincing evidence that they are not awake right now–at least not in the way they are asking about.  In truth, everyone is always equally awake, so all we are ever talking about is whether or not we are consciously awake, knowingly awake–right now. If we can get clear on this we can see that there’s no room left for higher or lower, better or worse, more spiritual or less.  All of those things spring from beliefs, opinions, and positions (BOPs), which conscious awareness simply doesn’t have.  The apparently separate being it’s working through will certainly have a broad array of BOPs–that’s essentially what a separate being is–but not the awakeness behind it.  You will understand, of course, that language is failing us here; we do what we can. Continue reading →