Chapter 5 Preparation
5-6 Prasna Upanishad
5-6-4 Prasna 3.10
Though all the questions have been answered, there is an extended answer for the 4th question. How does the prAna leave the body? As death nears, our thoughts are no longer determined by our will. The willpower becomes weak in old age and the latent tendencies become strong. UdAnA pulls subtle and causal bodies and they enter the next body, the blueprint of which is already available.
Q: I am trying to understand what is meant by ‘unmanifest’. Is it:
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 readingChapter 5 Preparation
5-6 Prasna Upanishad
5-6-1 Prasna 2.1 to 2.8
The subtle body is the most important of the three types of body. In the subtle body, PrAna is the most important. There is no gradation in it. All prAnAs are equally sacred, whether of a human or lower living beings. Meditation on Hiranyagarbha, the cosmic subtle body, is a powerful sAdhanA. There is respect for life which purifies the mind.
The second student, Bhargava asks a set of questions. How many divine principles sustain a living being? How many of them talk about their glory? Which one is the greatest? The teacher Pippalada replies that the divine principles are space, air, fire, water, earth, speech, mind, eye, and ear.
(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‘Existence’ of Ignorance
So, does ignorance actually exist; a concrete ‘object’ in space and time? There is the occasional reference in the scriptures (e.g. in the Ṛg Veda) but these speak of related gods, supernatural events and so on. Where such a concept is a part of the pseudo-mystical precursor of Advaita teaching proper, I personally cannot accept it as a valid reference. E.g. I suggest that ‘before light, there was darkness’ does not count as a proof that darkness is an ontologically existent entity!
There are also references in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad and Sureśvara’s Vārttika on Śaṅkara’s bhāṣya but, again, this being the oldest of the Upaniṣads, there is a lot of ‘mystical’ material much pre-dating Śaṅkara’s systematization of the philosophy.
One of the quotations sometimes given to support the contention that scriptures cite ignorance as a real entity is Sureśvara’s Vārttika on Puruṣavidha Brāhmaṇa (1368):
ajñānaṃ saṃśayajānaṃ miśyājānamiti trikam
ajñānaṃ kāraṇaṃ tatra kāryatvaṃ pariśiṣṭayoḥ
This is translated as:
Ignorance, doubt-born knowledge, and mixed knowledge are the triad. Ignorance (ajñāna) is the cause there, while the other two (doubt-born knowledge and mixed knowledge) are effects.
Continue readingChapter 5 Preparation
5-5 Mundaka Upanishad
5-5-1 Mundaka 1.1.3 and 1.1.4
Saunaka, the disciple has appropriately approached the teacher Angi and asks him to teach Brahm-vidyA by knowing which everything is known. Saunaka is a householder. A householder is also entitled to receive Brahm-vidyA. In fact, in grihastha Ashrama one learns from life experiences, becomes mature, and then a seeker of Brahm-vidyA. Vedic tradition considers grihastha Ashrama important for the refinement and maturity of the mind especially for developing dispassion and discrimination. It contributes to spiritual growth under certain conditions. Besides fulfilling personal desires in a dharmic way, a person should contribute to society. Five great sacrifices are meant to contribute to society.
This post marks the end of the ‘Advaita in the Vedas’ series. While the series could continue indefinitely and branch out to the other Vedas, as was initially intended, it would inevitably end up covering already explored ground rather than adding anything new in the context of Advaita.
The series was always meant to provide an overview of Advaita in the Vedas, rather than an in-depth examination. Also, there’s nothing in the Vedas which the Upanishads fail to make more succinct. This means, by finishing the series here, there’s nothing left out or which remains unsaid – it’s all in the Upanishads. Continue reading
*** Read Part 4 ***
‘Darkness’ is also used in the sense of the ‘primordial condition’ of the universe prior to creation. In this sense, it is not metaphorical but part of the ancient Hindu cosmology. It appears, for example, in Ṛg Veda 10.129: “In the beginning, there was darkness (tamas) hidden in darkness. All this was one undifferentiated water.” And the stage of pralaya, when the universe returns to unmanifest form, is sometimes described as darkness. A number of Puranic references could be quoted, e.g. the Vishnu Purana (Book 1 Chapter 1): “At the end of the previous kalpa, there was only one vast ocean, enveloped in darkness (tamas). The universe was in total dissolution, and nothing but the incomprehensible God, Vishnu, existed.” The darkness also symbolized the formlessness prior to creation.
This usage as an existent entity is not really the same as the metaphorical usage in which it symbolizes ignorance or ‘absence of knowledge’.
In the context of discussions on ignorance, then, darkness is not intended to be considered as a real entity but as a metaphor for ignorance. We can see how this is both useful and potentially misleading. If we think of the common ‘concealing’ usage of the word – e.g. we could not see the stalactite in the cave because it was ‘covered by’ darkness – then we are in trouble. If we simply rephrase this to say that, because there was no light in the cave, we could not see the stalactite, there is no problem.
Continue reading5 Preparation
5-3-1 Kaivalya 1 to 4
Sage Asvalanya is a qualified student and he approaches Brahmaji, a qualified teacher, to teach him Brahma-vidyA which is beyond mAyA. It is pursued by noble persons as it destroys all the evils. The Upanishadic message is that both the student and the teacher should be qualified. A student should have four-fold qualifications by practicing karma yoga and upasana yoga. The teacher should have not only knowledge of Brahman, he should be established in Brahman and should possess communication skills. Established in Brahman means his life should conform to Brahm-vidyA. Communication skills are important because Brahman is not an object of knowledge in any conventional sense and is non-communicable and it requires special skills to teach. He should belong to a lineage of teachers and teach what he has learned from his teacher. He is prohibited from imparting a new teaching.
*** Read Part 3 ***
If X is ‘bhāvarūpa’ – really existing, that ought to mean that it exists ‘in all three periods of time’. I would have said that, by that definition, like every other worldly perception or conception, darkness is not real. Every perception or conception is ‘mithyā’, neither ‘real’ (sat), nor ‘unreal’ (asat).
When Śaṅkara talks about ‘pot-absence’, it is obvious that he doesn’t mean that it is a really existing thing, in the way that a chair in the room ‘really exists’. What he means is that, in a discussion in a particular context such as this, we can treat something as ‘effectively existing’ when we both know what we are talking about and there is no confusion.
Suppose that you and I are having an argument about the pot that we believe to be on the table in room X of the museum. Suppose a third person comes in and tells us he has seen this pot on the table in room Y. This being the case, if I go into room X, I could say that I become aware of the absence of the pot. In that sense, it has a sort of meaning to say that the pot-absence exists in room X. But why anyone would want to talk in this way eludes me. I would just say that the pot isn’t in room X so I am prepared to accept the third person’s claim that it is in room Y.
Continue reading