Ignorance Goes, but mAyA remains – Revisited

Posted on by

Ask any teacher of Non-duality the question “Why we see a multiplicity of objects instead of Oneness in the world?,” pat comes back the reply that “It is all due to mAyA, an inexplicable and indefinable power of the Creator God, Ishwara. mAyA is so much reified and deified in some texts that they present it almost as a given “fact.” They romanticize mAyA; sing paeans in lilting poetry as a Divine Goddess vested with special powers – that of concealment of the Truth and projection of an unreal world filled with variegated objects (e.g. 110-111, vivekacUDAmani).

But Gaudapada in his kArikA-s on mANDUkya and Shankara in his commentary on them regard mAyA to be no more than an explanatory artifact. Gaudapada mentions ‘mAyA‘ in the sense of a magic-show in the last chapter of his kArikA-s. For example: Continue reading →

Bhagavad Gita (Topic-wise) Pt 12

Posted on by

Part11

6 Moksha
6-1 Preparation
6-1-1 Preparatory Knowledge
6-1-2 Preparatory Action
6-1-2-6 Rituals

6-1-2-7 Self-effort 3(33,34), 6 (5 to 7)
Inherent nature, i.e., nature one is born with, and self-effort are two important factors in human life. Nature is an aggregate of impressions of virtue, vice, etc. acquired in past lives and which become manifest in the current life. 3(33) says that all creatures behave according to their nature. If this is so, there would be doubt about the purpose of scriptural teaching in the absence of personal effort. To dispel it, it is said in 3(34) that a person engaged in scriptures should not come under the influence of love and hatred despite his nature impelling otherwise. When he controls love and hatred with the help of their opposites, then he is in sync with scriptural teachings, and he is not solely led by his nature.

Continue reading →

The World and the One ‘brahman’

Posted on by

mANDUkya Upanishad’ mantra 7 tells us that anything that is sensed, perceived, experienced or even thought about or conceptualized is not brahman. Consequently, Sages admit that “Advaita philosophy is incommunicable” (7, mANDUkya); “We do not know how to teach Advaita,” (1.3, kena). But at the same time, the Upanishadkars exhort us that “You should know It.”

Shankara too urges us in the Gita bhAShya (Ch 6, 9, 15.3, BGB;) and also at kaTha bhAShya that we should make every effort to attain the Knowledge of the Self in this life itself because “here alone it is possible to have a vision of the Self as clearly as (seeing) the face in a mirror, whereas this is not possible in other worlds apart from that of brahmA, which, however, is difficult to attain” (2.6.4, kaTha UB).

Hence, the teaching of Advaita philosophy is done adopting an apophatic approach, via negativa. It is the famous “na ( = not) (stated) iti ( = thus); not (stated) thus; na ( = not) (stated) iti ( = thus),” or neti; neti (2.3.6, BU); thus denying anything said about the Self is NOT It! Continue reading →

Q.539 Māyā and Brahman

Posted on by

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

A (Martin): 1) Māyā is not an attribute of Brahman which, as you say, is attributeless. Māyā 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 Ṥaṅkara’s Advaita Vedanta, māyā is tied in with the concept of ‘ignorance’ (avidyā), which is prior to it; that is, avidyā is the necessary condition for māyā. Once ignorance has been annihilated by knowledge, māyā disappears. That means that from the higher (of two) point of view māyā does not exist. This is contrary to most post-Ṥaṅkara authors, with the exception of Sureśvara, who taught that māyā 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 Ṥaṅkarian position.

Continue reading →

Shankara Answers Beginner’s Questions

Posted on by

Shankara bhagavat pAda, a committed and earnest Commentator (bhAShyakAra) that he was, rarely, if at all, deviates from the immediate text on which he was making his explanatory observations. Fortunately for us, he relaxes, with compassion, his own self-imposed constraints of being a strict commentator and provides a detailed exposition on the subject matter occasionally. One of such instances is his 27-page long commentary at 2.1.20, brihadAraNyaka Upanishad (BUB). It comes before taking up the dense and meaty philosophical discussions on “the Highest Wisdom of Vedanta” beginning at the Fourth section, called Maitreyi brahmaNa. He provides answers to many typical questions that some one new to Advaita philosophy is likely to ask. I trust Shanakara’s replies help satiate the curiosity of the novice. We shall recapitulate below some of the questions and Shankara’s answers thereon. Continue reading →

Bhagavad Gita (Topic-wise) Pt 11

Posted on by

Part10

Part 12

6 Moksha
6-1 Preparation
6-1-1 Preparatory Knowledge
6-1-2 Preparatory Action
6-1-2-5 Asuri Sampati 16(6 to 21,23)
Human birth is because of karmic balance at the end of the previous birth. Karmic balance is due to Self-ignorance. It continues in the current birth because a person is attracted to a materialistic life of desire and wealth and does not make efforts for spiritual growth. Scriptures are meant to guide people to lead a dharmic life on way to moksha. It is not a sin to pursue desire and wealth within the bounds of dharma. With maturity, it is necessary to make a shift to spirituality.

Continue reading →

Meaning of anubhava

Posted on by

The following forms the beginning of the chapter on ‘Experience (anubhava) and its relation to enlightenment’ from my book ‘Confusions in Advaita Vedanta: Knowledge, Experience and Enlightenment’. This is the first volume of a short series addressing common sources of confusion and explaing them using quotations from (principally) scriptures, Shankara, Gaudapada, and Sureshvara.

The Sanskrit term that is interpreted by many modern teachers as ‘experience’ is anubhava. And indeed ‘experience’ is one of the translations given by Monier-Williams, along with the expansion “knowledge gained from personal observation or experiment”. (Ref. 179) But words such as ‘understanding’ and ‘apprehension’ are also given and these are much closer to the intended meaning.

Continue reading →

Q.538 Duḥkha and Stress

Posted on by

Q: I am currently reading and enjoying ‘The Mind’s Own Physician’ in which Jon Kabat-Zinn mentions that some Buddhist scholars are beginning to translate duḥkha as ‘stress’ rather than ‘suffering’. This is personally significant as the original translation has probably caused me more confusion and difficulty than anything else.

‘Suffering’ seems a harsh appraisal of life, somewhat devoid of hope, rather negative and far from the entirety of my own experience. It suggests an improved situation ‘post enlightenment’ and fails to emphasize the positive benefits of enjoying what time we have – disturbingly at odds with Buddhist ethic and contrary to the non-dual teachings of Advaita.

There is also a danger that if the idea of suffering is repeated often enough it becomes an unhealthy and out of balance baseline perspective. Assertions that the modern era is more stressful than times past tend to go unchallenged.

Continue reading →

Bhagavad Gita(Topic-wise)Part 10

Posted on by

Part 9

Part 11

6 Moksha

6-1 Preparation

6-1-1 Preparatory Knowledge

6-1-1-8: Yog-bhrasta                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Chapter 6 has discussed dhyana yoga-Vedantic meditation called nidhidhyasana- the last stage of jnana yoga- for the benefit of a sincere seeker. His goal is moksha, and he is not interested in wealth or punyas. Arjuna wants to know the fate of a seeker who is sincere but has not completed jnana yoga and is not liberated. He has not earned sufficient punyas to go to Swarga. Arjuna apprehends that such a seeker is lost like scattered clouds. Continue reading →