Q. 557 Detaching from the mind

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.

The world, and all of the body-minds are not real in themselves. They are simply name and form of the same Consciousness that you are. But they are seen. They are empirically real, unlike dreams which are only in your own mind. The world is vyavahāra; the dream is pratibhāsa. Both are mithyā, which means depending on something more fundamental for their existence, just as the ring is dependent on the gold for its existence.

Gauḍapāda says (kārikā 4.45): “The appearance of birth, the appearance of motion, and the appearance of object are all Consciousness, which is birthless, motionless, non-material, tranquil and non-dual.” Universe (including mind) is called vastvābhāsam – the appearance (ābhāsa) of object (vastu). Śaṅkara comments:

Consciousness, appearing to be a substance with attributes, is said to be vastvābhāsam, just as it is said that Devadatta is fair, tall etc. The ultimate reality appears as though to be born, to move around, and to have attributes like being tall, fair; all these like Devadatta. But in reality, Consciousness is neither born nor moves, nor is it a substance.

12 thoughts on “Q. 557 Detaching from the mind

  1. Dear Dennis,

    On the lines of your recent Conversations with ChatGPT on ‘avidyA’ (Ignorance), ‘pratiyogi’ (Counter-correlate), I think the next topic for exploration could be ** ‘Enlightenment’ is an event in the mind … **

    regards,

  2. Dear Dennis,

    No, Dennis; the topic I suggested was not “as opposed to” any you may or may not have lined up for querying on ChatGPT.

    I felt that it could by itself be worthwhile for a deeper probe based on what Shankara says in his bhAShya-s. [For, at least one AI system that I inquired on replies that ” according to Shankara’s commentaries (particularly his bhāṣya on the brahma sūtras and Upaniṣads), enlightenment (mokṣa) is not an event in the mind.”]

    regards,

  3. Apologies, Ramesam! This is a problem I have with my wife – if there are two ways of interpreting something, we always think the opposite to each other!

    What I meant was: if enlightenment is NOT an event in the mind, what is it?

    Best wishes,
    Dennis

  4. Thanks Dennis.
    It’s comforting to know that I am not alone facing such situations! LOL

    I copy below the response I got from the AI. I think it answers adequately your question, viz., “if enlightenment is NOT an event in the mind, what is it?”

    1. Response in the First Round:

    “[A]ccording to Shankara’s commentaries (particularly his bhāṣya on the brahma sūtras and Upaniṣads), enlightenment (mokṣa) is not an event in the mind. In fact, this would be fundamentally contrary to his core philosophical position.

    According to Shankara, what we call ‘enlightenment’ is actually the recognition (pratyabhijñā) of what has always been the case – that one’s true nature is pure consciousness (brahman) which is never bound or limited by the mind in the first place. The mind belongs to the realm of māyā (apparent reality) while one’s true nature transcends the mind entirely.

    Shankara consistently emphasizes that mokṣa is not:
    1. Something to be produced (utpādya)
    2. Something to be obtained (āpya)
    3. Something to be modified into (vikārya)
    4. Something to be refined or purified (saṃskārya)

    For Shankara, if enlightenment were an event in the mind, it would be temporary and conditioned – but mokṣa by definition must be eternal and unconditioned. The mind is an object that appears and disappears (in deep sleep for instance), while consciousness is the eternal subject that witnesses even the mind’s presence or absence.

    So rather than being an event in the mind, enlightenment in Shankara’s view is the recognition that one was never really bound by the mind to begin with – similar to the rope-snake analogy where the “transformation” of the snake into a rope is not a real event but simply the removal of a misapprehension.”

    2. Response in the Second Round:

    “For Shankara, mokṣa cannot be an event in the mind because:
    1. The mind itself is mithyā (apparent reality)
    2. Any event in the mind would be temporal and thus not liberation
    3. The mind belongs to the realm of duality while mokṣa is non-dual

    What appears as “realization” at the empirical level is not the actual mokṣa – it’s only its reflection in the empirical realm. True mokṣa is the recognition that one was never bound to begin with.”

    regards,

  5. I would need to take this further, Ramesam. Remember that the AI model does not actually ‘understand’ any of this. Accordingly, it is much more prone to being misled by the wrong connotation of key words. This is precisely the context of the ‘Confusions’ books.

    Here, it is effectively conflating the terms ‘enlightenment’ and ‘liberation’. MokSha mean the latter and, indeed, it is always the case.

    The point is that the seeker does not initially know this. The purpose of the teaching of Advaita is to convey this knowledge. And the assimilation and conviction of this takes place in the mind. Where else could it take place?

    Since you have started, why don’t you take this further with AI and see if it accepts this viewpoint?

    Best wishes,
    Dennis

  6. Just a word of caution – these AI models will source from other commentaries (including this site) and other Advaita teachers (without necessarily knowing which are traditional vs neo, etc)

    I have started using perplexity ai, which gives source references, so this makes it evident!

    When I was playing with it, one source it drew from is I think relevant for this post:

    https://www.advaita-vision.org/brihadaranyaka-2-4-12-13/

    Best
    venkat

    • Dear Venkat,

      Thank you for the “caution” about the AI models and for introducing Perpexity.ai. I did not know about Perplexity.ai previously.

      The data “sources” of these AI systems do seem dubious sometimes — a point made by Dennis too. Hope the Managers of these systems will train them to “sift” their data sources.

      Thanks also for the lnked article from brihadAraNyaka. Quite timely.

      regards,

  7. Yes, thanks for that Venkat – I hadn’t heard of Perplexity-AI either. Sounds good. I must have now asked ChatGPT for at least a dozen references where Shankara talks about a topic. In every case, it comes back with a definite location and summary. It will even quote the Sanskrit if you ask it. Then you try to find it and fail – because it does not exist. I read a review of Perplexity last night and discovered that this ‘feature’ of AI is called ‘hallucinating’! I actually laughed-out-loud when I read that.

    There do seem to be many AI models around now. Crypto is on the increase, Trump is drilling for oil and Heathrow maybe expanding again. What hope is there for the climate??

    Best wishes,
    Dennis

    • What could go wrong? AI consumes huge amounts of energy, which means decarbonisation goals are put way back. And the UK is going to be an AI hub, even though we have to import our gas. . . But not to worry, AI might hallucinate a technological solution to climate change 😉

      BTW, is Brahman a super-AI model that is hallucinating us?

  8. In Tripura Rahasya liked by Ramana the non-dual idea is offered; the world is only unreal if taken as an independent, free standing reality. As you say, the mind is a starting place, a mind imbued with a rational non-dual view or one established by faith. Naturally there will be an intensification of conviction.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.