The Upanishad says:
अनेजदेकं मनसो जवीयो नैनद्देवा आप्नुवन्पूर्वमर्षत् ।
तद्धावतोऽन्यानत्येति तिष्ठत्तस्मिन्नपो मातरिश्वा दधाति ॥ — mantra 4, IshAvAsya upa.
[Meaning: It is unmoving, One, and faster than the mind. The senses could not overtake It, since It ran ahead. Remaining stationary, It outruns all other runners. It being there, MAtarisvA allots (or supports) all activities. (Trans: Swami Gambhirananda).]
We need not look at the Lord and AtmA as mutually contradictory or conflicting. The verbal expression may seem superficially contradictory like an oxymoron, but if one probes deeper, the implied meaning will be clear. Therefore, one may say that AtmA is alone, absolutely steady and unmoving; but also say at the same time that It can move faster than even the mind.
On one hand AtmA can be described to be formless; on the other hand, one may say that AtmA has manifested as the manifold (in a multiplicity of forms). When It is One with no second, It is the AtmA with no adjuncts and when It appears as the world, It is the Lord (Ishwara) having many forms.
The sensory organs are inferior to the mind and the mind is inferior to AtmA. The sensory organs (devAH) run chasing the mind. The mind chases the AtmA. A metaphor that can be invoked to understand this is that of a train running fast in the night. The wagons are behind the engine running as though to capture the engine. The engine is running after the light which is in front and ahead of it on the tracks (the illumination from its headlights).
The illumination from AtmA (Consciousness) is up ahead of all. The mind is, like the engine, running to capture that illumination. The eye, ear etc. senses are, like the wagons behind the engine, running to capture the mind. But they are unable to because the adjuncts can never really capture the AtmA as long as they keep running and chasing It. However, they can capture if they stop running. That’s because AtmA is stable and not running. AtmA is already at Its destination wherever It is. Though It may appear to be moving, It is not actually moving at all!
AtmA is inaccessible to the mind which is always in motion. The senses can never grasp the AtmA for they are far behind the mind. The take home message is that we can understand (and know) the unchanging and immutable essence of the Reality (AtmA) when we are steady and unmoving. In fact, all the activities (movements) that are supported by the life-force happen because of the presence of the unmoving AtmA.
The Upanishad further says:
तदेजति तन्नैजति तद्दूरे तद्वन्तिके ।
तदन्तरस्य सर्वस्य तदु सर्वस्यास्य बाह्यतः ॥ — mantra 5, IshAvAsya upa.
[Meaning: That moves, That does not move; That is far off. That is very near; That is inside all, and That is outside all.]
AtmA moves; It does not move. It is the one that pervades all the outer worlds; It is also the one that permeates our entire world. Hence, give up the fanciful imagination that we will reach some heaven after death.
Whatever is hoped for to be present over there in the heavens, That Itself is available right here and now. It is one substance only and the same exists both inside and outside of all things. The implied meaning is that It is inside as the Knower (Awareness) and outside as the known (objects). It exists as the individual (jIva) inside and as the world (jagat) outside. We mistakenly consider ourselves to be different from the world. The Upanishad conveys to us that the individual inside and the world outside are both one and the same, namely, the supreme AtmA Itself.
Once we are able to notice everything that IS is AtmA, there can be no reason to be afraid of anything. There is no ‘other’ to be scared of.
The ingestion and internalization of the above core message of the Upanishad may take place in two steps. The first step is to understand the truth indirectly (at an intellectual level). The next step is im-mediated and direct realization of the Truth in one’s own anubhava (experiential understanding).
Using words like Ishwara or the Lord may give us the feeling that one is talking about something that is remote and far removed from us. In contrast, the word AtmA may sound to us that It is something close and inside us. It is so because AtmA connotes the sense of “me” or “I” which is never apart from us.
All of us experience the sense of “I” and we never have a doubt about that experience. But the problem with us is that each of us experience the I, “as though it is exclusively ours.” We do not experience it as the Universal Oneness which is present in all. The question now is how do we “realize” the Universal form of “I.”
The Upanishad takes us at this point from theory to praxis. It speaks of a 3-step process.
यस्तु सर्वाणि भूतानि आत्मन्येवानुपश्यति ।
सर्वभूतेषु चात्मानं ततो न विजुगुप्सते ॥ — mantra 6, IshAvAsya upa.
[Meaning: He who sees all beings in the very Self, and the Self in all beings, feels no hatred by virtue of that (realization).]
यस्मिन्सर्वाणि भूतानि आत्मैवाभूद्विजानतः ।
तत्र को मोहः कः शोक एकत्वमनुपश्यतः ॥ — mantra 7, IshAvAsya upa.
[Meaning: When to the man of realization all beings become the very Self, then what delusion and what sorrow can there be for that seer of Oneness? (Or—In the Self, of the man of realization, in which all beings become the Self, what delusion and what sorrow can remain for that seer of Oneness?). (Trans: Swami Gambhirananda).]
We normally see a world to be present ‘out there,’ i.e. external to ourselves. Sometimes we see the world internally also (in dreams and in our imagination). We see the gross form of the world in our awake state. We see its subtle form in our dreams and imagination.
The Upanishad says that whoever desires to realize the AtmA, should see everything, gross or subtle, as AtmA only. That means every object should be seen as AtmA. The names, forms and actions are the particulars. One should see the Universal and not the particulars.
For instance, say, there are several gold ornaments. The names, shapes and functions of each of the ornaments are the particulars. Gold is common to all of them. Every one of them is gold only. Hence gold is the Universal. Instead of seeing them as the separate individual ornaments, one should notice the gold in all. We have to change our habitual mode of seeing things. Once we re-orientate our viewing to this new understanding, the entire world will appear as AtmA only.
It is similar to what Bhagavad-Gita tells us.
कर्मण्यकर्म यः पश्येदकर्मणि च कर्म यः ।
स बुद्धिमान्मनुष्येषु स युक्तः कृत्स्नकर्मकृत् ॥ – 4.18, Bhagavad-Gita.
[Meaning: He who can see inaction in action, who can also see action in inaction, he is wise among men, he is devout, he is the performer of all action. (Translation: A. Mahadeva Sastry).]
Shankara explains in his commentary at the above verse that we should be able to see all action as “inaction.” We should also see inaction as action. Sitting silently without a word, though appears to be inaction, is actually an action. Even when one is performing an action, one should know that s/he is not doing anything.
(To Continue … Part 4 (Isha))
“The Upanishad says that whoever desires to realize the AtmA, should see everything, gross or subtle, as AtmA only. That means every object should be seen as AtmA. The names, forms and actions are the particulars. One should see the Universal and not the particulars. ”
Do you really agree with this?
Various objects in dream disappear upon waking. The paragraph above implies that objects to a jnani still appear but he sees only Brahman – tree is Brahman, stone is Brahman…….
What i meant above was pulling the entire rug vs removing one object at a time.
Dear Ramesam,
I would only take issue with your ‘two steps’ to realization. I’m sure this must have come up before but here is my take on the matter:
The common belief that śravaṇa-manana is “only intellectual” is a significant misconception that often leads seekers toward dualistic Yoga practices rather than Advaita. Enlightenment is not an experience, which by definition has a beginning and an end, but the permanent removal of Self-ignorance through Self-knowledge.
The term anubhava is frequently mistranslated as “experience”, but a more accurate definition in traditional Advaita is “immediate knowledge”. We do not need a new experience of the Self because we “experience” the Self all the time as the very Consciousness enabling all perception; we simply lack the knowledge to recognize it.
Traditional Advaita asserts that śabda pramāṇa (scriptural testimony) is uniquely capable of delivering direct (aparokṣa) knowledge of an already-present reality. This is illustrated by the “tenth man” story, where hearing the words “you are the tenth” provides instantaneous, direct realization without requiring a subsequent “experience”. If the truth is not realized upon hearing, it is not because the knowledge is “indirect”, but because mental obstacles or habits (pratibandha-s) remain. The remedy is further śravaṇa-manana to clear these doubts, not an “experiential” second step. Liberation is an already accomplished fact, not a result produced by future action or meditation.
In short, there are no “two steps” of different categories; there is only the progressive removal of ignorance until the self-evident truth is recognized.
I know that you do not actually use the word ‘experience’ but ‘experiential understanding’ certainly implies that.
Best wishes,
Dennis
Vijay,
As you are aware, the IshAvAsya Upanishad comes in the midst of ‘karmakANDa’ and therefore, still carries with it a heavy flavor of action. Its terminology too, accordingly, differs from other Upanishads, as explained by Shri YSR in the 5th Part of this Series. For example, it uses the word Ishwara more commonly for brahman, vidyA for meditation, avidyA for action and so on. it addresses the issue of “Longevity” rather than conquering ‘death’ and attaining immortality.
In consonance with this trend, Shri YSR suggests a sAdhana krama (praxis) for a seeker for the realization of the Universal sat-cit (Beingness-Knowingness) in all that s/he perceives. Such sAdhana-s are particualry suggested for the benefit of the Intermediate and Slow learners (who are, in fact, the main target audience for the Upanishadic teaching). At this stage, the seeker has not yet realized the Self (that I am brahman) and is still “seeking” Oneness.
regards,
Dear Dennis,
I am in complete agreement with the essence of what you say above.
Nonetheless, I would appreciate your consideration of the following points:
Regarding the ‘2-Step’ model:
When teachers utilize a two-step model for Self-realization, I guess that they are not suggesting the existence of two categorically distinct and progressive stages in the actual “realizational process” itself. Rather, these steps help a purely explanatory function for pedagogical purposes. This methodology is employed even by Bhagavan Krishna (7.2, BG: jnAnam te aham savijnAnam) and the Brihadaranyaka (4.4.21, BU: vijnAya prajnAm kurvIta). Shri YSR, for instance, makes it to be three steps in the subsequent section of his Talk.
Regarding the “Tenth Man” story:
This illustration suffers from an inherent limitation when used to describe immediate and direct Self-realization. Crucially, both the instruction (‘You are the tenth’) and the subsequent realization (‘I am the Tenth’) occur entirely within the dimensions of time-space-causation. This differs fundamentally from the Vedantic instruction, where ‘tat tvam asi’ is articulated within the realm of duality, yet the realization ‘I am Brahman’ inherently transcends the phenomenal world of time and space.
Shankara highlights this very issue in his commentary on the Aitareya Upanishad, recounting the anecdote of a dull servant (who could not grasp that he was only a human being even when explicitly told, “You cannot but be a man”).
Shankara posits that many of us fail to internalize the realization that “I am Brahman” even after receiving direct instruction from a qualified teacher. He suggests that the cause may not merely be the completeness of one’s prior preparation; an indefinable X-factor (divine Grace) is also at play (18.56-58; 18.62, BG).
Re: shravaNa-manana-nididhyAsana:
Shankara holds at 2.4.5, BUB that all the three happen simultaneously for Self-realization, though quite a few teachers present them as though they are different phases.
Link: https://www.advaita-vision.org/nididhyasana-as-shankara-explains-1-2/
regards,
Dear Ramesam,
You say that: “This differs fundamentally from the Vedantic instruction, where ‘tat tvam asi’ is articulated within the realm of duality, yet the realization ‘I am Brahman’ inherently transcends the phenomenal world of time and space.”
I have to argue that the realization that ‘I am Brahman’ takes place in the mind. Where else could it take place? The fact is that, quite simply, I am ALWAYS Brahman, since there is ONLY Brahman. The problem for the aj~nAnI is that this fact is not known. Teaching has to be given until it is realized (by the mind) to be true. All of this necessarily takes place in “the phenomenal world of time and space.” It is only ‘in reality’ that one might say that ‘nothing ever happens’. (Although of course one could not say anything at all ‘in reality’!)
Perhaps you could make the distinction as being that between someone still feeling as though they are living out their life in the world and one who knows without the shadow of a doubt that the world is mithyA.
Those still in the ‘living in the world’ belief may well also believe that Ishvara is managing the laws, including that of karma dictating samsara etc. In that case, they may also believe in a ‘grace’ that is needed to tip the balance. All mithyA of course in the final realization.
Best wishes,
Dennis
Dear Dennis,
You may be right with the ‘model’ you propose. A couple of concerns I have are as follows:
If the “locus” of Realization lies within the mind, the coordinates of the “locus” in time and space must be (i) locatable and (ii) determinable (because the mind itself is a creature in time and space).
Secondly, the scriptures and Shankara make it absolutely clear that at the very moment of understanding the instruction, Realization of the Self too happens (tat samayameva) without any lag effects. IOW, what has been a ‘particular and finite mind’ thus far, loses simultaneously both its finiteness and particularity with nescience ending.
Invoking the concept of akhaNDa AkAra vRtti, mind’s nature (AkAra) alters from being khaNDa (finite piece) to akhaNDa (Infinite Oneness). Expressed in a different way, it will not continue to be individuated limited mind. One cannot call it ‘mind’ anymore in the usual sense of the term. Hence, finite vRtti-s (bits and pieces of information) like “Now I know the world is false” etc. cannot occur within an unbound Infinite mind.
As you put it, “The problem for the aj~nAnI is that this fact is not known. Teaching has to be given until it is realized (by the mind) to be true. All of this necessarily takes place in “the phenomenal world of time and space.” ”
There cannot be any dispute on this. All the teaching has to take place in duality. But once the “Realizational Understanding happens,” things begin to be tough to conceptualize and messy to verbalize.
regards,
Dear Ramesam,
We may not know precisely where the individual’s mind is located but we do know that, according to the initial teaching of Advaita, the subtle and causal bodies transmigrate until Self-knowledge is acquired. You will have to enlighten me (!) as to where the scriptures and Shankara state that the mind “loses simultaneously both its finiteness and particularity” on enlightenment. Certainly that particular mind realizes that ‘I am Brahman’ but then it always has been Brahman so nothing can actually change (Brahman being changeless). What apparently changes is simply that, previously, I did not know this and now I do. (All the orther minds of course continue in their ignorance.)
The mind of the j~nAnI continues until that body-mind exhausts its prArabdha karma. (I can locate the places where Shankara says this if you want.) And this mind continues to function, even though its responses might differ from those prior to enlightenment.
Best wishes,
Dennis