Tag Archives: action

Upadesa Sahasri (Part 36)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 35

Part 37

18.201–18.206
The opponent argues that liberation is not realized simply by knowing the meaning of TTA, just as boiled milk-rice cannot be produced from cow dung. Knowing about food is not the same as eating it.
Shankaracharya clarifies that indirect knowledge is produced by understanding sentences regarding the non-Self. However, in the case of the Self, knowledge is immediate, as illustrated by the story of the tenth man.
The opponent argues further that what is conditionally evident cannot be self-evident. If the knowledge of the Self depends on knowing the meaning of TTA, how can Advaita claim that the Self is self-evident?
Shankaracharya maintains that the Self is self-luminous. TTA does not reveal the Self; strictly speaking, the Self reveals TTA. The sentence TTA removes ignorance regarding the ego. When the ego is negated, Self-realization occurs. This is figuratively called the immediate knowledge of the Self.

Continue reading →

Bhagavad Gita- 5.1 and 5.2

Posted on by

Arjuna to Krishna: You praise both renunciation of actions and again their performance Tell me for certain that one which is better between these two (5.1) Krishna: Both renunciation of actions and Karma-yoga lead to supreme good. Between the two, Karma-yoga, however, excels over renunciation of actions (5.2) [Translations by Gambhirananda] It may give a misplaced impression that yoga of karma. i.e., Karma Yoga is superior to yoga of renunciation, i.e., Jnana Yoga.

Chapter 4 has discussed both yoga of action and yoga of renunciation which are opposed to each other as they cannot be practiced by a person simultaneously. Arjuna raises a natural question (5.1), which is better? Krishna says (5.2) that both Karma Yoga and renunciation of action result in supreme good; however, Karma Yoga is superior to mere renunciation. Here, the first renunciation refers to renunciation by a knower of the Self which is distinct from renunciation by a non-knower. Shankaracharya uses the word ‘mere’ which is noteworthy. ‘Mere’ renunciation refers to renunciation by a non-knower who sits quietly and is apparently without action. It is tamasic (18.7) or rajasic renunciation (18.8). Nothing is achieved by mere renunciation (3.4). Therefore, he should first practice Karma Yoga which is stressed in 5.2. It is sattvic renunciation (18.9). By Karma Yoga, he acquires necessary qualifications for Jnana Yoga. Renunciation by a knower is on account of disidentification from non-Self and identification with action-free Self. 

Upadesa Sahasri (Part 16)

Posted on by

Part 15

Chapter 15 Impossibility of one being another

15.1 The essential nature of a jiva is not different from Brahman for otherwise the jiva will be essentially finite. Any amount spiritual practice can bring about only superficial changes and not changes in the essential nature. Finite cannot become infinite. If at all it becomes infinite, it will lose its essential nature which means destruction. In that case, liberation is ruled out. The conclusion is that jiva is essentially Brahman. A doubt may arise. If a jiva is already Brahman, what is the need of a teacher and scriptures? The answer is that they are needed to remove the ignorance about our true identity.

Continue reading →

Upadesa Sahasri (Part 14)

Posted on by

Part 13

14.11 Self alone remains after negating everything. No other effort is needed to know Self. It is self-revealing. The knowledge that Self is Brahman is enlightenment. On enlightenment, the (last) desire for liberation goes away resulting in contentment and peace.

14.12 Shankara advises that a seeker should aspire to think that he is all-pervading Self which is beyond mind and body system (MBS). MBS is the locus of miseries. I, the Self, am beyond miseries. Let the mind and body take action to remove miseries. Nothing can be added or subtracted from Self. How can Self do anything?

Continue reading →

Akhaṇḍākāra Vṛtti

Posted on by

I wrote last week that I have set up a NotebookLM database of all my books and writing for the past 25 years+ and I invited readers to submit any (Advaita!) questions on which they would like to read my ‘considered’ views. I have not had many (any) requests, so hear is another one I made myself. There are a number of points with which I would now take issue and I refer to these after the answer.

Q2. What is the nature of the akhaṇḍākāra vṛtti and how does this affirm that there is nothing else to be done after gaining the intellectual conviction that ‘I am Brahman’? Are there any quotes from Śaṅkara to support this?

A (AI-Dennis): The concept of the akhaṇḍākāra vṛtti is pivotal in Advaita Vedānta as it defines the precise mental event through which Self-ignorance (avidyā) is destroyed, affirming the completeness of the liberation gained through knowledge.

Continue reading →

Questions to AI-Dennis

Posted on by

I have been writing on the subject of Advaita in all its aspects for over 25 years and have written some 13-14 related books. It occured to me that it would be useful to gather together all of my writing (excepting emails, newsgroup/mailing list discussions) and load them into NotebookLM AI. This then enables it to answer questions based solely upon what I have myself written. If readers ask me questions, I can then get AI to answer for me in my own words and I just have to check through and ensure that I (still) agree with the answer!

I think I have now loaded in as much as I reasonably can so am able to give it a try. Here then is my first question:

Q: What is the relevance of the saṃnyāsa lifestyle?

Continue reading →

Being: the bottom line

Posted on by

Since I am busy writing my next book (for a change), I have been looking through the past 25 years of written essays and reviews, looking for material that is not currently available anywhere. And there does seem likely to be quite a bit. So I will be (re-)publishing some of this over the next few months. The first of these is a two-part (quite long!) review of the book by Nathan Gill (who sadly died some years ago), I wrote the review back in 2006 but it is still relevant – possibly more so.

A Review of the book “Being: the bottom line” by Nathan Gill and a critique of Neo-Advaita.

This is a courageous book in that it openly tackles some of the most difficult questions that neo-Advaita has to answer and it doesn’t shy away from those that are phrased in the most challenging ways. It is also a dangerous book, in that it appears, superficially, to be providing satisfactory answers. Nevertheless it is a valuable book, albeit not perhaps for the reasons the author intended, in that there are some very searching questions and Nathan’s attempts to answer them expose the vulnerability of the neo-Advaitin position.

Continue reading →

Eight Upanishads (Topic-wise) Part13

Posted on by

Part 12

5 Preparation

5-7 TaittriyA Upanishad SikshA Valli

5-7-5 Anuvaka 9 The Order and Regularity of Life                                                      Knowledge alone gives the highest goal: liberation. It may follow that duties enjoined by the Vedas and Smritis are useless. It is not so. The responsibilities that contribute to attaining human goals are to be discharged. Physical action is possible without upAsanA, not vice versa. A grihastha leads a lifestyle where physical action is predominant. The Vedas advise that upAsanA must be gradually included in life. During the early part of life, there is an emphasis on physical action when the body is strong and shifts to upAsanA in later life when the body is weaker though the mind is still active. Vanaprastha ashrama is upAsanA -centric.

Continue reading →

Eight Upanishads (Topic-wise) Part 2

Posted on by

Part 1

Chapter 1 General Introduction

1-2 PramAna  VedAnta accepts six sources of knowledge called PramAna. Direct perception: Sense organs directly perceive and give information. Inference: It is an indirect knowledge of something not in the range of direct perception. There is knowledge of fire when smoke is seen. Presumption: Knowledge about something in the past by directly perceiving something different in the present. On seeing a wet street in the morning, there is knowledge of rain in the night. Comparison: It is knowledge of something derived by comparison. There is knowledge of a wild buffalo in the forest because it resembles the buffalo seen in the village. Non-cognition: Knowledge of the absence of something by non-cognition. Seeing a chair in a room gives the knowledge of the absence of an elephant in the room. Testimony: It is knowledge derived from written or spoken words. I read a Physics book Physics to get the knowledge of laws of motion.

Continue reading →

Q.545 – How can I ‘do’ anything?

Posted on by

Q: In Advaita, there’s the prevailing idea that you are not the mind or the body, that everything is just an appearance in the self.  If I think of myself as just the conscious observer, how can I bring myself to take action and get rid of non-beneficial thoughts. If I am not the mind, then how can I tell the mind to eat healthier if that is just a thought in and of itself? Even the idea of enlightenment must happen at the level of the mind, but if conceptually I am not that, how do I go about trying to change perspectives and recurring mindsets?

Finally, if there is no free will, then how can one take action and try to grow as a person? It’s hard for me to make myself do things when I can just say, “Since there is no free will, I (consciousness) can’t really do anything because I am not the mind.”

Continue reading →