Tag Archives: atman

Ahaṃkāra: The Making of the “I”

Posted on by
Reply

In our daily existence, the word “I” is the most frequently uttered and least understood term in our vocabulary. We use it to signify our successes, our failures, our bodies, and our deepest emotions. Yet, traditional Advaita Vedānta, as systematized by Ādi Śaṅkara, suggests that this “I” to which we habitually refer is not our true nature, but a mental construct known as ahaṃkāra. Understanding the nuances of this term is not merely a linguistic exercise; it is a fundamental requirement for the seeker who wishes to dismantle the illusion of a separate self and realize their identity as the non-dual Brahman.

Etymology and Basic Definition

The word ahaṃkāra is a compound derived from two Sanskrit roots: aham, meaning “I,” and kāra, meaning “making” or “uttering”. Literally, it translates as “the making of the I”. In common parlance, it is often equated with the Western concept of the “ego,” but its Vedantic definition is more precise: it refers specifically to the identification or attachment of the true Self (Ātman) with something else, typically the body, mind, or a social role.

Continue reading →

Jīva

Posted on by
Reply

Understanding the ‘Individual Soul’ in Advaita Vedānta

In our daily lives, we rarely question the existence of the ‘I’ that thinks, feels, and acts. We feel ourselves to be separate individuals inhabiting a body, navigating a world of objects, and carrying a history of personal experiences. Traditional Advaita Vedānta, however, challenges this common-sense view with a radical assertion: ‘Brahman is the reality; the world is not in itself real; the individual self is none other than Brahman’ (brahma satyam, jaganmithyā, jīvo brahmaiva nāparaḥ). To understand this ‘Great Equation,’ we must delve into the definition and nature of the jīva, the term used for the apparent individual soul.

Continue reading →

Ātman and Brahman

Posted on by

The Pillars of Non-Dual Reality

In the vast and rigorous tradition of Advaita Vedānta, two terms stand as the absolute foundation of all spiritual inquiry: Brahman and Ātman. While these words can initially seem like abstract philosophical markers, they are, in fact, pointers to the most intimate and undeniable truths of our existence. Traditional Advaita, as systematized by the great sage Ādi Śaṅkara in the 8th century, is fundamentally a methodology designed to reveal that these two apparently different entities are, in reality, one and the same.

The core message of this teaching is famously summarized by the dictum: brahma satyam, jaganmithyā, jīvo brahmaiva nāparaḥ—”Brahman is the reality; the world is not in itself real; the individual self is none other than Brahman”. To understand this “Great Equation,” we must first clarify what is meant by these two essential terms through the lens of scriptural testimony (śabda pramāṇa) and Śaṅkara’s commentaries.

Continue reading →

The Barren World

Posted on by

In my last post, I promised that I would provide another (clinching?) argument as to why the world does not disappear on enlightenment. Here it is. I use this in the book that I have just completed, which provides lots of examples of how many modern teachers misrepresent the various topics in Advaita, leading the seeker on a merry path that is unlikely to lead to enlightenment. (I have only just sent this to the publisher so it will not appear until the end of next year at the earliest. It will be called: ‘Finding the Self: A Guide Through the Minefield of Modern Advaita’.

The metaphor often used by those who maintain that the word does disappear is the rope-snake. The ignorant traveler sees a snake in front of him and is afraid. When light is shone onto the object, it is revealed as a rope and, they say, the snake ‘disappears’. Similarly, the ignorant seeker initially believes that the world is real. But when the knowledge of Advaita illuminates the issue, the world disappears. (Interestingly, they do not say, by direct analogy, that what was thought to be the world is realized to be Brahman, which would be the true situation.)

Continue reading →

Q.559 – Atman and intellect

Posted on by

Q: Does Atman make use of intellect? Or does intellect function automatically with Atman just being the witness?

This is because, identification with body mind is possible only when we think. Liberation is possible when we overcome this wrong idea. Either way, it appears that Atman makes use of the intellect to get bound or liberated. 

It is said that Atman is ever free and illusion and bondage are concepts only. But this concept can appear to Atman only when intellect is used.

A: First of all, you must clearly differentiate between the ‘absolute reality’ and the ‘empirical’ (worldly) appearance.

 In reality, there is only non-dual Brahman. The world, including ‘you, the person’, is not real in itself. It is ‘name and form of’ Brahman, just as ring and necklace are not real in themselves, being name and form of gold.

Continue reading →

Adhyāropa-apavāda (Part 2)

Posted on by

ADHYĀROPĀPAVĀDA: REVISITING THE INTERPRETATIONS OF SVĀMI SACCIDĀNANDENDRA SARASVATĪ AND THE POST-ŚAṄKARĀDVAITINS (continued)
by Manjushree Hegde
(Read Part 1)

  1. Levels of Deliberated Attribution in the Prasthānatraya Texts

According to SSS, deliberated attribution occurs on three distinct levels in the texts of the prasthānatraya:16 words, sentences, and methodological procedures or prakriyās employed to articulate the inquiry.17 Each of these levels can be illustrated with examples. Consider the level of words. It is notable that most words themselves can be categorized as adhyāropas. Indeed, even a term as fundamental as ‘ātman’ is itself an adhyāropa. In the CUB 7.1.3, Śaṅkarācārya writes:

The term ‘ātman’ serves as a means of identifying it in contradistinction to the corporeal vehicle it inhabits. Moreover, the term is extended to convey the referent which persists after the repudiation of the body and other non-self entities as illusory. Finally, the word is used to reveal what is inexpressible by words.18

The term “ātman” is an adhyāropa; the aim of invoking the term is not its designation per se, but rather to draw attention to its distinctiveness from the nonself entities, to discriminate it from the nonself referents (body, mind, etc.). Loundo writes, “[Understanding it as an adhyāropa] prevents the reification of ātman and, concomitantly, of its negatum, in the process of distinguishing the former from the latter (body, etc.)” (Loundo 2015, p. 72). Similarly, the term “brahman,” derived from the verbal root “bṛḥ, expansion,” is an adhyāropa that seeks to invalidate the potential limitations associated with “ātman” (BUB 2.3.6). Most words of the prasthānatraya texts—including jīva, īśvara, jagat, avidyā, māyā, bandha, mokṣa, and so on—are adhyāropas.

Continue reading →

Adhyāropa-apavāda

Posted on by

Over the next 5 – 6 weeks, I will be posting a paper on this topic by Manjushree Hegde. Martin drew my attention to this and initially contacted her. She forwarded the paper to me and, having read it, my comment was that “it is without doubt one of the most important/authoritative/well-reasoned/persuasive documents on Advaita that I have ever read”. She has kindly agreed for me to post it to the site.

Given the title, it will be no surprise that it is a support for the teaching of Swami Satchidanandendra, but to my mind it goes further than he did in explaining the traditional method for the teaching of Advaita and in criticizing post-Śaṅkara authors for their unjustified distortion of that teaching. (Or at least she brings it out much more clearly for me.) It is an academic paper but suffers much less than most as regards its readability. I would urge any serious seeker to read it if they want to understand the sometimes seemingly contradictory aspects of prasthāna traya and, occasionally, Śaṅkara himself.

ADHYĀROPĀPAVĀDA: REVISITING THE INTERPRETATIONS OF SVĀMI SACCIDĀNANDENDRA SARASVATĪ AND THE POST-ŚAṄKARĀDVAITINS

Manjushree Hegde
Department of Humanities and Social Sciences,
Indian Institute of Technology, Madras

Continue reading →

Advaita in the Vedas – meaning of samudra

Posted on by

We don’t have to dive deep into Advaita to come across the imagery of a drop of water and the ocean or many rivers flowing back to the sea. Whilst it is more prominent now, we find the same idea in classic literature,

Just as flowing rivers go down into the sea,
Leaving name and form behind,
The one who knows, freed from name and form,
Reaches the highest Supreme Self.
— Mundaka Upanishad [1]

The meaning is clear — the rivers are likened to name and form and the sea to the Supreme Self. When Advaita is realised, there is the vanishing of name and form, which is the rivers flowing back to the sea. This is very common imagery for illustrating the truth. What we may not know is that it also features in the Vedas. Continue reading →

Advaita in the Vedas – Rig Veda 1.115.1

Posted on by

The imagery of the Sun features throughout the teachings of Advaita. It appears multiple times in the Upanishads and is first found in the Vedas. But what is its significance and how does it relate to the ultimate reality of Brahman? 

The meaning Rig Veda gives us couldn’t be clearer, 

The Sun is the Self of the whole world both moving and non-moving and rises with its own effulgence in heaven, the earth and atmosphere. [1]

Continue reading →

Advaita in the Vedas – Rig Veda 1.164.20

Posted on by

See the source image

In exploring Advaita, we may have heard of the metaphor of the two birds,

Two birds, inseparable friends, cling to the same tree. One of them eats the sweet fruit, the other looks on without eating. [1]

The two birds are the jiva (the one which eats) and paramatman (the one which looks on without eating). The jiva is bound, attached to karma and its fruits, whereas the paramatman is free from karma. Identified as the jiva, the ‘enjoyer’, we ‘taste’ the fruits of action (pleasure and pain). Identified with the paramatman, we do not experience the duality of pleasure and pain as there is no attachment to them.

The two birds highlight the contrasting ways of conducting action – with or without attachment. In the jiva, we act to attain certain fruits (desirable outcomes) of our actions. Whereas, in the paramatman, we act without any desire or discrimination between success and failure or pleasure and pain. The paramatman is the Advaitin witness, whilst the jiva is still caught up in the dualistic experience of self (subject) and ‘other’ (object).

What we may not know is that the ‘two birds’ metaphor originates from Rig Veda (1.164.20). Continue reading →