Tag Archives: brahman

Advaita in the Vedas – Rig Veda 4.26.1

Posted on by
2

If we have read the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, we may have come across the mention of a rishi named Vamadeva, who is said, upon realising Brahman, to have “become Manu and Surya”. They feature in 1.4.10,

In the beginning, Brahman was this. It knew only itself: “I am Brahman.” Through that it became all. Whichever of the devas woke up to it became that; whichever of the rishis, likewise; whichever of human beings, likewise. Seeing that, the rishi Vamadeva realised:  “I have become Manu and Surya too.” 

Why was Vamadeva’s statement considered significant enough to include and explain in the Upanishad? How does saying he has “become Manu and Surya” signify realisation of Brahman?

Continue reading →

Q.550 – Alzheimer’s and Self-knowledge

Posted on by
Reply

Q: I read your answer to a previous question on this topic but am still not clear. What would be the state of all the knowledge of Advaita that I have acquired? E.g. I know now that I am not the doer and I should surrender the fruits of all my actions. But how can I still know this if I wake up with Alzheimer’s?

A: As I intimated in the answer to Q. 383, you have to differentiate between paramārtha and vyavahāra. In reality, there is only Brahman. There is only the appearance of people and world. They are mithyā. Their real substrate is Brahman.

We appear to have a body-mind and that body-mind is subject to disease, decay and death. This applies equally to the body-mind of the jñānī. The difference between the jñānī and the ajñānī is that the former knows that the body-mind is mithyā, while the latter doesn’t. Just as the body may suffer disease or even lose parts through accident, so the brain also is subject to illness and deterioration. Since the mind is associated with the brain, if the brain suffers loss, the mind will also. The memory may deteriorate or fail completely. This is the case irrespective of whether the jīva had previously gained Self-knowledge.

Continue reading →

Q. 548 – God and germs

Posted on by
Reply

Q: It is said that God is everywhere. So God is very much in the human body as well. He is in every cell/atom of a human body. My question is: what is the position /status of God, who is within the body, when  every cell/atom becomes infected? Is infection more powerful than God?

A: God is not ‘in the  human body’. The human body is name and form of Brahman. Similarly, bacteria are name and form of Brahman. There is ONLY Brahman in reality.

At the level of appearance (world etc.), God (Īśvara ) provides an interim explanation of the laws that govern the seeming creation.  One of these laws is that bacteria can infect bodies and affect their working, even to the extent of ‘killing’ them. But God, bodies and bacteria do not exist as separate entities in reality. They are all Brahman.

Continue reading →

Q.547 – Māyā an attribute of Brahman?

Posted on by
3

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

A (Martin): Maya is not an attribute of Brahman. Maya 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 Shankara’s  Advaita Vedanta, Maya is tied in with the concept of ‘ignorance’ (avidya), which is prior to it; that is, avidya is the necessary condition for Maya. Once ignorance has been annihilated by knowledge, Maya disappears. That means that from the higher (of two) points of view, Maya does not exist. This is contrary to most post-Shankara authors, with the exception of Sureshvara, who taught that Maya 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, Shankarian position.

Continue reading →

Advaita in the Vedas – meaning of samudra

Posted on by
1

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 1.164.39

Posted on by
Reply

One of the mantras which captures, not only the essence of Advaita, but also the Vedas themselves, is Rig Veda 1.164.39 —  

“To one who does not know the supreme syllable of the Rig Veda, in which, in heaven, all the devas have taken their seats, what use is the Rig Veda?” 

The mantra also appears in Shvetashvatara Upanishad [1]. The Rig Veda gets its name from the type of mantras it contains, known as a ‘ric‘, which literally means “praise”. These mantras focus on invoking and worshipping devas. “To one who does not know the supreme syllable of Rig Veda,” means not knowing what is being worshipped and invoked, the syllable pervading every word of every mantra. The devas take ‘their seats’ in this syllable because it is their source. Knowing this syllable is to know, not only the source of the devas, but also what the entire Rig Veda is in praise (ric) of. Continue reading →

Q.544 – Evil in the world

Posted on by
1

Q:  I understand that ultimately, from a pāramārthika perspective, Brahman is all that there is, and that ‘that’ reality is what we are/ I am. However, on a vyavahāra level, there is so much suffering. Not my personal suffering – that’s just a small insignificant thing.

My question is: How can one look at war, hunger, poverty, of sentient beings, human and animal and not be affected by it? How can one put it into context?

Advaita seems to say that this universe / world / body-mind complex are all ‘mithyā’; just an ‘appearance’; dream-like, having no independent nature of its own. “Brahma satyam, jagat mithyā, jīvo brahmaiva nāparaḥ”. It seems cold and uncaring, and kind of an easy way out just to brush it off as ‘appearance’ only.

I find it hard to brush of as ‘just an appearance’ all the suffering that I see. How does Advaita rationalize this?

Continue reading →

Advaita in the Vedas – Rig Veda 1.115.1

Posted on by
Reply

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 10.125.8

Posted on by
Reply

Rig Veda 10.125.8 is unique as it is one of the rare occasions in the Vedas where a mantra is spoken in first-person. Such mantras are categorised as directly relating to the Self, where the worshipper is identical with the deity being worshipped and the illusion of separation is seen through.

In Rig Veda 10.125.8, it is declared that,

I breathe forth like the wind, giving form to all created worlds. Beyond the heaven, beyond this earth, so vast am I in greatness.

Continue reading →

Q. 542 ‘Doership’ and Osho

Posted on by

Q: Can you explain why Osho says that Brahman is behind all worldly activities and I am that Brahman, meaning ‘I am the doer’?

This means that the thief, the man who is blinded by lust, the greedy person who is sitting on a pile of money like a snake – all this worldly activity arises from Brahman. If I am this brahman, then I am the one who is stealing through the thief, I am the greed in the greedy person and the lust in the lecher!

Yet religious people say: “You are a thief, you will go to hell” They don’t realize that they are sending themselves to hell!

Can you explain how Advaita can say that ‘I am not the doer ego’, while Osho says if I am brahman then I am the doer?

A: Osho is not a reliable source of teaching according to Advaita. I have read a few of his books and was most impressed by his breadth of knowledge. But his sources are many and he does not always differentiate. There are several non-dual teachings and any may take you to the final understanding. But my own knowledge is now strictly oriented towards traditional Advaita (Gaudapada-Ṥaṅkara-Sureshvara).

Continue reading →