Tag Archives: brahman

Quintessence of 10 Upanishads – 42 (brih 4)

Posted on by
Reply

[Part – 41 (brih 3)]

Shaṅkara uses the term saṁsthAnam to point to the configuration or arrangement through which a form becomes recognizable. From the standpoint of Advaita, the diverse configurations we encounter in the world constitute the structural display of the one underlying Reality. Names and forms distinguish one appearance from another, but they do not possess an independent existence apart from that Reality.

This is the essential shift in vision that the teaching seeks to bring about: from seeing a world of separate things to recognizing the one Reality appearing as all things. The forms may differ, but their apparent multiplicity does not overturn the non-dual truth.

Sage Yajñavalkya tells us that our bodies are like salt crystals—condensed forms of the essence of the Ocean of Consciousness. When salt is dissolved in water, its finite, solid form disappears, and it becomes indistinguishable from the water. Likewise, the teaching invites us to dissolve the apparently solid boundaries of the body and other objects, understood as condensations of Consciousness, back into Consciousness itself. The scripture urges us to bring about this dissolution through understanding before death puts an end to the body.  Continue reading →

Mandukya Upanishad and Karika (Part 5)

Posted on by
1

Part 4

Chapter II – Vaitathya Prakarana (On Unreality)

Shankaracharya introduces the chapter as follows:
“In consonance with such Vedic texts as, ‘One only, without a second’ (Ch. VI. ii. 1), it has been said that duality ceases to exist after realization (Karika I.18). That is, however, only a scriptural assertion. But this falsity can be confirmed even through reasoning. This is why the second chapter (of the Karika) commences.”
(Translation by Swami Gambhirananda, Eight Upanishads, Advaita Ashrama)

Continue reading →

Name and Form

Posted on by
1

Manifestation/Appearance – A view | Advaita Vision elicited some discussions on ‘name and form’. In this sense, the present post is a continuation.

In Vedantic terminology, the expression ‘name and form’ is often used in the context of the world. The world is of name and form.

On the other hand, the statement–the world is the name and form of Brahman– could be misunderstood to mean that Brahman itself consists of name and form.

Shankaracharya, inter-alia, explains this point in his commentary on the Taittiriya Upanishad (2.6).                                                                                                  “Objection: How can the One become many unless It enters into something else? The answer is: ‘Prajāyeya—I shall be born.’ The multiplication here does not refer to becoming something extraneous, as when one begets a son. How, then, does it take place? Through the manifestation of name and form that are latent in Itself. When name and form, existing latently in the Self, become manifest, they evolve—while retaining their essential nature as the Self under all conditions—in time and space, which are inseparable from Brahman. That manifestation of name and form is what is called the appearance of Brahman as the many.”

He further explains:                                                                                                    “Therefore, it is only because of Brahman that name and form have their being under all circumstances, but Brahman does not consist of them. They are said to be essentially Brahman, since they cease to exist when Brahman is eliminated.”

[Extracts from Eight Upanishads, Vol. I, with the Commentary of Shankaracharya translated by Swami Gambhīrānanda, Advaita Ashrama].

Quintessence of 10 Upanishads – 41 (brih 3)

Posted on by
Reply
The shruti does not mince her words:

अथ योऽन्यां देवतामुपास्तेऽन्योऽसावन्योऽहमस्मीति न स वेद यथा पशुरेवं स देवानाम् । यथा ह वै बहवः पशवो मनुष्यं भुञ्ज्युरेवमेकैकः पुरुषो देवान्भुनक्त्येकस्मिन्नेव पशावादीयमानेऽप्रियं भवति किमु बहुषु तस्मादेषां तन्न प्रियं यदेतन्मनुष्या विद्युः ॥ — 1.4.10, brihadAraNyaka Upaniṣad.

Translation: “He who worships another deity thinking, ‘He is one, and I am another,’ does not know the Truth. He is like a beast to the gods. Just as many animals serve a man, so does such a worshiper serve the gods. Even if a single animal is lost, it causes distress; what then if many are lost? Therefore, it is not pleasing to the gods that human beings should know this Truth.”

Just as a livestock owner seeks to retain his cattle, the subtle deities are not portrayed as welcoming the transcendence of the dualistic realm by human beings. Those who worship the gods as entities separate from themselves sustain the cosmic order through ritual offerings and devotion. The gods, in turn, offer worldly benefits and heavenly rewards that keep such worshippers dependent upon them, distracting them from the pursuit of ultimate liberation.

Continue reading →

Brahman—Neither reaching nor non-reaching

Posted on by
1

Varuna instructs Bhrigu:
“Seek to know well that from which all beings are born, that by which they live after being born, and that towards which they move and into which they merge. That is Brahman.” (Tai. 3.1)
 A well-established principle is that, upon dissolution, an effect resolves into its cause.

In his commentary (Tai. 2.6), Shankaracharya raises the following questions:
“Does an ignorant person, after departing from this world, reach the other world, or does he not? Similarly, does a person of knowledge, after departing from this world, reach the other world, or does he not?”
He explains the difficulty as follows:
“Brahman, being the cause of space and everything else, is equally the source of both the ignorant person and the person of knowledge. Therefore, one might suspect that the ignorant person, too, reaches Brahman.”
Conversely, “if the ignorant person does not reach Brahman, even though Brahman is the common source of all, one might also doubt whether the enlightened person reaches Brahman.”

This appears to present a catch-22 situation.

Resolution                                                                                                                        The difficulty arises because the questions themselves are incorrectly framed. The concepts of reaching and not reaching are meaningful when there is a distance to be traversed or there is a difference between the seeker and the goal. Neither applies to Brahman which is the true nature of the individual.

From the standpoint of Advaita Vedanta, both the ignorant person and the enlightened person are, in their true nature, Brahman. Therefore, Brahman is not something that either of them must reach in the sense of attaining a previously absent reality.                There can be no satisfactory answer to a question based on a mistaken assumption.

The distinction between the ignorant person and the enlightened person lies not in their true nature, but in their knowledge of it. The ignorant person does not know that his or her true nature is Brahman, whereas the enlightened person knows this to be the case.

Self-knowledge does not bring about a transformation into Brahman; it removes the ignorance that conceals the ever-present truth that one has always been Brahman.

Note: Translation by Swami Gambhirananda, Eight Upanishads, Advaita Ashram

Quintessence of 10 Upanishads – 40 (brih 2)

Posted on by
Reply

[(Part – 39 (brih 1)]

The brihadAraNyaka Upanishad tells us,

ब्रह्म वा इदमग्र आसीत्तदात्मानमेवावेत् । अहं ब्रह्मास्मीति । — 1.4.10, brihadAraNyaka Upanishad

Meaning: “This (self) indeed was brahman in the beginning. It knew only Itself as ‘I am brahman.’”

What appears before us in the world is not an independent material reality, but a reflection (AbhAsa) of brahman. brahman alone is the ultimate reality (vastu), and the universe is Its manifest appearance. Therefore, that which perceives is brahman, and that which is perceived is also brahman.

In daily life, the mind acts as the seer and the external world appears as the seen. The mind assigns labels and categories—spouse, family, rivers, trees—generating mental concepts (nAma) that are projected outward as solid objects (rUpa).  Continue reading →

Quintessence of 10 Upanishads – 39 (brih 1)

Posted on by
Reply

[(Part – 38 (chAn 5)]

10.  brihadAraNyaka Upanishad 

The Upanishadic teachings are like a medicine administered to a sick patient. They help him/her to bounce back to her normal health. The Sanskrit word for “health” is “swasthata” (स्वस्थत). “swasthata” is derived from “stha” to be and “swa” in one’s normal state. Our normal healthy position gets affected, if and when we are invaded by foreign elements including alien “thoughts.” Thus far nine experts (Upanishads) have already treated us to rid us of the illness called “ignorance.” Now comes the final Specialist, brihadAraNyaka inquiring if we have come back to our normal health.  

We take it for granted that we are limited to or confined within our body-mind. That itself is our illness. It is called “ignorance.” We are not actually confined or limited to any finite form. Time and space are within me. In other words, there is no moment when we are not and there is no place where we are not present because our true nature is “Knowing.”  Our intrinsic nature is pure Knowingness (the Knowing ability) that has no form. As ‘Knowingness,’ we are formless, unbounded and all-pervasive. We are birthless and deathless. We are never “the known.” We are ever the Knower. We are eternal, immutable and indivisible.  Continue reading →

Deep Sleep, the “After-glow” and Energy Dynamics – 2/2

Posted on by
Reply

[Part – 1/2]

Consciousness, History and Memory

Here we reach the central philosophical issue.

From the Advaitic standpoint, Consciousness—Brahman—is memoryless and historyless.

The body-organism has a history. It carries the effects of everything that has happened to it. The mind has memory. A past event can appear now as a memory. But Consciousness itself has neither history nor memory.

A memory of yesterday is not yesterday appearing again. It is a present mental event about yesterday. Likewise, the waking thought, “I slept well last night,” is not Deep Sleep occurring again. It is a present cognition arising in the waking mind, based upon the present condition of the body-organism and the mind’s associations.  Continue reading →

Quintessence of 10 Upanishads – 38 (chAn 5)

Quote

Posted on by
Reply

[Part – 37 (chAn 4)]

The instruction to Narada reveals that mantras function strictly at the mental level. Realization requires us to transcend the mind entirely. From our empirical identity down to the vital force (prANa), the scriptures enumerate fifteen transient components of the individual. None of these are absolute. Even the vital force is a continuous motion–an activity rather than an unchanging reality. To awaken to Truth, we must transcend the triad of name, form, and action (nAma, rUpa, and karma). Beyond them lies the unconditioned Infinite brahman, known as bhUma:

यो वै भूमा तत्सुखं नाल्पे सुखमस्ति भूमैव सुखं भूमा त्वेव विजिज्ञासितव्य इति भूमानं भगवो विजिज्ञास इति ॥ — 7.23.1, chAndogya upa.  Continue reading →

Deep Sleep, the “After-glow” and Energy Dynamics – 1/2

Posted on by
1

We all know the feeling. We wake up after a good night’s sleep and say, “I slept very well,” “I feel relaxed,” or “I feel refreshed.” The feeling is immediate and unmistakable. Yet there is something intriguing about it. What exactly are we experiencing when we say this? Are we remembering what happened during Deep Sleep? Or is something else happening?

This seemingly ordinary morning experience opens the door to a profound question: What does Consciousness actually know when we wake up from Deep Sleep?

Deep Sleep

Advaita Vedānta considers waking, dream and Deep Sleep to be the three familiar states of experience. Yet the waking mind has no direct access to what was actually present during Deep Sleep. “Deep Sleep” is a name given from the waking state to a condition that the waking mind did not experience as an object.

Sureśvara makes this epistemological point with remarkable precision in his Bṛhadāraṇyaka Vārttika:  Continue reading →