World disappearing and mithyā

Not a lot of discussion on the site recently. I thought maybe the time was ripe for a little controversy again. Recently I queried ChatGPT for Shankara references on this topic. I also encountered just a few days ago, a devastatingly logical argument against this idea, but I will save that for a later post. Here is the (single post) AI contribution. Of course, you may argue, AI is presenting its position so as to support my own view – a recognized problem with AI at present). Perhaps, then, Ramesam or Venkat could tackle AI with essentially the same query to elicit a response in keeping with their belief? That would be interesting!

A (ChatGPT): Adi Shankaracharya, the great Advaita Vedanta philosopher, defines the concept of mithyā in several of his works, particularly in his commentaries on key Vedantic texts. The term “mithyā” generally refers to the idea of falsity or illusoriness. It’s crucial in Advaita Vedanta because it relates to the nature of the phenomenal world and how it is perceived in relation to the ultimate reality, Brahman.

One of the most explicit definitions of mithyā is found in Shankaracharya’s commentary on the Brahma Sutra (Brahmasutra Bhashya) in the section known as the Adhyasa Bhashya. Here, he describes mithyā as something that is neither completely real (like Brahman) nor completely unreal (like the horns of a hare), but rather something that appears real under certain conditions but is revealed as unreal upon closer examination or when true knowledge is attained.

Continue reading →

ChAndogya Upanishad (Chapters 6 to 8) Part 6(1)

Part 5

6.13.1 to 6.13.3 and 6.14.1 to 6.14.3                                                                              Uddalaka continues the teaching using common metaphors as he finds that Svetaketu is a worthy student. When salt is dissolved in water, it is not possible to see the salt with eyes. However, presence of salt is ascertained by tasting the water from top or middle or bottom. Brahman is present in every jiva but sense organs are unable to perceive it. However, there are other means, namely, the scriptures, by which Brahman is known as the Self of jiva.  A robber having brought a person blindfolded from Gandhara leaves him in a desolate place. The person is clueless about directions and in particular about the direction leading to GandhAra. He cries for help and fortunately on getting guidance from someone, he proceeds towards GandhAra inquiring for its location from people whom he meets on way. Finally, he reaches GandhAra. Similarly, as long as a person does not get a preceptor, he remains ignorant about Brahman and Self. If he is fortunate due to his punyas earned, he gets a preceptor and he becomes liberated. Sections 13 and 14 conclude with Thou that art.

Continue reading →

Q.560 The 3 Levels of Reality

A: That’s a good question.

The ‘bottom line’ of Advaita is that there is only Consciousness (sarvam khalvidam brahma – all this is Brahman). So the ‘teaching’ of the neo-Advaitin – ‘this is it’ and similar pronouncements – is not, strictly speaking, wrong. The problem with it is that it is not very helpful!

The point is that, as soon as we separate out a form in perception and give it a name, we are apparently in the realm of duality. And it is difficult to move from that position to one of accepting the truth of non-duality. So traditional Advaita takes things very slowly. For the new seeker, it begins from our present experience and understanding and moves one step at a time, as it were, supplanting the initial teaching with something more refined and nearer to the truth.

Continue reading →

ChAndogya Upanishad (Chapters 6 to 8) Part 5

Part 4
6.9.1 to 6.9.4 and 6.10.1 to 6.10.3
During sleep, mind is resolved and jiva’s individuality is suspended and therefore he does not know his merger with Brahman during sleep.  Bees collect juices from different flowers and make honey by mixing the juices. In the honey, there is no trace of individual juice. Eastern and western rivers flowing towards east and west respectively merge in ocean and lose their individuality. Similarly, during sleep, at the time of death, and dissolution of a cycle of creation, all the creatures lose their individuality, and they resolve in Brahman. During sleep, the karmAs are in potential form. On becoming awake, they become live and functional. Hence going to sleep does not mean moksha. There are two types of entry of an individual into pure Being:  involuntary and voluntary. In deep sleep, one’s entry is involuntary.  There is no knowledge of the entry, and it is not permanent, and one comes back from that state.

Continue reading →

Four Verses from Bhagavad-Gita

 [This Blog Post is presented for advanced students of Advaita Vedanta as a case study in ‘Reflection’ (mananaM).]

It seems to me, as though, there is a fine thread of commonality running through the four verses 4.24; 6.29; 9.4 and 9.5 of Bhagavad-Gita, coming from the Chapters titled respectively, jnAnakarmasamnyAsayoga, dhyAnayoga and rAjavidyArAjaguhyayoga.

Continue reading →

ChAndogya Upanishad (Chapters 6 to 8) Part 4

Part 3

Part 5

6.8.1 to 6.8.7
In deep sleep, the mind and sense organs resolve and the jiva resolves into pure existence. Sleep is called svapiti. The etymological meaning of the term svapiti is ‘one goes’, or ‘reaches’ sva, i.e., the self. The word sva connotes one’s own being or essential nature. One is absorbed in oneself in sleep. There is no individuality. Though the mind and sense organs are resolved, jiva continues to exist because there is prana, i.e., life. A clay pot resolves into clay. The clay is the nature of pot. The true nature of an entity is the locus of its resolution.

Continue reading →

Tat Tvam Asi (Part 7)

Part 6

Use of words for Brahman
Brahman is not an object, is free from attributes and, therefore, beyond words and ideas. Up Sah 18.24 states that word or idea can refer to objects of knowledge and not to non-objects. Brahman is known and realized as the innermost self and the ultimate subject and is therefore not an object of knowledge. The same idea is reiterated in 18.28 which says that word can apply to ego which is possessed of species and not to Self which has no classification, i.e., swagata, sajAtatiya and vijAtiya. Self is devoid of any differentiation. The question is why are words used to describe It?

Continue reading →

Eight Upanishads (Topic-wise) Part 40

Part 39

Chapter 7 Brahm Sutra Bhasya
7.7 BSB 3.3.53 and 3.3.54 The Self distinct from the body                                          Please see the post Vedanta and Hard Problem of Consciousness

7-8 BSB 3.4.1 to 3.4.17 Knowledge of Brahman is independent of rites                The aphorist establishes that karmAs do not produce knowledge of Brahman. In sutras 1 to 7, the opposite views (Purva Paksha) are presented which are refuted in sutras from 8 to 17 (Siddhanta).

7-8-1                                                                                                                             BSB 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 (Purva Paksha)                                                                     Knowledge itself cannot produce any result. Action is paramount. Knowledge is an aid to action. There is no result of knowledge in its own right. If there are any Vedic texts to the contrary, they are only figurative to glorify the knowledge. Knowledge of self is also an aid to action. The knowledge that self is different from body is an aid to action. Because the performer of rite believes that on fall of body at death, the self goes to higher loka due to punya earned on account of successful completion of rites.

Continue reading →

Q.559 – Atman and intellect

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 →

Eight Upanishads (Topic-wise) Part 39

Part 38

Chapter 7 Brahm Sutra Bhasya

7.5 BSB 3.2.31 to 3.2.37: Brahman is one without a second

There is a view that there is something different from Brahman on account of the terms, embankment [Setu- Ch 8.4.1], measure, connection and difference. Isvara is the protector of dharma etc. jivAtmA is the protected. It suggests that jivAtmA and ParamAtmA are different, one is the Setu, the protector and other things are protected (Ch Up 6.8.1). Lokas rest on Bhagavan (Katha 2.3.1). From “having crossed over the embankment”” (Ch Up 8.4.2), it is gathered that just as in life somebody crosses a stream over the embankment to reach solid ground, which is other than the embankment, so also one crosses over this embankment, that is the Self, to reach something that is not the embankment of the Self. 

Continue reading →