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.
Tag Archives: brahman
Four Verses from Bhagavad-Gita
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.
ChAndogya Upanishad (Chapters 6 to 8) Part 4
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.
Tat Tvam Asi (Part 7)
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?
Eight Upanishads (Topic-wise) Part 40
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.
Q.559 – Atman and intellect
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 readingEight Upanishads (Topic-wise) Part 39
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.
The Limitations of Metaphor
Advaita teaching frequently makes use of metaphor in its explanations of the various topics. These are indisputably invaluable, although there is also the danger of taking them beyond the realm of their applicability and either drawing erroneous conclusions or simply failing to see the point that is being made. This also highlights the necessity of using the metaphor that is most appropriate for conveying the message. Take the example of sarvam khalvidam brahma – all this (world) is really Brahman.
We might start with the ubiquitous rope-snake metaphor. We think we see a snake but the light is poor. (We think we see a world of separate objects, but we haven’t yet gained the Self-knowledge of Advaita – our perception is covered by ignorance.) When we bring torchlight to shine into the darkness, we see that it is really a rope. (Having been taught Advaita, we realize that the world is really name and form of Brahman.)
Continue readingQ.558 Knowledge and Experience
Q: I am still confused about the relative value of experience and knowledge. Some teachers seem to say that scriptures only give you ‘intellectual’ knowledge and you then have to convert this into actual ‘experience’ in order to become enlightened. But then there are metaphors like rope-snake and dream-waking. The snake that we experience is not real and we have to wake up from the dream. This means gaining knowledge, doesn’t it?
A: You cannot experience the Self/Brahman/Absolute. But then neither can you ‘know’ it in the usual sense of the word. Reality is non-dual. The empirical, experienced world of duality is an appearance; name and form of Brahman. All of this can be intellectually understood by the mind. When it is firmly believed to be true, without any doubt, that is enlightenment.
You should also understand that it is not the case that ‘all of this is unreal’. ‘Unreal’ is not the correct adjective. Every empirical perception is name and form of Brahman and therefore ultimately real. Just not ‘real’ as its perceived ‘object’. This is why the world does not disappear on enlightenment. The scriptures tell us ‘sarvam khalvidam brahma’ – all of this is Brahman. So, if it disappeared, it would mean that Brahman disappeared!
Continue readingEight Upanishads (Topic-wise) Part 33
Chapter 6 JnAna and moksha
6-9 Tattiriya Upanishad- BrahmAnanda Valli
6-9-4 AnuvAka 7 (Pt 2) The universe is made of matter and is essentially inert. But living and non-living beings are found in the universe. It means that there is an outside source of sentiency. This source is Brahman. Consciousness is the nature of Brahman. The consciousness is reflected in the subtle body of a jiva and the latter becomes sentient. Brahman is also the source of happiness. When consciousness is reflected in a calm mind, happiness is felt. Vedanta claims that there is not an iota of happiness in worldly objects. If happiness is the essential nature of an object, it should give happiness to everybody all the time. But it is not so. An object liked by a person may not be liked by another person. And an object liked by a person now may not be liked later.