Tag Archives: brihadaranyaka

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 →

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 →

The jñānī after enlightenment

Posted on by

In my last post – The Barren World – Venkat and Michael made some comments about the status of the jñānī after enlightenment and I suggested that we make this the subject of another post so as not to confuse the issues.

Conicidentally, Sri V Subrahmanian has just made the following post to the Advaitin List. In it he lists numerous quotations from the scriptures and Shankara which clearly indicate the continuance of the world and the jñānī ‘s continued activity in it. I thought that this could form the basis of any further discussion on this aspect and Subbu-ji has kindly agreed for me to post it here.

Continue reading →

The Darkness of Ignorance (Part 6)

Posted on by

*** Read Part 5 ***

‘Existence’ of Ignorance

So, does ignorance actually exist; a concrete ‘object’ in space and time? There is the occasional reference in the scriptures (e.g. in the Ṛg Veda) but these speak of related gods, supernatural events and so on. Where such a concept is a part of the pseudo-mystical precursor of Advaita teaching proper, I personally cannot accept it as a valid reference. E.g. I suggest that ‘before light, there was darkness’ does not count as a proof that darkness is an ontologically existent entity!

There are also references in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad and Sureśvara’s Vārttika on Śaṅkara’s bhāṣya but, again, this being the oldest of the Upaniṣads, there is a lot of ‘mystical’ material much pre-dating Śaṅkara’s systematization of the philosophy.

One of the quotations sometimes given to support the contention that scriptures cite ignorance as a real entity is Sureśvara’s Vārttika on Puruṣavidha Brāhmaṇa (1368):

ajñānaṃ saṃśayajānaṃ miśyājānamiti trikam
ajñānaṃ kāraṇaṃ tatra kāryatvaṃ pariśiṣṭayoḥ

This is translated as:

Ignorance, doubt-born knowledge, and mixed knowledge are the triad. Ignorance (ajñāna) is the cause there, while the other two (doubt-born knowledge and mixed knowledge) are effects.

Continue reading →

The Darkness of Ignorance (Part 4)

Posted on by

*** Read Part 3 ***

Observations triggered by Ghaṭa bhāṣya

If X is ‘bhāvarūpa’ – really existing, that ought to mean that it exists ‘in all three periods of time’. I would have said that, by that definition, like every other worldly perception or conception, darkness is not real. Every perception or conception is ‘mithyā’, neither ‘real’ (sat), nor ‘unreal’ (asat).

When Śaṅkara talks about ‘pot-absence’, it is obvious that he doesn’t mean that it is a really existing thing, in the way that a chair in the room ‘really exists’. What he means is that, in a discussion in a particular context such as this, we can treat something as ‘effectively existing’ when we both know what we are talking about and there is no confusion.

Suppose that you and I are having an argument about the pot that we believe to be on the table in room X of the museum. Suppose a third person comes in and tells us he has seen this pot on the table in room Y. This being the case, if I go into room X, I could say that I become aware of the absence of the pot. In that sense, it has a sort of meaning to say that the pot-absence exists in room X. But why anyone would want to talk in this way eludes me. I would just say that the pot isn’t in room X so I am prepared to accept the third person’s claim that it is in room Y.

Continue reading →

The Darkness of Ignorance (Part 3)

Posted on by

*** Read Part 2 ***

Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 1.2.1

Absence

What is ‘absence’? It is simply a word we use to refer to the fact that something is not here. Suppose that the teacher realizes that little Johnny is not in the class again. He reports this to the head who says: “His absence has been noted”. What does this mean exactly?

Does it simply refer to whatever the headmaster has written in his little black book? Is it something belonging to Johnny that he ought to get rid of or leave at home when he comes into school? Presumably he cannot bring it with him to school because then he would no longer have it!

Obviously ‘absence’ in this context refers to Johnny himself. If Johnny’s absence is noted at the school, then clearly Johnny himself is not there. The two are mutually exclusive.

But all of this simply relates to the often baffling way in which language develops. All that we are talking about is whether or not Johnny is present at the school. When he isn’t there, we use this catch-all word to refer to the situation. The way in which we use it is as an adjective describing Johnny – ‘absent Johnny’ (again). We cannot use it as a non-qualified noun and say ‘there is absence’, because no one would know what we were talking about. It has to be connected to a noun and simply refers to the ‘non-presence’ of that noun.

Continue reading →

The Darkness of Ignorance (Part 2)

Posted on by

*** Read Part 1 ***

Brahmasūtra 2.2.28

Darkness as a Physical Entity

It is true that it is possible to conclude that Śaṅkara regarded darkness as an actual entity. One of the passages in support of this is his bhāṣya on Brahmasūtra 2.2.28. As already noted, he is arguing with the Buddhists and talking about ‘creation’ and the existence of the world. At one point he says:  

tamaso darśanāt, prāgabhāva iva tamaso darśanaṁ dṛṣṭi-pratyakṣatvāt.

Because of the perception of darkness, it is like the perception of prior non-existence, as darkness is perceived by the sense of sight.

Here, the ‘perception’ of darkness is not, in the empirical sense, like seeing a table in the room but in a metaphorical sense, as in the way the carpenter might visualize the table before setting about making it. Thus, just as we might say that ‘darkness prevents us from seeing the table in the room’ (after it has been made!), we say that ‘ignorance prevents us from realizing that we are Brahman’. But the truth of the situation is that there is no light in the room, and no one has put the knowledge into our mind.

Continue reading →

Advaita in the Vedas – Rig Veda 6.47.18

Posted on by

There is a verse in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad which says, 

Indra, through Maya, appeared as many forms. [1]

It has been quoted by both Gaudapada and Shankara to illustrate how, through the illusion of Maya, Brahman appears as many. With knowledge of Advaita, this illusion is dispelled. 

The full verse says,

He shifted shape to match every shape, to manifest his shape. Indra, through Maya, appeared as many forms. his horses, hundreds and ten, are yoked.

Though quoted in Advaita literature, the verse is, itself, a quote — from the Rig Veda [2].

Continue reading →

Advaita in the Vedas – Rig Veda 4.26.1

Posted on by

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 →