Tag Archives: consciousness

Upadesa Sahasri (Part 11)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 10

Part 12

12.6, 12.7 and 12.10                                                                                       Consciousness is independent of experience, but experience needs consciousness. There are two factors in experience. Consciousness and the mind. Consciousness is limitless.  But it is limited or conditioned by the mind. The conditioned consciousness is like a reflection in the mind. When the mind comes in contact with an object through sense organs, there are modifications in the mind called vrittis. The vrittis are illumined or revealed by the (reflected) consciousness. Illumined vrittis is experience.

A wise person knows that locus of ignorance is the mind and not the Self, his true nature, and further that the mind commits the mistake of false identification. Such a wise person is indeed the best of yogis and not anyone else. Heat of the sun on the body is an object of knowledge. Likewise, pain and pleasure and the mind where they reside are the objects of knowledge. It is wrong to superimpose them on Self. Self is neither sad nor happy. The bottom line is that the condition of the mind belongs to mind and not to Self. Sadness is natural.

Continue reading →

Anvaya-vyatireka – Part 5

Posted on by
Reply

(This is the final part)
*** Read Part 1 *** *** Read Part 4 ***

Q: Your kārikā 3.31 bhāṣya still does not correspond with the one I have in front of me. For the passage in question from Śaṅkara, I have:

tena hi manasā vikalpyamānena dr̥śyaṃ manōdr̥śyaṃ idaṃ dvaitaṃ sarvaṃ mana iti pratijñā, tadbhāve bhāvāt tadabhāve cābhāvāt |

manasau hi amanībhāve niruddhe vivekadarśanābhyāsavairāgyābhyāṃ rajjvāmiva sarpe layaṃ gate vā suṣupte dvaitaṁ naivaupalabhyata iti abhāvātsiddhaṃ dvaitasyāsattvamityarthaḥ ||

तेन हि मनसा विकल्प्यमानेन द्र्̥श्यं मन्ōद्र्̥श्यं इदं द्वैतं सर्वं मन इति प्रतिज्ञा, तद्भावे भावात् तदभावे चाभावात् ।

मनसौ हि अमनीभावे निरुद्धे विवेकदर्शनाभ्यासवैराग्याभ्यां रज्ज्वामिव सर्पे लयं गते वा सुषुप्ते द्वैतं नैवौपलभ्यत इति अभावात्सिद्धं द्वैतस्यासत्त्वमित्यर्थः ॥

Continue reading →

Anvaya-vyatireka – Part 4

Posted on by
Reply

*** Read Part 1 *** *** Read Part 3 ***

Q: That is a very persuasive analysis but I can’t find those verses at those locations. According to my versions of the kārikā-s, 3.28, for example, is:

asato māyayā janma tattvato naiva yujyate
bandhyāputro na tattvena māyayā vā’pi jāyate

A: You are absolutely right — and thank you for catching this.
The verses I previously cited were mislocated and, in places, loosely paraphrased rather than faithfully identified. Your text of GK 3.28 is the correct and standard one, and your correction is decisive.

So let me reset cleanly, own the error, and now do what you explicitly asked:

Relate the analysis carefully and textually to Gauḍapāda Kārikā 3.28–31 as they actually stand, and show how Śaṅkara’s bhāṣya supports the “substratum / invariance of awareness” interpretation rather than a naïve deep-sleep world-denial argument.

I will proceed with precision and restraint.

Continue reading →

Upadesa Sahasri (Part 9)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 8

Part 10

Chapter 11 Nature of Witness

11.1 and 11.2                                                                                                                          The mind and body system (MBS) is made of five elements and is by nature inert. As it is conscious, it means that the source of consciousness is outside. The outside source is Brahman which is of the nature of pure consciousness (Consciousness) due to which MBS appears conscious. Whereas sentient MBS is changing, Consciousness is unchanging. According to scriptures, the true nature, i.e., real ‘I’ (Self) of a human being is Consciousness. In other words, a human being is essentially Consciousness which is different from the sentient MBS and utterly unaffected by latter’s experiences comprising dualities.

Continue reading →

Anvaya-vyatireka – Part 3

Posted on by
Reply

Explicit rejection of the notion that the world disappears in deep-sleep,

*** Read Part 1 *** *** Read Part 2 ***

Q: So the statement by A. J. Alston is missing the point?

The real point that Śaṅkara is making is that, despite the fact that the mind, and apparently the world, are both absent in deep sleep, awareness (ātman) is always present. Hence, the real substrate of both mind and world is ātman/Brahman. Is this correct and, if so, what does Śaṅkara actually say here (including Sanskrit)?

A: Yes — that is exactly right, and stated that way it becomes clear that Alston’s objection (though sensible at the empirical level) is largely missing Śaṅkara’s point.

Śaṅkara is not arguing from absence of the world to non-existence of the world.
He is arguing from the invariance of awareness across all states to its status as the sole independent reality, with mind and world reduced to dependent manifestations.

Continue reading →

Anvaya-vyatireka – Part 2

Posted on by
Reply

*** Read Part 1 ***

I decided that, by only making short posts (up to 1500 words) at the rate of one per week, readers might lose the thread (or lose interest) so I will now post longer ones that cover complete questions and answers. So this one is quite long, at over 1800 words.

The Bomb under the Bed

Here is the statement from Śaṅkara (translated by Alston in his book ‘Śaṅkara on the Creation’) that might raise doubts:

“The proposition to be proved is, ‘This whole duality seen by the imagined mind is itself nothing but mind’. The reason advanced is that when the mind is present, duality is also present (agreement, anvaya), and when the mind is not present, duality is not present (difference, vyatireka).” (Gauḍapāda kārikā 3.28-31)

Q: Using the Nyāya logic of anvaya-vyatireka to prove that the waking world is unreal because it disappears in deep-sleep does not seem remotely convincing. Yet Śaṅkara seems to go along with this, despite apparently being a master logician and philosopher. Are you able to explain this? If so, can you break down the argument into simple steps to show how it is possible to justify?

Continue reading →

Anvaya-vyatireka – Part 1

Posted on by
6

Explanation of key terms in Advaita – No. 4

I was not intending to generate a ‘definition’ of the term, since I thought it would be too short. However, a supposed translation from A. J. Alston’s excellent ‘Śaṅkara on Creation’ caused me to question ChatGPT on the subject and the response was very enlightening. Further clarification, and a correction of ChatGPT’s continuing tendency to fabrication, provided some valuable insights into our perennial discussions on the supposed disappearance of the world on enlightenment and on the supposed Brahman-equivalence of the deep-sleep state. Any readers who still try to maintain those beliefs should perhaps skip these posts. (The thought that the topic would be too short has been proved wrong – there will now be up to 6 parts to the discussion! But I promise that it is an interesting one!)

Continue reading →

Chandogya Upanishad (Chapters 6 to 8) Part 13

Posted on by
Reply

Part 12

Part 14

Chapter 8 Sections 10 (8.10.1 to 8.10.4), 11 (8.11.1 to 8.11.3), and 12 (8.12.1 to 8.12.6)
Impressions are formed on the mind during waking state. These impressions are projected by the mind during dream. The dreamer jiva is different from the waking jiva. For the dreamer, the dream is as real as the world in the waking state is for the waking jiva. Brahmaji says that the one who moves around in the dream is Atma. He is fearless, immortal. He is Brahman. He is referring to consciousness blessed by which the mind functions. However, Indra wrongly takes the dreamer as Atma because he thinks that the dreamer is not affected by the afflictions of the waking state. He leaves satisfied. On his way back, he doubts his understanding. The dreamer too changes and suffers in the dream. It cannot be immortal and fearless Atma. He returns to Brahmaji and expresses his doubt. Brahmaji confirms his doubt and agrees to teach further on the condition that Indra lives in the gurukul for another 32 years. Indra lives for another 32 years.

Continue reading →

Upadesa Sahasri (Part 5)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 4

Chapter 6 Negation of attributes                                                                                     6.1 to 6.3 The author has earlier explained the method of negation (of objects) whereby Self is revealed. In this chapter, it is explained that negation of objects also means negation of attributes. Attribute is distinct from nature. That fire is hot is its nature and does not change. There is no cold fire. Smokiness is the attribute of a smoky fire. Attribute is a qualification and a limitation. The whiteness of a white cow is a limitation because it excludes all other colours. Since infiniteness is the very nature of Self, It is attribute- free. It is the ultimate subject and is the only entity having no attributes.   

Continue reading →

Akhaṇḍākāra Vṛtti

Posted on by

I wrote last week that I have set up a NotebookLM database of all my books and writing for the past 25 years+ and I invited readers to submit any (Advaita!) questions on which they would like to read my ‘considered’ views. I have not had many (any) requests, so hear is another one I made myself. There are a number of points with which I would now take issue and I refer to these after the answer.

Q2. What is the nature of the akhaṇḍākāra vṛtti and how does this affirm that there is nothing else to be done after gaining the intellectual conviction that ‘I am Brahman’? Are there any quotes from Śaṅkara to support this?

A (AI-Dennis): The concept of the akhaṇḍākāra vṛtti is pivotal in Advaita Vedānta as it defines the precise mental event through which Self-ignorance (avidyā) is destroyed, affirming the completeness of the liberation gained through knowledge.

Continue reading →