Tag Archives: consciousness

Upadesa Sahasri (Part 17)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 16

15.9 to 15.13, 15.15 to 15.17
The Self is the light of pure consciousness. It is non-dual. A Self-realized person knows that there is one Self in all beings including a pipal tree (BG 10.26). The Self is homogeneous, undivided, without parts and all-pervading like space. As space accommodates everything, all beings are in one Self. The self is different from gross and subtle bodies as said in Isa Up 8. It is like a witness. The ideas of ‘me’ and ‘mine’ are thoughts of the mind. They do not exist in the Self which is a witness. Therefore, the Self is free from virtue and vice, pleasure and pain and old age. As intellect is the seat of aversion and fear, the Self is free from them and their impressions. It is pure, free from worldly afflictions.

Continue reading →

Upadesa Sahasri (Part 15)

Posted on by
2

Part 14

14.26 During dream gross body is dormant and there is no external world. There is no external light or medium. The mind functions and sees, hears, thinks which are modifications of the mind. As the mind is inert, seeing, etc., is possible if there is an entity different from the mind and which lends sentiency to the mind. The said entity is Self which is of the nature of consciousness. In this sense, it is concluded that Self is directly known. The Self is the witness of the modifications of mind called the dream.

Continue reading →

Upadesa Sahasri (Part 14)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 13

14.11 Self alone remains after negating everything. No other effort is needed to know Self. It is self-revealing. The knowledge that Self is Brahman is enlightenment. On enlightenment, the (last) desire for liberation goes away resulting in contentment and peace.

14.12 Shankara advises that a seeker should aspire to think that he is all-pervading Self which is beyond mind and body system (MBS). MBS is the locus of miseries. I, the Self, am beyond miseries. Let the mind and body take action to remove miseries. Nothing can be added or subtracted from Self. How can Self do anything?

Continue reading →

Upadesa Sahasri (Part 13)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 12

Chapter 14 Dream and Memory
14.1 to 14.10
Advaita Vedanta is more a teaching than a philosophy. A fundamental Vedantic principle is that a real thing cannot be destroyed, and an unreal thing need not be destroyed. Only a seemingly real thing called mithya in Vedantic terminology can be destroyed. As the aim is to remove human suffering, it analyses human experience with the help of scriptures and reason. It says that though human suffering is experienced, it is mithya and can be removed. What we think about ourselves is not correct and further that experience may be deceptive as it does not necessarily match with the reality.

Continue reading →

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

*** 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 →