Tag Archives: consciousness

Knowingness… or Not

Posted on by
Reply

I apologize for the length of this. I had intended a single post but, at over 4600 words, it is clearly much too long, so it will now be in three parts. (My target length is 1500 words per post.) Please postpone comments until the end, except for Ramesam to confirm or deny that my AI-assisted summary of his understanding is essentially correct).

In his series ‘Quintessence of 10 Upanishads’, Ramesam has used the word ‘knowingness’ quite a few times. For example, in Part 27 (Taittirīya Part 2), it occurs 11 times and, in Part 30 (Aitareya Part 1), 25 times!

On 5th Aug, I made the following comment on Part 3 of the Aitareya series (https://www.advaita-vision.org/quintessence-of-10-upanishads-32-aita-3/):

I also see that you have used the word ‘knowingness’ again. When I read your first post, on Aitareya, I began my search to find our previous discussions about this (to me meaningless) word. Unfortunately, I could not immediately locate it and have embarked upon a long process of building a local AI to help me to track it down. As soon as I do so, I will aim to generate a separate post to talk about it.

Continue reading →

Upadesa Sahasri (Part 35)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 34

Part 36

18.170–184
In a series of verses, Shankaracharya explains how Tat Tvam Asi (TTA) should be taught and understood. As in the case of any sentence, in order to understand the meaning of TTA, one must understand the meanings of the words Tat, Tvam, and Asi.
The direct or literal meaning of Tat is Isvara, the creator, sustainer, and destroyer of the universe. Tvam means you, the individual (jiva), and Asi signifies that Tat and Tvam are identical, that is, Isvara = Jiva.
An equation is meaningful only when its two sides are apparently different but essentially the same. If the two sides are apparently identical, the equation serves no purpose. Thus, 5 + 4 = 10 – 1 is meaningful, whereas 9 = 9 is not. For one who understands addition and subtraction, both 5 + 4 and 10 – 1 resolve into 9, thereby validating the equation.

Continue reading →

Upadesa Sahasri (Part 32)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 31

Part 33

18.79–87
In these verses, Sri Shankara refines the theory of reflection. In the teaching of Tat Tvam Asi (TTA), the word ‘Tvam’ directly refers to the ego and indirectly to the Self. This requires a relationship between the Self and the ego. The Samkhya system is unable to explain because it does not accept the theory of reflection. Consequently, a teaching imparted directly to the ego cannot be said to be imparted indirectly to the Self. In Advaita, however, reflection establishes the relationship. It is not a relationship of seer and seen because the Self is devoid of activity. Reflection, on the other hand, is formed merely by the presence of the Self. The opponent’s further argument that there is a relation of non-difference between the Self and the ego is also untenable because there is no knowledge in the form, “Consciousness is my real Self.”

Continue reading →

Upadesa Sahasri ( Part 31)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 30 

Part 32

18.72–75 are omitted, as they primarily deal with the Buddhist doctrine of momentary consciousness.
Who is the Hearer? Who Says, “I am Brahman”?
The teaching of Tat Tvam Asi (TTA) can serve its purpose only if there is a hearer to whom it is addressed (18.111). Accordingly, verses 18.76–77 raise the question: Who is the hearer of the teaching?
Two possible answers are examined: the Self and the ego. The Self cannot be the hearer being actionless and beyond all empirical transactions. Nor can the ego, who is a sufferer, be the hearer in the ultimate sense and truthfully declare, “I am free.” Does it imply that scripture is not a valid means of knowledge and the teaching is purposeless? To remove this confusion, verse 18.78 introduces the concept of reflected consciousness.

Continue reading →

Upadesa Sahasri (Part 29)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 28

Part 30

Use of words for Brahman
Brahman is not an object of knowledge. Being free from attributes, It is 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 cognition. The Self is known as that remains after negating all objects by the process of neti, neti (18.25). 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.                                                                                               Then the question is why are words used to describe It?

Continue reading →

Upadesa Sahasri (Part 25)

Posted on by

Part 24

Part 26

17.32 to 17.35                                                                                                    Yajnavalkya explains (Br Up 3.4.1 and 3.4.2) that Brahman is not an object. It is the ultimate subject and is the Self. Ke U 1.5 says that Brahman is not an object and not perceived by the senses. The Self-knowledge is immediate whereby all knots of the heart are cut asunder (Mu. Up 2.2.8). Egoic attachments, emotional baggage which cause sufferings dissipate. etc. It is liberation. There could be an objection.  As Brahman is not perceived by senses and is not perceived by the intellect as emotions like pleasure, etc., It does not exist. The author explains with the help of the phenomenon of eclipse. The lunar and solar eclipses are caused due to shadows of the earth on the moon and of the moon on the earth respectively. The shadows are seen during eclipses. On non-eclipse days shadows are not seen. However, it does not mean that the shadows are not formed. Likewise, if consciousness is not experienced, it does not mean that It does not exist.

Continue reading →

Upadesa Sahasri (Part24)

Posted on by

Part 23

Part 25

17.17 and 17.18                                                                                                         During dream, one mind is divided into subject (knower), object (known) and instrument of knowledge. The divisions are unreal. Likewise, in the waking state, one consciousness appears differently when desires in the intellect causes action. The desires arise because the jiva thinks that it is incomplete though it is essentially complete. The desires and actions are revealed by consciousness. The waking state is a superimposition on consciousness, the substratum. The divisions in the waking state are as unreal as the divisions in the dream. The ideas of interior and exterior in the waking state are unreal like reading and writing which are interdependent. Reading depends on a written page without which nothing can be read and writing also depends on reading as we first read and then write. So, both of them are unreal as the sounds represented by written letters are all-pervasive and have no forms. Hence, they can neither be really written nor read.

Continue reading →

Upādhi: the ‘Limiting Adjunct’

Posted on by

One of the most persistent challenges for any student of Advaita Vedānta is reconciling the ‘Great Equation’—the scriptural declaration that the individual Self (Ātman) is identical to the non-dual Absolute (Brahman)—with our daily experience of being a finite, limited person. If reality is truly ‘not two,’ why do we feel so distinctly separate? The traditional teaching answers this riddle through a vital technical concept: the upādhi, or ‘limiting adjunct’.

Understanding the upādhi is essential because it serves as the mechanism through which the infinite appears to become finite, the one appears as many, and the actionless Witness appears to be an active doer and enjoyer.

The Meaning of the Term

Etymologically, the word upādhi is a compound of the Sanskrit roots upa (meaning ‘near to’ or ‘by the side of’) and ādhadāti (meaning ‘imparts’). In a general sense, the Sanskrit dictionary defines it as ‘that which is put in place of another thing; a substitute, phantom, disguise, or appearance’.

Continue reading →

Upadesa Sahasri (Part 21)

Posted on by

Part 20

16.30-33 There is a Buddhist school of thought called nihilism which holds that nothing exists, neither the subject nor the object. This theory of emptiness is questioned by the author. That which witnesses and is aware of emptiness must exist. The witness exists even before beginning of deliberation on existence or non-existence or both. According to Advaita, the world of objects is a superimposition on the Self. There can be destruction of the superimposition but not of the entity (Self) on which is the superimposition. Existence of Self is undeniable. It is indestructible. It is one without second on which diversity is a superimposition.

Continue reading →

Upadesa Sahasri (Part 19)

Posted on by

Part 18

Part 20

Chapter 16 Consisting of Earth

16.1 to 16.4 The verses establish that real I, the Self, which is of the nature of consciousness, is different from the gross body, the sense organs and the mind because they all are made of five fundamental elements, namely, earth, water, fire, air and space. They are devoid of consciousness and are inert. Take the gross body. Its solid part is made of earth, the grossest element. The title of the chapter is derived from the name ‘earth’. The liquid part is made of water. There is heat in the body which is due to the fire element. There is air inside the body, e.g., the vital forces. Lastly, the empty area inside the body is made of space.

There are five sense organs, eyes, ears, nostrils, tongue, and skin which reveal respective sense objects, namely, form and colour, sound, smell, taste, and touch. There is an illuminator-illumined relationship among each pair of sense organ and sense object. Each pair is unique. They do not mix, e.g., eyes do not hear. The sense objects are categorized according to pre-dominance of the five elements. A sense object will be revealed by a sense organ which has predominance of the same element as that of the sense object. The conclusion is that the sense organs are also made of the five fundamental elements and therefore inert. As such, the Self is different from them.

Continue reading →