Tag Archives: creation

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 →

Adhyāropa-apavāda

Posted on by
Reply

Explanation of key terms in Advaita

Since I have still had no questions from readers, I can only conclude that there are none (questions or readers)! Accordingly, I am beginning here a new, regular(-ish) posting to explain key terms used in the teaching of Advaita. These will be AI-generated but based solely upon all my books and other writing. I begin with what is possibly the most important concept in the entire philosophy, as might have been realized from the paper by Manjushree Hegde, beginning https://www.advaita-vision.org/adhyaropa-apavada/.

Adhyāropa-Apavāda: The Art of the Leading Error in Advaita Vedānta

In the pursuit of spiritual truth, a fundamental paradox confronts every seeker: if the ultimate reality is non-dual and indescribable, how can it ever be taught? Traditional Advaita Vedānta addresses this dilemma through a sophisticated and time-proven methodology known as adhyāropa-apavāda. This pedagogical strategy, often translated as “false attribution followed by subsequent rescission”, serves as the primary engine for guiding a mind steeped in duality toward the recognition of its own non-dual nature.

Continue reading →

Brihadarankya Upanishad (Part 12)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 11

Part 13

Chapter 3 Section 9
3.9.1 to 3.9. 27                                                                                                                    As these verses do not have VedAntic teaching, they are not discussed in detail. Sakalya asks question relating to worldly entities including Isvara. Though YVK has earlier answered them, he again answers them and then asks Sakalya to answer a question on Nirguna Brahman and warns that if he does not answer, he will lose his head. Sakalya fails and he dies. Shankaracharya comments. “The moral of the story is that one should not be disrespectful, but rather obedient to a true knower of Brahman. That story is here referred to in order to teach conduct and also to extol the
knowledge of Brahman. How can that Brahman which has been indicated
as ‘Not this, not this’ by the elimination of everything else, be positively indicated? In order to answer this, as also to state the cause of the universe, the Sruti again resorts to the story.” [ Brihadarankya Upanishad with commentary of Shankaracharya, Translated by Swami Madhavananda, Advaita Ashrama] There is a message that as long as a person is within the worldly realm including Saguna Brahman, he is not free from death. Knowledge of Nirguna Brahman alone ensures immortality. 

Continue reading →

BrihadArnyAka Upanishad (Part 10)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 9

Part 11

Chapter 3 Section 5
3.5.1 
Kahola, the next questioner asks Yajnavalkya to explain Brahman which is immediate, direct, and the self within all. Yajnavalkya has already answered this in the previous section. Therefore, he gives more details. The Self is witnessing consciousness beyond worldly dualities. It is not affected by hunger and thirst, grief, delusion, decay and death. Since the Self is infinite and complete, It is free from desires of son, wealth, etc. All desires are essentially same for they arise out of attachment to perishable, which in turn is due to Self-ignorance. A knower of Self meditates on the Self which means he identifies himself with the non-changing Self. He transcends death and is immortal. He treats himself different from the transient MBS even while using MBS for worldly transactions. How does a Self-realized person behave? It is said howsoever he may behave he is such, i.e., he is ever established in the Self. There is internal transformation. The expression, ‘Howsoever he may behave,’ is intended for a tribute to this state of a knower of Brahman and does not mean reckless behaviour. Kahola withdraws.

Continue reading →

BrihadAranyaka Upanishad (Part 8)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 7

Part 9

Chapter 2 Section 5.                                                                                                    Introduction                                                                                                                     The section is called Madhu Brahman because the word Madhu which means honey or helpful occurs repeatedly in it. The madhu vidya of ChAndogya Upaniṣad is Surya upAsanA. In Br Up it refers to Atma vidya or Brahma vidya. There are different techniques by which the Upanishads teach the knowledge of the Self. One method is creator and creation. Brahman is the creator. and world is the creation. This has been talked about earlier. Madhu Brahman uses the method of inter-dependence among worldly objects. They are mutually dependent and are mithyA. Therefore, there must be some entity outside the world which lends existence to the worldly objects. This entity is Brahman or the Self. The Upanishad also says that Brahman only appears as the world like gold appearing as ornaments. The ornaments are names and forms. Similarly, the world of multiplicity are names and forms. Brahman is all pervading and is present in a jIva as also in all other worldly objects. If a person understands this, he knows all and becomes immortal.

Continue reading →

Duality is mithyA

Posted on by

 Up Sah 19.20 to 19.22 have been inter-alia discussed here. It requires fine tuning. Hence this post.                                                                                                                    Upadesha SahAsri 19.20 discusses the status of duality. It has neither birth nor absence of birth. Both have contradictions as explained below. Thus, duality is neither existent nor non-existent. It is neither real nor unreal. In VedAntic terminology, it is mithyA.
1 Suppose there is birth of duality, i.e., there is a cause of its birth. It may be an existent cause or a non-existent cause. A non-existent cause is a non-starter and cannot give rise to an effect. An existent cause can be either (a) non-duality or (b) duality.
(a) The cause cannot be non-duality, because the nature of non-duality is changelessness.
(b) If there is birth of duality A from duality B, then there is a question of birth of duality B and so on. It leads to infinite regress which is logically unacceptable.

Continue reading →

BrihadarAnyaka Upanishad (Part 1)

Posted on by

Part2

Introduction
It belongs to Yajur Veda. Brih means big in volume and teaching. Aranyaka means forest. One meaning of Upanishad is destroyer of darkness, i.e., ignorance. It has 6 chapters (adhyaya) divided into 47 sections called BrAhmana containing 434 mantrAs. There is another division. Chapters 1 and 2 together is  madhu khanda or updesha khanda as it is akin to sravan. Chapters 3 and 4 together is muni khanda because yajnavalkya muni is the teacher. It is also called upapati khanda because it provides logic to the teaching. Upapati means reason. 5th and 6th Chapters together is khila khanda having miscellaneous topics. Khila means assortment. Many mantrAs, especially in chapters 5 and 6, talk about meditations and do not have Vedantic teaching. There is a meditation on bodily illness so as to practice austerity for voluntary practice of austerity is difficult.

Continue reading →

Chandogya Upanishad (Chapters 6 to 8) Part 2

Posted on by

 Part 1

Part 3

6.2.1 to 6.2.4
In order to show that by knowing the supreme entity, all other things are known, creation’s evolution on the basis of the principle of cause and effect is taught. Different Upanishads describe creation in different manners. However, there is a consensus about a causeless creator from which creation has evolved according to the cause-and-effect principle. According to ShankarAcharya, creation is a necessary assumption for the purpose of the ascent of the individual to the Absolute. It may be there, or it may not be there; that is not the point. As an interim measure, creation is accepted and once it serves the purpose, it is negated. ‘x’ in an arithmetical equation does not really exist yet it is useful in solving the problem. When it solves the problem, it extinguishes itself automatically and is not there. The purpose of teaching of the Upanishad is different from storytelling, ‘once upon a time’. It is an important point. There is no use arguing about whether creation exists or not. There is no denying that there is a creation and is experienced. And Uddalaka follows this technique of teaching like a good psychologist.

Continue reading →

The Limitations of Metaphor

Posted on by

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 reading →