Anvaya-vyatireka – Part 1

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

Brihadarankya Upanishad (Part 15)

Part 14
4.3.15 to 4.3.17                                                                                                            After enjoying the dream world, a jiva goes to deep sleep or to the waking state. During dream he is only a bhokta though seemingly attached to action. There is no real attachment. He is not a karta and does not earn karma. The Upanishad says that similar to the dreamer, the Self is not attached to any action.

4.3.18                                                                                                                             Self is like a big fish. As the fish swims alternately between two banks without becoming affected by what happens on the bank, the Self moves between the dream and waking states without being affected by what happen in these states.

Continue reading

Brihadarankya Upanishad (Part14)

Part 13

Part 15

Chapter 4 Section 3 4.3.1 to 4.3.5                                                                                  In a series of questions Janaka asks YVK about the lights which a person uses for worldly transactions. Most obvious is the sunlight. When sun has set, it is the moonlight. When both sun and moon have set (Amavasya), it is the light of fire. When sun, moon, fire are unavailable, speech serves as the light to transact. Speech (sound) includes odour.

Continue reading

The Barren World

In my last post, I promised that I would provide another (clinching?) argument as to why the world does not disappear on enlightenment. Here it is. I use this in the book that I have just completed, which provides lots of examples of how many modern teachers misrepresent the various topics in Advaita, leading the seeker on a merry path that is unlikely to lead to enlightenment. (I have only just sent this to the publisher so it will not appear until the end of next year at the earliest. It will be called: ‘Finding the Self: A Guide Through the Minefield of Modern Advaita’.

Continue reading

BrihdArnyaka Upanishad (Part 5)

Part 4

Part 6

2.1.18                                                                                                                         During dream, the mind projects a dream world out of latent tendencies in it formed out experiences in the waking state. There are 72000 nAdis (like blood vessels) emanating from the heart through which prAna shakti travels to different parts of the body. The sense organs are not functional as they are resolved in the nAdis. The jIva (the reflected consciousness in the mind) travels through the nAdis and experiences the dream world projected out of the latent tendencies in the mind. In the dream, what are the ‘achievements’ of the jIva. He is, as it were, a king or a noble brAhmana or an animal. There are states of high and low. The achievements are false. It is to be noted that the jIva remains in the nAdis and does not reach the heart. If it reaches the heart, then it is the state of sleep.

Continue reading

Waking Vs Dream

We treat the waking state as real and dream state as unreal. ‘Day dreaming’ is used when a person imagines in the waking state. GaudpadAcharya in his karikA on MAndukya Upanishad refutes the ‘unreality’ of dream and shows that the two states are on equal footing.
I Utility
Objection: Dream objects have no utility in waking state.
Refutation: To a dreamer, dream water is useful, not the water in waking state.
II Reality
Objection: Dream objects are unreal because they may not exist in the waking state.
Refutation: Even though dream objects may not be seen in the waking state, yet they are as real to a dreamer as objects in the waking state are to the waking person.

Continue reading

The Limitations of Metaphor

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

Q.558 Knowledge and Experience

A: You cannot experience the Self/Brahman/Absolute. But then neither can you ‘know’ it in the usual sense of the word. Reality is non-dual. The empirical, experienced world of duality is an appearance; name and form of Brahman. All of this can be intellectually understood by the mind. When it is firmly believed to be true, without any doubt, that is enlightenment.

You should also understand that it is not the case that ‘all of this is unreal’. ‘Unreal’ is not the correct adjective. Every empirical perception is name and form of Brahman and therefore ultimately real. Just not ‘real’ as its perceived ‘object’. This is why the world does not disappear on enlightenment. The scriptures tell us ‘sarvam khalvidam brahma’ – all of this is Brahman. So, if it disappeared, it would mean that Brahman disappeared!

Continue reading

Eight Upanishads (Topic-wise) Part 29

Part 28

Part 30

Chapter 6 JnAna and Moksha
6-7 Mundaka Upanishad

6-7-19 Mundaka 3.2.7 and 3.2.8
The Upanishad describes the process of videha-mukti, that is, when a jivanmukta dies. A human being is a combination of material part – called anAtma and sentient part called AtmA. AnAtmA is made of gross, subtle and causal bodies or alternatively five sheaths of food, vital forces, mind, intellect, and bliss. The enclosed consciousness is AtmA component. When a jivanmukta dies, anAtmA part merges into total anAtmA. Gross body merges into cosmic gross body called virAt. Subtle body into total subtle body called, Hiranyagarbha. Since there is no karmic balance, there is no causal body. In Prasna Upanishad, anAtmA part of an individual is divided into 16 parts. The Upanishad says that of them, each of 15 parts merges into corresponding totality. The Upanishad is silent about the 16th part. According to Swami ParmArthananda, the 16th part is the name of a jnAni that remains in the world for the disciples to worship. The consciousness part merges into total consciousness without any travel like pot space merging in total space when the pot breaks. An ignorant person takes rebirth in a body according to his karmAs.

Continue reading

Traditional versus Neo-Advaita

This will be a multi-part post, triggered in part by Ramesam’s recent post ‘Liberation is Disembodiment’, following which I promised a separate post. First of all, I will repost an article on the subject from advaita.org.uk, with which readers may not be familiar. Secondly, I will post an article on the subject that I apparently wrote in 2006 but do not seem ever to have published. Finally, I will add a new section and make a radical suggestion (as promised in my comment).

The word ‘neo’ means ‘new’ so that ‘Neo-Advaita’ is an impossibility. Advaita means ‘not two’, referring to the non-dual reality that always was, is and will be – unchanging because change would necessarily be from one thing into another, which would be contradictory. There cannot, therefore, be an ‘old’ and a ‘new’ Advaita, only the one truth.

Continue reading