Tag Archives: dream

Eight Upanishads (Topic-wise) Part 29

Posted on by
Reply

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

Posted on by
Reply

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 →

Dṛṣṭi- sṛṣṭi-vāda

Posted on by
2

There has just been a brief discussion on the Advaitin List under the heading of ‘Quotes from samkshepa shaareeraka’. This was effectively on the perceived consequences of accepting the theory of dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi-vāda – the creation theory that claims that the world is the mental imagination of the jīva; a theory equating to the Western belief of solipsism. Sri ‘Sudhanshu Shekhar’ made the original post and Sri ‘Bhaskar YR’ represented the objections (with which I agree). Rather than joining in, I thought I would ask ChatGPT for an ‘opinion’ and its response seems to me to be very reasonable. (I even find myself more disposed to DSV than I was before!) Here is the exchange:

Q: How do Advaita believers in dṛṣṭi- sṛṣṭi-vāda explain how they can discuss the topic with other believers and non-believers?

A: In Advaita Vedānta, particularly within the framework of dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi-vāda (the doctrine that perception precedes creation), explaining and discussing the philosophy with others presents an interesting challenge. Since dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi-vāda asserts that the world arises in accordance with the perceiver’s experience, the question arises: how can multiple individuals engage in a discussion if each person’s world is subjectively projected?

Continue reading →

mANDUkya upaniShad Part 11

Posted on by

*** Read Part 10 ***

Mantra 10 (and kārikā K1.20)

स्वप्नस्थानस्तैजस उकारो द्वितीया मात्रोत्कर्षादुभयत्वाद्वोत्कर्षति ह वै ज्ञानसन्ततिं समानश्च भवति नास्याब्रह्मवित्कुले भवाति य एवं वेद ॥ १० ॥

svapnasthānastaijasa ukāro dvitīyā mātrotkarṣādubhayatvādvotkarṣati ha vai jñānasantatiṃ samānaśca bhavati nāsyābrahmavitkule bhavāti ya evaṃ veda || 10 ||

dvitIyā mātra – The second mātra (of OM)
ukāraḥ – the letter ‘u’
taijasa – is taijasa
svapna sthāna – the dream state
utkarṣāt – because it is superior
vā – or
ubhayatvāt – because it is in the middle.

ya evaṃ veda – Whosoever knows this
ha vai – verily
utkarṣāti – increases
jñāna saṃtati – the flow of knowledge
cha bhavati – and becomes
samānaḥ – the equal (of anyone).

abrahmavit – (A person who is) not a knower of brahman
na bhavāti – is not born
asya kule – in his family.

The letter u, the second mātra of OM, is taijasa, the dream state, because both are regarded as superior and also are in the middle of their respective series. Whoever knows this will become superior in knowledge and accepted by all. All members of his family will be jñānī-s.

The letter u is regarded as superior to a because it comes later in the alphabet and, in the sounding of o, the a ‘resolves’ into u. Whereas a was the basic, unadorned sound made by merely opening the mouth, u is a more subtle sound requiring that we modify the lips significantly.

The subtle taijasa is regarded as superior to vishva because subtle is superior to gross. Also, gross can be considered as the ‘effect’ of the subtle ’cause’. Gross equates to matter, subtle to energy. Mental is superior to physical; it is the quality of our mind that raises us above animals. The gross body returns to earth on death, whereas the subtle and causal bodies continue to rebirth (for the ajñānī). At the macrocosmic (samaṣṭi) level, at the end of the universe (pralaya), the entire gross creation (virāṭ) is subsumed into hiraṇyagarbha.

Each is the middle of its respective series: u comes between a and m; taijasa comes between vishva and prājña.

By meditating on OM, giving attention particularly to the letter u and being aware of these associations, the following benefits will accrue to the seeker who is still primarily interested in material benefits:  their mental power and corresponding knowledge will increase; they will be treated equally by everyone, yet envied by no one.

*** Read Part 12 ***

mANDUkya upaniShad Part 6

Posted on by

Mantra 5

*** Read Part 5 ***

यत्र सुप्तो न कञ्चन कामं कामयते न कञ्चन स्वप्नं पश्य्ति तत् सुषुप्तम्।
सुषुप्तस्थान एकिभूतः प्रज्ञानघन एवानन्दमयो ह्यानन्दभुक् चेतोमुखः प्राज्ञस्तृतीयः पादः॥ ५॥

yatra supto na ka~nchana kAmaM kAmayate na ka~nchana svapnaM pashyati tat suShuptam |
suShuptasthAna ekibhUtaH praj~nAnaghana evAnandamayo hyAnandabhuk chetomukhaH prAj~nastRRitIyaH pAdaH || 5 ||

tat suShuptam – That (is called) the deep-sleep state
yatra supto – in which the sleeper
kAmyate na ka~nchana kAmaM – desires nothing (not any desired objects)
na pashyati ka~nchana svapnaM – nor sees any dreams.
tRRiitIyaH pAdaH – The third aspect
prAj~naH  – (is called) ‘the one who knows or understands’,
suShuptasthAna – the state of deep sleep.
ekibhUtaH – (In this state), everything is undifferentiated (literally ‘one element’),
praj~nAnaghana eva –  just a homogenous mass of Consciousness
AnandamayaH – full of bliss,
hi Ananda bhuk – indeed the ‘enjoyer’ of bliss.
chetomukhaH – (Literally) it is the one whose mouth is intelligence.

The third aspect of the Self is prAj~na. This is the deep-sleep state in which one neither desires anything nor sees any dream. Everything is undifferentiated; simply blissful Consciousness alone, gateway to the other two cognitive states.

Continue reading →

Q.526 MithyA

Posted on by

Q: In your comment on the article by Arun Kumar, I was confused but intrigued that you define Mithya as something that simply explains the fundamental nature of the Brahman in life and its objects. I have not so far found any dictionary that defines mithya as anything other than false or illusory nor discovered any major scholar-philosopher who thought that Shankara viewed this world as a reality – as real as the ornament in your metaphor. You say that Shankara himself by discriminating between the waking and dream states suggests that novel meaning of Mithya. Is this your own interpretation or does Shankara himself link the ability to differentiate between those states to explain mithya?

You raise the example of how jumping into the middle of traffic would help one realize why this world is NOT an illusion… but it is not convincing enough. Potentially, both a person jumping in front of a truck and his consequent “death” could be perceived as illusory events too. The real question I have is whether Shankara himself viewed this world as illusion and used Mithya to convey that or not. And, if it was an illusion for him, what did he think the meaning of life was? If on the other hand life was Not an illusion to him, as you seem to suggest, what was its purpose in that case?

Continue reading →

Q. 514 Some thoughts on ‘Truth’

Posted on by

Q: Are true and false relative opposites, like fast and slow?

A: Wow – a difficult one!

To some extent, I think both depend upon context (so would have to be ‘relative’). Fast and slow are a good analogy. These still have an ‘absolute’ sense: ‘Fast’ (with capital letter) must be speed of light; ‘Slow’ must be stationary. Similarly, most statements can be construed as true or false ‘to a degree’, can’t they?

Here is the opening from the Philosophy Foundation website on ‘Truth-Falsity’:

Are these a) true, b) false, c) neither or d) both?

    ‘I am 20.

    ‘I am me.’

    ‘The Simpsons is a really good programme.’

    ‘I am shopping in Lewisham’ (when the speaker is shopping, but not in Lewisham)

    ‘This cake is made of jelly’ (when it is half jelly and half something else).

    ‘2 + 2 = 4’

    ‘Unicorns only have one horn.’

    ’10 grains of sand make a heap.’

    ‘This sentence is false.’

    ‘Aliens exist.’

Makes you think, doesn’t it?!

Continue reading →

Me, “The Seer” and World, “The Seen”

Posted on by

Dhruva was an adorable little boy. He saw his half-brother, Uttama, sitting and playing on the lap of their father, King Uttanapada. He too desired to climb on to the lap of Uttanapada. But his step-mother could hardly tolerate that. She gave a tight slap to him declaring that he was unfit to sit on the lap of the King as he was not born to her but to another queen. Crest-fallen and deeply hurt, the little kid, with his eyes full of tears, ran to his mother. His mother, a highly noble lady, consoled him and advised that he should achieve something so that people look at him with awe. The little Dhruva left the royal palace and went away to a distant forest. He met with a group of Sages in the forest and narrated to them his soulful story. They advised him to meditate on Vishnu. So, he embarked on a very austere and rigorous course of meditation. Regretting heavily the developments, the King and all his retinue, his mother, the queen and all his family implored that he should give up his askesis and return home. The King was even ready to abdicate the throne and promised to coronate him. But Dhruva was unrelenting. He did not succumb to the temptations and was uncompromising in his resolve. He pursued his meditation with greater vigor. He meditated on Vishnu, the Ultimate. Continue reading →

Q.491 Individuality and the world

Posted on by

Q: Does individuality survive enlightenment? In other words, putting aside any genetic differences, age, etc., would 50 realized people act the same in the same environment? Would they have the same preference for food, clothes, etc?

If not, why not? It seems that If the ego is completely destroyed, and a soul does not exist, and a person is in a permanent state of enlightenment, there wouldn’t be any difference between any of them. (My definition of an ego includes all past experiences.)

In addition, people often say something like, “I always wanted to do that,” or “Deep inside I always knew I would be a doctor or a scientist,” etc. What is that? Where does this “knowing” come from? Is it just an ego playing its games? 

Thank you, I appreciate your help. Your books are really great. I’ve enjoyed reading them.

A: Good questions! But, before I answer them, you have to always bear in mind that questions like these refer to the appearance, not the reality; vyavahAra, not paramArtha. In reality, no one has ever been born; there is no ‘creation’; there is only Brahman. (I’m assuming from what you say that you have read ‘A-U-M’, in which case you will be happy with this!) So the answers are academic, in line with traditional Advaita, but are all mithyA in reality.  Continue reading →

Q.489 Creation and reincarnation

Posted on by

Q: Is Ishvara/mAyA the one responsible for the form of the universe or is the jiva responsible for it?

If Ishvara/mAyA:

  • then who/what is Ishvara and how does it create the universe?
  • then how does adhyAsa come into the picture because if Ishvara is the creator then even if adhyAsa is removed then the appearance of the world will still be there.

If the jiva

  • then why does the world not disappear upon enlightenment (a jiva is responsible for the dream at night whilst asleep, therefore the dream disappears upon waking)

I have heard many examples of gold/ornament with regards to the universe and Brahman (Gold being brahman, the names/forms being the ornaments). I’m not sure I have fully grasped this comparison, in what sense does matter depend on Brahman?

I see that all things are experienced IN consciousness and therefore in that sense the world of objects/atoms/quantum fields etc depends on consciousness/Brahman because the world can not be experienced without consciousness. It doesn’t seem right to me, because it’s not something you could ever refute. Obviously we can’t experience the world without consciousness. Continue reading →