Tag Archives: ego

Ātman and Brahman

Posted on by
Reply

The Pillars of Non-Dual Reality

In the vast and rigorous tradition of Advaita Vedānta, two terms stand as the absolute foundation of all spiritual inquiry: Brahman and Ātman. While these words can initially seem like abstract philosophical markers, they are, in fact, pointers to the most intimate and undeniable truths of our existence. Traditional Advaita, as systematized by the great sage Ādi Śaṅkara in the 8th century, is fundamentally a methodology designed to reveal that these two apparently different entities are, in reality, one and the same.

The core message of this teaching is famously summarized by the dictum: brahma satyam, jaganmithyā, jīvo brahmaiva nāparaḥ—”Brahman is the reality; the world is not in itself real; the individual self is none other than Brahman”. To understand this “Great Equation,” we must first clarify what is meant by these two essential terms through the lens of scriptural testimony (śabda pramāṇa) and Śaṅkara’s commentaries.

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 →

Upadesa Sahasri (Part 5)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 4

Chapter 6 Negation of attributes                                                                                     6.1 to 6.3 The author has earlier explained the method of negation (of objects) whereby Self is revealed. In this chapter, it is explained that negation of objects also means negation of attributes. Attribute is distinct from nature. That fire is hot is its nature and does not change. There is no cold fire. Smokiness is the attribute of a smoky fire. Attribute is a qualification and a limitation. The whiteness of a white cow is a limitation because it excludes all other colours. Since infiniteness is the very nature of Self, It is attribute- free. It is the ultimate subject and is the only entity having no attributes.   

Continue reading →

What is Enlightenment?

Posted on by

Enlightenment, the realization that I am eternally free, is the culmination of human evolution. Everything is working against it. The one who pursues it with single-pointed devotion is a salmon swimming upstream in the powerful river of life. (Ref. 1)

The aim of my new book Self Seeking is to explain how to go about finding a teacher who can teach Advaita. But the first question you need to answer is ‘Why do you want a teacher?’ Presumably you will say that you want to be ‘enlightened’ or to gain ‘Self-realization’ (don’t forget the capital ‘S’!). That being the case, you also need to be sure that you know what enlightenment is (and that the would-be teacher also knows this!) and how one should go about ‘getting’ it.

Continue reading →

Tat Tvam Asi (Part 6)

Posted on by

Part 5

Who is the hearer? Who says, I am Brahman?
Teaching of TTA becomes useful (Up Sa18.111) if it is meant for a hearer. In 18.76/77, there is a question: who is the hearer of the teaching? Two possible answers, namely, the Self and the ego are examined. It is argued that Self cannot be the hearer because It is free from action. The ego which is miserable, and a sufferer cannot be the hearer because it cannot say, ‘I am free’. Does it mean that the scripture is not a pramAna and teaching has no value? To dismiss such a possibility, 18.78 suggests a solution by introducing chidAbhAsa.

Continue reading →

Dialog with Jeff Foster (conc.)

Posted on by

*** Read Part 2 *** *** Go to Part 1 ***

13. You then talk about:“the collapse into not-knowing, the profound mystery…”I don’t know (!) what this means – sounds a bit too mystical for me.

– Well, I suppose those words do sound a bit mystical! I’m talking about the huge relief, the liberation, the sense of freedom when the mind’s endless search for something MORE than the present moment dies down, and there is only what is, and nothing more. It’s the “profound mystery” because nothing can be known about it.

OK, I’m happy with ‘relief’ and ‘liberation’ but I would use ‘fascination’ instead of ‘mystery’ – after all, ‘I amThat’. ‘Not-knowing’ is quite misleading.

14. “If anything, I’m saying the exact opposite, that the Mystery could NEVER be contained in ANY belief (especially simplistic neo-advaita beliefs!) ”Words never ‘contain’ the ‘mystery’, but they can be used to point to it. “Everything is here right now” does not provide any pointers that might overcome the essential ignorance.

– Yes, words as pointers….of course.

Continue reading →

Dialog with Jeff Foster (part 2)

Posted on by

*** Go to Part 1 ***

The Discussion

1. You say: “But the message asks – what reality does this person have in the first place? This isn’t about DENYING that person, or REJECTING that person.”

So are you saying that the person exists or not?

– I see this as a false dichotomy. The mind believes that something has to “exist or not”. But who would know whether a person existed or not? A person?

Without Consciousness, nothing exists. But it seems that this is the usual absolute versus empirical reality problem. Since we are using language and having a dialog, both of us are implicitly assuming the existence of separate persons. You cannot deny this without making nonsense of your position as a teacher and writer. So the answer to your question ‘what reality does the person have’ is that he has an empirical reality. This has to be accepted as a given at the level of the world appearance. The question as to whether this person has an absolute and separate existence is another question entirely.

Continue reading →

Traditional versus Neo-Advaita (Part 3)

Posted on by

*** Read Part 2 *** *** Go to Part 1 ***

Advaita refers to the unchanging reality by the Sanskrit term paramārtha and to the constantly changing appearance by vyavahāra. Within this phenomenal realm, separate individuals and objects are recognized and a creator-god, Īśvara, uses the power of māyā to obscure the truth and project the apparent world. It thus affirms that our experience does not tally with its non-dual claims. It acknowledges an appearance of duality, which is at odds with the reality. It also states that we can never directly know the reality. Accordingly, its effective teaching strategy is to successively negate the appearance. That which ‘remains’ and cannot be negated must be the reality. Once the reality is thus effectively (but not literally) known, then it is also realized that the appearance, too, is that same reality.

This process inevitably takes time, from the vantage point of the seeker who is still mired at the level of appearance. The ignorance that prevents the immediate apprehension of reality is effectively in the mind and it is at the level of the mind that this ignorance must be removed. Knowledge must be introduced in such a way that the mind can accept it, using reason and experience. Just as a student is unable to appreciate the subtleties of quantum physics without having the preliminary grounding in mathematics and science, so the seeker is unable to assimilate the ‘bottom-line’ truth of Advaita since it is so contrary to his everyday experience.

Continue reading →

Traditional versus Neo-Advaita (Part 2)

Posted on by

*** Read Part 1 ***

There are also two significant dangers regarding the Neo-Advaita ‘movement’. Firstly, there is the clear possibility of charlatans who, having read a little or heard the fundamental elements of ‘descriptions’ of reality, can devise a few ‘routines’ of their own and then advertise themselves on the circuit. Providing that they are good speakers/actors, it is certainly possible to make a living from deceiving ‘seekers’ in such a way, without ever giving away their true lack of knowledge or the fact that they are no nearer any ‘realization’ than their disciples.

Secondly, seekers themselves may be deluded into a belief that some specious realization has been obtained when, in fact, all that has happened is that they have come to terms with some psychological problem that had been making life difficult. The ending of such suffering could well be seen as a ‘liberation’. Of course, such a thing would not be at all bad – it simply would have nothing to do with enlightenment. Indeed, such people might well go on to become teachers in their own right, not charlatans in the true sense of the word, since they genuinely believe that ‘realization’ has taken place.

Continue reading →

Traditional versus Neo-Advaita

Posted on by

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 →