Tag Archives: ego

Upadesa Sahasri ( Part 31)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 30 

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 13)

Posted on by

Part 12

Chapter 14 Dream and Memory
14.1 to 14.10
Advaita Vedanta is more a teaching than a philosophy. A fundamental Vedantic principle is that a real thing cannot be destroyed, and an unreal thing need not be destroyed. Only a seemingly real thing called mithya in Vedantic terminology can be destroyed. As the aim is to remove human suffering, it analyses human experience with the help of scriptures and reason. It says that though human suffering is experienced, it is mithya and can be removed. What we think about ourselves is not correct and further that experience may be deceptive as it does not necessarily match with the reality.

Continue reading →

Ātman and Brahman

Posted on by

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

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

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 →