Tag Archives: intellect

Knowledge and Experience

Posted on by
4

Clearing the Minefield of Modern Advaita

For many modern seekers, the spiritual path feels like a journey from the ‘dry’ realm of intellectual study to the ‘wet’ realm of mystical experience. There is a pervasive belief, often propagated by Neo-Vedantic and Western satsang circles, that acquiring Self-knowledge through the scriptures is a ‘merely intellectual’ achievement—a collection of concepts that must eventually be ‘transformed’ into a direct, non-dual experience through meditation or samādhi.

However, traditional Advaita Vedānta, as systematized by Ādi Śaṅkara, offers a radical correction to this view. In this tradition, the ‘gap’ between knowledge and realization is non-existent for the prepared mind. To understand why, we must carefully define our terms and examine the relative value of knowledge and experience in the pursuit of liberation (mokṣa).

Continue reading →

Upadesa Sahasri (Part 32)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 31

Part 33

18.79–87
In these verses, Sri Shankara refines the theory of reflection. In the teaching of Tat Tvam Asi (TTA), the word ‘Tvam’ directly refers to the ego and indirectly to the Self. This requires a relationship between the Self and the ego. The Samkhya system is unable to explain because it does not accept the theory of reflection. Consequently, a teaching imparted directly to the ego cannot be said to be imparted indirectly to the Self. In Advaita, however, reflection establishes the relationship. It is not a relationship of seer and seen because the Self is devoid of activity. Reflection, on the other hand, is formed merely by the presence of the Self. The opponent’s further argument that there is a relation of non-difference between the Self and the ego is also untenable because there is no knowledge in the form, “Consciousness is my real Self.”

Continue reading →

Upadesa Sahasri (Part 30)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 29

Part 31

18.44–46
The opponent raises the question: Who experiences transmigratory existence (saṃsara)? Who is the saṃsari? The Self cannot be the experiencer of saṃsara because It is changeless. Nor can the reflection be the experiencer, since it is not ultimately real. The intellect too cannot be the experiencer because it is inert.
Sri Shankara agrees that saṃsara is indeed experienced, but he maintains that it is not real. It appears to belong to the Self, which serves as its substratum. The classic analogy is that of the rope and the snake. The snake exists only as a mental projection and is therefore unreal. Nevertheless, it is experienced because of the rope, the substratum upon which it is superimposed. Similarly, saṃsara is experienced because it is superimposed upon the Self.

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 →

Parokṣa and Aparokṣa

Posted on by
Reply

Bridging the Gap from Intellectual Understanding to Immediate Realization

In the pursuit of Advaita Vedānta, a seeker often grapples with a frustrating sense of distance. We read the great declarations of the Upaniṣads, we follow the rigorous logic of Ādi Śaṅkara, and we may even become ‘intellectually convinced’ that reality is non-dual. Yet, despite this conviction, we often feel as though we are standing on the outside looking in. This gap is technically defined by the distinction between two types of knowledge: parokṣa (mediate or indirect) and aparokṣa (immediate or direct).

Unravelling these terms is not just a matter of semantics; it is a vital step in clearing the ‘minefield’ of modern spiritual confusion. As I have argued in my series Confusions in Advaita Vedānta, many seekers are led astray by the belief that scriptural knowledge is ‘merely intellectual’ and must be transformed into something else through mystical experience. By looking at the original definitions and Śaṅkara’s own commentaries, we find a much more empowering truth: for the qualified seeker, the right means of knowledge (pramāṇa) can trigger immediate realization without the need for a secondary ‘mystical’ event.

Continue reading →

Upadesa Sahasri (Part 19)

Posted on by

Part 18

Part 20

Chapter 16 Consisting of Earth

16.1 to 16.4 The verses establish that real I, the Self, which is of the nature of consciousness, is different from the gross body, the sense organs and the mind because they all are made of five fundamental elements, namely, earth, water, fire, air and space. They are devoid of consciousness and are inert. Take the gross body. Its solid part is made of earth, the grossest element. The title of the chapter is derived from the name ‘earth’. The liquid part is made of water. There is heat in the body which is due to the fire element. There is air inside the body, e.g., the vital forces. Lastly, the empty area inside the body is made of space.

There are five sense organs, eyes, ears, nostrils, tongue, and skin which reveal respective sense objects, namely, form and colour, sound, smell, taste, and touch. There is an illuminator-illumined relationship among each pair of sense organ and sense object. Each pair is unique. They do not mix, e.g., eyes do not hear. The sense objects are categorized according to pre-dominance of the five elements. A sense object will be revealed by a sense organ which has predominance of the same element as that of the sense object. The conclusion is that the sense organs are also made of the five fundamental elements and therefore inert. As such, the Self is different from them.

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 →

Q.559 – Atman and intellect

Posted on by

Q: Does Atman make use of intellect? Or does intellect function automatically with Atman just being the witness?

This is because, identification with body mind is possible only when we think. Liberation is possible when we overcome this wrong idea. Either way, it appears that Atman makes use of the intellect to get bound or liberated. 

It is said that Atman is ever free and illusion and bondage are concepts only. But this concept can appear to Atman only when intellect is used.

A: First of all, you must clearly differentiate between the ‘absolute reality’ and the ‘empirical’ (worldly) appearance.

 In reality, there is only non-dual Brahman. The world, including ‘you, the person’, is not real in itself. It is ‘name and form of’ Brahman, just as ring and necklace are not real in themselves, being name and form of gold.

Continue reading →

Who “Listens” to the Vedanta vAkya – ‘tattvamasi’?

Posted on by

[Background: This Post is a sequel to the Discussions at Q: 541 with regard to “Who or what is that which listens to the mahA vAkya ‘tattvamasi’ and Who really gets “It”?” My reply to that question, based on 18.114, upadesha sAhashrI of Shankara,  was that “It is the Inner Self Itself which “listens” to the Non-dual message.” Dennis and Venkat made some significant observations on this issue and I found myself inadequate to answer their points.

So, I took the liberty to refer the matter to three highly knowledgeable and well-read Vedantins who are also proficient in Sanskrit. They had been extremely kind to readily spare their time amidst their own preoccupations and to  share their views on this profound subject. Their in-depth analysis and exposition backed by authentic citations is too valuable and important to stay tucked in my files and deserve wider dissemination. Hence, I present below, as an expression of my gratitude, their Comments which will undoubtedly be beneficial to many seekers.]

Smt. Manjushree Hegde Ji (India):

You’ve chosen the toughest chapter of the toughest text! Continue reading →

Ignorance Goes, but mAyA remains – Revisited

Posted on by

Ask any teacher of Non-duality the question “Why we see a multiplicity of objects instead of Oneness in the world?,” pat comes back the reply that “It is all due to mAyA, an inexplicable and indefinable power of the Creator God, Ishwara. mAyA is so much reified and deified in some texts that they present it almost as a given “fact.” They romanticize mAyA; sing paeans in lilting poetry as a Divine Goddess vested with special powers – that of concealment of the Truth and projection of an unreal world filled with variegated objects (e.g. 110-111, vivekacUDAmani).

But Gaudapada in his kArikA-s on mANDUkya and Shankara in his commentary on them regard mAyA to be no more than an explanatory artifact. Gaudapada mentions ‘mAyA‘ in the sense of a magic-show in the last chapter of his kArikA-s. For example: Continue reading →