Tag Archives: ishvara

Upādhi: the ‘Limiting Adjunct’

Posted on by
Reply

One of the most persistent challenges for any student of Advaita Vedānta is reconciling the ‘Great Equation’—the scriptural declaration that the individual Self (Ātman) is identical to the non-dual Absolute (Brahman)—with our daily experience of being a finite, limited person. If reality is truly ‘not two,’ why do we feel so distinctly separate? The traditional teaching answers this riddle through a vital technical concept: the upādhi, or ‘limiting adjunct’.

Understanding the upādhi is essential because it serves as the mechanism through which the infinite appears to become finite, the one appears as many, and the actionless Witness appears to be an active doer and enjoyer.

The Meaning of the Term

Etymologically, the word upādhi is a compound of the Sanskrit roots upa (meaning ‘near to’ or ‘by the side of’) and ādhadāti (meaning ‘imparts’). In a general sense, the Sanskrit dictionary defines it as ‘that which is put in place of another thing; a substitute, phantom, disguise, or appearance’.

Continue reading →

Īśvara: Understanding the ‘God’ of Advaita Vedānta

Posted on by
2

For many modern seekers, the term ‘God’ carries heavy baggage, often tied to dualistic religions where a creator sits in a distant heaven, judging humanity from afar. When these seekers turn to Advaita Vedānta, they are often drawn to the uncompromising non-duality of Brahman—the formless, infinite, and attribute-less Absolute. However, as they delve into traditional scriptures like the Upaniṣads or the commentaries of Ādi Śaṅkara, they inevitably encounter the term Īśvara.

Far from being a ‘retrogressive step’ toward dualism, the concept of Īśvara is a sophisticated and necessary component of the Advaitic teaching methodology known as adhyāropa-apavāda (provisional attribution followed by subsequent rescission).

Continue reading →

Adhyāropa-apavāda

Posted on by

Explanation of key terms in Advaita

Since I have still had no questions from readers, I can only conclude that there are none (questions or readers)! Accordingly, I am beginning here a new, regular(-ish) posting to explain key terms used in the teaching of Advaita. These will be AI-generated but based solely upon all my books and other writing. I begin with what is possibly the most important concept in the entire philosophy, as might have been realized from the paper by Manjushree Hegde.

Adhyāropa-Apavāda: The Art of the Leading Error in Advaita Vedānta

In the pursuit of spiritual truth, a fundamental paradox confronts every seeker: if the ultimate reality is non-dual and indescribable, how can it ever be taught? Traditional Advaita Vedānta addresses this dilemma through a sophisticated and time-proven methodology known as adhyāropa-apavāda. This pedagogical strategy, often translated as “false attribution followed by subsequent rescission”, serves as the primary engine for guiding a mind steeped in duality toward the recognition of its own non-dual nature.

Continue reading →

Chandogya Upanishad (Chapters 6 to 8) Part 2

Posted on by

 Part 1

Part 3

6.2.1 to 6.2.4
In order to show that by knowing the supreme entity, all other things are known, creation’s evolution on the basis of the principle of cause and effect is taught. Different Upanishads describe creation in different manners. However, there is a consensus about a causeless creator from which creation has evolved according to the cause-and-effect principle. According to ShankarAcharya, creation is a necessary assumption for the purpose of the ascent of the individual to the Absolute. It may be there, or it may not be there; that is not the point. As an interim measure, creation is accepted and once it serves the purpose, it is negated. ‘x’ in an arithmetical equation does not really exist yet it is useful in solving the problem. When it solves the problem, it extinguishes itself automatically and is not there. The purpose of teaching of the Upanishad is different from storytelling, ‘once upon a time’. It is an important point. There is no use arguing about whether creation exists or not. There is no denying that there is a creation and is experienced. And Uddalaka follows this technique of teaching like a good psychologist.

Continue reading →

Traditional versus Neo-Advaita (Conclusion)

Posted on by

*** Read Part 3 *** *** Go to Part 1 ***

The term ‘neo-Vedanta’ is used these days to describe the teaching of Ramakrishna and Vivekananda followers. It is characterized by ideas such as the need to ‘experience’ Brahman through samādhi, since Self-knowledge is only an ‘intellectual’ understanding. Up until the late 20th C, it was also sometimes called neo-Advaita. It diverges from the Advaita as systematized by Śaṅkara because Vivekananda was adversely influenced by Yoga philosophy, incorporating some of their teaching and denigrating the scriptural authority of the Vedas. I am not addressing this further in this article. Read the excellent book by Anantanand Rambachan – ‘The Limits of Scripture: Vivekananda’s Reinterpretation of the Vedas’ – if interested. (Amazon UK; Amazon US)

My own book ‘Confusions in Advaita Vedanta – Knowledge, Experience and Enlightenment’ also has an account of the differences, and sources of confusion. (Exotic India; Amazon US). (N.B. there only seems to be a hardback available at Amazon UK at present, at a ridiculous price. Exotic India is much cheaper. It is in US but has free postage to UK. Alternatively, probably cheapest of all from the publisher, Indica Books, in India.)

Continue reading →

Dṛṣṭi- sṛṣṭi-vāda

Posted on by

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 →

Adhyāropa-apavāda (Part 4)

Posted on by

ADHYĀROPĀPAVĀDA: REVISITING THE INTERPRETATIONS OF SVĀMI SACCIDĀNANDENDRA SARASVATĪ AND THE POST-ŚAṄKARĀDVAITINS (concluded)
by Manjushree Hegde
(Read Part 3)

Based on Śaṅkarācārya’s statements, the PSA formulated a rigorous exposition of the continuation of prārabdha karma—and avidyā—in a jīvanmukta. Nelson (1996) documents the different arguments advanced: Vimuktātman, for example, advocates for the existence of a tangible remnant of avidyā in the jivanmukta (IS 1.9, p. 75).43 Sarvajñātman employs a range of metaphorical constructs to describe the remnant of moha (ignorance) post-gnosis: scent (gandha), shadow (cchāyā), residue, impression (saṁskāra), and so on, (SŚ 4.42).44 Citsukha delineates three forms of ignorance and argues that knowledge destroys only two forms—the third persists post-gnosis; otherwise, he argues, it would result in the immediate cessation of the body, and not admit the experience of jīvanmukti (TP, p. 394ff).45 Prakāśātman writes that the mukta “slips into dualistic awareness (dvaita-darśana)” in his participation in the world (PPV, p. 786).46 Building on Citsukha’s arguments, Madhusūdana Sarasvatī— and his commentator Brahmānanda Sarasvatī—declare videhamukti as “paramamukti,” hierarchically superior to jīvanmukti (AS, p. 892ff). We see here that the PSA’s (seemingly innocuous) endeavour to elucidate the persistence of prārabdha karma in the jīvanmukta compromises and undermines the very notion of mokṣa, here and now. This is akin to severing the very branch upon which one is perched.

Continue reading →

Adhyāropa-apavāda (Part 3)

Posted on by

ADHYĀROPĀPAVĀDA: REVISITING THE INTERPRETATIONS OF SVĀMI SACCIDĀNANDENDRA SARASVATĪ AND THE POST-ŚAṄKARĀDVAITINS (continued)
by Manjushree Hegde
(Read Part 2)

VI. Adhyāropāpavāda According to the PSA

For the PSA, “Brahman can only be shown, not described” (Murthy 1959, p. 57), albeit in a circuitous, approximate manner (“adūraviprakarṣeṇa”).27 The crux of this position lies in the contention that although brahman eludes direct descriptive elucidation (abhidhā), it retains a semblance of apprehensibility through indirect means (lakṣaṇā). Vācaspati Miśra illustrates with an example: in order to explain gold, we point to gold ornaments—earrings, bracelets, etc—and explain it as the substance that assumes these various shapes; it is that which remains when the shapes no longer do. In a similar manner, the śruti “points to” the world-appearances to “show” brahman as that which assumes these various appearances; it is also what remains when the appearances no longer do (Bhāmati 1.1.4).

Accordingly, for the PSA, adhyāropāpavāda is one method to “show” brahman.28 Consider the stock example of Bhagavadgītā 13.14–15. In the verse 13.14, brahman is said to possess karmendriyas (hands, feet, etc.) and jñānendriyas (eyes, etc.). According to the PSA, this is an adhyāropa that is useful in drawing attention to the existence of brahman as that which permeates everything—including the human body and the sensory organs— and allows movement/perception to occur: ‘immanent’ brahman (Rambachan 2017, pp. 164–165). Ānandagiri writes, “The faculties of the body are a function of the consciousness that enlivens them; through them, the presence of brahman (as consciousness) can be recognized.”29 The śruti, thus, ‘points’ to brahman with the help of the attributes in accordance with the arundhati darśana nyāya. This is adhyāropa. In the verse immediately following this, brahman is said to be “without senses” and “devoid of qualities.” This is an apavāda that contradicts the preceding adhyāropa to point to brahman’s ‘transcendent’ nature (Rambachan 2017, pp. 164–165).30

Continue reading →

Q.554 – Practice and Enlightenment

Posted on by

Q: I have been a seeker for the past 25 years and now realize that Advaita is the optimum path. I would like to study full time but still need to pay the rent! How can I gain Self-knowledge while performing a mundane job?  Simply ‘being in the present’ cannot bring about self-realization.

Also, is it correct that ‘cosmic ignorance’ produces māyā and the universe? Īśvara and māyā produce the guṇa-s, which then determine the jīva’s individual ‘make-up’? If this is right, it seems that individual karma must be related to Īśvara as well? But I read that Īśvara has no karma, although responsible for ‘creating’ the gunas. I am confused!

A: The bottom-line answer to your question is that no, there is nothing that you can ‘practice’ or actively ‘do’ in order to gain enlightenment. The ultimate reality is that there is no creation and no ‘individual you’. Reality is non-dual. Who-you-really-are is the non-dual Consciousness and therefore you could say that you are already enlightened.

Continue reading →

Q. 548 – God and germs

Posted on by

Q: It is said that God is everywhere. So God is very much in the human body as well. He is in every cell/atom of a human body. My question is: what is the position /status of God, who is within the body, when  every cell/atom becomes infected? Is infection more powerful than God?

A: God is not ‘in the  human body’. The human body is name and form of Brahman. Similarly, bacteria are name and form of Brahman. There is ONLY Brahman in reality.

At the level of appearance (world etc.), God (Īśvara ) provides an interim explanation of the laws that govern the seeming creation.  One of these laws is that bacteria can infect bodies and affect their working, even to the extent of ‘killing’ them. But God, bodies and bacteria do not exist as separate entities in reality. They are all Brahman.

Continue reading →