6.8.1 to 6.8.7
In deep sleep, the mind and sense organs resolve and the jiva resolves into pure existence. Sleep is called svapiti. The etymological meaning of the term svapiti is ‘one goes’, or ‘reaches’ sva, i.e., the self. The word sva connotes one’s own being or essential nature. One is absorbed in oneself in sleep. There is no individuality. Though the mind and sense organs are resolved, jiva continues to exist because there is prana, i.e., life. A clay pot resolves into clay. The clay is the nature of pot. The true nature of an entity is the locus of its resolution.
Tag Archives: jiva
Tat Tvam Asi (Part 4)
Meaning of words, Direct meaning of a sentence, Bhag Tyag Lakshna, Suggestive meaning of a sentence
In chapter 3 of Naiskarmya Siddhi, SuresvarAchArya explains the method to interpret and operationalize Tat Tvam Asi. Like any sentence, TTA is made of words and to ascertain the meaning of a sentence, meaning of words is to be ascertained followed by their inter-se relationships. In Vakya Vritti (VV) 1.9 and 1.10, the teacher affirms the student’s concern that if he does not know the meanings of the words, how can he comprehend the mahAvAkya.
Eight Upanishads (Topic-wise) Part 33
Chapter 6 JnAna and moksha
6-9 Tattiriya Upanishad- BrahmAnanda Valli
6-9-4 AnuvAka 7 (Pt 2) The universe is made of matter and is essentially inert. But living and non-living beings are found in the universe. It means that there is an outside source of sentiency. This source is Brahman. Consciousness is the nature of Brahman. The consciousness is reflected in the subtle body of a jiva and the latter becomes sentient. Brahman is also the source of happiness. When consciousness is reflected in a calm mind, happiness is felt. Vedanta claims that there is not an iota of happiness in worldly objects. If happiness is the essential nature of an object, it should give happiness to everybody all the time. But it is not so. An object liked by a person may not be liked by another person. And an object liked by a person now may not be liked later.
Waking Up (Part 2)
Part 2 of the review of Waking Up: A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion by Sam Harris
Read Part 1
Science
Another problem which adds to the book’s confusion is the attempt to utilize science, supposedly to improve upon or correct the ancient (and therefore bound to be mistaken) views of the original philosophies (be these Advaita or Buddhism). Harris explains that “Throughout this book, I discuss certain classical spiritual phenomena, concepts, and practices in the context of our modern understanding of the human mind.” Why would one want to do this? It is missing the point completely. The truth cannot be found in the mind; rather the mind is a tool with which we may discover the truth.
I explain in my article ‘Science and Consciousness’ that science can never explain the nature of ‘I’ because I am the subject, doing the investigating. The subject can never objectify himself. It is true that I can investigate both the body and the mind because I am neither of these. But this also means that understanding the human mind is not going to help in an ‘investigation’ of spirituality; it is simply not relevant to ‘who I really am’. Furthermore, if Harris is ‘talking about the nature of experience itself’, he is not talking about ‘I’, since I am the experiencer. Finding out about household electric light circuits and how they work tells me nothing at all about the one who operates the light switch.
Continue readingDṛṣṭi- sṛṣṭi-vāda
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 readingWaking Up
Here is another old book review, this one from just over 10 years ago. It is for the book Waking Up: A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion by Sam Harris.
It is an even longer review than the last, so will require at least 3 parts. Here is Part 1.
The Meaning of the Word ‘Spiritual’
Regardless of how well a book is written, and how interesting its content, if it is non-fiction it seems that its value should be judged upon how successfully it achieves its stated objective. As far as potential readers are concerned, the objective is traditionally determined from a book’s title. And, in this case, it appears that the intended purpose of this book is to teach us about ‘Spirituality’ whilst avoiding any ‘religious’ overtones.
This tells us that the author acknowledges that ‘spirituality’ is usually associated with religion. It suggests that, not only does he believe that it need not be so associated, but also he thinks that he can teach us about spirituality without needing to say anything at all about religion. Before starting to read the book, therefore, it would be useful to know exactly what is meant by the term ‘spirituality’.
Continue readingEight Upanishads (Topic-wise) Part 19
Chapter 6 JnAna and Moksha
6-5 Katha Upanishad
6-5-9 Katha 1.2.25 The mantra reads: How can one know thus as to where It (the Self) is, for which both the Brahmin and the Kshatriya become food, and for which death takes the place of a curry? Brahma Sutra 1.2.9 clarifies who is the eater. Is it fire or the individual soul, or is it the supreme Self? The doubt is because Nachiketa has asked Yama about three entities-fire, individual soul, and the supreme Self.
Eight Upanishads (Topic-wise) Part 4
Chapter 3 Jiva Jagat Isvara
3-1 Introduction
It is desirable to begin with the obvious, namely, the creation and human being. The world is constituted of living and non-living beings. It also includes invisible entities, e.g., thoughts, and emotions. A human being is a living being. Though Upanishads differ in the details of creation, there is consensus about a causeless creator called Brahman and that the creation is cyclic, not linear. A linear creation with a beginning and an end runs into logical fallacies. In the cyclic version, there is no beginning and no end. Pedantically, it is absurd to talk about any beginning of creation because time is a part of creation. An immediate question that begs an answer is about the source of raw materials for creation. Before the creation, there was nothing except the creator. Upanishadic answer is that the creator has the material within Himself like a spider having material inside itself. The material is the mAyA power of Brahman which does not exist separately from Brahman. Cyclic creation and the material within the creator lead to a third proposition. In one cycle, the world emerges out of the creator, runs its course according to certain laws, and then resolves into the creator to remain there in potential form and become ready at an appropriate time for the next cycle. It is called creation-sustenance-dissolution. The word ‘creation’ is a misnomer because it conveys that a new thing comes into existence which is not correct. A more appropriate word is manifestation.
Q. 548 – God and germs
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 readingAdvaita in the Vedas – Rig Veda 1.164.20
In exploring Advaita, we may have heard of the metaphor of the two birds,
Two birds, inseparable friends, cling to the same tree. One of them eats the sweet fruit, the other looks on without eating. [1]
The two birds are the jiva (the one which eats) and paramatman (the one which looks on without eating). The jiva is bound, attached to karma and its fruits, whereas the paramatman is free from karma. Identified as the jiva, the ‘enjoyer’, we ‘taste’ the fruits of action (pleasure and pain). Identified with the paramatman, we do not experience the duality of pleasure and pain as there is no attachment to them.
The two birds highlight the contrasting ways of conducting action – with or without attachment. In the jiva, we act to attain certain fruits (desirable outcomes) of our actions. Whereas, in the paramatman, we act without any desire or discrimination between success and failure or pleasure and pain. The paramatman is the Advaitin witness, whilst the jiva is still caught up in the dualistic experience of self (subject) and ‘other’ (object).
What we may not know is that the ‘two birds’ metaphor originates from Rig Veda (1.164.20). Continue reading