Tag Archives: Knowledge

Use of the word ‘mithyā (Part 2)

Posted on by
Reply

*** Read Part 1 ***

The key conclusion made in the discussion below was that, according to AI search: “I have not seen a single place in the prasthāna-traya bhāṣyas where Śaṅkara uses mithyā to label the world or jagat in that ontological sense.”

Q: Vani Vilas will be fine. Your suggested presentation sounds good!

A (ChatGPT5): Excellent—I’ll proceed using the Vani Vilas (1910) Sanskrit editions, and I’ll present three strong, verifiable examples where Śaṅkara himself uses a mithyā- compound in the clear metaphysical sense you described. For each example, I’ll provide:

  • A scan of the original page from the Vani Vilas PDFs with the term highlighted, complete with the file identifier and precise page number.
  • The exact Devanāgarī text (including the mithyā- compound and ± one line of context), transcribed verbatim.
  • My own literal, word-for-word English translation and a brief explanation of how the context conveys the “illusory but Brahman-dependent” sense.
  • Full bibliographic citation: volume number (per Works of Śaṅkara 1910), PDF or DJVU page number, and Internet Archive identifier.
Continue reading →

ChAndogya Upanishad (Chapters 6 to 8) Part 6(1)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 5

6.13.1 to 6.13.3 and 6.14.1 to 6.14.3                                                                              Uddalaka continues the teaching using common metaphors as he finds that Svetaketu is a worthy student. When salt is dissolved in water, it is not possible to see the salt with eyes. However, presence of salt is ascertained by tasting the water from top or middle or bottom. Brahman is present in every jiva but sense organs are unable to perceive it. However, there are other means, namely, the scriptures, by which Brahman is known as the Self of jiva.  A robber having brought a person blindfolded from Gandhara leaves him in a desolate place. The person is clueless about directions and in particular about the direction leading to GandhAra. He cries for help and fortunately on getting guidance from someone, he proceeds towards GandhAra inquiring for its location from people whom he meets on way. Finally, he reaches GandhAra. Similarly, as long as a person does not get a preceptor, he remains ignorant about Brahman and Self. If he is fortunate due to his punyas earned, he gets a preceptor and he becomes liberated. Sections 13 and 14 conclude with Thou that art.

Continue reading →

Eight Upanishads (Topic-wise) Part 41

Posted on by

Part 40

Chapter 7 Brahma Sutra BhAsya
7-9 BSB 3.4.18 to 3.4.20 SanyAs prescribed by scriptures                                           Purva Paksha (PP) is a performer of Vedic rites and rituals. He holds that there is no Vedic sanction for sanyAs Ashrama. Vedic sanction is for only grihastha ashrama. An exception can be made for handicapped persons who cannot perform rituals. PP says that Brahmacharya Ashrama is a steppingstone for grihastha Ashrama. It is further argued that stages of life where celibacy is prescribed, they are allusions and not injunctions. The Vedic texts that those who give up fire are murderers of gods show that sanyAs is not prescribed by the Vedas.

Continue reading →

Eight Upanishads (Topic-wise) Part 37

Posted on by

Chapter 6 JnAna and Moksha
6-11 Tattiriya Upanishad Siksha Valli
6-11-1 Anuvaka 10 Trisanku on Knowledge and Wisdom
The Upanishad quotes Trisanku who after attaining jnAna declares that the glories of Brahman are his glories. Instead of saying Brahman is Satyam-JnAnan-Anantam, he claims- ‘I am Satyam-JnAnam-Anantam’. Instead of claiming that Brahman is Jagat-Karana he declares: I am Jagat-Karana. To an ignorant person, the claim of I am Brahman may seem preposterous. For a jnani, it is a rehearsal mantra. By rehearsing (Nidhidhyasana), he is established in Brahman. It is jnAna-nishtha.
Vedanta makes a distinction between Brahman and Isvara. Brahman is nirguna, Isvara is saguna. Maya is the total causal body. It is unmanifest and rests in Brahman. Brahman with its mAyA power is Isvara. Isvara is also unmanifest. Manifest Isvara is the universe. Sometimes Brahman and Isvara are used interchangeably. However, the context should make clear whether the term refers to nirguna or saguna.

Continue reading →

Q.558 Knowledge and Experience

Posted on by

Q: I am still confused about the relative value of experience and knowledge. Some teachers seem to say that scriptures only give you ‘intellectual’ knowledge and you then have to convert this into actual ‘experience’ in order to become enlightened. But then there are metaphors like rope-snake and dream-waking. The snake that we experience is not real and we have to wake up from the dream. This means gaining knowledge, doesn’t it?

A: You cannot experience the Self/Brahman/Absolute. But then neither can you ‘know’ it in the usual sense of the word. Reality is non-dual. The empirical, experienced world of duality is an appearance; name and form of Brahman. All of this can be intellectually understood by the mind. When it is firmly believed to be true, without any doubt, that is enlightenment.

You should also understand that it is not the case that ‘all of this is unreal’. ‘Unreal’ is not the correct adjective. Every empirical perception is name and form of Brahman and therefore ultimately real. Just not ‘real’ as its perceived ‘object’. This is why the world does not disappear on enlightenment. The scriptures tell us ‘sarvam khalvidam brahma’ – all of this is Brahman. So, if it disappeared, it would mean that Brahman disappeared!

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 →

Dialog with Jeff Foster (part 1)

Posted on by

Continuing to look for essays and reviews etc. that are no longer available online, I came across the following dialog that I had with Jeff Foster in June 2007, after I had read his book ‘Life Without a Centre: awakening from the dream of separation’. In fact, the dialog is still available at the advaita.org.uk site but, since that site does not seem to be much visited these days, I thought it would be a good idea to republish here, as a follow-up to the recently posted article on neo-Advaita. A link to an extract from the book is included below and you can purchase the book at Amazon.UK or Amazon.com. Jeff’s website is here.  

This post will be in several parts. This first part contains our initial exchange; the remainder will contain the ensuing discussion. Readers should always remember that this was nearly 20 years ago and views may change. I understand that Jeff has said that he no longer holds some of the views that he did then.

In all parts, my words are in blue (Dennis Waite) and Jeff’s are in red (Jeff Foster).

The reason I am writing is that Julian Noyce (Non-Duality Press) periodically sends me review copies of new books and, some time ago he sent me yours, which I read with interest. I just sent the following message back to him and he suggested that I contact you directly.

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 →