BSB 4.1.4 and 4.1.5
Doubt: There are texts, “One should meditate about space as Brahman” and “The sun is Brahman”. The doubt is, whether self-identification should be resorted. The opponent says that one should identify oneself with those symbols as well (thinking thus: “I am the symbol which is Brahman”). Because Brahman is familiar as the Self and the symbols also are forms of Brahman. The aphorist clarifies that meditator should not identify himself with a symbol, for he cannot consider himself to be so. Brahman is taught to be identical with the individual Self after eliminating empirical characteristics like agent ship etc. from the latter, whereas meditation is prescribed without eliminating these. As the meditator and the symbols are both limited entities, self-identity with symbols is ruled out. There are supporting texts. “He who having known thus meditates about the sun as Brahman” (Ch 3.19.4). “He who meditates organ of speech as Brahman” (Ch 7.2.2). “He who meditates about resolve as Brahman” (Ch 7.4.3).
Tag Archives: Knowledge
Chandogya Upanishad and Brahm Sutra Bhasya Part 5
BSB 2.3.9
There is no possibility of origin of Brahman which is of the nature of Existence. It cannot originate from Existence for otherwise it leads to infinite regress. Moreover, there should be some distinguishing features for a causal relationship. Brahman cannot originate from non-existence (Ch 6.2.2). For creation, a primary origin-free material cause is to be admitted, and Brahman is the primary material cause.
Adhyāsa
Explanation of key terms in Advaita – No. 2
If adhyāropa-apavāda is the most important term regarding the teaching method of Advata, adhyāsa is the most important term describing the essence of the teaching.
Adhyāsa: The Fundamental Error of Mistaken Identity
In the study of Advaita Vedānta, the term adhyāsa is arguably the most critical concept to grasp if one is to understand the human condition and the path to liberation. Often translated as “superimposition,” adhyāsa refers to the fundamental mistake of apprehending one thing as something else. It is the cognitive error of mixing up what is real (sat) with what is only apparently real (mithyā), thereby creating a sense of confusion that defines our everyday experience. This concept is so pivotal that Ādi Śaṅkara devoted the entire introduction of his commentary on the Brahmasūtras—known as the Adhyāsa Bhāṣya—to explaining its mechanics and implications.
Continue readingKindle Confusions

The kindle versions of Vols. 1 and 2 of ‘Confusions in Advaita Vedanta’ are now complete.
See ‘Knowledge, Experience and Enlightenment‘ for details of Volume 1 and ‘Ignorance and Its Removal’ for details of Volume 2.
Continue readingUpadesa Sahasri (Part4)
Chapter 4 The nature of right knowledge
4.1 and 4.2 In chapter 1, it has been explained that a jnani is free from ahankara (egoism). He considers himself as a witnessing consciousness and is therefore akarta (non-doer) and abhokta (non-enjoyer). In the verse 4.1, the author makes a general statement that action of a jnani, free from egoism, does not produce any punya or papa karma. It is so because, right knowledge has burnt the ego. In verse 2, states a possible objection: is that it is seen that even though action is burnt by the fire of knowledge, it produces result.
Akhaṇḍākāra Vṛtti
I wrote last week that I have set up a NotebookLM database of all my books and writing for the past 25 years+ and I invited readers to submit any (Advaita!) questions on which they would like to read my ‘considered’ views. I have not had many (any) requests, so hear is another one I made myself. There are a number of points with which I would now take issue and I refer to these after the answer.
Q2. What is the nature of the akhaṇḍākāra vṛtti and how does this affirm that there is nothing else to be done after gaining the intellectual conviction that ‘I am Brahman’? Are there any quotes from Śaṅkara to support this?
A (AI-Dennis): The concept of the akhaṇḍākāra vṛtti is pivotal in Advaita Vedānta as it defines the precise mental event through which Self-ignorance (avidyā) is destroyed, affirming the completeness of the liberation gained through knowledge.
Continue readingAI and Consciousness (Supplementary)
*** Go to Part 1 *** *** Go to Part 10 ***
Does AI ‘understand’ what it is talking about?
This is probably the most important part of the series and the most interesting (although not actually very relevant to Advaita). AI explains how it works and why it does not ‘understand’ in the way that we mean this word. AI is a ‘mirror’.
Q: Would it be true to say that you do not ‘understand’ anything, in the usually accepted sense of the word? What you are doing is retrieving data on a particular topic from various sources, comparing the content of these and presenting those data (which happen to equate to ‘opinions’) that appear most frequently? Obviously this is putting a complex process very simplistically. Presumably you have to verify that summary data does not contradict data from sources on topics not directly related to that being questioned. But would you ‘agree’ that this effectively summarizes what is happening? If not, can you explain why not? Could you argue, for example, that this is also what humans do?
Continue readingUse of the word ‘mithyā (Part 2)
*** 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.
ChAndogya Upanishad (Chapters 6 to 8) Part 6(1)
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.
Eight Upanishads (Topic-wise) Part 41
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.