Tag Archives: Liberation

Quintessence of 10 Upanishads – 29 (taitti 4)

Posted on by
Reply

[Part – 28 (taitti 3)]

Fear occurs when there is an “other”—a second object. Oneness, by contrast, is fearlessness. When the world is taken to be real and external, it appears as a constant source of threat and insecurity. This fear born of the world is sustained only as long as we attribute independent reality to it (saṃsāra). Once its dependent and insubstantial nature is understood, fear naturally subsides.

This is illustrated by the familiar analogy of the rope and the snake. In dim light, a rope is mistaken for a snake, and fear instantly arises. However, when the rope is recognized for what it truly is, the imagined snake vanishes, and with it goes the fear. Under the spell of ignorance, reality appears divided, and this apparent division gives rise to fear. When ignorance is removed through knowledge, the division is recognized as merely apparent, just as darkness vanishes in the presence of light.

The Upanishad concludes this vision with the declaration:  Continue reading →

Quintessence of 10 Upanishads – 28 (taitti 3)

Posted on by
3

[Part – 27 (taitti 2)]

Unlike all other living creatures, we as human beings are uniquely blessed with the ‘Knowing principle’ within us. It is this consciousness that distinguishes us from the rest of the natural world. Our ultimate human purpose is to discover this ‘unembodied Knower’ within ourselves (1.2.22, kaTha Upanishad).

In order to help us in this process, the Upanishad starts with a description of how the Self is spoken of as though It has “descended,” step by step, into the condition of the food-body. Having apparently identified with the food-body, It comes to be mistaken for the body itself. Shaṅkara illustrates this through the analogy:

मूषानिषिक्तद्रुतताम्रप्रतिमावत् । — Shaṅkara in his commentary on mantra 2.1.1, taitti. Continue reading →

Quintessence of 10 Upanishads – 27 (taitti 2)

Posted on by
Reply

[Part – 26 (taitti 1)]

The Supreme Self is all-pervading. Yet, because of our mistaken belief that “I am the body,” we identify the all-pervading Self with the body and take ourselves to be the individual (jIva). Thus, we create for ourselves a fallacious ‘self.’

Next, we create an inferior ‘self’ by claiming ownership over whatever we perceive—my spouse, my family, my house, and so on. As a result, we confine ourselves to a single form (the fallacious ‘self,’ mithyAtmA), reduce everything else into multiple finite forms (the inferior ‘self,’ gauNAtmA), and contract the Supreme Self into the form of God (Ishwara). Consequently, our attention remains absorbed in forms, while the formless Reality goes unnoticed.

The taittirIya Upanishad teaches us to recognize the Supreme Self as universal Beingness, ever-present Knowingness, and unbounded Infiniteness—Its intrinsic nature.

यो वेद निहितं गुहायां परमे व्योमन् । सोऽश्नुते सर्वान् कामान् सह । ब्रह्मणा विपश्चितेति । — mantra 2.1.1, taittirIya Upa.  Continue reading →

Who am I?

Posted on by
Reply

Sākṣī and ahaṃkāra in Vivekacūḍāmaṇi

(This is not a ‘Key term’ in the ‘Terms and Definitions’ series but may be regarded as such, since it further clarifies the meaning of the concepts of enlightenment and liberation and specifically addresses the distinction between sākṣi and ahaṃkāra, and the relevance of prārabdha karma for the jñānī.)

(Regular) readers will recall the long series (11) of posts that I made over 6 years ago on the topic of pratibandha-s. These were extracted from the first volume of ‘Confusions in Advaita Vedanta: Knowledge, Experience and Enlightenment’. In particular, they discussed the teaching of prārabdha karma and its applicability to a jñānī and the topics of jñāna phalam and liberation. The question ‘Who am I?’ was asked in the context of thinking and communication.

The answer to the question was that it was effectively a ‘mixture’ of ātman and intellect. I said that:

The only explanation is that who-I-really-am, ātman, becomes associated with the inert intellect, and the now-conscious buddhi is the one that becomes the knower. The knower is ‘I’, the real Consciousness, as if reflected in the intellect (cidābhāsa). Or the knower is effectively a ‘mixture’ of Consciousness and intellect. I, the ātman, become a figurative knower by virtue of my association with the buddhi. It is in this sense that the ‘knower’ of ātman is none other than the ātman Itself.

Continue reading →

Upadesa Sahasri (Part 22)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 21

Part 23

16.45 to 16.50                                                                                                            Earlier the author has refuted different theories of the Buddhists. Advaita and Samkhya are similar in some respects and dissimilar in other aspects. The author refutes some theories of Samkhya philosophy. According to Samkhya, both purusha (consciousness), and prakriti (material and inert) are real. Purusha is action-free and unattached. Prakriti works for purusha and the latter is the enjoyer. There are many purushas, one for every jiva. Prakriti has three constituents, sattva, rajas and tamas. Samkhya further says that prakriti alone is the cause of creation. Purusha has no role. When the constituents are in equilibrium, the creation is unmanifest. Creation unfolds due to imbalance in three constituents.

Continue reading →

Upadesa Sahasri (Part 21)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 20

16.30-33 There is a Buddhist school of thought called nihilism which holds that nothing exists, neither the subject nor the object. This theory of emptiness is questioned by the author. That which witnesses and is aware of emptiness must exist. The witness exists even before beginning of deliberation on existence or non-existence or both. According to Advaita, the world of objects is a superimposition on the Self. There can be destruction of the superimposition but not of the entity (Self) on which is the superimposition. Existence of Self is undeniable. It is indestructible. It is one without second on which diversity is a superimposition.

Continue reading →

Does the Jñānī see the world when he is Paramātmā?

Posted on by

[Article Sourced From: Here ]

From the standpoint of Pure Adi Śaṅkara Vedānta, the answer is no. The jñānī, as Paramātmā, does not see the world. More exactly, he does not become a seer of anything second to himself. Realization does not turn an individual into Brahman as a new state; it removes the false notion that the ever-free Self was ever bound, ignorant, or finite.[1]

Why is this so? Because seeing necessarily implies duality: a seer, an act of seeing, and an object seen. But the Upaniṣadic teaching, as understood by Śaṅkara, is that this entire triad belongs only to ignorance. When everything has become the Self, the question itself arises: by what could one see, and whom? Likewise, the Self is not something that can be objectified, for “the seer of seeing” can never itself become a seen object.[2] Hence Brahman cannot literally be a perceiver in the empirical sense. Continue reading →

Upadesa Sahasri (Part 16)

Posted on by

Part 15

Chapter 15 Impossibility of one being another

15.1 The essential nature of a jiva is not different from Brahman for otherwise the jiva will be essentially finite. Any amount spiritual practice can bring about only superficial changes and not changes in the essential nature. Finite cannot become infinite. If at all it becomes infinite, it will lose its essential nature which means destruction. In that case, liberation is ruled out. The conclusion is that jiva is essentially Brahman. A doubt may arise. If a jiva is already Brahman, what is the need of a teacher and scriptures? The answer is that they are needed to remove the ignorance about our true identity.

Continue reading →

Śaṅkara – on ‘enlightenment’ versus ‘liberation’

Posted on by

Here is what Śaṅkara says on this topic in his bhāṣya on Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 1.4.7. Following this, I have added some observations on what he says (Swami Madhavananda translation).

Objection: The topic was knowledge – when the Self is known, everything else is known. So why is a different topic, viz. attainment, introduced here?

Reply: Not so, for the shruti uses the words ‘knowledge’ and ‘attainment’ as synonymous. The non-attainment of the Self is but the ignorance of it. Hence the knowledge of the Self is Its attainment.

Continue reading →

Summary of the Discussion on ‘Enlightenment and Liberation’ Terms

Posted on by

My two-part ‘Terms and Definition’ post on ‘Enlightenment and Liberation’ triggered considerable, sometimes ‘heated’ discussion. Part 1 had 11 comments and Part 2 so many that WordPress does not seem able to cope and does not provide the ‘speech bubble’ with number of comments against the title. (I believe it was around 35.) Since it would take a reader considerable time to work through all of these, I am providing here a summary of the discussion, constructed with the help of ChatGPT.

Towards the end of those discussions, Ramesam referred to the 3-part article by P. Neti on the topic of jīvanmukti. Ramesam posted this to Advaita Vision just over 3 years ago. It begins at https://www.advaita-vision.org/on-jivanmukti-shri-p-neti-1-3/. This article plays a part in subsequent comments (so even more for those interested to read!)

Herewith, then, is the AI-assisted summary of our discussions following the terms and definition posts. Following this summary, I am going to re-post the last of Ramesam’s comments on Part 2. This is because I closed comments before responding to that. Then I will post a further comment that Ramesam sent to me privately. Finally, I will post my overall comments on the P. Neti article and Ramesam’s two comments.

I hope you can follow all of that! To recap, there is this summary, two comments from Ramesam, posted by myself, and my response to everything so far. After that is anyone’s guess as comments will again be open to all.

Continue reading →