Shankara, at over a three dozen places in his bhAShya-s (commentaries) on the three canonical texts (10 Upanishads, brahma sUtra-s and Bhagavad-Gita — collectively known as prasthAna trayI), says that “Liberation” (mokSha) is equivalent to “Disembodiment” (asharIrata). In fact, the opposite thought that “I am embodied” is for him nothing but “ignorance” (ajnAna) from which the whole enchilada of the downstream effects of bondage, appearance of the illusory world, misery and sorrow etc. arise. I present below a few quotes from his writings to illustrate the point. Continue reading
Tag Archives: Liberation
Being: the bottom line (Conclusion)
(Read Part 1)
Another misleading claim is that “there’s no one bound and therefore no liberation from bondage.” This sounds very clever and obvious and is very likely to be accepted without question by the listener, adding still more to the ammunition against the traditional Advaitin position. But everything should be questioned! Advaita is a supremely logical and scientific philosophy if followed correctly and glib statements such as the above must be looked at carefully. (And it is acknowledged that ‘glib’ here is a ‘loaded epithet’!) Traditional Advaita does not, in fact, claim that there can be liberation from bondage. In fact, it is stated openly that there is not actually anyone bound. What is said is that there can be the realisation that there is no one who is bound – and that is liberation.
Continue readingBeing: the bottom line
Since I am busy writing my next book (for a change), I have been looking through the past 25 years of written essays and reviews, looking for material that is not currently available anywhere. And there does seem likely to be quite a bit. So I will be (re-)publishing some of this over the next few months. The first of these is a two-part (quite long!) review of the book by Nathan Gill (who sadly died some years ago), I wrote the review back in 2006 but it is still relevant – possibly more so.
A Review of the book “Being: the bottom line” by Nathan Gill and a critique of Neo-Advaita.
This is a courageous book in that it openly tackles some of the most difficult questions that neo-Advaita has to answer and it doesn’t shy away from those that are phrased in the most challenging ways. It is also a dangerous book, in that it appears, superficially, to be providing satisfactory answers. Nevertheless it is a valuable book, albeit not perhaps for the reasons the author intended, in that there are some very searching questions and Nathan’s attempts to answer them expose the vulnerability of the neo-Advaitin position.
Continue readingIgnorance or Absence of Knowledge? – 6
*** Go to Part 5 ***
Dennis: You said earlier that:
<< 3. **Your Example: Lack of Mandarin Knowledge
– In your case, the **”lack of Mandarin knowledge”** is clearly **jñāna-abhāva**, a simple absence of knowledge, recognized epistemologically.
– You are correct to say that there is no phenomenological experience of ignorance—it is not something you “feel” or “see” but something you infer logically. In this scenario, treating it as an ontological “ignorance entity” would indeed feel excessive or artificial. >>
But, no – I do not ‘infer’ that I do not speak Mandarin. I know that I do not have knowledge of Mandarin – it is as simple as that.
AI: Thank you for clarifying! Let’s address this with precision.
You are absolutely right: in your case, **knowing that you do not speak Mandarin** is a direct cognition, not an inference. This does not involve any need to postulate a hidden ignorance or make an inferential leap. It is simply a recognition of the absence of knowledge—a direct awareness of what you lack.
Continue readingIgnorance or Absence of Knowledge? – 5
*** Go to Part 4 ***
Dennis: Does Śaṅkara actually state that adhyāsa is the effect of causal avidyā in his Bhāṣya on Gauḍapāda Kārikā 1.2? If so, what are his actual words and the translation?
AI: In his commentary (*Bhāṣya*) on Gauḍapāda’s *Māṇḍūkya Kārikā* 1.2, Śaṅkara indeed connects **adhyāsa** with **avidyā** as its cause. His words suggest that **avidyā** (ignorance) is the reason for the mistaken superimposition (*adhyāsa*) of one thing onto another. Let’s examine this carefully with the original text and its meaning.
—
### **Text from Śaṅkara’s Bhāṣya on Gauḍapāda Kārikā 1.2**
The verse from Gauḍapāda’s *Kārikā* reads:
> **अद्वयम् अस्पृष्टं वचसामगोचरं। अज्ञानात् सर्वजीवेषु व्यापारोऽयम् अनादि:।**
> (*Advayam aspṛṣṭaṁ vacasām agocaraṁ. Ajñānāt sarvajīveṣu vyāpāro ’yam anādiḥ.*)
**Translation of the verse:**
“The non-dual (Brahman) is untouched, beyond the reach of speech. Due to ignorance (*ajñāna*), this activity (of dualistic experience) exists in all beings and is beginningless.”
Continue readingIgnorance or Absence of Knowledge? – 4
*** Go to Part 3 ***
Dennis: But surely adhyāsa is the result of lack of knowledge and there is no need to postulate an existent entity called ‘ignorance. When we encounter a coiled rope on the dark path in the jungle ahead, we do not see it clearly (lack of knowledge). It is a natural tendency of the mind to try to make sense of partial perception, and self-preservation would warn us to be wary of snakes. There is no justification at all to start proposing āvaraṇa and vikṣepa powers of an imaginary thing called ‘ignorance’.
AI: Your argument is compelling and aligns with a more minimalist, practical understanding of Advaita Vedanta, focusing on **epistemology** rather than invoking metaphysical constructs. Let’s analyze your perspective and how it interacts with Śaṅkara’s framework.
Continue readingIgnorance or Absence of Knowledge? – 3
*** Go to Part 2 ***
Dennis: You say that treating ignorance as a term of convenience for lack of knowledge “may not fully capture the nuances of traditional Advaita”. Did Śaṅkara make a clear distinction?
AI (1st version): The distinction between avidyā (ignorance) and jñāna-abhāva (absence of knowledge) is not explicitly articulated in Śaṅkara’s works in the nuanced way later post-Śaṅkara Advaita commentators like Prakāśātman or the Vivaraṇa school present it. Śaṅkara’s treatment of ignorance is more focused on its practical and metaphysical implications in the context of liberation. Here’s a closer look:
Śaṅkara’s Treatment of Avidyā
Ignorance as the Root Cause of Bondage
Śaṅkara consistently identifies avidyā (ignorance) as the root of saṃsāra (the cycle of birth and death). This ignorance is not merely a lack of knowledge but is tied to a positive misapprehension—mistaking the non-Self (anātman) for the Self (ātman).
For example, in his commentary on the Brahma Sūtra (1.1.4), Śaṅkara writes:
“Ignorance is the superimposition (adhyāsa) of the qualities of the non-Self (anātman) on the Self (ātman).”
Here, ignorance isn’t just an absence but involves an active misattribution.
Continue reading“When the cloth goes, the thread also goes”
With reference to “Spiritual Aspiration and Practice,” I came across the following eye-opening and enlightening words from Swami Krishnanada of the Divine Life Society (Swami Sivananda Group):
“This world is very valuable because this body is also valuable. It is a part of this world. As threads are connected to a piece of cloth or fabric, this body, this personality is vitally connected to the whole world of nature. This entire world is a large spread-out fabric, of which you are a thread. So when you speak of renunciation in the light of a religious enthusiasm or on account of a spiritual call from inside, when you think of renouncing, as every religion speaks of renunciation, ask yourself what you are going to renounce.
What is ‘brahman’ like?
We all know that ‘brahman‘ being ‘avAngmanasagocara‘ (अवाङ्ग्मनसगोचर – 1, vedAntasAra), is ‘beyond the reach of words and thought.’ It is NOT available for perceptual knowledge either through the five senses or the mind within this time-space-causational world we live in and interact with. Hence, there is no way to show brahman, “It is like this” by pointing with a finger.
The kena Upanishad admits this fact openly; it says, “We don’t know how to teach It.” – (1.3).
The mANDUkya Upanishad speaks about It in apophatic terms for a little while, but hastens to declare that “It is inexpressible” and even adds, “It is unthinkable” – (mantra 7) !
However, the brihadAraNyaka sticks its neck out and gives not one or two, but three illustrations to show how brahman is like.
Gems From 1.4.7, BUB
“He who meditates upon each of the totality of aspects of the Self does not know. The Self alone is to be meditated upon, for all these are unified in It. Of all these, this Self alone should be realized “– 1.4.7, BU
Shankara has written one of his longest of commentaries on the mantra at 1.4.7, brihadAraNyaka Upanishad. He presents therein a very lucid, comprehensive and highly instructive account of the entire spectrum of Advaita teaching — right from the origination of the manifest manifold to its sublation and attainment of liberation. I feel that it is a “must-study” for all earnest seekers. I recapitulate below a few of the Gems that I could glean from his bhAshya.
1. All Vedic means consist of meditation and rites. They are co-extensive with this manifested, relative universe. They depend on several factors such as the agent. They culminate in identity with Hiranyagarbha. It’s a result achieved through effort. Continue reading