Tag Archives: maya

Īśvara: Understanding the ‘God’ of Advaita Vedānta

Posted on by
Reply

For many modern seekers, the term ‘God’ carries heavy baggage, often tied to dualistic religions where a creator sits in a distant heaven, judging humanity from afar. When these seekers turn to Advaita Vedānta, they are often drawn to the uncompromising non-duality of Brahman—the formless, infinite, and attribute-less Absolute. However, as they delve into traditional scriptures like the Upaniṣads or the commentaries of Ādi Śaṅkara, they inevitably encounter the term Īśvara.

Far from being a ‘retrogressive step’ toward dualism, the concept of Īśvara is a sophisticated and necessary component of the Advaitic teaching methodology known as adhyāropa-apavāda (provisional attribution followed by subsequent rescission).

Continue reading →

Creation Theories in Advaita

Posted on by
Reply

In Advaita Vedānta, the explanation of how the universe came to be is not presented as a single, static fact, but as a series of increasingly refined theories (vāda-s) designed to lead a seeker from a dualistic worldview to the ultimate non-dual truth. This pedagogical technique is known as adhyāropa-apavāda—initially attributing qualities or a creation to Brahman (adhyāropa) and later rescinding them (apavāda) as the student’s understanding matures.

The following is an overall summary of these theories, progressing from the “common-sense” view to the radical absolute truth.

Continue reading →

Anirvacanīya

Posted on by

Explanation of key terms in Advaita – No. 3

Anirvacanīya: Navigating the Inexplicable in Advaita Vedānta

In the study of Advaita Vedānta, seekers eventually encounter a logical wall: If there is only one non-dual reality (Brahman), how do we account for the diverse, changing world we see every day? If Brahman is changeless, how does it appear to change? To resolve this without contradicting the core experience of the world or the absolute truth of non-duality, the tradition employs a sophisticated technical term: anirvacanīya (often transliterated as anirvachanIya).

Literally translated as “indescribable,” “unutterable,” or “not able to be categorized,” anirvacanīya is the cornerstone of Advaitic epistemology and ontology. It provides a way to talk about the world, ignorance, and the creative power of the Absolute without granting them ultimate reality.

Continue reading →

BrihadAranyaka Upanishad (Part 8)

Posted on by

Part 7

Part 9

Chapter 2 Section 5.                                                                                                    Introduction                                                                                                                     The section is called Madhu Brahman because the word Madhu which means honey or helpful occurs repeatedly in it. The madhu vidya of ChAndogya Upaniṣad is Surya upAsanA. In Br Up it refers to Atma vidya or Brahma vidya. There are different techniques by which the Upanishads teach the knowledge of the Self. One method is creator and creation. Brahman is the creator. and world is the creation. This has been talked about earlier. Madhu Brahman uses the method of inter-dependence among worldly objects. They are mutually dependent and are mithyA. Therefore, there must be some entity outside the world which lends existence to the worldly objects. This entity is Brahman or the Self. The Upanishad also says that Brahman only appears as the world like gold appearing as ornaments. The ornaments are names and forms. Similarly, the world of multiplicity are names and forms. Brahman is all pervading and is present in a jIva as also in all other worldly objects. If a person understands this, he knows all and becomes immortal.

Continue reading →

BrihadAranyaka Upanishad (Part 2)

Posted on by

Part 1

Part 3

1.4.7
The mantra has core teaching of Vedanta, namely, Brahman is satya, jagat is mithya, and jiva is not different from Brahman. Brahman is all-pervading pure existence. Pure existence is same as pure consciousness. Existence and consciousness are two aspects of Brahman. It is eternal and changeless. It has mAyA power which is a relative reality because it borrows existence from Brahman. MAyA is the aggregate of sanchit karmAs of all the jivAs at the end of one cycle of creation which rests in Brahman in unmanifest and potential form. At appropriate time, the world is projected due to mAyA power. The creation unfolds in stages starting from five elements in nascent forms. The undifferentiated Brahman appears as differentiated names and forms called world. At some stage, jivAs with gross and subtle bodies are created which are inert and they enclose the all-pervading consciousness. It is like a pot enclosing space. The enclosed consciousness is jivAtma. This phenomenon is figuratively described as entry of Brahman. It is like a waking man entering the dream. When the dream is over, the waking man says that he has experienced the dream. It means that the entity which experiences the waking state also experiences the dream.

Continue reading →

BrihadarAnyaka Upanishad (Part 1)

Posted on by

Part2

Introduction
It belongs to Yajur Veda. Brih means big in volume and teaching. Aranyaka means forest. One meaning of Upanishad is destroyer of darkness, i.e., ignorance. It has 6 chapters (adhyaya) divided into 47 sections called BrAhmana containing 434 mantrAs. There is another division. Chapters 1 and 2 together is  madhu khanda or updesha khanda as it is akin to sravan. Chapters 3 and 4 together is muni khanda because yajnavalkya muni is the teacher. It is also called upapati khanda because it provides logic to the teaching. Upapati means reason. 5th and 6th Chapters together is khila khanda having miscellaneous topics. Khila means assortment. Many mantrAs, especially in chapters 5 and 6, talk about meditations and do not have Vedantic teaching. There is a meditation on bodily illness so as to practice austerity for voluntary practice of austerity is difficult.

Continue reading →

Chandogya Upanishad (Chapters 6 to 8) Part 2

Posted on by

 Part 1

Part 3

6.2.1 to 6.2.4
In order to show that by knowing the supreme entity, all other things are known, creation’s evolution on the basis of the principle of cause and effect is taught. Different Upanishads describe creation in different manners. However, there is a consensus about a causeless creator from which creation has evolved according to the cause-and-effect principle. According to ShankarAcharya, creation is a necessary assumption for the purpose of the ascent of the individual to the Absolute. It may be there, or it may not be there; that is not the point. As an interim measure, creation is accepted and once it serves the purpose, it is negated. ‘x’ in an arithmetical equation does not really exist yet it is useful in solving the problem. When it solves the problem, it extinguishes itself automatically and is not there. The purpose of teaching of the Upanishad is different from storytelling, ‘once upon a time’. It is an important point. There is no use arguing about whether creation exists or not. There is no denying that there is a creation and is experienced. And Uddalaka follows this technique of teaching like a good psychologist.

Continue reading →

The Limitations of Metaphor

Posted on by

Advaita teaching frequently makes use of metaphor in its explanations of the various topics. These are indisputably invaluable, although there is also the danger of taking them beyond the realm of their applicability and either drawing erroneous conclusions or simply failing to see the point that is being made. This also highlights the necessity of using the metaphor that is most appropriate for conveying the message. Take the example of sarvam khalvidam brahma – all this (world) is really Brahman.

We might start with the ubiquitous rope-snake metaphor. We think we see a snake but the light is poor. (We think we see a world of separate objects, but we haven’t yet gained the Self-knowledge of Advaita – our perception is covered by ignorance.) When we bring torchlight to shine into the darkness, we see that it is really a rope. (Having been taught Advaita, we realize that the world is really name and form of Brahman.)

Continue reading →

Eight Upanishads (Topic-wise) Part 32

Posted on by

Part 31

Chapter 6 JnAna and moksha
 6-9 Taittiria Upanishad- BrahmAnanda Valli
6-9-3 AnuvAka 6
If a person says that Brahman is non-existent, he is adhArmic. Brahman-knowledge cannot be the goal of such a person. He does not accept the authority of the Vedanta sastras. For such a person a preparatory righteous life constituting karma yoga and upAsanA yoga would not make any sense. His life is meaningless. On the other hand, a seeker initially accepts Brahman because the scriptures say so and eventually, he clearly understands that Brahman exists not as an object, but as I, the very subject. It is different from and witness to the five sheaths.

Continue reading →

Dṛṣṭi- sṛṣṭi-vāda

Posted on by

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 reading →