Tag Archives: mithya

Knowingness… or Not

Posted on by
Reply

I apologize for the length of this. I had intended a single post but, at over 4600 words, it is clearly much too long, so it will now be in three parts. (My target length is 1500 words per post.) Please postpone comments until the end, except for Ramesam to confirm or deny that my AI-assisted summary of his understanding is essentially correct).

In his series ‘Quintessence of 10 Upanishads’, Ramesam has used the word ‘knowingness’ quite a few times. For example, in Part 27 (Taittirīya Part 2), it occurs 11 times and, in Part 30 (Aitareya Part 1), 25 times!

On 5th Aug, I made the following comment on Part 3 of the Aitareya series (https://www.advaita-vision.org/quintessence-of-10-upanishads-32-aita-3/):

I also see that you have used the word ‘knowingness’ again. When I read your first post, on Aitareya, I began my search to find our previous discussions about this (to me meaningless) word. Unfortunately, I could not immediately locate it and have embarked upon a long process of building a local AI to help me to track it down. As soon as I do so, I will aim to generate a separate post to talk about it.

Continue reading →

Upadesa Sahasri (Part 36)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 35

Part 37

18.201–18.206
The opponent argues that liberation is not realized simply by knowing the meaning of TTA, just as boiled milk-rice cannot be produced from cow dung. Knowing about food is not the same as eating it.
Shankaracharya clarifies that indirect knowledge is produced by understanding sentences regarding the non-Self. However, in the case of the Self, knowledge is immediate, as illustrated by the story of the tenth man.
The opponent argues further that what is conditionally evident cannot be self-evident. If the knowledge of the Self depends on knowing the meaning of TTA, how can Advaita claim that the Self is self-evident?
Shankaracharya maintains that the Self is self-luminous. TTA does not reveal the Self; strictly speaking, the Self reveals TTA. The sentence TTA removes ignorance regarding the ego. When the ego is negated, Self-realization occurs. This is figuratively called the immediate knowledge of the Self.

Continue reading →

Knowledge and Experience

Posted on by
4

Clearing the Minefield of Modern Advaita

For many modern seekers, the spiritual path feels like a journey from the ‘dry’ realm of intellectual study to the ‘wet’ realm of mystical experience. There is a pervasive belief, often propagated by Neo-Vedantic and Western satsang circles, that acquiring Self-knowledge through the scriptures is a ‘merely intellectual’ achievement—a collection of concepts that must eventually be ‘transformed’ into a direct, non-dual experience through meditation or samādhi.

However, traditional Advaita Vedānta, as systematized by Ādi Śaṅkara, offers a radical correction to this view. In this tradition, the ‘gap’ between knowledge and realization is non-existent for the prepared mind. To understand why, we must carefully define our terms and examine the relative value of knowledge and experience in the pursuit of liberation (mokṣa).

Continue reading →

jīvanmukti

Posted on by
Reply

The Reality of ‘Liberation While Living’

In the journey of Advaita Vedānta, the ultimate objective is often described as mokṣa—liberation from the cycle of birth and death (saṃsāra). For many seekers, however, there is a persistent question regarding the timing of this freedom: must one wait for the death of the physical body to be free, or is liberation possible here and now? Traditional Advaita answers this through the technical term jīvanmukti.

Derived from the Sanskrit roots jīvat (living) and mukti (liberation), jīvanmukti refers to the state of being ‘emancipated while still alive’. It is a concept that bridges the gap between the absolute reality of our nature and our transactional existence in the world. As we navigate the ‘minefield’ of modern spiritual teachings, understanding the nuances of jīvanmukti as defined by Ādi Śaṅkara is essential for clearing misconceptions about what happens to a person upon the dawn of Self-knowledge.

Continue reading →

Āvaraṇa and Vikṣepa

Posted on by
Reply

The Twin Powers of Illusion

Most seekers of Advaita Vedānta eventually encounter a perplexing riddle: if Brahman is the only reality—one without a second—how is it that we perceive a world of dizzying multiplicity and feel ourselves to be limited, suffering individuals? Traditional teaching addresses this paradox through a sophisticated pedagogical framework known as the two ‘powers’ of ignorance (avidyā) or illusion (māyā): Āvaraṇa and Vikṣepa. While these terms are cornerstones of modern Advaitic study, they represent a nuanced evolution in the tradition that is vital for any serious student to understand.

Defining the Terms: Concealment and Projection

In the technical vocabulary of Vedānta, ignorance is not merely a passive lack of information; it is often described as a functional force with two distinct aspects.

Continue reading →

Nāma-Rūpa

Posted on by
Reply

The Architecture of Duality in Advaita Vedānta

In the quiet depths of Advaita Vedānta, a single question often haunts the seeker: if reality is truly non-dual—one without a second—how do we account for the dizzying array of objects, people, and events that populate our daily lives? If there is only Brahman, where did the “world” come from? The traditional teaching provides a technical and profoundly insightful answer through the concept of nāma-rūpa, or “name and form”.

Understanding nāma-rūpa is not merely a lesson in Sanskrit vocabulary; it is the master key to unlocking the nature of mithyā (dependent reality) and realizing that the world we perceive is not an independent entity, but a specific way of viewing the Absolute.

Continue reading →

The Three Orders of Reality

Posted on by
Reply

Paramārtha, Vyavahāra, and Pratibhāsa

In the study of Advaita Vedānta, the seeker is often confronted with an apparent paradox. On one hand, the scriptures declare that “all is Brahman” (sarvam khalvidam brahma) and that reality is non-dual. On the other hand, our daily experience is one of persistent multiplicity—a world of separate objects, people, and suffering. To resolve this without denying our direct experience, the tradition, as systematized by Ādi Śaṅkara, utilizes a vital pedagogical framework: the three levels of reality.

This framework—comprising paramārtha (absolute), vyavahāra (transactional), and pratibhāsa (illusory)—is not a description of three different “worlds,” but rather three ways of viewing the same non-dual reality based on our current state of understanding. Understanding these levels is the key to navigating the “path through the jungle” toward Self-knowledge.

Continue reading →

Satyam and Mithyā

Posted on by
Reply

Decoding the Reality of the World

In the study of Advaita Vedānta, no single sentence is as frequently quoted or as foundational as the one attributed to Ādi Śaṅkara: brahma satyam jaganmithyā jīvo brahmaiva nāparaḥ. Translated, it declares: “Brahman is the reality; the world is mithyā (not in itself real); and the individual self is not different from Brahman”. To grasp the essence of this philosophy, one must dive deeply into the precise technical meanings of the two pivotal terms: satyam and mithyā.

For many seekers, these terms are the source of significant confusion. Does mithyā mean the world is a total hallucination? If Brahman is the only satyam, why do we still experience a solid, material universe? The resolution to these paradoxes lies in Advaita’s unique “two-level” approach to reality, which distinguishes between absolute truth (paramārtha) and transactional experience (vyavahāra).

Continue reading →

Upadesa Sahasri (Part24)

Posted on by

Part 23

Part 25

17.17 and 17.18                                                                                                         During dream, one mind is divided into subject (knower), object (known) and instrument of knowledge. The divisions are unreal. Likewise, in the waking state, one consciousness appears differently when desires in the intellect causes action. The desires arise because the jiva thinks that it is incomplete though it is essentially complete. The desires and actions are revealed by consciousness. The waking state is a superimposition on consciousness, the substratum. The divisions in the waking state are as unreal as the divisions in the dream. The ideas of interior and exterior in the waking state are unreal like reading and writing which are interdependent. Reading depends on a written page without which nothing can be read and writing also depends on reading as we first read and then write. So, both of them are unreal as the sounds represented by written letters are all-pervasive and have no forms. Hence, they can neither be really written nor read.

Continue reading →

‘Difference’ is not real

Posted on by

The post ‘Duality is mithyA’ (see here) is based on the verses 19.20 -22 of Upadesa Sahasri (US). Swami Parmarthananda has discussed (transcripts of his talks on Chapter 16 of US) the same topic with a different reasoning which according to him has scriptural support though he has not cited it. 
Advaita Vedanta acknowledges six means (Pramana) of knowledge of which direct perception and inference are important. I see red colour and green colour and say that the two colours are different which is my experience too. If asked whether I see the ‘difference’ as an object, my answer is in negative. That is to say, there is no direct perception of the ‘difference’. It also means that the ‘difference’ cannot be inferred, because for inference, there should be a previous direct perception. Other means of knowledge, namely, comparison, postulation, non-cognition also do not prove difference. Sabda Pramana i.e., scriptures, affirm that ‘difference’ is not real though it is experienced. QED