Tag Archives: mithya

Q. 557 Detaching from the mind

Posted on by

Q: Many modern teachers of Advaita seem to make much of the need to detach ourselves from the mind, or even destroy it, before we can become enlightened. I am confused by instructions such as these. If there is only Brahman, then there isn’t actually any mind (or even world) to separate ourselves from. There are not really even any words to talk about this! Can you clarify?

A: This is a confusion of ‘levels’ of reality.

In reality, there is only Brahman. That is the ‘bottom line’ and nothing more can be said. (Even that is saying too much.)

But the empirical level – appearance of world and you in it – continues until death of the body-mind (i.e. when prārabdha karma expires). Your body-mind is inert (and mithyā), functioning only as a result of non-dual Consciousness ‘animating’ it. You are the Consciousness, not the body-mind.

But Consciousness itself does not do anything, does not know anything – there is nothing else! It is your inert mind, ‘animated by Consciousness’ that appreciates this. ‘Enlightenment’ is an event in the mind, when it realizes all of this to be true.

Continue reading →

Upadesha SahAsri Chapter 19 Conversation between AtmA and the mind (Part 2)

Posted on by

Part 1

19.14 (part) All controversies should be resolved into something which is finally existent. Take the example of enquiry. Before enquiry there are views and counter views, and they are resolved into a verdict which is the truth or the substratum. Likewise debate about existence and non-existence is resolved in substratum, i.e., AtmA.

19.15 Shankaracharya discards the theory of emptiness. The debate whether the perceived duality is non-existent (empty) or not is possible only if it is accepted that there is something which makes the debate possible.

Continue reading →

Upadesha SahAsri Chapter 19 Conversation between AtmA and the mind (Part 1)

Posted on by

Introduction It is a ‘dialogue’ between AtmA and the mind. AtmA is free from action. As such the dialogue is figurative. Nevertheless, it is a unique method of nidhidhyAsanA which is the third phase of jnAna yoga after sravan and manan. The aspirant has clear knowledge of AtmA and he needs to assimilate it to make it a living knowledge. The aspirant knows that his essential nature is consciousness which is different from the mind. The locus of knowledge is the mind. It is a peculiar situation where the mind tells itself that the real nature of the aspirant is consciousness which is different from the mind. The mind has to further tell itself that consciousness is changeless and eternal whereas the mind is mithya. It is as though the mind splits in two parts, one part takes the role of AtmA, the subject and the other part is the mind, the object. AtmA uses the mind to talk to the mind and while talking, considers Itself different from the mind. There are Upanishad’s sayings that a knower of Brahman is Brahman and AtmA is Brahman. A Self-realized person and AtmA are used interchangeably. In some verses, there are repetitions of the same idea. Repetition is not a defect when the teachings are complex and are to be assimilated.

Continue reading →

Eight Upanishads (Topic-wise) Part 14

Posted on by

Part 13

Chapter 6 JnAna and Moksha
6-1 Introduction In verse 20 of Brahm-JnAna-valli-mAlA, Shankaracharya says that Brahman is reality, jagat is mithyA and jiva is not different from Brahman. It means the identity of Brahman and jiva. Brahman is vast; jiva is finite and small. How can they be the same? To establish their identity, Advaita delves into the essential nature of the two. There is an inquiry about the real nature of a human being, a jiva. Body-Mind System (BMS) is made of matter, is inert, and is different from consciousness. However, BMS is found to be sentient. Therefore, it is inferred that the consciousness enters BMS, like a reflection of the sun entering the water, and makes the BMS sentient. The sentient BMS is a Jiva. Sun is like the Original Consciousness (OC) and there is a Reflected Consciousness (RC) in BMS making BMS sentient.

Continue reading →

Q. 556 Unmanifest

Posted on by

Q: I am trying to understand what is meant by ‘unmanifest’. Is it:

  1. an upādhi like deep sleep; i.e. a ‘state’ or a ‘subtle object’? Or, if it is not an upādhi, then presumably
  2. it is pure Brahman, with a label ‘māyā’ for the purpose of discussing creation. i.e. it is not a state or subtle object.

I think it’s #2, but I have heard that deep sleep can be equated with māyā upādhi (at the micro level) or the unmanifest. This seems a bit confusing to me as I view the deep-sleep experience as an occurrence within manifestation.

I believe the Gīta says something like… When Brahma-ji awakes it is manifestation and when he sleeps it is un-manifestation. This makes me think maybe it is like deep sleep. If this is the case, then what about before Brahma-ji? This would indicate that there is something other than or standalone from the unmanifest or prior to the unmanifest (Brahma-ji’s sleep state).

Some clarification would be greatly appreciated!

Continue reading →

Q.555 State Express

Posted on by

(A few people might appreciate the joke! Google will give you the answer.)

Q: I am trying to appreciate what is meant by the ‘unmanifest state’. Two ‘explanations’ present themselves:

1. The unmanifest is itself an upādhi like deep sleep. It’s a state or a subtle object

2. The unmanifest is not an upādhi. It’s pure Brahman, with a label ‘māyā’ for the purpose of discussing creation. It is not a state or subtle object

I think it’s #2, but I have heard that deep sleep is equated with the māyā upādhi (at the micro level) or the unmanifest. This seems a bit confusing to me as I view the deep sleep experience as an occurrence within manifestation. Can you please clarify?

2. I believe the Gīta says something like: When Brahmāji awakes it is manifestation and when he sleeps it is un-manifestation. This makes me think maybe it is like deep sleep! If this is the case, then what about before Brahmaji? This would indicate that there is something other than, or standalone from, the unmanifest or prior to the unmanifest (Brahmaji’s sleep state).

Some clarification would be greatly appreciated!

Continue reading →

The Darkness of Ignorance (Part 5)

Posted on by

*** Read Part 4 ***

Tamas

‘Darkness’ is also used in the sense of the ‘primordial condition’ of the universe prior to creation. In this sense, it is not metaphorical but part of the ancient Hindu cosmology. It appears, for example, in Ṛg Veda 10.129: “In the beginning, there was darkness (tamas) hidden in darkness. All this was one undifferentiated water.” And the stage of pralaya, when the universe returns to unmanifest form, is sometimes described as darkness. A number of Puranic references could be quoted, e.g. the Vishnu Purana (Book 1 Chapter 1): “At the end of the previous kalpa, there was only one vast ocean, enveloped in darkness (tamas). The universe was in total dissolution, and nothing but the incomprehensible God, Vishnu, existed.” The darkness also symbolized the formlessness prior to creation.

This usage as an existent entity is not really the same as the metaphorical usage in which it symbolizes ignorance or ‘absence of knowledge’.

Darkness as Metaphor

In the context of discussions on ignorance, then, darkness is not intended to be considered as a real entity but as a metaphor for ignorance. We can see how this is both useful and potentially misleading. If we think of the common ‘concealing’ usage of the word – e.g. we could not see the stalactite in the cave because it was ‘covered by’ darkness – then we are in trouble. If we simply rephrase this to say that, because there was no light in the cave, we could not see the stalactite, there is no problem.

Continue reading →

The Darkness of Ignorance (Part 4)

Posted on by

*** Read Part 3 ***

Observations triggered by Ghaṭa bhāṣya

If X is ‘bhāvarūpa’ – really existing, that ought to mean that it exists ‘in all three periods of time’. I would have said that, by that definition, like every other worldly perception or conception, darkness is not real. Every perception or conception is ‘mithyā’, neither ‘real’ (sat), nor ‘unreal’ (asat).

When Śaṅkara talks about ‘pot-absence’, it is obvious that he doesn’t mean that it is a really existing thing, in the way that a chair in the room ‘really exists’. What he means is that, in a discussion in a particular context such as this, we can treat something as ‘effectively existing’ when we both know what we are talking about and there is no confusion.

Suppose that you and I are having an argument about the pot that we believe to be on the table in room X of the museum. Suppose a third person comes in and tells us he has seen this pot on the table in room Y. This being the case, if I go into room X, I could say that I become aware of the absence of the pot. In that sense, it has a sort of meaning to say that the pot-absence exists in room X. But why anyone would want to talk in this way eludes me. I would just say that the pot isn’t in room X so I am prepared to accept the third person’s claim that it is in room Y.

Continue reading →

Q.551 – Illusoriness of the world (again)

Posted on by

Q: Why exactly is the world considered illusory? In what sense is it illusory?

Objects change their form and so the form is unreal. We have ideas about objects but these are unreal being imagination only. The whole subjective world with a person as its center is born of imagination.

I can see that objects including the body-mind appear in this field of awareness and everything functions by itself. But the differentiation still exists. There is awareness and also its contents. So how are they illusory? Is it because they are dependent on awareness?

A: Advaita does not say that the world is illusory. (This is a mistranslation by some modern teachers.) Nor is it ‘imaginary’. The world is mithyā, which means that it derives its existence from Brahman. It is ‘name and form’ of Brahman just as we can say that a chair is name and form of wood.

Continue reading →

Bhagavad Gita (Topic-wise) Pt26

Posted on by

Part 25

7 Summary 2(13,15,16,22,46), 4(9,10,15 to 25,35 to 38,41,42), 6(45 to 47), 18 (62 to 66)

7-1: 2(13,15,16,22,46)                                                                                                       Fear of death is common. Death happens when the subtle body leaves the gross body making it insentient. The subtle body has the property to manifest consciousness which the gross body lacks. Sri Krishna says that death is a change of state like a transition from childhood to youth, youth to old age, and from old age to death. After leaving the gross body at the time of death, the subtle body takes up a new gross body according to karmic law.  It is rebirth as an infant. This transmigration of the subtle body is blessed by the all-pervasive Atma. In this sense, it is said that as a man discards worn-out clothes and wears new clothes, Atma discards the old body and takes up a new body. Knowing this cycle, a wise person is not deluded. Life is a flow and changes are inherent, such as hot-cold, pleasure-pain. It is a choiceless situation. As such, a person should endure them and need not unnecessarily suffer from agony and mental disturbance. He can then take up the spiritual path, gain knowledge, and be liberated.

Continue reading →