Tag Archives: prarabdha karma

Upādhi: the ‘Limiting Adjunct’

Posted on by
Reply

One of the most persistent challenges for any student of Advaita Vedānta is reconciling the ‘Great Equation’—the scriptural declaration that the individual Self (Ātman) is identical to the non-dual Absolute (Brahman)—with our daily experience of being a finite, limited person. If reality is truly ‘not two,’ why do we feel so distinctly separate? The traditional teaching answers this riddle through a vital technical concept: the upādhi, or ‘limiting adjunct’.

Understanding the upādhi is essential because it serves as the mechanism through which the infinite appears to become finite, the one appears as many, and the actionless Witness appears to be an active doer and enjoyer.

The Meaning of the Term

Etymologically, the word upādhi is a compound of the Sanskrit roots upa (meaning ‘near to’ or ‘by the side of’) and ādhadāti (meaning ‘imparts’). In a general sense, the Sanskrit dictionary defines it as ‘that which is put in place of another thing; a substitute, phantom, disguise, or appearance’.

Continue reading →

Ahaṃkāra: The Making of the “I”

Posted on by
Reply

In our daily existence, the word “I” is the most frequently uttered and least understood term in our vocabulary. We use it to signify our successes, our failures, our bodies, and our deepest emotions. Yet, traditional Advaita Vedānta, as systematized by Ādi Śaṅkara, suggests that this “I” to which we habitually refer is not our true nature, but a mental construct known as ahaṃkāra. Understanding the nuances of this term is not merely a linguistic exercise; it is a fundamental requirement for the seeker who wishes to dismantle the illusion of a separate self and realize their identity as the non-dual Brahman.

Etymology and Basic Definition

The word ahaṃkāra is a compound derived from two Sanskrit roots: aham, meaning “I,” and kāra, meaning “making” or “uttering”. Literally, it translates as “the making of the I”. In common parlance, it is often equated with the Western concept of the “ego,” but its Vedantic definition is more precise: it refers specifically to the identification or attachment of the true Self (Ātman) with something else, typically the body, mind, or a social role.

Continue reading →

Summary of the Discussion on ‘Enlightenment and Liberation’ Terms

Posted on by
3

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 →

Enlightenment and Liberation (Part 1)

Posted on by

This ‘terms and definitions’ post is in two parts (there are, after all, two terms!). The style is quite different from earlier posts. The earlier ones were derived from my books and earlier writing; I wrote this following a recent discussion. It contains many quotations from Śaṅkara in support, together with carefully constructed reasoning.

Mokṣa is not produced by any action (as argued in depth by Sureśvara in his Naiṣkarmya Siddhi chapter 1); it is nitya-siddha – already accomplished – and the knowledge gained from scriptures and teacher reveals this fact.

There is much confusion amongst seekers regarding these terms, which are often used interchangeably, or even in the wrong manner. This is because the same confusion exists amongst many writers and teachers. I want to clarify the correct usage of them with support from Śaṅkara’s own writing.

Continue reading →

Bādha

Posted on by

The Process of Bādha: The Engine of Realization in Advaita Vedānta

In the rigorous intellectual and spiritual framework of Advaita Vedānta, the journey toward enlightenment is not marked by the acquisition of new objects of experience, but by a fundamental shift in understanding. At the heart of this shift lies a crucial technical process known as bādha. Frequently translated into English as sublation, subration, cancellation, or negation, bādha is the cognitive mechanism by which a previously accepted point of view or understanding is superseded by a totally different, more accurate one upon the receipt of new information. It is effectively the apavāda stage of the adhyāropa-apavāda process.

For the seeker, understanding bādha is essential because it defines the very nature of Truth and Reality. In Advaita, the “Real” is defined specifically as that which cannot be sublated—that which remains uncontradicted in all three periods of time (past, present, and future).

Continue reading →

Adhyāropa-apavāda (Part 4)

Posted on by

ADHYĀROPĀPAVĀDA: REVISITING THE INTERPRETATIONS OF SVĀMI SACCIDĀNANDENDRA SARASVATĪ AND THE POST-ŚAṄKARĀDVAITINS (concluded)
by Manjushree Hegde
(Read Part 3)

Based on Śaṅkarācārya’s statements, the PSA formulated a rigorous exposition of the continuation of prārabdha karma—and avidyā—in a jīvanmukta. Nelson (1996) documents the different arguments advanced: Vimuktātman, for example, advocates for the existence of a tangible remnant of avidyā in the jivanmukta (IS 1.9, p. 75).43 Sarvajñātman employs a range of metaphorical constructs to describe the remnant of moha (ignorance) post-gnosis: scent (gandha), shadow (cchāyā), residue, impression (saṁskāra), and so on, (SŚ 4.42).44 Citsukha delineates three forms of ignorance and argues that knowledge destroys only two forms—the third persists post-gnosis; otherwise, he argues, it would result in the immediate cessation of the body, and not admit the experience of jīvanmukti (TP, p. 394ff).45 Prakāśātman writes that the mukta “slips into dualistic awareness (dvaita-darśana)” in his participation in the world (PPV, p. 786).46 Building on Citsukha’s arguments, Madhusūdana Sarasvatī— and his commentator Brahmānanda Sarasvatī—declare videhamukti as “paramamukti,” hierarchically superior to jīvanmukti (AS, p. 892ff). We see here that the PSA’s (seemingly innocuous) endeavour to elucidate the persistence of prārabdha karma in the jīvanmukta compromises and undermines the very notion of mokṣa, here and now. This is akin to severing the very branch upon which one is perched.

Continue reading →

Adhyāropa-apavāda (Part 3)

Posted on by

ADHYĀROPĀPAVĀDA: REVISITING THE INTERPRETATIONS OF SVĀMI SACCIDĀNANDENDRA SARASVATĪ AND THE POST-ŚAṄKARĀDVAITINS (continued)
by Manjushree Hegde
(Read Part 2)

VI. Adhyāropāpavāda According to the PSA

For the PSA, “Brahman can only be shown, not described” (Murthy 1959, p. 57), albeit in a circuitous, approximate manner (“adūraviprakarṣeṇa”).27 The crux of this position lies in the contention that although brahman eludes direct descriptive elucidation (abhidhā), it retains a semblance of apprehensibility through indirect means (lakṣaṇā). Vācaspati Miśra illustrates with an example: in order to explain gold, we point to gold ornaments—earrings, bracelets, etc—and explain it as the substance that assumes these various shapes; it is that which remains when the shapes no longer do. In a similar manner, the śruti “points to” the world-appearances to “show” brahman as that which assumes these various appearances; it is also what remains when the appearances no longer do (Bhāmati 1.1.4).

Accordingly, for the PSA, adhyāropāpavāda is one method to “show” brahman.28 Consider the stock example of Bhagavadgītā 13.14–15. In the verse 13.14, brahman is said to possess karmendriyas (hands, feet, etc.) and jñānendriyas (eyes, etc.). According to the PSA, this is an adhyāropa that is useful in drawing attention to the existence of brahman as that which permeates everything—including the human body and the sensory organs— and allows movement/perception to occur: ‘immanent’ brahman (Rambachan 2017, pp. 164–165). Ānandagiri writes, “The faculties of the body are a function of the consciousness that enlivens them; through them, the presence of brahman (as consciousness) can be recognized.”29 The śruti, thus, ‘points’ to brahman with the help of the attributes in accordance with the arundhati darśana nyāya. This is adhyāropa. In the verse immediately following this, brahman is said to be “without senses” and “devoid of qualities.” This is an apavāda that contradicts the preceding adhyāropa to point to brahman’s ‘transcendent’ nature (Rambachan 2017, pp. 164–165).30

Continue reading →

Q. 532 Brahman, name and form

Posted on by

Q: To speak of levels or to even say ‘name and form’, isn’t technically correct, is it? There’s only Brahman – period. I ask or say this because it does make a big difference between understanding and ‘living it’.

A: You are right. Pedantically there is only Brahman and even that is saying too much. But all transactions take place in vyavahAra (often referred to as ‘transactional reality’) and that obviously includes the teaching itself. That is why we have words like ‘mithyA’, so we can acknowledge the appearance of duality. We undeniably perceive form and refer to it by name, but acknowledge that it is mithyA – owing its substantial existence to Brahman.

Q: Having this final understanding, does the Mithya go on as:
1. As Ashtavakra Gita says… “a dry leaf being blown in the wind”? 
Or
2. An actor knowing he’s an actor and playing roles like a movie?

A: The reasoning behind metaphors is to nudge the mind into appreciating the teaching of something that is counter-intuitive. Once you have ‘got it’, the metaphor should be dropped. The nature of the remainder of the life of a j~nAnI will be dictated by their individual prArabdha karma so will be different for everyone.

‘Not Two’ – a Critical Review

Posted on by

On the face of it, this is a well-written and readable book, ideally suited for a new seeker. E.g. the sections on ‘The Illusory Nature of the Separate Self’ and ‘Knowledge Dispels Ignorance’ are excellent.

Unfortunately, should any reader accept everything that is written at its face value, they will come away with some serious confusions. In what follows, I apologize in advance for some of what may seem to be harsh criticisms, but my own perception of these points is heightened as a result of spending the last year writing my own work on ‘confusions’ of precisely this sort.

The author uses the traditional teaching method of adhyāropa-apavāda but it is not made clear when what is being said is only provisional. Also, there are very few references to the source of what is being presented. (And one of those that is provided doesn’t exist!) There are many places where the author writes ‘as Shankara said’ but scarcely a single pointer to where he said it. There are numerous places where I, as an informed reader, need those references before I will even consider what is being said to be credible!

Continue reading →

The Rise of Jnana : Destruction of Good Works and Bad Works

Posted on by

Introduction

The Jiva, as a thinker/doer/experiencer is tossed in the dualities of samsara – pain and pleasure, good and bad, right and wrong, ignorance and enlightenment. As a Jiva, he is always trying to “become”: become good, become better, become knowledgeable, become detached, become enlightened.

However, with the rise of Jnana, his perception shifts from duality to non-duality instantaneously. Knowing his essential nature to be Self, the Jiva becomes a Jnani freed from all notions of duality. This freedom and perfection is instantaneous with the rise of direct Knowledge. Freed from the notion of being a thinker/doer/experiencer, the Jnani is freed not only from all notions of becoming but also from all works, including the notion of good works and bad works.

Thereafter, there is nothing left for the Jnani to attain or lose, in any way, no matter what acts are seen to be performed by him. While others may judge his acts in terms of duality – such as good and bad, he knows that he does nothing and that all acts are Self. The body of the Jnani carries on till his prarabdha karma exhausts and it finally drops. Then he attains videha-mukti.

This is a true account of the rise of Jnana and the status of a Jnani. But many people find themselves in disagreement with many facts stated in this account. To dispel their doubts I am writing this article, quoting passages from Chapter 4 – Results of Knowledge (Jnana Phala), Brahma Sutra Bhashya of Shankaracharya (Translation by Swami Gambhirananda), addressing all erroneous notions.

Continue reading →