Tag Archives: reality

Bādha

Posted on by
Reply

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or negation, bādha is the cognitive mechanism by which a previously accepted point of view or understanding is superseded by a totally different, more accurate one upon the receipt of new information.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 →

Chandogya Upanishad and Brahm Sutra Bhasya (Part 4)

Posted on by
2

Part 3

Part 5

BSB 2.1.21 to 2.1.23                                                                                                      The opponent argues that texts like “Thou art that” (Ch Up 6.8.7) declaring identity of Brahman and jiva and “Let me manifest name and form by Myself entering the individual soul” (Ch Up 6.3.2) lead to absurdity. The argument is in four parts. Brahman creates the world. Jiva has sufferings in the world. Brahman and jiva are identical. Therefore, Brahman creates sufferings for Himself which is ridiculous. The Vedantin accepts the first two parts with a rider that suffering faced by a jiva is at transactional level. As regards the third part, the identity of Brahman and jiva is from the Absolute standpoint. That is to say, when the limiting adjuncts of a jiva are removed, there is identity.

Continue reading →

Anirvacanīya

Posted on by
2

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 →

World disappearing and mithyā

Posted on by

Not a lot of discussion on the site recently. I thought maybe the time was ripe for a little controversy again. Recently I queried ChatGPT for Shankara references on this topic. I also encountered just a few days ago, a devastatingly logical argument against this idea, but I will save that for a later post. Here is the (single post) AI contribution. Of course, you may argue, AI is presenting its position so as to support my own view – a recognized problem with AI at present). Perhaps, then, Ramesam or Venkat could tackle AI with essentially the same query to elicit a response in keeping with their belief? That would be interesting!

Q: Where does Shankara define what he means by the word मिथ्या and what does he say?

A (ChatGPT): Adi Shankaracharya, the great Advaita Vedanta philosopher, defines the concept of mithyā in several of his works, particularly in his commentaries on key Vedantic texts. The term “mithyā” generally refers to the idea of falsity or illusoriness. It’s crucial in Advaita Vedanta because it relates to the nature of the phenomenal world and how it is perceived in relation to the ultimate reality, Brahman.

One of the most explicit definitions of mithyā is found in Shankaracharya’s commentary on the Brahma Sutra (Brahmasutra Bhashya) in the section known as the Adhyasa Bhashya. Here, he describes mithyā as something that is neither completely real (like Brahman) nor completely unreal (like the horns of a hare), but rather something that appears real under certain conditions but is revealed as unreal upon closer examination or when true knowledge is attained.

Continue reading →

Q.560 The 3 Levels of Reality

Posted on by

Q: It seems to me that so many questions on Advaita Vedanta are explained with reference to the 3 levels of reality: pratibhasa, vyavahara and paramartha – why then do we not see more reference to these levels in books about Advaita? I have found in my reading very few that mention them up front, or as a matter of great importance. And, of course, hardly ever mentioned, if at all, in Neo-Advaita tomes. 

A: That’s a good question.

The ‘bottom line’ of Advaita is that there is only Consciousness (sarvam khalvidam brahma – all this is Brahman). So the ‘teaching’ of the neo-Advaitin – ‘this is it’ and similar pronouncements – is not, strictly speaking, wrong. The problem with it is that it is not very helpful!

The point is that, as soon as we separate out a form in perception and give it a name, we are apparently in the realm of duality. And it is difficult to move from that position to one of accepting the truth of non-duality. So traditional Advaita takes things very slowly. For the new seeker, it begins from our present experience and understanding and moves one step at a time, as it were, supplanting the initial teaching with something more refined and nearer to the truth.

Continue reading →

Tat Tvam Asi (Part 2)

Posted on by

Part 1

Part 3

Existence inheres every worldly object. Before creation, all the worldly objects are in seed (unmanifest) form in Existence and the creation unfolds gradually. Existence manifests everywhere whereas consciousness is manifested in subtle body only, e.g., mind, intellect. A jiva is a mind-body system and is sentient and has emotions of happiness and sadness. Consciousness (Chit) does not undergo any change as it is present in the mind like a reflection (ChidAbhAsa. It is individual self or individual soul ( jivAtmA).

Continue reading →

Q.558 Knowledge and Experience

Posted on by

Q: I am still confused about the relative value of experience and knowledge. Some teachers seem to say that scriptures only give you ‘intellectual’ knowledge and you then have to convert this into actual ‘experience’ in order to become enlightened. But then there are metaphors like rope-snake and dream-waking. The snake that we experience is not real and we have to wake up from the dream. This means gaining knowledge, doesn’t it?

A: You cannot experience the Self/Brahman/Absolute. But then neither can you ‘know’ it in the usual sense of the word. Reality is non-dual. The empirical, experienced world of duality is an appearance; name and form of Brahman. All of this can be intellectually understood by the mind. When it is firmly believed to be true, without any doubt, that is enlightenment.

You should also understand that it is not the case that ‘all of this is unreal’. ‘Unreal’ is not the correct adjective. Every empirical perception is name and form of Brahman and therefore ultimately real. Just not ‘real’ as its perceived ‘object’. This is why the world does not disappear on enlightenment. The scriptures tell us ‘sarvam khalvidam brahma’ – all of this is Brahman. So, if it disappeared, it would mean that Brahman disappeared!

Continue reading →

Tat Tvam Asi (Part1)

Posted on by

Part 2

In the commentary on Ch Up 6.1.3, ShankarAchArya says that even if a person has studied all the Vedas and knows all other things which are to be known, he indeed remains unfulfilled if he does not know the Self. As the word ‘unfulfilled’ is not explained, let me do. Unfulfilled means unfulfilled desires. Though a particular human desire is finite, there are countless desires and in this sense they are infinite. A person will have to take infinite births to fulfil them, and he will be in bondage forever. Conversely, with Self-knowledge, a person is complete and has no desires or alternatively all desires are subsumed in his ‘completeness’. He is free in the present life and is also free from rebirth.

Continue reading →

Dialog with Jeff Foster (conc.)

Posted on by

*** Read Part 2 *** *** Go to Part 1 ***

13. You then talk about:“the collapse into not-knowing, the profound mystery…”I don’t know (!) what this means – sounds a bit too mystical for me.

– Well, I suppose those words do sound a bit mystical! I’m talking about the huge relief, the liberation, the sense of freedom when the mind’s endless search for something MORE than the present moment dies down, and there is only what is, and nothing more. It’s the “profound mystery” because nothing can be known about it.

OK, I’m happy with ‘relief’ and ‘liberation’ but I would use ‘fascination’ instead of ‘mystery’ – after all, ‘I amThat’. ‘Not-knowing’ is quite misleading.

14. “If anything, I’m saying the exact opposite, that the Mystery could NEVER be contained in ANY belief (especially simplistic neo-advaita beliefs!) ”Words never ‘contain’ the ‘mystery’, but they can be used to point to it. “Everything is here right now” does not provide any pointers that might overcome the essential ignorance.

– Yes, words as pointers….of course.

Continue reading →

Dialog with Jeff Foster (part 2)

Posted on by

*** Go to Part 1 ***

The Discussion

1. You say: “But the message asks – what reality does this person have in the first place? This isn’t about DENYING that person, or REJECTING that person.”

So are you saying that the person exists or not?

– I see this as a false dichotomy. The mind believes that something has to “exist or not”. But who would know whether a person existed or not? A person?

Without Consciousness, nothing exists. But it seems that this is the usual absolute versus empirical reality problem. Since we are using language and having a dialog, both of us are implicitly assuming the existence of separate persons. You cannot deny this without making nonsense of your position as a teacher and writer. So the answer to your question ‘what reality does the person have’ is that he has an empirical reality. This has to be accepted as a given at the level of the world appearance. The question as to whether this person has an absolute and separate existence is another question entirely.

Continue reading →