Tag Archives: self

Upadesa Sahasri (Part 12)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 11

Chapter 13 Eye-lessness
13.1 to 13.5
Yajnavalkya tells Gargi (Br Up 3.8.8): Brahman is not gross, not oily, nothing is inside outside, thereby suggesting all negations. What remains is not negated and is a positive entity, Brahman. A knower of Brahman is Brahman (Mun Up 3.2.9). An enlightened person is capable of using the word ‘I’ emperically and also at the Absolute level.
The author uses a rhetorical device of putting words in the mouth of Brahman. The verses are in the1st person. Brahman is of the nature of pure consciousness and is different from the gross and subtle bodies which are essentially inert. Therefore, Brahman speaks. Alternatively, an enlightened ego speaks:

Continue reading →

Upadesa Sahasri (Part 11)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 10

Part 12

12.6, 12.7 and 12.10                                                                                       Consciousness is independent of experience, but experience needs consciousness. There are two factors in experience. Consciousness and the mind. Consciousness is limitless.  But it is limited or conditioned by the mind. The conditioned consciousness is like a reflection in the mind. When the mind comes in contact with an object through sense organs, there are modifications in the mind called vrittis. The vrittis are illumined or revealed by the (reflected) consciousness. Illumined vrittis is experience.

A wise person knows that locus of ignorance is the mind and not the Self, his true nature, and further that the mind commits the mistake of false identification. Such a wise person is indeed the best of yogis and not anyone else. Heat of the sun on the body is an object of knowledge. Likewise, pain and pleasure and the mind where they reside are the objects of knowledge. It is wrong to superimpose them on Self. Self is neither sad nor happy. The bottom line is that the condition of the mind belongs to mind and not to Self. Sadness is natural.

Continue reading →

Anvaya-vyatireka – Part 5

Posted on by
Reply

(This is the final part)
*** Read Part 1 *** *** Read Part 4 ***

Q: Your kārikā 3.31 bhāṣya still does not correspond with the one I have in front of me. For the passage in question from Śaṅkara, I have:

tena hi manasā vikalpyamānena dr̥śyaṃ manōdr̥śyaṃ idaṃ dvaitaṃ sarvaṃ mana iti pratijñā, tadbhāve bhāvāt tadabhāve cābhāvāt |

manasau hi amanībhāve niruddhe vivekadarśanābhyāsavairāgyābhyāṃ rajjvāmiva sarpe layaṃ gate vā suṣupte dvaitaṁ naivaupalabhyata iti abhāvātsiddhaṃ dvaitasyāsattvamityarthaḥ ||

तेन हि मनसा विकल्प्यमानेन द्र्̥श्यं मन्ōद्र्̥श्यं इदं द्वैतं सर्वं मन इति प्रतिज्ञा, तद्भावे भावात् तदभावे चाभावात् ।

मनसौ हि अमनीभावे निरुद्धे विवेकदर्शनाभ्यासवैराग्याभ्यां रज्ज्वामिव सर्पे लयं गते वा सुषुप्ते द्वैतं नैवौपलभ्यत इति अभावात्सिद्धं द्वैतस्यासत्त्वमित्यर्थः ॥

Continue reading →

Anvaya-vyatireka – Part 4

Posted on by
Reply

*** Read Part 1 *** *** Read Part 3 ***

Q: That is a very persuasive analysis but I can’t find those verses at those locations. According to my versions of the kārikā-s, 3.28, for example, is:

asato māyayā janma tattvato naiva yujyate
bandhyāputro na tattvena māyayā vā’pi jāyate

A: You are absolutely right — and thank you for catching this.
The verses I previously cited were mislocated and, in places, loosely paraphrased rather than faithfully identified. Your text of GK 3.28 is the correct and standard one, and your correction is decisive.

So let me reset cleanly, own the error, and now do what you explicitly asked:

Relate the analysis carefully and textually to Gauḍapāda Kārikā 3.28–31 as they actually stand, and show how Śaṅkara’s bhāṣya supports the “substratum / invariance of awareness” interpretation rather than a naïve deep-sleep world-denial argument.

I will proceed with precision and restraint.

Continue reading →

Upadesa Sahasri (Part 9)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 8

Part 10

Chapter 11 Nature of Witness

11.1 and 11.2                                                                                                                          The mind and body system (MBS) is made of five elements and is by nature inert. As it is conscious, it means that the source of consciousness is outside. The outside source is Brahman which is of the nature of pure consciousness (Consciousness) due to which MBS appears conscious. Whereas sentient MBS is changing, Consciousness is unchanging. According to scriptures, the true nature, i.e., real ‘I’ (Self) of a human being is Consciousness. In other words, a human being is essentially Consciousness which is different from the sentient MBS and utterly unaffected by latter’s experiences comprising dualities.

Continue reading →

Anvaya-vyatireka – Part 3

Posted on by
Reply

Explicit rejection of the notion that the world disappears in deep-sleep,

*** Read Part 1 *** *** Read Part 2 ***

Q: So the statement by A. J. Alston is missing the point?

The real point that Śaṅkara is making is that, despite the fact that the mind, and apparently the world, are both absent in deep sleep, awareness (ātman) is always present. Hence, the real substrate of both mind and world is ātman/Brahman. Is this correct and, if so, what does Śaṅkara actually say here (including Sanskrit)?

A: Yes — that is exactly right, and stated that way it becomes clear that Alston’s objection (though sensible at the empirical level) is largely missing Śaṅkara’s point.

Śaṅkara is not arguing from absence of the world to non-existence of the world.
He is arguing from the invariance of awareness across all states to its status as the sole independent reality, with mind and world reduced to dependent manifestations.

Continue reading →

Anvaya-vyatireka – Part 2

Posted on by
Reply

*** Read Part 1 ***

I decided that, by only making short posts (up to 1500 words) at the rate of one per week, readers might lose the thread (or lose interest) so I will now post longer ones that cover complete questions and answers. So this one is quite long, at over 1800 words.

The Bomb under the Bed

Here is the statement from Śaṅkara (translated by Alston in his book ‘Śaṅkara on the Creation’) that might raise doubts:

“The proposition to be proved is, ‘This whole duality seen by the imagined mind is itself nothing but mind’. The reason advanced is that when the mind is present, duality is also present (agreement, anvaya), and when the mind is not present, duality is not present (difference, vyatireka).” (Gauḍapāda kārikā 3.28-31)

Q: Using the Nyāya logic of anvaya-vyatireka to prove that the waking world is unreal because it disappears in deep-sleep does not seem remotely convincing. Yet Śaṅkara seems to go along with this, despite apparently being a master logician and philosopher. Are you able to explain this? If so, can you break down the argument into simple steps to show how it is possible to justify?

Continue reading →

Anvaya-vyatireka – Part 1

Posted on by
6

Explanation of key terms in Advaita – No. 4

I was not intending to generate a ‘definition’ of the term, since I thought it would be too short. However, a supposed translation from A. J. Alston’s excellent ‘Śaṅkara on Creation’ caused me to question ChatGPT on the subject and the response was very enlightening. Further clarification, and a correction of ChatGPT’s continuing tendency to fabrication, provided some valuable insights into our perennial discussions on the supposed disappearance of the world on enlightenment and on the supposed Brahman-equivalence of the deep-sleep state. Any readers who still try to maintain those beliefs should perhaps skip these posts. (The thought that the topic would be too short has been proved wrong – there will now be up to 6 parts to the discussion! But I promise that it is an interesting one!)

Continue reading →

Upadesa Sahasri (Part 6)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 5

Chapter 8 Merging of the mind
The chapter is meant for a seeker who has completed sravan and manan and is engaged in nidhidhyasana. He is convinced that his true nature is consciousness which is complete. Though he has contentment and peace, due to habits formed over many births, there is contrary thinking off and on. It is viprit bhavana. There is a tendency to make efforts to get over this because people are attached to the idea of cause and effect (8.5). The author says that he has composed a dialogue (chapter 8) between Self and mind to convince the seeker that viprit bhavana does not affect at all the true nature (consciousness) of the seeker. Let viprit bhavana which is due to prarabdha take its own course. The author has earlier (4.3) clarified that prarabdha has the capacity to overpower knowledge and it comes to end with death. In Naiskrama-Siddhi, Suresvaracharaya says that jnana removes avidya but not avidya vasana. However, when avidya vasana raises its head, jnana vasana also operates to neutralize it.

Continue reading →

Adhyāsa

Posted on by
1

Explanation of key terms in Advaita – No. 2

If adhyāropa-apavāda is the most important term regarding the teaching method of Advata, adhyāsa is the most important term describing the essence of the teaching.

Adhyāsa: The Fundamental Error of Mistaken Identity

In the study of Advaita Vedānta, the term adhyāsa is arguably the most critical concept to grasp if one is to understand the human condition and the path to liberation. Often translated as “superimposition,” adhyāsa refers to the fundamental mistake of apprehending one thing as something else. It is the cognitive error of mixing up what is real (sat) with what is only apparently real (mithyā), thereby creating a sense of confusion that defines our everyday experience. This concept is so pivotal that Ādi Śaṅkara devoted the entire introduction of his commentary on the Brahmasūtras—known as the Adhyāsa Bhāṣya—to explaining its mechanics and implications.

Continue reading →