Tag Archives: self

Upadesa SAhasrI (Part 3)

Posted on by
3

Part 2

Chapter 2 Negation
2.1 to 2.4                                                                                                                        Sruti (Br Up 2.3.6) says: Not this, not this. Self is the left over after negation of everything, i.e., objects of experience. As they are mithyA and changing, they are negated to realize the unchanging remainder. This remainder, the negator cannot be negated. It is the Self and is of the nature of consciousness. It is the true nature of the negator. Self cannot be negated because it is based on pramAna (evidence). Self is the ultimate subject and is the reality. It has an independent existence. Objects are non-Self and are mithyA.

Continue reading →

BrihadAranyaka Upanishad (Part 8)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 7

Part 9

Chapter 2 Section 5.                                                                                                    Introduction                                                                                                                     The section is called Madhu Brahman because the word Madhu which means honey or helpful occurs repeatedly in it. The madhu vidya of ChAndogya Upaniṣad is Surya upAsanA. In Br Up it refers to Atma vidya or Brahma vidya. There are different techniques by which the Upanishads teach the knowledge of the Self. One method is creator and creation. Brahman is the creator. and world is the creation. This has been talked about earlier. Madhu Brahman uses the method of inter-dependence among worldly objects. They are mutually dependent and are mithyA. Therefore, there must be some entity outside the world which lends existence to the worldly objects. This entity is Brahman or the Self. The Upanishad also says that Brahman only appears as the world like gold appearing as ornaments. The ornaments are names and forms. Similarly, the world of multiplicity are names and forms. Brahman is all pervading and is present in a jIva as also in all other worldly objects. If a person understands this, he knows all and becomes immortal.

Continue reading →

Surefire Way To Liberation – Part 2

Posted on by
Reply

[Part 1]

2.  With One Stop Over:

The Unfailing Universal Rule:

Krishna reveals the universal rule, that governs with no exception, the next birth of a creature.  The rule is:

यं यं वापि स्मरन्भावं त्यजत्यन्ते कलेबरम् ।
तं तमेवैति कौन्तेय सदा तद्भावभावितः ॥  —   8.6, BG.

Meaning: Of whatever Being thinking at the end a man leaves the body, Him alone, O son of Kunti, reaches he by whom the thought of that Being has been constantly dwelt upon.

Therefore, his promise is: “Whoso, at the time of death, thinking of Me (Vishnu, the Supreme Lord) alone, leaves the body and goes forth, he reaches My being (My real being as Vishnu); there is no doubt in this as to whether he reaches or not (8.5, BG; 7.30, BG.).” Continue reading →

Surefire Way To Liberation – Part 1

Posted on by
Reply

Surefire Way To Liberation:

  1. Non-stop Direct:

One attains (eternal and irreversible) identification with brahman by being established in brahman *even in the closing years of one’s life* — 2.72, BG.

Essential Requirements:

a) Should be free from all desires, be free from hankering, without the idea of (‘me’ and) ‘mine’, and be devoid of pride — 2.71, BG.

Shankara comments at 2.71, BG: Only that man attains peace (Liberation) into whom all desires enter, from all directions, like waters entering into a sea, without overwhelming him.

Continue reading →

BrihadAranyaka Upanishad (Part 4)

Posted on by

Part 3

Part 5

Chapter 2 Section 1 

2.1.1 to 2.1.14                                                                                                                   It is a dialogue between GArgya, a BrAhmana and a kshatriya king AjAtshatru of KAsi. GArgya has learnt VedAs and he knows Saguna Brahman. AjAtshatru is a jnAni. GArgya visits AjAtshatru and offers him to teach Brahman. AjAtshatru understands that Gargya’ s main intention is to get dakshinA, i.e., teacher’s fee for teaching. He gives him 1000 cows for his proposal to teach. Though GArgya’s knowledge is confined to Saguna Brahman, he thinks that he knows everything and is proud. He says that he meditates on aspects of Saguna Brahman, namely, sun, moon, lightening, space, air, fire, water, looking glass, sound of breath of walking man, directions, shadow. and asks the king to meditate on these aspects.

Continue reading →

Tat Tvam Asi (Part 6)

Posted on by

Part 5

Who is the hearer? Who says, I am Brahman?
Teaching of TTA becomes useful (Up Sa18.111) if it is meant for a hearer. In 18.76/77, there is a question: who is the hearer of the teaching? Two possible answers, namely, the Self and the ego are examined. It is argued that Self cannot be the hearer because It is free from action. The ego which is miserable, and a sufferer cannot be the hearer because it cannot say, ‘I am free’. Does it mean that the scripture is not a pramAna and teaching has no value? To dismiss such a possibility, 18.78 suggests a solution by introducing chidAbhAsa.

Continue reading →

Locus of Primal Ignorance (Mool-avidyA)

Posted on by

In Up Sah 18.44, the opponent (Purva Paksha-PP) asks a question. Who experiences the transmigratory existence? It cannot be the changeless Self. It cannot be the inert intellect, nor can it be the reflection (of the Self in the intellect) which is mithya. ShankarAchAryA gives a short reply. The transmigratory existence is a delusion because of non-discrimination between Self and non-Self. It has an apparent existence (and experienced) because of real existence of the changeless Self and appears to be belonging to It (Self). 

Continue reading →

Tat Tvam Asi (Part 5)

Posted on by

Part 4

Sravan is sufficient
In Sravan, the student listens to the teacher about the teaching, namely, TTA. On understanding the full import of TTA, the student has Self-knowledge, i.e., I am Brahman and there is liberation. Self-knowledge and liberation are simultaneous. There is no time-gap. In chapter 18 titled ‘Tat Tvam Asi’ of Upedesha Sahasri (Up Sah), ShankarAchArya introduces a Purva Paksha (PP) in 18.09 who holds that mere Sravan is not sufficient for liberation. It should be followed by repetition of ‘I am Brahman’. PP argues as below.

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 →