Tag Archives: self

Upadesa Sahasri (Part 35)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 34

18.170–184
In a series of verses, Shankaracharya explains how Tat Tvam Asi (TTA) should be taught and understood. As in the case of any sentence, in order to understand the meaning of TTA, one must understand the meanings of the words Tat, Tvam, and Asi.
The direct or literal meaning of Tat is Isvara, the creator, sustainer, and destroyer of the universe. Tvam means you, the individual (jiva), and Asi signifies that Tat and Tvam are identical, that is, Isvara = Jiva.
An equation is meaningful only when its two sides are apparently different but essentially the same. If the two sides are apparently identical, the equation serves no purpose. Thus, 5 + 4 = 10 – 1 is meaningful, whereas 9 = 9 is not. For one who understands addition and subtraction, both 5 + 4 and 10 – 1 resolve into 9, thereby validating the equation.

Continue reading →

Importance of Humility in learning Advaita

Posted on by
2

Advaita Siddhānta (doctrine) is about the Knowledge of the Self—the one and only “substance” that is eternally present, immutable, infinite, and complete, lacking nothing. It is no exaggeration to say that the most fundamental prerequisite for correctly understanding this millennia-old pinnacle of human thought known as Advaita Vedānta is humility.

Śaṅkara Bhagavatpāda beautifully summarizes the means to grasp Advaita Siddhānta in a single sentence in his commentary on Bhagavad Gītā 18.50. He adds that this is the very message conveyed by Śrī Kṛṣṇa in Bhagavad Gītā 2.69 and at several other places. He writes:

“It is only a cessation of the perception of the differentiated forms of the external world that can lead to a firm grasp of the real nature of the Self.”

Śaṅkara is equally careful to point out that Self-knowledge remains unattainable for those: Continue reading →

Upadesa Sahasri (Part 34)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 33

Part 35

18.133–138                                                                                                              Advaita acknowledges six means of knowledge (pramana). They are perception, inference, comparison, postulation, non-cognition and testimony.  Does the Self require a pramana for its substantiation, like the non-Self? According to the opponent, a pramaṇa is required even though the Self is self-evident, and this would be so irrespective of whether ignorance is about the Self or something other than the Self.
Before responding, Sri Shankara analyses the meaning of the word ‘substantiation’ (siddhi). Does it mean ‘coming into existence’, ‘being known’, or something else?

Continue reading →

Upadesa Sahasri (Part 33)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 32

Part 34

18.97–98
In the waking and dream states, there are experiences respectively of the external world and the internal world. This proves the existence of consciousness in these two states. In deep sleep, however, there is blankness. From this, one inference could be that consciousness does not exist during deep sleep. Another inference is that consciousness does exist, but there is nothing to experience.
In such a situation, when reason and experience are inconclusive, Sruti is the pramaṇa. Sruti (Br. Up. 4.3.9) discriminates between Consciousness (pure consciousness), the knowing principle, and mental modifications, that is, experiences. Consciousness is self-luminous, which means that its illuminating power never ceases (Br. Up. 4.3.23). In deep sleep, there is apparently no experience because the mind is dormant and there are no mental modifications to be illumined. As a result, there is the experience of nothingness which proves the existence of Consciousness.

Continue reading →

Upadesa Sahasri (Part 32)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 31

Part 33

18.79–87
In these verses, Sri Shankara refines the theory of reflection. In the teaching of Tat Tvam Asi (TTA), the word ‘Tvam’ directly refers to the ego and indirectly to the Self. This requires a relationship between the Self and the ego. The Samkhya system is unable to explain because it does not accept the theory of reflection. Consequently, a teaching imparted directly to the ego cannot be said to be imparted indirectly to the Self. In Advaita, however, reflection establishes the relationship. It is not a relationship of seer and seen because the Self is devoid of activity. Reflection, on the other hand, is formed merely by the presence of the Self. The opponent’s further argument that there is a relation of non-difference between the Self and the ego is also untenable because there is no knowledge in the form, “Consciousness is my real Self.”

Continue reading →

Upadesa Sahasri ( Part 31)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 30 

Part 32

18.72–75 are omitted, as they primarily deal with the Buddhist doctrine of momentary consciousness.
Who is the Hearer? Who Says, “I am Brahman”?
The teaching of Tat Tvam Asi (TTA) can serve its purpose only if there is a hearer to whom it is addressed (18.111). Accordingly, verses 18.76–77 raise the question: Who is the hearer of the teaching?
Two possible answers are examined: the Self and the ego. The Self cannot be the hearer being actionless and beyond all empirical transactions. Nor can the ego, who is a sufferer, be the hearer in the ultimate sense and truthfully declare, “I am free.” Does it imply that scripture is not a valid means of knowledge and the teaching is purposeless? To remove this confusion, verse 18.78 introduces the concept of reflected consciousness.

Continue reading →

Upadesa Sahasri (Part 30)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 29

Part 31

18.44–46
The opponent raises the question: Who experiences transmigratory existence (saṃsara)? Who is the saṃsari? The Self cannot be the experiencer of saṃsara because It is changeless. Nor can the reflection be the experiencer, since it is not ultimately real. The intellect too cannot be the experiencer because it is inert.
Sri Shankara agrees that saṃsara is indeed experienced, but he maintains that it is not real. It appears to belong to the Self, which serves as its substratum. The classic analogy is that of the rope and the snake. The snake exists only as a mental projection and is therefore unreal. Nevertheless, it is experienced because of the rope, the substratum upon which it is superimposed. Similarly, saṃsara is experienced because it is superimposed upon the Self.

Continue reading →

Upadesa Sahasri (Part 29)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 28

Part 30

Use of words for Brahman
Brahman is not an object of knowledge. Being free from attributes, It is beyond words and ideas. Up Sah 18.24 states that word or idea can refer to objects of knowledge and not to non-objects. Brahman is known and realized as the innermost self and the ultimate subject and is therefore not an object of cognition. The Self is known as that remains after negating all objects by the process of neti, neti (18.25). The same idea is reiterated in 18.28 which says that word can apply to ego which is possessed of species and not to Self which has no classification, i.e., swagata, sajatatiya and vijatiya. Self is devoid of any differentiation.                                                                                               Then the question is why are words used to describe It?

Continue reading →

Upadesa Sahasri (Part 28)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 27

In Part 27, the arguments of a Prasamkhyavadi who maintains that repetition is necessary was introduced. Sri Shankara responds.
1 TTA is taught on the authority of scriptures and reasoning (18.04). The formerly ignorant student becomes wise and claims ‘I am Brahman’ (18.05) and the notion of agentship is given up (18.06).
2 The Sruti talks about the method of ‘not this’, ‘not this’, and on such negation, Self is revealed by the scriptures as Existence, Consciousness (18.26). Action and its results are enshrined in earlier portion of Veda and not in the latter portion (18.19).

Continue reading →

Upadesa Sahasri (Part 26)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 25

17.51-55                                                                                                                            A man desirous of knowing the truth should cultivate dispassion and refrain from loving the worldly objects for such a love is risky. It is mixed with pain because any worldly object is impermanent and its absence causes pain. The love causes bondage as desires are plenty and impossible to fully satisfy. He should approach a skilled teacher who has Self-knowledge, who is tranquil and established in Brahman- meaning he is anchored in Self while transacting in the world. In this sense, he is free from bondage of action. Such a teacher interprets the scriptures and impart knowledge (Ch Up 6.14.2 and BG 4.34). When a qualified student approaches a skilled teacher with humility in the prescribed manner, the teacher should accept him into his fold and impart knowledge of Brahman thereby enabling him cross Samsara which is like ocean of darkness.

Continue reading →