Tag Archives: self

The World and the One ‘brahman’

Posted on by

mANDUkya Upanishad’ mantra 7 tells us that anything that is sensed, perceived, experienced or even thought about or conceptualized is not brahman. Consequently, Sages admit that “Advaita philosophy is incommunicable” (7, mANDUkya); “We do not know how to teach Advaita,” (1.3, kena). But at the same time, the Upanishadkars exhort us that “You should know It.”

Shankara too urges us in the Gita bhAShya (Ch 6, 9, 15.3, BGB;) and also at kaTha bhAShya that we should make every effort to attain the Knowledge of the Self in this life itself because “here alone it is possible to have a vision of the Self as clearly as (seeing) the face in a mirror, whereas this is not possible in other worlds apart from that of brahmA, which, however, is difficult to attain” (2.6.4, kaTha UB).

Hence, the teaching of Advaita philosophy is done adopting an apophatic approach, via negativa. It is the famous “na ( = not) (stated) iti ( = thus); not (stated) thus; na ( = not) (stated) iti ( = thus),” or neti; neti (2.3.6, BU); thus denying anything said about the Self is NOT It! Continue reading →

Shankara Answers Beginner’s Questions

Posted on by

Shankara bhagavat pAda, a committed and earnest Commentator (bhAShyakAra) that he was, rarely, if at all, deviates from the immediate text on which he was making his explanatory observations. Fortunately for us, he relaxes, with compassion, his own self-imposed constraints of being a strict commentator and provides a detailed exposition on the subject matter occasionally. One of such instances is his 27-page long commentary at 2.1.20, brihadAraNyaka Upanishad (BUB). It comes before taking up the dense and meaty philosophical discussions on “the Highest Wisdom of Vedanta” beginning at the Fourth section, called Maitreyi brahmaNa. He provides answers to many typical questions that some one new to Advaita philosophy is likely to ask. I trust Shanakara’s replies help satiate the curiosity of the novice. We shall recapitulate below some of the questions and Shankara’s answers thereon. Continue reading →

“sadyomukti” (Instant Liberation) – 1/3:

Posted on by

What Shri Shanakara bhagavat pAda exhorts us in his commentary at the kaTha Upanishad, IMHO, is that we should try to “realize” the Self right in this life and not defer it to a later time because it involves a much more arduous effort to attain liberation with a stopover in some other loka (which involves continuing in the subtle body (or an AtivAhika sharIra)) after the gross body is dead. For example, Shankara writes:

तस्माच्छरीरविस्रंसनात्प्रागात्मावबोधाय यत्न आस्थेयः यस्मादिहैवात्मनो दर्शनमादर्शस्थस्येव मुखस्य स्पष्टमुपपद्यते, न लोकान्तरेषु ब्रह्मलोकादन्यत्र । स च दुष्प्रापः ॥ — 2.6.4, kaTha bhAShya Continue reading →

mANDUkya upaniShad Part 13

Posted on by

*** Read Part 12 ***

Mantra 12

अमात्रश्चतुर्थोऽव्यवहार्यः प्रपञ्चोपशमः शिवोऽअद्वैत
एवमोङ्कार।
आत्मैव संविशत्यात्मनाऽऽअत्मनं य एवं वेद य एवं वेद ॥ १२॥

amAtrashchaturtho.avyavahAryaH prapa~nchopashamaH shivo.Advaita
evamo~NkAra .

Atmaiva saMvishatyAtmanA.a.AtmanaM ya evaM veda ya evaM veda || 12 ||

chaturtha – The fourth (aspect)
o~NkAra – of the syllable OM
amAtra – (has) no parts (i.e. is limitless);
avyavahArya – (is) transcendental (not at the level of empirical transactions),
prap~nchopashamam – has no phenomenal existence,
shivaH – is ‘all bliss’
Advaita – (and) non-dual.

Atma eva – (It is therefore) verily the Self.
ya evaM veda – Whosoever knows this
saMvishati atAnaM – merges his self
AtmanA – into the Self.

Continue reading →

Supreme Consummation of Self-knowledge (in Summary)

Posted on by

[This Article, “The Supreme Consummation of Self-knowledge (in Summary)” is about the aspect of “How To” attain the unbroken abidance in/as the Self by a mature and ready seeker. It is (mainly) based on Shankara’s explanation at 18.50, BGB.]

Q: Of what nature is the Self-knowledge?

A: Of the same nature as the Self.
(In other words, Self and Self-knowledge are one and the same).

Q: Of what nature is the Self ?

A: Of the (same) nature as described by Lord Krishna (in the Bhagavad-Gita) and (also) as mentioned in the Upanishads.

Q: But the Upanishads say that the Supreme Self is formless and featureless. For example, 

अरूपम् (formless)  — 1.3.15, kaTha Upanishad. 

Further, it is also said that the Self is not an ‘object’ that is available for perception:

न सन्दृशे तिष्ठति रूपमस्य न चक्षुषा पश्यति कश्चनैनम् (His form does not exist within the range of vision; nobody sees Him with the eye)  – 4.20, Shwetaswatara; 2.3.9, kaTha.

In addition, the Self is,

अशब्दमस्पर्शम् (soundless, not touchable)  –  1.3.15, kaTha.

The Self and the cognition (*) there of being formless and intangible, how can there be constant consummation on the Self? Continue reading →

Subject-object dichotomy

Posted on by

Any Advaitin worth their salt knows that the dichotomy of subject-object is not transcended by the unsupported mind, which in itself is inert.

Empirical experience seems to be undeniable, and with it that polarity, but one knows from Shankara – and only from Shankara – that it is based on ignorance, that is, failing to distinguish between the Self and the intellect or mind, which leads to the superimposition of either one on the other. Thus, the non-dual and undifferentiated Self – alone real – appears to be an agent and a knower, whereas, in reality, It is a ‘witness’ (a witness that is none other than pure Consciousness); and It is so by Its mere presence, not actively. The dichotomy referred to above does not exist – in reality

Continue reading →

mANDUkya upaniShad Part 4

Posted on by

Mantra 3

*** Read Part 3 ***

जाग्रितस्थानो भिष्प्रज्ञः सप्ताङ्ग एकोन्विंश्तिमुखः स्थूलभुग्वैश्वानरः प्रथमः पादः॥ ३॥

jAgaritasthAno bahiShpraj~naH saptA~Nga ekonaviMshatimukhaH sthUlabhugvaishvAnaraH prathamaH pAdaH || 3 ||

prathamaH pAdaH – The first aspect (of the Self)
vaishvAnara – is vaishvAnara (or vishva)
jAgaritasthAna – (This is) the waking state
praj~na – (and it is one in which one’s) knowing awareness
bahis – (is) turned outwards
sapta a~Nga (a~Nga literally means ‘limb’) – (This aspect has) seven divisions  ekonaviMshatimukhaH – and nineteen interfaces (with the outside world) (viMshati is ‘twenty’ and ekona is ‘one less than’; mukha literally means ‘mouth’ or ‘opening’)
sthUlabhugvaishvAnaraH  – vaishvAnara (is) the enjoyer (bhug = bhuj = bhoktA; experiencer, enjoyer) of the gross world.

The first aspect of the Self is vaishvAnara. This is the waking state in which one’s awareness is turned outwards to the external world. vaishvAnara has seven parts and experiences the universe via 19 interfaces.

Continue reading →

Book Review: Peculiar Stories

Posted on by

Peculiar Stories, Mora Fields
O Street Publishing, 2010, ISBN 978-0-9791416-1-4. (92 pages), Ages 6-10 and up.

Mora Fields Mora Fields has been an inquirer her entire life, although she didn’t always realize it, and translated her early wonderings about the nature of life into these stories of inquiry for children. She has long been a reader and admirer of the English philosopher/sage Douglas Harding. She co-authored a previous book called Aspects of the One: the 99 Names of God.

Continue reading →

Ramanuja vs Shankara

Posted on by

Who would win in an argument between Ramanujacharya and Shankaracharya?

As non-duality can be said to go beyond, and at the same time enclose duality within itself, we can also say that Shankara, being a non-dualist philosopher, goes beyond and ‘incorporates’ Ramanuja, that is, the latter’s philosophy (it has been said: a jñani understands a bhakta, not vice versa).

Ramanuja took the ego (psychological self) as being the Self, an error for an Advaitin. For the former, destruction of the ego (“me”) will thus entail the destruction of the Self. For an Advaitin, the ego or subtle body (mind, senses, and vital breath) dissolves when the body dies – not so awareness or pure consciousness.

From the viewpoint of Advaita Vedanta, ‘consciousness’ is another name for reality/being/existence: all there is or that can be (all possibilities of existence). Neither ‘subject’ nor ‘object’, it annihilates this (mental) division, as well as sublating all concepts.

Or, as Francis Lucille, a well-known teacher wrote: ‘Simply put, non-dualism is the hypothesis that reality is non-dual, that there is only one single reality which is the substance of all things, of all phenomena, both mind and matter. If that is true, it follows that the reality of our ordinary consciousness, meaning whatever is really perceiving these words at this moment, must be this non-dual, single, and universal reality.’

Shankara said:

‘An enlightened person, after his death, does not undergo a change of condition – something different than when he was living. But he is said to be “merged in Brahman” just due to his not being connected to another body.’ Quoted from ‘The Method of Early Advaita Vedanta’, Michael Comans.

How is self-knowledge different?

Posted on by

A sense of not-knowing is uncomfortable and prickly. The very idea that one could be ignorant about a topic seems to draw out an urge to know. Once knowledge of the said topic is gained, there is a brief moment of resolution. This resolved state of mind only lasts as long as one’s attention is not drawn to the next novelty. Suppose one hears the word ‘photon’ for the first time and looks up its meaning. Having scraped the ignorance of a photon, the notion ‘I am ignorant’ is removed only from the standpoint of a photon. There’s some joy (jnᾱnᾱnanda). But one’s ignorance from the standpoint of ‘neutrino’ is still present. Therefore the resolution remains inhibited. Self-knowledge is different. After having mastered an extensive body of knowledge, Narada Muni goes to Sanathkumara complaining for want of mental peace. He reveals that he has mastery over all the Vedas, Purana, grammar, mathematics, sciences, music, art, astrology and the list continues. The list is representative of all Aparᾱ vidyᾱ.

Continue reading →