Tag Archives: Turiya

Mandukya Upanishad and Karika (Part 3)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 2

Part 4

Chapter 1
Karika 6
During deep sleep, everything exists in a potential condition. From this potential condition, the waking and dream states emerge. An important Vedantic conclusion is that anything that appears to be created must already exist in a potential form. If it exists in a potential form, creation is a misnomer. There are only two states: the unmanifest and the manifest. A product (effect) is not a new entity; it pre-exists in an unmanifest form in its cause. This is the doctrine of Satkaryavada.

Continue reading →

Creation Theories in Advaita

Posted on by

In Advaita Vedānta, the explanation of how the universe came to be is not presented as a single, static fact, but as a series of increasingly refined theories (vāda-s) designed to lead a seeker from a dualistic worldview to the ultimate non-dual truth. This pedagogical technique is known as adhyāropa-apavāda—initially attributing qualities or a creation to Brahman (adhyāropa) and later rescinding them (apavāda) as the student’s understanding matures.

The following is an overall summary of these theories, progressing from the “common-sense” view to the radical absolute truth.

Continue reading →

Ātman and Brahman

Posted on by

The Pillars of Non-Dual Reality

In the vast and rigorous tradition of Advaita Vedānta, two terms stand as the absolute foundation of all spiritual inquiry: Brahman and Ātman. While these words can initially seem like abstract philosophical markers, they are, in fact, pointers to the most intimate and undeniable truths of our existence. Traditional Advaita, as systematized by the great sage Ādi Śaṅkara in the 8th century, is fundamentally a methodology designed to reveal that these two apparently different entities are, in reality, one and the same.

The core message of this teaching is famously summarized by the dictum: brahma satyam, jaganmithyā, jīvo brahmaiva nāparaḥ—”Brahman is the reality; the world is not in itself real; the individual self is none other than Brahman”. To understand this “Great Equation,” we must first clarify what is meant by these two essential terms through the lens of scriptural testimony (śabda pramāṇa) and Śaṅkara’s commentaries.

Continue reading →

Anvaya-vyatireka – Part 4

Posted on by

*** 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 →

Anvaya-vyatireka – Part 3

Posted on by

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 →

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 →

mANDUkya upaniShad Part 9

Posted on by

*** Read Part 8 ***

Mantra 8

सोऽयमात्माऽध्यक्षरमोङ्कारोऽधिमात्रं पादा मात्र मात्राश्च पादा अकार उकारो मकार इति ॥ ८ ॥

so.ayamAtmA.adhyakSharamo~NkAro.adhimAtraM pAdA mAtra mAtrAshcha pAdA akAra ukAro makAra iti || 8 ||

saH ayam AtmA – this same AtmA (just described in the 7th mantra)
adhyakSharam – adhi – concerning (i.e. from the standpoint of) – akShara – the syllables
o~NkAra – is OM.
(adhi literally means ‘making it the basis’. Shankara says that the previous mantras have concentrated on the abhidheya meaning ‘that which is being spoken of’, i.e. the thing named or denoted. OM, therefore, is effectively the abhidhAna – name or appellation.  What is meant is that Atman is equated to OM in the linguistic sense.)
adhimAtraM – from the standpoint of the mAtra-s, i.e. the individual parts of OM, (note that the literal meaning of mAtra is measure; the symbolism of this will become clearer with the 10th mantra)
pAdA mAtra – the (four) aspects (of the Self) are the (four) mAtra-s
mAtrAshcha pAdA – and the letters are the aspects.
akAra ukAro makAra iti – In this manner, (the letters are) a, u and m.

This Atma can be equated to OM. The aspects of the Self are the parts of OM and the parts of OM are the aspects. The letters constituting OM are ‘a’, ‘u’ and ‘m’.

Continue reading →

mANDUkya upaniShad Part 8

Posted on by

*** Read Part 7 ***

Mantra 7

नान्तःप्रज्ञं न बहिष्प्रज्ञं नोभयतःप्रज्ञं न प्रज्ञानघनं न प्रज्ञं नाप्रज्ञम् ।अदृष्टमव्यवहार्यमग्राह्यमलक्षणमचिन्त्यमव्यपदेश्यमेकात्मप्रत्ययसारं प्रपञ्चोपशमं शान्तं शिवमाद्वैतं चतुर्थं मन्यन्ते स आत्मा स विज्ञेयः  ॥ ७ ॥

nAntaHpraj~naM na bahiShpraj~naM nobhayataHpraj~naM na praj~nAnaghanaM na praj~naM nApraj~nam |adRRiShTamavyavahAryamagrAhyamalakShaNamachintyamavyapadeshyamekAtmapratyayasAraM prapa~nchopashamaM shAntaM shivamAdvaitaM chaturthaM manyante sa AtmA sa vij~neyaH  || 7 ||

This (consciousness) is known as the ‘fourth’. (It is) neither (the knower of) the internal (world), nor the external. Neither (is it the knower of) both. (And it is) not (just) a ‘mass’ of consciousness. (It is) not consciousness (in the empirical sense of conscious ‘of’) nor (is it) unconsciousness. (It is) imperceptible, transaction-less, not ‘graspable’, un-inferable, unthinkable, and indescribable. (It is) the essential ‘I’-experience. (It is) the negation of the experience of all plurality of the universe. (It is) pure, tranquility, and non-dual. This is the Self. This is to be understood.

This 7th mantra is possibly the single most important mantra in the whole of the Vedic scriptures; it attempts to ‘describe’ the nature of absolute reality, knowing that such description is intrinsically impossible.

Continue reading →

Q.529 Comments on mithyā

Posted on by

Q: Do the Upaniṣads talk about or mention mithyā? If not, why not, when Advaita seems to speak so much about it?

A: The absolute ‘bottom line’ of Advaita is as expressed by Māṇḍūkya Up. and Gauḍapāda’s kārikā-s, namely that there is no creation, no one has ever been born etc. Māṇḍūkya 7 is the final word on the matter:

“This (consciousness) is known as the ‘fourth’. (It is) neither (the knower of) the internal (world), nor the external. Neither (is it the knower of) both. (And it is) not (just) a ‘mass’ of consciousness. (It is) not consciousness (in the empirical sense of conscious ‘of’) nor (is it) unconsciousness. (It is) imperceptible, transaction-less, not ‘graspable’, un-inferable, unthinkable, and indescribable. (It is) the essential ‘I’-experience. (It is) the negation of the experience of all plurality of the universe. (It is) pure, tranquility, and non-dual. This is the Self. This is to be understood.”

Consequently, anything in experience (i.e. dualistic) cannot be real. Yet we DO experience the world. Therefore, it has to be mithyā. No need to specifically talk about it. Gaudapada does, in fact, in Chapter 2, which is called ‘Vaitathya Prakaraṇa’. Vaitathya is essentially a synonym for mithyā. (My book ‘A-U-M’ is all about this – https://www.advaita.org.uk/extracts/a_u_m_unreal.html).

Ṥaṅkara also talks about it in BSB 1.4.19; 2.1.14; bhāṣya on Mand. Up. 7; Gaud.  kārikā 4.9 and Vivekacūḍāmaṇi 194 -5 (ish).

The distinction between paramārtha and vyavahāra is also effectively another way of talking about mithyā. Vyavahāra is ‘appearance’, whose substantive reality is actually Brahman. Every discussion about ‘name and form’ as opposed to reality is about mithyā, whether or not the word is used.