Tag Archives: waking

Manudukya Upanishad and Karika (Part 2)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 1

Part 3

Mantra 3
The Self associated with the waker’s body is called Visva. Its field of experience is the universe obtaining in the waking state. Worldly objects are experienced because they are illumined by consciousness. Although consciousness is different from Visva, it appears to be related to external objects because of ignorance. In this sense, consciousness is said to be turned outward.
Visva experiences the waking world through nineteen instruments. They are the five sense organs, the five organs of action, the five vital forces, the mind, the intellect, the memory, and the ego.

Continue reading →

Mandukya Upanishad and Karika (Part1)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 2

Introduction

The Mandukya  Upanishad belongs to Atharva Veda. Though it has only twelve mantras, its teachings are profound. Gauḍapadacharya wrote the Karika on it. A Karika differs from a commentary. In a commentary, the commentator analyses each mantra and comments on it in detail. A Karika, on the other hand, presents the essential philosophical teachings.

The Karika consists of four chapters comprising a total of 215 verses (Karikas). Chapter I is called Agama Prakaraṇa. It is so called because it is based on the twelve mantras of the Upanishad. This chapter contains 29 Karikas. Chapters II, III, and IV are respectively Vaitathya Prakaraṇa (On the Unreality of the World), comprising 38 Karikas; Advaita Prakaraṇa (On Non-duality), comprising 48 Karikas; and Alatasanti Prakaraṇa (On the Quenching of the Firebrand), comprising 100 Karikas.
The Upaniṣhad and Karika are traditionally studied together along with the commentary of Shankaracharya.

Continue reading →

Āvaraṇa and Vikṣepa

Posted on by
Reply

The Twin Powers of Illusion

Most seekers of Advaita Vedānta eventually encounter a perplexing riddle: if Brahman is the only reality—one without a second—how is it that we perceive a world of dizzying multiplicity and feel ourselves to be limited, suffering individuals? Traditional teaching addresses this paradox through a sophisticated pedagogical framework known as the two ‘powers’ of ignorance (avidyā) or illusion (māyā): Āvaraṇa and Vikṣepa. While these terms are cornerstones of modern Advaitic study, they represent a nuanced evolution in the tradition that is vital for any serious student to understand.

Defining the Terms: Concealment and Projection

In the technical vocabulary of Vedānta, ignorance is not merely a passive lack of information; it is often described as a functional force with two distinct aspects.

Continue reading →

Upadesa Sahasri (Part 9)

Posted on by

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 2

Posted on by

*** 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

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 →

Waking Vs Dream

Posted on by

We treat the waking state as real and dream state as unreal. ‘Day dreaming’ is used when a person imagines in the waking state. GaudpadAcharya in his karikA on MAndukya Upanishad refutes the ‘unreality’ of dream and shows that the two states are on equal footing.
I Utility
Objection: Dream objects have no utility in waking state.
Refutation: To a dreamer, dream water is useful, not the water in waking state.
II Reality
Objection: Dream objects are unreal because they may not exist in the waking state.
Refutation: Even though dream objects may not be seen in the waking state, yet they are as real to a dreamer as objects in the waking state are to the waking person.

Continue reading →

The Limitations of Metaphor

Posted on by

Advaita teaching frequently makes use of metaphor in its explanations of the various topics. These are indisputably invaluable, although there is also the danger of taking them beyond the realm of their applicability and either drawing erroneous conclusions or simply failing to see the point that is being made. This also highlights the necessity of using the metaphor that is most appropriate for conveying the message. Take the example of sarvam khalvidam brahma – all this (world) is really Brahman.

We might start with the ubiquitous rope-snake metaphor. We think we see a snake but the light is poor. (We think we see a world of separate objects, but we haven’t yet gained the Self-knowledge of Advaita – our perception is covered by ignorance.) When we bring torchlight to shine into the darkness, we see that it is really a rope. (Having been taught Advaita, we realize that the world is really name and form of Brahman.)

Continue reading →

Traditional versus Neo-Advaita (Part 2)

Posted on by

*** Read Part 1 ***

There are also two significant dangers regarding the Neo-Advaita ‘movement’. Firstly, there is the clear possibility of charlatans who, having read a little or heard the fundamental elements of ‘descriptions’ of reality, can devise a few ‘routines’ of their own and then advertise themselves on the circuit. Providing that they are good speakers/actors, it is certainly possible to make a living from deceiving ‘seekers’ in such a way, without ever giving away their true lack of knowledge or the fact that they are no nearer any ‘realization’ than their disciples.

Secondly, seekers themselves may be deluded into a belief that some specious realization has been obtained when, in fact, all that has happened is that they have come to terms with some psychological problem that had been making life difficult. The ending of such suffering could well be seen as a ‘liberation’. Of course, such a thing would not be at all bad – it simply would have nothing to do with enlightenment. Indeed, such people might well go on to become teachers in their own right, not charlatans in the true sense of the word, since they genuinely believe that ‘realization’ has taken place.

Continue reading →

Traditional versus Neo-Advaita

Posted on by

This will be a multi-part post, triggered in part by Ramesam’s recent post ‘Liberation is Disembodiment’, following which I promised a separate post. First of all, I will repost an article on the subject from advaita.org.uk, with which readers may not be familiar. Secondly, I will post an article on the subject that I apparently wrote in 2006 but do not seem ever to have published. Finally, I will add a new section and make a radical suggestion (as promised in my comment).

The word ‘neo’ means ‘new’ so that ‘Neo-Advaita’ is an impossibility. Advaita means ‘not two’, referring to the non-dual reality that always was, is and will be – unchanging because change would necessarily be from one thing into another, which would be contradictory. There cannot, therefore, be an ‘old’ and a ‘new’ Advaita, only the one truth.

Continue reading →