VEDANATA (Upanishads/Advaitam)

 

VEDANTA

UPANISHADS

Upanishads are not a logical treatise. They are the quintessential spiritual experience expressed in the moment of its occurrence in the language that presented itself. It is simple when it corresponds to our experience, abstruse when our minds are not at it, do not sense the same experience. As we grow and gain more experience and turn to them again, it becomes simple. Yet Upanishads show the way and do not give a final product. Atma or Brahman as ultimate only gives a name instead of ‘x’. It is as good as x. Its real nature is not known. It cannot be known by reading Upanishads or even the exhaustive commentaries. The differences in commentaries establish the mystery of what it is.

 

Different schools of thought have arisen in interpreting the Upanishads. They are as follows:

(adopted from Kanchi Paramacharya’s upadesa)

{The individual soul is called Jivathma (soul in a living being, note, not just of humans) and God is Paramatma (the Supreme Soul)}.

1.    Dvaita: Jivatma will always be distinct and separate from the Paramatma. When the Jivatma attains moksha (which is the desideratum or the goal), it would enjoy infinite bliss by worshipping the Paramatma.

2.    Vishishtadvaita: Even though the Jivatma will be a separate soul doing Bhakti toward Paramatma in moksha, it will have the feeling of the Paramatma immanent in it as its soul.

3.    Saiva-siddhanta: When the Sun rises, the stars do not lose their existence; they just disappear from view, because of the luminosity of the Sun. So also in moksha, the Jivatma, though it does not lose its existence, will have its own little consciousness submerged in the Absolute Consciousness of the Paramatma.

4.    Advaita: is different from all these. Moksha is not a place or a world. When the Atma is released from the bondage of the mind, that is moksha. It may be right here and now. One can be ‘released’ even when alive, not necessarily only after death. 

Dvaita, Visishtadvaita and Advaita are neither true nor untrue. They are theories. Life is the truth.

 

Upanishads 1

Vedanta applies the method of science to spirituality. Science proceeds from some known facts, which are self-evident, i.e. they cannot be proved, and builds understanding and knowledge from there. Likewise, in spirituality, soul is the self-evident reality. It cannot be proved. Vedanta then explains its nature and relationships. It is not a cogent, logical treatise. It is a collection of the findings of the seers. The seers are not dialecticians. They are thatvadarsis, those that see reality as it is. It is not clear to us because we are yet to get that perception. Being single-minded, we can one day attain to it.

Sankara says that this word is derived by adding the prefixes ‘upa’ (meaning near) and ‘ni’ (with certainty) to the root ‘sad’ which means ‘to destroy’, ‘to reach’, and ‘to loosen’. Thus the meaning of the word ‘Upanishad’ is that it is the knowledge that destroys the seeds of worldly existence such as ignorance in the case of those seekers of liberation who, after becoming free from all desires, approach (upa sad) this knowledge.

Sankara lays down conditions for acquiring liberating knowledge that are daunting. Gita makes it clear that the path of knowledge is not for the run-of-the-mill (like me). Rajaji says that knowledge that is not put to action is useless tinsel. On to useless tinsel.

Upanishads - 2

Upanishads are at the last portion of Vedas and hence called Vedanta. It has an implied etymological meaning of ultimate knowledge.

In fact, a question asked by a guru to a disciple who appears puffed up that he had mastered everything was, ‘What is it knowing which everything becomes known?’ The know-all student says, ‘That is out of syllabus.’ (We shall see it later).

Upanishads talk of no personal god except in two places in the ten most critiqued Upanishads, and it is not a serious link to any argument advanced in them. It is a search for truth, the basis of life. It is by question and answer and by thought experiments. The subject matter is such that no laboratory experiment is possible.

It is asserted that scripture is the only pramana to know the soul and god, and also equally that scripture is no authority to know what we can know by direct experience of worldly things. This distinction, sometimes forgotten, is unique to Hinduism, I think.

Sri S.N.Sastri quotes Adi Sankara:

Sri Sankara says in his Bhashya on the Bhagavadgita, ch.18, verse 66: "The validity of the Vedas holds good only with regard to matters which cannot be known through such other valid means of knowledge as direct perception, etc., because the validity of the Vedas lies in revealing what is beyond direct perception. Even a hundred Vedic statements cannot become valid if they say that fire is cold or non-luminous. If a Vedic text says that fire is cold or non-luminous, one should assume that the intended meaning of the text is different, for otherwise its validity cannot be maintained. One should not interpret it in such a way as to contradict some other valid means of knowledge".

What candour and clarity!

Upanishads – 3

A set of three texts, called prasthanatraya (प्रस्थानत्रय), is the basis of metaphysical philosophy of Hinduism. They are the Upanishads (Sruti श्रुतिः, original), Brahmasutras (ब्रह्मसूत्र a cryptic codification of the Upanishadic teachings) and Gita (Smriti स्मृति, again based on the Upanishads). Vedas are considered apourusheya (अपौरुषेय, anadi अनादि), coeval with Brahman. That is a call on faith. Commentaries on these are voluminous, cared for by a handful.

Ten Upanishads have been popular among Vedantins. They are:

Isa, Kena, Kata, Prasna, Mundaka, Mandukya, Taittiriya, Swetasvatara, Chandogya and Brihadaranyaka.

I will give the salient points of the Upanishads, but I must confess that apart from gaps in my understanding, a summary like this overlooks finer points.

Upanishads – 4

An introduction to the framework under which we are called upon to understand the Upanishads by the commentators may be useful. I owe this to Swami Paramarthananda. My grasp is limited and I would make many mistakes. May Swami pardon me.

Without a framework, there can be no progress in any field. It is like a constitution. What is the sanctity for it? It is intuited and evolved and is enriched by upright people.

Why are human beings different? That is sought to be addressed by purusharthas (पुरुषार्थ). Dharma, artha, kama, moksha (धर्म, अर्थ, काम मोक्ष) are the four purusharthas. Vedas have purva kanda and uttara kanda. Purva kanda covers the first three purusharthas and uttarakanda covers moksha. Readers need not be worried that they will be pushed to moksha by reading about Upanishads. I stay rooted in wordly things despite an occasional dip in them.

It is not as though human life is skewed towards moksha. Mokasha comes at the end. The other three are genuine pursuits. Swami Ranganathananda: ‘Indian spiritual tradition does not frown, or look down, upon kama, organic satisfaction or artha, wealth, which is a means to kama, but treats them as valid pursuits, or purusharthas.’

Varnasrama Dharma is integral to Vedas. It is not central or indispensable to Vedanta, but allusions will be found.

 

Isavasyopanishad (ईशावास्योपनिषत्)

This Upanishad occurs in Sukla Yajur Veda. It derives its name from the opening line.

ॐ ईशा वास्यमिदँ सर्वं यत्किञ्च जगत्यां जगत् ।

तेन त्यक्तेन भुञ्जीथा मा गृधः कस्यस्विद्धनम् ।। १ ।।

1. The world is pervaded by Iswara (god). Bear it in mind and have a spirit of renunciation. Do not covet anybody’s wealth.

God is immanant as well as transcendental. This idea will figure throughout the Upanishads.

2. One should desire to live a full life span by doing the prescribed acts. That is the way to attain detachment.

3. Destruction of the self leads to dark worlds.

4. Atma is one, unmoving. It precedes the mind always. It moves, still unmoving; it is near and also far; it is inside everyone and also outside. This is expansion of the idea that the world is pervaded by Iswara. It also points to the unity of Atma, its indivisibility and wholeness. This idea of Ekam and Advitiyam will be found in all uoanishads.

5. When one sees all beings in his self and himself in all beings, one does not nurse hatred and has no scope for infatuation or grief. This idea is reflected in Bhagavad-Gita as well.

6. Atma is everywhere (व्याप्नोति इति आत्मा), self-evident, formless (nothing great about religions which claim to have found this out, it was believed so thousands of years ago), invulnerable, pure and faultless, the force behind the mind, self-formed.

Prayer for paragathi (परगति)

The Upanishad ends with a prayer (recited by believers at the twilight of life);

‘O Sun, show me your real, auspicious form retracting your rays. I am that who resides in your core. Let my breath, etc. mingle with the respective elements from which they were drawn. Remember me, O Lord. Lead us up the right path earned by good deeds and destroy the debilitating sins.’

The slokas:

हिरण्मयेन पात्रेण सत्यस्यापिहितं मुखम् । तत्त्वं पूषन्नपावृणु सत्यधर्माय दृष्टये ॥

पूषन्नेकर्षे यम सूर्य प्राजापत्य व्यूह रश्मीन्। समूह तेजो यत्ते रूपं कल्याणतमं तत्ते पश्यामि योऽसावसौ पुरुषः सोऽहमस्मि ॥

वायुरनिलममृत । मथेदं भस्मान्तꣳ शरीरम् । ॐ क्रतो स्मर कृतꣳ स्मर । ॐ क्रतो स्मर कृतꣳ स्मर ॥

अग्ने नय सुपथा राये अस्मान् विश्वानि देव वयुनानि विद्वान् ।

युयोध्यस्मज्जुहुराणमेनो भूयिष्ठां ते नम‍उक्तिं विधेम॥

 

Kenopanishad

It occurs in Sama Veda and is named after the first word of the Upanishad.

The question is asked, ‘At whose command do the senses, life-breath and mind function?’

Answer:

It is the ear of the ear, mind of the mind, tongue of the tongue, the eye of the eye and the life breath of the life breath. The eye, tongue and mind do not reach there. We do not know it as it is. Therefore, we are at a loss of words to instruct about it. It is different from the known and different from the unknown also. It is not that which your senses grasp, but that because of which your senses function. That, know as Brahman. (The idea is Brahman is not an object and its real nature is ineffable).

If you think that you have known it well, surely what you know is slight. What you have learnt about it from the devatas is also slight. It remains to be understood properly. The one who does not think that he has understood well, who neither thinks that he has not understood nor understood, knows. (The idea is that one cannot grasp it with the senses and all partial knowledge is defective. The real knowledge is experiential and not relatable like any ordinary experience).

A story is related to instruct that the one who knows Brahman excels others who do not know.

Brahman is like lightning; like winking of the eye. There often arises a fleeting feeling that the mind reaches it and feels near it. It must be meditated upon as residing in all things.

 

Kenopanishad (An explanation)

Upanishads are abstruse and require commentary and the commentators differ. I have no qualification or credentials to present their content – knowledge and understanding, good conduct and spiritual practice.

Why do I write then?

From my school days, I used to write to understand and teach someone if a victim was found. That is the reason I write and am thankful that a few victims could be found.

As I said in the beginning, Upanishads are about truth. It proceeds from religion or belief. The question is what is the driving force of the universe? It is presumed there is such a force. That force is called Brahman. It is not god in the ordinary sense in which we use god. The enquiry proceeds to understand Brahman. There is however difficulty. Brahman is not like anything else we try to know. It is not an object that can be identified by the senses by observation and convention. It is the cause of the senses and not the object of their perception. In Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, which we shall see later, the same idea is phrased as, ‘Who can understand that which understands?’

Is there anyone who has understood? If the answer is negative, there will be no further enquiry. But, the seers who have understood have been there and they appear periodically. They validate Brahman, as it were. Their personality rather than teaching instructs non-verbally. Jesus inspired the apostles, Ramakrishna inspired Vivekananda, and so on.

The Upanishad defines someone who knows but it is a riddle. That requires commentary and background, which I skip for want of clarity on my part. In simple words, just as Brahman is not to be understood in the same paradigm in which we understand all else, the knower of Brahman is not to be prototyped or typecast. He neither claims to know nor not to know. His knowledge is in his being, not in his belief or words.

Is it then that only a few can know? Thank heavens, we can see about other things. No, everyone gets a flash if he is serious about it, but it is fleeting. One has to progress by meditating on it.

That is the textual knowledge I am sharing. It is like seeing the skeleton of a dinosaur in a museum. The real dinosaur I have not seen and hence, I am falling woefully short.

 

Katopanishad -1

This occurs in the Kata Sakha (branch) of Krishna Yajur Veda, and hence the name.

A story is related about Nachiketas. Nachiketas is steadfast (दृढचित्तः) about learning Atma Vidya and is not swayed by prospect of any wealth. The teacher is yama himself, the dreaded god. It is an imaginative setting where the agent of mortality instructs on immortality to one who rejects worldly wealth.

The story goes as follows.

Vajasavas performed a yagna. A yagna involves a number of gifts. He had a son named Nachiketas. Nachiketas saw that his father was giving away cows that were past the milch stage and quite old. That would entail the worst of hell for the giver, thought Nachiketas. Peeved at it, he approached his father and asked him, ‘To whom are you going to give me away?’ The father said in anger, ‘I give you away to Yama.’

Nachiketas took leave of his father and proceeded to the world of Yama. Yama was on tour then. Nachiketas waited for three days fasting awaiting the return of Yama. When Yama returned, he was upset that a Brahmana was left starving for three days and offered him three boons.

As the first boon, he seeks that his father be kind to him. It was readily conceded. As a second boon, he wants to know the Agni worship which entitles one for Swarga (heaven). Nachiketas asks the third boon, ‘I want to know the destiny of Atma after it leaves the mortal frame. Opinion seems divided on it. Please instruct me the truth about it.’

Yama tries to divert him, saying, ‘Even the gods have been in doubt about it. It is subtle and abstruse. Asm me another boon. Do not insist on it.’

Nachiketas is unmoved, ‘If even gods had difficulty in knowing it, there is no one else from whom I can learn it. I need only that knowledge.’

Yama tempts him, ‘Ask for descendants with longevity, cattle, elephants, gold, etc. Ask for vast stretches of land you can rule over. Get longevity for yourself. Ask for a number of Apsras ladies that serve the gods to do your bidding. Quit the thought to know about death.’

Nachiketas replied, ‘All that you promise will one day be yours. A man can never be satiated with material things. I am keen to know about immortality only.’

Impressed by the steadfastness of Nachiketas and his unswerving desire to get to the spiritual truth, Yama instructs him.

 

Katopanishad - 2

We shall now see the salient aspects of Yama's advice to Nachiketas, who confronts Death to conquer death. We shall proceed in infant steps as it is weighty matter.

There are two things श्रेयस and प्रेयस. Shreyas takes its follower to great good whereas the one taking to preyas loses his human pursuit. A courageous one prefers shreyas whereas a dumbwit chooses preyas. Nachiketas preferred shreyas.

Atma gnanam does not strike one who is infatuated by worldly things. He considers this world to be the only reality and proceeds from birth to birth.

Swami Sivananda writes:

"The Pleasant vs. The Good

One is good while another is pleasant. Blessed is he who, between them, chooses the good alone (Sreyas); but who chooses what is pleasant (Preyas) loses the true end.

Sreyas is the good, the Supreme Self, the knowledge of which leads to Moksha or the final emancipation.

Preyas is that which is pleasant. It is sensual pleasure.

He who treads the path of truth, who accepts the good, attains immortality and eternal bliss; but he who chooses the pleasant, i.e. sensual pleasures, loses the goal of life, undergoes various sorts of miseries, sorrows and troubles, and is caught in the wheel of births and deaths.

Sreyo-Marga is the path of knowledge. Preyo-Marga is the path of ignorance or the path of pleasure.The path of knowledge and the path of pleasure are thrown open to a man. He can choose any path he likes. Just as the swan separates the milk from a mixture of milk and water and drinks, milk alone, so also the wise man separates the good in life, and follows the good alone."

My comments:

The story shows how Nachiketas withstood the temptation of what is sensually attractive and insisted on getting hold of the Truth. Yama now emphasises the same point. The truth is often missed because we are carried away by the frills. This lesson is useful not in just vedanta, but in any serious pursuit. Much of the cross talk we have in FB or parliament is due to the noise interference, getting away from the area of focus either to obfuscate or in frayed temper.

Brahman or Atman

(Chapter 2 of Bhagavad Gita mirrors this)

Brahman has been meditated upon diversely. Brahman has to be understood from a proper teacher who knows it as ‘not the other’. It is subtle and not within the reach of logic.

It is beyond the senses, all-pervasive subtly, well-established in the cave of buddhi, ancient, and can be realized only by adhyatama yoga (meditation on the self). Knowing it, one transcends happiness and grief. One who extracts it by discrimination and understands it as the basis of dharma enjoys bliss.

Atma is not born of anything; nor is anything born of it. It is unborn, eternal, indestructible. It neither kills nor is killed. It is subtler than the subtlest and greater than the greatest. It resides in the hearts of beings. One who has given up worldly desires realises it. It travels far though stationary; it goes all over though lying; who else can realise it except me? It is the formless within forms; the eternal within the transient; great and omnipresent. It cannot be obtained by discourse, intelligence, erudition. It manifests to him who meditates on it. One who is of uncontrolled senses and bad conduct, and has not quietened the mind by proper focus, cannot obtain it by pragnana (intelligence).

Om, in brief, is that which the Vedas adore, all austerities are directed at, and the goal of brahmacharis (students seeking Brahman). It is the best of holds and the highest knowledge. It is the way to immortality.

Consider body as chariot, mind as reins. Intelligence as charioteer, Jiva as a traveller, sense organs as horses and sense objects as the path. The Jiva who is composite body-sense organs-mind is described as experiencer. One with uncontrolled mind and non-discriminating intelligence lets the horses (sense organs) go astray. One who has mind in control and intelligence well directed has his sense organs under tight leash. The former comes to grief and the latter attains good status.

The subtle forces that control the sense organs are superior to sense organs; mind to those subtle forces; intelligence to mind; atma to intelligence; avyaktam (the primordial principle) to atma; purusha to avyaktam. Purusha is supreme. (Purusha is Brahman). It is hidden and not open to view to all. Only those with keen spiritual insight are able to discern Brahman.

Arise, awaken, attain knowledge seeking the best teachers.

(Swami Vivekananda popularised this. He used it to stir a somnolent nation to spiritual renaissance).

 

Immortality is attained by knowing that which is beyond sense organs, changeless, eternal, without beginning or end and is above the principle of the world, and constant.

God has created sense organs pointing outward. Therefore, one is glued to things external. One somewhere turns his gaze inward desirous of immortality. He comes to grip with pratyagatma (that which we call I).

The one who sees continuity in wakeful and dream state he realizes the Atma of unparalleled greatness. Atma is living out the fruits of past deeds and is the master of what is gone and what is to come.

Atma has manifested before the elements emanated from Brahman and combined to form the world, and is in the hearts of all. It is that from which the sun rises and sets, and the gods lean on. That which is here is there. That which is there is here. It has to be reached through the mind. There is no difference here. Purusha is of thumb size in the heart. He is the lord of the past and future. He is the one who was yesterday and who will be tomorrow. Just like pure water mixed with pure water becomes indistinguishable, so does the atma of a realised Muni become.

If one, who is actually unborn and of no crooked consciousness, thinks and realises the self, he will be freed from the bondage of body and births. He is the sun traversing the clear sky. He is the wind that pervades the intervening space. He is the fire in the altar of sacrifice and other places on the earth. He is the guest at home. He is in men, gods, truth, sky, and all beings. He is ritham and big. He makes prana to go up and apana to go down. The gods worship him seated as a dwarf at the centre. A person is alive not because of prana or apana, but by this underlying atma.

The jiva takes various courses after death; some are reborn; some become flora and so on depending on their karma and gnana.

What is present when a person sleeps, building up desires in dreams, (Atma) is pure, Brahman and immortal. In him are all the worlds established. Nothing is beyond him. Just as fire or wind enters various bodies assuming diverse forms, the Atma, being one, enters various bodies and assumes different forms. Just as the sun is the eye for the whole world and is not affected by any fault in the world, the Atma which is one for all beings is not affected by the misery in the world. He is eternal among the mortal, the creator of consciousness for the conscious, one and fulfiller of wishes. The supreme bliss cannot be defined specifically. How can we grasp whether it shines by itself or by reflection? The sun, moon, stars, lightning do not shine there. How can the agni shine? Everything shines by that only. Everything becomes known by it.

The fire burns because of fear of him; the sun scorches; Indra pours down rain; the wind blows; Yama snatches away life. One who fails to realise it is born again. 

The eternal Purusha is in the heart of one, of the size of the thumb. Just as the rain on a hill runs in various streams, the same Purusha resides in everyone’s heart and the one who sees the difference is lost in it. A realized soul is like pure water mingling in pure water. He is in all things. He makes the life breath sustain life.

After death, some attain another body by being born again. Some become plants. It is according to their acts and knowledge.

The Purusha who is awake even in sleep, materialising several desires, is Brahman. In Him all the worlds are anchored. Nothing transcends him. Just as fire resides in various forms in several objects, and as air attains the form of the objects it pervades, the one inner soul resides in all in various forms.

Just as the sun is not affected by the defects of the eyes of the beholder, the inner soul is unaffected by the worldly afflictions.

Eternity belongs to those who see him that is eternal among the transient, the knowledge of the intelligent and the fulfiller of the desires of all.

That great bliss is indescribable, but is attainable here.

There does not shine the sun, the moon or the stars, leave aside fire. Its light illumines all, no light can illumine it.

Mind is superior to the senses, intellect to the mind, the inner soul to the intellect and the invisible original soul to the inner soul. Purusha is the ultimate. He is all-pervading, beyond gender and qualities. Knowing him a Jiva is liberated.

He is not susceptible to the senses. He can be attained only by intellect and mind. Knowing him, one becomes eternal. The highest state is when the senses of perception are anchored in the mind with no action and intellect also is dormant. Yoga is that state where the senses are quiet. The true state manifests to the one who has faith in it. When the desires of his heart are extinguished, the mortal becomes immortal. Of the one hundred and one nadis (nadi is pulse sort of), only one flows upward to the top of the head. Travelling via that nadi, one becomes immortal. The rest of the nadis are mortal.

The inner soul of the size of thumb resides in the heart. One should realise it by courageous effort.

 

Prasnopanishad

The Upanishad is so named since six questions are raised and answered. It occurs in Atharva Veda.

1. How are living beings created?

The progenitor (Brahma) created the twins Prana (energy and consciousness) and Rayi (a complement to Prana required for creation). The combination of the two facilitated creation.

Prana and Rayi are likened to life and body, growth and decay, day and night, sunlight and shade, right and left, and consciousness and the gross body. Prana is Purusha (Iswara or God) and Rayi is Viswam (universe).

2. How many are the deities that support the created subjects? Which is the chief among them?

The earth, water, fire, air and ether; speech, mind, eye, ears, etc. are the deities. Prana (life force) is the chief among them.

3. How does the life breath arise and how does it operate?

Prana (life breath) arises from Atma. It manages through five executives. Apana (remover of air) is in charge of waste removal (excretory organs) and reproductive organs (genitals). Prana itself is in charge of the face (eyes, ears) but going out through the nostrils and the mouth). Samana (equaliser) is established in the central region (abdomen) taking care of distributing the offered food equally. Vyana (pervasive one) pervades the entire body through thousands of nadis radiating from the heart. Udana (one going up) delivers a being into the worlds his karma has reserved. 

4. Which deities sleep in the person, which are awake, which see dreams and who is the enjoyer? In what does everything stand rooted?

When the person sleeps, the deities viz. sense organs get merged in the higher deity of mind and are dormant. The five life breaths (prana, apana, vyana, samana and udana) are awake. In dream the deity of mind becomes everything and sees all. When no dream is seen, there is the state of bliss. All are rooted in the subtle Atma.

5. What is the benefit of meditating on Om?

If one meditates on the three syllables (a, u and ma) one gets gradual liberation; if he meditates on Om integrally, he is liberated instantly.

6. Who is the person said to have sixteen kalas (parts)?

The Atma that resides in the person is that. Just as a river merges in the ocean, the sixteen kalas get absorbed in the Supreme Being. (The sixteen kalas are:1. Life Principle, Prana 2.  Faith, Shraddha 3-7. Five Elements, space, air, fire, water and earth 8.  Five senses of perception and five organs of action considered as one 9. Mind  10. Food 11. Vigour viryam12. Self-discipline, Tapas 13.Worship or prayers, mantra 14.Work, karma 15.Wisdom, or spiritual worlds representing different states of consciousness and 16.Name or a distinct identity.)

 

Thursday, September 15, 2016

Mandukya Upanishad

This belongs to Atharva Veda. Its name is explained either as taken after the diety of the Upanishad – Varuna in the form of manduka, frog, or because it describes reaching the fourth state of turiyam after crossing the other three states like a frog.

All this is Brahmam. This Atma also is Brahmam.

The Atma has four quarters.

1. Waking state: It is aware of the outside world. It has 7 limbs. They are heaven as head, sun and moon as eyes, directions as ears, air as life breath, Vedas as speech, sky as heart and earth as feet.It has nineteen faces. They are 5 sense organs, 5 organs of action, 5 life breaths, and 4 internal organs (mind, thoughts, intellect and ego). It enjoys the gross matter. It is called vaiswanara (or viswa).

2. Dream state: It is turned inward. It still has 7 limbs and 19 faces as above. It enjoys in itself. It is called Taijasa.

3. Deep sleep state: It has 1 face namely mind (chittham). It desires nothing, and dreams nothing (no external or internal engagement). It is alone as ordinary consciousness. It is in total bliss and enjoys the bliss. It is called Pragna. He is the lord of all, knows all, conducts all life from within, and the source, manifestation and resolution of all.

4. This is the crux of this Upanishad and the entire Vedanta.

The fourth state is known as chaturtha or turiya. Turiya has no consciousness of the external or internal. He does not have consciousness of anything intermediate between the two. He is not of the nature of consciousness. He is not of the nature of non-consciousness. He is unseen, indescribable, incapable of being grasped, undefinable, unthinkable, incapable of being elucidated upon, capable of being understood from the standpoint that Atma is One, real beyond the appearance of the manifested gross world, tranquil, auspicious, advaitam (non-dual). He is Atma and he has to be understood.

The atma is Om when denoted by a single letter. When its parts are considered they are the quarters. A, U, M denote the three states waking, dreaming and deep sleep.

A is, because of its omnipresence, vaiswanara, which is the abode of the wakng state; one who realises this attains fulfilment of his desires and becomes the first (best).

U is, because of its uplifting nature and duality, thaijasa, the abode of dreaming state. The one who realises it attains wisdom and equanimity. In his lineage no one will be born without Brahma-gnana.

M is, because of its measuring nature and hiding everything in it, pragna, the abode of deep sleep. The one who realises it becomes capable of understanding everything and holding it confidential.

The fourth, the unexpressed, is non-transactional, in the illusory nature of the universe, auspicious, non-dual, is without matra (symbol). The one who realises it knows Atma as Atma by Atma.

 

Mandukya Upanishad (MU)

An attempt to paraphrase.

Upanishads are abstruse and do not yield meaning just by reading. It requires interpretation and explanation with a framework.

MU is compact and a principal source of Advaita.

The Upanishads try to get to the truth from the observed world and phenomena, not by quoting some mysterious authority. It is appealing because of that, but it does not become final. As it is not direct and logically watertight, and the words used have ambiguity, there is difference in the way it has been understood by acharyas.

MU deduces the nature of the world by our states of consciousness, which is a matter of direct and daily experience. Much of modern science veers to the view that consciousness is the basic unit of existence. Science is trying to understand consciousness.

MU draws attention to three states, waking, dreaming and deep sleep. The same person (Atma) is present in all the states. Otherwise, when we wake up we will not be what we were before going to sleep. The difference in the three states is analysed.

In the waking state, the person is looking outward, with the senses being engaged in the world of experience.

In the dream state, the person is looking inward. The senses and mind are engaged but not with the actual world.

In the deep sleep state, the person is in pure consciousness, with sense organs and mind having withdrawn. (on waking up from such sleep, one says he slept happily).

There is a fourth state, which is in fact present all the time, which is identified with atman, which explains the unity of a person. It is described in terms that require detailed explanation.

Om is identified with Brahman in Upanishads. MU explains the above consciousness-based explanation in terms of Om. Om is in fact a conjunction of a, u and m. A is likened to waking state, U to dream state, and M to deep sleep state. The combined sound is compared to the fourth state (Turiya).

 

August 31, 2016

Mundaka Upanishad

Mundaka means cleanshaven head, the name of the Upanishad possibly signifying detachment necessary for gnana. The Upanishad occurs in Atharva Veda.

‘Knowing which does everything become known?’

All worldly knowledge is considered ‘apara vidya.’ Knowledge of the imperishable (akshara) is ‘para vidya.’ Interestingly, Vedic knowledge also is apara vidya. That includes the four Vedas, and Vedangas viz. siksha (pronunciation); kalpa (usage of mantras); vyakaranam (grammar); niruktham (etymology); chandam (methodology); jyothisham (astrology).

The imperishable is imperceptible, it cannot be contained, it has no place of birth, it has no varna, no eyes or ears, no hands or legs, it is eternal and omnipresent, all-pervasive, extremely subtle, suffers no diminution, it is the source of everything. The wise seek and attain it.

Just as the web is drawn from out of the spider’s body, the vegetation grows on the earth and hair grows on the body of beings, so does the universe rise from the Akshara Brahmam.

Brahmam expands by tapas. Food manifests then, and from food are manifested life, mind, elements, action and their fruits.

The Hiranyagarbha (conscious principle of the created world) and inert matter arise from him who is intelligent and omniscient, who is gnana in substance, who is penance.

Just as thousands of sparks emanate from fire, various forms of life are born from and are merged in Para Brahmam. From him only arise life breath, mind, sense organs, ether, air, fire, water, and the earth that supports all. The One for whom Agni is the head, moon and sun are eyes, the directions are the ears, the famous Vedas are the speech, air is life breath, the entire universe is the mind, and from whose feet the earth was born, is the inner soul of all creation.

From Him arose Agni whose samit (firewood) is Surya; from moon comes rain; from it the plants. The man pours retas into woman and human creation takes place. All are from the Parama Purusha.

From Him the four Veads, sacrifices, time and all worlds have been born. All gods and other creatures have come from him. From Him have come the seven life breaths, the seven flames, the seven Homas, and the seven worlds. From Him the oceans, mountains, rivers, flora and the life principle have emerged.

The Supreme Being is resplendent, formless, alike inside and outside, unborn, devoid of life breath and mind, pure, and is above the supreme Akshara Brahman also. (Brahman is nirguna, but in the context of the manifested world, it appears as saguna according to advaita).

Purusha (Para Brahma) is all this universe. Action is penance. Brahmam is the supreme nectar. The one who knows it overcomes ignorance.

The consciousness seated hidden deep inside is the ultimate goal. Movement, life breath and winking of the eye are all dedicated to it. Know that which is ‘sat’ (unmanifest Brahman) and ‘asat’ (manifested world), the best attainment for all beings, supreme, and beyond sensory experience.

That which is self-luminous, subtler that the atom, in which he worlds are rooted and the beings of the worlds live, that is Akshara Brahman; that is life breath, speech, mind and truth. That is nectar and the goal.

Brahman is inside the golden sheath (intellect) blemishless and without parts. That is pure, the effulgence of all lustrous bodies. Those who know it as such are the wise.

The sun does not shine there, nor the moon, nor the stars, nor lightning, what to say of Agni? Everything shines after Him whose effulgence imparts lustre to all lustrous bodies.

This immortal Brahman is to the east, west, south and north, up and down. This superior world is itself only Brahman.

One desirous of knowing Brahman must examine the objects of the world that are gained by action and understand that the action-less Brahman cannot be attained by any action; one must become detached. He must seek a knowledgeable guru to realise Brahman and obtain salvation. To that seeker who has approached properly, with peace of mind, having restrained sense organs and organs of action, the guru will impart the knowledge of Brahman.

Take the powerful missile, the bow of the teaching of Upanishad, fix the arrow of your self sharpened by meditation and pull with the string, the mind filled with feeling saturated with IT (Brahman), and aim at Akshara Brahman.

Pranava (Om) is bow; self is the arrow; Brahman is the aim. One must be unwavering in the aim and then one will attain the merged status with IT like the arrow with the target.

Know him only to be the unique Atma, in whom the earth, the sky and the mind are woven with all life. Leave all else.

The ‘nadis’ converge in Brahman like the spokes of a wheel. He moves inside appearing variously. Meditate on Atma as Om. May you be blessed, being seekers of the other shore away from ignorance.

The one who knows both the ordinary (manifested world) and the extraordinary (the cause and support of the world) resides in our hearts. He is in the form of mind, leading the life breath and the body, established in the material (physical body) and intellect. The courageous see in intelligent experience that which is shines as personification of bliss and as deathless. Once that immanemt and transcendant reality is seen, the knots of the heart are untied, all doubts are cut off and the worldly actions atrophy.

Two pretty-winged birds were inseparable, equal in all respects, lived together on the same tree. One of them eats a tasty fruit of the tree while the other just looks on without partaking in it. Though both have perched on the same tree, one is sunk in spirit, infatuated and sorrowful, having lost its wit. When it turns its eye on the other which is autonomous, high in spirit, it realises that that loftiness of spirit is its own too and comes out of sorrow.

When the one with the power of discernment realises the golden-coloured Supreme being, the lord, the creator, the one whose origin is Brahman, that scholar is emancipated from virtue and vice and, becomes impeccable and attains parity with the Supreme.

A scholar who identifies the life breath of all living beings with this Person quits arguments. He plays with Atma, is involved in Atma, is engaged with Atma and is the knower of Brahman.

That Atma is within the body full of effulgence, pure, and is seen by the seers who are free from contamination. It is obtained by truth, penance, true knowledge, and celibacy.

सत्यमेव जायते नानृतं.

Truth alone triumphs, not untruth. The way to divinity is paved with truth. The seers with fulfilled desires proceed in that route to the ultimate abode of truth.

IT (Brahman or Truth) is big, divine, of unthinkable form, subtler than the subtlest, farther than the farthest, yet near in the heart of seers.

IT cannot be grasped by the eyes, speech or other sense organs, nor by the gods, nor by penance, nor by action. One who has pure mind sees IT which is without parts, by clarity of wisdom and meditation.

The life breath has entered into IT in fivefold ways; the sense organs and mind of people are woven into IT. IT is atomic (subtle). IT has to be understood by the mind. The Atma is subtle. It has to be understood by mind. In pure heart, it shines of its own accord.

A clear-headed one obtains the worlds and enjoyment he puts his mind on. Therefore one desirous of great fortune must worship Atmagnani.

The gnani knows the Supreme Brahman, the substratum of the world shining as pure self-luminous being. Those who worship the gnani become liberated.

A person continues to another birth to fulfil such desires that occupy his thoughts in this birth. The one who has crossed such thoughts and lives as Atma has no lingering desire.

This Atma cannot be obtained by discourse, intellect or erudition. It can be realized only by im who meditates on it exclusively; it manifests to him of its own.

This Atma cannot be obtained by the weak, the proud, or by penance that is not dissociated from desires. Atma enters the heart of one who attains gnana by proper means.

The seers who attained the Atman have autonomy in that knowledge, become Atman, are devoid of desires, tranquil; they who have controlled their senses and are courageous, see the Supreme everywhere and become one with that Atman and enter everything.

The seers who are endowed with a pure mind, who have attained certainty of realization of Atman by Vedanta and experience, exult in the nectarine Brahman experience and are severed from worldly ties in the end. At the last moment, the kalas (parts) return to their base; the senses return to their supporting deities; the deeds, the Atman that is knowledge personified become merged one with the changeless Supreme. Just as the rivers get extinguished on mingling into the ocean losing their name and form, the knowledgeable one is freed from the name and form and attains the Supreme Person who is divine. The one who knows the Supreme Brahman becomes Brahman himself. In his lineage, no one will be born who is devoid of Brahma gnana. He crosses sorrow, sin and is liberated from from the knots of heart and becomes immortal.

Summary of Mundakopanishad:

‘Knowing which does everything become known?’

There are two types of knowledge, knowledge of the observed world and of the unseen cause. The latter is superior.

This world is manifested just as the web is woven by the spider, the flora germinate from the earth and hair grows on body, from the unseen cause. Just as sparks proceed from fire, the universe has emanated from him.

It is possible to attain several benefits by action, but all of it is perishable.

Knowledge of imperishable Brahman (unseen cause) is supreme. A person desirous of emancipation must seek a Guru for obtaining that knowledge.

Brahman is radiant, but formless. He is inside and outside, but unborn. He has no life breath and mind. He is pure, beyond the imperishable (god as conceived by human mind), the inner soul of all creation.

The way to emancipation is: Take the bow of Om (upasana, meditation), and aim the arrow of Atma on the Supreme with the mind filled with thoughts of Brahman, and merge into the Brahman.

Once that immanent and transcendent entity is realized, the knots in the mind unravel, doubts disappear and karma dissolves.

Two birds are perched on a tree. One eats the fruits. The other is just watching. The tree is the body. The bird eating is Atman. The fruit is karma (action). The watchful bird is Brahman.

Truth only triumphs. Brahman is attained by truth. The other requisites are celibacy (disengagement from sense objects), gnana (clear perception), and penance (diligent effort and contemplation).

A man with desires takes birth again again chasing their fulfilment. A gnani on the other hand has conquered desires. He is freed from the cycle of births. Like rivers merge into the sea indistinguishably, he becomes one with Brahman. He is past sorrow, sin and death.

सत्यमेव जायते नानृतं.

Truth alone triumphs, not untruth.

 

Taittitriya Upanishad: An Overview

Seeksha Valli

While leaving the Gurukulam (Academy), the Guru advises the sishya (student) what is like a convocation address, which defines in a way Sanatana Dharma:

“Speak the truth and observe dharma.

Do not neglect learning (learning is a continuous process).

Give unto Guru his dues. Do not snap the lineage.

Swerve not from truth; swerve not from dharma; swerve not from good efforts; swerve not from celebration of values; swerve not from learning and teaching. (Sharing our knowledge is a bounden duty.)

Swerve not from the rituals for god and manes. Respect your mother; respect your father; respect your teacher; respect your guests. Blemishless acts have to be honoured, not others. Those which are good deeds on our part must be followed, not others.

Where there are Brahmanas superior to you, you should listen respectfully to them who must be seated on the dais.

Gift must be given with earnestness; not high-handedly; must be given liberally; must be given with humility; must be given with fear (that nothing amiss is there); must be given with good will.

If you have doubt on the proper deed or conduct, you must follow what is observed by Brahmanas who have the power to enquire into such matters, conduct themselves with propriety, not subject to others’ control, free from cruel tendencies, and steadfast in adherence to dharma.

This is the command and this is the instruction. This is the secret of the Vedas. This is the scriptural injunction. This has to be followed.”

 

Ananda Valli

The one who knows Brahman attains the best.

Truth (Satyam), knowledge (gnanam), infinity (anantam) is Brahman.

The one who knows Brahman residing in the recess of his heart merges with Brahman who is witness to everything, and experiences all bliss. From that Brahman which is the same as this Atman, the ether arose; from ether air; from air fire; from fire water; and from water the earth; from the earth the plants; from the plants food; from food man. Man is made of the essence of food.

The earthly subjects are born from food only and survive on food only. In the end they become food. Food came before all other creation. Therefore it is a precious medicine (oushadham) for all.

The Atman inside in the form of Prana (life breath) is different from the form of Anna. Prana is vital to devas, men and animals, and is the basis of longevity.

The Atma in the form of mind is within the Prana and is different from it. Even words fail to express its full potential. The one who attains Brahmananda with the aid of mind fears nothing.

Behind the Atma in the form of mind is Atma in the form of Vignana. Vignanam is what prompts sacrifice and other acts. All the gods consider Vigananam as the primordial Brahma. The one who knows Vignanam as Brahma and is steadfast in that faith, is freed from sins and enjoys supreme bliss.

There is the Atma in the form of Ananda within Vignana, different from it. The one who considers Brahman as non-existent, he becomes ‘asat’ (goes astray). The one who understands that Brahman exists becomes ‘sat’.

He (Atma – Brahman) willed to expand and become nama-rupa (name and form). It did penance. It created all that is and entered it. It was both formless and in form. It was both with qualities and without qualities. It occupied space and was without space. It was both chit (consciousness) and achit (without consciousness). It was both existence and non-existence. It is everything that is and is known as Satyam.

It was asat (without name and form) in the beginning and ‘sat’ (name and form) was born later. It created itself. Hence, it is called self-made. The one who is self-made is ‘rasa’ (the essence) and the possession of rasa makes him blissful. Without that Ananda (rasa-maya Atma) nothing can function. It is the one that gives Ananda to everyone. When a person is focused on IT which has no body, shape or pointer, he becomes fearless. When a person sees difference form IT, he is seized of the fear of birth and death, no matter how learned he is.

For fear of the Supreme Being, the wind blows, the sun rises, Agni and Indra do their duties, Yama functions.

The dimension of Brahmanadam is as follows. The measure of human happiness is that of a young man - good, learned, of the caliber of a leader, able-bodied and owning the earth with all prosperity. It is for one who is well-versed in scriptural knowledge and is not overpowered by desires. The happiness of a human Gandharva is a hundred times human happiness, that of a divine Gandharva a hundred times that of a human Gandharva, that of manes a hundred times that of a divine Gandharva, that of born Devas a hundred times that of manes, that of one who has attained devatva by good deeds is a hundred times that of a born deva, that of prominent devas a hundred times that of a realized deva, that of Indra a hundred times that of prominent devas, that of Brhaspathi a hundred times that of Indra, that of Prajapathi a hundred times that of Brhaspathi, that of Brahma a hundred times that of Prajapathi. This magnitude of Ananda is attained by one who is well-versed in scriptural knowledge and is not overpowered by desires.

The one who is in this Purusha is the same as one who is in the sun. The liberated one who has come upon this wisdom attains Atma which is Annamaya, Pranamaya, Manomaya, Vignanamaya and Anandamaya.

The one who knows that Brahmananda – which the words or mind cannot reach, never bothers about punya or papa, and is at one with Atma.

In sum, this section sets forth the five sheaths that envelop Atma, and indicates how knowledge of Atma gives infinite bliss.

 

Bhrgu Valli

Bhrgu approached his father, Varuna, and requested him to teach him about Brahman.

Varuna replied: “Brahman is Annam (food), Prana (breath), eye, ear, mind and speech. Know that to be Brahman from which all this has arisen, that in which all those that are born live and that in which in the end all this collapses.”

Varuna asks Bhrgu to do penance and find out about Brahman.

Bhrgu did penance and came to the conclusion:

“Annam is Brahman, for from food do all these arise, live by food and merge in food.”

Bhrgu again requested Varuna to teach him and Varuna instructs him to do more penance.

Bhrgu comes up successively with the ideas that Prana is Brahman, Mind is Brahman, Vignana is Brahman and finally Ananda is Brahman. Varuna who instructs Bhrgu to do more penance each time, without approving or disapproving the conclusion of Bhrgu, keeps quiet after Bhrgu identifies Ananda as Brahman.

It may be noted that the five sheaths set forth in the previous section are equated with Brahman here, but ultimately it is Ananda which defines Brahman substantially.

One should not talk ill of Annam. That is a vow. Annam is Prana. The body is the consumer of Annam. The body is set in Prana and Prana in body. The one who appreciates this is bestowed with Annam and enjoyer of Annam, and becomes prosperous.

Do not waste Annam. That is a vow.

Water is Annam. Fire is consumer of Annam. Fire is set in water and water in fire. Thus Annam is set in Annnam. The one who appreciates this is bestowed with Annam and enjoyer of Annam, and becomes prosperous.

Grow more Annam. That is a vow. The earth is Annam. The ether is consumer of Annam. The ether is set in earth and the earth in ether. Thus Annam is set in Annnam. The one who appreciates this is bestowed with Annam and enjoyer of Annam, and becomes prosperous.

One must ever be ready to feed the guests. The way one feeds the guest determines availability of food to him.

From Sri Sivananda:

“Brahman resides in speech as preserver, as acquirer and preserver in Prana and Apana, as action in the hands, as motion in the feet, as discharge in the anus, as satisfaction in the rain, as power in the lightning, as fame in cattle, as light in the stars, as offspring, immortality and joy in the generative organ, as all in the Akasa.

Meditator upon that (Brahman) as support becomes well-supported and will possess all means of living such as food and clothing. Meditator upon that as the great becomes great Meditator upon that as mind becomes thoughtful. Meditator upon that as adoration gets all desires fulfilled. Meditator upon that as the supreme becomes the presence of supremacy. Meditator upon that as the destructive aspect gets his enemies who hate him and rivals whom he does not like annihilated.

He who is in man and he who is in the sun both are the same. He who knows thus, departing from this world, and attaining the Annamaya self, then attaining the Pranamaya self, then attaining the Manomaya self, then attaining the Vijnanamaya self, then attaining the Anandamaya self, eating what he likes and assuming forms according to his wishes, travels through the world, and sits singing the following Sama song:

‘O wonderful! I am the food, I am the food, I am the food; I am the eater of food, I am the eater of food, I am the eater of food. I am the author of fame, I am the author of fame. I am the author of fame. I am the first born of the True. Prior to the gods, I am the centre of all immortality. Whoever gives me, he surely does save. I, the food, eats him who eats food. I have conquered all this world. I am luminous like the sun. He who knows thus attains the aforesaid results.’

This is the Upanishad.

This is the Jivanmukta's song of unity with all. The sage expresses his experience of oneness.”

Creation

In Vishnusahasranamam, two names appear together ‘Sat’ and ‘Asat’

‘Sat’ is nirguna brahman and ‘Asat’ is the manifested world, which is an act of maya (inexplicable).

C.U. says ‘Sadeva somya idamgra aaseet’. It was only ‘Sat’ in the beginning, implying creation as incidental and Sat as continuing. However, T.U. says ‘Asadvaa idamagra aaseet. Tato vai sadajaayata.’ Here, the interpretation is that ‘Asat’ is the unmanifest form and ‘Sat’ the manifest from. The other passages in the same Upanishad make it clear that Brahman is ‘Sat’ and ‘Nityam’.

Creation is not intelligible to our ordinary intellect. Tentative propositions have been put forward in the Upanishads, sometimes differing from each other indicating that it is only a suggestion. It is convenient to consider manifestation as having proceeded from the subtle to the gross step-wise, and even life having emanated from matter (cf. T.U., prceding science by two millennia.) The account of creation in the Upanishads is not their main concern; nature of reality is. Also, creation is not a one time affair in Vedic milieu as in Judaic tradition.

The confusion often arises from the point of view of absolute negation of the world and its manifestation. In my understanding, Vedanta does not outright dismiss the world as a fiction.

 

 

Vedic Mathematics:

This is Full; that is Full. Full comes out of Full. Taking Full out of Full, Full itself remains.

Substitute 0 for Full and the equation holds.

x = 0. y = 0. 0 comes out of 0. 0-0=0.

It looks blasphemous, but some truth lurks there. An atheist is right. There is no God outside the world.

It holds for infinity also. A theist is right. God is infinity and the world is also infinite.

0 and infinity are two numbers that defy understanding. So is God.

The couplet justifies advaita. ‘That’ is ‘Brahman’ (unseen) in vedanta and ‘this’ is the world (seen). Both are Full. Brahman appears as the world (Full comes out of Full). Then what happened to Brahman? It is intact (Taking Full out of Full, Full itself remains). Clinches the issue. There is nothing but Brahman always. Only IT IS. The world is a facade, a smokescreen, a veil, a mistaken identity.

 

Vedanta (Upanishads) at a glance

Vedanta (Upanishads) at a glance - 1

Vedas form the basis. Vedanta is what comes at the end of Vedas. The four Vedas and the ten principal Upanishads are organised as given in the chart below.

(Page 1 of file:///F:/VedasInPictures.pdf )

 

Vedanta (Upanishads) at a glance – 2

The metaphysics of Vednata has been built around what is called prasthanatraya (system of three).

The three are:

Gnanakanda of Sruti – Upanishads,

Brahmasutras (555 aphorisms) and

Bhagavadgita (700 verses).

The latter two are in Smrti. Itihasas, Puranas and other philosophic works also form Smrti.

Sruti is what has been heard (intuited) and set down -Vedas. Smrti is what is remembered and related. Sruti is the basic pramanam (source).

(Page 2 of file:///F:/VedasInPictures.pdf )

 

Vedanta (Upanishads) at a glance – 3

Any serious treatise must have a purpose. Vedanta is a treatise on life. What is the purpose (Purushartha) of life? In what way are we different from animals? Purusharthas are the postulates for this.

Four purusharthas have been identified: Dharma, Artha, Kama, Moksha.

The list and order are thoughtful. Vedic wisdom encompassed living this life well and seeing a spiritual connection and awakening. Dharma – duty and morals, action and social order, form the basis for humanly conceived life in society. Artha or means and resources are vital for the process and must come from effort based on dharma. Kama is a legitimate human need and comes after securing a dharmic foothold and earning. Now, many may stop here as Thiruvalluvar has done. But, the entire theme of Vedas is to find that which is imperishable and the way to realizing it while living. Moksha – liberation- comes at the end as do Upanishads at the end of Vedas.

(Page 3 of file:///F:/VedasInPictures.pdf )

Vedanta (Upanishads) at a glance – 4

Upanishads provide the Sruti basis for doctrinal Hinduism. Brahma Sutras and Gita are Smrtis that are codificatory and expository. Upanishads are like constitution and Smrti has to be interpreted in accordance with Sruti. That is what the Acharyas have done, but have taken liberty in interpreting Sruti.

Ramayana and Mahabharata provide allegorical presentation in story form as story goes into the heart smoothly. Rama is the ‘Purusha’ of Vedas and Ramayana is Veda, says a sloka:

veda vedye pare pumsi jate dasharathatmaje |

vedah prachetasadasid sakshad ramayanatmana ||

Mahabharata contains the entire Vedas and is called ‘panchamo Veda’ – the fifth Veda. It is so comprehensive that it is said, ‘If you do not find anything in MB, you will not find it anywhere else.

 

Vedanta (Upanishads) at a glance – 5

People are of two types. Some prefer श्रेयस् (the bliss of knowing the truth) and many prefer प्रेयस् (worldly pleasures). In other words they are called Atmaramas (those that are interested in Atma) and Indriyaramas (those that are interested in sense gratification).

The knowledge of truth is called परा विद्या (transcendental knowledge). All other knowledge including that of scriptural texts is अपरा विद्या (knowledge of the impermanent). The perishables like the body and the world are ksharam and the imperishable Atma is aksharam. (The scriptures are perishable, the truth they point to is imperishable). Worldly knowledge does not lead to spiritual knowledge or realization.

 

Vedanta (Upanishads) at a glance – 6

The path to truth is an arduous one. Only those with remarkable courage (dhira) travel on it.

Good and pure life is a pre-requisite for enquiry into truth. It is not possible to go from अधर्म (unrighteousness) to अध्यात्मा (self-realisation).

Truth is not attained by discourse, intellect or extensive learning. It is attained by intense yearning and grace. It requires well founded knowledge, disengagement from sense objects, and austerity.  Learning the scripture by listening to a realized person, getting all doubts clarified and single-minded meditation and internalization of knowledge thus obtained enable an insight to truth. Knowledge is the only successful path to realise Brahman the Truth.

 

Vedanta (Upanishads) at a glance – 7

The perishable (ksharam) consists of 24 principles constituting prakrti .The 25th is Purusha (the consciousness, aksharam, imperishable). (Sankhya philosophy).

The twenty-four:

5 elements – पञ्चभूतानि (ether, air, fire, water and earth आकाशः, वायुः, तेजः, आपः, पृर्थ्वी)

5 sense organs – पञ्च ज्ञानेन्द्रियाणि (eyes, ears, nose, tongue, skin चक्षुः, श्रोत्रं, जिह्रा, घ्राणम् त्वक्)

5 organs of action – पञ्च कर्मेन्द्रियाणि (speech, hand, legs, genitals, anus वाक्, पाणिः पादः, पायुः, उपस्थः)

4 internal organs – अन्तःकरण (ego, intellect, memory and mind अहङ्कारः महत् चित्तम् मनः)

5 breaths – प्राणाः (prana, apana, vyana, udana, samana प्राण, अपानः, व्यानः, उदानः, समानः).

(Page 5 and 6 of file:///F:/VedasInPictures.pdf )

 

Vedanta (Upanishads) at a glance – 8

The ascending hierarchy of human faculties is: senses, mind, intellect, Atma. Atma is self-luminous and enables functioning of the lower faculties. A good life is one where the intellect steadies the mind and employs the senses in a controlled fashion, like a charioteer holds the reins and drives the horses in the desired path.

 

Vedanta (Upanishads) at a glance

A digression

Creation – 1

The Babylonian story of creation consists of seven tablets (one for each day of creation). It came down to Babylonia and Assyria from Sumeria.

“In the (beginning before earth, heaven existed).. Apsu the Ocean, who first was their father, and Tiamat, Chaos, who gave birth to them all, mingled the waters in one.” (Apsu is close aapa, water in Samskrtam). Things slowly began to grow and take form; but suddenly the monster-goddess Tiamat set out to destroy all other gods, and to make herself- Chaos – supreme. .. Then another god, Marduk, slew Tiamat with her own medicine by casting a hurricane of wind into her mouth as she opened it to swallow him; then he thrust his lance into Tiamat’s wind-swollen paunch, and the goddess of Chaos blew up. Marduk, ‘recovering his calm’, split the dead Tiamat into two longitudinal halves; ‘then he hung up one on high, which became the heavens; the other half he spread out under his feet to form the earth.’

(Will Durant in The Story of Civilisation)

 

Creation – 2

In the Old Testament, creation is described in the first book called ‘Genesis’. The creation was in the following order: heaven, earth, light, water, sky, land, vegetation, sun and moon, stars, living creatures in water, birds, living creatures in land; then he created man in his image to be the master of the other created living beings. God completed his work by the seventh day. He took rest on the seventh day.

The account in OT is at:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201...

(In lighter vein: A person remarked how God had completed the creation of the world within seven days to drive home the point for hard work. The listener retorted, ‘See, that is why it is in such a mess.’)

In the New Testament:

St. John:

‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

He was with God in the beginning.

Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made.

In him was life, and that life was the light of men.’

 

Creation -3

Bhagavatham.

The Supreme Lord willed to manifest as the manifold world. The energy with which he built this world is called mâyâ. With the effect of Eternal Time [kâla] upon the three gunas, satva, rajas and tamas, Mahat-tattva came about. Purusha, (supreme being), impressed on Mahat virility (creative power) and it acquired the power to expand into universes.

Mahat-tattva gave rise to ego or consciousness, and division of cause, result and agent, as also the five elements, senses and mind. Satva guna gave rise to godliness, tejas to organs of sense and action and tamas to gross matter. The association of time and maya created space. From space (sound), air (touch) arose; from air fire (form), from fire water (taste) and from water earth (smell).

The Lord infused dynamism into the creation with the help of Sakthi (energy). The energy entered all the twenty-three elements (the five elements- earth, water, fire, air and space- and their qualities –smell, taste, form, touch and sound- , the five organs of action -arms, legs and genital- and the senses – nose, tongue, eye, skin and ear- and the three forms of individual consciousness - mind, intelligence and ego).

Hiranyagarbha came out of Mahat thus, possessed of the combined seed of all beings or all creation. Hiranyagarbha resided for a thousand celestial years [one such year is a 360 years to man] within the egg-shaped universe on water.

Hiranyagarbha consisted of âdhyâtmika (the self with its senses and mind],âdhidaivika (divine forces) and âdhibhautika (the gross elements).

Mouth manifested from the god of fire as the organ of speech, palate from Varuna as the organ of taste, the nostrils from the two Asvinî Kumâras as the organ of smell, eyes from Tvashthâ as the organ of sight, skin from Anila as the organ to sense touch, and ears from the Digdevatâs as the organ of hearing by which sounds are perceived. When the genitals appeared, Brahmâ, the progenitor, took his position with the function of semen. Anus drew power from Mitra for evacuation, hands from Indra,legs from Vishnu, brain from Brahmâ, heart from the moon, and awareness from Rudra. The spiritual essence of goodness manifested finally with the power of consciousness by means of which one cultivates wisdom.

 From the head of Hiranyagarbha, the heavenly worlds manifested, and the earthly places from his legs; the sky from abdomen. The gods occupied the heavens, human beings the earth, and the associates of Rudra the navel of the Lord - situated in between.

 Brahmins sprang from the mouth and became the recognized teachers and spiritual spokesmen; kshatriyas from the arms as wielders of power and rulers; vaisyas from the thighs as producers and distributors of the means of livelihood; and sudras from the legs for the service of all.

Before creation, the three worlds were submerged in the waters. Vishnu was lying down there upon the snake Ananta. In due course of time (which was eons), a lotus bud appeared from the navel of Vishnu. Brahmâ manifested on the lotus.He could not discern the world and looked around in the four directions. He thus received his four heads. In bewilderment, he wondered, ‘Who am I and where does this lotus emanate from?’ Failing in his efforts to unravel the mystery, he went into meditation. After a long time, he saw Vishnu. He prayed to Vishnu for creative energy. Vishnu appeared to Brahma and assured him, ‘You have the depth of all Vedic wisdom. Do penance and undertake creation.’

Brahmâ engaged himself in penance for a hundred celestial years. He then saw the lotus and the water surrounding it were moved by Time. He took in the wind along with the water. He resolved to bring back to life all the worlds merged in him in the past. He entered the whirl of the lotus and divided the Mahat in three main divisions and further into fourteen subdivisions.

Mahat-tattvawas the first to come in complete form from the Lord.. The second was ego, from which proceeded material knowledge and activities. The third was the elements and their characteristics. The fourth was sense of perception. The fifth was the mind and the devas. The sixth was the tamas, darkness that hides true knowledge. These were the primary creation.

The derived forms follow. The seventh was the six kinds of beings who do not move around viz. plants, herbs, creepers, the pipe-plants, creepers without support and trees. The eighth was the species of lower animals like cow, goat, buffalo, antelope, hog, gavaya [a type of oxen], deer, sheep, camel, ass, horse, mule, gaura, s'arabha-bison, wild cow, dog, jackal, fox, tiger, cat, rabbit, sajâru-porcupine, lion, monkey, elephant, tortoise, iguana alligator, heron, vulture, crane, hawk, bhâsa[another kind of vulture], bhallûka, peacock, swan, sârasa[indian crane], chakravâka, crow, owl and other birds. The ninth was the humans and demigods.

The gods were of eight kinds: (1) self-realized souls, (2) forefathers, (3) atheists, (4) celestial beings, angels and saints, (5) protectors and the giants, (6) celestial singers, (7) spirits of guidance in what is good and bad, and (8) superhuman beings.

Division of time:Two paramanus constitute an anu;three anus trasarenu, (of which one is reminded by a beam of sunlight falling through a lattice window in which one sees something [a dust-particle] going up in the sky); three trasarenus truthi (1/16.875 of a second); one hundred trasarenus a vedha; three vedhas a lava;. three lavasa nimesha; three nimeshas a kshana; five kshanas a kâshthhâ; fifteen kashthas a laghu; fifteen laghus a nâdikâ; two nadikas a muhûrta; six muhurtas a yâma; four yamas in day and four in night a day; fifteen days a pakshah; two paksha a month; two months a season; six seasons (hemanta, s'is'ira, vasanta, grîshma, varshâ and s'arad) a vatsara.

A vatsara is one day of the gods. 360 such days form one celestial year.

There are four yugas Satya (4800 celestial years), Treta (3600), dwapara (2400) and Kali (120). The four yugas make a mahayuga. The transitional periods at the beginning and end of each yuga cover several hundreds of god years. One thousand mahâ-]yugas constitute one day of Brahmâ (4.32 billion years) and his night is as long when he goes asleep.

There are fourteen Manus and each Manu enjoys a time of living of a little more than seventy-one mahâ-]yugas. After the end of each Manu, the next one appears as also simultaneously his descendants, the seven sages, the God-conscious ones and the king of the gods [Indra] together with all those who follow them.

At the end of the day of Brahmā, Time arrests its manifestation The sun, the moon and all three worlds disappear then. Pralya occurs.

A hundred years of Brahma consists of two two parârdhas (2 times 155.5 trillion human years). The first half (Brahma kalapa) has passed and now in this age we have begun with the second half (Padma kalpa) when Brâhma appeared at the end of the lotus sprout from the navel of Vishnu.

As a combination of the basic elements and  their transformations this manifest universe has expanded to a diameter of half a billion yoyana. The space occupied by the infinitesimal particles of the primal ether, pradhâna,expanded tenfold.

 

Creation -4

Now let us look at what the current scientific view on genesis is.

Paul Shestople:

The current model of how the Universe formed is known as the Big Bang theory.

At some time in the distant past there was nothing. A process known as vacuum fluctuation created what astrophysicists call a singularity. From that singularity, which was about the size of a dime, our Universe was born.

Physical laws as we know them did not exist due to the presence of incredibly large amounts of energy, in the form of photons. Some of the photons became quarks, and then the quarks formed neutrons and protons. Eventually huge numbers of Hydrogen, Helium and Lithium nuclei formed.

After some period of time following the big bang, gravity condensed clumps of matter together. The clumps were gravitationally pulled towards other clumps and eventually formed galaxies. Since they formed from matter that was moving rapidly, they also move rapidly. Our Universe is thus expanding. Eventually, however, the expansion will slow, stop, and then the Universe will begin to contract. The contraction will continue until all of the mass of the Universe is contained in a singularity, a process known as the big crunch. The singularity then undergoes a big bang, and the process begins afresh. This is probably not the case, but it does explain what happened before the big bang.

 

Creation - 5

(Excerpts from Ardor by Roberto Calasso)

Life and Dissolution:

At the beginning of the Veda, however much we look, we find never a ‘void’ but something ‘full,’ ‘purna,’ or a ‘superabundance,’ ‘bhuman’: something that overflows and, by overflowing, makes the world exist, since every life implies a boundless source of surplus.

RigVeda:

“Neither non-being existed then, nor being. The space of the air did not exist, nor the firmament beyond. What moved powerfully? Where? Under whose gaze? Was it the water, unfathomably deep?” “Who knows, in fact, who could declare here from where this secondary creation of our world. But who knows from where this emerged, if it had been established or not, he who oversees from the highest heavens, only he knows, or perhaps not even he.”

(Translation by Renou)

Asat is a place where at the beginning energy is burning. .. As for asat, more than non-being, it appears to be closer to something one might call the‘unmanifest.’ Creatures appear thanks to the superabundance in Prajapati. Every life in its raw state is an amalgam of non-being, darkness, and death. (asat, tamas and mrtyu).Life is an asset that death has left in trust for all humans (to be used while it lasts).Death is not an intrinsic part of divinity, but an intrinsic part of creation...a life freed from the constraint of meaning. ..the mutual penetration of opposites makes life possible.

 

Vedanta (Upanishads) at a glance – 9

Creation

The world came from Brahman like the web from the spider, vegetation from the earth and hair from the body. The three similes convey three ideas. The spider simile conveys that the world did not come anew, but from Brahman which is ever-existent. The vegetation simile conveys that what was in potential form (seed) became manifest (as vegetation with inputs from earth). The hair simile conveys that the inanimate universe (hair) came from the animate Brahman (body).

First food (matter) arose. From food came life. (That is what science also says). Senses, mind, ether, air, fire, water and earth evolved. 

Why did creation take place? Brahman willed it and it happened, it is said. Some say it is for the enjoyment of Brahman and yet others that it is his sport. But, it is his svabhava (nature), there is no question of desire for one who has all desires satisfied.

Commentators have developed this model:

Brahman is changeless reality. (We will see later more about Brahman). In conjunction with Maya (an unknown), it is called Aksharabrahma. Aksharabrahma is ready to manifest. From it, the sukshma-bhuta srshti emanates. The five elements are in subtle form. Then, pancheekaranam tales place, i.e. the five gross elements take shape. In pralaya, it follows the reverse order.

It is called Hiranyagarbha when it has attachment to sukshma-bhuta, and Virat, when attached to sthula-bhuta. So we have aksharabrahma evolving into Hiranyagarbha and Virat. All these three are associated with Maya (i.e., we do not really know why it happens).

It is also described as karana-sarira (causal body), sukshma=sarira (subtle body) and sthula-sarira (gross body).

These ideas have been developed to explain the difference between the observed world, which is subject to vikara (change) and the observing soul, which is nirvikara (changeless). We will see that idea by and by.

 

Vedanta (Upanishads) at a glance – 10

A construction closely allied to conceptualisation of creation is about कोशः – layer or form. There are five layers

(1) अन्नमय (food/matter)

(2) प्राणमय (breath)

(3) मनोमय (mind)

(4) विज्ञानमय (knowledge) and

(5) आनन्दमय (autonomy).

The first is the physical body – स्थूलशरीर (gross body, nourished by food, and part of the food cycle).

The second includes the five प्राणs and five कर्मेद्रियs (organs of action)

The third includes mind and five ज्ञानेन्द्रियs (sense organs).

The fourth includes बुद्धि (intellect) and the five ज्ञानेन्द्रियs (overlap with mind).

The second to fourth represent the सूक्ष्मशरीर (subtle body).

The fifth is कारणशरीर (causal body आत्मा).

(Page 11 of file:///F:/VedasInPictures.pdf )

 

Vedanta (Upanishads) at a glance - 11

There is no proof for the soul, but careful study of our states of wakefulness and sleep may point to it.

We go through three states:

1. Wakeful. Here we have psychosomatic experience; both body (स्थूलशरीर - gross body) and mind (सूक्ष्मशरीर - subtle body) are functional. In this state we are called वैश्वानर vaiswanara.

2. Dreaming: Here it is psychic. Only mind (subtle body) is in action. We are called तैजस-taijasa.

3. Deep sleep: Here both body and mind are dormant. We are called प्राज्ञ-pragna. That is, merely consciousness (कारणशरीर- causal body) is there with body and mind at rest.

4. Now, Vedanta introduces a fourth called तुरीयं turiya - literally, the fourth, for want of a better term. Vedanta says that Turiya is not a separate state, but the real state ever present in vaiswanra, taijasa and pragna. That is what we identify with by 'I' the non-changing entity, while the body and mind (and intellect too) are constantly changing as is easy to discern.

(Page 9-11 of file:///F:/VedasInPictures.pdf )

(We will see later, meditation on OM (AUM) based on this, and also the defining and stunning definition of Atma.)

 

Vedanta (Upanishads) at a glance – 12

OM or AUM is a sacred mantra that is integral to Vedas. It consists of three

sounds अ (A, there is no exact English alphabet) उ (U with just the vowel sound) म् (M).

A is equated to Vaiswanara (wakeful state); U to Taijasa (dream state); and M to Pragna (deep sleep state). The silence or the constant pitch (sruti) is Turiya. One must mediate on AUM with this idea.

Swami Sarvapriyananda gives a lucid discourse on this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZVTuI-rfX4

 

Vedanta (Upanishads) at a glance – 13

Vedanta is about Atma and Brahman.

Atma is unborn, eternal, constant, ancient, and does not die with the body. It is subtler than the subtlest and greater than the greatest.

Brahman (the supreme truth) is not an object – it is not perceptible to the senses, but is the enabler of the senses. It is near, and yet far; it is stationary, and yet moves; it is inside everyone, and yet outside everyone.

Brahman, the supreme truth, is सत् (existence), चित् (awareness) and अनन्त or आनन्द (limitlessness or bliss). It has been alone without anything else besides. For some inexplicable reason, it manifests in multiplicity and variety. The manifestation of Brahman as world occurs by association with the three gunas सत्व (purity and tranquillity) रजस् (emotion and activity) and तमस् (stupor and inactivity), in a manner of speaking.

 

Vedanta (Upanishads at a glance)

An interlude

From Swami Parmarthananda’s discourse (transcript by two disciples) on Gita:

Vedantic study brings out a self-correction. Self-correction brings about the correction in the way you look at the world. And if there is a change in the way you look at the world, there is a change in your response to life’s situation. In fact, samsara is wrong response to life’s situations. Wrong response is calling the situations problems. In fact, most of the problems we call problems are what: situations. Summer is hot – is it a problem or situation? Will summer be cool? Summer will be hot only. Winter will be cold only. When you get old, all the joints will be quivering only. So most of the complaint that we give are simple natural situations in life

 

வேதாந்தத்தின் சாரம் யார் சொல்வது சரி என்பதல்ல. நாமே புத்தியால் விசாரித்து மனதால் உணர்ந்து ஆத்மார்த்தமாக உண்மையைப் புரிந்துகொள்வதுதான். அது தேறும் வரை அஞ்ஞானத்தில் உழல வேண்டும்.

 

Vedanta in vernacular

In ordinary parlance, Vedantic truths have percolated in a rather worldly sense.

அதுக்கு அஞ்ஞானமே இல்லே. (That boy/girl has no agnaanam.)

Agnaanam is used in the sense of attachment. The state of gnana denotes detachment.

எம்ப்ரும்மம் மாதிரி இருக்கான். (He is like Brahman – means, that he is wooden.)

Brahman is unmoved by transactions which are insubstantial (mithya).

 

Physics and Vedanta

Physics studies matter and energy (one and the same, being interchangeable as proposed by Einstein and proved by USA in Hiroshima and Nagasaki). In vedanta, matter and energy are anatma (other than Atma, being subject to change).

In classical physics, everything appears explainable from a set of laws deduced by observing and conducting experiments.

When atom, the uncuttable, was broken (humanity never rests content unless it breaks something), it was observed disconcertingly that the subatomic particles did not obey the laws of physics, like the virus defying anti-bacterials. A different set of laws were required to work with the particles. Quantum mechanics was born.

Things became mystical so to say. Heisenberg threw a bombshell that the position and speed of an electron cannot be precisely determined together. Einstein’s scientific instinct recoiled at this, but the scientific community (I have to clarify that I am an outsider) accepted Heisenberg, starting with Niels Bohr.

Science took us from the randomness and caprice (if I may use this word for inanimate things) of the physical world to a predictability and certainty of mathematics. Then, one fine morning, to keep the story going, science plunged us back into uncertainty and mystery. When direct perception and measurement are disabled, speculation rushes in. That is why higher physics becomes speculative and metaphysical.

The path taken by physics is by following the material world and the theories now in fashion are not final goal posts. We cannot say what course it will take. Hawking was saying that God was perhaps required as initiator after which he was jobless. Now he has dismissed him from that first job also. God is now unemployed and unemployable. He is now depending on the food we Hindus offer him, which is a strong reason why we should do nivedanam unfailingly.

Vedanta has not followed the material world at all. It has enquired into what is it that ‘is’. By a process of elimination (neti, neti), it has arrived at the conclusion that atma is what ‘is’ (sat). What ‘is’ is also aware (has chit or consciousness). The conclusion of Vedanta is realized from time to time by many rishis. It is not a progress. It is not becoming, but just being. The ‘is’ is enveloped by avidya and getting over avidya by vidya the ‘is’ is realized as ekam, advitiyam, svayamprakasam.

What may be the reason that the probe into matter and non-matter appears to point to a single destination? Matter, ultimately, is an appearance of non-matter. Therefore, matter in its core must resemble non-matter, when its changeability is removed. (My brainwave like what else is wrong in this write-up).

The point I am making is that the results of modern science deal with the world and give us knowledge about this world. Vedanta tries to lead us away from this world and realise our infinite nature by disciplining the mind. Enquiry of science on the world of senses is not the way to vedantic wisdom. But, scientific spirit is a different issue. Entire Vedanta adopts a scientific approach. As work is said to purify the mind for receiving vidya, science of the world may also sharpen the mind to appreciate the esoteric.

To take pride that science is discovering now only what ancient Indians knew, may be misplaced. With every change in scientific theory, Vedanta will not change and its relevance or validity will not be vindicated or disproved. In any case, if the scientific community appreciates the wisdom in Vedanta, it is not misplaced.

 

5/2/2012

Metaphysics speculates about the spirit. It would have been of no interest if it had been purely speculative. There have been seers world-wide who were able to get a glimpse of the Truth that was speculated upon. By no means has it been commonplace or made intelligible to the uninitiated at least.

The theories of Einstein have not been understood by the commoners. Experimental verification (e.g. light bends over space-time) has also not been immediate or easily replicable. The scientific community believes in it nevertheless.

 

11/6/1997

Metaphysics speculates on the content and nature of truth and reality. Truth and reality are taken to be synonymous with changelessness. As everything we see around us changes, the world we live in is taken as a distorted picture of reality. The world is a series of appearances and perceptions that vary according to the viewer’s standpoint. Nothing we know of is permanent. The mighty Himalayas will crumble, the waters will evaporate and even the sun and stars will burn out. We know of nothing that will be an unchanging and absolutely identifiable entity. The concept of God which fills this vacuum is thus beyond verification by ordinary means and reasoning. People differed down the ages regarding the origin and destiny of the universe and of the palpable life that gave rise to the consciousness and the self-doubt. Opinion oscillated between those that held that everything came of a grand void to which everything will reduce and the theists who substituted for the vacuum a positive image of an eternal being who is picturised variedly as benevolent, neutral and so on.

Science tells us that mass and energy are indestructible – one can change into the other but cannot disappear altogether. Nature abhors vacuum, they say. But science is itself of no help realizing whether there is a destiny that is important to worry about after the consciousness that kindles this curiosity and anxiety is gone.

People are born and those who are born die. This repetitive process has been happening for millennia. Unfortunately, none that left before us sent any report of how it looks like out there where they are supposed to have gone. None may be received in our life time either.

What do we make of life?

Do we take life seriously or lightly?

Do we obey the commandments or disobey them?

Do we pray to God or go about as though God did not exist?

Do we prepare for anything or leave things to chance?

ब्रह्म (written as Brahman, to distinguish it from the creator)

What is Brahman?

That is the content of the Upanishads, Brahma Sutra and the voluminous commentaries. It will be foolhardy to attempt an answer in a short compass. But, hopefully it serves as a stimulus.

Brahman is Atma आत्मा – that which pervades everything.

Brahman is Reality (सत् Sat). That is the basic idea. Sat denotes ‘existence’. Everything that exists has ‘existence’ – this understanding pervades all – animate or inanimate. This idea runs through the Upanishads explicitly or subtly.

It is unique एकं (nothing can be said in comparison and hence all expressions citing examples have to be taken with reservation) and exclusive अद्वितीयम् (it has no second, no parallel).

The first idea is that it is all-inclusive; the second idea is that it is different from what we experience with our senses.

The rather fully developed idea is that it is सत्यं ज्ञानं अनन्तम् or सत्-चित्-आनन्द. To Sat are added Chit (consciousness) and Ananta (infinite) or Ananda (bliss). They are not three distinct qualities as explained analytically, but a composite whole without division.

 

Brahman is the knower (experiencer, subject) विज्ञाता.

Brahman is autonomous पूर्णम्.

It is beyond senses तत्, सः – indicating its incomprehensibility by ordinary means.

Brahman is that knowing which everything becomes known.

कस्मिन्नु भगवो विज्ञाते सर्वमिदं विज्ञातं भवतीति ।। (Knowing which all this becomes known?) येनाश्रुतं श्रुतं भवत्यमतं मतमविज्ञातं विज्ञातं (By which the unkeard becomes heard, unthought becomes thought and unknown becomes known).

Brahman is that from which all this has arisen (it denotes manifestation of what was potential rather than creation of something new altogether), in which the manifested things inhere and in which they collapse eventually. (यतो वा इमानि भूतानि जायन्ते । येन जातानि जीवन्ति । यत् प्रयन्त्यभिसंविशन्ति । तद्विजिज्ञासस्व । तद् ब्रह्मेति ॥)

Brahman is अन्नं (food, matter), प्राणः (breath or life which graduates from food), मनः (mind which develops in the well evolved life) and आनन्दः (bliss – state of realization, not mundane happiness).

Symbolically, Brahman is represented by AUM ॐ, which signifies the four states of wakefulness, dream, deep sleep, and turiyam – the underlying state of pure consciousness where differences observed have dissolved.

Knowledge of Brahman is experiential not a linear result of intellect or dialectics.

 

MAHAVAKYAS

The Mahavakyas define Advaita.

The search for the meaning of life and its continuity has engaged human thought ever since it had leisure after the struggle for survival.

The concept of god, unseen and undefined, has not satisfied minds that looked for firmer basis for belief.

The Upanishads are the culmination of Indian thought on the subject. They try to analyse the evidence by thought experiments to deduce what the basic nature of life could be. They appear to converge on one point of uniqueness of the basic nature – something that does not go through birth, death and change. They also have captured the nature of the world revealed to us by our senses – which are always pointed outwards – as changing and evanescent. They directed the gaze inwards by blinkering the senses in a manner of speaking. Their findings fill the pages of Upanishads.

The sum and substance of their finding is that the uniqueness of the basic nature of life is such that all multiplicity is untenable before it. Such a discovery leads to a quietude that gives greater understanding or Ananda. Ananda is not joy or happiness or bliss, super-happiness. That cannot be. If bliss is super-happiness, an emotional state, it must have an opposite, and Brahman whose state is Ananda is held to be above the opposites. Ananda is mere ‘satisfaction’ in ‘awareness’ of ‘being’ (Sachidanada!). It is absence of needs and becoming.

That to my mind is what the Mahavakyas are about.

It is highly theoretical and its truth or otherwise is open to question, enquiry and satisfaction by each individual. It looks more refined than assumptions of a travelling soul with resting or roasting places or the benevolence of a superior soul conferring unimaginable blessings.

These statements apply to the unseen, but seeing, soul, not to the embodied persons. I, Chellappa, am nor Brahman and can never be. I, the nameless and formless, is Brahman.

The guru, a realised soul, does not see the world. The job of improving the world is a wild goose chase. If you think that I am a cynic (which will not be wrong), look at the great men who tried it and the result. One guru compared improving the world to straightening a dog's tail. While the effort to improve the world must go on in the mythical realm if we believe Advaita, an individual must try something more feasible. viz. improving himself. A guru helps him in that. Sankara did not attempt to improve the world. He addressed individuals. There have been other Acharyas who tried that noble mission. I will leave it there.

 

It appears that the grand truth is contained in Mahavakyas which assert the oneness and indivisibility of the soul. One from each Veda is taken as exemplar and they are:

Rig Veda: प्रज्ञानं ब्रह्म Consciousness is Brahman.

Yajur Veda: अहं ब्रह्माsस्मि I am Brahman

Sama Veda: तत्वमसि you are that (Brahman)

Atharva Veda: अयमात्मा ब्रह्म This soul is Brahman.

The Mahavakyas point to non-duality, but they cannot be taken literally. Duality is eternal, but as we mature, we must realise that externality of god is an invalid assumption.

 

 

The four mahavakyas are explained by Nochur Sri Venkataraman thus.

(i)       Rig Veda: प्रज्ञानं ब्रह्म Consciousness is Brahman.

(ii)      Yajur Veda: अहं ब्रह्मास्मि. ‘I’ the experiencer is consciousness and is Brahman.

(iii)      Sama Veda: तत्वमसि. What about a second person we encounter? ‘You are also that (Brahman).’

(iv)     Atharva Veda: अयमात्मा ब्रह्म. What about others? Everything is Atma and is Brahman.

It is imagination of the exponent, but tries to take us one step at a time to the conclusion that the sat of Vedanta (‘is’ness which is all-pervasive) is universal and by corollary the multiplicity we encounter at the level of sense perception is ephemeral.

 

The equivalence of the individual and the universal, as implied in the mahavakyas, is not at the level of the embodied jiva, the body being perishable, non-renewably – even rebirth is in another synthesis of the gross elements. ‘I am Brahman’ is not ‘Chellappa is Brahman.’ This must be true of all that were born, call them what you will.

 

Apart from the four most quoted Mahavakyas, one each from each Veda, several passages in Vedanta lend weight to Advaita as the dominant theme of Vedanta. I quote some taking a cue from the discourses of Swami Paramrthananda.

द्वीतीयाद्वै भयं भवति.

(Fear arises only from a second.)

स यत्रैतत्स्वप्न्यया चरति ते हास्य लोकास्तदुतेव महाराजो भवत्युतेव महाब्राह्मण उतेवोच्चावचं निगच्छति स यथा महाराजो जानपदान्गृहीत्वा स्वे जनपदे यथाकामं

Here उतेव (as though) shows the condition as unreal. There is no direct expression of mithya in the ten Upanishads as I understand. Sankara uses the ‘iva’ to derive mithya of the ‘assumed’ or ‘superimposed’ positions.

सत्यस्य सत्यइति; प्राणा वै सत्यम्, तेषामेष सत्यम्

The universe is satyam (vyaavahaarika satyam, not in so many words, but inferable) and Brahman is satyasya satyam (paaramaartika satyam). This interpretation makes clear the idea of mithya. Mithya is not what does not exist, but that with transient existence predicated upon the ever present satyam – REALITY.

इदं सर्वं यदयमात्मा.

(All this is that which is Atma).

अयमात्मा ब्रह्म सर्वानुभूः । इत्यनुशासनम् ॥

{This Atma which experiences everything is Brahma. This is the instruction (of all Vedanta)}

यत्साक्षादपरोक्षाद्ब्रह्म य आत्मा सर्वान्तरस्तं मे व्याचक्ष्व इत्येष त आत्मा सर्वान्तरः

(‘Tell me precisely about the Brahman that is immediate and direct- the self that is within all.’ ‘This is your self that is within all.’)

Incidentally, we have the best definition of Brahman. That which seemingly functions as Jiva is Brahman.

नान्यदतोऽस्ति द्रष्टृ नान्यदतोस्ति श्रोतृ नान्यदतोऽस्ति मन्तृ नान्यदतोऽस्ति विज्ञातृ

 

(There is no other seer than It, there is no other hearer than It, there is no other thinker than It, there is no other knower than It.)

असंगो ह्ययं पुरुष इति

(This Purusha is unattached.)

This is unqualified. It refutes visishtadvaita.

ता वा अस्यैता हिता नाम नाड्यो यथा केशः सहस्रधा भिन्नस्तावताऽणिम्ना तिष्ठन्ति शुक्लस्य नीलस्य पिङ्गलस्य हरितस्य लोहितस्य पूर्णा अथ यत्रैनं घ्नन्तीव जिनन्तीव हस्तीव विच्छाययति गर्तमिव पतति यदेव जाग्रद्भयं पश्यति तदत्राविद्यया मन्यतेऽथ यत्र देव इव राजेवाहमेवेद सर्वोऽस्मीति मन्यते सोऽस्य परमो लोकः॥

(There are in his body nerves (nadis) called hita, which are fine as a hair divided into a thousand parts and are filled with white, blue, brown, green and red fluids. They are the seat of the subtle body, which is the storehouse of impressions. Now, when he feels as if he were being killed or overpowered, or being chased by an elephant, or falling into a pit, in short, when he fancies at that time, thorough ignorance, whatever frightful thing he has expericned in the waking state, that is the dream state. So also, when he thinks he is a god, as it were, or a king, as it were, or thinks: "This universe is myself and I am all’: that is his highest state.”)

‘इव’ in ‘घ्नन्तीव जिनन्तीव हस्तीव विच्छाययति गर्तमिव .. देव इव’ denoted Maya. Note that there is no ‘इव’ after ‘मन्यते’ because it denotes the true state.

न तु तद्द्वितीयमस्ति ततोsन्यद्विभक्तं यद्विजानीयात्

There is not that second entity differentiated from it which it can know.

Actually, it is the eigth in a row of such statements – the previous seven covering seeing, smelling, tasting, speaking, hearing, thinking and touching, covering all senses and mind. In effect, the senses, mind and intellect cannot grasp that unique truth which has no second. The whole section, svayam-jyotir-brahmanam esp. 21-34, is a categorical assertion of Advaita.

स वा अयमात्मा ब्रह्म विज्ञानमयो मनोमयः प्राणमयश्चक्षुर्मयः श्रोत्रमय पृथिवीमय आपोमयो वायुमय आकाशमयस्तेजोमयोऽतेजोमयः काममयोऽकाममयः क्रोधमयोऽक्रोधमयो धर्ममयोऽधर्ममयः सर्वमयस्तद्यदेतदिदमयोऽदोमय इति

(This same self is verily Brahman, as also associated with the intellect, the mind, the vital breath, the eyes, the ears, the earth, the water, the air, the ether, the fire, what is other than the fire, desire, absence of desire, anger, and absence of anger, righteousness, and unrighteousness, with all. That it is that which is associated with what is perceived and with what is inferred.)

अथाकामयमानोयोऽकामो निष्काम आप्तकामो आत्मकाम न तस्य प्राणा उत्क्रामन्ति ब्रह्मैव सन्ब्रह्माप्येति॥

(The man who has no desire- one i without desire, whom desires have left, whose objects of desire have been realised, whose only object of desire is the Self- his organs do not go out. Being Brahman himself, he is merged in Brahman.)

This describes jivan-mukti. ‘Brahmaiva san’ dentes that he is ever Brahman, he does not become or attain that state. Logically, the difference that is noticed is mithya.

यदा सर्वे प्रमुच्यन्ते कामा येऽस्य हृदि श्रिताः । अथ मर्त्योऽमृतो भवत्यत्र ब्रह्म समश्नुते ॥

(When all desires that abide in the heart of a man leave, then the mortal man becomes immortal and realises Brahman here itself.)

This also describes jivan-mukta, ‘atra’ in भवत्यत्र clinces the issue of jivan-mukta state.

अथायमशरीरोsमृतः प्राणो ब्रह्मैव तेज एव.

(Then the self becomes disembodied and immortal, the Supreme Self, Brahman, the Light of pure Intelligence.)

अयमात्मानन्तरोऽबाह्यः कृत्स्नः प्रज्ञानघन एव

(This self has neither inside nor outside and is but a homogeneous mass of consciousness throughout.)

 

Chandogya Upanishad (CU)

(Source: Swami Paramarthananda’s discourse as understood by me)

Mahavakyam talks of something which is intimately experienced all the time i.e. myself.

तत्वमसि is the Mahavakya of CU, which is perhaps the most popular. The instruction of Uddalaka Aruni to Svetaketu, along with that of Yagnavalkya to Maitreyi in BU, form the main planks of Advaita. Nowhere here, nor for that matter in the principal Upanishads, is there mention of a deity in the context of gnanam and realisation.

Visishtadvaita says that तत्वमसि is अर्थवाद (glorification) not तात्पर्यं (reality).

It is tatparyam only:

1. It comes at the end of five chapters. ब्रह्मन् is a serious subject.

2. It is repeated nine times and it shows seriousness.

3. अपूर्वता: Any pramana should give knowledge inaccessible to any other pramana. Tatvami is unique revelation.

4. It is फलं- fruit. Whenever fruit is given, it must be serious.

5. Logic. एकविज्ञानेन सर्वविज्ञानं. कारणज्ञानेन कार्यं ज्ञानं भवति. By knowing one, everything becomes known. By knowing the cause the effect becomes known.

There are several other passages in CU that expressly suggest Advaita, some of whi  ch follow.

 

1.    सर्वं खल्विदं ब्रह्म (All this is Brahman indeed.)

2.    प्राणो ब्रह्म कं ब्रह्म खं ब्रह्म

(The prana is Brahman, ka (joy) is Brahman, kha (the akasha) is Brahman.)

3.    य एषोऽक्षिणि पुरुषो दृश्यत एष आत्मेति होवाचैतदमृतमभयमेतद्ब्रह्मेति

(He said: "The person that is seen in the eye-that is the Self. This is the immortal, the fearless; this is Brahman.")

4.    यथा सोम्यैकेन मृत्पिण्डेन सर्वं मृन्मयं विज्ञात स्याद्वाचारम्भणं विकारो नामधेयं मृत्तिकेत्येव सत्यम्‌॥

(Just as, my dear, by one clod of clay all that is made of clay is known, the modification being only a name, arising from speech, while the truth is that all is clay.)

5.    अथ य एष संप्रसादोऽस्माच्छरीरात्समुत्थाय परं ज्योतिरुपसंपद्य स्वेन रूपेणाभिनिष्पद्यत एष आत्मेति होवाचतदमृतमभयमेतद्ब्रह्मेति तस्य ह वा एतस्य ब्रह्मणो नाम सत्यमिति॥

(Now, this serene being, after rising from this physical body and attaining the Highest Light, reaches his own true form. This is the Self." Thus he (i.e. the teacher, questioned by his pupils) spoke. Continuing, he said: "This is the immortal, the fearless. This is Brahman. And of this Brahman the name is Satyam, the True.)

 

Knowing what Atma is Atmagnanam. That is the whole substance of Vedanta.

Atma is not that which senses can reveal, but that because of which senses function. (Kenopanishad).

The opening stanza of Narayaneeyam describes Krishna, the presiding deity of Guruvayur as Brahma Tatvam – (1) it is ‘kaladesavadhibyam nirmuktam – beyond space-time; (2) nityamuktam – ever free; (3) aspashtam nigamasatasahasrena nirbhasyamanam – not capable of being clearly elucidated by a thousand scriptures.

Atma and Brahman are the same.

But all this can’t still give us a definite idea of Atma.

Only sravanam, mananam and nidhidhyasanam can. (Br. U) turned into an instruction manual by Sankara.

The gnani cannot describe it. He can only show the path to it.

In Tamizh there is a saying:

கண்டவர் விண்டதில்லை; விண்டவர் கண்டதில்லை.

The one who has realized has not spoken; the one who is speaking has not realized.

If there can be a one line answer, Vedanta must have set at rest all churning minds.

 

ADVAITAM

 

Life is about duality.

We see another guided by our senses.

In almost everything there is duality.

We divide our responses between head and heart, thought and feeling, reason and emotion. We talk of matter and energy, body and spirit, animate and inanimate, moving and non-moving, sentient and insentient.

There is no accountancy without debit and credit, no banking without depositor and borrower. Chemical compounds are organic or inorganic. Numbers can be positive or negative, rational or irrational. Electron is balanced by proton, and can be a particle or a wave.

People may be good or bad.

 

Creation

Advaita

In Advaita, the very creation along with the cause behind creation (i.e. the law of causality) and the very process of creation i.e. the ‘how’ part, which is again within the causality framework (by suggesting what comes first and what proceeds by giving purva & para labels based on space-time / desa-kāla construct) is all within the adhyasa (superimposition) / Avidyā (ignorance) only. The point one must always note is that adhyasa/Avidyā exists only from the viewpoint of adhyasa/Avidyā only.

The snake in a rope exists (appears) only from the viewpoint of ignorance. And the vyavahara with such snake (i.e. staying away from it, getting frightened, etc.) are also valid only as long as the perception ‘as snake’ is valid.

Th*erefore to that which ultimately doesn’t exist, there is no need to establish a firm theory (strictly speaking it is not possible to establish a theory which is "ultimately correct"). If anyone attempts to give it a theory (be it other philosophers or scientists), because the very creation is not an absolute entity, such theory will also be valid only within adhyasa/Avidyā framework only.

Whenever upanishads talk about creation they talk with a single aim to show that world is not independent of Brahman. The purpose is to show that there isn’t anything independent of Brahman. But the aim is not to either prove the existence of world or the process of creation of world.

Since the sastra’s intended purpose is to teach to the seeker who is having the viewpoint of adhyasa, the teaching starts from the viewpoint of adhyasa. That much only. That is the only reason to touch upon topic of creation. It is a journey from that which is currently known to the seeker (i.e. world) to that which is currently unknown to the seeker (i.e. Brahman).

Māyā according to Bhagavatpāda is the avyakta namarupa (unmanifest name & form) and the process of creation is avyakta namarupa becoming vyakta namarupa (manifest name & form). It is only a stop gap explanation where the target is not to 'firmly establish' process of creation but the target is always to sublate the very notions of 'created world' and 'creation' into the source/substratum of such notions.

Ultimately there is no creation and none created. If people cannot comprehend this truth it is fine, I hope they will eventually grasp it through their sraddha on sastra and unbiased vichara (based on sruti aviruddha tarka) which is carried out with the right qualification (vairagya etc.).

Before that, there is no point in getting digressed and unnecessarily carried away by asking questions like "who is writing in facebook if there is no creation ?" etc. They serve no purpose as it will be nothing but sushka tarka which most of the times dvaitins take up. Creation need not be inferred (even as a temporary truth) based on a logic that somebody is posting a comment on facebook and therefore there is creation. That is a weak argument. Holding on to such weak arguments is demonstrating our love & attachment to law of causality. The sooner the seeker understands the mithyattvam of causality the better.

The teaching about creation has a place in Advaita Vedanta. No doubt. But it is not in a way to uphold creation (which by itself is only an ignorant notion, says sastra). The teaching about creation is instead a tool to test the very notion that we hold to (i.e. world is an independent reality) through upanishad based vichara and help ourselves to understand the mithyAttvam of such notion.

Brahman alone is real. All Reality is to Brahman alone. The aim of upanishad vichara is to intuitively grasp this truth.

Bhagavatpada says in Māṇḍūkya Karika bhashyam 1.7:

न तु परमार्थचिन्तकानां सृष्टौ आदरः

"" Those who think of the supreme Reality have no interest in questions regarding Creation ""

This is not to say ignore law of causality. Law of causality surely works within its intended domain and most importantly as long as the belief in causality is strong. No doubt. But for the matter of highest truth in Vedanta, the correct approach lies in thoroughly testing the law of causality. The more thorough and unbiased the vichara gets, the more firm becomes the conviction on the mithyattvam of causality.

 

Life is mystery

Life, rather than death, is the mystery. Man knows a lot about the lifeless(?) matter rather than about life. Life is ebbing and flowing. It is like the golden deer that cavorts a little afar enticing us, then goes into hiding, shows up hesitantly and grows in visibility to frustrate us again. We know of no time when life is totally absent, but in parts it comes and goes. Death is certain, but individual life is uncertain. How is that which is certain a mystery? Only that which sparkles for a while with no external force is a mystery. The day we understand it, we shall be immortal. The search and effort for immortality is not to conquer death, but understand life. The philosophic conclusions in such texts as Upanishads and Buddhism guide us to gain that understanding. That is vidya or gnanam of advaita.

 

Spirituality

The spirit cannot be found in dry and dreary discussion of philosophy. The spirit cannot be found in the relentless pursuit of fortune and fame in a bid to be one up on others. The spirit cannot be found in the information rushed at us by the media and the channels. The spirit cannot be found in the fossilised scripture. The spirit has to be found in life in us and all around us, including in the most insensate objects that lie next to us.

 

If Brahman is all-pervading, how can our Atman be different from Brahman? It can only be part of it. But, Brahman by definition is indestructible and indivisible. Therefore, the whole is in the part and the part is truly the whole. There can be no difference.

 

Spirituality is more immanent than transcendental. That is the essence of Upanishads. Spirituality is what pervades the universe. The speciality of the Upanishads is that 'brahman' is not something which is external to the immanent. 'That is this' or 'This is that' occurs as a refrain in Upanishads. In fact, god as adventitious is not the way our Rishis have intuited. A cow looking at a calf in tenderness and fondness, or a flower shining on a twig is also spiritual.

 

There have been sects in Hinduism that have claimed exclusivity in terms of the particular deity which alone will lead to salvation. Bigotry of one type or another has prevailed. But the general purport and the common belief of Hinduism is one of diversity at the empirical level and unity at the spiritual level. The preponderance of available literature and scripture and the conduct of people born to this faith point to one reality or truth that has no form or name. The various forms and names are a matter of workaday world convenience. 

 

Sage of Kanchi: “In the advaita shAstra that has been handed down to us by tradition through the efforts of great ‘anubhavis’ one has been asked to move on to advaita-sAdhanA only after one has reached a reasonable perfection in the discharge of his shAstraic duties.”

 

Sage of Kanchi

Merely to talk about non-dualistic liberation is nothing more than an intellectual exercise and will serve no purpose. The truth of such liberation must become an inward reality. In other words the quest must culminate in actual experience and it can be had only with the grace of Isvara. Great sages proclaim that it is only with the blessings of that Power which keeps us in a constant whirl of action that the whirl will stop and that we will have the Advaitic urge to seek the ground.

"Isvaranugrahadeva pumsam Advaitavasana.

 

“We have no quarrel. In order that we may realise non-duality, we should gain the grace of god. For gaining this, we must practise devotion. Devotion may be shown to any divine name or form. It is the same non-dual reality that is everywhere. And, with a view to gaining its grace, I have written works expounding the different schools.” Appayya Dikshithar.

(Sri Kanchi Acharya quoting in an article in Sankara’s Voice.)

 

(From Kanchi Acharya’s teachings)

Soul is a given for religion. It is axiomatic and admits of no proof. It is that which experiences everything and remains as the unchanging substratum while the body and mind change constantly. The individual soul is called Jivathma (soul in a living being, note, not just of humans) and God is Paramatma (the Supreme Soul). What is the relationship between Jivatma and Paramatma? There are variances in the opinions on this.

Dvaita: Jivatma will always be distinct and separate from the Paramatma. When the Jivatma attains moksha (which is the desideratum or the goal), it would enjoy infinite bliss by worshipping the Paramatma.

Vishishtadvaita: Even though the Jivatma will be a separate soul doing Bhakti toward Paramatma in moksha, it will have the feeling of the Paramatma immanent in it as its soul.

Saiva-siddhanta: When the Sun rises, the stars do not lose their existence; they just disappear from view, because of the luminosity of the Sun. So also in moksha, the Jivatma, though it does not lose its existence, will have its own little consciousness submerged in the Absolute Consciousness of the Paramatma.

Advaita: is different from all these. Moksha is not a place or a world. When the Atma is released from the bondage of the mind, it is moksha. It may be right here and now. One can be ‘released’ even when alive, not necessarily only after death.

 

Indian philosophers (advaita) have identified the following pramanas (parameters or sources) for knowledge (epistemology).

A.  प्रत्यक्ष Direct perception: basic to all pramanas and overrides others.

B.  अनुमान Inference

C.  अर्थापत्ति Circumstantial (an inference by which the quality of any object is attributed to another object because of their sharing some other quality in common)

D.  उपमानं Analogy

E.  अनुपलब्धि Non-cognition (trying to establish a fact (e.g. the reality and eternity of sound) from the impossibility of perceiving the non perception of it,

F.  शब्द (scripture)

           (i) लौकिकं Word of mouth from a reliable person (aapta-vaakya)

           (ii) वैदिकं Scripture (beyond proof, apoureshaya)

 

Swami Vireswarananda’s masterly introduction to Sankara Bhashya on Brahma Sutras

1.       Nasadiya sutras of Rig Veda are forerunners to Upanishads.

2.       There were 62 different schools of philosophy. Later the orthodox schools were telescoped into 6.

3.       Padma Purana defines a Sutra (pl. see in the text).

4.       Upanishads do not contain any ready-made, consistent system of thought. Prima facie, they bristle with contradictions.

5.       The Sutras, if Badarayana is not the same as Vyasa, must have had a hand of Vyasa in its present recension.

6.       Their brevity and question of order give rise to different interpretations. It is not only Sankara but all Acharyas who have given far-fetched interpretations to some of the Sutras. Sankara’s canvas has greater cohesion and has the largest following.

7.       All Acharyas are agreed that Brahman is the source of the universe and that Brahman can be known only through scripture, not reason. They differ on the nature of Brahman, causality, Jiva-Brahma relationship and nature of Jiva on emancipation.

 

Thirumoolar’s Advaitam

மரத்தை மறைத்தது மாமத யானை

மரத்தில் மறைந்தது மாமத யானை

பரத்தை மறைத்தது பார்முதல் பூதம்

பரத்தில் மறைந்தது பார்முதல் பூதமே.

(The greatly haughty elephant was hiding the wood. The greatly haughty elephant vanished in the wood.

The gross elements, earth and others, hid the Supreme. The gross elements, earth and others, vanished in the Supreme.)

We have the saying: நாயைக் கண்டால் கல்லைக் காணோம். கல்லைக் கண்டால் நாயைக் காணோம். (When the dog is in sight, the stone is missing, when the stone is available, the dog is not there.)

Superficially, it looks as though one refers to hitting the dog with a stone.

In both instances, the reference is to an image of the animal in wood or stone. The meaning is the same as in the clay-pot and gold-ornament examples. They explain the Advaita concept that the universe is nothing but Brahman and that it is in the paradigm of sensory experience that the truth is covered.

 

Tamizh poem - a clincher on Advaita:

கல்லாலின் புடையமர்ந்து நான்மறை ஆறு அங்கம் முதற் கற்ற கேள்வி

வல்லார்கள் நால்வருக்கும் வாக்கிறந்த பூரணமாய் மறைக்கு அப்பாலாய்

எல்லாமாய் அல்லதுமாய் இருந்தனை இருந்தபடி இருந்து காட்டிச்

 

சொல்லாமல் சொன்னவரை நினையாமல் நினைந்து பவத் தொடக்கை வெல்வாம்.

(திருவிளையாடற் புராணம் - பாடல் - 13)

Meaning:

The physical setting is the banyan tree and Siva is seated with the four disciples.

The disciples are past masters in four Vedas and their six angas (parts). Siva does not speak. He is Purnam – all in all. He imparts knowledge of Brahman as it is by his mudras (signs). Brahman is everything and nothing. It is beyond the Vedas. We can grasp it by meditating on it without thoughts and overcome the affliction of repetitive births.

The ideas that strike me here are:

1.    Reality is beyond sense perception and even scripture. Scripture is a guide to reality, not reality per se. (cf. The map is not the territory it describes: Will Durant). Obsession with scripture as god-given and venerable in itself may be a stumbling block to gnanam. Scripture, though part of mithya, is a valuable guide to Reality. That is its place.

2.    Reality is all-encompassing. It covers both ‘sat’ and ‘asat’. We concentrate on ‘sat’ (Atma as distinct from ‘anatma’ - the gross world and body-mind). But, finally, we realise that such a distinction is artificial. All that is is Brahman. ‘Asat’ (nothing, gross, illusion, in whatever term we anayse it) is also in Brahman. (Swami Paramarthananda said this in one discourse. I may be pardoned if I misquote him. If wrong, it may be taken as my idea.)

3.    The teaching is through silence. Language is deficient to communicate that which is beyond mind. Reality is subtle. Understanding is an internal process.

4.    The way to realization is meditation with the keenness to know. Thoughts distract and must be overcome.

5.    Liberation: My Thoughts

Is liberation escapist and selfish?

Is Advaita socially irresponsible?

Traditionally, two ideas go hand-in-hand with liberation. One is that life (संसारं) is a burden (दुःखं). The other is that we go through a cycle of births and deaths. Liberation is a release from the burden and meaningless cycle.

I find it difficult to accept that life is a burden. It is an opportunity and is more or less evenly packed with difficulties and pleasantness. The aim of a thinking individual is to find a lasting meaning in life that has appeared like a bolt from the blue and not to emancipate ourselves from it.

Rebirth is a matter of belief. Proof, a priori or empirical, is not rigorous. It should not matter. If it is there, our acquired consciousness is not directly aware of it and is not quite equipped to handle it. Nor can we do much about it.

The following karikas lend some support to my apostasy.

स्वप्नमाये यथा दृष्टे गन्धर्वनगरं यथा । तथा विश्वमिदं दृष्टं वेदान्तेषु विचक्षणैः ॥ 2.31 ॥

न निरोधो न चोत्पत्तिर्न बद्धो न च साधकः । न मुमुक्षुर्न वै मुक्त इत्येषा परमार्थतr ॥ 2.32 ॥

जात्याभासं चलाभासं वस्त्वाभासं तथैव च। अजाचलमवस्तुत्वं विज्ञानं शान्तमद्वयम।। 4.45

I feel that liberation can make sense without having to subscribe to the ideas of life as a burden and rebirth as a maze in which we have been cast.

Harari is close to truth, as I view it, when he says:

“People are liberated rather when they understand the impermanent nature of all their feelings, and stop craving them. This is the aim of Buddhist meditation practice. .. The resulting serenity is so profound that those who spend their lives in the frenzied pursuit of pleasant feelings can hardly imagine it.

For many traditional philosophies and religions (Buddhism), the key to happiness is to know the truth about yourself.”

We are somewhat perplexed when it comes to service to others. If a gnani does not feel the presence of others, will he have any propensity to help?

How many such gnanis are there? The issue is therefore only for sterile debate.

All gnanis we have known, incl. Sankara, went about trying to help others for upliftment not minding the doctrinal incongruity. We can have no qualms.

We must also consider what help means. More often than not, it amounts to interference. We must make a sensible judgment whether our intervention is required and step in when we make a real contribution. It will be unobtrusive and egoless. Such intervention by a liberated soul will be far superior to the song and dance that goes about. A liberated person will be selfless in what he does.

Thus viewed, liberation is neither escapist nor selfish.

Adviata is socially responsible because it turns everyone to mind his welfare holistically and view life as a continuing reality beyond the tanatalsing sense experience.

Understanding must come through mind only, though mind is part of mithya. In a spiritual way, we may say that the purpose of mind is to know Reality and after that mind ceases.

6.    Overcoming births may be taken to mean quietening the inquisitive mind and living at one with what is.

7.    There is contradiction prima facie – how mithya can be the means to satyam. This can be resolved only personally. There is a Tamizh saying – முள்ளை முள்ளால் எடுக்க வேண்டும் (A thorn must be removed by a thorn).

 

Bhagavatam in four slokas (Srimadbhagavatam 2nd Canto)

अहमेवासमेवाग्रे नान्यद् यत् सदसत् परम्। पश्चादहं यदेतच्च योSवशिष्येत सोSस्म्यहम् ॥१॥

“Only I, the Supreme, existed in the beginning, nothing else, either cause or effect. Afterwards also, I am what is. What will remain in the end also is I only.”

ऋतेSर्थ यत् प्रतीयेत न प्रतीयेत चात्मनि। तद्विद्यात्मनो माया यथाSSभासो यथा तम: ॥ २॥

“Whatever appears to be of any value has no reality if it is not related to me. That is my illusory energy (maya) which appears like reflection in darkness.”

यथा महान्ति भूतानि भूतेषूच्चावचेष्वनु। प्रविष्टान्यप्रविष्टानि तथा तेषु न तेष्वहम् ॥ ३॥

“Just as the great elements have entered into the living beings and still are outside, I exist in the living beings and yet not in them.”

एतावदेव जिज्ञास्यं तत्त्वजिज्ञासुनाSSत्मन:। अन्वयव्यतिरेकाभ्यां यत्स्यात् सर्वत्र सर्वदा॥ ४॥

“A person seeking truth has to grasp this by anvaya (positive assertions in scripture) and vyatireka (that which is suggested otherwise) what it is that may be everywhere always.”

 

Ideas of Advaita from Daskninamurthi Stotram:

(i)       Brahman is the only reality. The world is an extension that is the work of maya (inexplicable). It is like a virtual image in a mirror. It is like a dream that appears real while it lasts, but is recognized as dream after waking up.

(ii)      The world is just manifestation of something that was there in a potential form (like a big tree is in a seed), in a variety of names and forms by combination of space and time.

(iii)      The ‘asat’ – the world – appears as ‘sat’ because it is illumined by Brahman, the real. We can get get gnana by the grace of Brahman (through a guru).

(iv)     Just as a lamp lit inside a pot with holes gleams though the holes, Brahman shines through our senses.

 

In Vishnusahasranamam (VS), It is significant that the first term is Viswam, not Vishnu. The first thing we become aware of is the world, where we live, with which we deal and of which we are a part. It is the worldly experience that leads us to Brahman. Viswam is also called jagat, something that consciousness makes us aware of, or lokam, understood through sensory experience (phenomenal world). It is by trying to understand how the world is in our experience, we get to the reality of Brahman. Sankara’s emphasis is that the Brahman and world are not separate. VS seems to favour that view.

Viswam is neutral like Brahman, but neutral is not to be identified with lacking consciousness. The next term removes any ambiguity. Vishnu stands for ‘person’ (not like human as many religions seem to suggest) with distinct consciousness.

 

 

Becoming is mortality.

Being is immortality.

Becoming is a feature of the physical – mythical.

Being is the characteristic of the spiritual – real.

Being is non-transformational.

Other doctrines believe in becoming; Advaita avers becoming as the feature of the unreal.

Vedanta is categorical that the soul is unborn, undying and unchanging.

 

ஒரு பைத்தியக்கார எண்ணம்:Advaitam – a few thoughts

Leibnitz: "1 represents unity, the absolute being and 0, null the transient human being. I am amazed how together these have created everything. 1 and 0 together have created the world." 

கிருஷ்ணன் மண் தின்றான் என்று மற்ற பாலகர்கள் யசோதையிடம் கூற அவனோ நான் தின்னவில்லை என்றான். பொய்யான இவ்வுலகில் சொல்லும் மெய்யும் பொய்யாகுமோ? [(-) x (+) = (-)]

பொய்யான இவ்வுலகம் பொய் என்பதும் மெய்யாகுமோ? [(-) x (-) = (+)]

வேதாந்தம் வேள்வி ஞானம் இவை எல்லோருக்கும் விதிக்கப்பட்டவை அல்ல.

கேட்டது:

இவ்வுலகம் பொய் என்பது அது இல்லை என்றாகாது. ஒரு ஞானிக்கும் இவ்வுலகம் உண்டு. ஆனால் அதனால் ஆகவேண்டியது ஒன்றும் அவனுக்கு இல்லை.

 

 

Advaita

Advaitha is a happy compromise between the concept of god as a determinate being and all negation of a subtle superbeing.

If plurality of souls has to be admitted as ultimate, polytheism has to be admitted as well.

There is no evidence that all life emanated from one source. There is no evidence either that there was consciousness before the first form of life came about.

We are in a state of flux. Nothing we know of was the same for the millions of years ‘behind’ us, nor will it retain its present identity in the future to come. There is a spatio-temporal evolution.

There is no evidence yet that life came from matter. If life was existent always, there is no denial of its future.

To believe that all the universe is anthropocentric is a crude creed. It is born out of ignorance.

If Brahman is all-pervading, how can our Atman be different from Brahman? It can only be part of it. but, Brahman by definition is indestructible and indivisible. Therefore, the whole is in the part and the part is truly the whole. There can be no difference.

There is a sea of difference between saying that the whole world is a manifestation of Brahman, with several distinguishing characteristics of its apparent constituents which are comprehensible by consciousness, and saying that the world is the be-all-and-end-all. The world as we see it is in a continuum of change in regard to the known magnitudes of space and time. It is not that the whole world is unreal, but that the particular view we have of it is highly tentative. We see that as we grow up our view of the world changes. The change has taken place in the consciousness as well as in the perceived. But the consciousness and the perceived world are not independent of each other. Do I see the world exclusive of me or inclusive of me? If I see the world other than me, where do I stand (not physically, but in the spatio-temporal terms)? If I see the world inclusive of me, how do I know one form the other? There is so much of intertwining that it is futile to answer the question.

If, therefore, there is change in the whole view, which is real? Not that the various views one had as one grew are unreal empirically speaking. It is as good trying to say that since these different states were experienced or views held, all these are ipso facto real. We are not contending whether the experiences and views were truthful. Our attempt is to identify a reality whose identity has definitive parameters. If the series of views we have of the world defy unity, then we call the experiences to be illusory and as not related to the ultimate Reality.

In short, Advaitha is a macro view. It is not correct to say that experiences by different individuals at different times are all per se unreal. A span of 100 years is a drop in an ocean compared to the magnitude of space-time continuum, but it is of immense significance when it lasts.

To quote an example, if the probability that a plane will crash is one in a million, it is a negligible risk in totality. When, however, that one chance does occur, the experience is of great consequence to the ill-fated passengers of the plane and their survivors.

If the Supreme Reality and the Atmans are really different from each other, and if there is ony one Supreme Reality, but an infinite number of Atmans, how are we to explain the different dreeds, the different religious practices and so on? No one religion, nay, nor the lack of it, has ever held sway over the entire humanity. How do we explain that there were glorious men born and gone, the traces of whose consciousness are not to revisit this earth? It stands to no reason that there should be a Kingdom of God and that there would be a Day of Judgement except to satisfy the ego. The Visishtadavaithin or Christian believes that there is ‘ego’ which seeks its preservation and since this desire is also the strongest, it becomes self-fulfilling. It is at once the height of attraction for these religions and the height of their ignorance.

A religion founded on morals or to promote virtuousness in peope is highly noble and nothing should be said or done to devalue it. but that is not its own justification.

The mind does not rest at the simple empirical enunciations set forth to preserve the fabric of society.we seek to evolve into a higher being in the very nature of things. A roused consciousness is in a mood to expand to become the all-knowing, but very often flounders. Upasana or bhakthi can try to limit the ambition of the consciousness. It is rather a process of blunting it or castrating it. that is why the Advaithin advocates true gnana.

Gnana does not mean you can become god ordering about the world. Such a concept of god is imaginary and illusory. There is a rhythm in all that we observe which owes its amazing regularity to the unknown cause.

When the man to be hanged is asked what his last wish is, he is precluded from asking to live. When you realize god in you and yourself in god, you do not seek to destroy the beautiful rhythm of the universe. On the other hand, so long as your desire is to rule others, not to compose, homogenise and integrate your consciousness, you are still full of ignorance and with such ignorance you cannot see the unity of Brahman and Atman. So long as you see the difference, you are in the whirlpool of samsara, tasting niceties and suffering cruelties. There is no emancipation from the tangle, from the birth-death-birth chain.    ADVAITAAdvaita negotiates skillfully between denying an underlying cause for the world and blind faith.Advaita talks of oneness in the absolute state (paramarthika), but the distinction of jiva, jagat and Iswara is valid in the workaday world (vyavaharika). All three are under equal spread of Maya, in a way that their relative reality and interaction remain valid. The validity vanishes when the Maya is pierced and the differences disappear with dawning of wisdom. Such a metamorphic shift of paradigm is total, atman alone exists conscious and content, without need of another.

Sankara has offered a total system with purpose, methodology and deliverance. That may not interest us. But, the significance of advaita is not to be denied even if we are not interested in the complete version of Sankara.

All faiths demand us to believe in an unseen personal god and an after-life in his benevolent reign, which is unverifiable. Much of atheism is directed against such faith.

The life that we lead is all that we are certain about. If it was god’s intention that it is one in a chain or the only one where our performance matters for infinity (which looks less plausible), he has not left any clue to an ordinary mind, or to an extraordinary mind such that it is able to communicate it authentically.

The advaitin believes that the substratum of Vedanta is: Brahman is satyam, gnanam, anantam, existence, knowledge and boundlessness. He also believes that it is possible to realise our being as authentic, knowledgeable and unbound, right here. That can be useful. It makes eminent sense that we have a life which is transient, but it is significant (not different from Brahman) and the way to live that identity lies in clearing the mind of its false affiliations. Advaita does not wish away the mind, but makes it the only medium by which we can identify the ‘I’ (Atma). What we need is not elimination of mind (which is impossible as body-mind-intellect is composite) but purification of it by action and meditation.

If we can stand on our own in simple awareness and virtual autonomy and deal with the world transactionally without a baggage before or after, that is the best we can attain. The event of death will become a non-event.

Advaita is not negation of the world, but of the world-view which is conditioned, varied and impermanent.

As Katopanishad says: Arise, awaken, take the help of the best and attain awareness.

 

 

 

Advaita tells us that we are the whole, not the parts. There is only one, The Whole, no parts. The Whole is non pareil and without a second – that rules out understanding by comparison and mere logic.

In a way, Advaita mediates between atheism and implicit faith.

Knowledge is not the statement – It is I.

As the Tamizh proverb goes: ஏட்டு சுரைக்காய் கறிக்கு உதவாது. You cannot make a dish out of the picture of a gourd in a book. Or, as Einstein says, “Any fool can know. The point is to understand.”

It requires intelligent effort with conviction to bring it in Aparoksha – direct experience.

Scripture is the only and invaluable guide.

What am I going to realise? If we search for anything, we must know what we are searching for. Socrates’ puzzle: “How can we investigate something if we don’t know what it is?” There is another Tamizh saying about a vague description – மொட்டை தாத்தா குட்டையிலே விழுந்தான் (A bald oldie fell in a ditch). The scripture gives a detailed account of what is IT and what is IS and what is I. That is the GPS.

 

Dvaitam is pravrtti margam (engagaemnet with world); Advaitam is nivrtti margam (disengagement). Life is complete with both. Most of us are in Dvaitam while discussing Advaitam. That is clear from the diffreences and devotion to an external deity one wants to cling to.

One who has realized advaitam has no need to discuss. He becomes a guru and is available for imparting gnana without advertising. A few souls in this forum may be relaised ones.

Just as a big banyan tree has blown up from a tiny seed, the world has emerged from Brahman. The seed cannot grow unless a suitable environment is available. The environment for the world to emerge from Brahman is defined as Maya.

Advaitam is paramarthika satyam – supreme unchanging reality; Dvaitam is a changing and perishable phenomenon.

*

Advaita as Brahma-gnana is reality.

Advaita expressed in man-made language is mithya.

*

Advaita – a slightly deviant speculation

God is matter plus spirit (प्रकृतिः and पुरुषः). Neither matter can exist without spirit, not spirit without matter. The names appearing in Vishnusahasranamam next to each other strongly suggest this unity: विश्वम् विष्णुः; भोक्ता भोजनं; सत् असत्; कृशः स्थूलः.

The way I understand, Advaita is about the absoluteness and oneness of the perceiving self as the supreme reality. The Seer alone is true, the Seen is an illusion. The Seen is made possible by superimposition, say, owing to ignorance.

Reality is sacrosanct, not any interpretation of it. It is perhaps inimical to the spirit of Advaita to claim that Advaita is true and other interpretations are wrong. In a way, not insignificant, interpretations also have contamination of superimposition.

Reality may be composite, neither the Seer nor the Seen is the sole truth, but a composite of the two - the whole truth. It does not imply dvaita or visishtadvaita. It is not that the part is an inseparable piece of the whole. It does not challenge that there is only Whole (Purnam), never any part.

The Seer alone without the Seen (Advaita) or the Seen alone without the Seer (Atheism – as atheists deny the self) may both be erroneous takes. Just as there is an apparent churn or flux of the Seen, there is an apparent churn of the ‘individual’ (birth and death). There is no empirical proof for the ever-present self, but proof is not required for understanding and realization. A realized person is still bound in the mythical body and is not immune to its proclivities, nor does the world disappear at any conceivable time.

One became many, says Sruti. It seems logically neat, whether it is conceptually derivable or empirically verifiable or not. If we have to believe in Sruti, the One becoming many is not achieved by any external help, for such external help denies absoluteness of One (Brahman). (The assumption that Brahman is only nimitta karanam has this latent fallacy i.e. becoming requires something apart from Brahman). If One became many without anything outside it, the Seer and the Seen cannot be different. The Seen cannot be a nothing, being of the same source as the Seer. Neither can be real without the other. They are one and the same, looking different by the distortion of the (mis)informing senses, just as a prism diffracts composite light to its component colours, looking different in analytical terms which for analysis divides what is indivisible.

The Wholeness and Uniqueness of Reality is about the Total, neither the Seer nor the Seen alone, but the Seer-Seen like space-time. The convenient way of looking at it as ‘sat’ (existence) – ‘chit’ (consciousness) may be understood as different from the evolved consciousness of Homo sapiens, the evolution being superimposition, which is

‘factual’, but not intrinsic.

If and when we can shed the identity with the human form and rise above the present duality of Seer and Seen with either as abiding solely, we will be clear of conflicts and cease to want or lack anything.

Reality is supreme and attachment to anything (Advaita, Bhakti too) is a roadblock to realisation.

 

Advaita is not an answer to the knotty fundamental questions that have doggedly defied human attempts to find answer for.

Verbal answers are ambiguous and spawn further questions. It is an endless process like samsara. Advaita seeks to end such endless processes.

Advaita is a process of self-discovery. It does not tell us to shut the mind or stop the thoughts, but to declutter the mind and sharpen it, and refine the thoughts, to arrive at understanding (gnana).

Advaita, in sum, makes us realise our Being, not as part of or an inhabitant of, but as Total Being.

The state of gnana is not knowing answers but finding no questions.

Is it chimerical?

I have read how people like Paul Brunton and Arthur Osborne approached Sri Ramana wishing to ask such questions, but in his presence they did not feel the need to ask them. They describe their experience in a way that sounds authentic. That strengthens belief that Advaitic state is feasible and beneficial spiritually.

 

I heard in a discourse, and I believe, that advaita is appreciation of the ordinary state, not an excited or exalted state like samadhi. Existence-consciousness-infinity is the ordinary state and everything else is adhyasa, superimposition. The body-mind-intellect composite also is mithya like the jagat. Atma alone is real. Anything attained would be perishable. The imperishable atman is not attained, but realised by gnana, knowledge through enquiry. This position, highly theoretical, is not in conflict with any science unlike the other theories that require greater assumptions and can be negated. Reality is that which cannot be negated. The upanishads are at great pains to rule out various assumptions and fail to say anything positively.

Advaita believes that only through intellect we can winnow off the chaff (anatma) and obtain the grain (atma). Sankara ingeniously interprets medha as a retentive memory of the import of books.

While the message is pregnant we must perhaps attempt all these methods over a sustained period of time before we hit upon the spark or the spark hits upon us. The seer himself, there is ground to presume, came to this insight after trying these methods.

We must not read the last chapter of an absorbing novel. It means more fun reading the whole book.

I am reminded of a story. A man dropped a ring and was searching for it. A friend asked him what the matter was. He asked where he dropped the ring and the man said that he dropped it in a dark room nearby. The friend asked him why he is searching for it in a different place. The man said, 'There is light here.'

The search for atma in anatma is going on with some claims and questions on the claims.

Any amount of search for atma by science is like looking for the ring in a different place from where it was dropped. 

 

What Advaita means to me

We believe intensely that we live in the world. We consider that the world is apart from us. This is the duality, I and the World, leaving aside god, the unseen, who needlessly complicates the issue. This duality is denied by advaita. The world and I are composite, inseparable, just like the space-time continuum.

Does it deny god? If god is outside this composite World-I, Advaita denies such a god. God (Brahman) is the same as this indivisible World-I.

Advaita also denies the world as indicated by sensory identification, as the true nature of the world is beyond what the senses identify on the basis of limited life, its needs and needless desires. The reality of the world is affirmed as Brahman. The ‘I’ is consciousness of existence, which is essentially Brahman. The narrow identity of it in a limited life frame as separate is denied. That is the interpretation of aham brahmasmi or tatvamasi.

It is quite similar to Buddhism, but soul as ‘consciousness’ as a substratum of existence that is pervasive and beginningless and endless, is affirmed in Advaita based on scripture.

 

 

Advaitam in mundane examples

 

I was looking for Subbarama Chetty Street and enquired someone; he blinked. As I walked a few steps, I saw a board with address which had Subbarama Chetty Street written. That is the concept of advaitam. The person I asked and I were in that street, but did not know it. We are none other than Brahmam, but a veil conceals that identity.

 

Moksha

Paramacharya: “Moksa is release from all attachments. It is a state in which the Self remains ever in untrammeled freedom and blessedness. The chief purpose of religion is to teach us how this supreme state may be attained.”

 

Moksha is not a spatial destination nor a goal that has to be achieved in a given period. It is just waking up to the reality. It is explained by the simile of an object being invisible in darkness but seen as soon as light is turned on. The famous example is the rope seen as a snake in mistake. It was never a snake, so when we realise the mistake its rope-ness becomes clear.

 

 (22/9/2011)

Liberation, Moksha, is, to my mind, attaining autonomy; a point of self-control and self-sufficiency; a state when we remain unmoved by events around us in a selfish way, ‘what does it mean to me.’ It is not the end of a journey, not a goal to be reached. It is realizing our basic nature and living this life in accordance with that nature.

We are affected and constrained by one or the other of the following, separately or together:

- others’ opinions

- the past

- worries of the future

- the external conditions.

Liberation is freedom from such affectation and release from those constraints. I do not see it as a response to the ills of mundane life, as an escape from the toils and burden of our life and its responsibilities, or as a religious injunction, to disregard which is sinful. It is an eminently desirable stance to face life and its challenges nonchalantly, in a holistic manner, creatively, synergistically, efficiently, effectively, in a manner that no one involved in the process is a loser.

Am I ploughing a lonely furrow? No. Sankara’s answer to the question, ‘What is the seed for the tree of liberation’, I feel, gives me the direction: ‘Liberation is attained by acquiring true knowledge and living it.’ Having knowledge, as an intellectual accomplishment, cannot lead to liberation. Only by spanning it out into action, true liberation can emerge. Seed in a box will not grow into a tree. It has to be interred in the earth, watered before it can sprout and grow. Likewise, knowledge has to lead to action. But the action is not one where desire drives it. Action based on desire is from lack of knowledge.

We are born to engage with the world, not to escape from it. What is emancipation? Many beliefs are forced on us by family and society and we wrap ourselves in them in impressionable years. As we gain knowledge, we have to let our minds grasp the truth as it is without the layers that have been superimposed on us. We must develop an open mind to see what assumptions are made and how well it harmonises with observation and experience. That state of mind where there is no undue influence of unverifiable opinions is emancipation.

 

Jivan-mukti appeals to me. Videha-mukti is pleonasm. The soul is ever free, but appears trammelled in body. When the body drops off, the soul is in its natural unbounded state. No effort is needed for videha mukti. All our effort must be for living this life free at the level of soul, for which virtue is the pre-requisite and knowledge the requisite.

Jivanmukta is a useful idea. All of us will anyway become videhamukta. Attaining autonomy in this existence is attractive.

 

CONSCIOUSNESS

Much of what we think is from contrived consciousness. When I say ‘in my view,’ it is more of a formality than a matter of fact. The view is shaped by those of so many others imbedded in my consciousness willy-nilly – involuntarily and subliminally. The TV, newspaper, social media, friends and relatives constantly bombard us with the topic and content. It is a socially active process, a mental ……titution.

We do have a pure consciousness, but that lies deep within like the last blanket in a multilayer bed prepared for severe winter. Most of us may not get to it. Pure bliss is when we get to it, so say the seers. Though we do not easily get to it, when the seers say it, we get a sample of the bliss they are talking about. It is evanescent as the superimposed consciousness is quick to cover the pure consciousness like the monsoon clouds cover the clear sky.

There is so much comfort in the monsoon weather. Who would wish for the clear sky and possibly hot sun?

Let us enjoy all the fun.

 

 

Here is an interview of Dr. Susan Blackmore.

It is important, I believe, to know the ongoing thinking on consciousness to appreciate Advaita.

Excerpts:

•         Materialism is hopeless because as soon as it confronts the problem of consciousness it becomes dualist. Dualism is hopeless because it cannot explain the close relationship between matter and experience.

•         Panpsychism may, or may not, help but has certainly not proved itself yet.

•         You might, for example, imagine that you are some kind of inner self that has consciousness and free will, that “you” can direct your consciousness to some things and not others, that some processes in your head are conscious ones and others are unconscious, that you need consciousness to do some things and not others, that consciousness has powers and effects, and that it must have evolved for a purpose. There are excellent reasons for rejecting every one of these very natural assumptions. In other words, consciousness, as normally imagined, is an illusion.

•         Everything a human being does is caused by underlying processes we cannot see, and that the self that seems to be in charge is not.

•         Our amazing existence is not the result of chance—at least not just chance. .. Chance on its own obviously cannot produce our improbable existence; natural selection can and did.

•         (On effect of meditation) I think I am happier, less caught up in stupid thoughts and worries, more flexible about life and (maybe and most importantly) less troublesome to other people.

•         As far as I have learnt, enlightenment is not a “state of permanent mystical awareness”; it’s not a state at all. Rather it is a loss of, or seeing through, or letting go of, the delusions of self and agency, and the acceptance of impermanence, suffering and nonself.

•         Human nature makes us incapable of utopia.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-be-a-mystical-skeptic/?fbclid=IwAR2YBAju9UGSbnKIYyI4X3Jzfalv6sBaYsel8UKw4C4Mg_XVR9wPy2s_vEQ

 

Consciousness: this is the most fundamental to Advaita. But, do we mix it up with the visesha Chaitanya that gives rise to the manifestation of the ‘relative’ world? The subject of enquiry in science seems to be this special consciousness which may have something to do with brain and intellect – physical phenomena. Not only is the special consciousness evolving over eons, but even that of an individual evolves during one’s lifetime, judged from the things we understand anew from time to time. The Advaitic Chaitanya is samanya Chaitanya, the universal consciousness which is all-pervasive, indistinguishable between animate and inanimate, and so on. This ordinary consciousness is not under the lens of science and is a not an object that lends itself to prove. Whatever can be proved is an object. There is great difficulty in appreciating this basic consciousness. That may be the crux of gnana. ‘Chit’ is inseparable from ‘sat’ They are not qualities as argued by dvaitins. Brahman does not admit of qualities or multiplicity. In deep sleep we have no special consciousness which points to the world. It gets re-superimposed on waking up and the world which disappeared reappears. The idea that we are better off in the waking state as we are able to usefully relate with the world (as I read in a book) is true for the perishable life, but not for the essential life.

 

Duality in Advaita

Advaita has an inherent duality. It talks of Satya at two levels, Vyavaharika (transactional or phenomenal) and paramarthika (transcendental or absolute). Advaita is realized only when we slough off the vyavaharika satyam, a condition never achieved perhaps, but the ideal is enticing and its pursuit rewarding.

 

Advaitam is not complete without the duality of Nirguna Brahman as the absolute and Saguna Brahman as the transactional head. The two are not different, but such a distinction is necessary to understand the phenomenal world within Advaitam. Saguna Brahman is associated with maya, the cause of the world itself. Overcoming maya by proper knowledge is the way to realise our essential oneness with Brahman and transcend the world.

Advaitam accepts dvaitam though dvaitam does not accept Advaitam, just as Hinduism accepts all faiths though other faiths do not approve of any faith but theirs.

Dvaitam is ordinary sensory experience and basis of the life as we live. No scripture is required to teach it. Scripture is for taking us to spiritual plane and enlighten as on the intrinsic unity of life transcending the worldly experience of inconsistent duality.  

 

 

Advaita talks of oneness in the absolute state (paramarthika), but the distinction of jiva, jagat and Iswara is valid in the workaday world (vyavaharika). All three are under equal spread of Maya, in a way that their relative reality and interaction remain valid. The validity vanishes when the Maya is pierced and the differences disappear with dawning of wisdom. Such a metamorphic shift of paradigm is total, atman alone exists conscious and content, without need of another.

 

Advaita is alright, but how do we lead this life. We cannot live out ‘I am Brahman’.

Sankara’s attitude to the world was:

‘माता च पार्वती देवी पिता देवो महेश्वरः।

बान्धवाः शिवभक्ताश्च स्वदेशो भुवनत्रयम्‌॥

Mother is Parvati, father Siva, relatives all devotees and motherland the three worlds.’

Sankara was not sectarian. He did not say that worshipping any one deity was superior. He has composed hymns on all deities that people worshipped. He reduced 70-75 sects and introduced six to provide for variety people need. Worshipping any deity is good enough. Therefore the parents are the divine pair and all people (even those who may not worship are children of the same pair) are relatives. Vasudhaiva kutumbakam is the native spirit of our land.

How should one worship? This is a beautiful idea which even an atheist can accept:

‘आत्मा त्वं गिरिजा मतिः सहचरा प्राणाः शरीर गृहं

पूजा ते विषयोपभोगरचना निद्रा समाधिस्थितिः ।

सञ्चारः पदयो प्रदक्षिणविधिः स्तोत्राणि सर्वा गिरो

यद्यतकर्म करोमि तत्तदखिलं शम्भो तवाराधनम् ।।

Siva is the soul and Parvati is the mind. The fellow beings are the breaths and the body is the house. The gratification of the senses is the worship and sleep is the state of Samadhi (identification with the absolute). Travel around is the circumambulation and all speech the prayer. Whatever I do, O God, I dedicate to you.’

This life lived according to dharma is the only true worship of God.

But, why pray?

‘ज्ञान वैराग्य-शिद्ध्‌यर्थं भिक्षां देहिं च पार्वति॥

Please give me alms, O Mother, for my attaining gnana (wisdom) and vairagyam (detachment)’.

That is advaitam. We live this life virtuously as a penance in harmony with others and promoting universal harmony and seeking emancipation through knowledge.

 

“An inevitable dualism bisects nature, so that each thing is a half, and suggests another thing to make it whole; as, spirit, matter; man, woman; odd, even; subjective, objective; in, out; upper, under; motion, rest; yea, nay.

While the world is thus dual, so is every one of its parts. The entire system of things gets represented in every particle.

God reappears with all his parts in every moss and cobweb.” Ralph Waldo Emerson.

सर्वं खल्विदं ब्रह्म sarvam khalvidam brahma, Chandogya Upanishad 3.14.1, "All this is Brahman".

 

Duality that arises in our minds like subject-object, intellect-emotion, matter-energy, matter-mind, matter-spirit, gross-subtle, etc. is analytical, not intrinsic. There is a composite and integral reality difficult to comprehend by conditioned human thinking because of the intertwining of the human being with the reality it is trying to discover or define.

*

‘Ever since the Cognitive revolution, Sapiens have been living in a dual reality.’ Yuval Noah Harari

*

 

 

Nirguna Brahman

5.    Virtue cannot exist non-physically, nor can it exist without vice. It is vice that gives virtue its merit just as death gives meaning to life.

Religions that think of a god without form, but with good qualities ignore that qualities require a form. Qualities are abstractions from form.

A formless god has to be nirguna. Beauty (any quality for that matter) is integral to and inseparable from the thing of beauty. Nirguna god is devoid of such attributes. Nirguna god is not something separate, not a destination. It is ever present in all existence, and it is the mind, which is a conglomeration and association of ideas, that covers it with layers of objects and images of its desires. When we peel off the layers, the nirguna god can be felt. This is theory. It has to be seen by looking at great people with a dispassionate mind.

 

Glimpses of Advaita in unusual contexts

Russell came close to Advaita when he speculated that the existence of an object cannot be proved independent of subject. It is the subject which gives validity to the object and not the other way. Our existence is meaningful because of the subject. The subject transcends the object. Advaita tells us that all that exists is the subject. The subject is one and the variety we observe is only an appearance.

 

Safi Al-Hujwiri: When a man becomes annihilated from his attributes he attains to perfect subsistence, he is neither near nor far, neither stranger nor intimate, neither sobre nor intoxicated, neither separated nor united; he has no name, or sign, or brand or mark (Kashf al-Mah-jub).

 

‘. .. what we see as contradictions on the surface are in fact different but complementary aspects of the same reality, and that ever shifting balance between them is the kaleidoscopic nature of Oscar Wilde. (Merlyn Holland)

 

‘In art there is no such thing as universal truth. A Truth in art is that whose contradictory is also true.’ Oscar Wilde.

 

When Besso died in the spring of 1955, Einstein wrote of his friend’s passing. “That signifies nothing. For us believing physicists, the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.”

Einstein’s statement was not merely an attempt at consolation. Many physicists argue that Einstein’s position is implied by the two pillars of modern physics: Einstein’s masterpiece, the general theory of relativity, and the Standard Model of particle physics. The laws that underlie these theories are time-symmetric — that is, the physics they describe is the same, regardless of whether the variable called “time” increases or decreases. Moreover, they say nothing at all about the point we call “now” — a special moment (or so it appears) for us, but seemingly undefined when we talk about the universe at large. The resulting timeless cosmos is sometimes called a “block universe” — a static block of space-time in which any flow of time, or passage through it, must presumably be a mental construct or other illusion.

 

Reading an essay of T.S.Eliot, my mind compared it to Advaita:

Look at these passages:

“The point of view which I am struggling to attack is perhaps related to the metaphysical theory of the substantial unity of the soul: (ekam, adviteeyam)”

“The business of the poet is not to find new emotions, but to use the ordinary ones and, in working them up into poetry, to express feelings which are not in actual emotions at all. Poetry is not a turning loose of emotion, but an escape from emotion; it is not the expression of personality, but an escape from personality. But, of course, only those who have personality and emotions know what it means to want to escape from these things.”

(Parallel with Advaita: Advaita is not about a new discovery but finding the truth in ordinary existence. It is necessary to analyse and weed out what is not Brahman to arrive at what is Brahman.)

Eliot acknowledges his tending to Vedanta:

“This essay proposes to halt at the frontier of metaphysics or mysticism.”

This essay by itself has nothing to do with Vedanta:

https://www.poetryfoundation.org/articles/69400/tradition-and-the-individual-talent

Vedanta in turn is not like any knowledge and is life knowledge which must travel with us wherever we go and whatever we do.

 

“Amalric of Bane argued that God and the creation are one.”

“Averroism: There is only one immortal soul, the ‘active intellect’ of the cosmos, of which the individual soul is a transitory phase or form.”

“Maimonides (1135-1204)

Things exist only because God, their source and life, exists. His existence is identical with his essence. A thing which has in itself the necessity of existence, cannot have for its existence any cause whatever. Since God is intelligent, He must be incorporeal; therefore all Biblical passages implying physical organs or attributes of God must be interpreted figuratively. In fact, we cannot know anything of God except that he exists. .. We can never define him; we must not ascribe to Him any positive attributes, qualities or predicates whatever.”

“Spinoza hailed the great rabbi as ‘the first who openly declared that scripture must be accommodated to reason.”

The above 4 quotations are from Age of Faith by Will Durant.

 

Homo Deus by Yuval Noah Harari

“In reality, there is only a stream of consciousness, and desires arise and pass away within this stream, but there is no permanent self that owns the desires.

The soul is a story that some people accept while others reject. The stream of consciousness, in contrast, is the concrete reality we directly witness every moment. It is the surest thing in the world. You cannot doubt its existence. .. To be frank, science knows surprisingly little about mind and consciousness. .. Indeed, 99% of bodily activities, including muscle movement and hormonal secretions, take place without any need for conscious feelings.”

 

"Only wisdom based on self-understanding, not piety, will save us." Edward O. Wilson in "The meaning of Human existence.”

 

"1 represents unity, the absolute being and 0, null the transient human being. I am amazed how together these have created everything. 1 and 0 together have created the world."  Leibnitz

 

 “..the heavens, the`water, his rock, the tower, the golden sand banks, the swollen sails, the sea mews, the ebb and flow of the tide, - all form a mighty unity, one enormous mysterious soul ...that he is sinking in that mystery, and feels that soul which lives and lulls itself.” Henryk Sienkiewicz

 

 “Just to be is a blessing. Just to live is holy.” Rabbi Abraham Heschel.(from TOI puzzles section)

That is in brief sat (to be)-chit (to live consciously)-ananda (blessing).

 

"With every continuous symmetry of a physical system, there exist certain corresponding quantities that are conserved, meaning that they do not change in time." Noether's Theorem

Perhaps, the whole universe is a physical system with continuous symmetry, and the non-changing entity of it is Brahman. 

 

“There is no picture- or theory-independent concept of reality.”

“A theory is a good theory if it is an elegant model, if it describes a wide class of observation, and if it predicts the results of new observations. Beyond  that, it makes no sense to ask if it corresponds to reality, because we do not know what reality is independent of a theory.”

Stephen Hawking.

 

From ‘Happiness’ by Frederic Lenoir

There is an extraordinary kinship between Spinozist metaphysics and Advaita Vedanta, particularly developed by Sankara. According to Advaita Vedanta, God does not exist outside the world; the world and God are part of the same substance; everything is in God, and God is in everything.  Spinoza draws a distinction between three types of knowledge. 1. Opinion and imagination: this binds us. 2. Universal reason: enables us to discern, distinguish, know and order our affects (emotions, feelings, desires, etc.) 3. Intuition: through which we can grasp the relation between a finite thing and an infinite thing. This intuitive grasp gives us the greatest felicity, the most perfect joy, since it enables us to be in harmony with the whole universe.

Sankara says that the Advaita path is a more profound expression of reality than the dualist path (worship of a deity). The realization of being, the ultimate aim of all human life, implies the cessation of all duality. It is because they have escaped duality that sages become liberated while still alive (jivan mukta), for whom there is nothing left other than ‘the complete felicity of the pure consciousness, which is One’ (sacchidananda). Thus, deliverance is the result of coming to awareness both intellectual and intuitive (pragna), which closely resembles Spinoza’s third type of knowledge, and which brings supreme happiness, unbounded joy.

However, there is one major difference. While Sankara accepts the existence of an immortal soul that realizes it is Brahman on attaining gnana, Spinoza rejects it. 

 

“To find the right road out of this despair civilised man must enlarge his heart as he has enlarged his mind. He must learn to transcend self, and in so doing to acquire the freedom of the Universe.”

“To be happy in this world, especially when youth is past, it is necessary to feel oneself not merely an isolated individual whose day will soon be over, but part of the stream of life flowing on from the first germ to the remote and unknown future.”

Bertrand Russell

 

“People are like children.” Hermann Hesse.

 

This passage is from "Man's Search for Meaning' by Viktor E Frankl describing experiences in German concentration camp:

“This young woman knew that she would die in the next few days. But when I talked to her she was cheerful in spite of this knowledge. "I am grateful that fate has hit me so hard," she told me. "In my former life I was spoiled and did not take spiritual accomplishments seriously." Pointing through the window of the hut, she said, "This tree here is the only friend I have in my loneliness." Through that window she could see just one branch of a chestnut tree, and on the branch were two blossoms. "I often talk to this tree," she said to me. I was startled and didn't quite know how to take her words. Was she delirious? Did she have occasional hallucinations? Anxiously I asked her if the tree replied. "Yes." What did it say to her? She answered, "It said to me, 'I am here - I am here - I am life, eternal life.'”

“Breath and body are not two dichotomous entities, nothing like spiritual substance wedded to inert matter; they are more like the drum and the drummer, an intimate independent pair.” David Shulman.

KANT: Space, time and cause are modes of perception, which must enter into all our experience, since they are the web and structure of experience. All dilemmas arise because of supposing that space, time and cause are external things independent of perception. We shall never have any experience which we shall not interpret in terms of space, time and cause; but we shall never have any philosophy if we forget that these are not things, but modes of interpretation and understanding.

Charles P. Steinmetz: Time and space exist only so far as things or events fill them, that is, they are forms of perceptions.

.”I shut my eyes and all the world drops dead; I lift my eyes and all is born again.” -Sylvia Plath, poet.

“There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.” “Know thyself.” “Prefer knowledge to wealth, for the one is transitory, the other perpetual.” “True wisdom comes to each of us when we realize how little we understand about life, ourselves, and the world around us.” “The mind is everything; what you think you become.” Socrates

 

“The absolute world is of so different a nature, that the relative world, with which we are acquainted, seems almost like a dream.” “..we are not fully equipped by our senses for forming an impersonal picture of the world.” “There are two parties to every observation - the observed and the observer. What we see depends not only on the object looked at, but on our own circumstances - position, motion, or more personal idiosyncrasies. Sometimes by instinctive habit, sometimes by design, we attempt to eliminate our own share in the observation and so form a general picture of the world outside us, which shall be common to all observers.”  A.F.Eddington in a book on relativity.

 

“One is led to a notion of unbroken wholeness which denies the classical idea of analysabilty of the world into separately and independently existing parts- Rather we say that inseparable quantum interconnectedness of the whole universe is the fundamental reality, and that relatively independent behaving parts are merely particular and contingent forms within the whole. .. The general nature of reality, as Bohm says, is then not one of what is to what is not. On the contrary, it is a relationship of certain phases of what is to other phases of what is, that are in different phases of enfoldment.” David Bohm

 

"Reality is one, available within every human being. The one-ness that the Hindu mystics refer to is conveyed by the mystics and saints of all religions. Christ has said ‘if thine eye be single, they whole body shall be full of light’, and elaborated saying that this ‘singularity’ becomes evident as we purify our mind of all the evils or selfishness lying within it. By doing so, we don’t change our religion, but become a better human being, whatever religion we have been born in. Our own Jalaluddin Rumi conveyed this so beautifully:

The lamps are different, but the light is the same- it comes from beyond.If you keep looking at the lamp, thou are lost – For thence arises number and plurality.

(attributed to a Sufi in a story).

 

Max Planck: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibrate and holds this minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. The mind is the matrix of all matter.

“The perennial philosophy is expressed most succinctly in the Sanskrit formula – ‘tat twam asi’(That art thou); the Atman, or the immanent eternal Self is one with Brahman, the Absolute principle of all existence; and the last end of every human being, is to discover the fact for himself.” - Aldous Huxley

 

In 1965, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, two young radio astronomers at Bell Labs, NJ, accidentally found Gamow’s predicted microwave relic of the Big Bang. They kept hearing a hissing sound from the speakers, .. it was the energy of creation itself, and this energy is everywhere. Niels Bohr: A particle has no absolute properties, but is whatever it is measured to be, and in this sense, it cannot even be assumed that it exists until it is measured.

 

“Nothing enters consciousness whole. There is no direct experience of reality. All the things the mind perceives- all thoughts, feelings, hunches, memories, insights, desires, and revelations- have been assembled piece by piece by the processing powers of the brain from the swirl of neural blips, sensory perceptions, and scattered cognitions dwelling in its structures and neural pathways.” Andrew Newburg

 

Writing about brain science: “There seems to be within the human head, an inner, personal awareness, a free-standing observant self .Neurology cannot completely explain how such a thing can happen – how a nonmaterial mind can rise from mere biological functions; how the flesh and blood machinery of the brain can suddenly become ‘aware’.” “(The heightened consciousness) is not necessarily created by the brain, but the brain has the ability to access the vast universal consciousness that underlies all of reality. Consciousness is primary to matter, and hence biology. The brain has consciousness like anything else in the universe and merely has a more sophisticated manner of experiencing and expressing it.” Andrew Newburg

 

“The laws of quantum theory could not be formulated in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness.” Eugene Wigner:

 

 

“What we call real time is just a figment of our imagination and what we call real is just an idea that we invent to help us describe what we think the universe is like.” Hawking:

 

“If a theory called holographic principle is proved correct, we and our four-dimensional world may be shadows on the boundary of a five-dimensional space-time. .. One could say: “The boundary condition of the universe is that it has no boundary.” The universe would be completely self-contained, and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created not destroyed. It would just BE.” Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mladinow

 

“The material world is seen as a dynamic web of interrelated events. None of the properties of any part of this web is fundamental; they all follow from the properties of the other parts, and the overall consistency of their inter-relations determines the structure of the entire web. .. The rhythm of creation and destruction is not only manifest in the turn of season and in the birth and death of all living creatures, but is also the very essence of inorganic matter. According to quantum field theory, all interactions between the constituents of matter take place through the emission and absorption of virtual particles. More than that, the dance of creation and destruction is the basis of the very existence of matter, since all material particles ‘self-interact’ by emitting and reabsorbing virtual particles. Modern physics has thus revealed that every subatomic particle not only performs an energy dance, but also is an energy dance, a pulsating process of creation and destruction.” Fritjof Capra

 

Kevin Nelson, a leading proponent of brain-based theories says that his work irks some die-hard atheists because it inextricably links spirituality with what it means to be human and makes it an empirical part of us, whether our reasoning brain likes it or not. ‘Understanding the neurological foundations of spirituality is necessary for a contemporary understanding of what it means to be human.’

 

“Spirituality is based on consciousness, religion on cognition. Spirituality is universal, whereas cultures have their own forms of religion. .. The most important contrast is that spirituality is genetic, while religion is based on culture, traditions, beliefs and ideas. .. An individual feels a sense of wholeness and unity with everything and everywhere. There is an effortless letting go of the ego, a going beyond the self.” Dr. Dean Hamer, a geneticist

 

“The same elements compose my mind and the world. This situation is the same for every mind and its world, in spite of the unfathomable abundance of “cross-references” between them. The world is given to me only once, not one existing and one perceived. Subject and object are only one. The barrier between them cannot be said to have broken down as a result of recent experience in the physical sciences, for this barrier does not exist.’

“You are a part, a piece, of an eternal, infinite being, an aspect or modification of it… This life of yours which you are living is not merely a piece of this entire existence, but in a certain sense the whole… This, as we know, is what the Brahmins express in that sacred, mystic formula which is yet really so simple and so clear; tat tvam asi, You are That…

The plurality that we perceive is only an appearance; it is not real. Vedantic philosophy…has sought to clarify it by a number of analogies, one of the most attractive being the many-faceted crystal which, while showing hundreds of little pictures of what is in reality a single existent object, does not really multiply that object…

I insist upon the view that ‘all is waves’. The multiplicity is only apparent. This is the doctrine of the Upanishads. And not of the Upanishads only. The mystical experience of the union with God regularly leads to this view, unless strong prejudices stand in the way. Multiplicity is only apparent, in truth, there is only one mind…

The self is not so much linked to its ancestors, it is not so much the product, and merely the product, of all that, but rather, in the strictest sense of the word, the same thing as all that: the strict, direct continuation of it, just as the self aged fifty is the continuation of the self aged forty. No self is of itself alone. It has a long chain of intellectual ancestors. The “I” is chained to ancestry by many factors … This is not mere allegory, but an eternal memory. Nirvana is a state of pure blissful knowledge… It has nothing to do with the individual. The ego or its separation is an illusion.”

~ Erwin Schrödinger, Quantum Physicist

 

“The world of any moment is the merest appearance.” Ralph Waldo Emerson

 

(Michael Chandra Cohen : Sounds like good Advaita Vedanta - The Einstein Upanishad)

 Ken Anirudha Van Skaik

Here are some inspiring words from Albert Einstein:  

“I didn't arrive at my understanding of the fundamental laws of the universe through my rational mind.”

“Concerning matter, we have been all wrong. What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. Matter is spirit reduced to point of visibility. There is no matter.”

"Time and space are not conditions in which we live, but modes by which we think.

Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, and are not, however it may seem, determined by the external world."

“Time does not exist – we invented it. Time is what the clock says. The distinction between the past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.”

“I think 99 times and find nothing. I stop thinking, swim in silence, and the truth comes to me."

"The intellect has little to do on the road to discovery. There comes a leap in consciousness, call it intuition or what you will, the solution comes to you and you don’t know how or why.”

"A human being experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest, a kind of optical delusion of consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty."

"Our separation from each other is an optical illusion."

“When something vibrates, the electrons of the entire universe resonate with it. Everything is connected. The greatest tragedy of human existence is the illusion of separateness.”

“Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.”

“We are souls dressed up in sacred biochemical garments and our bodies are the instruments through which our souls play their music.”

“When you examine the lives of the most influential people who have ever walked among us, you discover one thread that winds through them all. They have been aligned first with their spiritual nature and only then with their physical selves.”

“The true value of a human being can be found in the degree to which he has attained liberation from the self.”

“The ancients knew something, which we seem to have forgotten.”

“The more I learn of physics, the more I am drawn to metaphysics.”

“One thing I have learned in a long life: that all our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike. We still do not know one thousandth of one percent of what nature has revealed to us. It is entirely possible that behind the perception of our senses, worlds are hidden of which we are unaware.”

“I’m not an atheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books.”

"The common idea that I am an atheist is based on a big mistake. Anyone who interprets my scientific theories this way, did not understand them."

"Everything is determined, every beginning and ending, by forces over which we have no control. It is determined for the insect, as well as for the star. Human beings, vegetables, or cosmic dust, we all dance to a mysterious tune, intoned in the distance by an invisible piper."

“The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It will transcend a personal God and avoid dogma and theology.”

“Energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be changed from one form to another.”

“Everything is energy and that is all there is to it. Match the frequency of the reality you want and you can not help but get that reality. It can be no other way. This is not philosophy. This is physics.”

"I am happy because I want nothing from anyone. I do not care about money. Decorations, titles or distinctions mean nothing to me. I do not crave praise. I claim credit for nothing. A happy man is too satisfied with the present to dwell too much on the future."

 

“Our world has indeed arisen out of an earlier one that was not yet divided. and this undivided whole is really still there and underlies all our cognition.But the transition from an undivided to a multiple world did not happen at the beginning of cosmic time. it took place in our childhood, when we, each of us, individually crosses symbolic threshold.” Johannes Bronkhorst, an Indologist

 

“The whole of the universe is flooded by a sea of energy – a clear light if you like (the ‘self-luminosity’ of Sankara) that fills what is known as the quantum vacuum. It is a light so pervasive that we would, in truth, only be able to ‘see it’ if it were not there. The entity that created it, the Brahma of both science and spirit, is an event more wondrous and perplexing thing to contemplate, for it is a single point and at all points. .. In pre-space, the potentialities of consciousness and the primary field are united through mutual participation on a universal scale. Put another way, the essence of the implicate order is the one source that enables both the primary field (the common source of at least everything physical) and consciousness. Based upon this thesis, it would be logical to infer that the one source of the world’s great spiritual traditions is grounded in scientific theory.”

 

This is on science and is a mail from a friend and an extract from an interview. It shows how bewildering physics is, which deals with the universe susceptible to observation by senses and instruments, and how there are parallels with Advaita about the illusory nature of the world -space-tme, and what we make out in a world that is fleeting.

Mail from friend

"The lady who won the Nobel in physics, Katie Mack; "Recent advances in particle physics theory suggest space and time as we think of them are'nt what we believe they were, and there's some deeper abstract reality to the UNIVERSE."

She has been contemplating the expected results of a certain particle collusioning and what it means to live in a Universe where Space and Time are not "fundamental."

She says the latest developments in Particle Physics have caused a new look and understanding of existing conceptions in nature of the cosmos. (Smolin and Bohm assert the same conclusion; that SPACE AND TIME are not REAL.)

She says that there is a DEEPER ABSTRACT math reality to the universe and since space and time are really illusions which we simply perceive. She says our wiring of the brain is not sufficient to get to the heart of existence: what is really out there.

Before Einstein came along with relativity theory, it was thought that Space and Time were not only real but immutable. WE believed that time ticks along for the same for everyone, Space is just a giant invisible grid thru which we move. But relativity created the possibility that Space  and Time are malleable and intertwined, affecting each other in counterintuitive ways. How you move thru space affects Time and Space themselves since space changes shape as time passes.

Mack says that when you calculate the expected results of particle collisions, there is one way to do so, but there is also so weird an abstract geometrical object which does not require the existing concepts of Space and Time at all. She suspects that there is a new geometry: it suggests a DEEPER STRUCTURE of the universe that is better described by the new geometry. She speculates that Space and Time do not exist at all.

Is Universe a convenient illusion built upon something ELSE- something more powerful and fundamental and untouchable, that can't be perceived? It appears that time gets distorted as we try and make sense of what we observe!

There has to be a different perspective and REALITY appears to be a sliding scale. Some say Space/Time is not real and others say it is real but not fundamental.

So what is the real structure of the Universe? If it exists how do we state it? We have conceived of our ideas based on our experiences and here the mind is not wired to understand the conundrum stated above.

Possibly the best way to think of Space/Time is as an emergent phenomenon - something that is automatically written into the structure of reality, but. appears in our universe anyway, not so much as an illusion, but as an unexpected circumstance we happen to find ourselves in. Writing it off as unreal does not make it go away, after all. Ack.that there is more going on than we can see and control, might give us insight we need to work on.

Smolin says that firing electrons at slits and then seeing where each ends up, depends on how we observe and which slit each electron passes thru, will disappear if a device is set up to view each electron. Different conceptions in QM view reality show experiments show that particles behave differently.

Bohr/Heisenberg suggestion that an electron takes all possible pathways and interfere with each other to produce the wave pattern.But, accepting that a particle can be in all paces at the same time is possible except when it is watched.

Pilot Wave theory De Broglie, Bohm. "The electron only passes thru one of the slits, but, is directed by an undetected entity called a Pilot Wave. This requires accepting that there are many hidden features of the universe incl. empty 'Ghost Waves" with no particles to guide to account for all possible outcomes"

Many Worlds Theory Hugh Everett: "The experiment forces the universe to split into parallel universes, each of which accounts for one possible path the electrons might take. In this theory, there are hidden structures or particles that are in multiple places at once. But it requires belief that at every moment countless new parallel universes are being born".

 

“The end of all science is only to teach us to become aware of the unity and the movement that surrounds us. Seeing is the first essential step. You have done it, what you lack to cross the wall that you feel before you is to go to the next degree: Love. Love the world!” Teilhard de Chardin to Ella Maillart

 

MAYA OR MITHYA

 

Maya

There is misconception about Maya.

Maya is about misconception.

 

Maya is perhaps a singular contribution by India in the march of ideas!

There is a lot of confusion (maya) in understanding Maya. Here is my contribution to the confusion (मया कल्पितं मायाव्याख्यानं).

I feel we live in a world of make-believe, reality we assume being layered by apparent logic over certain basic assumptions which are at best a matter of experience which may not be a reliable yardstick.

As I hinted above, ‘Maya’ is confusion in understanding. The examples given conventionally are mistaking a rope for a serpent, a sea-shell for silver or a mirage for water. These examples suggest that the confusion is not about hallucination. The mistake is not about something non-existing. It is different from solipsism also.

After laying down that Maya masks the reality, Sankara describes maya as anirvachaneeya (indefinable). It is as good as saying, ‘I do not know why there is this veil over reality’. Why then can we not reject Sankara’s philosophy as far-fetched? I feel that the world exists and its existence has a reality, which is not the various perceptions we derive based on collective convention and individual idiosyncracies. Sankara calls the underlying reality as Brahman and the varying perceptions as mere appearance. That appeals to me and satisfies my experience. So, we are left with the question what Maya is. The whole piece is irrelevant if one takes the observed world to be the only reality.

In other words, the basic question ‘why this world exists’, ‘why it was created’ cannot be answered by anything that we know by intelligence lit by feeding of sense experience.

Human intelligence is limited to what the senses can capture. It is superior to any other intelligence human intelligence can spot, but it is far from being the best that there can be. While reading a book about space, I read, ‘Sten Odenwald:..our eyes can only detect radiation within a narrow wavelength range of 0.4-0.6 microns. Some animals can do a bit better than this, for instance, bees can see into the UV range – between 0.3-0.4 microns, and some snakes can sense light just beyond 0.6 microns.’ The human perception is limited in range, but the superior intelligence has made it possible to detect what lies beyond the gaze of its naked senses. As we know, we are yet to understand the bottom of it all. The crux is that total knowledge is not within the reach of human intelligence. Not yet, at least. I venture to think that there will never come a state where the world and total human intelligence can exist together. Thus, the nature of the world is covered by a veil as it were. That veil is Maya.

It is the contention of Vedanta that it is possible to arrive at the basic truth (Brahman). The quarrels about what it is suggest that no one has found it incontrovertibly. But, the path of discovery has been fascinating and engages the speculative-minded.

Space may be finite. It may not be infinite space containing finite objects. There may be just enough (necessary and just sufficient) space to accommodate the objects providing for their non-colliding existence. That is, space has boundaries and to enquire into what lies outside the boundaries is impermissible. The problem to this thinking may arise from religions (which assume infinity to be god) and not from science as science likes finiteness and predictability. That may put a limit to knowledge as after knowing the unit as a whole, there will be nothing more to know. But, the road to that finite knowledge may be slippery and misleading and involving insoluble duality. In other words, we may be discovering the same knowledge expressed in different contexts and manifestations. This process may be unending. So, we will be left no better than when we imagined an infinity that is unfathomable. If this line of speculative thinking is on right lines, we have only one knowledge that is to be acquired i.e. about ourselves as whatever we observe outside is an unending wild goose chase resulting in the same basic dilemma; we are running but are on the same spot. We are however held back from this realisation that ends all uncertainty and frees us from the hassles of mundane existence. That is inexplicable. That is Maya.

When the Yaksha asked Yudhishtira what was the most surprising, he replied, ‘Everyday people see many dying, but they forget their own mortality.’ We live in a world of repetitiveness and recycling. We have no clue to why this goes on. Life is not any different today than when modern science was unborn. But, (rightly) we feel as though we are doing something new or that we are wiser. Each moribund generation considers the budding generation unprincipled, reckless, directionless, etc. The repetitive process is self-perpetuating and is a mixed bag. We are drawn to it in a binding way. An analysis of its rationale does not produce its justification. This is represented as samsara enveloping us in the darkness of ignorant infatuation and the possibility of emancipation by right knowledge. Lack of such knowledge or even a desire for it is termed Maya.

A magician does a trick. There is an observed act which is miraculous, but truth is plain. Something is hidden from the spectators. The spectators knowingly subject to the illusion for the fun that it produces. In dream, we see many things which appear to be real, but their ‘reality’ is nullified on waking up. A friend of mine mentioned how a young boy was eager for gifts from Santa Claus, but lost interest once he knew it was done after all by the elders of the house and there was no mysterious giver. All these point to how we are quite content with the world of charms and a man who has no interest in such charms (mumukshu) goes after what is the irreducible bottom line. After understanding it, he cannot relate it intelligibly in the language of worldly charms. There is an apparent disconnect between the truth perceived in realisation from the common experience, and this disconnect is given the name Maya. What it is cannot be described.

Ponniyin Selvan was a masterpiece of historical novel by Kalki. When it ended, one was eager to know further story about the main characters in it. Some wrote sequels, but it was far from satisfying. I realised that the characterisation and incidents in the novel are intelligent creation of Kalki’s imagination. But still, my mind cannot dissociate itself from the assumed reality of its characters (many were historical of course, but it is anyone’s guess what their real character was) and incidents (some were truly historic though the sequence and course were not). Our association with this world is of this nature, though we will vehemently deny it. This sort of association is referred to as Maya.

Maya is required for life as we live. It is also required for lotus eaters and metaphysical thinkers.

We are not prepared to get into Maya (try to know it), so the question of overcoming it does not arise for almost all of us. Attaining Brahmapadam as Samkara beckons us to aspire for is a call of horn to the deaf.

*

Maya

“You have understood Maya well when you understand that Maya is ununderstandable (anirvachaniya)”. (Swami Paramarthananda)

Cf. Niels Bohr: “If you’re not puzzled by quantum physics, you couldn’t possibly have understood it.”

मिथ्या माया मायामिदमखिलं हित्वा आत्मा ब्रह्मन् प्रमाणं आस्तिक नास्तिक चार्वाक आभास सत्

This is an elusive topic.

The word used by Sankara is mithya (मिथ्या) though in songs like Bhaja Govindam, ‘mayamayamidam akhilam hitva’ (मायामिदमखिलं हित्वा) ‘maya’ is found. Mithya is neither true nor untrue, a position not admissible in Greek logic, which goes by 'either or'. Sri Rajiv Malhotra dwells on this topic in 'Being Different.'

We are interested in Reality - Sat (सत्), not in mithya. We must therefore start with Reality. What is Reality? It is unknown as we deal with the world as interpreted by our senses and the impressions stored. We see that both the 'objective world' and the subject (consisting of senses, mind and intellect) keep evolving or shuffling.

I avoided using atma (आत्मा) for subject just as I have avoided god or Brahman for Reality (Sat).

If everything is changing, is there something not changing? The answer to this question does not come from our normal experience or even science. Scientists cede that we have no way of knowing what Reality is other than what our faculties powered by the senses tell us. I read in an article that evolution has honed our perception for survival not for comprehending Reality.

Now, we can take a safe position of 'I do not know' (agnosticism), or assume either that there is something that can be called Real, or dismiss it as vague speculation. For saying there is Reality what is the basis? Sankara asserts that scripture is the basis (प्रमाणं).

It is contentious. How can we accept scripture as pramanam? Basically, in Indian thinking, astikas (आस्तिक) are those who accept scripture as a pramanam and nastikas (नास्तिक) are those who deny it. Thus religions like Jainism and Buddhism are atheistic religions regardless of what they say about god. Charvakas (चार्वाक)  also do not accept scripture. Among asthikas there is difference of opinions, but they do not question the scripture.

After accepting Reality as fundamental and unchanging, we need to account for the world. Advaita advances the argument of ‘adhyasa’ (superimposition). The Reality is distorted, so to speak, by a veil, a creation of the mind. The view of the world undergoing incessant change is an appearance and not substantial. It is mithya or illusion. Ordinary dictionaries typically define “illusion” not as something that does not exist but as something that is not what it seems to be. Illusion is an exact equivalent of mithya.

What has happened is people have confused it with delusion and hallucination and attacked it. In terms of science also, the picture of what we perceive is an approximation based on previous experience and filling out for a total picture from only a few elements of 'reality' being picked up. We are aware of how an object looks variedly depending on distance, light, our bias, and so on. Mithya is thus mistaken perception (schizophrenia) confusing between appearance and existence (Reality). What exists ever without changes is Reality and what keeps changing is mithya. Consciousness is what reveals everything and it is Reality. This equivalence is by definition.

The final frontiers of man’s knowledge quest at the fundamental level may be about consciousness and information. That is perhaps what the Upanishads also targeted as explained in the framework of Advaita

I find that Bhagavatam talks of maya profusely. The chatusloki seems to reflect advaita closely by the ideas of there being nothing in the beginning or in the end but Brahman, and the in-between things being explained by aabhaasa, a metaphor that is used in advaita emphatically.

 

 

Mithya

We see the rainbow in the horizon for a while, but it disappears. The rainbow is not a snake in the rope or water in the mirage or silver in the seashell. It is in a manner of speaking ‘real’. The rainbow is like a bow, but not anybody’s bow as our ancestors thought. It has something to do with rain, but its nature has nothing to do with rain. It is the same light that we see everywhere, but dispersed by the refracting medium. In other words, the rainbow is nothing but light that appears differently but fleetingly.

The world is likewise a virtual reality appearing different from Brahman, but not any different; it is the distorting (refracting) medium of our outward-looking senses that presents the world as not Brahman.

Everyone knows the equation: E = mc^2. But, it requires technology and huge effort to convert matter to energy. We know superficially Aham Brahmasmi or Tatvamasi. But we require the technology of Vednata and arduous effort of sravanam, mananam and nidhidhyasanam for realization.

 

December 31, 2016

Maya

Different ways to understand maya

Why should we understand maya?

The only thought I can share in response is why we want to know why of anything.

Am I trying to defend maya? Perhaps. I feel we live in a world of make-believe, reality we assume being layered by apparent logic over certain basic assumptions which are at best a matter of experience which may not be a reliable yardstick.

Maya is like ‘I do not know’. After laying down that maya masks the reality, Sankara describes maya as anirvachaneeya (indefinable). It is as good as saying, ‘I do not know why there is this veil over reality. Why then can we not reject Sankara’s philosophy as far-fetched? I feel that the world exists and its existence has a reality, which is not the various perceptions we derive based on collective convention and individual idiosyncracies. Sankara calls the underlying reality as Brahman and the varying perceptions as mere appearance. That appeals to me and satisfies my experience. So, we are left with the question what maya is.

 

Maya

Diary  19.9.99

I was talking to R who said that there is no Maya. ‘You are real, I am real,’

he said. I did not respond quite aptly then. In later recollection, I thought,

‘It is true- you are real, I am real. Since reality is one, you and I are one.

That we are, or appear to be, different is interpreted by the concept of Maya.

 

2014

This world is real, it exists, in other words, it has the property or quality of existence or reality (Sat in Samskritam). That is ‘Brahman’ (Cf. ‘Sat-eva idam agra aaseet’ Chandogya).

But, we see that everything in the world changes, i.e., it appears to us to have the quality of change, which is not a characteristic of reality. The appearance of the world is taken by us to be real and its ‘Sat bhava’ is not appreciated. This is the meaning of ‘maya’; maya makes non-existent (changing) to appear as existent (real) and existent as non-existent. In terms of advaita, the jagat (the moving or movable) is mythya (false) and Brahman is satyam (that which is Sat). Jagat refers to the phenomenal world, the world as it appears and keeps changing.

Now, the understanding of maya proceeds from the assumption of reality of the world. If we start with ‘the world is not real’, there is nothing further to argue. It is thus incorrect to attribute the notion that this world is not real, to advaita.

Is maya real or false? If maya were to be false, the mistake of taking the changing to be real cannot arise. Reality is universally assumed to be One. Hence maya, which has to be real, has to be in Sat. Reality in conjunction with maya, a duality that is presumptive, but not intrinsic, produces the phenomenal world. Whereas the nature of Brahman (the unique, indivisible, whole reality) is clear, that of maya defies understanding, but with right enlightenment we pierce the veil of maya, as it were, and regain our basic identity, which is Reality.

 

Jan, 2019

My musings on mithya:

To understand Sankara we must follow his methodology – scripture, logic and experience. For ‘worldly’ things, our senses are the source of knowledge and we must set aside scripture if it has a contrarian view. For matters of soul, scripture is the only authority. There is no way senses can find the soul. Even a gnani does not see the soul; he sees as the soul.

Whatever scripture says must be logically analysed and vetted by action and experience. This process will prepare our mind for understanding. Understanding has to come internally (idea of grace is relevant here). It cannot result from language and meaning of words. (“Meaning is a word that conceals vast depths of ignorance.” V.S.Ramachandran).

Reality has to be defined first. Sankara does in three levels as pointed out by Sri Shivshankar Rao. In my view, Sankara accepts all levels (adhikari bheda)

We have to be careful in understanding through simile. When Brahman is non pareil and indivisible one, no simile can capture it.

When we dismiss the world on the analogy with dream, we may be erring. The reality of the dream when it lasted is at a different level from reality of the world captured in our consciousness. We do not have hallucination, our mind does not produce strange combinations from an earlier experience as in a dream. There is something – only its nature is different, like there is the rope, but we superimpose the serpent on it. Brahman is the reality, but it appears as the world. In other words, the view of the world that we have commonly with the others are through the senses and the mind, which have evolved to facilitate life as we live. The commonality does not confirm a reality by itself as we share the faculties in common evolution. What it is without such faculties is unknown as Hawking affirms.

That we see only real or unreal in experience is because we are conditioned so by evolution and long usage of language. If world appears as real to us (it does), but in effect the nature of the world is different, there is ambiguity – no clear-cut real/unreal. That is mithya – neither real nor unreal. I do not know whether Sankara has used asatyam for the world. Mithya is neither satyam (paramarthic reality) nor asatyam (hallucination).

Sankara interprets Upanishads. The principal Upanishads that he relies on do not talk of mithya or adhyasa. The overwhelming message of the Upanishads is jiva-brahma aikya (inseparable unity of individual soul and universal soul, non-differentiation). It has to be harmonized with the experienced world. Sankara comes out with an ingenious framework. Our understanding has to align itself with the Upanishads and our own experience.

Even if Sankara dismisses the world as unreal (that is unfortunate if he does), his life does not reinforce that message. Advaita was there before him. Gowdapada was an earlier exponent. We know of Gowdapada because of Sankara. Sankara’s proactive steps in dealing with this world and establishing advaita as the route to moksha have survived to this day as a watershed. That does not give the impression that Sankara dismisses the reality of the world out of hand.

The attack on Sankara by Ramanuja and others is on that premise that the world is unreal. I am not convinced that Sankara would have been dismissive of the world altogether.

The whole is both the seen and the seer, inseparably and indistinguishably in union. Moksha is when we are freed of the dualistic bondage as though the world is outside us and we have to own and enjoy it.

I may be wrong. I have not gone through the Sankara bhashyam fully or in original, but I have to stick to my understanding. Even if I master the bhashyam, it will only be textual or verbal, not ‘own’.

I came across this recently long after I wrote the above:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBPixoNflpU

V.S.Ramachandran has covered three points here inter alia.

1.    No personal god supervising and judging. (That is his belief, belief of a perspicacious man).

Vedanta does not talk of a personal god.

It is my belief that we need a personal god to have a mooring in right and wrong, but as we gain insight, we should lay it aside.

2.    Religious states are relatable to parts of brain.

They are mental states around some emotional experience. Not unreal, but passing like any other sensory experience, in my view.

3.    Brahman as in Vedanta is not incompatible with a man of science.

Brahman is intrinsic to nature (world/cosmos/universe), not something extraneous to it, as I read it.

Brahman is the reality. The multiplicity (jiva, jagat, Iswara) is Brahman in association with maya (anirvachaneeya, neither real, nor unreal). When we overcome that perception (maya), we realise our Brahman-hood. That to me is advaita in a crude simplification.

 

There is neither independent space not independent time; we have a space-time continuum. Likewise, there is a continuum of the self and the world. The two are not separate, but a composite whole that is indivisible, but appears to be several. Even space-time continuum does not make physical sense to most of us. How can we appreciate the oneness of the self (the seer or subject) and the world (the seen or the object)? This lack of knowledge is explained by maya.

 

For all its versatility and the claim to be ‘well made’, Samskrtam has words that are ambiguous. Atma is one such. When we read atma rakhsyah sarvada, it does not refer to the non-corporeal soul, but the embodied one, the composite of body-mind-intellect animated by the spirit. There would be no case of protecting the atma that is indestructible. This ambiguity might be replete in all scripture. The question of immortality of the individual soul would not arise as the soul is everywhere (atma comes from the root which means to pervade) and is neither born nor dies. It is a matter of convention to think that a soul journeys from body to body taking an analogy from change of clothes for a person. It serves an ethical purpose and to explain why there are differences from person to person at birth. Scriptures say repeatedly that the soul is aja (unborn), nitya (ever present), sasvata (permanent), purana (primordial), and also that the soul is one without a second, indivisible. That rules out multiple souls and multiple births and deaths. There is a mystery why this repetitive, cyclical process goes on and on, and the mystery is called differently as mithya or maya.

 

Is the world real or not? It is mithya, neither real nor unreal, anirvachaneeya, ineffable.

Hindu way of thinking eschews ‘either or’ proposition. I cannot elaborate this. Rajiv Malhotra writes on it vehemently in ‘Being Different.’

We are in the world and the world persists. If it is unreal, it undermines our own position. But, it keeps changing. Reality is unchanging. Therefore, world is unreal. The reality of the world is because it is nothing other than Brahman, the reality. It is our minds that give it a transactional reality and the world is not the same to two individuals. The difference is in the view, not the ‘thing’. It is like in the story of elephant and blind men.

The words used for world in Samskrtam are viswam (all-pervading), lokam (the perceived thing) and jagat (that which our consciousness grasps). What Sankara denies is the world restricted by our senses and limited consciousness (jiva). The same world when experienced by freeing consciousness (atman in jiva) from the prison of the senses is Brahman, unlimited consciousness. Here is a play of words. When you free the jiva from limitation, it is unlimited, Brahman. There is no distinction. This does not happen, but is always so, only we were not aware. All that need to happen is not any change, but becoming aware. It looks elegant and neat to me and will hold true no matter what conclusions we may get down to through science about the ‘physical’ world. It cannot be challenged like theistic faiths that promise a reward elsewhere.

None of the advaitins refused to deal with the world. Whatever the theory, they did not act as if the world did not exist. If they did, we would not be remembering them. They would have died insane. We celebrate Nietzsche for the brilliant moments when he made Zarathustra speak, not for the madness he plunged in.

No advaitin pretends that the world has ceased after his realization. Why would Sankara establish mutts in the four corners in an unreal world?

Is it relevant to all? No. It is only for a jignasu, one who is stirred to know it. The rest are not condemned. They have no yearning to know and will go through life without the need for it. It is like the Brahmin in Voltaire’s story reproduced by Durant, who cannot settle for the peace of the illiterate lady to whom the pining for Vishnu fulfils life.

 

February 11, 2014

We say something is green, something is blue, and so on. Science tells us that a thing that appears green absorbs other colours of a composite white ray of light except green. That is, the colour green is the property of the ray of light and not that of the thing we call green.

In ordinary parlance, the above fact is not appreciated by us.

It is perhaps that the whole world as it appears to us and taken as real for all practical purposes is only a function of the Spirit without which nothing may exist.

Atma is described as self-effulgent (light) (swayam prakasah)

Also cf. tamaso ma jyotir gamaya.

 

Advaita is not solipsism.

Sankara says in as many words that this world is vyaavahaarika satyam, a virtual reality. It has reality because it has Brahman (reality) as its adhishtaanam, or because it is a pratibhaasika of Brahman.

The world is a projection of consciousness or manifestation of the unmnaifest, maya being confession of ignorance why it manifests. Consciousness (atma) is the ever-present unchanging reality, and the world is not. It has been disservice to Sankara to interpret that the world is a figment of imagination. The take that the world does not exist is not borne out by the belief in karma, rebirth and limited efficacy of rituals, which Sankara does not call in question.

The examples of rope-snake etc. do not suggest non-existence. Rope exists, but is mistaken.

The Upanishads, the major ones, do not talk of mithya or maya, or that the world does not exist.

Sankara was bold and did not accept anything on the authority of a person. He repudiated Sankhya even though it was propounded by Kapila, an incarnation. To follow Sankara is to follow his boldness, not necessarily his conclusions. Even if Sankara says that the world does not exist (there are stalwarts well-versed in the works of Sankara in this group and they would know better), we can question it as the scripture does not support it.

The emphasis of advaita is to understand our real nature and our identity with the whole, not lured by the traps of the world, and that the only way for liberation is through knowledge acquired systematically and under expert guidance. This is possible only in the world that exists.

 

Whether we dream or are awake, what we cognize is an image in the mind. In dream state, the image is called from random memory, in the wakeful state, we may be with an instant image, but not a faithful one, because our fixation on the object is discontinuous and survey of the object partial, and the mind intercepts and touches up the image. The nature of the object that we cognize is thus more or less of the same authenticity in either case. What we take as ‘real’ is hardly present to reverify over time. Scientifically, the reality is an event of space-time and past events are only ghosts.

 

Some semblance of the idea of Mithya from non-Advaitic contexts:

Yuval Noah Harai while commenting on Covid:

“We almost never experience the world as it is, we almost always have this something in front of our eyes a cover a curtain which is produced by own mind, it’s the stories that our own mind produces and believes and we go through life without really seeing the world just seeing this curtain and the projections of our own mind. It’s very important to give the mind a break every now and then and be able to detoxify.”

Heraclitus: “You never step into the same river twice.”

Linear extensions of Advaita will not lead to useful conclusions. Adviata has to go with pramana, reason and experience. That is Sankara's approach. One may apply this approach and find out for oneself. By linear extension, all others do not exist and so validation is not possible. But, accepting that we are still in mithya (an indeterminate state), we can discuss to find the truth in us. At the stage when we transcend mithya, it is true that nothing but TRUTH exists, but till then everything as we experience is real, Sankara and his teachings included. In Limit (calculus), you must know when you must apply delta x is zero, otherwise, you will not solve it.

 

Mithya

This perhaps is the most problematic part of Advaita.

The idea of mithya is defended at various levels.

First, we go by definition. Brahman as changelss existence is Reality. Anything which changes is not real. The world in perceptual terms undergoes constant change and hence it follows that it is not real in the sense in which we say Brahman is real.

Second, mithya is neither real (as it is changing) nor unreal (since it is perceived even if briefly, and is dependent on Brahman whih is real). It is anirvachaneeyam. The logic of the west does not accept such a grey option – it is either’ real ‘or’ unreal. This east-west conflict is fundamental. ‘Either or’ is the stuff of duality. Even the computer works on this principle. Thus, dvaita has no problem. But Advaitam does not accept duality beyond the sensory experience. It postulates a paramarthic reality which is basic. To expect that Advaita can be reconciled with ‘either or’ duality is a wrong handle to the problem.

What would science say? First, we must examine whether science is acceptable as a pramana because it is part of mithya knowledge. That argument will send us on a merry-go-round. All knowledge has to be acquired in mithya state by the mind which is part of mithya state. Further, science does not say anything precisely on such fundamental questions. But, we get some hints and pointers. We will take them up.

Mithya is another confused subject. It is not a-satyam. When B.U. talks of Atma as satyasya satyam, the first satyam is the world. Sankara says as much – he concedes vayvaharika and pratibhasika satyam of the world. To call the world as non-existent is not the lesson from Vedanta or Advaita. It is so strikingly different from calling the essence of Viswam as Sat (existence-Brahman). Other schools have held that view – Buddhists, solepsists, and some philosophers. Even in science which, post-QM and post-Heisenberg, treats ‘objective’ reality beyond human comprehension does not negate that there could be a reality different from our partial and angular perception though what it is is beyond even science. Advaita is about reality and the uniqueness (ekam advitiyam) of that apparent dual reality of the self and the world – and the god that has crept in with vivid imagination.

 

Maya is about variety which entices and bewilders.

Gnanam is about unity that directs self to self and absence of need for variety.

One without the felt need for gnanam will keep preferring and praising Maya. Withdrawl from the allurements that the senses and mind weave incessantly is a necessary precondition for gnanam. Discussing gnanam while being attached to the changing appearances, the vey change being attractive, is a sterile and vexatious exercise.

 

There is a sea of difference between saying that the whole world is a manifestation of Brahman, with several distinguishing characteristics of its apparent constituents which are comprehensible by consciousness, and saying that the world is the be-all-and-end-all. The world as we see it is in a continuum of change in regard to the known magnitudes of space and time. It is not that the whole world is unreal, but that the particular view we have of it is highly tentative. We see that as we grow up, our view of the world changes. The change has taken place in the consciousness as well as in the perceived. But the consciousness and the perceived world are not independent of each other.

If, therefore, there is change in the whole view, which is real? Not that the various views one had as one grew are unreal empirically speaking. It is as good trying to say that since these different states were experienced or views held, all these are ipso facto real. We are not contending whether the experiences and views were truthful. Our attempt is to identify a reality whose identity has definitive parameters. If the series of views we have of the world defy unity, then we call the experiences to be illusory and as not related to the ultimate Reality.

In short, Advaita is a macro view. It is not correct to say that experiences by different individuals at different times are all per se unreal. A span of 100 years is a drop in an ocean compared to the magnitude of space-time continuum, but it is of immense significance when it lasts.

There is a sea of difference between saying that the whole world is a manifestation of Brahman, with several distinguishing characteristics of its apparent constituents which are comprehensible by consciousness, and saying that the world is the be-all-and-end-all. The world as we see it is in a continuum of change in regard to the known magnitudes of space and time. It is not that the whole world is unreal, but that the particular view we have of it is highly tentative. We see that as we grow up, our view of the world changes. The change has taken place in the consciousness as well as in the perceived. But the consciousness and the perceived world are not independent of each other.

If, therefore, there is change in the whole view, which is real? Not that the various views one had as one grew are unreal empirically speaking. It is as good trying to say that since these different states were experienced or views held, all these are ipso facto real. We are not contending whether the experiences and views were truthful. Our attempt is to identify a reality whose identity has definitive parameters. If the series of views we have of the world defy unity, then we call the experiences to be illusory and as not related to the ultimate Reality.

In short, Advaita is a macro view. It is not correct to say that experiences by different individuals at different times are all per se unreal. A span of 100 years is a drop in an ocean compared to the magnitude of space-time continuum, but it is of immense significance when it lasts.

 

The relationship jiva-iswara-jagat is valid in the field of maya, which is binding and real. Its nature is anirvachaniya, ineffable.

Worship of god is optional, but subjection to dharma is obligatory. Punya and papa operate in the field of maya.

Maya does not mean hallucination, but misunderstanding.

 

People love, even venerate Maya. Maya is personified as goddess and equated with Sakti - energy. People name their children Maya. Maya is attractive.

In contrast, Advaita is unattractive since it refutes variety, the spice of life, and worldly experience, which is rich and rewarding, not miserable. Should one go after gnana if one is happy with the world and sees no need to break away from it?

 

Before phrasing the above heresy, I had this strand of thought:

When I wake up from a dream, the dream-aroused feelings take time to go away to me, an adult past seventy, having no known mental illness. If dream experience is itself insistent, it is natural that people in general refuse to accept the ‘real’ experience as an illusion.

I am drawn to Advaita for its thoroughness and closeness to truth, its solidity and ability to skirt the raw emotion and sterile reason, to look at what IS rather than what can be or what we wish to be. To be beside truth is a great strength even to live this life of ephemeral fulfilments, not necessarily to escape from it. I am not convinced of moksha as a worthy aim as it looks defeatist and unrealistic. But moksha in the sense of freedom, ability to see things clearly and in the light of well assimilated knowledge can be a worthy aim. I take that as the pay-off.

But, more fundamentally, I am tempted to challenge the idea of utility itself. We can try to understand truth without looking for a reward beyond it. That knowledge is futile if it is not used to do something or does not lead to a fulfilment, I do not believe in.

Knowledge – TRUTH – is not a means but the thing. It is Ananda by itself. It is precious and its value is not widely appreciated. But to one who is after it, its popularity is not a concern.

 

Dream state example explained by Swami Paramarthananda

Transcript by Mr A Venkatesan

(Condensed)

Three cardinal teachings:

1. Brahman is real

2. The world is miyhya

3. Jiva is none other than Brahman

The middle one is the one, to which people wrongly respond. When people listen to this for the first time certainly it gives a shock to their mind. How can we accept tangible, sensorily perceptible world as unreal?

The example given is that the whole world is unreal like the dream. This example makes it worse. Previously it was emotionally disturbing. Now it is intellectually disturbing. How can you compare this real world with an unreal dream?

I will make a study, of this dream example.

Whenever an example is given, the speaker wants to compare certain similarities which are existing in the ideas or topics and the example. The speaker is aware of dissimilarities also. What the speaker expects is that the listeners should focus on the similarity, and not on the dissimilarity.

Everybody understands that the dream is unreal. When I wake up it disappears. But this is not enough. The dream example will work only when another feature of dream is understood, assimilated and registered. We are able to say dream is unreal because we are all awake now. We are all awake now. Therefore, we say dream is unreal. But what was the status of dream of dream world before waking up? What was the dreamer’s take of the dream world? The dreamer was ignorant of 3 important facts.

First, dreamer was ignorant of the fact that the dream world is unreal.

Second, dreamer was ignorant of the fact that it is the waker who has projected the unreal dream word.

Third and the most important, dreamer was ignorant of the fact that the dreamer himself is really the waker.

The dream world is unreal. It is projected by the waker I the dreamer myself am waker which I can easily discover on waking up.

So the dream world is unreal after waking up and appears real and is treated as real in dream.

Similarly, the word is सत्यत्व बाधी in the state of ignorance and in the state of gnana असत्ये अवगम्यत, not असत्यत्व बाधी. It is understood as unreal. This has got a very important message to all the spiritual seekers who approach Vedanta. What is the private message given to spiritual seeker? Vedanta says, ‘O seeker, you are also in ignorance, exactly as the dreamer. If you have got faith in Vedanta, you will listen with an open mind though shocked. You are ignorant of 3 facts exactly as a dreamer.

One, you are ignorant of the fact that this world is unreal.

Two, you are ignorant of the fact that there is a super waker, Brahman, which has projected this unreal world.

Three, you are ignorant of the fact that you are that Brahman, which is discoverable if you choose to wake up. Wake up means, go from अज्ञान अवस्था to ज्ञान अवस्था.

Vedanta says, as long as your goals are dharma, artha, kama, you need not bother. You can preserve the अज्ञान अवस्था. You can treat the world as real. You can continue your efforts. It is perfectly alright. It is compatible with your ignorance. But if you are interested in moksha, gnana is necessary because the very definition of moksha is freedom from अज्ञान अवस्था.

When both these features are equally understand (apparent reality in agnana avastha and unreality in gnana avastha), the world deserves the title mithya. As far as an agnani is concerned, we can never apply the word. Never tell ‘the world is mithya’ in common parlance. It should be brought in only when a person comes to Vedanta. When you become a gnani, you will never argue. You will be convinced that world has got a second status. 

We discussed similarities. To be sure, there are dissimilarities too.

1.     A dreamer wakes up without doing any special sadhanas. The switch from ignorance to knowledge happens naturally without effort. But spiritual awakening will never be automatic because of karma. It requires effort, long effort.

2.     When a dreamer wakes up, the dream world would have disappeared. In spiritual awakening, the world would not disappear. It is not a disadvantage. It is an advantage because only because of that gnanis are able to continue in the world and teach others.

3.     To know ‘I am the waker’, the dreamer has to change from the dream state to the waking state. But in spiritual awakening, no change of state is involved. Many have come to a wrong conclusion, by wrongly extending dream example, that some other higher state is required for self-knowledge. In the waking state itself, in fact only in the waking state, we can know ‘I am the super waker - Brahman’. Self knowledge like any other knowledge requires an active functioning mind which is possible only in the waking state. That is the reason Vedanta talks about several qualifications like vairagya, which are applicable to the mind.

In our tradition, full moon is given lot of importance as also new moon. Every full moon we have got some thing or other because there is a similarity between full moon and Vedantic teaching. Experientially we all see moon waxing and waning every month. On enquiry with the help of modern science, we know that the moon appears to wax and wane, but is full throughout. In the same way, universal experience is that I am a waxing-waning जीवात्मा. Vedanta says ‘You are not waxing-waning जीवात्मा. You are ever full परमात्मा. You are poornam.’

 

ॐ पूर्णमदः पूर्णमिदम् पूर्णात् पूर्णमुदच्यते | पूर्णस्य पूर्णमादाय पूर्णमेवावशिष्यते ||

ॐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः ||

 

 

Varadaraja V. Raman:

“I would interpret maya, not as a negative view of perceived reality, but rather as a recognition of its intrinsic nature: namely, that notwithstanding its appearance of being real and the ultimate, it is not so in fact. This is not unlike what modern science has revealed: Whether it is the sun's motion across the heavens, the colorful arc that spans the sky, or the solid matter we touch and feel, these are not quite what they seem to be. Their ultimate nature is different from the impression they create. The important thing to remember, and one that is ignored all to often, is that it does not follow that anything that is illusory is necessarily trivial, uninteresting, or useless.

Quite the contrary. Indeed, it turns out that not only are illusions inevitable in the context of everyday living, practically every significant element of culture and civilization rests on grand illusions. Upon scrutiny, they turn out to be not quite true.

In other words, maya is not necessarily evil and hurtful, or unworthy of attention. Rather, it can be often be enlightening and revelatory. Upon careful reflection, we find that maya serves us very well in the course of our lives, and that it is at the root of many of our enjoyments, institutions, intellectual exercises, and societal interactions. Certain aspects of maya have even helped us gain a deeper understanding (or visions of higher categories) of reality.” 

 

 

 

Advaita is to metaphysics what theory of relativity is to physics.

Neither makes the world disappear, but calls for refinement in our appreciation of what is real.

 

Similes for Advaita

“Water is what sea is made of. Water is what is there. There is no sea separate from water. Similarly waves are insubstantial, it is water in movement. Water is Brahmam. Sea and waves are like god and the living beings. God and living beings are in Brahmam, like sea and waves are one in water.” Swami Omkarananda.

 

 

Advaita and Buddhism

“Advaita Vedanta is the philosophy which represents the dominant philosophic outlook of Hinduism today.”

“Some of Sankara’s Brahmin opponents called him a disguised Buddhist. It is true that Buddhism influenced him considerably.”

(Jawaharlal Nehru)

What Buddha said has been covered in pre-Buddhist Upanishads and Sankara followed the Upanishads and it is a moot point how much he took Buddhist viewpoint in the interpretation. In any case, Sankara followed rigorous logic and if Buddhist logic and his coincided, the matter lies with that logic.

 

Advaitam: Soul is real, the world is unreal (mithya).

Buddhism: Neither the soul nor the world is real.

Charvakas (atheists); Soul is unreal, the world is real.

All three may be right depending on how we define reality.

If intuition is is the guide and sensory perception illusory, Advaita comes to the fore.

If both intuition and sensory perception are discredited, Buddhism suggests itself.

If intuition is denied and pratyaksha (direct perception) is accorded supremacy, atheism thumps its fist on the desk.

As we are discussing, videhamukti is achieved and others carry on the debate.

 

Many questions seem to mix up vyavaharika satyam and paramarthika satyam. The very nomenclature ‘vyavaharika satyam’ indicates that Advaita does not dismiss the phenomenal world out of hand. The facts, rules and events in vayavaharika world are not denied; their logical progression, whether we understand the logic or not, is not denied. Dharma is relevant in the phenomenal world and Sankara has not dumped dharma.

 

SANKARA

 

Sankara had mastered the Vedas, epics and puranas and synthesized out of it Advaita in an ingenious way. His quotations are prolific and logic watertight. It must be said that the position for a casual leader of these texts is confusing. But, Sankara had an accurate memory of all the passages and lays down his thesis impeccably. I do not think there is any other treatise as exhaustive and scholarly like Sankara’s. He takes on possible objections to his interpretation and deals with them in a very scientific way.

He seems to have taken the points of Buddhism as consistent with Vedanta, but refutes where it is at variance. He has been keen to find the basis of all that he says in Vedanta. In so doing, it looks laboured at some points, but he does the best language can cope with on a subject that is non-verbal and beyond sense experience.

 

Sankara

“It is on account of his strict adherence to the principle of transcendence that Sankara’s writings have been regarded as providing the classical formulation of the Indian wisdom. He alone could account for all the upanishadic texts. None of the pantheistic and theistic commentators who followed him were able to give satisfactory explanations of the negative texts which deny all empirical predicates of the Absolute.

There is little in his commentaries to connect him with Siva-worship. But he invokes Narayana, equatable with Visnu, at the beginning of his Gita commentary in what the sub-commentator Anandagiri calls an obeisance to his chosen deity (ista-devata). And part of the verse in which he does so appears in the course of his statement of the doctrine of the Paricaratra school of Vaishnavas in his commentary on Brahma Sutra II.ii.42. He there says: ‘There are parts ofthis (Paficaratra Vaishnava) doctrine which we do not deny. We do not deny that Narayana is the supreme Being, beyond the Unmanifest Principle, widely acknowledged to be the supreme Self, the Self of all.... Nor do we see anything wrong if anyone is inclined to worship the Lord (bhagavan) vehemently and onepointedly by visits to His temple and the rest, for adoration of the Lord is well-known to have been prescribed (as a preliminary discipline) in the Veda and Smrti’.”

 

Why does Sankara rely on scriptures?

There is no way to establish the reality of Atma by logic. Sankara must have based it on his personal gut feeling, but that will be suspect being based on an individual. So, he draws on scriptures. Scriptures contain the collective wisdom of many people. In tradition, they are held to be apourusheya and of authentic pramana. His aim was to re-establish the Vedic religion and he could not have discarded Veda and established advaita like Buddha established his philosophy. His idea was to reorient a tradition that was aflame though not ablaze. His near rejection of karma kanda, which is predominantly about sacrifice and worship, runs parallel to Buddhism, but he does not dismiss it. He assigns it a place if one is interested in transient fruits. To him, gnana is paramount. Gnana without karma is quite in order, but karma without gnana does not liberate one from the repetitive toils.

He fought against disbelief in god on one side and against overdoing adoration of an external god on the other. The path he has carved out is for only those who want liberation. Liberation is not any subjugation as in heaven. Heaven is possible, but is limited, not eternal. Nor is hell.

The toils are because of infatuation with passing things. To get rid of it, one must contemplate what is eternal. That calls for effort and enquiry.

 

Will Durant summarises crisply the philosophy of Sankara, which many Indian critics interpret wrongly.

“Sankara establishes the source of his philosophy at a remote and subtle point never quite clearly visioned again until a thousand years later. Immaunel Kant wrote his Critique of Pure Reason. How, he asks, is knowledge possible? Apparently, all our knowledge comes from the senses, and reveals not the external itself, but our sensory adaptation-perhaps transformation of that reality. By sense, then, we can never quite know the "real"; we can know it only in the garb of space, time and cause which may be a web created by our organs of sense and understanding, designed or evolved to catch and hold that fluent and elusive reality whose existence we can surmise, but whose character we never objectively describe; our way of perceiving will forever be inextricable mingled with the thing perceived.

This is not the airy subjectivism of the solipsist who thinks that he can destroy the world by going to sleep. The world exists, but it is Maya-not delusion, but phenomenon, an appearance created partly by our thought. Our incapacity to perceive things except through the film of space and time, or to think of them except in terms of cause and change, is an innate limitation, an ajnana or ignorance whence we see a multiplicity of objects and a flux of change. In truth there is only one Being, and change is 'a mere name' for the superficial fluctuations of forms. Behind the Maya or Veil of change and things, to be reached not by sensation or intellect but only by the insight and intuition of the trained spirits, is the one universal reality, Brahman.”

 

Sankara freed himself from the world, he did not flee from it.

 

அத்வைதம்

அத்வைத சித்தாந்தத்தை உபதேசித்த பகவத்பாதர்கள் பல தெய்வங்கள் மீது உணர்ச்சி வசமானதும் த்வைத பாவம் கொண்டதுமான ஸ்லோகங்களையும் எழுதினார்கள். இது சரியா என்பது கேள்வி.

Mechanics என்ற பௌதிகத்தின் ஒரு பிரிவில் பல வர்ஷங்கள் ந்யுட்டனின் விதிகளே கையாளப்பட்டு வந்தன. ந்யுட்டனின் விதிகளைக் கொண்டு போடப்பட்ட பல கணக்குகளும் உலக நியதிக்கு உட்பட்டிருந்தன. பின்வந்த ஐன்ஸ்டைனின் விதிகள் ந்யுட்டனின் விதிகள் செல்லாவிடத்து கையாளப்பட்டன. ஐன்ஸ்டைனின் விதிகள் வந்ததால் ந்யுட்டனின் விதிகள் செல்லா என்று யாரும் கூறவில்லை. பொதுப்படையாக நம் அன்றாட வாழ்க்கையில் நாம் கையாளும் விஷயங்களில் ந்யுடன் விதிகள் செல்லுபடியாகும்.

அத்வைத சித்தாந்தத்தில் இது போன்ற ஒரு நிலையே. பக்தியால் உலகில் பல காரியங்களைக் கட்டாயம் சாதிக்கமுடியும். எல்லாக் காரியங்களையும் சாதிக்க முடியாது. ஞான யோகம் இதனாலேயே அவசியம். முழு ஞானத்தில் திளைத்தவன் மீண்டும் பக்தி யோகத்துக்கு வரமாட்டான். வரவேண்டிய அவசியமுமில்லை. ஆனால் முழு ஞானம் அடைந்தவன் என்பது ஒரு தத்வவாதியைக் குறிப்பதில்லை. ஒரு மருந்து கடைக்காரன் பல மருந்துகளைப் அலறுக்கும் கொடுப்பதால் அவனுக்குள்ள வியாதி தீராது. அவனே மருந்து சாப்பபிடவேண்டும்.

லோகோத்தாரணரான ஆதிசங்கரர் தத்வ விசாரத்தில் மேம்பட்ட நிலையை ஆராய்ந்தார். அதே சமயத்தில் அவை எல்லோருக்கும் உகந்தவை அல்ல என்பதையும் உணர்ந்தார். இதனாலேயே பக்தி மார்க்கம். லோகாசார்யராக அவர் வந்ததால் முன்பின் முரணுக்கு இடமில்லை. ஆச்சார்யார் ஒரு மாணவனுக்கு முழு பாடத்தையும் கற்றுக்கொடுத்துவிட்டுத் திரும்ப மற்றவனுக்கு அடியிலிருந்து எடுத்து சொல்லிக்கொடுப்பதைப் போன்றது இது.

மேலும் சங்கரர் பல விஷயங்களில் தன போக்கில் சென்றிருக்கிறார் என்பது குறிப்பிடத் தக்கது. இவை குறைகள் அல்ல. அவர் ஓர் உண்மை அத்வைதியே.

ஒரு பொருள் இருக்கிறதா இல்லையா என்ற சந்தேகத்துடன் தேடுவதால் பலன் ஏற்படாது. திருஸ்ய லோகத்தில் இவ்வுண்மை புலப்படாமல் போகலாம். ஆனால் அதிருச்யமாக உள்ள விஷயங்களில் இது தெளிவாகும். கடவுள் இருக்கிறாரா இல்லையா என்று தெளிவுபடாதவர் என்றும் ஒரு தெளிவு நிலைக்கு வரார். சரித்திர ஆராய்ச்சிகளும், விஞ்ஞான சாதனைகளும், நம் குறுகிய அறிவுக்கே உகந்த பகுத்தறிவு வாதமும் துணையாகக் கொண்ட agnosicsகளுக்கு முழு உண்மை இது போன்ற விஷயங்களில் மட்டுமே உள்ள நம்பிக்கையால் அறியமுடியாமற் போகிறது.

The Bhagavatpada , who preached Advaita philosophy, also wrote hymns in praise of several deities which are emotional and dualistic. Is this consistent?

In Mechanics, a branch of Physics, the laws of Newton were in force for a long time. Calculations based on them fitted into the worldly circumstances. Einstein’s laws which followed were applied in cases where Newton’s laws failed. However, they did not disprove Newton’s laws. In our day-to-day world applications of Newton’s laws hold true.

A similar situation prevails in the Advaita philosophy of Sankara also. Several things are possible in this world through Bhakti but not all. The path of knowledge is essential only because of this. The one who has attained gnana does not return to Bhakti; he has no necessity either. But any philosopher cannot be said to have attained this Gnana. A pharmacist who is selling medicines will not get cured of his own disease unless he takes medicine himself.

While teaching Differential Equations, our Mathematics teacher advised us to assume the formulas. It served the purpose and I was able to solve differential equations quite easily. But, if my ambition in Mathematics was greater, I must have learnt the formulas better.

In religion also several things we are called upon to believe. The derivations are beyond many of us. The effect is what is important.

 

"The doctrine advocated by Sankara is, from a purely philosophical point of view, and apart from all theological considerations, the most important and interesting one which has arisen on Indian soil; neither those forms of the Vedanta which diverge from the view represented by Sahkara, nor any of the non-Vedahtic systems can be compared with the so-called orthodox Vedanta in boldness, depths and subtlety of speculation"

Thibaut

 

Sankara is as relevant today as when he had to counter the agnostic movements that questioned Sanatana Dharma (SD) rather successfully. SD had degenerated into rituals then. Today we have science (or rather incomplete appreciation of science) that questions all theistic faith. SD has slipped into attachment to a physical god and place of reward with a cornucopia of delightful literature and descriptions that are mind-enslaving. Truth is liberating and devotion is a step towards liberation, not attachment of any kind. We can meet the attack of science only through the method of knowledge. The way of Sankara only holds promise.

 

Takeaway from Sankara:

Seek the Truth.

Knowledge, obtained through wise people, reason and experience, is the only path to Truth.

 

Sankara might be wrong because he is so absolutely logical, and life is not logical!

 

SUNDRY

God is in what is.

*

A gnani becomes effulgent Dakshinamurthy radiating gnanam through penetrating and enlightening glance and pregnant and eloquent silence.

*

We are always in god. It is our ego which makes us feel that we are separate.

*

I am on the 'mystical' side where totality matters, not individuality; understanding matters not reason; silence matters not language; humans matter no more or no less than anything else that is a composite of life.

 

From the discourse of Swami Paramarthananda on Upanishads

(I have picked and grouped them.)

आत्मा

1.     Whatever can drop is not your original nature. Original nature cannot be dropped.

2.     Atma is self-evident, self-effulgent.

3.     'I am' is a statement of knowledge; anything predicative after 'I am' is false.

4.     We are not searchig for Atma. It can never be found by search either outside or inside as it is neither outside nor inside. Atma is me. Either i understand or I do not.

5.     Atma is not located, but obtains, in the heart. अन्तःकरणे सर्वसाक्षिरूपेण उपलभ्यते.

ब्रह्म

1.     ‘neti, neti’: Twice to indicate all. Why negation? Brahman is not available for positive definition.

2.     Unknown Brahman is bhaya karanam. Known Brahman is abhaya karanam.

 

प्रमाण

1.     90% of our knowledge comes through our eyes.

2.     Anubhava is powerful and is superior to anumana.

3.     Pratyaksha reveals the world, but not whether it is real or mithya. (Pratyaksha says star is small!) Vedanta does not negate Pratyksha, but our false conclusion of Satya.

4.     A pramana is a pramana if it produces new knowledge which cannot be negated. So Upanishad is pramana.

शास्त्र

5.     Vedanta talks of present samsara and present Moksha, not life after death.

6.     Sastras never believe that birth is accidental.

7.     Upanishads do not want to criticise karma and upasana totally as it will lead to dereliction which will prove disastrous as they are required for gnana yogyata. Vedanta will be academic. Scholar of Vedanta without character will be the result. Balanced vision is knowing both their relevance and limitations.

8.     Karma, devata, kala, svabhava are the four factors that influence life, but Karma is the basis and determines the other three.

ज्ञान मार्ग

1.     Sastra sravanam plus independent thinking lead to gnanam.

2.     Study of scriptures is not to know Atma, but to remove the superimposed duality in the ever evident Atma.

3.     Sravanam is grasping the central teaching of Vedanta through systematic analysis under a competent teacher.Mananam is confirmation of what has been learned in Sravanam.Nidhidhyasanam is dwelling upon the subject after removing all doubts.Sravanam removes agnana.Mananam removes intellectual obstacles.Nidhidhyasanam removes emotional obstacles.

4.     The efficacy of Upasana is directly proportional to the character of Upasaka.

5.     Upanishads or Karma Kanda do not teach dvaitam anywhere.

गुरु

1.     If a person does not teach from Sastram, he does not deserve to be a guru. He may be great, venerable, etc., but he is not qualified to guide. No seeker should ever follow somebody else's personal sadhana as persons differ. Sastram is more powerful than any Acharya. Sastram produces Acharya not vice versa.

 

मिथ्या

1.     Whatever is interconnected is mithya because interconnected implies interdependent, not independent. In other words, the conditional is mithya and the unconditional is satyam.

2.     Bhagawan has not created the world, but Jiva; so the world is ceaseless.

3.     The whole world is nothing but sound, form and function. Acc. to science. the universe is energy in movement.

4.     Maya is neither part of, nor different from, Brahman.

ज्ञानं

1.  ज्ञानात् न, ज्ञानं तु मोक्षः

2.  Vaikuntam is that from which kuntam (body) is gone

3.  ज्ञानं is intellectual knowledge. विज्ञानं is experiential knowledge.Words can give only intellectual knowledge, not experience.

ज्ञानि

1.     A Vedantin should not say, 'Nothing is in our hands.' (Sankara).

2.     Brahmavit from any Jati is superior to Jati Brahmana.

3.     Every sanyasi need not be a gnani. A gnanai need not be a sanyasi

4.  Gnani can never be equal to Iswara, only to Brahman.

 

‘Aham brahmasmi’

The cosmos is in each one of us.

The state of art theory says that the universe is expanding at a tearing speed. It creates new entities and also the old ones are collapsing. It all started from nothing or near nothing. That is precisely what happens in us. Our mind is expanding furiously all the time. The more it expands the more it seeks and it looks infinite and endless. 

It is now a matter of science that whatever we know, we know through the mind and we know nothing outside the mind. A truism, but not many get its import. Quantum mechanics threw a bombshell when it said that there is no objective reality unless someone has observed it. Not that it exists unobserved, it just does not exist. That is, I create the reality I observe. That reality is inextricable from me.  

 

 

Hinduism is for living this life, not really for securing an unknown life. Advaita clears us of the futility of seeking svarga and such transient or chimerical fruits.

Brahma satyam jaganmithya:  Looking at it differently, Brahman is defined as satyam. Jagat is what is perceived or observed. What we perceive is mithya, appearance. Its reality is not evident to the senses. But, there is a reality, which is Brahman.  

 

Maunam is the realised state of an individual consciousness when it has transcended all duality as i understand. I do not dispute, I strongly feel an affinity for, things like guru katAkaham, which is a powerful method of instruction, though it is far from any personal experience of mine. All I write is from a state of ignorance. But, I do have an idle yearning for truth.

Truth is in what we 'see'; if not, we can never know it. It is not in reason, a tool of the mind, but in our core being. I am attracted in what Katopanishad and another upanishad declare 'nAyamatma pravachnena labhyo, na medhayA, na bhunAsrutena.'

I feel that the one who has realised will not talk as he does not see another. It is dry theory to which my mind adheres.

I feel that we have to discard religion to pursue truth. Religion produces an attachment, which is a hindrance to truth.

 

November 24, 2014 ·

Buddhism is pure science.

Advaita is science plus faith.

Dwaita (or any shade of it) is pure faith.

 

October 7, 2014

No one can see the soul. Even a gnani does not see the soul, but sees as the soul.

 

I read a comment that advaita is transcendental. That is not true.

Advaita can be summed up as: ‘Whatever is’ is ‘IS’. Truth (Brahman) is not beyond the world, but is in fact in the world. You are not different from Brahman, but Brahman itself. How can this siddhanta be transcendental? It is other siddhantas which advocate transcendentalism. 

 

“Fix your gaze upon the light." Advaitam rejects religion in a sense. Religion – at least some of it – considers knowledge an impediment to understand God and demands blind faith. Advaita says categorically that only knowledge can free us.

 

"Soul is one, but appear as many. Multiplicity appears at the phenomenal level, but intrinsically, it is one and one only.” That is theory. It has no dialectical proof. The world and life are the only indicators. No other theory has any proof either. All belief is valid, but tentative and incumbent on faith. This theory is valid and universal.

 

If the Supreme Reality and the Atmans are really different from each other, and if there is only one Supreme Reality, but an infinite number of Atmans, how are we to explain the different creeds, the different religious practices and so on? No one religion, nay, nor the lack of it, has ever held sway over the entire humanity. How do we explain that there were glorious men born and gone, the traces of whose consciousness are not to revisit this earth? It stands to no reason that there should be a Kingdom of God and that there would be a Day of Judgement except to satisfy the ego. A religion founded on morals or to promote virtuousness in people is highly noble and nothing should be said or done to devalue it. But that is not its own justification.

 

A buffalo enjoys covering itself with mud. It is its nature and they say it allows it to manage the body temperature. No one can make it to change its ways, have a bath and remain clean.

 

We are part of nature carrying out its will in total agreement. The nature of truth as seen by the seers cannot make us abandon that nature and cease worldly action.

 

Some people criticize Advaitam arguing whether a gnani will acquire the powers of Iswara, like creation, destruction, etc. That does not arise. When you realize god in you and yourself in god, you do not seek to destroy the beautiful rhythm of the universe. On the other hand, so long as your desire is to rule others, not to compose, homogenise and integrate your consciousness, you are still full of ignorance and with such ignorance you cannot see the unity of Brahman and Atman. So long as you see the difference, you are in the whirlpool of samsara, tasting niceties and suffering cruelties. There is no emancipation from the tangle, from the birth-death-birth chain. 

 

Advaitam is the closest you get to on the basis of scripture, logic and experience, but it is not a theory of everything. If Brahman is indivisible and unique whole, why is there an observed world of variety? Maya is not an answer. Maya at best means ‘We are not permitted to know’ or “God only knows.’

 

The wiser we get, the more inscrutable god becomes.

 

All I know of the others is through me. It cannot be understood any better than my ability and quality would allow. If I improve my understanding, I will get to know better.

         

At the end of gnana, there must be enlightenment, not surrender.

 

Our knowledge is valid in the state we are in. As we pass into another state, the previous knowledge is modified appropriately, even replaced. It does not mean that our previous knowledge was wrong. The present knowledge also will change likewise. In this procession of states, progress is a deceptive word for it, Advaita is the ultimate. But, Advaita is also perfectible. To transcend purely logic-based knowledge we need 'grace' that does not mean a revelation or dispensation from some dogmatic assumption we have made, but a possible connection with what is the secret of existence.

Advaita too makes an assumption of Brahman that is the secret. Being in perfect knowledge, Brahman cannot be subject to a procession of states and different levels of knowledge. As the changing states cannot be outside or separate from Brahman, it beats understanding why this dichotomy.  Belief with reason would land us in realisation of Brahman when we shall be freed from all duality. That is the message in advaita.

 

A thorough analysis of evidence and scripture by itself does not lead to Brahman. Some other thing is required. We do not quite know what it is, but going through life as we find, while being intensely curious to find the identity is the way.

 

God is different from the forms and ideas in which we conceive him. The world is different from our world-view. The two – god and world – are not different.

*

Different concepts of soul as enumerated by Adi Sankara (He will refute each in its turn in his bhashya on Brahma Sutra, his magnum opus, that has earned critical acclaim universally.)

"The mere body endowed with the quality of intelligence is the Self;The organs endowed with intelligence are the Self;The internal organ is the Self;The Self is a mere momentary idea (Yogacara Buddhists);It is the Void (Madhyamika Buddhists).There is a transmigrating being different from the body, which is both agent and enjoyer;Being is enjoying only, not acting;In addition to the individual souls, there is an all-knowing, all-powerful Lord;The Lord is the Self of the enjoyer." (from Friends of Sankara group post)

 

Samadhi

29.3.99

Samadhi is different from santhosha. Any association is anathema to samadhi-it is a pure state of consciousness without ‘I’. Santhosha can come only in the differentiated state. This world is driven by emotions. The good and bad, the right and wrong, virtue and vice stand in balance. All the time we are aiming at tilting the balance in the way of good, right or virtue. A state of one-sided world where there will be only good, right or virtue is self-contradictory. Heaven or hell is thus not possible. Any enjoyment or suffering will be in this   world.

*

“So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.” (Genesis 1.23; O.T.)

This world is प्रातिभासिकसत्यं reflected reality i.e. reflection of Brahman – Advaita.

*

Belief must be compatible with knowledge. If not, it is superstition.

Belief is not a substitute for gaps in knowledge.

*

To those who argue for dualism under scripture, Sankara raises a pertinent issue: “If scripture reveals what is available in ordinary experience, what is the use of scripture?” That question answers why scripture reveals Advaita only and that only through scripture, we can realise it.

What about so and so who did not get realization through scripture? That is not in our direct experience. It may be explained by vasanas from previous birth by some. Tagore hated the regimentation of a school and discontinued it, but blossomed into a literary genius and a Nobel Laureate. That does not mean that all schools must be closed. To wait for realisation to happen by itself is fatalistic and is not a preferred route. Nothing happens by itself as bolt from the blue. Even Einstein’s insights came on the back of knowledge that was available in his time. The idea of soul has been around and we picked up from the generally available belief or knowledge, not intuitively in a vacuum.

I read an anecdote. Kanchi Acharya was confronted by an atheist. Acharya asked him what he wanted to say. He ridiculed his teaching and said that there was no basis for it. The Acharya heard him patiently and asked him, ‘You are going in this road. Where does this go?’ He said, ‘It goes to Viluppuram and up to Kanyakumari.’ Acharya asked him, ‘Have you gone that way?’ He replied, ‘No, but those who have gone that way have said.’ Acharya said, ‘That is what I am also doing. Those who have gone in this spiritual route have said it and I am following what they have said.’

Scripture is the documented wisdom of the realized souls and the guide to Advaita and realisation.

“The principal means to self-knowledge is the study of Scripture to which reflection and meditation are auxiliaries, and calmness, restraint, etc. serve as the modus operandi.” (Dr T M P Mahadevan quoting Vivarana-Prameya-Sangraha)

 

 

Is Sankara supreme or knowledge supreme?

I think that Sankara would have answered ‘Knowledge.’

In trying to understand, if we have to go beyond Sankara, we have to. That is hypothetical. That is only to make the point that there is only one way to follow Sankara – the way of knowledge. We cannot say, ‘Sankara said so’, as some people would say, ‘Krishna said so.’ Whoever said, it must be based on knowledge. Across systems, testimonial knowledge is admissible, but it should not contradict direct knowledge.

It helps if we can approach the subject from different viewpoints and vindicate our conclusion instead of only turning to Sruti, bhashyas, karikas, etc.

 

Existence is the only cause for existence.

 

तुरीयं = सामान्य-चैतन्यं = आत्मा = ब्रह्म = अहम्

I read in a novel, "By experience, we find out a short way by long wandering."

Perhaps Vedanta does it.

The quest in Vedanta is to find what abides among an overwhelming scene of constantly changing appearances.

A thought experiment into the three states of wakefulness, dream and deep sleep leads the seeker to identify a substratum of consciousness which prevails in all states (turiyam); if not, the integrity and continuity of an individual is untenable.* Experience necessitates assuming continuity. The search for the identity of an individual yields a basic consciousness common to all existence, not to be mixed up with the acquired consciousness like human consciousness, which is developed by superimpositions. In deep sleep, all that is revealed in the other two states is absent because the superimpositions are dormant. I slept like a log of wood, we say. Our consciousness collapses to the basic state, common with that of the wood, a difficult proposition to understand from our 'advanced' consciousness. Thus we have the idea of Atma as pure consciousness.

What is God? Steering clear of belief systems, God is reality - and reality is existence. 'Sat' is the word which means real and that which IS. Samaya-chaitanyam (chit) is the nature of Sat. We call it Brahman.

Then comes the lesson that 'I' (aham) is Atma and not different from Brahman. That is the long equation in the beginning. And Vedanta deals with it in different ways.

 

November 30, 2018 ·

The search for a unified theory of everything is perhaps adumbrated here:

(Mundakopanishad): Saunaka, a good householder, asks Angirasa, “कस्मिन्नु भगवो विज्ञाते सर्वमिदं विज्ञातं भवतीति।। Sir, what is that which, if it is known, everything else becomes known?”

It is not the point that the Upanishadic quest and the modern scientific thought have had the same build-up, but that in the belief and longing to know a unity that will explain every observed fact there is semblance. I feel that human minds have an uncanny kinship across distance and time.

A friend sent this link which is interesting:

HINDUISM.CO.ZA

http://www.hinduism.co.za/hinduism.htm?fbclid=IwAR1WATS5lN490YipX50J18T5vPj0h6er0d6d1JKAI87y4urCpsPTVcwLX5w

 

April 12, 2016 ·

One more controversial post:

I view ithihasa and purana as stories to inculcate values and devotion, as exhaustive and wonderful parables. That way, I resolve the inconsistencies and ethical issues that arise in the error-prone mind while reading them. I am no one to say about their ‘reality.’

Upanishads do not talk of any personal god (Paramacharya has pointed out two instances where they do, Katopanishad and Swetaswatara Upanishad, and they are not central to the ideas advanced).

Even Upanishads throw light on the path to Truth (Brahman), not on Brahman which cannot be illuminated by anything else. It will be like holding candle to the sun.

Brihadaranyaka Upanishad: ‘येनेदं सर्वं विजानाति तं केन विजानीयात्?’ ‘Through what should one know That because of which all this is known?’

 

January 28, 2015 ·

Siddhartha and The Razor’s Edge are two novels written with Buddhism and Vedanta as inspiration. The two protaganists in the novels make it appear that it is in order to indulge in sense experience for a liberated person. That is far from the idea of liberation. Spirituality looks beyond what senses can appreciate or enjoy and neither Buddhism nor Vedanta suggest that even unattached indulgence (as if such an oxymoron were a reality) is part of the delivered state. They do not look down upon sensory pursuits, but away from them. The mindset of liberation is alien to the Westerners.

 

Bhakti is emotional engagement; Gnanam is emotional disengagement. One may choose as one wishes. Advaitam is about Gnanam – bhakti is integral to dvaitam and incidental in Advaitam. 

 

Advaita does not offer any help in understanding the phenomenal world. That knowledge comes under apara vidya and Advaita (Upanishads) is about para vidya. Sankara says in so many words that Upanishads are not the pramana for apara vidya. Vedanta is relevant for "aspirants for release who are free from passion for objects seen or heard of (= of this or the other world)".

 

The phenomenal world is conditional reality – recent science describes it as a post-singularity evolution. Science also speculates that there could be worlds with different conditions. Vedanta vichara is about unconditional reality, which Sankara sets forth with the aid of scripture, logic and experience (intuition).

 

When we examine and reject many adjuncts and attributes of the worldly life as not of the essence of the self (Atma), what remains is pure self, naked as it were. It is the pure self which is the only reality and there is neither Sankara nor Upanishads then, neither you, nor I (identified with body-mind-intellect) nor the world (the world cannot be there as the means of perception have been dropped). This textual declaration is not gnanam per se. How one wishes it were so making each one of us a gnani!

 

Both Gita and a sloka ascribed to Sankara reckon with the fact that few are inclined to gnanam.

^ मनुष्याणां सहस्रेषु कश्चिद्यतति सिद्धये | यततामपि सिद्धानां कश्चिन्मां वेत्ति तत्त्वत: || 7.3||

manuṣhyāṇāṁ sahasreṣhu kaśhchid yatati siddhaye

yatatām api siddhānāṁ kaśhchin māṁ vetti tattvataḥ

Among thousands of persons, someone tries for siddhi; and among those who try for siddhi, one knows me really.

^ pare brahmani kopi na saktah

No one is interested in the Para Brahman.

 

Salvation is perhaps the goal of dvaita systems which are numerous. Attainment is deprecated in Advaita. There is nothing new to attain, but need to clear the cobwebs (selfish pursuits of objects) and realise the state of oneness, ‘no-other’ness. That looks very dry and pointless to minds that seek variety and fulfilment. Advaita has no answers to those who want to succeed in mundane life, nor does it promise a reward like a hunky dory life here or hereafter. It simply offers knowledge (gnana) as a desirable state. That is appealing in a very worldly sense, but knowledge here is not like, say, what science aims at. It is knowledge away from the glare and glory of physical life.

 

The postulate that there is Atman and Brahman, which are one and the same, comes from scripture, and I do not think that it would dawn on someone isolated from all suggestion of it. But, that accepted, Advaita wants one to use yukti (reason) and anubhava (experience) to vet it.

 

I was reading Adhyasa explained by Swami Sachidananda Sarswathi, in question/answer fashion, the questions being very pointed and what would occur to any ‘rational’ person. I must confess that I did not grasp all the answers, but in the end Swami says that intuition is the sustaining force for the reality of Atman/Brahman (somewhat Kantian, as Will Durant says in his tribute to Sankara).

 

It is my belief that Advaita cannot be derived from only rational considerations if by rational we mean just reason as applied to objective knowledge. These things cannot be sorted out by mere textual learning and logical precision. It must come from within and I feel sure, I cannot explain why, that it will come to an ardent seeker.

 

1st Feb. 2010

There is only one choice: Be happy as you are.

There is only one choice: Do whatever you are capable of.

There is only one choice: Do not expect anything.

There is only one choice: Be a witness whatever happens, pleasant or unpleasant.

This is the wisdom of Vedanta.

 

 

THEY SAID SO

 

“The Upanishads do not teach any particular doctrine. They teach various doctrines suited to different people at different stages of spiritual evolution. They are not contradictory, but based on the principle of individual fitness for receiving a truth (adhikaribheda). The aspirants are taken step by step to the ultimate truth, from dualism to qualified monism and finally to monism. ‘That thou art’ is the last word of the Upanishads in religion.” Swami Vireswarananda.

 

“This perfect state must be one without desire, because desire implies a lack: whatever action the jlvan mukta or spiritual freeman performs must therefore be of the nature of manifestation, and will be without purpose or intention.

The Mahabharata says, 'He who considers himself a doer of good and evil knows not the truth.'

It is not by non-participation but by non-attachment that we live the spiritual life.

The world itself is manifestation and not the handiwork of the Absolute.

The virtue of the action of those who are free beings lies in the complete coordination of their being—body, soul and spirit, the inner and outer man at one.

The most perfect love seeks nothing for itself, requiring nothing, and offers nothing to the beloved, realizing her infinite perfection which cannot be added to.”

Ananda Coomaraswamy

 

“Shankara and Ramanuja are the two great thinkers of the Vedanta, and the best qualities of each were the defects of the other. Shankara’s apparently arid logic made his system unattractive religiously. Ramanuja’s beautiful stories of the other world, which he narrates with the confidence of one who has personally assisted at the origination of the other world, carry no conviction. Shankara’s devastating dialectic, which traces all- God, man and the world- to one ultimate consciousness causes not a little curling of the lips in the followers of Ramanuja.” Dr. S Radhakrishnan

 

भक्त्यर्थं कल्पितं द्वैतं अद्वैतादपि सुन्दरं I Madhusudana Saraswathi.

Dvaita is not real, but enables bhakthi, which is blissful. (Swami Paramarthananda).

 

"Viveka Choodamani says, ‘Absolutely poor, but full of happiness; no army behind but infinitely strong; no experience of sense satisfaction, but always happy; none equal to him, but feels all to be his equals.’ Ramana Maharishi fits in this description.” Swami Ranganathananda.

*

The nobel laureate answers "If the universe is fleeting, how is all of the stuff that we do worth doing?"

That’s a huge thing that I’ve wrestled with in the course of writing this book, and I don’t think I came to a solid conclusion. It’s different from a personal death, because people think about their own death and they think, well, I’ll live on in some way through my children or my great works, or just the impact I had on the people around me. There will be some legacy to my existence in some way. But if it’s the whole cosmos that’s ending, that is no longer true. I think there’s a point at which you did not matter. And I don’t think we have the emotional or philosophical tools to wrestle with that.

 

Niggling reservations about Advaita

The world is illusion. It is mostly space (nothing), and the characters and incidents are impermanent. A little thinking makes us appreciate this fact. But, our life, however short, meaningless or illusory it may be, is in this illusory world. We have to cope with it. Advaita is a good stance from which we can manage it better, but we have to manage it. We cannot treat it as trash.

Our relationships are incidental and evanescent. But, they matter so long as they last. We have to care for it. We cannot be aloof. We must partake in joys and sorrows with maturity.

The body is significant and must be taken care of. The soul has to be realized, it does not require to be taken care of. We must do all that it takes to tend the body and keep it fit.

Sankara advocates fiercely sanyasa for liberation. That is understandable. Liberation by definition calls for snapping ties with what is insubstantial. But, the division of life into learning, earning, withdrawing and giving up totally makes better sense than jumping to giving up after learning.

Sankara stresses knowledge of scripture outside in (sravanam, mananam, nidhidhyasanam of BU) as vital for gnanam. Does it mean that one cannot get it from his inner self, which is nothing but Brahman? Will it not weaken the case of Brahman?

Does he possibly address the multitude which left to itself will move in the rut of samsara and not turn to the inward eye?

 

Is Advaita a philosophy born of despair?

 

February 14, 2014

'I am Brahman'

If 'I am Brahman', then why do I not realise it? Is it perhaps like even though all atoms have enormous power, for a nuclear device we have to use U232 or plutonium? (That is, only a person who has attained a critical level of enlightenment can realise it.)

*

Can animals attain Mukti? Mukti is relevant to a Mumukshu. Without Mumukshutvam, Mukti is not possible. Can an animal be a Mumukshu? I do not know. A gnani may know.

But, gnana is that state where no distinctions are possible. So, a gnani talking of Mukti to an animal may not bother about such intellectual excess.

*

A kutarka vada (perverse argument)

If the Soul Supreme (pure consciousness without attachment to physical and mental states and deeds and rewards) sheds light to enable the active soul (jiva) to do what it does, and remains as passive witness, is IT not an abettor and an accomplice?

Advaita does well to discredit the idea of creation by god, and explain creation as an inexpressible and evanescent appearance of no place in paramarthic sense. But in being the source of the apparent worldly strife (for nothing can be outside IT), how can IT avoid being tainted?

*

In a way, we start with scripture (a pramana many may not accept) and end in intuition (which seems to leave us where we started).

*

Advaita 

Sankara

Sankara bids us to seek the truth. The path to truth is knowledge. The sources for knowledge are saying of the wise, reason and experience. Truth is bliss and freedom.

That is the essence of Sankara. The more I read him through his authentic works explained by parmagataas, the more does it fill my mind with clarity and awe about his candour and perspicacity. 

We have many works attributed to him and many myths. Each latches on to one or invents a new one.

Sankara's method was at a time when science as we know now was non-existent. Einstein at the start of the last century propounded his theory on top of an explosive scientific knowledge by thought experiments and mathematics and his views border on the metaphysical and mirror the Upanishads.

The truth of Einstein's theory is not vitiated by his personal life or actions incongruous with his theory. 

You have to size up a man as to harmony in thought, word and action when you have a worldly dealing with him. If you want to examine his views, you must adopt Sankara's methodology - What have the wise to say? Does it stand up to reason? Is it felt by me in some way? It may fail any one of these and you may give up. But, not based on some apocryphal, even if adopted to drive home a point, story. In this story, the point the writer conveys is not valid.

*

Swami Sarvapriyananda said this in a talk. His guru asked him to read Sankara Bhashya. He expressed his apprehension that it would be difficult to follow Sankara. The guru told him that of all bhashyakaras (exegesists), Sankara was the easiest to follow.

Swami Paramarthananda said in a disourse, ‘Sankara does not say so elaborately as I do. He is very precise and crisp.’

*

Is Sankara supreme or knowledge supreme? 

I think that Sankara would have answered ‘Knowledge.’

In trying to understand, if we have to go beyond Sankara, we have to. That is hypothetical. That is only to make the point that there is only one way to follow Sankara – the way of knowledge. We cannot say, ‘Sankara said so’, as some people would say, ‘Krishna said so.’ Whoever said, it must be based on knowledge. Across systems, testimonial knowledge is admissible, but it should not contradict direct knowledge. 

It helps if we can approach the subject from different viewpoints and vindicate our conclusion instead of only turning to Sruti, bhashyas, karikas, etc.

*

Maya

We see the rainbow in the horizon for a while, but it disappears. The rainbow is not a snake in the rope or water in the mirage or silver in the seashell. It is in a manner of speaking ‘real’. The rainbow is like a bow, but not anybody’s bow as our ancestors thought. It has something to do with rain, but its nature has nothing to do with rain. It is the same light that we see everywhere, but dispersed by the refracting medium. In other words, the rainbow is nothing but light that appears differently but fleetingly.

The world is likewise a virtual reality appearing different from Brahman, but not any different; it is the distorting (refracting) medium of our outward-looking senses that presents the world as not Brahman.

*

Everyone knows the equation: E = mc^2. But, it requires technology and huge effort to convert matter to energy. We know superficially Aham Brahmasmi or Tatvamasi. But we require the technology of Vedanta and arduous effort of sravanam, mananam and nidhidhyasanam for realization.

*

Reality is ineffable.

When I read this, I was reminded of the relevance of scripture to realisation. Scripture is useless after realisation when words fail. 

Wittgenstein’s famous last words in the Tractatus:

“My propositions are elucidatory in this way: he who understands me finally recognizes them as senseless, when he has climbed out through them, on them, over them. (He must so to speak throw away the ladder, after he has climbed up on it.)

He must surmount these propositions; then he sees the world rightly.

Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.”

*

न तत्र चक्षुर् गच्छति न वाग् गच्छति नॊ मनः ।

Immanuel Kant: Language is an insufficient medium for capturing the ‘manifoldness, order, purposiveness, and beauty’ of the world; the only appropriate response to these wonders is ‘a speechless, but nonetheless eloquent, astonishment’.

Søren Kierkegaard: Humans are trapped in the ‘ultimate paradox of thought’, wanting to discover things ‘that thought itself cannot think’.

Friedrich Nietzsche: Truth is akin to an army of metaphors on the march – a host of powerful illusions, which we humans have forgotten are illusions.

Schrodinger: The difficulties of language are not negligible.

*

My take away from Advaita

1. World is in a state of constant flux and it appears real because it is based on reality or is a reflection of reality.

2. Differences and opposites mark the virtual world which is perishable, but at the spiritual level there is absence of such distinctions. We are essentially equal with one another and the apparent differences are non-essential.

3. There can be no proof for soul through the senses and direct perception. It has to be gained by testimonial evidence obtained through a knowledge person (guru who is a realised soul.)

4. It is possible for us to realise that spiritual oneness (ONE-ness).

5. Knowledge is the only way to empowerment and enlightenment.

6. Our liberation is not a geographic, temporal or material achievement, but attainment of knowledge proper.

7. This life is useful and complete and looking for completion outside it is vain.

8. It is an individual effort and the attainment is personal. In other words, it does not transform the world that goes on as mithya, not a substantial reality. The mithya world remains after an individual has attained gnana.

9. Adi Sankara is a huge inspiration. His works give clarity and direction. He is remarkable for insight, depth of learning, lucidity and crispness of expression vibrancy of action and relentlessness in pursuit of truth based not only on scripture but in conjunction with reason and experience. He demystifies religion from miracles and mythology, and makes spirituality secular in the path of the Upanishads.

10. There is Ananda in the very participation in groups like Friends of Advaita, but real gnana is not textual, but experiential.

*

 ‘I am all that is there.’

‘I am nothing before all that is there.’

Keep these two ideas in mind while being sane and stable. That is enlightenment.

*

Advaita Aphorisms!

Gnanam is for jignasu and moksham for mumukshu.

Gnanam is internalised knowedge of Atma (para vidya), unconcerned with solving the riddles of the world of perception (apara vidya).

Gnanam is not coexistent with worldly desires.

Gnanam = Moksham.

Mithya is anirvachaneeyam; neither real nor unreal; in sense perception and passing.

The world does not disappear at any stage to anyone, but fails to excite a realized person.

Advaita is not about a special state, but about the ordinary state.

The Advaitic consciousness is universal consciousness, not the evolved human consciousness (superimpositions).

Whatever is born or attained will be perishable.

Realisation is an individual attempt, not a social or macro objective.

There is no immortality of an individual viewed as ego. The identity of an ego-individual is mithya.

 

 

 

 

I picked this up from the post of MCC on Adhyasa for manana.

“Like memory it is just an appearance (āvabhāsaḥ) elsewhere of something seen earlier (smṛtirūpaḥ paratra pūrva dṛṣṭa-āvabhāsaḥ).”

Mithya has been controversial.

It is interesting that Sankara equates it with memory.

How good is memory?

Memory is carry over of an impression. Memory cannot be any truer than the impression gathered.

How good is the impression?

I read in books about brain, sight, etc. that our senses pick up some, not all, details of a ‘fact’ or ‘incident’, and make up by comparing with the previous impressions and give a picture. The complexity of simple vision is amazing. We are familiar with a picture which can be viewed as that of a young lady or an old woman. We have also come across passages which we can read easily with several letters missing. I have also read in an article how our brain is wired from a particular pwspective (to fend for food, fight adversity and procreate). In other words, the ‘perception’ is an approximation, not a replica; it is biased, not neutral. Therefore, the impression is not even a virtual image of an exact ‘fact’.

I read that what we experience and what we remember are not identical, that there is an experiencing brain and a narrating brain. This implies that memory is not of something that was experienced, but of some interpretation that remained.

Our knowledge of the ‘world’ is a summation of such memories. Its reality is at least inexact.

‘Mithya’ is an interplay of the sense and the sense objects, both of which are changing and perishable. The continuity and persistence of the experience is a trick of made up memory, not a feature of the experiencing self.

This is just a thought, not an upshot.

Language and logic are useful in defining what to look for. They are essentially tools of dualism and structured to relate and differentiate. We need to know what is real and appreciate that the changing views produce by the senses are unreal. Language and logic take us to that point. After that, we need grace, not something outside us, but something which is in us – which is us.

Language is a self-perpetuating and endless maze like an irrational number with endless decimals. Logic fails when there is nothing to compare.

I get this bent of mind from the experience of Vivekananda who went on asking questions until he came to Ramakrishna Paramahamsa. He perhaps gor no answer, but got enlightenment. Such experience is seen with Brunton and others who went to Ramana and the need to ask the questions did not arise.

Sruti is incontrovertible because the Seers got that insight directly and therefore Sruti Vakyas guide us authentically to that Reality which is in us and not outside.  

Mar 15, 2006

Chaya and Maya

Shadow and illusion.

Shadow has a reality behind. Illusion is imaginary totally. Is maya real or imaginary?

We are part of a whole. Since the whole is indivisible, the appearance of our being part is postulated as maya.

 

 

6.1.82

 

ADVAITHA is assertion that eternal truth is an indivisible and integral whole which transcends human comprehension.

It is possible to strive slowly to get a glimpse of the eternal truth and from there ascend the commanding heights of objective perception to feel the essence of the Mahat, and the inseparable unity of the spirit, without you, I and he, she or it. This demands rigorous training and right initiation - renunciation of all that flesh is heir to.

The spirit is more of the character of consciousness. An inanimate thing is inferior to the animate only in its lack of consciousness. Even though animate, plants are inferior to animals because they are insentient almost. Human beings rank above animals only so far as they exhibit consciousness in a higher degree. The more mature the consciosness, the more developed is the human being. The spirit of man, the soul, is not an entity in the same sense the body is one. It is a concept, and philosophy is at pains to delineate its attributes.

 

 

*****

Advaitha is an ideal. It is a theory perhaps comparable to Einstein's theory of relativity in physics. But it is abstract. It does not matter to us that the spitit is in an illusoty tangle of multiplicity. The consciousness appears varied and experience suggests duality during the only existence we are sure of. Life as it appears, even if it is a maya, demands that this distinction be realised while one is engaged in pursuit of progress.

*****