SECTIONS 18-23
PHILOSOPHY OF
ADVAITA VEDANTA
AS EXPOUNDED IN
THE UPANISHADS
(N.B. For the
sake of continuity of presentation,
certain ideas
will get repeated in this Part.)
Section 18 –
Enquiry into Atma – Methodology
There are
various methods adopted by the Upanishads to reveal the Consciousness
aspect of
Brahman and to show that while this original consciousness cannot be
objectified, it
can be recognised as the witness-consciousness behind the mind
a. The known is
not yourself. This method is called “Drk Drsya Viveka”. . Whatever
you perceive or
know as an object cannot be yourself, because you are the ultimate
witness or
subject and no object can be the subject. Cf. Brhadaranyaka Upanishad
III.8.xi - (Also
III.vii.23) – “Verily, this Absolute, O Gargi, is never seen, but It is the
Seer; It is
never heard but It is the Hearer; It is never thought but It is the Thinker; It
is never known
but It is the Knower. 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.”
(Sankaracarya’s
commentary – “Being the consciousness Itself, It is not an object of
the intellect.”)
Brhadaranyaka Upanishad III.4.ii - “…… ‘Tell me precisely about that
Brahman only
which is immediate and direct – the Atma that is within all’ ‘ This is
your Atma that
is within all.’ ‘Which is that within all, Yagnavalkya?’ ‘You cannot see
the Seer of the
seer ( the witness of the vision), you cannot hear the Hearer of the
hearer, you
cannot think the Thinker of the thinker, you cannot know the Knower of
the knower. This
is your self that is within all. Everything besides this is unreal
(mithya)….”
Kenopanishad II.2.- “ I don’t say that I know Brahman nor do I say
that I don’t
know Brahman. I know and do not know as well. He among us who
understands that
utterance ‘not that I do not know, I know and I do not know’,
knows that
Brahman Kenopanishad II.3 - “ He who says that he does not know (
Brahman) knows;
he who claims that he knows ( Brahman) does not know……It is
unknown to those
who know and known to those who do not know ( The meaning
of these
intriguing Mantras is that that the atma, the original consciousness, cannot
become the
object of the pramata. The example just as fire cannot be consumed by
thee consuming
fire. Pramata is antahkarana cum reflected consciousness. How can
reflected
consciousness illumine its source? It being the original consciousness Itself,
there cannot be
dependence on another consciousness, just as light does nor depend
on another
light. But as it is said in Kenopanishad II.4, Brahman (atma, the original
consciousness)
is “pratibhotaviditam” – Brahman or Atma is the consciousness
recognized as
the witness of all cognitions. In this connection we can also refer to
the discussion
in Sankaracarya’s introduction to his commentary on Brahmasutra,
where he refutes
an opponent who says that study of Sastra is futile. The opponent’s
argument is ‘if
Brahman is known, there is no need to study Sastra and if Brahman is
unknown, no
definition or description of an unknown thing is possible.
Sankaracarya’s
answer is that Brahman is neither totally unknown nor totally known.
No one denies
that he exists and that he is a conscious being. Thus, the
consciousness
that is the real I is known , but we are under the spell of the ignorance
that we are
limited individuals. It is necessary to study Sastra to understand that we
are Brahman, the
infinite Existence-Consciousness-Infinite.
b. Inward
enquiry. Another method is “ Panca Kosa Viveka” which we learn in
Taittiriya
Upanishad Brahmananda valli. It talks of “aannamaya kosa” corresponding
to the sthoola
sarira, “I” corresponding to that part of the sukshma sarira consisting
of the five
vital airs – prana, apana, vyana, udana, and samana – together with the
five organs of
action (karmendriyas), “manomaya kosa” corresponding to that part of
the sukshma
sarira consisting of mind, i.e.,. the faculty that receives stimuli from the
outer world
through the organs of peception (jnanendriyas) and which is the seat of
emotions and
feeling, together with the five organs of perception (jananendriyas).
“vijanamaya
kosa” corresponding to that part of the sukshma sarira consisting of the
intellect,,
i.e., the deciding faculty as well as that which creates a sense of doership
(ahamkara),
together with the jananendriyas ( - the mind and the intellect are really
two aspects of
the same thinking faculty; the nature of the intellect is cognition and
of the mind
volition.), and “anandamaya kosa” corresponding to the karana sarira of
the seep sleep
state in which a person experiences ignorance and bliss.. The kosas
are introduced
one after the otter as Atma. First, the Upanishad describes the
annamaya kosa
and says it is Atma. Then, saying that there is something interior and
subtler than
that, namely pranamaya kosa, negates the annamaya kosa (that is,
dismisses it,
saying that it is not Atma – it is anatma) and so on, until it negates even
anandamaya,
describing its parts as “priya”, moda” and “promoda” which are grades
of experienced
happiness and, ultimately, reveals the ultimate conscious principle
and avers that
that is Atma, Brahman.
c. The constant
consciousness of the waking, dream and deep sleep states
(i)Another
method which we learn from Mandukya Upanishad is “Avasthatraya
Viveka”. This
Upanishad deals with the waking state ( “jagrat awastha”), the dream
state ( “ swapna
awastha”) and the deep sleep state ( sushupti awastha”) and
establishes that
the consciousness that is Atma or Brahman is constantly there in all
the three
states, the jagrat, the swapna and the sushupti awasthas, as the constant
conscious
principle. It is only in the presence of Atma that, in jagrat avastha, the
mind which is
part of the apparent creation perceives, with the aid of the reflected
consciousness,
the apparent external world; it is in the presence of the Atma that, in
swapna avastha,
when the mind itself has become the dream world, the dream world
is witnessed by
the Atma through cidabhasa. In the sushupti awastha , though the
mind is
resolved, the Atma continues as the unchanging witness ( sakshi caitanyam);
the absence of
experience and absence of mental activity and feeling of happiness
are registered
in the dormant ahamkara , to be recalled by the active ahamkara on
waking up (and
we say “I did not know anything; I slept happily”.
(ii) In this
connection we can refer to the following passage in “Upadesa Sahasri” of
Sankaracarya: -
The disciple is asking “But at no time Your Holiness, have I ever seen
pure consciousness
or anything else”. The teacher answers , “ Then you are seeing in
the state of
deep sleep; for you deny only the seen object, not the seeing. I said that
your seeing is
pure consciousness. That [ eternally] existing one by which you deny [
the existence of
the seen object] when you say that nothing has been seen, [ that
precisely] is
the seeing, that is pure consciousness. Thus as [It] does not depart
[from you] [Its]
transcendental changelessness and eternity are established solely by
Itself without
depending upon any means of knowledge.” The pupil said, “….And
there is no
apprehender different from this apprehender to apprehend it.”
(iii) That
consciousness continues even during the deep sleep state when all
instruments of
knowledge including the mind are dormant is expressed poetically in
Brhadaranyaka
Upanishad IV.iii.23 to 30 – “ That It does not see, smell, taste, speak,
hear, think.
touch, or know is because although seeing, smelling, tasting, speaking,
hearing,
thinking, touching and knowing then (the reference is to the continued
presence of the
original consciousness as witness of the non-functioning mind) it
does not see,
smell, taste, speak, hear, think, touch or know (the reference is to the
fact that since
ahamkara is dormant, there is no experience of an external world of
objects or an
internal dream world. It is only when the sense organs and mind are
functioning that
one perceives an external world of objects and it is only when the
mind is active,
even though the sense organs are dormant, that one sees a dream
world) ; for the
vision of the witness can never be lost, because it is imperishable( -
the reference is
to the fact that the original consciousness is eternal – there is no
interruption in
the presence of the original consciousness as the witness of the mind,
whether the
latter is active or dormant. ). But there is not that second thing separate
from it, which
it can see. ( i.e., since the mind cum cidabhasa are dormant, there is no
triputi and
there is no particular experience.)”
Section 19
–Brahman as Bliss
1. Brahman is
described as Sat Cit Ananda. Ananda is translated in English as Bliss.
But the word
ananda used to define Brahman’s nature, does not refer to experiential
happiness. It
should be equated with anantatvam i.e. infinitude – infinitude not only
space wise, but
time wise and entity-wise – indicated by the word “anantam’
occurring in the
Taittiriya Upanishad mantra II.i – “ Satyam Jnanam Anantam
Brahma”. This
anantatvam (or poornatvam) is reflected in the pure, calm mind of a
Jnani who has
identified himself with the infinite nature Brahman. And so, he has a
sense of utter
fulfilment and such a sense, we can say, is supreme happiness. Thus,
we have to
distinguish between “swaroopa ananda”, ananda as the nature of
Brahman and
“kosa ananda”, the ananda experienced by a jnani. (The ananda
experienced by a
jnani is unconditional happiness. happiness experienced by others
is conditional
and graded.) The word ananda to define Brahman is used as such in
some places in
the Upanishads.–Brhadaranyaka Upanishad III.ix.28 (7) –“vijanam
anandam Brahma
....parayanam tishtam anasya tat vida’ (“Knowledge, Bliss,
Brahman
......the supreme goal of him who has realised Brahman and is established in
It.”- Taittiriya
Upanishad III.vi.1 – “anando brahma iti vijanat” (“He knew Bliss as
Brahman”).
Taittiriya Upanishad II.v.1– “ananda atma” (“Bliss is Atma” ,i.e.,
Brahman)
Taittiriya Upanishad II.vii – “ ko hi eva anyat pranat yat esha akasa
(Brahman) ananda
na syat” (“Who indeed will inhale, who will exhale, if this Bliss be
not there in the
supreme space within the heart) - Taittiriya UpanishadII.iv.1 and
II.ix.1 –
“anandam bramano vidwan na vibheti kadacaneti - kudascaneti” (“The
enlightened man
is not afraid of anything after realising that Bliss that is Brahman”)
Chandogya
VII.xxiii.1 “yo vai bhooma tat sukham” (“ The Infinite alone is Bliss”). –
Brhadaranyaka
IV.iii.32 “Esha Brahmalokah....esha asya parama anandah. Eta
anandasya anya
bhootani matram upajivati” (“This is the state of Brahman....This is
Its supreme
bliss. On a particle of this very bliss other beings live.”) Kathopanishad
II.ii.14 refers
to Brahman as supreme bliss (“paramam sukham.”) . Kaivalya
Upanishad 6
refers to Brahman as consciousness and bliss (“cidanandam “).
2. The ananda
which a Jnani derives from his sense of utter fulfilment or
desirelessness
is brought out in certain places in the Upanishads. In the “Ananda
mimamsa” portion
in Taittiriya Upanishad ( Chapter II, Valli 2, anuvaka 8 and in
Brhadaranyaka
Upanishad mantra IV.iii.33, it is equated with the absence of desire
for the
happiness available in the highest world, the plane of Hiranyagarbha, which
is the highest
plane of the vyavaharika satyam. In Taittiriya Upanishad Chapter 2,
Valli 2, anuvaka
7 (mantra 2), the name for Brahman is “ rasah”. “Rasah”, in Sanskrit,
in such contexts
is the synonym for ananda . The mantra says, “The One described as
Self Created
(i.e. Unborn) in the previous mantra, is indeed rasah (ananda
swaroopam).
Attaining that rasa (identifying himself with that ananda, the Brahman)
the jivatma
becomes anandi (enjoys supreme happiness.).
3. The logic of
saying that Brahman’s nature is Ananda is contained in Brhadaranyaka
Upanishad in the
second chapter, fourth section, fifth Mantra. Here, Yajnavalkya tells
Maitreyi, his
wife ( who is such an expert in Vedic lore that she carries on a long and
wonderful debate
with her husband who is a Jnani) “ Verily the husband is dear ( to
the wife ) not
for the sake of the husband, my dear, but it is for her own sake that he
is dear. Verily
the wife is dear ( to the husband) not for the sake of the wife, my dear,
but it is for
his own sake that she is dear. Verily sons are dear ( to parents) not for
the sake of the
sons, my dear, but it is for the sake of the parents themselves that
they are dear.
Verily wealth is dear not for the sake of wealth, my dear, but it is for
one’s own sake
that it is dear. ……..verily worlds are dear not for the sake of the
worlds, my dear,
but it is for one’s own sake. Verily gods are dear not for the sake of
gods, my dear,
but it is for one’s own sake that they are dear. Verily beings are dear
not for the sake
of beings, my dear, but it is for one’s own sake that they are dear.
Verily all is
dear not for the sake of all, my dear, but it is for one’s own sake that all is
dear………” The
argument is that everyone ultimately loves only oneself and all
other love is
only because it subserves the primary love of oneself. And one loves only
that which is a
source of happiness. So, it is conclued that Atma is the source of
happiness and,
therefore the nature of Atma is ananda. (Atma is none other than
Brahman.)
4. The nearest
example to the ananda aspect of Brahman is our state of deep sleep.
Cf.
Brhadaranyaka Upanishad IV.3.xxi - Just as a man embracing his beloved wife
becomes one with
her and does not know anything at all, external or internal, so does
this Infinite
Jivatma fully embraced by the Paramatma does not know anything at all,
external or,
internal, (such as ‘I am this’, ‘I am happy’ ‘I am miserable’). By talking of
Jivatma and
Paramatma becoming one, Upanishad is referring to the fact that since
ahamkara is
suspended, there is no idea of difference. Since there is no perception
and there are no
thoughts, there is no desire; there is no mental disturbance at all. It
is a state of
happiness, though it is not evident at that time. Since there is no desire,
there is no
grief. In the next mantra, it is said, “ in this state, father is no more
father, mother
is no more mother, worlds are no more worlds, gods are no more
gods, Vedas are
no more Vedas”. ( i.e., all relationships and the consequent samsara
are due to the
notion of individuality. Since ahamkara is suspended during sushupti,
there is no
notion of individuality and there is no notion of relationships. There is no
notion of means
and ends, either. Vedas are means for moksha. There is no idea of
wanting to have
recourse to Veda.) However, sushupti should not be mistaken to be
moksha. Sushpti
is only a rough example for the state of liberation. In sushupti,
empirical
dealings (vyavahara) are suspended. In the state of liberation, empirical
dealings are
seen as mithya. Hence one is permanently free from all empirical
dealings..
Section 20 –
Benefit of identification with Brahman
All over the
Upanishads, we get statements mentioning the benefit of the knowing, “I
am Brahman”
and”All that there is is Brahman” (“”sarvatmabhava”) i.e., the
understanding
that even though the nama roopas are unreal appearances, they are
not separate
from the substratum, Brahman that is myself; the substance of
everything is
Brahman only, that is myself.) A few quotations would not be out of
place.
Taittiriya Upanishad II.i.1 “The knower of Brahman attains Brahman.
(“Brahmavid
apnoti param”:). Mundaka Upanishad III.2.ix. – “Anyone who knows
that supreme
Brahman becomes Brahman indeed. ….He overcomes grief, rises above
punya papa; and
becoming freed from the knots of the heart (i.e., overcoming selfignorance),
he attains
immortality.” Kathopanishad II.ii.12 – “Eternal peace is for
those who
recognize the Paramatma that is the Atma in all beings and as the
homogenous
consciousness available for recognition in oneself through its
manifestation as
knowledge in the intellect, like a face appearing ion the mirror – not
for others.”
Kathopanishad II.ii.13 – “Eternal peace is for those who recognize the
Paramatma, the
eternal among the ephemeral, the consciousness among the
conscious (i.e.,
it is owing to the fire that water, etc, that are not fire, come to be
possessed of the
power to burn, similarly the power to manifest consciousness seen
in others is
owing to the consciousness of Atma)....in their hearts – not for others.
(The paraphrase
of Kathopanishad mantras III.ii.12 and 13 are based on
Sankaracarya’s
bhashyam.) Chandogya Upanishad vii.i.3 – “The knower of Atma goes
beyond sorrow.”
Kathopanishad I.iii.15 – “ One becomes freed from the jaws of
death by knowing
That (i.e.,Brahnan) which is soundless, colourless, undiminishing,
and also
tasteless, eternal, odourless, without beginning, and without end, distinct
from mahat, and
ever constant.” Taittiriya Upanishad II.vii – “whenever an aspirant
gets established
in this unperceivable, bodiless, inexpressible, and unsupported
Brahman, he
reaches the state of fearlessness.” Svetasvatara Upanishad II.14. –
“Knowing the
Atma, one becomes nondual, fulfilled and free of sorrow.” Svesvatara
Upanishad II.15
– “when one knows Brahman as Atma, i.e., knows “I am Brahman”
(“the original
consciousness in me is the infinite Brahman”), the Brahman which is
unborn, whose
nature is immutable, which is unaffected by avidya and its products
and which is
effulgent, one becomes freed from all bonds.” Svesvatara Upanishad
III.7 – “Knowing
that Brahman that is beyond the universe and Hiranyagarbha and is
infinite, that
is the indweller of all beings, that encompasses the universe, men
become
immortal.” Brhadaranyaka Upanishad IV.iv.23 -“This ( Brahman described as
‘not this, not
this’) is the eternal glory of a knower of Brahman. It neither increases
nor decreases
through work; therefore one should know the nature of that alone.
Knowing it one
is not touched by evil action. Therefore he who knows it as such
becomes
self-controlled, calm, withdrawn into himself, enduring and concentrated
and sees the Atma
in his own body; he sees all as the Atma. Papa does not overtake
him, but he
transcends all papa. Papa does not trouble him but he consumes all papa.
He becomes free
of papa, taintless, free from doubts and a Brahmana ,i.e., knower of
Brahman.” Svesvatara
Upanishad IV.17 - “Benefited by the teaching that negates the
Universe
discriminates between Atma and anatma and reveals the unity of Jivatma
and Brahman, he
who knows that Brahman becomes immortal.” Taittiriya Upanishad
II.ix.1 - _ “He
who knows ananda that is Brahman has no fear.” _ Taittiriya
Upanishad
II.1.i. – “Brahman is Existence-Consciousness-Infinity; he who knows
that Brahman as
existing in the cave-like space of the heart (i/e., mind) (i.e., as the
consciousness
behind one’s own mind) and thus having identified himself with that
infinite
Brahman, enjoys, simultaneously, all the desirable things.” (“Simultaneous
enjoyment of all
desirable things” implies sarvatmabhava.) Mundaka III.i.3 – “ When
the seeker
recognizes the effulgent Sakshi as the all pervading Brahman, who, in the
form of Iswara,
is the creator of the universe, becomes free from punya papa,
becomes
taintless and attains total identity with Brahman.” Mundaka Upanishad
II.i.10 – “He
who knows this supremely immortal Brahman as existing in the heart
destroys, here,
the knot of ignorance.” Brhadaranyaka Upanishad IV.iv.12 – “If a man
knows the Atma
as Brahman, then desiring what and for whose sake will he suffer
when the body is
afflicted? “(Since he, as Brahman, is the Atma in all beings, there is
no other seer
than he and there is no other knower than he; as Atma, he has nothing
to wish for and
Atma being all, there is none other than himself for whose sake he
may wish
anything). Kathopanishad II.ii.11 – “ Just as the sun which is the eye of
the world is not
tainted by the ocular and external defects, similarly the Atma that is
one in all
beings is not tainted by the sorrows of the world, it being transcendental.” (
it is through
avidya superimposed on Atma and, consequently, by superimposing false
notions of
karma, karta and karmaphalam, like the superimposition of snake on rope,
that people
suffer the sorrows arising from desire and work and experience the
misery of birth,
death etc.) Prasna Upanishad IV.10 – “he who realizes that
shadowless,
pure, immutable attains the supreme immutable itself.” Kaivalya
Upanishad 4 –
“Through a life of renunciation, the pure minded seekers clearly grasp
the meaning of
Vedantic teaching. Having become one with the Infinite Brahman
(while living),
all those seekers get totally resolved into Brahman at the time of final
death.” (
“Vedanta vijnana suniscitartha sanyasa yogat yataya suddhatatva; te
brahmalokeshu
parantakale paramrutah parimucyanti sarve.” Kaivalya 9 –“He alone
is everything
which was in the past , which is in the present and which will be in the
future and He
alone is eternal. Having recognised Him, one crosses immortality.
There is no
other means for liberation.” Kaivalya Upanishad 10 – “Clearly recognising
oneself to be
present in all beings and clearly recognising all beings in oneself, the
seeker attains
the supreme Brahman, not by any other means.” Kaivalya Upanishad
23 – “ Thus
having recognised the nature of Paramatma which is manifest in the
mind , which is
partless, non-dual, the wines of all, distinct from cause and effect and
is pure, one
attains the nature of nature of Paramatma.”. In one of the Upanishads, it
is said that the
jnani does not want to protect himself even from Iswara. That is
because even
Iswara is of a lower order of reality than Brahman and the Jnani has
identified
himself with that Brahman.. Cf. Brhadaranyaka Upanishad I.iv.2 – “From a
second entity
only fear arises.”.
Section 21 –
Benefit of knowing that I am all
“Sarvatmabhava”
is not different from the realisation, “ Brahmasatyam jaganmithya”.
“The existence
part of everything is Brahman and I am Brahman. In this sense
everything is
myself. Since everything is myself, I have no sense of lacking anything.
So I am without
desire. Since all cidabhasas are reflections of my original
consciousness, I
can regard, as a matter of intellectual attitude, all glories and all
happiness as my
glory and happiness. At the same time, there is the understanding
that the nama
roopas superimposed on the Existence-Consciousness-Infinity which is
myself, are of a
lesser order of reality and I cannot be disturbed by any untoward
phenomena.
Moreover,.” This is the position of one who has known ‘aham
brahmasmi” and
that there is no world, in essence, other than Brahman. Cf. Isavasya
Upanishad mantra
1 – “This entire universe must be clothed with Brahman (which
means that what
you think is the world should be seen as Brahman; the world should
be dismissed as
unreal, as mere nama roopa.) Protect yourself from samsara by
renunciation
(the renunciation consists in the dismissal of mithya. The moment
Brahman is known
as the only reality the world is renounced as mithya.)
(Commentary of
Sankaracarya – “As the indwelling Atma of all, He is the Atma of all
beings and as
such rules all. All this is to be covered by one’s own Atma that is
nondifferent
from Brahman, with the realisation, ‘as the indwelling Atma of all, I am
all this’. All
that is unreal, whether moving or unmoving, is covered by Brahman. The
unreal world of
duality characterised by the sense of doership and enjoyership and
other effects of
ignorance superimposed on Atma will be abandoned through the
recognition the
supreme Truth. He who is thus engaged in the thought of Atma as
Brahman
renounces desires for worldly objects.”) After “Protect yourself through
renunciation of
desires.”, the mantra says “ Do not covet anybody’s wealth – your
own or of others
– Whose is this wealth?” (This is interpreted as saying ‘you as Atma
nondifferent
from Brahman is everything; do not hanker after the unreal.) Isavasya
Upanishad 6 –
“He who sees all beings in the Atma and Atma in all beings feels no
hatred.” (“yastu
sarvani bhootani atmani eva anypasyanti sarvabhhoteshu ca
atmanam tato na
vijupsate.”) Isavasya Upanishad 7 – “When one understands all
beings to be his
own Atma, for that seer of oneness what sorrow can there be?”
(“yasmin sarvani
bhootani atma eva abhoo vijanatah tatra ko moha kah sokah
ekatvam
anupasyata”). Kaivalya Upanishad 10 - “Clearly recognising oneself to be
present in all
beings and clearly recognising all beings in oneself, the seeker attains
the supreme
Brahman; not by any other means”. (“Sarva bhotastam atmanam sarva
bhootani ca
atmani sampasyan paramamyati na anyena hetuna”). .
Section 22 –
Purpose of teaching about Gods with attributes
1. The absolute
reality of Advaita Vedanta is not even a single personal god, not to
speak of many
gods. It is pure existence, i.e., an eternal all pervading presence
without form and
without attributes which is also pure consciousness; with that as
the substratum,
there is, as a lower order of reality, a superimposition of manifold
forms which
appear to us as concrete objects. What makes this possible is the power
called Maya
which is the unevolved form of Nama roopas. Brahma caitanyam is
reflected in
Maya and that entity is called Iswara. Iswara designs creation in
accordance with
the requirements of the karma of jivatmas and impels Maya to
unfold as
manifest nama roopas; it is the manifest nama roopas superimposed on
Brahman that is
existence that we experience as objects of the world including our
own bodies and
minds. Cf. Kathopanishad II.i.11 - “There is no diversity here.” (“na
iha nana asti
kincana”). Brhadranyaka Upanishad II.v.19 – “Even though Brahman is
the nondual
divisionless consciousness, he appears to be many on account of the
false
identification with Nama roopas. (“indro mayabhih pururoopa iyate”) Y.xxxi.19
“ Though unborn
it appears to be born in diverse ways”. (“ajayamano bahudha
jayate”). While
maintaining that on the paramarthika plane (i.e. as absolute reality),
there is only
the nondual atrributeless Brahman (“nirguna Brahman”) Advaita
Vedanta
accommodates, on the vyavaharika plane, (as a lower order of reality),
Brahman with
qualities (“saguna Brahman”). Uncreated saguna Brahman is called
Iswara.
“Uncreated” means, that, on the vyavaharika plane, Iswara is always there,
without
beginning or end.. Iswara is omniscient ( “sarvajnah”), omnipotent
(“sarvasaktiman”)
and omnipresent ( “sarvagatah”). Controlled by and as aspects of
Iswara, on the
vyavaharika plane, Hindu religion talks of various deities performing
specific
functions relating to and presiding over various aspects of the cosmos with
various powers
of Iswara. Thus various aspects of forces and nature are personified
as gods, such as
Brahmaa (pronounced with an elongated to distinguish from
Brahman), i and
Siva, the creator, sustainer and destroyer of the universe described
in Hindu puranas
and other gods like Indra (the presiding deity of thunder and
lightning), Agni
(the presiding deity of fire and eyes), Varuna ( the presiding deity of
fire and eyes),
Vayu (the presiding deity of air and pranas.) etc. Incarnations of
Iswara, (called
“avataras”) like Rama, i etc. are also accepted as phenomena on the
vyavaharika
plane. Avataras are Iswara descending in various worlds in various
forms and with
various manifestations of his powers on critical occasions when
restoration of
cosmic harmony is called for. The bodies and minds of avataras are also
mithya (
vyvahaarika satyam.) It is made clear in certain Upanishads that there is
only one
absolute reality; that is called Brahman, and gods are only manifestations -
Nama roopas – on
the vyavaharika plane. Mahanarayana Upanishad III.12, talking of
Brahman, say
that he is Brahmaa (‘a’ elongated ), Siva and Indra. In Brhadaranyaka
Upanishad
III.ix.1 to 9, in the dialogue between Vigadha and Yajnavalkya, read with
Brhadaranyaka
Upanishad III.ix.xxvi, it is made clear that the various gods
mentioned in
Vedas , like Vasus, Rudras, Adityas, Indra, Prajapati, Hiranyagarbha are
only
manifestations of the one absolute non-dual, attributeless Brahman.
Svetasvatara
Upanishad VI. 7 – “He is the ruler of all the rulers; he is the god of all
gods…” Mundaka
Upanishad II. I. 7– “ From him take their origin the numerous
gods, the
heavenly beings……..” Kaivalya Upanishad 8 - “ He is Brahmaa, he is Siva,
he is Indra, he
is the imperishable, the supreme majesty, the self-effulgent; he is
Vishnu, he is
prana, he is time, he is fire, he is the moon.” – Aitereya Upanishad
III.i.3 – “This
one that is essentially consciousness is Brahma (‘a’ with elongated a);
he is Indra, he
is Prajapati, he is all these gods. And he is the five elements – earth,
air, space,
water, and fire – and he is all the beings in subtle seed form and all beings
born from eggs,
wombs, sweat, and the soil, horses, cattle, elephants and human
beings.
Including all these, whatever there is in this universe, flying beings, those
moving on the
ground , those that are immoveable – have their existence only in
consciousness
and everything is functioning in their own field of work or role only by
getting the
requisite power and knowledge only from that consciousness. That
consciousness is
the substratum of everything. (Consciousness is the one reality in
which all
phenomenal things end, just as the superimposed snake ends in its base,
the rope, on the
dawn of knowledge.) That consciousness is Brahman.”(Based on
Sankaracarya’s
commentary.) According to Sastra the gods like Indra, Varuna, Agni,
Vayu, Surya,
Candra etc are only exalted jivas, i.e., those whose prarabdha karma is
so
punya-predominant that they deserve to enjoy life in the higher worlds for
certain
periods; when
the period is over they take rebirth on the earth or lower worlds,
depending on the
punya-papa proportion of the prarabdha karma assigned for that
particular
janma.
2. On analysis,
it will be seen that the purpose of teaching saguna Brahman is only to
enable man to go
through worship and meditation of saguna Brahman and graduate
to jnana yoga
(study of Upanishads) and gain knowledge of jivabrahma aikyam. Cf.
Sankaracarya’s
statement “citta avatara upaya matratvena”. Saguna Brahman and
the various
presiding deities and avataras are unreal. A jnani has no need of saguna
Brahman worship or
saguna Brahman meditation, but, as an example to those in the
lower stages of
spiritual progress, he may do saguna Brahman worship and saguna
Brahman
meditation. In this, a jnani who has gained knowledge through the
teaching of
Advaita Vedanta does not make any distinction between gods of one
religion and
another. He can accept Jesus and Mohamed as he does Rama and
Krishna as
manifestations of saguna Brahman or as avataras in the vyavaharika plane
and he can
happily worship in a church or a mosque as he does in a temple. The idea
is that, in
religion, meant as the teaching of preparatory, purificatory disciplines that
qualify a seeker
of liberation, there can be many paths. But when it comes to
philosophy, the
Advaita Vedanta follower will adhere to his faith that the direct
means of
liberation is only one and that is the knowledge of jivahbrahma aikyam. Cf.
Svetasvatara
Upanishad III. 8 - (“I know that Paramatma (Brahman) that is infinite,
that is
effulgent and that is beyond avidya. Knowing that, men go beyond death, i.e.,
gets liberation
from the bondage of births and deaths; there is no other way.” (“Na
anya pantha
vidyate ayanaya”) – - “Liberation is only through knowledge.”(“Jnanat
eva kaivalyam.”)
(The source of this statement is unknown.) The jnani may also do
worship in a
temple or pray to god, but he does so with the knowledge that the
mithya sarira
and the mithya antahkarna are worshipping the mithya god.
Section 23 -
Process of obtaining knowledge of identity with Brahman
The sadhana or
process for obtaining the knowledge “ i am Brahman” consists of “
sravanam”, , “
mananam” and “nididhyasanam”. Cf. the passage in Brhadaranyaka
Upanishad II.4.5
– “atma vai are drashtavyah srotavyah nididhysasitivyah.”.
a) Sravanam is
study of sastra by listening to the teaching of a competent teacher
who can
interpret the scripture properly, i.e., a teacher belonging to the
teacherstudent
lineage of
Vedantic teaching – the guru sishya parampara. Upanishads are
full of seeming
contradictions and obscurities. The problem is that any part of the
upanishadic lore
can be subjected to harmonious interpretation only by a person
who knows the
whole; since no student will know the whole until he reaches the end
of his study,
studying by oneself will only lead to misconceptions. Also, seeming
contradictions
and obscure portions can be clarified only through study of
commentaries
that analyse the purport of the passages in accordance with the rules
of harmonious
construction called mimamsa. There are countless commentaries and
sub-commentaries
and explanatory works and there are works containing arguments
and
counterarguments among philosophers of different schools of thought and only a
teacher who has
himself studied under a competent teacher in a course covering the
original works,
the commentaries and important prakarana granthas and works of
disputations can
convey the purport and meaning of Upanishadic passages. An ideal
teacher is
defined as “ strotriya brahmanishta” i.e., one who has himself learnt under
a competent
teacher belonging to the guru sishya parampara and has also got the
clear and fully
assimilated knowledge that he is Brahman. The idea is that unless he
himself has
learnt under a competent teacher how can he teach and unless he himself
knows without
any mental reservation that he is Brahman (“aham bramasmi) how
can he tell the
student sincerely, “Thou art That” (“Tattvamasi”)? The mahavakya,
“Tattvamasi”
(which means “You are Brahman”) should ring true in the student’s ears
when uttered by
the teacher. If one cannot find a teacher who is himself a jnani,
(the difficulty
is that only a jnani himself knows whether he is a jnani, there being no
valid external
signs to indicate whether one is a jnani.), the next best thing is to
approach one who
may or may not have reached the final stage of assimilating the
knowledge but
has acquired all the knowledge necessary to teach, having himself
learnt under a
competent teacher. ( i.e., a mere srotriya).
b) Mananam is
the process of getting doubts arising in the course of the study
clarified by
one’s own cogitation and by discussion with the teacher.
c) Even after
Mananam has eradicated intellectual doubts; the habit of emotional
identification
with the body mind complex acquired through the countless past
janmas may
remain. Nididhyasanam is meant for the destruction of this habit.. It is
of no use if one
part of the mind is saying, “ I am Brahman” while other parts are
really saying,
“i am a miserable, limited individual” “ I am a husband”, “I am a
father”, “This
is my house” “ I am afraid I will die” “ I want to go to heaven
(‘swarga’)” etc.
To remove these notions which are related to the wrong
identification
with the body mind complex ( called, “dehatmabhava”) one has to
dwell on the
various important aspects of the teaching, such as, “ I am the infinite
Brahman”, “
Brahman is relationless (‘ asanga’); I am Brahman; so, I have no wife, no
children, no
house. They are all nama roopas superimposed on me, the Brahman.
Since, in this
janma, this particular nama roopa of a body has married that nama
roopa called
wife and given birth to certain other nama roopas called children, this
nama roopa has
to discharge its duties to those nama roopas but there is no place for
sorrow, worry or
anxiety.” “ I am the immortal, changeless Brahman; where is the
question of any
fear of death or any grief worry or anxiety? Brahman is everything
and everybody; I
am Brahman. So what do I lack? Where is the question of desire for
anything? Where
is the question of hatred toward anything or anybody? I may have
preferences, but
I have no needs.”.. Ultimately, the entire mind has to be saturated
with the
knowledge “ I am Brahman” and even while experiencing things, transacting
with persons and
handling situations in the world , the “ I am Brahman” thought
should be
running as a constant undercurrent in the mind and should surface
immediately if
there is the slightest tendency of intrusion of any notion related to
dehatmabhava
(identification with the body mind complex).
BENEDICTION
Poornamadah
poornam idam poornat pooranam udacyate
Poornasya
poornam adadya pooornam eva avasishyate
This Santi
Mantra (benedictory verse) which belongs to the Sukla Yajur Veda gives in
a nut shell the
teaching of the Upanishads, “Brahmasatyam jaganmithya”
Literal
translation will read as “ that is whole, this is whole; from the whole the
whole
originates. When
the whole is taken away from the whole the whole remains.”
The
interpretation is as follows:-
“That is whole;
this is whole”. “Whole” means infinite. “That” refers to Paramatma;
“This” refers to
Jivatma. Infinity can only be one . So, “That is whole; this is whole’
means identity
of Paramatma and Jivatma – jivabrahma aikyam.
“From the whole,
the whole originates.” Here, from the whole” means “ from
Brahman the
world originates.” (Reference is to the unfolding of the universe from
Maya, impelled
by Iswara).
“When the whole
is taken away from the whole, the whole remains”. This can only
happen if what
is taken out is unreal. So, this refers to the fact that when the world is
born, Brahman
does not undergo any diminution, does not undergo any change. –
Brahmasatyam
Jaganmithya
APPENDIX 1
EXPLANATORY
NOTES
Note No.1 - Can
Brahman be known
1. A problem
faced by the Advaita preceptor is to explain the apparent contradiction
between the
Taittiriya Upanishad Mantra II.1.i which says “The knower of Brahman
attains Brahman”
, Brhadaranyaka Upanishad II.iv.5 which says that Brahman is to
be known, and
many similar passages and, on the other hand, the later passage in
Taittiriya
Upanishad itself II.9.i which says that words, along with the mind, return,
unable to reach
Brahman , Kenopanishad I.5. “It cannot be known by the mind”
and various
other Upanishad passages which talk of Brahman as “ aprameyam” i.e.,
unknowable.
Kenopanishad I.4 – “That (Brahman) is surely different from the
known; and
again, It is above the unknown.” In fact, in Brhadaranyaka Upanishad,
IV.iv.20 says
“Through the mind alone It is to be realised” (“manasa eva
anudrashtavyam”)
and the immediately following IV.iv.21 says “It is unknowable”
(“etat
apramayam”)”. Sankaracarya says, in his Bhashyam, that, in respect of
Brahman, none of
the criteria by which we know things applies. The criteria are
attributes
(“guna”), species ( “jati”), relationship ( “sambandha”) and function (“
kriya”). Brahman
can’t be known through any of these criteria, Brahman being
attributeless
(“nirguna”), without a second (“ advayam”), relationsless, (“asanga”) ,
and actionless
(“akarta”).
2. How we
reconcile the apparently contradictory statements is explained below.
a) One approach
is to say that Brahman cannot be known means that Brahman
cannot be known
as an object but there are methods by which we are made to
recognise
Brahman. (It should be known as not known. And if it is known as known,
it is not known.
Before study of Vedanta, the disciple says, ‘I don’t know Brahman;
want to know
Brahman’. After study of Vedanta, the disciple says, ‘I don’t know
Brahman; I don’t
want to know Brahman.’) No one will deny that he exists as a
conscious being.
Initially, one may mistake the mind as one’s true nature, but when a
constant “I” is
invoked as the same entity witnessing the changing conditions of the
mind, one
recognises the ultimate witness-consciousness (sakshi). And “knowing
Brahman” means
that from the study of Sastra, we have to understand that the
Sakshi is none
other than the all pervading consciousness. To put it succinctly, the
Existence and
Consciousness aspects of Brahman is self-evident. But the Infinity
aspect, we have
to learn from Sastra. When it is said that Brahman is different from
the known, it
means that all known things are finite and since Brahman is the only
infinite entity,
one has to identify with it. When it is said that Brahman is different
from the
unknown, it amounts to saying that it is not a thing to be obtained; it is one’
own nature and
attainment of Brahman is a matter of recognition of ones own true
nature. How to
recognise Brahman without knowing It as an object is stated in
Kenopanishad
II.4 – “ Being the witness of all cognitions and, by nature, being
nothing but
Consciousness, Brahman is indicated by the cognitions themselves, in the
midst of
cognitions, as pervading all of them. (“pratibodhaviditam matam”).
b) Another
approach is to say that Sastra does not reveal Brahman in positive terms.
Cf.
Brhadaranyaka Upanishad II.iii.6 – “ Now, therefore the description (of
Brahman)
– ‘Not this, not
this’. Because there is no other and more appropriate description than
this ‘not this,
not this’”. Internally, we negate all names and forms like the body,
sense organs,
the mind and intellect and arrive at the unnegatable pure
Consciousness.
(Cit). Externally we negate all names and forms and arrive at the
unnegatable pure
Existence (Sat). And we learn from Sastra that Sat is Cit; Cit is Sat
and through the
Mahavakyas like “ Tattvamasi” one owns up one’s true nature as
“aham brahma
asmi”. In other words, Mahavakyas do not reveal any new entity. The
consciousness
available in us, the Atma, is self-evident. What mahavakyas do is to
remove the wrong
notion that it is limited. Pot space is not different from the all
pervading space.
Elaborating the
points made above further,
For defining
anything, there are five methods. (1) If it is an object that is of common
experience, when
we refer to it by its name, the listener understands what we are
talking about.
E.g., all of us have experienced the sun. So, when anybody wants to
convey
information about the sun, he does so mentioning the name, ‘sun’ and the
listener
understands what object he is referring to. This is called definition by
‘rudi’.
Or we can define
a thing by its attribute ( ‘guna’). E.g., Jasmine flower can be defined
by its
fragrance. Or we can define a thing by its function (‘kriya’) E.g., a knife can
be
defined by its
the work of cutting. Or we can define a thing by the species to which it
belongs
(‘jati’). E.g., we can define mango as a member of the tree species. Or we
can define a
thing by its relationship with something else (‘sambandha’). E.g., we
can define Rama
as Dasaratha’s son. In the case of Brahman, none of these is of any
use, because,
according to Sastra, Brahman is not an object of experience
(‘aprameya’), It
is attributeless (‘nirguna’), It is actionless (‘akarta’, ‘nishkriya’) it is
one without a
second (’advayam’) and it is relationless (‘asanga’).
However, there
is one positive method (‘vidhi mukha bodhanam’) which we can use,
with a slight
modification. We said that Brahman cannot be defined by relationship,
because Brahman
is asanga. While this is so, in so far as real relationship is
concerned, it is
not so, when it comes to a question of unreal relationship. As an
unreal
relationship between adhishtanam and adhyasa, Brahman can be defined. We
can define rope
as the adhishtanam of the unreal snake perceived on the rope ; we
can define the
waker’s mind as the adhishtanam of the dream world. Similarly
Brahman is
defined as the adhishtanam of the unreal world – Brahman, the Existence
as the
substratum of the nama roopas. This method is available to us if we accept the
basic statements
of Advaita Vedanta, which, for, this method, include the doctrine
that what is
real is Brahman, the Existence, and what we see as differentiated objects
are only forms
with names (nama roopas) superimposed on Existence.
In this connection,
there is a debate. The opponent says that if the relationship is
unreal, the
definition is also unreal. The proponent answers “what does it matter if
the definition
is unreal?; it gives knowledge”. The opponent asks “ if definition is
unreal, the
knowledge it gives is also unreal,; what is the use of unreal knowledge?”
The proponent
answers, “Because ignorance is unreal, unreal knowledge is adequate
to remove unreal
ignorance. To cure dream disease, dream medicine will do; in fact,
dream medicine
alone can cure dream disease. Moksha is not a real event. One is ever
liberated (
nitya mukta). What happens is that the false notion that one is limited is
negated by the
knowledge that one is the infinite Brahman. ‘Aham Brahmasmi’ as
knowledge
(Brahmajnanam) is unreal; it is a vyavarika vritti occurring in the mind; it
is not the
paramarthika Jnanam, i.e. it is not the swaroopa jnanam - the Satyam
Jnanam anantam
Brahma.” Cf. Mandukya Karika – “ There is no creation, no
dissolution…..
there is no seeker; there is no one who is liberated “. ( “na nirodho na
ca utpatti….na
mumukshuh na muktah”.
While the
definition by unreal relationship is one method, if we accept certain basic
statements of
Advaita Vedanta, there are certain other methods. Negation (‘neti,
neti,’ nishedha
mukha bodhana) is one of these methods. Sastra says that Brahman
is limitless and
is the unchanging consciousness. (‘anantam’, ‘nitya caitanyam’). I
am functioning
as the knower (pramata). If Brahman should be limitless, It cannot be
a prameyam, because
prameyam is limited by pramata; prameyam is not pramata. So
we have to
negate all known objects ( all prameyams); but this is an endless job. The
best way to
negate prameyams is to negate pramata. If there is no pramata, there is
no prameyam.
When I sleep, I am not pramata; when there is no pramata, there is no
world – there is
no prameyam for me. But even when the is no pramata, there is
consciousness.
This consciousness, the I that is not pramata, the Sakshi, is to be
recognized as
Brahman. This is the pramatrutva nisheda method. The recognition of
Sakshi is also
the aim of the panca kosa viveka.
If we accept the
Advaita Vedanta statement that Brahman is the nondual Existence
(advayam, sat ),
we have to look for the unchanging element in and through the
changing
objects. We say ‘pot is’, ‘cloth is’, ‘tree is ‘, ‘man is’, etc. What is
unchangingly
available is the ‘is’, the existence aspect. This Existence is to be
recognized as
the nondual substratum of the plurality of nama roopas, the pots,
clothes, tress,
men etc., When I am holding a pot, I am holding Brahman. When I
perceive a tree
or a river or a mountain. the real thing I see is Brahman. As the
susbstratum of
all nama roopas which are responsible for presenting the universe to
us a plurality of
differentiated objects of the universe, Brahman is unchanging
Existence. That
is why in Hindu religion, we have the worship of trees like Aswatta,
rivers like the
Ganga , mountains like Mount Kailasa. While a jnani can recognize the
Brahman, the
Existence behind any tree, river or mountain, for the common man, the
puranas provide
mythological episodes connecting certain trees, rivers, mountains
etc. with Gods
and such trees, rivers and mountains become the object of common
worship.
If we accept the
Advaita Vedanta statement that Brahman is the unchanging
consciousness,
(‘nitya caitanyam), we have to look for the unchanging common
element in
cognitions. “I know the pot’, ‘I know thee cloth”, ‘I know the tree’, ‘I
know the man’
and so on. The objects of cognition (prameyas) and the modifications
of the mind
(‘vritis’) by which they are cognised by the mind assuming the shape of
the objects are
unchanging. But what is unchanging is the consciousness behind the
changing vritis
of the mind. This consciousness has to be recognized as Brahman.
APPENDIX 2
EXPLANATORY
NOTES
Note No. 2 –
Sankya and Nyaya view of creation refuted
1. In his
Mandukya Karika, Gaudapada refutes two sets of philosophers – (1)
Sankhya-Yoga
that hold that a real world is born out of a real cause ( as the later
Visishtadvaitins
also do), and (2) the Nyaya-Vaiseshika that hold that a real world
originates
independent of a cause. In Sanskrit, these are called satkarya vada and
asatkarya vada ,
respectively. The former is also called parinama vada. The first talks
of
transformation and the second of independent origination.
2. Refutation of
Satkarya vada –
a) Cause has to
change to become effect. So, if Brahman or even a part of Brahman or
an aspect of
Brahman transforms into the world, Brahman becomes a changing
entity
(savikara). This violates clear Vedic statements that Brahman is immutable.
b) Moreover,
when the cause becomes effect, cause perishes. Milk is no longer milk
when it becomes
curd (yoghurt). Therefore, to say that Brahman changes to become
the world
violates Vedic statements that Brahman is nityam (eternal).
c) Moreover, the
Satkaryavadins postulate a beginningless and eternal cause. But our
experience is
that every cause is an effect of a previous cause; there is nothing like a
beginningless
and eternal cause . On the other hand, if a cause effect chain is
accepted by
them, they cannot explain which came first; it is the hen-egg problem;
an infinite
regress.
Objection –
Advaita Vedantin also says that Brahman is the cause of the world and
that Brahman is
beginningless and eternal.
Answer – Advaita
Vedantin is able to say so because according to him, there are
different orders
of reality; Brahman is paramartika satyam ( absolute reality) and the
world that we
experience while we are awake is vyavaharika satyam (empirical
reality) – a
lower order of reality than Brahman, just as the dream world is a lower
order of reality
than the world experienced by us while we are awake. Really
speaking,
Brahman is neither cause nor effect; Brahman is karya karana vilakshanam.
Brahman is the
changeless, eternal, all pervading Existence-Consciousness-Infinity.
On this Brahman,
Isvara, enjoying a lower order of reality – which Iswara is Maya in
which the
Brahman-consciousness is reflected – impels Maya which is a mass of
undifferentiated
names and forms to transform into a universe of differentiated
names.
Note No. 3 –
Wrong definitions of reality negated
In the Mandukya
Karika, Gaudapada disposes of certain wrong definitions of reality
given by
opponents. The definitions are noted in brackets.
(1) (Utility.)
Utility is relative. Dream water is useful to quench dream thirst. So, if we
go by utility,
we have to say that the dream world is real. If jagrat prapanca is held to
be real on
account of its utility, it should be useful always. You may have gone to
bed with a jug
of water by your bedside, but when you feel thirsty in the dream, it
will not quench
that thirst.
(2) (Normal
perception; in dream, we perceive grotesque objects). Here again, the
opponent is
making the mistake of looking at both the jagrat prapanca and the
swapna prapanca
from the point of view of waker only. Perception depends on the
kind of sense
organs and mind one possesses. The jagrat prapanca we see is not the
same as, say, a
chameleon sees with eyes positioned to look at the front and rear
simultaneously
or a horse or dog sees with perception of only two dimensions. The
horse will see a
sphere as a mere circle, when it goes round it. We see strange
objects in dream
because in that state, mind is capable of recollecting vasanas based
on experiences
of previous janmas.
(3) (What is an
object outside the mind is real.) The dream objects are outside the
mind of the
dream individual. To make this clear, suppose in the dream itself, you go
to sleep and
have a dream. When you wake up from the sub-dream in the main
dream, you will
realise that the dream objects that you saw in the sub-dream were
only thoughts in
the mind. But the objects in the main dream continue to be
perceived as
objects outside the mind. We should substitute the sub-dream for the
jagrat prapanca
and the main dream for the state of knowing the mithya status of the
world.
(4) (Continuity
of objects experienced during successive days). Continuity can be
experienced in
dream also if you have a series of sub-dreams during the main dream .
Note No.4 – The
view that world is real refuted
1. In
Brhadaranyaka Bhashyam, Sankaracarya refutes the view of Bhartrupranca that
duality and
non-duality ( both dwaitam and adwaitam) are real. ( i.e., both Brahman
and the world
are real.) ( Bhartruprapanca can be regarded as the forerunner of
Visishtadvaitam).
Sankaracarya refutes this with the following arguments;-
(1) The view
suffers from the defect of internal contradiction. Nothing can enjoy
opposite
attributes at the same time.
Bhatruprapanca
counters this and says co-existence of opposite attributes are
possible; in one
state there may be non-duality and in another, there may be duality.
What, in the
causal state is a seed, for example, becomes a tree as effect. It also
depends on the
point of view. When you look at the tree as a single entity, it is nondual.
When you look at
its parts – branches, leaves, etc. – it is dual. Similarly, when
you look at
Brahman as the Lord, He is One. When you look at the objects of the word
- rivers,
mountains, human beings etc.- Brahman is many.
Taking support
from the description of Brahman in Upanishads, Sankaracarya says
that you cannot
apply the example of the tree to Brahman. Tree is a changing entity.
But Brahman is
not subject to change. So Brahman cannot change from causal state
to effect state.
As regards the different points of view, whereas tree is an entity with
parts, Brahman
is without parts. Thirdly, whatever is a changing entity and whatever
has parts are
perishable. If you say that Brahman changes or has parts, Brahman will
become
perishable. This will be contradictory to Upanishad statements that Brahman
is immortal,
eternal. If you are prepared to accept a non-eternal Brahma,. attaining
Brahman cannot
be moksha. Liberation will also be temporary.
2. Another
argument of Bhartruprapanca is that duality is perceived; therefore, it is
real.
Sankaracarya says that there is no rule that whatever is perceived is real. We
see the sun
rising and setting every day and we see the earth as a flat surface. But
neither of this
real.
Note No. 5 -
Views of Buddhist schools about reality refuted
1. In Buddhism,
there are two branches - Hinayana and Mahayana. There are two
schools in the
Hinayana branch – Sountrantika and Vaibhashika. Both accept the
existence of a
world of objects outside the mind and maintain that any object has
only momentary
existence. This is called “ubhaya astitva vada”. (There is an internal
difference,
between Soutrantika and Vaibhashika, which we can ignore for the
purposes of this
discussion. The internal difference is - for the Sautrantika, the
acceptance of
the existence of a world outside the mind is a matter of perception
and for the
Vibhashika, it is a matter of inference.) In the Mahayana also, there are
two schools –
Yogacara which denies the existence of the world outside the mind
and Madhyamika,
called also “Sunyavada”, which denies cognition as well as object,
For this school,
reality is nothingness. Sautrantika, Vaibhashika and Yogacara – all
three – say that
there is only one consciousness and that it is momentary. That is to
say, one
cognition arises, exists for just a moment and disappears before the next
cognition
arises. This doctrine is called “Kshanika Vijnanam.” . In effect, there are
three main
doctrines – (1) “Ubhaya astitva vada” - the doctrine there is a world of
objects having
momentary existence), (2) “Kshanika vijnanam” - the doctrine that
there is no
external world at all ; what there is only consciousness and that
consciousness is
momentary and (3) “Sunyavada” – the doctrine that reality is
nothingness . In
Brahmasutra, Vysacarya and in his Bhashyams, Sankaracarya
refute (1) the
doctrine that there is no world outside the mind (2) the doctrine that
consciousness is
momentary and (3) the doctrine that reality is nothingness.
2. The Hinayana
doctrine that any object in the external world has only momentary
existence is
refuted as follows:-
(1) It is
contradictory to the Hinayana doctrine of cause –effect relationship (“karyakarana
sambandha”). If
Hinayana philosophers want to maintain karya karana
sambandha , they
have to give up the idea of momentary existence of objects or vice
versa, because
the essential nature of a cause continues to inhere in the effect; for
example, clay
continues to exist when pot shape is given to a lump of clay and certain
chemical
elements of milk continue to exist when milk turns into curd .
(2) Our
experience is – and science also tells us – that matter is never totally
destroyed. It
only changes from one form into another ( law of conservation of
energy and
matter.)
(3) Buddhism
also believes in rebirth and the cycle of samsara. And it talks of
deliberate
destruction (“prasankyana nirodha”) of samsara by the seeker pursuing
certain
spiritual practices (“sadhana”). If samsara like everything else has only
momentary
existence, and will in any case die a natural death, in a moment, where is
the question of
deliberate destruction through sadhana? So, the doctrine of
momentary
existence of objects and the concept of sadhana do not go together.
(4) If it is
said that every object has only momentary existence, it means that every
object is
created out of nothing; such creation is contrary to experience.
(5) The fact
that for growing a mango tree, we sow mango seed and not cocoanut
seed proves that
a specific material transforms into a specific product. This proves
continued
existence of object in a different form, not momentariness.
(6) If
nothingness is the cause of objects, since cause inheres in effect, we should
be
experiencing
only nothingness everywhere, but we say ‘pot is ‘ , tree is’ etc.
(7) If nothing
is required for producing something, to accomplish a thing, no effort
would be needed.
3. The Mayhayana
doctrine that there is no external world outside the mind is
refuted as
follows:-
(1) Our
experience clearly proves the existence of a world outside the mind. If there
is only
consciousness and there is no external world at all, how is it that cognition
is
not uniform but
varied and differniated like a tree, river, mountain, a man , an animal
and so on and
like colour, sound, smell etc.
(2) In sushupti,
we continue to have consciousness but there is no cognition only
because contact
of sense organs and mind with external objects is severed. The
moment we wake
up, the contact is revived and there is cognition of external objects.
(3) To explain
cognition of differentiated objects, the Mahayana philosopher says
that what appear
as differentiated objects are impurities of kshanika vijnanam. This
is countered by
pointing out that impurities in a substance are not the same as the
substance. Since
the only thing that this Mahayana philosopher accepts is kshanika
vijnanam, there
is no place for anything else such as impurities. Now, he tries to
escape by saying
that impurities are also kshanika vijananams. The absurdity of this
statement is
pointed out by saying that since, in this school, kshanika vijananams are
the reality, if
impurities are kshanka vijnanams, impurities can never be removed –
which means that
there is no moksha.
(4) Unless the
existence of a world outside the mind is conceded, how can one
explain the
distinction between a thought arising from the contact of the mind
through the
sense organs with an object outside and a mere thought when no
external object
is present? Sitting in Chennai one thinks of Varanasi. Later, one
travels to
Varanasi and bathes in the Ganga. One is in office and is thinking that he
forgot to tell
his wife, before leaving for office, that he was taking her to a cinema in
the evening.
Later, one comes home and takes one’s wife to a theatre. One is
wondering why
one’s friend has not come. Later, the friend comes and one talks to
one’s friend for
half an hour. One imagines how nice it would to have ice cream when
it is so hot. In
the evening, one goes to the ice cream parlour and takes ice cream.
One comes back
from a holiday in the Himalayas and returning to Chennai,
remembers the
cold in the Himalayas while he is walking in the scorching sun in Anna
Salai. If there
is no external world, how can all this be explained? Even for a jivan
mukta, there is
an external world outside the mind.
To this , the
Buddhist uses a counter argument and cites the example of the dream
which is really
only thoughts in the mind but which, nevertheless, are perceived as
objects. This is
refuted by saying that there is a difference; objects perceived in the
dream are known
to be false when we wake up but the objects of the waking world
are not negated
like that. Further, whereas swapna prapanca (the dream world) is
the mental
projection of vasanas based on experiences gained in jagrat avastha and
is within the
mind in the form of mere thoughts, jagrat prapanca (the waker’s world)
exists outside
the mind. If it is held that jagrat prapanca is a also only in the mind,
one should be
able to say which is the other world the experience of which could
produce the
vasanas which can be projected by the mind as the jagrat prapanca. For
this, there will
be no answer.
How can you
explain the distinction between erroneous perception like perception of
snake on the
rope and right perception of rope as rope?
None of the
above phenomena can be explained unless the existence of an external
world outside
the mind is conceded. ( In Advaita Vedanta also, in formulations, , it is
said that there
is no external world. But, there, a world outside the mind is not
denied. What is
pointed out is that there is no world or mind of the same order of
reality as
Brahman, the parmnartika satyam; both the world and the mind are
superimpositions
on Brahman and are categorised as vyavaharika satyam.)
4. The doctrine
that consciousness has only momentary existence (kshanika
vijnanam) is
refuted as follows:-
(1) If it is
held that consciousness arises, exists for just a moment only and is gone
before the next
consciousness arises, one cannot explain memory (“smriti”). We
remember only
what we have experienced. Experience occurs first and recollection
thereafter. Only
if there is a consciousness that exists continuously from the time of
experience to
the time of recollection can the mind connect the past and the present
and produce the
recollection vritti. That the mind so connects is adequate proof of
the existence of
a permanent consciousness. Unless the same consciousness which
was there at the
time of experience is still there at the time of remembrance, one
cannot say that
one remembers that one experienced a particular object in terms
such as “ I
remember that I met Devadatta during the festival at the temple.” If
there is nothing
like a continuous consciousness, remembrance cannot take place.
(2) If
consciousness is momentary, recognition (“pratyabhinja”) cannot take place.
The difference
between smriti and pratyabhinja is that in smriti, the object
experienced is
not present at the time of remembrance; in pratyabhinja, the object
experienced is
present at the time of recognition. Pratyabhinja also proves the
continued
existence of the subject, besides proving the continued existence of the
object. Unless
the same consciousness was there at the time of the first experience
and is still
there at the time of the subsequent experience, one cannot recognise the
object
experienced previously and being experienced currently to be the same, in
terms such as “
The Devadatta who is now in front of me is the same Devadatta
whom I met
during the festival at the temple.”
To this, there
is a counter-argument by the Kshanika vijanana adherents. They say
that the person
you see now is not the same person you met earlier. That person
existed only at
that moment. This person exists only at this moment. You are deluded
into thinking
that it is the same person because the person that existed then and the
person existing
now are similar. And they give the example of the flame appearing to
be the same,
though, at each moment , a separate drop of oil is being burnt and the
example of the
stream appearing to be a continuous entity, even though the water
molecules that
were there at any given point a moment ago have been replaced by
another set of
molecules already. The Vedantin refutes this by saying that even for
recognising
similarity between an object that existed in the past and an object that
exists at
present, the same consciousness that experienced the object in the past
should exist at
present, in order to recognise the similarity. Even if one may say that
similarity of
objects is possible in rare cases, how can anybody doubt the recognition
of oneself as a
continuous personality? One says “I who went to bed yesterday and
slept soundly am
now awake and am talking to my wife about our programme of
visits this
Sunday.” Unless the same “I” consciousness that was there when one went
to bed yesterday
is continuing to exist now when one is awake and talking to one’s
wife, how can
this phenomenon be explained. ( The kshanika vijnanam of the
Buddhists is the
ahamkara of Advaita Vedanta. In Advaita Vedanta, besides
ahamkara, which
is the changing consciousness, there is Atma or Sakshi, the
unchanging
witness-consciousness, witnessing the changing cognitions of the mind.
So, there is no
problem in explaining the recognition of a constant I connecting the
“I” that went to
bed and the “I” that is now awake.)
(3) In Advaita
Makarandam, the author uses a graphic argument. A person can never
know his own
birth or death. One’s birth is the last moment of one’s prior nonexistence.
One’s death is
the first moment of one’s posterior non-existence. One is
not there to
know either. Like that a momentary consciousness cannot know that it is
momentary. It is
not there when it is born and it is not there when it dies. Another
momentary
consciousness cannot know it either, because consciousness No.1 dies
before
consciousness No.2 is born and consciousness No.3 is not yet born when
consciousness
No2 dies. So, the question is who is there to know that consciousness
is momentary?
Unless a continuous consciousness is accepted, the existence of
momentary
consciousness or a series of momentary consciousnesses that succeed
one another
cannot be established.
5. If all that
there is momentary consciousness,
(i) there cannot
be any notion of means and ends. When the thought of end comes,
the thought of
means is gone.
(ii) There
cannot be any notion of possessor and possessed. When the thought of
possessed comes,
the thought of possessor has gone, and
(iii) there
cannot be the notion of an article having a name. When the thought of
name comes, the
thought of the article has gone.
6. Vyasacarya
and Sankaracarya do not bother to refute the doctrine that reality is
nothingness
(Sunyavada). Vidyarnya refutes it by asking the philosopher who says
that there is
nothing “ You say that there is nothing. But are you there or not?” He
cannot but say “
I am”. This is enough to establish that to say that there is nothing is
absurd.
APPENDIX 3
EXPLANATORY
NOTES
Note No. 6 –
Concept of a real creation negated
In Brahma sutra,
Vyasacarya points out the fallacies of philosophies which talk of a
real creation
and of a creator who is only the intelligent cause ( “nimitta karanam”)
of the universe
and not the material cause (“upadhana karanam”) . The main points
are –
(1) To contact
the material, the intelligent cause must have a body and it must be a
doer. In that
case, it becomes subject to pleasure and pain, desire, hatred etc’ in
short, it
becomes a samsari. This is contrary to the notion of God being perfect.
(2) Since space,
time and matter emerge only when creation takes place, there are
certain
questions which defy answer. viz.;
(i) Where was
the creator when he created the world
(ii) When did he
create?
(iii) Where was
the raw material which constituted how own body?
(iv) Where was
the raw material which he could use to create the universe?
(3) Beings
appear in the universe with different physical and mental characteristics,
finding
themselves in different situations, undergoing experiences involving
enjoyment and
suffering of diverse nature. A creator who creates this diversity will
be a partial and
cruel creator. Even in a scheme of transmigration with karma of men
being
responsible for rebirth and enjoyment and suffering ,the diversity in the first
creation will
remain. This is contrary to the concept of a perfect God.
Advaita Vedanta
avoids such problems, by (1) saying that there is no real creation (2)
Iswara (who is
himself is unreal) is the material as well as the intelligence cause, (3)
creation, jivas
and their karma are beginningless (4) creation is an alternation of
Maya in Iswara
differentiating into names and forms and resolving into unmanifest
condition in
Iswara and (5) the reality is Brahman, who as Existence-Consciousness-
Infinity, serves
as the substratum for the unevolved as well as the evolved condition
of names and
forms.
In this scheme,
time, space and matter are there in unmanifest form in Iswara ,
before creation.
There is no question of first creation.
Note No.7 –
Significance of videha mukti
Though , for
practical purposes, there is no difference between jivanmukti and
videhamukti,
there is a technical difference.
Jivanmukta
continues to perceive through his antahkarana, a world, which consists
of a multitude
of ajnanis and a few jnanis, though it has been falsified by jnanam.
But, after
videha mukti, that antahkaranam is no longer there to perceive the falsified
world. This
means that, the vyavaharika world exists only for people who are still in
the world. For
nirguna Brahman, there is no world and there is no Maya or Iswara. Cf.
verse 32 of
Vaitathya prakaranam of Mandukya karika – “There is no dissolution, no
origination,
none in bondage, none striving or aspiring for salvation, and none
liberated. This
is the position from the standpoint of paramartika satyam”.
Note No. 8 –
Moksha not event in time
In Mandukya
Karika, Gaudapada refutes all philosophers who talk of attainment of
Moksha as an
event in time. His logic is that whatever has a beginning must have an
end. So a moksha
that is attained will be temporary. Unless, as Advaita Vedanta says,
being beyond
samsara is our permanent nature and what is called liberation is only
the removal of
the wrong notion that one is bound, moksha cannot be permanent.
Note No. 9 –
Mithya not mere imagination
Apropos of
mithya, a question that has been discussed in Advaita Vedanta literature,
in the context
of example of rope snake to illustrate the unreality of the world is
whether there is
actual perception of a snake on a rope or is it just a thought in the
mind. It is said
that mere imagination of a snake cannot produce fear. Only if the
cognition itself
is to the effect that there is a snake in front, the person will be
frightened. This
is the basis for saying that snake is experienced but it is negated
when the rope is
revealed ( thus, considering it to be other than totally non-existent
and totally
existent and giving it the ontological status of pratibhasika satyam in
the mithya
category). ( The example for the totally non-existent is barren woman’s
son.) Like that,
the world is also mithya (vyavaharika satyam) . There is a
difference
between the snake mithya and the world mithya. Snake disappears when
the rope is
revealed. But the world continues to be experienced even after Brahman
is revealed. So,
Advaita Vedanta cites the example of mirage, sunrise etc. Even after
we know that
they are not real, we continue to experience them.
Note No. 10 – A
criterion of Mithya
In Gaudapada’s
Mandukya karika, it is said that one of the criteria for holding that
both the
external world and the mind is mithya is mutual dependence (“anyonya
asrayatvam”)
which is tantamount to absence of independent existence. The world
cannot be proved
without the mind. Only when a thing is is perceived or inferred on
the basis of the
knowledge of the perceived objects can we say that a thing exists?
So, mind is
necessary to predicate the existence of objects. The other way about, if
there is no
world as object, there is no place for mind as subject. The known is proved
by the knower
and the knower is proved by the known. This is the mutual
dependence which
makes us relegate both the mind and the world to the category of
mithya.
Note No. 11 –
Original and reflected consciousness – An illustration
In Pancadasi,
Vidyaranya gives beautiful examples for the original consciousness,
the reflecting
medium and the reflected consciousness (1) at the macrocosmic level
and (2) at the
microcosmic level. The examples, respectively, are (i) space pervading
the cloud, water
vapour laden cloud, space reflected in the conglomerate of water
vapour droplets
in the cloud and (2) space conditioned by a water filled pot, the
water in the pot
and space reflected in the water in the pot. At the macrocosmic level,
Brahma caitanyam
is compared to space pervading the cloud. The reflecting medium,
namely, Maya, is
compared to the conglomerate of water vapour droplets in the
cloud. The
reflection of the consciousness aspect of Brahman in Maya is compared to
the reflection
of space in the conglomerate of water droplets in the cloud. At the
microcosmic
level, Sakshi caitanyam is compared to the space pervading the pot. The
reflecting
medium, namely, the sukshma sarira is compared to the water in the pot.
The reflection
of consciousness in the sukshma sarira is compared to the reflection of
space pervading
the pot in the water contained in the pot, (Space is everywhere. It is
in the cloud; it
is in the pot also. Like that, all pervading consciousness is available in
Maya as well as
the sukshma sarira.)
Note No. 12 –
How Maya operates
The word,
avidya, used in Sastra (translated as “nescience” in English) is a technical
term. Avidya and
Maya are synonyms. (Other terms used for Maya are “avyakta”.
“avyakruta”,
prakriti”. Sometimes, the word “ajnanam” which literally means
ignorance, is
also used as a technical term for avidya. But none of these terms, not
even the
word,”ajnanam”should be confused with the word “ignorance” used in
common
parlance). Avidya (Maya) is a positive entity. Maya is constituted of three
factors, satva,
rajas and tamas. Maya is matter. At the macrocosmic level, with the
Brahman-consciousness
reflected in Maya, there is Isvara. Thus Isvara has two
aspects – the
consciousness aspect and the matter aspect. Iswara in his
consciousness
aspect visualises the pattern of creation suited to the requirements of
the karma of the
jivas and impels the matter aspect containing the universe including
the sukshma
sariras of jivas and the karmas of jivas in seed form to unfold into the
universe of
diffentiated objects. This unfolding is the vikshepa sakti of Maya at the
samashti
(macrocsomic) level. Iswara is not affected by the avarana sakti of Maya
and is therefore
ever aware of his true nature being Brahman. At the vyashti
(microcosmic)
level, in so far as jivas are concerned, both the avarana sakti and the
vikshepa sakti
of Maya come into play. The avarana sakti makes jivas ignorant of
their true
nature as Brahman and the vikshepa sakti makes them identity with the
body mind
complex and regard the world with its divisions to be the reality. Avarana
Sakti is
indicated in Kathopanishad mantra I.iii.12. In Pancadasi, Vidyaranya gives an
ingenious
explanation for the avarana sakti being non–operative at the microcosmic
level and being
operative at the microcosmic level. He says that at the macrocosmic
level, avidya is
satva predominant, whereas at the microcosmic level, it is tamas rajas
predominant.
APPENDIX 4
EXPLANATORY
NOTES
Note No. 13 –
Karma not means of Moksha – Reasoning
In Advaita
Vedanta, moksha is the discovery, with the aid of Sastra, of one’s identity
with Brahman.
Some
philosophers talk of karma or upasana as the immediate means of moksha.
(Both karma and
upasana are action involving motion. Karma is a movement of the
body. Upasana is
thought which is a movement of the mind). This is refuted by
Sankaracarya.
Sankaracarya’s
logic is as follows:-
The result of
Karma is only of four types. Brahman dos not fall in any of these four.
(a) Reaching a
destination. Brahman is all pervading (sarvagata) ; there is,
therefore, no
question of reaching Brahman.
(b) Production.
E.g., Seed is sown; crop is produced. Brahman is ever one’s
nature. Brahman
is unborn and eternal (“aja” , “nitya”. The question of Brahman or
Brahman-ness
(“Brahmatvam”) being produced does not arise.
(c)
Modification. Brahman and one’s own nature as Brahman are changeless
(“nirvikara”);
the question of modifying to become Brahman does not arise.
(d)
Purification/refinement by removal of impurities or addition of properties.
Brahman and, as
Brahman, one’s nature is ever pure (“nitya suddha”) and
attributeless
(“nirguna”); the question of becoming Brahman by removal of
impurities or
addition attributes does not arise.
(e) Moreover, by
using the present tense in the statement, “You are Brahman”
(“Tattvamasi”)
Upanishad makes it clear that there is no question of one becoming
Brahman, as an
event in time. One being Brahman is an ever existing fact.
(e) Further, if
identity with Brahman is the result of karma or upasana, it means that
prior to Karma
or Upasana one had no Brahmatvam and Brahmatvam comes only
after Karma or
Upasana. But whatever comes will go away after some time or other.
So Brahmatvam
attained as a result of Karma or Upasana will be temporary.
Note No. 14 –
Logic of “Adhyasa” (Delusion)
1. The
fundamental tenets of Advaita philosophy consist of
(1) three orders
of reality, with Brahman as the Existence-Consciousness-Infinity
as the highest
order of reality and the substratum, the world of names and forms
appearing on
that substratum as the next lower order of reality, the dream world and
erroneously
perceived things like snake on the rope, as the lowest order of reality –
in Sanskrit,
indicated by the technical terms, “paramartikam”, “vyavaharikam” and
“praatibhaasikam”,
respectively ( the latter two which have no independent
existence being
called “mithya”)
(2) identity of
the consciousness of the jivatma and the all pervading
consciousness,
Brahman,
(3) Avidya
(Maya)
(4) Iswara and
(5) Adhyasa
2. The avarana
sakti of Avidya causes ajnanam (self-ignorance), i.e., the awareness
of the true
nature of Jivatma as Brahman is covered (concealed from the Jivatma).
The vikshepa
sakti of Avidya misleads the jivatma into regarding the world as real
and identifying
himself with the body mind complex. This is called “adhyasa”.
Adhyasa is
defined as the mixing up of the real and the unreal. In the process of
adhyasa,
jivatma, owing to self-ignorance, superimposes anatma (the body mind
complex) and its
properties on Atma and say, “I am a father”, “ I am a husband”, “ I
am sad” etc, and
is afflicted by the limitations and tribulations arising from this
superimposition.
The other way, when one says “ I am a conscious being” it is
superimposition
of the consciousness belonging to Atma on anatma. The example
given in Sastra
for adhyasa is superimposition of snake on the rope.
3. Opponents of
Advaita Vedanta argue that adhyasa is not possible, because the
requirements of
adhyasa are not there for superimposition of anatma on Atma to take
place. The
requirements areas follows:-
(1) The object
should be perceived in front
(2) The identity
of the object should not be known
(3) There must
be similarity in features between the real object and the thing
that is
superimposed.
(4) The person
who is superimposing a thing should have experienced a real
member of the
superimposed species previously so that the impression left by that
experience
(“samskara”) is there in the mind when he is superimposing.
These
requirements are not satisfied in the case of Atma anatma superimposition,
because unlike,
the superimposition of snake on rope,
(1) Atma is not
perceived as an object,
(2) Since Atma
is self-evident, the identity of Atma is not unknown,
(3) There is no
similarity between Atma and anatma, and
(4) anatma is
unreal; so, the question of anyone having experienced a real
anatma
previously does not arise and, therefore there can be no samskara of the
experience of
anatma,
4. These
objections are countered by Sankaracarya in his adhyasa bhashyam which is
an introductory
portion of his commentary on Brahma Sutram as follows:-
(1)For adhyasa
to take place, it is not essential that the object should be perceived in
front. It is
sufficient if the entity is known. Atma is known in the sense the Atma is
self-evident as
the sakshi (witness-consciousness).
(2) The
condition required for adhyasa is not total ignorance of the identity but part
ignorance. We
all say , “I am” ; that means the existence aspect ( “sat amsa”) and
the
consciousness aspect (“cit amsa”) of Atma are known to us. But there is one
part that is not
known to us; that “ I am infinite” is not known to us ( the anantatva
or ananda aspect
of Atma is not known).
(3) Similarity
is not an invariable requirement. There are cases where there is no
similarity and
still, there is adhyasa, e.g., space is not similar to anything but we do
superimpose
blueness and a dome like shape on it.
(4) No doubt
samskara of a previous experience is necessary. But it need not be of
the experience
of a real entity. Even if the samskara is of the experience of a false
entity, in the
past, it is sufficient to produce the present adhyasa. If it is asked how
the first
adhyasa present arose, the answer is that avidya and anatma are
beginningless
(“anadi”).
5. Sastra-based
logic for postulating adhyasa is as follows:-
Upanishads say
that Atma is asangah, apanipadou, amanah. So Atma is akarta and
abhokta. But
jivatmas identify themselves with the body mind complex and engage
themselves in
worldly and religious transactions. This cannot happen, unless they
were deluded
into transferring the kartrutvam, bhoktrutvam etc. belonging to
anatma on Atma
6. Sastra
divides adhyasa into (1) “arthadhayasa” and (2) “jnanadhyasa”. The
appearance of a
false object on the substratum of a real object is arthadhyasa. The
thought that
mistakes the false object to be the real object is jnanadhyasa. The
phenomenon of
mirage on sand is arthadhyasa. The thought in the mind of the
traveller in the
desert that it is an oasis is arthadhyasa. In respect of the world, the
ajnani has both
arthadhyasa and arthadhyasa. The jnani ceases to have jnandhyasa
and he has only
arthadhyasa. The ajnani takes the world to be real and,
consequently, he
has samsara. The jnani continues to perceive the world but he
knows that it is
false; therefore he is free of samsara.
Note No.15 –
Ignorance and knowledge of identity with Brahman - both operations
of the intellect
When Brahman is
said to be “jnanam” in the mantra, “Satyam jnanam anantam
Brahma” the word
“jnanam” refers to the eternal consciousness which is Brahman’s
nature. It is
called “swaroopa jnanam”. It is not swaroopa jnanam that destroys self
ignorance. If
that was the case, since swaroopa jnanam is eternal, nobody would
ever be
ignorant. In fact swaroopa jnanam illumines ignorance as well as knowledge,
through
cidabhasa. What destroys self-ignorance is vritti jnanam, the vritti that I
am Brahman. This
vritti jnanam (knowledge) is gained by the ahamkara. The notion
that I am a
limited individual is destroyed by the vritti that I am the infinite Brahman.
Note No.16
-Appreciation of the all pervading consciousness
During sushupti,
you do not have a sense of location. You don’t have the sense that
you are in New
Delhi. Based on this fact, you can conclude that what is available in
sushupti is the
unlocated all pervading consciousness, the cit. This is present in jagrat
and swapna
avasthas also, but you don’t recognise it, because, at these times, what
you experience
is the mixture of cit and ahamkara (mind cum cidabhasa) and you are
not able to
separate the cit from cidabhasa, intellectually. In Pancadasi, Vidyaranya
gives an
example. On a wall, the general sunlight is falling. You bring a mirror and
place it in such
a way that reflected sunlight also falls on the wall. You will notice an
increase in the
brightness of the light falling on the wall. This is the incremental
brightness
contributed by the reflected sunlight. While both lights are there, you do
not perceive the
general sunlight separate from the reflected sunlight. If you remove
the mirror, you
will notice a reduction in the brightness of the light falling on the
wall. This shows
that the incremental light contributed by the reflected sunlight has
been withdrawn.
What you now see is the general sunlight only. In the case of cit
and cidabhasa,
you cannot physically remove the cidabhasa. You can only recollect
the state ( of
sushupti) in which cidabhasa is resolved and recognise the continued
presence of
consciousness as the cit. Even otherwise, you can recognise the
unlocated
consciousness if you reflect deeply into our day to day experience. While
we experience
the changing I, the subject factor of the triputi in the momentary
cognitions and
conceptualisations, there is an unchanging I which is invoked as the
same continuing
conscious entity when we connect a past experience and a present
experience of
the changing I. Whereas the changing I is one with attributes., the
unchanging I is
without attributes. One of the attributes of the changing I is location.
Thus we
recognise the unchanging I as one without location, i.e., as the all pervading
consciousness.
Note No.17 –
Brahman beyond time and space
We say that
Brahman is all pervading and that Brahman is eternal. We have to note
that this is
only a manner of speaking. A correct formulation would be to say that
Brahman is
beyond time and space. Brahman is Infinity. The Infinite cannot be within
time and space.
Brahman is nondual. Being non dual also entails being beyond time
and space. The
world is within time and space. Therefore, the world has to be of a
lower order of
reality.
Note No.18 -
Logic of postulating cidabhasa
(1) Brahman is
all pervading consciousness. Antahkarna functions as a conscious
entity but pot
does not. You cannot explain this, unless you postulate that the texture
of the
antakarana nama roopa superimposed on Brahman is such that it can reflect
the
consciousness, whereas the pot does not have that capacity. It is somewhat like
the difference
between a good conductor of electricity and magnetism and a bad
conductor.
(2) This
division of certain nama roopas like the mind being made sentient by
consciousness
being reflected in them and other nama roopas not having such
capacity and
hence remaining to be insentient is required for bhoktru bhogya
(enjoyer-enjoyed)
transaction. If such division was not there, before I begin to put
food into my
mouth, it will fly away.
(3) If the
eternal, unchanging consciousness alone is there, there would be nobody
who is bound and
Sastra would not be taking the trouble of teaching the means to
attain moksha..
A conscious entity that is susceptible to be affected by the avarana
sakti and
vikshepa sakti of Maya has to be there.
(4) The original
consciousness, being changeless (nirvikara) and amanah is not
srotra (not a
hearer) or a pramata (not a knower). Sastra cannot address it. Nor can
it address a
mere antahkarana which is inert. So a conscious entity that is not the
original
consciousness is required to listen to “tat tvam ASI” and to say “aham
Brahma asmi”. This
is the antahkarana which is enabled to be such an entity owing to
the reflection
of consciousness in it. (This logic is called “arthapatti’) As ahamkara, I
listen to the
mahavakyam, “tat tvam asi”. By bhagatyaga lakshana, I discard the
limitedness indicated
by the literal meaning of the word, “tvam” and the distance
indicated by the
literal meaning of the word,” tat” and retain the implied meaning of
the two words,
which is “caitanyam” and understand the jivabrahma aikyam. When I
say “ aham
brahma asmi”, though the thought is in ahamkara, by “aham” I refer to
Atma.. Once I
know “ aham brahmasmi” I discard ahamkara, i.e. I disidentify myself
with ahamkara
and abide as Brahman.
(5) In
Brhadaranyaka (III.iv.2 etc.), the Upanishad talks of Atma as the seer of the
ser
(“drashterdrashta”), knower of the knower (“vijnatervijnata”) etc. From this it
is
clear that there
is a knower-consciousness and another consciousness which is the
substratum of
that consciousness. This does not mean that Atma perceives or knows
ahamkara. To
perceive anything or to know anything, the consciousness has to
undergo
modification. Atma being changeless cannot be seer or knower. The meaning
is that, in the
presence of Atma, cidabhasa is formed in the antahkarana. This is also
what is meant
when it is said that Atma, as Sakshi, illumines the antahkarana. It is
like my standing
in front of a mirror. I don’t do anything. By mere presence of mine,
reflection is
formed in the mirror.
(6) The eternal
unchanging consciousness cannot be said to be the instrument of
knowing specific
separate objects, one after another. For having pot knowledge, tree
knowledge, tiger
knowledge, one after another, and each person having different
cognitions, we
need to have separate , changing consciousnesses in each person.
Antahkarana with
reflected consciousness is what meets this requirement. If Atma,
the changeless,
eternal consciousness, were to be the knower directly, everyone of us
would be seeing
everything simultaneously and it would be a jumble – e.g., water in
fire, pot in cow
etc. – it would be utter confusion. At the same time, to be aware of
the changing
consciousnesses, there has to be an unchanging consciousness. Thus
we have to
postulate cidabhasa, the reflected consciousness in individual minds as
well as the
unchanging, all pervading consciousness, the Atma.
(7) In
Brhadaranyaka Upanishad, there is a statement, “na pretya samja asti”. One
interpretation
is that this refers to the disintegration of the karana sarira and
sukshma sarira
of a jnani at the time of videha mukti. How this is support for
cidabhasa has
been explained in the main text. Another interpretation is “In the
body, after
death, there is no consciousness”. When the Upanishad says that after the
body dies, there
is no consciousness in it, it cannot be referring to the eternal, all
pervading
consciousness; the all pervading, eternal consciousness is there
everywhere, in
everything and at all times. It is there in the dead body also. (To put
it precisely,
everything, at all times, including the body after it dies, is superimposed
– as nama roopas
–on the substratum, the Existence-Consciousness- Infinity,
Brahman.) If the
Upanishad cannot be referring to the eternal consciousness
available in the
individual, the Atma, the sakshi caitanyam, what is it that it is
referring to
when it says that consciousness is not there in the body after death? It
must be
referring to a consciousness which is in the body when it is alive and which
goes out when
the body dies. What goes out when the body dies is the sukshma
sarira including
the mind with the reflected consciousness.
(8) The
existence of a changing consciousness separately in each of us by which
each of us
separately cognises different objects one after another is a matter of
experience. But
when we connect the pramata of a cognition involved in a past
experience and
the pramata of the cognition involved in a present experience, as the
same entity, we
are invoking an unchanging, constant, I, which was behind the
pramata of the
past experience and is now behind the pramata of the present
experience .
What is present in the changing pramatas is cidabhasa and what is
invoked as the
changeless, constant I is the Atma.
APPENDIX 5
EXPLANATORY
NOTES
Note No.19 –
Process of cognition
When I say, “I
know this,” the “I”, the “know” and “this” are not simultaneously
cognised. Each
piece of knowledge requires a triputi – a pramata, pramanam and
prameya ( or, to
put in another version, a karta, karanam and karma).E.g. “I know
the tree”. Tree
becomes the object of knowledge. When tree is the object of
knowledge
neither ‘I” nor the act of knowing be can be the object of knowledge. .
When “I” is the
object of knowledge , neither “tree “ nor the act of knowing can be
the object of
knowledge. When the act of knowing is not the object of knowledge, “I”
nor “tree” can
be the object of knowledge. “I”, “know” and “tree” each requires,
separately, a
knower, knowing and known.. So the awareness of “I’, “know” and
“tree” takes
place successively, through a separate triputi in each case – such as “I
know the tree”,
“I know the act of knowing” and “ I know the I that knows the tree”.
- but so quickly
that it appears to be simultaneous.
Note No 20. –
Samsara not for Atma
If sorrow or
samsara is really in Atma, it cannot be removed or overcome by
knowledge. But
the Upanishad says that the knower of Atma overcomes sorrow
“tarati sokam
atmavid.”) So the sorrow or samsara falsely attributed to Atma as in
such notions as
“ I am sad “ or “ I am mortal” is really not in Atma. Another
argument. When
ahamkara is functioning in jagrat avastha, pain is felt. In sushupti,
when ahamkara is
not functioning, pain is not felt. It is clear, therefore, that sorrow
is an attribute
of ahamkara. If sorrow were to be the attribute of Atma, we should be
feeling sorrow
in sushupti also, because Atma, the original consciousness continues
to shine in
sushupti also.
Note No. 21. –
Negation of “anatma”
In pancakosa
viveka, we negate, successively, “annamaya aham”(I identified with
annamaya kosa),
“pranamaya aham”, “manomaya aham’ “vijnanamaya aham” and “
anandamaya
aham”. What is left is the unnegatable drk, the witness-consciousness,
and we recognise
it as our real nature.
In sarira traya
viveka, by negating sthoola sarira aham (I identified with sthoola
sarira), sukshma
sarira aham and karana sarira aham, successively, we come to the
unnegatable
pratyagatma and recognise it as our real nature.
Note No. 22 –
Role of Mahavakyam
Mahavakyams do
not reveal any new entity. The consciousness available in us, Atma,
is self-evident
– is recognised by us already. What mahavakyam does is to remove
the wrong notion
that it is limited. What is revealed by mahavakyams is the
Bramatvam status
of the already recognised entity. In the story of the tenth man, the
passer-by is not
bringing a tenth man; he is only revealing the tenth-man status to
the tenth man.
The consciousness in me I have already recognised. What I
understand
through mahavakyam is that it is infinite. You cannot create space. When
you are in a
room, you may have a wrong notion that space is limited by the walls of
the room. You
destroy the walls; you recognise that what you thought was roomlimited
space is in fact
the all pervading space.
Note No. 23 –
Form is not substance
When the
football hits you it is the substance that injures you, not the shape. If the
substance is
yourself, how can it hit you? If everything, as Existence, is yourself, how
can you be hit
by anything?
Note No. 24 –
Self-effulgence – meaning
“Self-effulgent”
means self evident consciousness - what does not require an
objectifying
instrument of knowledge to be known is being self-evident.
Note No.25–
Appreciation of pure existence – Illustration
Pure existence
is not available for perception. When you ask for water to drink, it has
to be brought to
you in a container, say, a paper cup.. Pure existence has to be
conveyed to our
intellect through nama roopa. Just as you drink the water and
discard the
paper cup, when existence with nama roopa is revealed, you have to
discard the nama
roopa and understand the reality, the pure existence. Another
example. I
cannot show to you light directly. Pure light is invisible. So, I introduce my
hand in the
field of the all pervading invisible light and I tell you that there is a
principle called
light because of which alone the hand is visible. Then, I withdraw my
hand and ask you
to understand the existence of the light, even though it is not
visible without
the medium of the hand. Similarly, when Sastra talks of an existent
world, it is
doing so, wanting to reveal the substance called existence. World is an
attribute; the
substance is existence. Just as bangle is a name and form given to the
substance which
is gold. Existence is not in water. Water is in existence. Pure
existence bereft
of the incidental attributes like sound, colour, smell etc. is not
available for
objectification. If pure existence cannot be objectified, what is it? There
is only one
possibility. It is that which enables everything else to be objectified but
which itself
cannot be objectified. To recognise it, you drop, intellectually, everything
that you know.
What remains is pure existence which is the same as pure
consciousness.
If all objects are negated, one may be inclined to think that there is
nothing. In fact
, one of the branches of Buddhism says that nothingness is the
reality. But to
say or think that nothingness is the reality – that itself requires
consciousness.
Note No.26 -
Eternal awareness – Illustration
When you see a
book, in this perception, you are aware of two things, book as the
object and mind
as the subject. Can you say that mind ( with cidabhasa) is aware of
book as the
object and I as the subject at the simultaneously? Mind knows anything
only through a
thought (vritti). And mind can entertain only one vritti at a time. So,
book vritti and
I vritti – idam vritti and aham vritti- cannot take place simultaneously.
Further, take
the case of your listening to my talk. You re listening to one sentence
after another
continuously. So the mind is engaged in one sentence vritti after
another without
interruption. There is no time for it to entertain an I vritti, such as “I
am listening to
the talk.” But, after the talk, if I ask you “did you listen to my talk”,
you will say “,
yes, I listened.” Which is this I? Not the pramata I, because the mind
was having only
vrittis corresponding to my talk falling on your ears and there was no
room for the
pramata I vritti. The I that is invoked is the sakshi I, the unchanging
self-evident
consciousness. that is self-evident and is shining, as it were, all the time
So there has to
be a consciousness other than the mind which is witnessing the
listening you.
The constant shining principle in the presence of which mind is evident
as the subject I
that was listening is the Sakshi, the Atma.
Note No.27 –
Punya papa not one’s nature
Existence is my
nature, because I enjoy existence in all three avasthas.
Consciousness is
my nature because I enjoy consciousness in all three avasthas.
Punya papa and
punya papa phalam are not my nature because I don’t have them in
all avasthas.
There is no punya papa or punya papa phalam in sushupti. What is
coming and going
is not nature. I, the Atma am akarta, abhokta - “ asango hi ayam
atma”
Note No.28
–Consciousness has no origin
The non-dual,
relationless consciousness – Brahman-Atman – is without a beginning
and end. If it
be said that it has a beginning, it means that it was non-existent before
its origination.
But, can we talk of prior non-existence (pragabhava), in the case of
consciousness?
The crucial question is what was it that knew the prior non-existence
of
consciousness? Is it consciousness itself or is it something other than
consciousness?
The latter alternative has to be ruled out, because everything other
than
consciousness is insentient and what is insentient can never be credited with
the knowledge
function. The former alternative is also untenable. If consciousness
exists at the
time of apprehending the prior non-existence of consciousness, ex
hypothesi,
consciousness is not non-existent then. To say that something which
exists
apprehends its own non-existence at that time is absurd.
Note No. 29.
Brahman attributeless
Advaitin says,
on the basis of Upanishad statements, that Brahman is nirguna
(without any
attributes.) Visishtadvaitins say that Brahman is saguna ( with
attributes.) The
term. “nirguna” appearing in Upanishadic statements revealing the
nature of
Brahman, they interpret as “bereft of bad qualities”. Apart from the fact
that the term “
nirguna “ is used without any rider, Advaitins point out that the
Kathopanishad
mantra I.ii.14 makes it clear that Brahman is devoid of even good
qualities-
“anyatra dharmat anyatra adharmat” ( “different from virtue, different
from vice.”
–goodness and badness”).
Note No.30 -
Relationship of Brahman and world
It may be asked,
“how can there be any relationship between real Brahman and the
world – we talk
of adhisthana adhyasa sambandha. The answer is that the
relationship is
also Mithya. Like the relationship between sand and mirage. Sand is
real; mirage is
unreal. The relationship is between sand , the substratum and mirage
which is
superimposition. The relationship is also mithya. Like that Brahman is the
substratum and
the world of names and forms is the superimposition. Through the
unreal
superimposition, the world, we obtain knowledge of the substratum, the
Existence.
Note No.31 –
Existence has no origin
Existence cannot
come out of Existence or non-existence. If existence is already
there, there is
no question of existence originating. And nothing can come out of
non-existence.
Note No 32 -
Iswara, karma and free will
As already
mentioned in the main text, jivatmas who have not attained knowledge of
jivabrahmaikyam
are governed by karma. Iswara is the administrator of the karma
(karmaphaladata)
and, through Maya, creates the world including bodies and minds
and sets up laws
of nature in accordance with the requirements of the jivatmas to go
through
enjoyment or suffering as warranted by their previous karma. That is Iswara
provides the
infrastructure. The physical and mental equipment one is born with, in
which family he
is born, in which environment he has to lead his life and the major
situations he
has to face in life will depend on his karma. But how he makes use of
the
opportunities available to him to develop himself and how he faces situations,
how he reacts,
all these, depend on his free will. The very fact that human beings
have a choice to
do a thing, or not to do it or do it in a different way, is proof of free
will. What is
more , not all situations in life arise out of one’s own karma. In the
complex
interface of the karmas of myriads of living beings, there are bound to be
many situations
where one will have complete freedom of action. Since no one knows
what one’s karma
is, the best way to act is to do action according to Dharma. Dharma
in, the modern
context, should be defined as principles of morality – not only
personal
morality but what may be called social morality - such as doing or not doing
to others what
you would like them to do or not to do to you, the greatest good of the
greatest number,
etc. When one is in doubt in any situation whether what one is
intending to do
is right or wrong, there are two ways; follow the example of great
people, if
available or see that your motive is pure and do what your conscience
dictates.
APPENDIX 6
EXPLANATORY
NOTES
Note No.33 –
Iswara Srishti, Jiva srishti
Sastra talks of
Iswara Srishti and Jiva Srishti. Whereas the universe that is presented
to us, as
created by Iswara, is common to all of us, how each man makes use of the
objects and
situations and how he reacts to them is special to him. In the same
school, with the
same teaching faculty and library, one works hard and studies well;
another with an
equally good brain wastes his time and fails to make the grade. One
loves music;
another can’t stand any music. One manages his office, being a friend of
all; another
manages the same office as a ring master. One loves swimming; another
does not want
even to have a bath. Iswara Srishti Jiva srishti situation is another
facet of the
interplay of karma and free will. From one birth to another, we not only
carry our karma,
but our vasanas,. It is on account of vasanas that tastes for things
like food,
music, literature, art etc. vary. Vasanas of the past can also be changed or
overcome by free
will, with determination. A powerful argument for free will is that,
unless you
accept free will, moksha will be impossible. Aspiring for moksha and
making use of
the opportunities available for spiritual advancement are matters of
free will. Punya
karma may even give you birth in a family of spiritual seekers, but
whether you
yourself take to the spiritual path depends on your free will. Papa karma
may give you
birth in a family of materialists, but, with your free will, you can
transcend those
surroundings and , if your aspiration is intense, you will find the set
up where you can
pursue your spiritual Sadhana.
Note No 34.
Grace and free will
1. Apart from
the enjoyment and suffering we have to undergo for our past karma,
our life gives
us lot of scope for fresh action. The factors that come into play in
respect of fresh
action are (1) Lord’s Grace (2) our vasanas and (3) our free will.
(1) Iswara’s
Grace is in the form of laws governing the functioning of the universe.
Deliberate
action is not possible if there is no law governing cause and effect. We do
action,
expecting a result in accordance with such a law. For the laws of the
universe, Iswara
is responsible..
(2) We carry our
vasanas from one birth to another. The vasanas are formed on the
basis of
previous experience. Vasanas govern our action in the sense that towards
the same objects
and the same situation, different people have different likes and
dislikes. One
enjoys music; another abhors it. One is helpful to others; another is
selfcentred.
(3) Subject to
(1) and (2), we have a choice to do a thing or not to do a thing or to do
it differently.
How one acts in a given situation or reacts to a situation depends on
his free will.
No outside proof is required for the existence of free will; all of us are
exercising it
day in and day out.
2. If free will
is not accepted, there will be two problems –
(1) The
commandments and prohibitions of scripture will become meaningless.
Scripture is
advising man to do good actions and avoid evil actions only because
scripture
assumes that man has free will.
(2) If man has
no free will and not merely our karmaphalan but fresh action is also
impelled by
Iswara, Iswara becomes responsible for the good action and bad action
done by man. The
problem then will be two-fold. By making some men to do good
action and some
men do bad action resulting in punya and papa followed by
enjoyment or
suffering as karmaphalam later, Iswara becomes partial and cruel.
Secondly, If
Iswara is responsible for man’s good action and bad action, no one can
be rewarded nor
can any criminal be punished. A murderer will say “ I am not
responsible for
what I did. The Lord made me do it.”
Note No.35 -
Miracles and karma
Apart from the
physical laws governing the universe, there are divine forces in the
empirical plane.
Evidence of such forces is found in certain temples, churches,
mosques, darghas
etc., such as Lourdes in France, and certain places of worship in
India. We have
authentic accounts of miracles in the form of the sick getting cured in
such places.
There are also authentic accounts of certain persons who have acquired
or have carried
forward from previous janmas Yogic powers by which they are able to
bring about
changes in the life of devotees. In regard to temples etc., in certain
cases, the
powers are attributed to Yogis who have attained samadhi there and have
deliberately
left their powers to operate there. In Brahma Sutra, Vyasacarya does talk
of cases, where,
for fulfilling certain cosmic purposes of Iswara, some who are
liberated take
rebirth, even after death.
The important
point to note, in all these cases, is that not all who visit and worship at
the places
mentioned above get the benefit of the divine or miraculous powers. This
can only be
explained by postulating that what happens in these places does not fall
outside the law
of karma. Based on this premise, we should say that if a particular
person gets a
benefit, by way of cure or some other material advancement, it is
predestined
according to his karma itself that his suffering should be over at that
time. It is just
as a matter of the medium through which that takes place. In these
cases, the
medium for ending the suffering is the divine or miraculous force at such a
place, just as
the medium in other cases is a skilled doctor or a generous benefactor.
Here also, free
will comes into operation inasmuch as the choice of and the decision
to go to a place
of worship, just as the choice of and decision to go to a skilled doctor
is a matter of
free will.
(Yogis = Persons
who have acquires supernatural powers by practicing certain
disciplines in
the psychic plane through regulation of prana or meditation on deities.
Samadhi = the
end of a Jnani’s or Yogis life. (This should not to be confused with the
Samadhi
prescribed in Patanjali’s Yoga Sastra as a spiritual practice for the
attainment of
Moksha.).Dargha = Place where a Muslim saint’s body, at death, is
interred.)
Note No.36 –
Moksha means knowing one’s Infinite nature
Brahman is said
to be infinite, space wise, time wise and entity wise. When you talk
of a thing that
is attained by you, it has to be a finite thing; before attaining it, it has
to be away from
you. Conversely, there can be no such event as attaining the thing
that is
infinite. By definition, ‘the infinite’ precludes the existence of any second
entity. So, to
talk of your being away from the infinite, to start with, and your
attaining it,
later, is illogical. Therefore, ‘attainment of Brahman’ can only be a figure
of speech. One
is ever Brahman; one has been ignorant of this fact and the ignorance
is removed
through study of Sastra.
Note No.37 –
Mind is matter
Logic of saying
that mind is matter is (a) it is affected by matter; for various mental
disorders, the
treatment is electric shock (2) a lie detector used and (3) there are
psychosomatic
diseases.
Note No.38 –
Duality – two kinds
It is not enough
to know that you, the Jivatma, are none other than the Paramatma.
This removes
only one kind of duality – the duality of consciousness. There is another
duality – the
atma anatma duality. This removed only when you gain the knowledge
that all that
there is Brahman; i.e., the substratum of everything in the form of
existence, is
Brahman and what appears as anatma is only nama roopa which is of a
lower order of
reality (which knowledge is called sarvatmabhava.)
Note No.39 –
Effect on good actions on karma
An authority for
saying that good actions, done out of free will, will have effect on
karma, is in
Kathopanishad I.i.18 – “A person who performs the Nachiketas ritual and
does Upasana
increases his punya and decreases his papa to such an extent that he
goes, after
death, to brahma loka.”
Note No.40 –
Denial of consciousness – self-contradictory
The existence of
consciousness cannot be denied, because the very denial involves
the use of
consciousness. This is what is meant by saying, ‘the negator cannot be
negated’.
Note No.41–
Mixing up orders of reality
One should not
mix up orders of reality. Suppose, one convicted of murder pleads,
“Atma neither
kills nor is it killed. I am Atma, so, I did not kill and, therefore, you
should not
punish me.” The judge would turn round and say “I am not punishing your
Atma; I shall
punish only your body.” It is in this strain that Ramakrishna
Paramahamsa
relates a story. A man, thinking that the elephant is Atma and I am
Atma; so the
elephant cannot kill me. So saying he went and laid himself in front of a
rogue elephant.
The body of the elephant came and crushed the body of the man.
Note No. 42 –
Unreality of the world
From the Vedic
statement that Brahman is neither cause nor effect ( cf.
Kathopanishad
I.ii.14) we can derive the unreality of the world. Brahman is nondual.;
i.e., other than
Brahman, there is no other entity. But we do have a world right
in front of us.
Who created it? The only logical answer can be ‘nobody; i.e., the
creation and the
creator are unreal.
Note No. 43 –
Corollaries of Brahman being infinite
From the
infinitude of Brahman, we can derive
(a) Formlessness
(nirakaratvam) - (That which is infinite space wise cannot have any
form)
(b) Eternity
(nityatvam) – (That which is infinite time wise cannot have a beginning
or end)
©
Relationslessness (asangatvam) (That which in infinite entity wise cannot have
any relation
with anything, there being no second entity.)
Corollaries can
also be derived in the converse direction.
Note No. 44 –
Sarvatmakatvam of Brahman
Kathopanishad
I.ii.20 says that Atma is the greater than the greatest and subtler
than the
subtlest. This seems to be a contradiction in terms. Sankaracarya argues
that the
contradiction can be resolved if we take the substratum. As the substratum
of everything,
Atma (Brahman) is the substratum of the greater than the greatest
and of the
subtler than the subtlest. Whether it is a mountain nama roopa or a
microbe nama
roopa, Atma is the Existence. Bangle cannot be in chain nor can chain
be in bangle,
but gold is in bangle and chain.
Note No. 45 –
Atma beyond nama roopas
When mind is
active, nama roopas appear. When mind resolved, nama roopas
disappear. But,
I, Atma, am there when nama roopas appear and when nama roopas
disappear. So,
is clear that I, Atma, am beyond nama roopas. The appearance and
disappearance
are phenomena of a lower order of reality.
Note No. 46 –
Atma motionless
Kathopanishad
I.ii.21, talking of Atma, says “remaining motionless, I move.” How can
this be? In the
presence of Atma, reflection of consciousness is formed in the mind.
Mind moves by
way of entertaining one thought after another; it is angry at one
moment; it is calm
later. It was sad yesterday; today it is happy. The ignorant person
attributes these
movements of the mind to the Atma which is, in reality motionless
(acala.)
Note No. 47–
Atma locationless
If you are asked
“where were you while you slept” you have to say “nowhere”. So,
you, the Atma,
are locationless. When you are associated with the mind in the jagrat
and swapna
avasthas, you appear to be located. When the association with the mind
is snapped in
sushupti. there is no sense of location.
Note No.48 –Questions
regarding origin etc, of world invalid.
Time and space
are born with the universe. So, to ask ‘when did the universe come is
illogical; there
can be no time prior to time. Similarly, to ask ‘where did universe
originate’ is
illogical; there can be no space beyond space. So. Also, ‘how’ and ‘why’
are also out of
court; process involves time and purpose involves time in terms of one
in the present
envisaging a future. The only satisfactory answer to such questions is
the Advaita
Vedanta answer that the world is unreal.
Note No. 49 –
Vasana and free will
The first
thought that comes to mind may be due to vasana. But whether I should
nourish it and
let it get hold of me or I should replace it by a better thought through
will power is a
matter of free will.
Note No. 50 –
Guru and Brahman synonymous
A Jivanmukta is
identifies with Brahman. So, in effect, he is Brahman. That is why
guru is
glorified as Paramatma in the famous sloka “ gururbrahma gururvishnu
gururdevo
maheswara; gurureva parambrahma tasmai sri gurave namaha”.
Note No. 51 –
Relative immortality
An authority for
saying that ‘amrutatvam’ should be taken in certain contexts as
relative
immortality is found in Kathopanishad II.i.2 which talks of benefit of the
knowledge of
jivabrahma aikyam as absolute immortality (“amrutatvam dhruvam).
This implies
that there can be ‘relative immortality’ in the sense of enjoyment of a life
of a vastly
longer duration than the human life.
Note No. 52– The
unnegatable remainder
You experience
your mind. So, you negate it, saying, “I am not the mind.” Then, when
you analyse, you
come to know that, even when the mind is not functioning, there is
consciousness.
You recognise the consciousness that exists constantly without your
experiencing as
an object as yourself. That is to say, there is only one thing that can’t
be experienced
but the existence of which cannot be denied; that is what is always
available as the
constant I, the Atma.
APPENDIX 7
EXPLANATORY
NOTES
Note No. 53 –
Samsara due to sense of duality
Samsara is due
to a sense of limitation, due to a notion that there are thing other
than me. I am
dreaming, identified with the dream body, I think that there are things
other than me,
but when I wake up that I (i.e., my mind) alone was there and there
were no others.
When I identify myself with the jagrat body, I feel that, in the jagrat
prapanca, there
are others beside me. When I disidentify with the jagrat prapanca
and identify
myself with consciousness, there is nothing other than me.
Note No. 54 -
Consciousness changeless
Consciousness is
the witness of all changes. – physical changes, emotional changes,
intellectual
changes, changes of space, changes of time, changes of from waking
state to dream
state and from dream state to sleep state and so son. Witness of
changes has to
be changeless.
Note No 55 -
Atma neither the known nor the knowable
In Kenopanishad,
the student says, “I don’t know Atma. I don’t want to know Atma.”
( This is the
idea – not the exact words.) He says “I don’t know Atma”, because Atma
does not fall in
the known category, being unobjectifiable. He says “I don’t want to
know Atma”
because Atma cannot become the known (i.e., become an object) at any
time, atma being
oneself.
Note No. 56 –
Flowing eternity
In Advaita
Vedanta, there is a concept of flowing eternity, as distinguished from
absolute
eternity. Brahman is absolutely eternal, in the sense that Brahman is beyond
time. But we
have to have a term where we cannot trace the beginning and end of a
thing. This is
called “pravaha nityatvam” which can be translated as “flowing
eternity”. The
cycle of srishti, sthiti, laya, the chain of jivatma, karma, karmaphalam
and rebirth and
Maya would fall in this category.
Note No. 57 –
Dependency of the world
Kathopanishad
II.iii.1 says that the world is dependent (asrita) on Brahman.
Whatever is
dependent is mithya (unreal). So, the world is mithya.
Note No. 58 -
Who is a brahmana?
Brahadaranyaka
Upanishad says that only a person who utilises the human birth to
gain knowledge
of jivabrahma aikyam is a brahmana. In Gita, Krishna also talks of
“jati brahmana”
(one who is born to parents belonging to the caste of brahmanas),
“karma brahmana”
(one who deserves to be called a Brahmana by virtue of his
actions and
conduct and “guna brahmana” (one who is deserves to be respected as a
Brahmana by
virtue of his seeking of having gained the knowledge of Brahman) and
extols the guna
brahmana.
Note No. 59 –
Panca kosa viveka in Kathopanishad
In Kathopanishad
II.iii.7 and 8, which is a kind of Panca kosa viveka, mind
(manomaya kosa)
is said to be superior to the sense organs (pranamaya kosa),
intellect
(vijnanamaya kosa) is said to be superior to the mind, the samashti intellect
(samashti
vijanamaya kosa) is said to be superior to the vyashti intellect, samashti
avyakta (anandamaya
kosa or Maya) is said to be superior to the samashti intellect
and Purusha
(Brahman) is said to be superior to Maya. By linking vyashti and
samashti, the
Upanishad enables us to avoid the pitfall of thinking that there is a
plurality of
consciousness.
Note No. 60 –
viparita bhavana obstacle to jnanam
The obstacle to
knowledge of jivabrahma aikyam getting entrenched, which is
created by
habitual reactions based on vasanas persisting from the past identification
with the body
mind complex (called “viparita bhavana”) is twofold. (1) When you are
angry or
worried, your mind is disturbed. Only a calm mind can absorb the knowledge
of jivabrahma
aikyam. (2) When you are angry or worried, you are identified with the
body mind
complex. You cannot identify yourself with Atma at the same time.
Identification
with Atma, interrupted by identification with the body mind complex is
not adequate for
liberation. The entire antahkarana must be saturated with the
knowledge of
jivabrahma aikyam; identification with Brahman must be total, without
any reservation.
The sadhana for achieving this is nididhyasanam, i.e., dwelling on
the various
aspects of the teaching of jivabrahma aikyam.
Note No. 61 –
Jnani free from raga dwesha
Jnani’s mind is
not Brahman. But it is a mind that has understood “I am Brahman.
When one
identifies with the body mind complex, one has the notion of being
individual. So,
there are others and there is raga and dwesha arising from the notion
of duality. But
a jnani is no longer identified with the body mind complex. So, he has
destroyed the
notion of being an individual. So, for the Jnani, there are no others to
whom he can get
attached to or have aversion for. He does continue to use the mind
as an instrument
for transactions, but in that mind, there are no emotion.
Note No. 62 -
Purpose of teaching creation
Creation of the
universe is brought in by Upanishads, in order to lead us to Brahman.
Teaching is
always from the known to the unknown. We experience a universe
around us and
our bodies and minds as part of that universe.. Taking the clay and pot
example,
Upanishad teaches us that the substance is only clay and pot is just a form
to which we have
given a name ( what is called “nama roopa” in Sanskrit. ) This form
itself is only
one of the forms existing potentially in the lump of clay and which an
intelligent
agent, the carpenter, brings out. The reality is the substance, the clay. The
form is not a
second entity; Pot is only a particular configuration of clay which is the
only entity. If
we take away clay, there is no pot. So, pot is unreal. Thus, we arrive at
two
generalizations. (1) The cause alone is real;; the effect is unreal. .(2) Not
only a
material
substance is required for an effect to appear but there has to be an
intelligent
cause . Clay we find is itself an effect of the substance , which is a
combination of
and water. Thus when we go backwards in the effect-cause chain, we
arrive at an
ultimate cause, This must be a cause which is not an effect; otherwise
there would be
infinite regress. Upanishad calls this cause Brahman. As the reality, it
is Existence.
We see creation
as a well designed universe; so, we have to conclude that the
creator must be
an intelligent principle.
Upanishad
introduces reality as consciousness to show that it is ever available as I,
so that we need
not go in search of it. Having shown consciousness as one’s own
nature, to see
that we don’t make the mistake of supposing that it is located in one’s
mind only, it
brings in the Existence , the all pervading aspect. Putting the two
aspects
together, Upanishad defined reality as Existence-Consciousness -Infinity.
Infinity applies
to space, time and entity. Since space and time are part of creation,
Brahman, the
creator, has to be beyond time and space. “Beyond time” means that
It is eternal
and “beyond space” means that it is not only all pervading in the
universe but is
beyond it also and that It is formless. Since all entities come into
existence only
as part of the creation, Brahman gas to be beyond all entities, that is
non-dual as the
supreme order of reality. To be non-dual is to be attributeless. To
have any
attribute is not to have its opposite. Each attribute excludes its opposite.
Exclusion is
limitation. If Brahman is given any attribute, we will be excluding
Brahman to be an
entity with the opposite attribute and thus we would be making
Brahman to be a
limited entity. To be limitless, - to be infinite - entity-wise, that is to
be non-dual, the
only way is not to have any attribuites. Being non-dual, Brahman
has to be the
intelligent as well as the material cause. As Existence, Brahman is the
material cause
and as Consciousness, Brahman is the intelligent cause. In presenting
the nature of
Brahman, Advaita Vedanta also says that Brahman is apanipadou,
apranah and amanah
(without sense organs and mind.) So, while it can lend
Existence and
Consciousness, it cannot engage Itself in the act of creation.
Therefore, in
Advaita Vedanta , Iswara, conceived as the consciousness of Brahman
reflected in a
potential condition of nama roopas, called Maya, is introduced as the
actual creator.
Since Brahman has been said to be infinite entity wise, that is nondual,
Iswara has to be
of a lower order of reality. The created universe is conceived
as a variety of
forms with names attached to them ( called, “nama roopas” in
Sanskrit.)
superimposed on Brahman, the eternal and unchanging Existence. Thus,
the essence of
the universe is Brahman, just as clay is of pots etc., except that, in the
case of Brahman,
the essence is formless and attributeless. Thus, it is said that the
substance of the
universe is Brahman, the Existence, which is there always and
everywhere; on
this Existence, the substratum, Iswara visualizes the permutations
and combinations
of nama roopas. and impels Maya to unfold into such nama roopas.
Brahman being
nondual, the nama roopas also have to be lesser order of reality , just
as Iswara
himself is. Nama roopas consist of animate and inanimate objects of the
universe. .The
animate objects of the universe are nama roopas, forms superimposed
on Existence
which are capable of reflecting the Consciousness aspect of Brahman.
Inanimate
objects are names and forms which do not have that capacity. Living
beings ( called
“jivas” in Sanskrit) are born with diverse physical and mental
characteristics
and undergo enjoyment and suffering of diverse kinds. Heredity may
seem to explain
the physical characteristics but it is not adequate to account for the
mental
characteristics., It is therefore necessary to postulate the transmigration of
the mental
entities ( called “sukshma sariras” in Sanskrit) in a cycle of births and
deaths and entry
into one physical body ( called “ sthoola sarira” in Sanskrit) after
another and to
regard the diversity as the recompense for their own previous
actions and
thoughts (called “karma” in Sanskrit). But we cannot postulate a first life
span ( called
“janma” in Sanskrit). Because in that janma also the diversity of
physical and
mental characteristics and enjoyment and suffering will be there. We
cannot make the
creator responsible for the diversity. If we do so, we would be
making the
creator to be a partial and cruel person. Advaita Vedanta says, therefore,
that jivas and
their karma are beginningless. Similarly, if we predicate a first
creation, since
time and space are themselves part of the creation, we cannot explain
where the
creator was at the time of creation, when he did the creation etc, So,
Advaita Vedanta
says that creation is a beginningless cycle of unfolding and
resolution into
a potential condition of names and forms. The universe of names and
forms exist only
as an appearance from the point of view of jivas. As far as Brahman
is concerned,
Brahman alone is and for Brahman, there is not even a universe of a
lower order of
reality and there is no Maya or Iswara ; even Maya and Iswara are
postulated only
for the sake of explaining the experience of a universe of names and
forms by jivas.
Note No. 63 -
Mind and Sakshi - roles
Whereas the mind
with cidabhasa, ( technically called ahamkara), expresses in the
form of changing
thoughts, ahamkara itself is not mere thoughts. There is an entity
called ahamkara
and it has continuous existence ; it is a part of the sukshma sarira
which survives
the death of the sthoola sarira and enters another sthoola sarira in the
next janma
carrying the karma of jivatmas and of the vasanas from one janma to
another. Even
so, we have to discriminate between Sakshi and ahamkara. Even
though ahamkara
has continuous existence (until videha mukti), it is a changing
entity. It is
like the river. The river, as a collection of water molecules, continues to
exist for ages
but the quantity and characteristics of the water flowing now at any
point is not the
same as that which was flowing before. Similarly, the qualities of the
ahamkara in the
same individual vary from time to time. At one time, it is an illtempered
ahamkara; at a
later point of time, it is a calm ahamkara. At one time it is a
dull ahamkara;
at a later point of time, it is a sharp ahamkara. Such a changing
ahamkara cannot
account for the sense of our being the same conscious being, the
same I who was
there when the ahamkara was ill tempered and who is there when
the ahamkara is
calm, the same I that was there when the ahamkara was dull and
who is there
when the ahamkara is sharp. We cannot but postulate an unchanging
consciousness
which we sense as the constant unaltered I that we are throughout
the states of
waking, dream and deep sleep, through the changes of the body from
youth to
adulthood, from young age to middle age and from middle age to old age
and through the
changes of the antahkarana from turbulence to placidity, from
desirousness to
contentment and from dullness to sharpness.
In other words,
perception, feeling, thought , registering experience, recollection and
recognition are
functions of the ahamkara. But, ahamkara, in turn, is shaped by the
changing
experiences, feelings and thoughts. The ahamkara of yesterday, or of last
year or of the
young age is not the same as the ahamkara of today, just as the body
of yesterday, or
last year of the young age is not the body of today. I was a short
tempered man in
my youth. Now I am a calm person. That I and this I are not the
same . But when
recollection or recognition takes place, connecting the past and the
present, say, in
the form of “I who used to be agitated am now peaceful” or “ I slept
happily
yesterday; I did not know anything”, I am invoking an I which is the same
throughout. The
recollection or recognition is done by the ahamkara I, but the
recollected or
recognised I – recollected or recognised as the same I that existed
then and
continues to exist now is the sakshi I, the unchanging consciousness that is
ever there. The
mind is able to invoke that I because the sakshi is self-evident.
Note No. 64 -
What is temporary is mithya - Logic
A thing is
temporary means that it has temporary existence. If any attribute or
nature is
intrinsic to an entity, it will never be lost. If an attribute comes and goes,
it
means that it is
not intrinsic to it. So, temporary existence means that the existence
is borrowed. For
example, whereas heat is the intrinsic nature of fire, the heat of hot
water is
borrowed from fire. One of the definitions of mithya is that it has borrowed
existence.
Therefore, whatever is temporary is mithya.
APPENDIX 8
EXPLANATORY
NOTES
Note No. 65 Five
definitions of mithya
(1) Definition
given by Padmapada in Pancadipika
Falsity is the
character of not being the locus of either being or non-being. The falsity
is constituted
by being different from sat (being) and asat (non-being).
(2) Definition
given by Prakasatmayati in Pancapadika-vivarana
The falsity of a
thing consists in the thing’s being negated for all three periods of time
in the locus in
which it appears.. ( The falsity (mithyatva) consists in being the
pratiyogin
(negatum) of a negation (nisheda) which is traikalika (for all three
periods of time
– past, present and future ) in a locus in which it appears.
This is based on
the scriptural text, “There is nothing else whatsoever”. It implies
that the world
of multiplicity is eternally negated in the non-dual Brahman which is
the locus of the
appearance of the world and as such as, the world is false.
(3) Definition
given by Prakasatmayati
The false is
that which is cancelled by the knowledge of Brahman.
This is based on
the scriptural text, “The enlightened is freed of names and forms.”
(4) Madhsudana
Saraswati’s presentation of the definition given Citsukhacarya
The falsity of
anything positive is its character of its being the
pratiyogin.(counterpart)
of the absolute negation that resides in what appears to be
its own
substratum. The shell silver is something positive and it is false. Why is it
false? It is
false because it is eternally negated in the very shell that appears to be its
locus. The
objects of the world are also false in the same sense. For example, a cloth
is a positive
object and it appears to reside in the threads which constitute it. But in
those very
threads the cloth is eternally negated. The cloth is therefore false.
(5) What is
different from the real (sat), i.e., what is other than the real is false.
According to
Advaita Vedanta, Brahman alone is real ( sat); the objects of the world,
like a pot or
cloth, are different from Brahman. They are, therefore, false.
Note No. 66 – Intrinsic
and incidental nature
The criterion to
find out what is one’s intrinsic nature and what is incidental is
To see what
comes and goes and what is permanent. The waking state is not there
when the dream
state comes and neither is there when the deep sleep state comes. If
being walker was
my true nature, I would be awake permanently. If being a dreamer
was my true
nature, I would be dreaming permanently If being a sleeper was my
true nature, I
would be sleeping permanently. So, the wakerhood, the dreamerhood
and the
sleeperhood are incidental. What is constantly there during all the three
states is
consciousness. So, we have to conclude that consciousness is my intrinsic
nature, my true
nature.
Note No. 67 –
Avastha traya viveka in Mandukya karika
In the Avastha
Traya Viveka, in Mandukya Karika, the microcosm (vyashti) and the
macrocosm
(samashti) are equated to show we are not limited individuals. While
talking of
consciousness associated with the vyashti upadhi, the sthoola sarira)
(visva), the
description jumps to the consciousness associated with the samashti
upadhi, sthoola
prapanca (vaisvanara). Similarly, consciousness associated with the
vyashti sukshma
sarira (taijasa) and the consciousness associated with the samashti
sukshma sarira,
(Hiranyagarbha) are equated and the consciousness associated with
the vyashti
karana sarira, (prajna) and the consciousness associated with the
samashti karana
sarira ( Iswara) are equated. This shows that consciousness in all
bodies is the
same and there is nothing like my consciousness and your
consciousness.
In the definition of Brahman as Satyam Jnanam, Anantam, in
Taittiriya
Upanishad, by juxtaposing Satyam, eternal existence with Jnanam,
consciousness,
the same effect is achieved. It shows that the consciousness that I
recognize in me
as my true nature is not a limited entity but it is the all pervading
Existence, the
substratum behind all nama roopas. To show that the Existence-
Consciousness is
not limited by space, time or entity, the word, anantam, is
introduced.
GLOSSARY FOR
ADVAITA VEDANTA
A-H
Acala
That which is
devoid of movement
Adhishtanam
Sub-stratum. In
Advaita Vedanta, the real entity located in which an unreal thing is
perceived
Adhyasa
Superimposition.
The wrong notion concerning a real entity, attributing to it the
nature and
characteristics of an unreal thing and vice versa
Advayam
Non-dual . The
only Absolute Reality
Agami karma
Punya and papa
arising from action and thought in the present janma
Ahambrahmasmi
“ I am Brahman”
Ahamkara
Ahampratyaya
Mind cum
reflected consciousness
The ‘I’ notion
part of the mind, the changing ‘I’ as the knower, doer etc.
Ajah
That which has
no birth
Akasa
Space
Akhanda
caitanyam
Undivided, all
pervading consciousness
Anadi
That which has
no origin
Ananda
Bliss
Anandamaya kosa
Bliss sheath.
The ignorance and bliss experienced by a person during deep sleep
Anantam
That which is
not limited , space-wise, time-wise or entity-wise. The infinite
Anantam
That which has
no end
Anavastha dosha
The fallacy of
infinite regress
Anirvacaniyam
Unexplainability;
Undefinability
Annamaya kosa
The physical
body
Antahkarana
Mind –
consisting of Manas, buddhi, ahamkara, and citta
Arthadhyasa
Perception of an
unreal entity
Asanga
Unassociated.;
relationless
Asuras
Demons
Atma
The Consciousness
aspect of Brahman’s nature recognized as the witnessconsciousness
in individual
beings.
Avarana sakti
Veiling power.
The power of Maya by which Maya makes human beings forget their
real nature
Avastha traya
viveka
Enquiry into
one’s real nature by analyzing the states of waking, dream and deep
sleep
Avatara
Incarnation
Avidya
Avidya vritti
Maya
The mode of the
dormant mind in sushupti registering the non-experiencing state.
Avyakruta
Literal meaning
is ‘unevolved’. However, it is used as a technical term synonymous
with Maya
Avyakta
Literal meaning
is ‘ unmanifest’. However, it is used as a technical term synonymous
with Maya
Avyavaharyam
That which is
beyond transactions
Ayamatama Brahma
“This
consciousness which is my real nature is none other than the all pervading
consciousness”
Bhashya
Commentary on
the scriptural text
Bhokata
Enjoyer or
sufferer
Bhokruttvam
The sense that
one is an enjoyer or sufferer
Bhrama
(1)Erroneous
knowledge (2) Illusion
Brahmaa
Creator-God. The
creator aspect of Iswara
Brahman
The Absolute
Reality defined as Existence-Consciousness-Bliss
Brahmana
Seeker of
knowledge of Brahman; one who has known Brahman
Brahmasatyam
jaganmithya
Brahman is the
Reality; the universe is mithya
Buddhi
Faculty of the
mind which is of the nature of decision - also, the reasoning faculty –
generally
referred to as the intellect
Caitanyam
Consciousness
Cidabhasa
Reflected
Consciousness
Cit
Consciousness
Dama
Control of the
sense organs of perception and action
Devas
Gods. Deities
Drkdrsya viveka
Enquiry into
one’s real nature by analysing the known and the knower
Dwaitam
The existence of
more than one reality
Golakam
The physical
part of the sense organs
Guna
Attribute
Guru
Preceptor
Hiranyagrha
(1) Brahmaa ,
the God embodying Iswara’s power of creation power (2) Cosmic
subtle body
====================================================
GLOSSARY FOR
ADVAITA VEDANTA
I-P
Indriya
The energy of
the sense organs
Iswara
Maya cum
cidabhasa. Cosmic causal body.
Jagat
The universe
Jagrat avastha
The waking state
Janma
One life span;
birth
Jiva
Synonym of
jivatma
Jivabrama aikyam
Identity of the
essential nature of Jivatma and Paramatma
Jivanmukta
One who has
become liberated while living.
Jivanmukti
Liberation from
Samsara in the current life itself
Jivatma
The conglomerate
of body, mind and atma
Jnana kanda
The latter part
of the Veda dealing with Brahman, Jivatmas and jagat
Jnanadhyasa
The wrong notion
mistaking a real entity to be an unreal thing.
Jnanam
(1)
Consciousness (2) Knowledge
Jnanendriyas
Sense organs of
perception – sight, hearing, smell, taste and touch
Jnani
One who has
gained knowledge of one’s identity with Brahman – jivabrama aikyam.
The knowledge
that one’s real nature is consciousness and that that consciousness is
no different
from the all pervading consciousness called Brahman
Kamya Karma
Action for
selfish ends
Karana sarira
The causal body
– the anandamaya kosa
Karma
Action; merit
and demerit
Karma kanda
The former part
of the Veda dealing with rituals
Karma Yoga
Purificatory
spiritual practices as preparation for study of Jnana kanda
Karmaphalam
The enjoyment
and suffering undergone by the jivatma for punya and papa
Karmendriyas
Sense organs of
action – action through speech, legs, hands, anus and the genitals
Karta
Doer
Kartrutvam
The sense that
one is a doer
Krama mukti
Liberation from
samsara after going to the abode of Hiranyagarbha by doing
Hiranyagarbha or
Iswara Upasana and being taught by Hiraanyagarbha himself
Lakshanam
Features ;
characteristics ; definition.
Laya
Dissolution of
the universe
Mananam
The process of
getting doubts clarifies by discussion with the teacher or by one’s own
analysis and
reasoning
Manas
Faculty of mind
which is of the nature of indecision or doubt; also the emotional
aspect of
antahkarana
Manomaya kosa
The mind and the
five sense organs of perception
Maya
Unevolved names
and forms resting, as a lower of reality, in Brahman
Mithya
That which is
experienced but has no real existence of its own
Moksha
Liberation from
samsara
Mumukshutvam
Intense yearning
for moksha
Nama roopa
Name and form
Nididhyasanam
The process of
dwelling on the core of the teaching to overcome the habitual
identification
with the body mind complex
Nimitta karanam
Intelligent
cause
Nirakara
Formless
Niravayava
That which has
no parts
Nirguna
Attributeless
Nirvikalpa
Divisionless
Nirvikara
Changeless
Nitya
Eternal
Pancabhootas
The five basic
compounds – space, air, fire water and earth
Pancakosa viveka
Enquiry into
one’s real nature by analyzing the five kosas
Papa
Demerit, i.e.,
in the system of karma, the debit entry in the ledger, as it were, for bad
action or bad
thought, to be discharged by imposing suffering on the jivatma in the
same birth or in
some future birth.
Paramartika
satyam
Absolute reality
Paramatma
Brahman
Parinama
Transformation
Prajnaam Brahma
The
consciousness which is the nature of the individual is none other than the all
pervading
consciousness called Brahman
Prakarana
grantha
Works expounding
Sruti
Prakriti
Literal meaning
is ‘nature’. However, it is used as a technical term synonymous with
Maya
Prama
Right knowledge
Pramanam
The instrument
of knowing
Pramata
The knower
Prameyam
The known
Prana
The energy that
regulates the physiological functions of living beings – five in number
– prana, apana,
vyana, samana and udana – responsible for functions such as
respiration,
circulation, digestion, metabolism, ejection , locomotion, action etc. –
generally
referred to as ‘vital airs’
Pranamaya kosa
The five pranas
and the five sense organs of action
Prarabdha karma
The quota of punya
and papa allotted to be exhausted by enjoyment or suffering in a
particular janam
Pratibhasika
satyam
Subjective
reality
Pratyabhinja
Recognition.
Pratyagatma
When the all
pervading consciousness is referred to as the consciousness
recognizable by
oneself in oneself, it is called Pratyagatma
Punya
Merit, i.e., in
the system of karma, the credit entry in the ledger, as it were, for good
action or good
thought – to be discharged by conferring enjoyment or comfort on the
jivatma in the
same birth or in some future birth
Purushartha
(1) Goals in
life – material prosperity called artha, enjoyment called kama, merit
gained by
observance of one’s duties in accordance with scriptural
commandments and
prohibitions called dharma and moksha (2) free will
GLOSSARY FOR
ADVAITA VEDANTA
Q-Z
Sadhana
catushtaya
The four fold
discipline qualifying for the study of Jnana kanda, consisting of viveka,
vairagya, shatka
sampatti, and mumukshutvam
Sadhanas
Spiritual
practices
Sakshi
When the all
pervading consciousness is referred as the consciousness that is the
source of the
reflected consciousness in the mind and is present throughout when
mind has one
cognition after another , it is called Sakshi
Sama
Control or
mastery over the mind
Samadhana
Single-contended
of the mind
Samanvaya
Harmonious
interpretation of texts – Sastra mentions six criteria – what is said in the
beginning, what
is said in the end, what is repeated, what is praised or condemned,
what accords
with logic and what is said to bring benefit.
Samashti
Macrocosm
Samsara
The cycle of
births and deaths, karma and karma phalam punya and papa and
enjoyment and
suffering.
Sancita karma
The accumulated
‘bundle’ of punya and papa
Santimantra
Benedictory
verse
Sarvagatam
All pervading
Sarvajnah
The omniscient
Sarvasaktiman
The omnipotent
Sarvatmabhava
The sense that
one is everything
Sastra
Scripture.
Spiritual literature including Sruti, Smriti, Bhashyas, Vartikas, and
Prakarana
Granthas
Sat
(1)Existence;
(2) essence
Satyam
That which
exists in all three periods of time
Shatka Sampatti
A six fold
mental training consisting of sama dama, uparama, tritiksha, sraddha and
samadhana
Siddhi
Superhuman
powers
Siva
The God
embodying Iswara’s power of dissolution
Smriti
Elaborations
based on sruti. E.g., Bhagavat Gita. Literal meaning is memory;
remembrance
Sraddha
Faith in the
teaching of the guru and scriptures
Sravanam
Listening to the
teaching of Sastra by a guru
Srishti
Creation of the
universe ; the unfolding of names and forms out of Maya
Sruti
Veda, in four
compilations – Rg, Yajuh, Sama and Atharva
Sthiti
Maintenance of
the universe
Sthoola sarira
The physical
body – the annamaya kosa
Sukshma sarira
The subtle body
consisting of the pranamaya, manomaya and vijanamaya kosas
Sushupti
The deep sleep
state
Sutra
Scriptural work in
the form aphorisms
Swapna avastha
The dreaming
state
Swaroopam
Intrinsic nature
Tattvamasi
“Thou art That”.
The teaching “You, Jivatma are none other than Brahman”
Titiksha
Endurance of
discomforts, such as heat, cold etc .Equanimity towards the opposites
of pleasure and
pain. Acceptance of things and situations without grudging or
complaint.
Triputi
The division of
the knower, the known and the knowing instrument or the act of
knowing – the
pramata, the prameyam and the pramanam
Upadana karanam
Material cause
Upadhi
The thing from
which characteristics are falsely transferred to an entity that is close
by
Upahitam
The entity to
which characteristics of a thing close by are falsely transferred
Upanishad
Vedic texts
dealing with Brahman, jivatmas and the jagat
Upanishadic
Used as an
adjectival form of Upanishad
Uparati
Performance of
one’s duty towards himself, the parents, teacher, family, society etc.,
which involves
sacrifice as opposed to insistence on rights which involves demands
on others
Upasana
Spiritual
meditation
Vairagya
Dispassion –
Absence of desire for enjoyment of things of this world as also of other
worlds
Vakyam
Sentence
Vartika
Commentary, in
verse form ,on the scriptural text
Vasanas
Impressions
formed in the mind on account of experiences.
Veda
The original
Hindu religious scripture
Vedanta
Janna kanda
consisting of the Upanishads
Vedantic
Used as an
adjectival for of Vedanta
Videhamukti
Dissolution of
the sthoola, sukshma and karana sariras of a Jivanmukta when he dies
Vijanamaya kosa
The intellect
and the five sense organs of perception
Vikshepa sakti
Projecting
power. The power of Maya that projects the universe of names and forms
on Brahman, the
sub-stratum of pure Existence and also deludes jivatmas into
mistaking the
world to be real
Virat
Cosmic physical
body
Vishnu
The God
embodying the Iswara’s power of maintenance of the universe
Vivarta karanam
The cause that
produces effect without undergoing any change.
Viveka
Discrimination
of the eternal and the ephemeral
Vritti
Thought mode
Vyashti
Microcosm
Vyavaharika
satyam
Empirical
reality
LOKA SAMASTHA
SUKINO BAVANTHU:
SHANTIH SHANTIH
SHANTIH:
SUBHAM
Om Tat Sat
(My humble salutations to Brahmasri Sreeman D Krishna Ayyar for the collection)
