ADVAITA VEDANTA A PRESENTATION FOR BEGINNERS -2

Wednesday, May 9, 2012

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)