Who am I?

Posted on by
Reply

Sākṣī and ahaṃkāra in Vivekacūḍāmaṇi

(This is not a ‘Key term’ in the ‘Terms and Definitions’ series but may be regarded as such, since it further clarifies the meaning of the concepts of enlightenment and liberation and specifically addresses the distinction between sākṣi and ahaṃkāra, and the relevance of prārabdha karma for the jñānī.)

(Regular) readers will recall the long series (11) of posts that I made over 6 years ago on the topic of pratibandha-s. These were extracted from the first volume of ‘Confusions in Advaita Vedanta: Knowledge, Experience and Enlightenment’. In particular, they discussed the teaching of prārabdha karma and its applicability to a jñānī and the topics of jñāna phalam and liberation. The question ‘Who am I?’ was asked in the context of thinking and communication.

The answer to the question was that it was effectively a ‘mixture’ of ātman and intellect. I said that:

The only explanation is that who-I-really-am, ātman, becomes associated with the inert intellect, and the now-conscious buddhi is the one that becomes the knower. The knower is ‘I’, the real Consciousness, as if reflected in the intellect (cidābhāsa). Or the knower is effectively a ‘mixture’ of Consciousness and intellect. I, the ātman, become a figurative knower by virtue of my association with the buddhi. It is in this sense that the ‘knower’ of ātman is none other than the ātman Itself.

Continue reading →

Quintessence of 10 Upanishads – 25 (mANDU 4)

Posted on by
Reply

[Part – 24 (mANDU 3)]

Speech or any utterance need not be made audibly through the mouth. For example, the mind speaks silently in the form of thoughts, ideas, and notions. However, if there is no underlying sound (shabda), nothing can be heard or known.

As the awake and dream states dissolve into deep sleep, shabda also dissolves with them. Consequently, meaning dissolves as well, because meaning cannot exist without sound. In this framework:

  • The internal idea or notion is the mAtra (vAcakam—the signifier; prmANa – the measurer).
  • The external image or object is the pAda (vAcyam—the signified; prameya – the measured).

An object appears only after a preceding thought about it manifests in the mind. For instance, when the thought of an “airport” arises (mAtra), the corresponding image manifests in the imagination (pAda).

When both mAtra and pAda dissolve in turIya (the Fourth), the Residuum is “Me.” This “Me” holds neither the idea nor the image of an airport; both nAma (notion) and rUpa (object) have figuratively melted away into the Self.  Continue reading →

Upadesa Sahasri (Part 26)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 25

17.51-55                                                                                                                            A man desirous of knowing the truth should cultivate dispassion and refrain from loving the worldly objects for such a love is risky. It is mixed with pain because any worldly object is impermanent and its absence causes pain. The love causes bondage as desires are plenty and impossible to fully satisfy. He should approach a skilled teacher who has Self-knowledge, who is tranquil and established in Brahman- meaning he is anchored in Self while transacting in the world. In this sense, he is free from bondage of action. Such a teacher interprets the scriptures and impart knowledge (Ch Up 6.14.2 and BG 4.34). When a qualified student approaches a skilled teacher with humility in the prescribed manner, the teacher should accept him into his fold and impart knowledge of Brahman thereby enabling him cross Samsara which is like ocean of darkness.

Continue reading →

Parokṣa and Aparokṣa

Posted on by
Reply

Bridging the Gap from Intellectual Understanding to Immediate Realization

In the pursuit of Advaita Vedānta, a seeker often grapples with a frustrating sense of distance. We read the great declarations of the Upaniṣads, we follow the rigorous logic of Ādi Śaṅkara, and we may even become ‘intellectually convinced’ that reality is non-dual. Yet, despite this conviction, we often feel as though we are standing on the outside looking in. This gap is technically defined by the distinction between two types of knowledge: parokṣa (mediate or indirect) and aparokṣa (immediate or direct).

Unravelling these terms is not just a matter of semantics; it is a vital step in clearing the ‘minefield’ of modern spiritual confusion. As I have argued in my series Confusions in Advaita Vedānta, many seekers are led astray by the belief that scriptural knowledge is ‘merely intellectual’ and must be transformed into something else through mystical experience. By looking at the original definitions and Śaṅkara’s own commentaries, we find a much more empowering truth: for the qualified seeker, the right means of knowledge (pramāṇa) can trigger immediate realization without the need for a secondary ‘mystical’ event.

Continue reading →

Upadesa Sahasri (Part 25)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 24

Part 26

17.32 to 17.35                                                                                                    Yajnavalkya explains (Br Up 3.4.1 and 3.4.2) that Brahman is not an object. It is the ultimate subject and is the Self. Ke U 1.5 says that Brahman is not an object and not perceived by the senses. The Self-knowledge is immediate whereby all knots of the heart are cut asunder (Mu. Up 2.2.8). Egoic attachments, emotional baggage which cause sufferings dissipate. etc. It is liberation. There could be an objection.  As Brahman is not perceived by senses and is not perceived by the intellect as emotions like pleasure, etc., It does not exist. The author explains with the help of the phenomenon of eclipse. The lunar and solar eclipses are caused due to shadows of the earth on the moon and of the moon on the earth respectively. The shadows are seen during eclipses. On non-eclipse days shadows are not seen. However, it does not mean that the shadows are not formed. Likewise, if consciousness is not experienced, it does not mean that It does not exist.

Continue reading →

Pramāṇa

Posted on by
1

The Gateway to Valid Knowledge in Advaita Vedānta

In the spiritual journey of Advaita Vedānta, the ultimate goal is the permanent eradication of Self-ignorance (avidyā), which is replaced by the liberating realization of our true nature. However, this realization is not a mystical occurrence or a random event; it is the specific result of Self-knowledge. For the seeker, a fundamental question arises: how do we acquire this knowledge? To answer this, we must understand the technical concept of pramāṇa, the vital intellectual framework that distinguishes between what we think we know and what is actually true.

Continue reading →

Quintessence of 10 Upanishads – 24 (mANDU 3)

Posted on by
3

[Part – 23 (mANDU 2)]

Ignorance (avidyA) is the misperception of the non-Self (unAtmA) in place of the Self (AtmA). Conversely, true vision born of Self-knowledge (vidyA) is the direct apperception of the all-pervasive AtmA.

The mANDUkya Upanishad provides the precise metaphysical framework for this realization. It teaches us how to deliquesce—or dissolve—the observer and the observed into the single act of observation, thereby resolving the triad into absolute Oneness.

To understand this dissolution, we must examine how language and perception structure our reality. The “seer” or observer is the signifier (vAcaka or abhidAna), while what is seen is the signified (vAcyam or abhideya).  Continue reading →

Upadesa Sahasri (Part24)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 23

Part 25

17.17 and 17.18                                                                                                         During dream, one mind is divided into subject (knower), object (known) and instrument of knowledge. The divisions are unreal. Likewise, in the waking state, one consciousness appears differently when desires in the intellect causes action. The desires arise because the jiva thinks that it is incomplete though it is essentially complete. The desires and actions are revealed by consciousness. The waking state is a superimposition on consciousness, the substratum. The divisions in the waking state are as unreal as the divisions in the dream. The ideas of interior and exterior in the waking state are unreal like reading and writing which are interdependent. Reading depends on a written page without which nothing can be read and writing also depends on reading as we first read and then write. So, both of them are unreal as the sounds represented by written letters are all-pervasive and have no forms. Hence, they can neither be really written nor read.

Continue reading →

Quintessence of 10 Upanishads – 23 (mANDU 2)

Posted on by
4

[Part – 22 (mANDU 1)]

An important aspect of our awake world is that we do not perceive it simply because it independently “exists out there,” much like we do not perceive a dream merely because it exists. A notion (pratyaya) first arises in the intellect, and we then project it outward to appear as an external object. This mechanism is common to both dream and waking states. Through constant repetition and habitual engagement day after day, we gradually become convinced that the objects perceived by us are independently real and constitute an objective world.

Consider this: when the mind ceases to imagine waking-world objects and becomes occupied with dream objects, the waking world disappears from experience. When neither the waking nor the dream world is conceived, no object is perceived at all; this is the condition of deep sleep (suSupti).

Continue reading →

‘Difference’ is not real

Posted on by
3

The post ‘Duality is mithyA’ (see here) is based on the verses 19.20 -22 of Upadesa Sahasri (US). Swami Parmarthananda has discussed (transcripts of his talks on Chapter 16 of US) the same topic with a different reasoning which according to him has scriptural support though he has not cited it. 
Advaita Vedanta acknowledges six means (Pramana) of knowledge of which direct perception and inference are important. I see red colour and green colour and say that the two colours are different which is my experience too. If asked whether I see the ‘difference’ as an object, my answer is in negative. That is to say, there is no direct perception of the ‘difference’. It also means that the ‘difference’ cannot be inferred, because for inference, there should be a previous direct perception. Other means of knowledge, namely, comparison, postulation, non-cognition also do not prove difference. Sabda Pramana i.e., scriptures, affirm that ‘difference’ is not real though it is experienced. QED