Mundaka Upanishad (3.2.9)

Posted on by
Reply

The Mundaka Upanishad (3.2.9) makes a bold statement, “Anyone who knows that supreme Brahman becomes Brahman indeed.”  This statement gives rise to two potential doubts:
The Issue of Action: The verb “becomes” implies a transformation or action. However, according to Advaita Vedanta, knowledge alone—not action—is the direct means to liberation.
The Issue of Essential Identity: The mantra might suggest that an ignorant person is not Brahman, whereas the fundamental premise of Advaita is the intrinsic identity of the Jiva and Brahman.

Continue reading →

Avasthā-Traya

Posted on by
Reply

The Three States of Consciousness in Advaita Vedānta

In Western philosophy and modern neuroscience, investigations into human consciousness almost exclusively take their stand in the waking state. The waking world of physical objects, people, time, and space is assumed to be the primary reality, while dreams are viewed as mere psychological or neurological by-products, and deep sleep is regarded as a passive state of unconsciousness. Traditional Advaita Vedānta, as expounded in the Upaniṣads and systematised by Ādi Śaṅkara, identifies a fundamental flaw in this approach: examining reality solely through the lens of waking experience provides only a fraction of the overall picture.

To arrive at an unobstructed understanding of the Self (Ātman), Advaita employs a rigorous analytical methodology known as avasthā-traya-prakriyā—the systematic enquiry into the three states of consciousness. By analyzing the waking state (jāgrat), the dream state (svapna), and the deep-sleep state (suṣupti), Advaita demonstrates how our sense of identity shifts across different realms of experience. Each state possesses its own unique field of operation, its own distinct ‘experiencer’ ego, and its own subjective universe.

Continue reading →

Quintessence of 10 Upanishads – 43 (brih 5)

Posted on by
Reply

[Part – 42 (brih 4)]

The sages often compare death to sleep: just as we wake up and dive back into the world, we are said to be reborn (with some or no gap) after death. But this does not mean we are helplessly caught in an endless cycle of birth and rebirth, because the story of individual bondage tying us down to this cycle is ultimately provisional.

The explanation of the three states of consciousness and latent impressions (vAsanA-s) is a pedagogical tool. It helps us make sense of our apparent individuality, yet none of these states possesses an independent reality outside of Consciousness itself.

What, then, is the substratum in which these states, impressions, and actions appear?

It is Consciousness itself—our essential nature—appearing as its own reflection. Birth and death, merit and demerit, joy and sorrow are merely images in a mirror. On their own, these reflections are insentient; they borrow their existence entirely from the Original. Recognize clearly that whatever appears is none other than your true Self.  Continue reading →

Mandukya Upanishad and Karika (Part 6)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 5

Chapter III – Advaita Prakarana (On Non-duality)

This chapter discusses the word ‘advaitam’ occurring in the seventh mantra of the Mandukya Upanishad.

K 1–2
In the empirical world, there are two types of transactions: sacred and secular. Both involve duality. Secular transactions involve I and mine on the one hand and the world on the other. Sacred transactions involve I and mine on the one hand and God on the other.
In the sacred sphere, I worship God because I consider myself limited and insecure, while I regard God as all-powerful and compassionate. I am a devotee of God. The Vedas do prescribe devotion in their earlier portion. However, Gauḍapada says that remaining a devotee forever is not the final goal and that such a devotee is unfortunate, because devotion by itself is not a permanent remedy of human suffering. Self-knowledge alone is the permanent remedy. The Self is non-dual.

Continue reading →

Mūlāvidyā

Posted on by
Reply

Root-Ignorance, Post-Śaṅkara Metaphysics, and the Great Debate of Swami Satchidanandendra

In Advaita Vedānta, the ultimate truth is summarized in Ādi Śaṅkara’s famous dictum: brahma satyam jaganmithyā jīvo brahmaiva nāparaḥ—”Brahman alone is real; the world is a dependent appearance (mithyā); and the individual self (jīva) is non-different from Brahman”. This non-dual vision immediately confronts an inescapable philosophical paradox: if Reality is strictly one, unchanging, and self-luminous Consciousness, why do we experience a world of manifold division, bondage, and suffering?

The traditional answer points to avidyā (Self-ignorance). It is due to ignorance that we fail to recognize our true nature as Brahman and instead superimpose limitation upon ourselves. Yet, when philosophers analyze the exact nature, cause, and mechanics of this ignorance, they step into one of the most fiercely debated battlegrounds in Indian philosophy. At the center of this controversy is the concept of mūlāvidyā—often translated as “root-ignorance” or “primal nescience”.

Continue reading →

Quintessence of 10 Upanishads – 42 (brih 4)

Posted on by
Reply

[Part – 41 (brih 3)]

Shaṅkara uses the term saṁsthAnam to point to the configuration or arrangement through which a form becomes recognizable. From the standpoint of Advaita, the diverse configurations we encounter in the world constitute the structural display of the one underlying Reality. Names and forms distinguish one appearance from another, but they do not possess an independent existence apart from that Reality.

This is the essential shift in vision that the teaching seeks to bring about: from seeing a world of separate things to recognizing the one Reality appearing as all things. The forms may differ, but their apparent multiplicity does not overturn the non-dual truth.

Sage Yajñavalkya tells us that our bodies are like salt crystals—condensed forms of the essence of the Ocean of Consciousness. When salt is dissolved in water, its finite, solid form disappears, and it becomes indistinguishable from the water. Likewise, the teaching invites us to dissolve the apparently solid boundaries of the body and other objects, understood as condensations of Consciousness, back into Consciousness itself. The scripture urges us to bring about this dissolution through understanding before death puts an end to the body.  Continue reading →

Mandukya Upanishad and Karika (Part 5)

Posted on by
1

Part 4

Part 6

Chapter II – Vaitathya Prakarana (On Unreality)

Shankaracharya introduces the chapter as follows:
“In consonance with such Vedic texts as, ‘One only, without a second’ (Ch. VI. ii. 1), it has been said that duality ceases to exist after realization (Karika I.18). That is, however, only a scriptural assertion. But this falsity can be confirmed even through reasoning. This is why the second chapter (of the Karika) commences.”
(Translation by Swami Gambhirananda, Eight Upanishads, Advaita Ashrama)

Continue reading →

Name and Form

Posted on by
3

Manifestation/Appearance – A view | Advaita Vision elicited some discussions on ‘name and form’. In this sense, the present post is a continuation.

In Vedantic terminology, the expression ‘name and form’ is often used in the context of the world. The world is of name and form.

On the other hand, the statement–the world is the name and form of Brahman– could be misunderstood to mean that Brahman itself consists of name and form.

Shankaracharya, inter-alia, explains this point in his commentary on the Taittiriya Upanishad (2.6).                                                                                                  “Objection: How can the One become many unless It enters into something else? The answer is: ‘Prajāyeya—I shall be born.’ The multiplication here does not refer to becoming something extraneous, as when one begets a son. How, then, does it take place? Through the manifestation of name and form that are latent in Itself. When name and form, existing latently in the Self, become manifest, they evolve—while retaining their essential nature as the Self under all conditions—in time and space, which are inseparable from Brahman. That manifestation of name and form is what is called the appearance of Brahman as the many.”

He further explains:                                                                                                    “Therefore, it is only because of Brahman that name and form have their being under all circumstances, but Brahman does not consist of them. They are said to be essentially Brahman, since they cease to exist when Brahman is eliminated.”

[Extracts from Eight Upanishads, Vol. I, with the Commentary of Shankaracharya translated by Swami Gambhīrānanda, Advaita Ashrama].

Q. 563 Osho

Posted on by
Reply

Q: I noticed that you reference Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh (Osho) in certain discussions on your site and that you recommend his books.

Given the historical controversies surrounding Osho, including serious legal issues during his time in the United States and the recent Netflix documentary “Wild Wild Country” which details disturbing events, and sexual abuse allegations (Wikipedia ref), I would be grateful to understand your reasoning for continuing to present him as a legitimate spiritual source.

More importantly, I have a philosophical question that arises from this:

In your understanding of Advaita, can one genuinely be considered “enlightened” or have achieved true awakening despite significant ethical misconduct?

If consciousness and behavior are distinct dimensions, how do we reconcile this tension in assessing teachers?

Thank you for taking the time to consider these questions. I ask not out of judgment but from genuine curiosity about the intersection of spiritual attainment and moral conduct in the Advaita tradition.

Continue reading →

Quintessence of 10 Upanishads – 41 (brih 3)

Posted on by
Reply
The shruti does not mince her words:

अथ योऽन्यां देवतामुपास्तेऽन्योऽसावन्योऽहमस्मीति न स वेद यथा पशुरेवं स देवानाम् । यथा ह वै बहवः पशवो मनुष्यं भुञ्ज्युरेवमेकैकः पुरुषो देवान्भुनक्त्येकस्मिन्नेव पशावादीयमानेऽप्रियं भवति किमु बहुषु तस्मादेषां तन्न प्रियं यदेतन्मनुष्या विद्युः ॥ — 1.4.10, brihadAraNyaka Upaniṣad.

Translation: “He who worships another deity thinking, ‘He is one, and I am another,’ does not know the Truth. He is like a beast to the gods. Just as many animals serve a man, so does such a worshiper serve the gods. Even if a single animal is lost, it causes distress; what then if many are lost? Therefore, it is not pleasing to the gods that human beings should know this Truth.”

Just as a livestock owner seeks to retain his cattle, the subtle deities are not portrayed as welcoming the transcendence of the dualistic realm by human beings. Those who worship the gods as entities separate from themselves sustain the cosmic order through ritual offerings and devotion. The gods, in turn, offer worldly benefits and heavenly rewards that keep such worshippers dependent upon them, distracting them from the pursuit of ultimate liberation.

Continue reading →