Terms and Definitions of Vedanta - 1

adhyAropa - apavAda

by V. Subrahmanian

Srigurubhyo NamaH

In the Vedanta, even though the Supreme Purport is in Advaita, we do encounter passages declaring creation implying the duality of a created world (and jIva-s) and the Creator Brahman. This suggests a cause-effect relationship between Brahman and the world. One can appreciate this seeming contradiction, that is, the declaration of Advaita on the one hand and the presence of creation passages on the other, by understanding the principle of adhyAropa - apavAda or the Method of Deliberate Superimposition and Negation.
The source of this idea is the explanation of the principle by Swami Paramarthananda in the course of his mANDUkya kArikA discourse.
The example of a pot is considered for the purpose of understanding the principle. I have a 'pot' vision. The teacher wants to change this vision of mine as he wants me to have the correct vision, that of the clay. This is accomplished in FOUR stages:
Stage 1. The pot is presented as the effect of clay.
Stage 2. Clay is presented as the cause of the pot.
Stage 3. Now, the teacher asks me to find out if I can see the pot without the clay. I look at the pot on all sides and conclude that everywhere it is clay alone. It is not available as different from clay, its cause. The conclusion: the effect is non-different from the cause.
Stage 4. This much is not enough, for the concept of cause and effect does exist. Now the teacher states that since it was concluded that the effect does not exist apart from the cause, it would be correct to hold that the cause alone really exists. But this still limits the cause as a cause. The vision born of wisdom is: There is no longer any need to call the clay as the cause. As clay alone matters in that wise vision, it would be appropriate to divest the clay of its status of a cause. Thus, divested of this status, clay remains as the one that transcends the cause-effect duality.
The first two stages are the 'adhyAropa' stages where the 'effect'- hood of the pot and the 'cause'-hood of the clay were superimposed deliberately. This is done in order to afford the foundation for finally negating them and driving home the non-dual nature.
The latter two stages constitute the 'apavAda' stages where the supposed effect-hood of the pot is negated and even its substantiality is shown to be only in the clay. The pot is shown to be insubstantial as apart from its substance, the clay. Next, and finally, even the causehood of the clay is negated, for when the effect-hood is admitted to be of no consequence, to accord the cause- status to the clay is meaningless. The clay can exist without that definition as the cause.
The creation passages of the shruti are there to show that the universe has to be admitted as the effect of a superior principle, Brahman. And Brahman is to be known as the cause of the entire universe and looked upon as such. This stage is essential in the teaching methodology to draw the attention of a totally ignorant person and fix his attention on this relationship. This is essential to prepare the ground, in other words, the cultivating of the mental make up of the aspirant by applying suitable sAdhana-s of karma yoga and upAsana, meditation of the Supreme with attributes. The concept of Ishvara is upheld and the aspirant is taught to relate himself to Ishvara. A deliberate cultivation of duality is taken up here. So far is the method of 'adhyAropa', deliberate superimposition by the Veda. Once this is achieved, the teaching now takes on a different phase. The stage is set for the Advaita Upadesha. The shruti passages appropriately show that the world is non different from Brahman (Vacharambhana shruti of the Chandogya, for example). This step culminates in the appreciating of the Absolute Advaitic nature of Brahman, shAntam, shivam, Advaitam, as the turIya is taught in the mANDUkyopaniShad. This is the 'apavAda' or the negation of what was superimposed deliberately earlier.
Once this is also done, the shruti having accomplished its Supreme Purpose of enlightening the jIva, goes into 'silent mode'. There is no more anything to instruct. There is no more anything for such a realised soul to know. So he too goes into 'silent mode'. He has attained to a state of a 'non persona'.
The avowed objective of all the Upanishads is to uproot all the concoctions that we have entertained in us regarding so many things. Creation and cause-effect are just two of them. When the final picture is seen or at least understood, then no question will arise about the correctness or otherwise, of holding Brahman as the material cause; it will then be understood that the Upanishads actually teach that Brahman is not at all a cause, as transcending the cause-effect realm. The turIya is taught as the pAda-traya [three states of counsciousness: waking, dreaming and deep sleep] vilakShaNa [causeless state], as asparsha [intangible, touchless]. It is not touched by the cause-effect realm at all.
But in the beginning it is essential to teach that the turIya pervades the three pAda-s. The AchArya says that if this is not shown this way, there will be no way that the aspirant can identify, locate, the turIya. But once the identifying, locating, is successfully done, there is no need any longer to hold on to the earlier teaching. Swami Paramarthananda uses the example of the parable of the seventeen elephants. Three heirs to a large estate were faced with the problem of dividing seventeen elephants among themselves in the willed proportion: half to the first brother, one-third to the second and one-ninth to the third. Seeing their predicament, a wise person 'offered' to donate his elephant to the lot of seventeen and accomplished the task thus: The first man got nine elephants, the second got six and the third got two. Having distributed the seventeen elephants of the estate thus, the wise man walked away with his own elephant. The Swami says that the shruti first introduces creation, causehood of Brahman, etc and ultimately withdraws the concept of creation, etc.
Om Tat Sat

adhyAsa

First Definition - Dennis Waite

Not only do we fail to appreciate the true nature of ourselves but also we identify ourselves with the limited body, mind and intellect. Our bodies grow old and die so we think that we grow old and die. Our minds are confused and the intellect unable to discriminate so we say that we are dull and stupid. It is a combination of inapprehension – failure to see the Self – and misapprehension – seeing wrongly. We are the seer, not that which is seen but we confuse the two. We superimpose the changing body and mind upon the non-changing Self. This process is called adhyAsa or adhyAropa (wrong attribution or erroneous transferring of a statement from one thing to another). It is sufficiently important for Shankara to examine it in detail before he begins his commentary on the brahmasUtra-s (brahmasUtra bhAShya) as follows:
Preamble : It being an established fact that the object and the subject, that are fit to be the contents of the concepts “you” and “we” (respectively), and are by nature as contradictory as light and darkness, cannot logically have any identity, it follows that their attributes can have it still less. Accordingly, the superimposition of the object, referable through the concept “you,” and its attributes on the subject that is conscious by nature and is referable through the concept “we” (should be impossible), and contrariwise the superimposition of the subject and its attributes on the object should be impossible. (Brahma Sutra Bhasya of Shankaracharya, Translated by Swami Gambhirananda, Advaita Ashrama , 1996. ISBN 81-7505-105-1.)
And this extract illustrates, perhaps more than most, why many seekers today rebel against traditional teaching with its perceived excessive use of Sanskrit, emphasis on preparation and sAdhana [spiritual disciplines] and, as here, its over-intellectualizing. Very few are likely to have the slightest idea what is being said here and, unless some clear explanatory comment is provided elsewhere, they will simply give up. It has to be remembered, however, that Shankara was a philosopher trying rigorously to prove his points and overturn the views of his objectors. Anyone who has read (or tried to read) western philosophers such as F. H. Bradley will know that unreadability is an occupational hazard!
What Shankara begins by saying is that “I” am different from the perceived object. I make a fundamental mistake when either I see one thing and think it is something else (e.g. I see a rope and think it is a snake) or I think something has an attribute that it does not really have (e.g. I think that the mirage is actually a lake). There is always something real (the rope or the sand with shimmering air above it) and something illusory. The real part is unaffected by our superimposition. What is effectively happening is that we partially see the real part, the substratum such as the rope, and then overlay it with some recollected memory of something else, such as the snake.
… When a mistake of this type occurs, what is happening is that a real part and an unreal part are getting mixed up and this is effectively how Shankara defines adhyAsa - the mixing up of real and unreal.
… When someone refers to the “snake,” he does not realize that there are two aspects, one real and one unreal. If he says, “there is a long snake,” the adjective “long” in fact refers to the rope, which is real whilst, if he says “there is a poisonous snake,” the adjective refers to the unreal part.
… Similarly, when someone says: “I am a shopkeeper” (or whatever), he does not realize that the attribute “shopkeeper” refers to the unreal part. He does not know that there are two parts, only one of which (I am) is real. In the mind of the ordinary “person” these two things are mixed up and a single, false, jIva is created. [jIva is the identification of the real Self with a body and mind.] It is this mixed-up jIva who is striving for liberation.

Second Definition - Prof. V. Krishnamurthy

Error arises, according to the theory of Non-duality, on account of the superimposition of one reality on another. Seeing
• a snake where there is a rope,
• a piece of silver where there is nacre,
• a thief where there is the trunk of the tree,
• water where there are only heat-waves,
• a dream object,
• a reflection in a mirror,
• a movie on the screen
all these are common errors, though the last two are not usually accepted as errors. In all these cases, a lower order of reality is superimposed on a higher order. The snake on the rope exists only in appearance. It is perceived by only one individual and that also for a brief moment. It belongs to the lowest order of reality, that may be called `the illusionary order of reality', also called `phenomenal order of reality' ( pratibhAsa) . It has no existence independently of its perception. In fact this is the case of the first five examples above. None of these however can be dismissed as unreal, for if they were so they would not have been perceived. An unreal thing is that which is never perceived by any one. No one has ever seen a hare's horn. It is a mere word which does not correspond to anything in the real world.
The rope which remains after the place has been examined with the help of better lighting belongs to a higher order of reality. It is the same to the same individual at different times and the same to different individuals at the same time. It exists more or less permanently. So also the nacre and the trunk of the tree. These belong to what is called the common experiential order of reality, also called `the empirical order of reality' ( vyavahAra). They are vouched for by common experience. For most people this order is the highest reality for they do not rise to a higher level of knowledge.
The superimposition of the snake on the rope is a common error. When we superimpose a lower order of reality on a higher order, it is an error. In superimposing the snake on the rope, or the piece of silver on the nacre, or the thief on the tree-trunk, what we are doing is a supereimposing of an illusionary order of reality (which is `lower') on the empirical reality (which is `higher').
Now this empirical order of reality also suffers contradiction when man gets the knowledge of the Transcendent Absolute Reality (paramArtha), called `Consciousness' or `Pure Spirit'. So Vedanta says the empirical world must be treated as a superimposition on Absolute Reality. This superimposition is also an error. In order to distinguish it from the common error earlier mentioned, we may call it a metaphysical error. Ordinary error can be set right by a little examination but not so the metaphysical error . This metaphysical error is `adhyAsa'. One has to go through much discipline and acquire the saving knowledge from a teacher. It is this knowledge which will consign the world to a lower order.
Shankara defines adhyAsa as "the apparent presentation, to consciousness, by way of memory of something previously observed in some other thing".
Recall the appearance of 'snake' where there is only a 'rope'. It is 'apparent' because the knowledge that arises out of the presentation is contradicted later. It is later contradicted, therefore it belongs to a lower order of reality. It is presented to consciousness, therefore it cannot be dismissed as unreal. It is sublated later, therefore it cannot be classified as real. Thus it is neither real nor unreal.
It means it is distinct from both real and unreal. The Sanskrit word for 'distinct from both real and unreal' is "sad-asad-vilakShhaNa". 'sat' means 'real'; 'asat' means 'unreal' and 'vilakShhaNa' means 'distinct'.
Recall that, in all this, 'real' means 'absolutely real' and 'unreal' means 'absolutely unreal'. A hare's horn is absolutely unreal. A reflection in a mirror is not. The transcendental Reality called Brahman is absolutely real and is the only one that is absolutely real, as per the statements of the Vedanta scriptures.
The object that is presented as an illusion is not a mere remembrance of an object earlier perceived somewhere else. If that were so there would not have been that feeling of immediacy. The individual who sees it says: "There is a snake right there". He does not say "There is something there which looks like the snake I saw elsewhere".
The error of perception that is being made is something positive. It is not merely the failure to keep different perceptions distinct. For if that were so, one cannot account for the practical activity such as trying to pick up the silver, that follows the perception. Just a failure to keep distinct perceptions (one of silver and one of nacre) apart cannot lead to purposeful activity.
What is presented in illusion is an object which is outside of us. It is here and now before us. It leads to purposeful activity, like running away from the snake, like trying to pick up the silver, etc. But it is falsified by the knowledge that arises later.
These are the characteristic features of illusory perception. The advaita theory regards the object of illusion as a real objective fact. The snake or silver is an actual creation for the time being. It is the creation of IGNORANCE (Sanskrit: "avidyA").
Now we can go deeper into the error of 'adhyAsa'. There are two types of errors.
One is that of mistaking one object for another: mistaking the rope as a snake, mistaking nacre for a piece of silver, etc. The metaphysical error of not recognizing Brahman and instead, seeing only the universe in front of us, belongs to this type.
The other type is that of attributing to an object a certain quality which does not actually belong to it. A white crystal by the side of a red flower appears to be red. The redness attributed to the crystal is actually an erroneous transfer of the colour of the flower to the crystal. The mistake here is not due to superimposition of one object on another, but to the failure to keep the two different things and their qualities apart. The mistake arises from close physical juxtaposition of the two objects. The metaphysical error of not recognizing the Brahman in the 'individual soul' (Sanskrit: jIva) is of this type.
When right knowledge sets in, the 'snake' disappears and only the 'rope' is there; so also the universe of matter is not seen, only Brahman is seen.
When right knowledge sets in, the appearance of 'redness' disappears and only the white crystal is seen. The crystal itself does not disappear. So also when right knowledge sets in, all the adventitious qualities of the individual soul - including its individuality - disappear and it remains as Brahman.
If we can speak of degrees of error, we can say that seeing the world of matter and not Brahman is an error (metaphysical, of course) of the first degree, whereas seeing jIva as a separate individual instead of Brahman is only an error (metaphysical, again) of the second degree.
This error of the second degree is the universal metaphysical adhyAsa. We superimpose the body, the sense organs and the mind on the Self and we use expressions like: 'I am fat', 'I am thin', 'I am white', 'I am black', 'I stand', 'I go', 'I am dumb', 'I am deaf', 'I think', 'I am not going to fight', 'I shall renounce' and so on.
The Self, when endowed with the adjuncts of the body, sense organs and the mind, becomes the individual jIva and it is the subject of all our experiences. Perceptual knowledge is impossible for the Pure Self. The sense organs are necessary for perception to arise and the senses want a locus and that is the body. The body must be invested with self-hood for otherwise it will not function. Thus the non-self must be superimposed on the self for perceptual knowledge to arise. Such knowledge, however, is vitiated at the very source on account of this foundational error. Perceptual knowledge is thus founded in Ignorance (avidyA). The whole range of our empirical life is therefore vitiated by this foundational error.

advaita

First Definition - Dennis Waite

“So, Swami-ji, what would you say that Advaita is?” The eager young woman crossed her legs and sat expectantly, pencil poised above a pristine pad of paper.
“It simply means ‘not two’ – the ultimate truth is non-dual,” replied the Sage, reclining in a large and comfortable-looking armchair and not sitting in an upright lotus position, as he ought to have been, for the sake of the photograph that she had just taken, if nothing else.
She continued to wait for further elucidation before beginning to write but it soon became apparent that the answer had been given. “But is it a religion? Do you believe in God, for example?”
“Ah, well, that would depend upon what you mean by those words, wouldn’t it?” he responded, irritatingly. “If, by ‘religion’, you mean does it have priests and churches and a band of followers who are prepared to kill non-believers, then the answer is no. If, on the other hand, you refer to the original, literal meaning of the word, namely to ‘bind again’, to reunite the mistaken person that we think we are with the Self that we truly are, then yes, it is a religion. Similarly, if by ‘God’ you mean a separate, supernatural being who created the universe and will reward us by sending us to heaven if we do what He wants, then the answer is no. If you use the term in the sense of the unmanifest, non-dual reality, then yes, I most certainly do believe in God.”
The pencil raced across the paper, recording the answer for the benefit of the magazine’s readers but, as the words clashed with previous ideas in her memory, the lack of a clear resolution of her questions was reflected by an increasing puzzlement in her expression.
He registered this with compassion and held out his hand towards her. “Give me a piece of paper from your pad.”
She looked up, mouth slightly open as she wondered why he could possibly want that. But she turned the pad over, carefully tore off the bottom sheet and placed it in his outstretched hand. He turned to the table at his right and deftly began to fold and refold the paper. After a few moments, he turned back and, before she had had time to see what he had done, he held the paper aloft and launched it into the air. It rose quickly and circled gracefully around the room before losing momentum and diving to meet a sudden end when its pointed nose hit a sauce bottle on the dining table. “Could you bring it back over here do you think?” he asked.
“So, what would you say that we have here?” he asked, as she handed it back to him.
“It’s a paper aeroplane,” she replied, with just a hint of questioning in her voice, since the answer was so obvious that she felt he must have some other purpose in mind.
“Really?” he responded and, in an instant, he screwed up the object and, with a practised, over-arm movement, threw it effortlessly in a wide arc, from which it landed just short of the waste paper basket in the corner of the room. “And now?” he asked.
“It’s a screwed-up ball of paper”, she said, without any doubt in her voice this time.
“Could you bring it back again, please”, he continued. She did so, wondering if this was typical of such an interview, spending the session chasing about after bits of paper like a dog running after a stick. He took the ball and carefully unfolded it, spread it out on the table and smoothed his hand over it a few times before handing it back to her. “And now it is just a sheet of paper again,” he said, “although I’m afraid it’s a bit crumpled now!”
He looked at her, apparently anticipating some sign of understanding if not actual revelation but none was forthcoming. He looked around the room and, after a moment, he stood up, walked over to the window and removed a rose from a vase standing in the alcove. Returning to his seat, he held the rose out to her and asked, “What is this?”
She was feeling increasingly embarrassed as it was clear he was trying to explain something fundamental, which she was not understanding. Either that or he was mad or deliberately provoking her, neither of which seemed likely, since he remained calm and open and somehow intensely present. “It’s a flower,” she replied eventually.
He then deliberately took one of the petals between his right-hand thumb and fore-finger and plucked it. He looked at her and said, “And now?” She didn’t reply, though it seemed that this time he didn’t really expect an answer. He continued to remove the petals one by one until none remained, looking up at her after each action. Finally, he pulled the remaining parts of the flower head off the stem and dropped them onto the floor, leaving the bare stalk, which he held out to her. “Where is the flower now?” he asked. Receiving no reply, he bent down and picked up all of the petals, eventually displaying them in his open hand. “Is this a flower?” he asked.
She shook her head slowly. “It was a flower only when all of the petals and the other bits were all attached to the stem.”
“Good!” he said, appreciatively. “Flower is the name that we give to that particular arrangement of all of the parts. Once we have separated it into its component parts, the flower ceases to exist. But was there ever an actual, separate thing called ‘flower’? All of the material that constituted the original form is still here in these parts in my hand.
“The paper aeroplane is an even simpler example. There never was an aeroplane was there? And I don’t just mean that it was only a toy. There was only ever paper. To begin with, the paper was in the form of a flat sheet for writing on. Then, I folded it in various ways so that it took on an aerodynamic shape which could fly through the air slowly. The name that we give to that form is ‘aeroplane’. When I screwed it up, the ball-shape could be thrown more accurately. ‘Aeroplane’ and ‘ball’ were names relating to particular forms of the paper but at all times, all that ever actually existed was paper.
“Now, this sort of analysis applies to every ‘thing’ that you care to think of. Look at that table over there and this chair on which you are sitting. What are they made of? You will probably say that they are wooden chairs?”
He looked at her questioningly and she nodded, knowing at the same time that he was going to contradict her.
“Well, they are made of wood certainly, but that does not mean that they are wooden chairs! On the contrary, I would say that this, that you are sitting on, is actually chairy wood, and that object over there is tably wood. What do you say to that?”
“You mean that the thing that we call ‘chair’ is just a name that we give to the wood when it is that particular shape and being used for that particular function?” she asked, with understanding beginning to dawn.
“Exactly! I couldn’t have put it better myself. It is quite possible that I could have a bag full of pieces of wood that can be slotted together in different ways so that at one time I might assemble them into something to sit upon, another time into something to put food upon and so on. We give the various forms distinct names and we forget that they are ONLY names and forms and not distinct and separate things.
“Look – here’s an apple,” he said, picking one out of the bowl on the table and casually tossing it from one hand to the other before holding it up for her to examine. “It’s round or to be more accurate, spherical; its reddish in colour and it has”, he sniffed it, “a fruity smell. No doubt if I were to bite into it, I would find it juicy and sweet.
“Now all of these – round, red, fruity, juicy, sweet – are adjectives describing the noun ‘apple.’ Or, to use more Advaitic terms, let me say that the ‘apple’ is the ‘substantive’ – the apparently real, separately existing thing – and all of the other words are ‘attributes’ of the apple – merely incidental qualities of the thing itself. Are you with me so far?”
She nodded hesitantly but, after a little reflection, more positively.
“But suppose I had carried out this analysis with the rose that we looked at a moment ago. I could have said that it was red, delicate, fragrant, thorny and so on. And we would have noted that all of those were simply attributes and that the actual existent thing, the substantive, was the rose. But then we went on to see that the rose wasn’t real at all. It was just an assemblage of petals and sepals and so on – I’m afraid I am not a botanist! In the same way, we could say that the apple consists of seeds and flesh and skin. We may not be able to put these things together into any form different from an apple but Nature can.
“If you ask a scientist what makes an apple an apple, he will probably tell you that is the particular configuration of nucleotides in the DNA or RNA of the cells. There are many different species of apple and each one will have a slight variation in the chromosomes and it is that which differentiates the species. If you want to explain to someone what the difference is between a Bramley and a Granny Smith, you will probably say something like ‘the Bramley is large and green, used mainly for cooking and is quite sharp tasting, while the Granny Smith is still green but normally much smaller and sweeter’. But these are all adjectives or attributes. What is actually different is the physical makeup of the cell nuclei.
“But, if we look at a chromosome or a strand of DNA, are we actually looking at a self-existent, separate thing? If you look very closely through an electron microscope, you find that DNA is made up of four basic units arranged in pairs in a long, spiral chain. And any one of these units is itself made up of atoms of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen, again arranged in a very specific way. So even those are not separate ‘things-in-themselves’; they are names given to particular forms of other, more fundamental things.
“And so we arrive at atoms – even the ancient Greeks used to think that everything was made up of atoms. Are these the final ‘substantives’ with all of the apparent things in the world being merely attributes? Well, unfortunately not. Science has known for a long time that atoms mainly consist of empty space with electrons spinning around a central nucleus of protons and neutrons. And science has known for somewhat less time that these particles, which were once thought to be fundamental, are themselves not solid, self-existent things but are either made up of still smaller particles or are in the form of waves, merely having probabilities of existence at many different points in space.
“Still more recently, science claimed that all of the different particles are themselves made out of different combinations of just a few particles called quarks and that those are the ultimately existing things. But they have not yet progressed far enough. The simple fact of the matter is that every ‘thing’ is ultimately only an attribute, a name and form superimposed upon a more fundamental substantive. We make the mistake of thinking that there really is a table, when actually there is only wood. We make the mistake of thinking that there is really wood, when actually there is only cellulose and sugars and proteins. We make the mistake of thinking there is protein when this is only a particular combination of atoms. “Ultimately, everything in the universe is seen to be only name and form of a single substantive.
The journalist was transfixed; not exactly open-mouthed but her pencil had not moved for some time. Eventually, she asked in a small voice: “But then where do I fit into all of this?”
“Ah”, he replied. “That again depends upon what you mean by the word ‘I’. Who you think you are – ‘Sarah’ – is essentially no different from the table and chair. You are simply name and form, imposed upon the non-dual reality. Who you really are, however… well, that is quite different – you are that non-dual reality. You see, in the final analysis, there are not two things; there is only non-duality. That is the truth; that is Advaita.”

Second Definition - H. N. Sreenivasa Murthy

The mantras from the Chandogya Upanishad define Advaita in the following unique manner:
"That infinite, indeed, is below. It is above. It is behind. It is before. It is to the south. It is to the north. The Infinite, indeed, is all this. "
Next follows the instruction about the Infinite with reference to `I': “I, indeed, am below. I am above. I am behind. I am before. I am to the south. I am to the north. I am, indeed, all this.”
Next follows the instruction about the Infinite with reference to the Self: “The Self indeed, is below. It is above. It is behind. It is before. It is to the south. It is to the north. The Self, indeed, is all this. OM TAT SAT”
Sri Shankara again and again draws our attention to the Truth that the Shastra (in other words Upanishads) reminds us of facts which we are not aware of. So what has been stated in the above mantras is a statement of fact but not cognized. Sri Shankara, in his commentaries, has provided in a very simple and direct way, the methodology for making that fact a living truth for us. Our goal is: to be Atmavid-s and not mantravid-s, i.e. knowing Atman and not knowing about Atman.

Third Definition - Dhyanasaraswati

In the Chandogya Upanishad, Uddalaka Aruni Teaches all the basics of Advaita to his son Svetaketu through simple illustrative stories.
My favorite one is the following :
Uddalaka Aruni instructs his son Svetaketu:

1. "Place this salt in water, and in the morning come to me." He did exactly so, and he said to him, "the salt that you put in the water last night, bring it hither. But while he grasped for it he could not find it, since it had completely dissolved.
2. "Take a sip from the edge of it. What is there?" "Salt." "Take a sip from the middle. What is there?" "Salt." "Take a sip from the far edge. What is there?" "Salt." "Set it aside and come to me." And [the boy] did exactly that, [saying] "It is always the same." He said to him, "Being is indeed truly here, dear boy, but you do not perceive it here.
3. That which is the finest essence, the whole universe has That as its soul. That is Reality, That is the Self, and That is you, Svetaketu!" (6.13.1)

tat tvam asi!

ahaMkAra

Definition - Ananda Wood

The Sanskrit 'ahaMkAra' is a compound of two elements. One is 'aham' meaning 'I'. And the other is 'kAra', which means 'doing' or 'acting' (from the root 'kRR^i', meaning to 'do' or to 'act').
Thus 'ahaMkAra' signifies an 'acting I'. Here, an instrument of action is identified as 'I'. And different instruments give rise to differing identities, with many selves that each may get to be called 'I'.
One of these selves may be identified as a body, acting towards other objects in an outside world.
Another of these selves may be identified with the body's living faculties, which express an inner mind in body's outward actions and which take perceptions back through body's senses into mind.
The mind in turn may be identified as a more subtly acting self, whose inner functioning conceives a world that is perceived and thought about and intuitively felt.
The English word 'ego' signifies these acting selves, which are identified with personal faculties of body, sense and mind. But, as these selves act personally, a problem is inherently raised. What knows these various selves, whose personal acts are liable to make mistakes?
A more truly knowing self called 'I' is essentially implied, in order to correct mistakes of any instrumental self which is involved in bodily or sensual or mental action. In search of truer knowing, a truer 'I' must be identified, beneath our personal identities and their involved self-images as actors in a physical and mental world.
The idea of 'ahaMkAra' or 'ego' is thus used to point beyond all changing action, to a disinterested 'I' that is completely detached from all changes in the world seen through our partial personalities.
In the Mundaka Upanishad 3.1.1, the ego and a truer 'I' are somewhat metaphorically described, as a pair of birds that perch upon the tree of life. The passage is appended below, followed by a free translation.
dvA suparNA sayujA sakhAyA samAnaM vR^ikShaM pariShasvajAte tayor anyaH pippalaM svAdv atty anashnann anyo abhicAkashIti

[On one same tree, two birds are perched, associated as a pair. Of these, one eats and tastes the fruit. The other of the pair is that which does not eat, but just looks on.]

Note from Dhyanasaraswati

i have always wondered why the letter 'I' as personal pronoun is capitalized ? Does it have something to do with the EGO ? no , not at all , my friends !

Ego has nothing to do with the capitalization of the pronoun I. Printing and handwriting have everything to do with it. In Middle English the first person was ich - with a lower-case ‘i’. When this was shortened to i, manuscript writers and printers found it often got lost or attached to a neighboring word. So the reason for the capital I is simply to avoid confusion and error." 

Ananda

Definition - Ananda Wood

'Ananda' is happiness, the happiness that's sought in all feelings and desires.

That happiness is not a passing state of mind. It is not a 'happy' state of satisfied desire, alternating with 'unhappy' states where desires fail to be achieved. When we speak of 'happiness', the suffix '-ness' implies a common principle. That principle is common to both happy and unhappy states. Happiness is just that principle of value which both happy and unhappy feelings show.

When someone feels happy, this feeling is positive. It feels at one with 'hap', with what has *hap*pened to take place. By contrast, when someone feels unhappy, this feeling is negative. It feels itself at odds with 'hap', with what is seen to have *hap*pened here. In either case, a common principle of happiness is shown.

In feelings that are happy, the principle of happiness is positively shown, by a positive acceptance of one-ness with what happens. In feelings that are unhappy, exactly the same principle is negatively shown, by a negative avoidance of disruptive differences between what feels and what is felt to happen.

That principle of happiness is not just personal. It is not merely 'nanda', the personal enjoyment that so differs from person to person, as we pursue our many different objects of desire. It's more specifically described as 'Ananda', with the prefix 'A-' implying a return back to an underlying depth. By Ananda is meant an experience of enjoyment that is shared in common, beneath all differences of personality and world.

In coming back to that depth of enjoyment, all personal pleasures must be left behind, in search of a truer happiness. All desire for partial objects must be given up to a truer love, for something that is more complete. All falsely independent ego must be surrendered, in devotion to a self that is truly free. This approach is called the 'bhakti mArga' or the 'way of devotion'.

One use of the bhakti mArga is concerned with religious worship. Here, truth is approached through devotion to a worshipped God, whose form is conceived by telling stories and performing rituals. A form of God is thus imagined and worshipped, through stories and rituals that appeal to the liking and desires of a personal worshipper. Such an appealing form of God is called an 'iShTa-mUrti', which means an 'embodiment of liking and desire'.

In this kind of worship, God is approached through personal desire, although the final aim is to surrender all desires to an ultimate value that is represented by God's form. Through personal attentions of worship, a devotee's love is meant to grow towards a final fulfilment, in which everything is seen as an expression of the ultimate. In that fulfilment, no matter what is done, nor where attention is directed, the devotee sees always the pervading goodness and truth that has been shown by the worshipped form.

In the Hindu tradition, there is a great variety of different religious sects. They each have their stories and rituals, their beliefs and practices, their written and chanted texts, their world-views and schools of thought, their institutions and their teachers. Through this variety of sects, the tradition has kept growing, in the course of its long history. That's how it has come down to us, in both classic and vernacular languages.

But, underneath the sectarian variety, there is a further use of devotion that is shared in common. This use is individual. It occurs in the relationship of teacher and disciple. For a disciple, the teacher stands for truth that has been taught. So love for truth gets naturally expressed in a spiritual devotion towards the teacher. But this is a very delicate matter of sensibility, where an impersonal truth is seen expressed in the person of a teacher.

Such a devotion must arise unforced and unpretended, of its own accord. It must be felt from an impersonal depth of being, from far beneath all words and thoughts and all their spoken or conceived intentions. All teaching works by leading back to that unspoken depth, through clearer knowing and uncompromised devotion.

The 'Ananda' aspect is described in the Taittiriya Upanishad 2.7, as appended below (with a rather free translation).

yad vai tat sukRRitam raso vai saH
[It is just this essential savour that is quite spontaneous and natural.]

rasaM hy evAyaM labdhvAnandI bhavati
[It's only when one reaches this true savour that one comes to happiness.]

ko hy evAnyAt kaH prANyAt yad eSha AkAsha Anando no syAt]
[For what could be alive at all, what could move with energy, if there were not this happiness -- here at the background of all space and time, pervading the entire world?]

Definition - Durga

Ananda is not a changing state of the mind, such as an experience of exuberant happiness or an experience of calm and peaceful joy. Ananda does not refer to any changing mental state.
Some teachers prefer to use the word 'ananta' instead of ananda. ananta means limitless. Another good word is pUrNa. pUrNa means fullness.
So, I am that which is full, complete and limitless. If I am full, complete and limitless, can there be any lack for me? Do I now need to look out into the creation and try to find something there to make my mind happy?
If there is no lack, and the mind has recognized that that which has no lack and is full and complete is actually my self, then the mind now knows that passing mental states of joy and sorrow never touch 'me.' They are as if scenery, but they don't touch 'me.' I never change. My fullness, my limitlessness doesn't flicker for an instant.
In this knowledge my mind may relax. It is no longer a vagabond seeking happiness in this and that changing circumstance. It has found a home. And in that relaxation the mind may experience happiness.
But that is not the Ananda which sat chit Ananda refers to. That sat chit Ananda is my very nature, which is full, complete, limitless and unchanging.
The use of the word Ananda is very confusing to many because most take it to refer to a particular mental state. That's because most of us take the very self, which we are, to be dependent upon changing states of mental experience. So we take our self to be a changing mental experience.
This is the dehAtmabuddhi in operation. The dehAtmabuddhi is the strongly held (and incorrect) belief that the Atma (the self) is dependent upon the body and the mind (and their various changing states). The dehAtmabuddhi is a self-ignorant thought, which everyone has until they have made the differentiation between my self, which never changes, and the body and the mind, which constantly change.
This self-ignorant thought labels the mind as 'me,' and the self as the mind, and then it goes on to say, "Now 'I' am happy. Now 'I' am sad." When the truth is 'I' am never either happy or sad.
Then, incorrectly taking my self to be dependent upon a mental state, and hearing that the self is Ananda, some people understandably may think that if they can maintain a certain mental state, they will then be 'enlightened,' or that if the mind seems to be peacefully happy much of the time perhaps they are 'enlightened.'
This leads the mind of the seeker on a wild goose chase, in an effort to experience and maintain more and more rarified states of mental happiness, or some experience of mental happiness which matches up to what they think 'enlightenment' is.
This pursuit is doomed to failure, first of all because no mental state lasts, but more importantly because 'enlightenment' is not a state of mental happiness. It is the recognition by the mind that the self which I am is limitless, full, complete, and unchanging, and dependent upon no passing mental state. 'I' am not a mental state.
But the words, 'limitless, full and complete,' again need to be properly explained, unpacked, and used as pointers to that which is actually here. Otherwise the mind will just grab onto these words and pursue what it thinks they refer to in ephemeral changing experiences.
So this is where the teaching of Vedanta comes in. Showing the mind over and over again, using a variety of teaching methods, that 'I' am not the mind. Pointing, pointing, pointing to that 'I' which is ever full and complete. That 'I' which never changes. And because 'I' am here (in fact 'I' am always here) that 'I' can be differentiated from that which changes (the body and the mind). And once this is seen, the dehAtmabuddhi, that knot of self-ignorance, is broken.
So the word Ananda refers to my Being, which is ever pure, ever complete, never changes, and, as opposed to the mind, is never is lacking in any way

anirvachanIya

First Definition - Putran Maheshwar

anirvachanIya may be translated as "inexplicable" or "indefinable".

I. Basic review

Advaita philosophy affirms a non-dual substratum Reality (brahman) behind the manifold universe of our experience. The common analogy is that of the rope being seen as a snake in dull light; similarly Brahman is seen as the universe in the context of upAdhi-s (or avidyA, or mAyA).
This "context of upAdhi-s" defines the subject-object divide in consciousness. It is non-absolute (relative, "ever changing") and hence unreal. The effect/correspondence to this divide is the superimposition of duality (ego-world/God), again non-absolute and unreal. (The upAdhi-s or limiting-adjuncts determine the frames of reference relative to which Brahman appears in such and such manner.)

II. The individual

Now who asks a question? The individual.
The individual is ('continually') predefined through/in the upAdhi-s and so is the universe that is (seemingly) "observed and analysed". For the individual however, observation, analysis and conclusion are real processes. The referential context, though evidently non-absolute, is continually regarded as real unto itself, and duality/change is affirmed as the only truth.

III. What to ask?

Any valid question that the individual may hope to answer must therefore lie within the bounds of the starting assumption of individuality. We may ask about the body, mind, world, and of change/relativity. Firm belief in karma-karmaphala (cause-effect) corresponds with our starting assumption and serves as the basis for our answers.
We may also enquire regarding the enquirer, the witness to all. Who am I? A rational enquiry will perhaps conclude that the Self is non- different from the context of upAdhi-s that defines the individuality and thereby characterizes the Self either as ephemeral consciousness or as the product of material law. Thus the individual ever aware of its own non-absolute status convinces itself that the Self is also unreal, and that the inescapable proclamation of "I am" from within is sheer imagination.

IV. Anirvachaniya (one attempt)

According to advaita however, the Self/I is the non-dual Reality (brahman) that in the referential context appears divided as ego and world. This conclusion is transcendental, beyond the individual's reach. Itself a product of superimposition and pertaining to upAdhi-s, the individual cannot fathom the Self/Brahman nor can it hope to answer questions of "how/why this Real appears thus unreal?" The answer to such questions is "anirvachanIya" - inexplicable. At best, the individual can assess what is truth in the referential contexts: karma, Ishvara, big-bang, etc, or what the scripture says is the underlying Truth (devoid of individuality) of all referential versions of existence.

V. Anirvachaniya (another attempt)

Duality is real/true in the individual's referential context (vyAvahArika) and yet unreal/non-existent in the "context of Brahman" (pAramArthika), i.e. devoid of the "context of upAdhi-s". In view of this dichotomy, advaita classifies the status of duality as anirvachanIya or indefinable. It exists (as if real) relative to a referential context (individuality) that is concurrent with it and 'vanishes' (into the Real) with the surrender of individuality `in' Brahman. Questions regarding its origin and nature can either be answered within a relative context (for instance, Ishvara, big-bang, etc.) or by simply pinpointing the fact of questioning itself. Why universe? - Because individual. Why duality? - because you see it. It is the avidyA or ignorance of the questioner that this world is.
This type of answer is given because the questions do not belong in the context of brahman. If the questioner retains individuality (as real), the best answer is Ishvara (or karma-karmaphala) and not (nirguNa) brahman - Ishvara brings forth this duality through His power of mAyA and is the antaryAmin (inner controller) of all beings. Such an answer is either a correct reply to a weaker empirical question, or simply a disguised way of saying, "we don't know, ultimately" to those who seek a deterministic response. Duality is an inexplicable fact of experience for the mind experiencing; it is anirvachanIya. The goal is to realize the non-dual Truth/Unity (that "aham brahmAsmi") and not to dwell upon the duality for its own sake; the latter method cannot resolve the problem of ignorance.

Note from Sunder Hattangadi:

The word 'anirvachanIya' occurs in the following upaniShad-s:

Mandala-Brahmana 4:1;
Tripad-vibhuti-mahanarayana 7:7;
Niralamba 5;
Yogatattva 1:7;
Paingala 1:2

Shankara has used the word anirvachanIya in:

Upadeshasahasri # 18 in Prose section, and
Vivekachudamai #109 (# 111 in Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan edition).

Dr. K. Sadananda adds:

The simplest definition of anirvachanIya is anirvachanIya itself: “that which cannot be defined.”

Definition – S. N. Sastri

The word 'anirvachanIya' is derived from the verbal root 'vac' which means 'to say' or 'to describe'. 'vachanIya' means 'what can be described', 'nirvachanIya' means 'what can be specifically described'. 'anirvachanIya' therefore means 'what cannot be specifically described'. The word 'anirvachanIya' can be used in any situation where we want to say that something is incapable of being described in specific terms. In advaita vedAnta it has been given a specific meaning. In the context of advaita vedAnta we have to add the words 'as real or as unreal', .so that the meaning becomes 'what cannot be specifically described as real or as unreal'.
Though the word 'anirvachanIya' is often used by itself in advaitic literature, it is understood to stand for 'sattvena asattvena vA anirvachanIya). The world is 'sattvena asattvena vA anirvachanIya, i.e., it cannot be described as either real or unreal. It does not have the same reality as brahman, nor is it unreal like the horn of a rabbit. It has vyAvahArika reality only. anirvachanIya thus has the same meaning as 'mithyA'.
As regards the term 'upAdhi', its derivation is – upa samIpe svIyam dharmam AdadhAti—which means—upAdhi is that which transmits its own quality to some thing near it. The pot gives to the total space surrounding it its own qualities of being of a particular size and shape. Space looks as if it has taken on the size and shape of the pot. The mind gives its quality of thinking to the Self and so it appears as if the Self is thinking, and so on with all other upAdhis such as gross body, etc.

anvaya – vyatireka

Definition - Prof. V. Krishnamurthy

These two words anvaya and vyatireka occur often in Vedanta. Anvaya is concordance or agreement and Vyatireka is discordance or difference. In vedAnta, the example of the beads strung to form a necklace is used to explain these two words. The fact that without the string which holds together the beads, there is no necklace of beads is anvaya. The fact that, however, the string is separate from the beads is vyatireka. The all-pervasiveness of the Absolute is anvaya. The distinctness of the Absolute is the vyatireka.

The last of the four verses called the Four-Verse-Bhagavat-am where the Impersonal Absolute `teaches' the very first born, namely Creator BrahmA: ( Bhagavatam: II– 9 – 35) says:

etAvadeva jij~nAsyam tattva-jij~nAsunAtma-naH |

anvaya-vyatirekAbhy-Am yat syAt sarvatra sarvadA ||

(Translation adapted from Swami Tapasyananda'-s.): What the seeker after Truth has to grasp is that Substance which persists -- this is anvaya -- always through all its transformations into its various effects or forms, but suffers no diminution in the process – this is vyatireka -- as also when all these effects or forms are eliminated in the causal condition. The Supreme Spirit is the ultimate Substance.

Vidyaranya's Panchadashi IV – 32 says: By anvaya and vyatireka one comes to the conclusion that it is the `mental' creation which causes bondage to the jIva, for when these mental constructs are there, pleasure and pain are also there and when they are not there, there is neither pleasure nor pain.

The words occur almost in the same context, in the boy Prahlada's teaching to his contemporaries. He says: By these two exercises in logic (anvaya and vyatireka) one should be able to realize the Self within. (Bhagavatam: VII – 7 – 21)

Definition - Dennis Waite

When the pot exists, so too does the clay. But when the pot is broken, the clay still exists. Therefore, we conclude that the clay is real while the pot is only mithyA. Similarly, when the world and thoughts are present, we exist and when these are absent, as in deep sleep, we still exist. Consequently, we must conclude that who we really are - the Atman - is real, while the world, including body and mind etc. is mithyA. This logical process is called anvaya vyatireka (anvaya means "connection, association"-; vyatireka means "distinction, separateness, exclusion")

j~nAnam / (a)parokSha

Definition - S. N. Sastri

The word 'j~nAnam', which means 'knowledge' is used in two different senses in Vedantic works. In taittirIya upaniShad 2.1.1 brahman is defined as 'satyam j~nAnam anantam'. Here the word 'j~nAnam' means consciousness which is the very nature of brahman and is therefore eternal, having no beginning or end. The word 'j~nAnam' is also used in the sense of 'a particular cognition', in which case it is an action which has a beginning and an end. Taking this second meaning of the word 'j~nAnam' an objection could be raised that if j~nAnam is the nature of brahman it would also be transient. Such an objection has been considered in the bhAShya on this Upanishadic statement and it has been pointed out that, while the nature of brahman is eternal consciousness, particular cognitions arise because of this consciousness illumining the mental modification (vRRitti) in the form of the object. Shri Shankara refers to these particular cognitions as 'semblances of consciousness' and says that they can also be referred to as j~nAnam'.
In bRRihadAraNyaka upaniShad, 3.4.2, the word 'dRRiShTi' which means 'sight' is used as a synonym of 'j~nAnam'. Shri Shankara points out in his bhAShya that this sight is of two kinds. He says:--
This sight is of two kinds, empirical and real. The empirical sight is a function of the mind as connected with the eye; it is an act, and as such it has a beginning and end. But the vision of the Self is like the heat and light of fire; being the very nature of the witnessing Consciousness it has neither beginning nor end. This eternal consciousness is the very nature of the jIva also, as stated in brahma sutra 2.3.18, since the jIva is none other than brahman.
he particular cognitions, which are transient, are brought about by the pramANa-s [means of knowledge] such as pratyakSha [perception]. The eternal Consciousness is realized as the jIva's own nature through the mahAvAkya-s such as 'Tat tvam asi'. This realization is known as 'aparokSha anubhUti' [immediate knowledge gained through the pramANa-s]. It is called aparokSha because it is not parokSha or mediate. Though it is also direct knowledge, it is not called 'pratyakSha' in order to distinguish it from all worldly knowledge attained through pratyakSha pramANa. To point out that it does not fall under the categories generally understood by the terms pratyakSha and parokSha it is called aparokSha

Atman

Definition - Ananda Wood

The Sanskrit word 'Atman' means 'self', plain and simple. In particular, it refers to an inmost self that is pure spirit, at the living centre of each person's body, sense and mind.

When a body is called 'I', it is taken to know a world of objects outside. When a body's senses are called 'I', they are taken to know a sensory world of sight, sound, smell, taste and touch. When a mind is called 'I', it is taken to know a changing process of perceptions, thoughts and feelings that conceive a physical and mental world.

These are three identifications of self: as a body, or as sense-organs, or as mind. In each case, an inner knowing is essentially implied. And that inner knowing is confused with some outward actions: with bodily actions towards outside objects, with sensual actions towards perceived sensations, with mental actions towards a conceived world.

The self called 'Atman' is that inmost knowing principle which is shared in common by our confused identifications. It is that plain and simple self which is found only by reflecting back to it, to its pure knowing unconfused with outward personality.

That reflection is described in the Katha Upanishad 4.1, which is appended and freely translated below.

parA~nci khAni vyatRRiNAt svayaM-bhUs tasmAt parA~N pashyati nA 'ntar-Atman kashcid dhIraH pratyag AtmAnam aikShad AvRRitta-cakShur amRRitatvam icchan

[This world that happens of itself has excavated outward holes, through which perception looks outside and does not see the self within. But someone brave, who longs for that which does not die, turns sight back in upon itself. And it is thus that self is seen, returned to self, to its own true reality.]

Elaboration on the verse from Katha Upanishad - Prof. V. Krishnamurthy

Shankara interprets `svayam-bhU' as the Great Lord who exists ever by Himself. `parAnchi khAni': The outgoing senses. `vyatRRiNAt' : afflicted, that is, killed.
So the first line means, according to Shankara "The Self-Existent Lord destroyed the outgoing senses". And that is why ("tasmAt") all perception looks outside and does not see the Self within ! In other words, the Self-existent Lord made the senses turn outward. The verb used in the Upanishad for `made' is `vyatRRiNat' which means also `punished', thus giving an interesting meaning that the senses were `punished' not to be able to look inward. Accordingly man looks towards what is outside and sees not what is within. (Recall the Lord's punishment for Adam and Eve for disobeying His orders!).
Incidentally, in his commentary on this verse in the Kathopanishad, Shankara quotes a verse from Linga-purANa, thereby giving the definition of `Atman'. The verse derives `Atman' from the root word which means `to obtain', `to eat, absorb or enjoy or pervade all'. It says:
Yac-cApnoti yad Adatte yac-cAtti viShayAn-iha / Yac-cAsya santato bhAvas-tasmAd-Atmeti kIrtyate //
Meaning:
Yat : That which
Apnoti : obtains
Ca : and
Yat : that which
Adatte : absorbs and pervades
Ca : and
Yat : that which
atti : eats, enjoys
viShayAn : (all) objects of enjoyment
iha : in this world
ca: and
yat asya : that from which
santato bhAvaH : the world (derives) its continuous existence,
tasmAt : for that very reason
kIrtyate : (it) is named
AtmA iti : as AtmA.

avidyA and mAyA

Definition - S. N. Sastri

In the bhAShya on gItA, 4.6 Shri Shankara says: “prakRRiti, the mAyA of ViShNu consisting of the three guNa-s, under whose spell the whole world exists, and deluded by which one does not know one’s own Self, vAsudeva”.

From this it is clear that it is because of mAyA that one is deluded and does not know one’s own real nature.

In the bhAShya on gItA, 7.14 mAyA is described as ‘that which deludes all creatures’.

In the bhAShya on gItA, 5.15 it is said that discriminating wisdom remains covered by ignorance (aj~nAnena AvRRitam j~nAnam) and so all people become deluded thus—‘I do; I make others do; I eat; I make others eat’. That is, they are deluded by ignorance (avidyA) into looking upon themselves as performers of action, whereas they are really the actionless Self.

In the bhAShya on gItA, 7.25 it is said that Krishna who is brahman is veiled by mAyA and so does not become manifest to all in the world. For this reason this deluded world does not know brahman. Thus mAyA veils the nature of brahman

Thus mAyA and avidya are both described as covering the true nature of brahman and deluding the world.

In the bhAShya on gItA, 18. 61 Shankara explains the term mAyA as delusion.

bhAShya on kaTha Up. 1.3.12—It is indeed by being deluded by the supreme mAyA that the whole world revolves.

mANDUkya kArikA, 1.16—The bhAShya says: The jIva is under the influence of mAyA which is beginningless and which has the two facets of non-perception of the Reality and perception of some thing else (as real)”.

Thus it is clearly stated here that mAyA veils the Reality and projects the unreal.

mANDUkya kArikA, 3.10— In the bhAShya on this it is said—“ mAyA avidyA tayA pratyupasthApitA”. That is, conjured up by mAyA which is the same as avidyA. Thus mAyA and avidyA are clearly equated here.

mANDUkya kArikA, 3.19— The bhAShya says: “The highest Reality is differentiated because of mAyA, like a rope appearing diversely as a snake, a line of water, etc.

kaTha up. 1. 2. 5—The bhAShya on this says that avidyA is like thick darkness, leading to entanglement in hundreds of fetters, forged by cravings for sons, cattle, etc. Thus avidyA conceals the real nature of the individual and deludes him.

Thus it is seen that both mAyA and avidyA are described at different places as the power that deludes all human beings and makes them ignorant of their real nature. This shows that mAyA and avidyA are the same.

Some AchArya-s make a slight distinction between mAyA and avidyA by saying that mAyA is the upAdhi of Ishvara while avidyA is the upAdhi of the jIva. But even according to them they are essentially the same.

mAyA is dependent on brahman. It is not absolutely real like brahman, nor is it unreal like a rabbit’s horn. It is therefore categorized as ‘anirvachanIya’ or ‘mithyA’.

avidya in sleep--- ch. up. 8.3.2- The bhAShya on this says that during deep sleep the jIva is dragged away from his real nature by such defects as avidyA, etc. Thus it is specifically mentioned here that there is avidyA in sleep.

There is avidyA in deep sleep and that avidyA is positive (bhAva rUpa). This is the view held by all the traditional AchArya-s after Shri Shankara.

The following may be taken as a definition of avidyA:--

upadesha sAhasrI—Prose portion, para 50—

The teacher said, "You are the non-transmigratory supreme Self, but you wrongly think that you are one liable to transmigration. Though not an agent or an experiencer, you wrongly consider yourself to be so. You are eternal but mistake yourself to be non-eternal. This is avidyA.

Definition of avidyA according to Patanjali's Yoga sutra 2. 5:--

avidyA is looking upon what is ephemeral, impure, painful and non-Self as eternal, pure, joyous and the Self.

Terms and Definitions

bAdha

The process of bAdha is defined in Monier-Williams Sanskrit-English dictionary as “a contradiction, objection, absurdity, the being excluded by superior proof (in logic one of the 5 forms of fallacious middle term)” The word used in English is “sublation” (or occasionally “subration”), which the Oxford English Dictionary defines as “assimilate (a smaller entity) into a larger one.” But these descriptions confuse and over-complicate what is actually a simple process. All that it means is that we held one explanation for a situation in our experience; then some new knowledge came along and we realized that an entirely different explanation made far more sense.
For example, people used to think that the earth was flat†. If a ship sailed as far as the horizon, it would fall off the edge. Then some new knowledge came along – the earth is spherical. Now we can understand that the ship is moving further around the sphere and thus out of our sight. This new explanation has the added benefit of being able to explain how it is that a ship can return after having fallen off the edge! And it even explains why the horizon seems to be curved. So the old explanation – that the earth is flat – is said to have been “sublated” by the new one. It is said to be bAdhita – negated or shown to be contradictory, absurd or false.
The example always used in Advaita is that of the rope and snake. We see the rope in poor light and erroneously conclude that it is a snake. Once a light (i.e. knowledge) has been shone onto the situation, we realize our mistake. If we encounter the situation again, we may still imagine we see a snake but the likelihood of being deceived is now much reduced because we no longer accord the same level of authenticity to our perception. It is this process of rejecting the appearance in the light of our experience or new knowledge that is called sublation or bAdha. This also provides a useful definition of “truth” in that the less able we are to sublate an experience, the truer it must be.‡

bAdha - part 2

Definition - Bhaskar

Shankara uses the word bAdha multiple times at various places...In ArambhaNAdhikaraNam (2-1-14) sUtra bhAshyaM Shankara in a single para uses this word several times to say that bAdha is nothing but sublation of wrong knowledge (bAdhitAnuvrutti or bAdhita mithyAj~nAna). It would be important here to note that Shankara alternatively, at some places uses the words like nAsha, laya etc. But these words also implicitly & contextually mean bAdha only...

The word bAdha can be explained with a simple example. If I see a synthetic snake, the first cognition of the 'snake' causes be fear, anxiety etc. After the detailed examination of the same, I get the knowledge that the snake is not real but it is mere 'synthetic' snake. But even after having the correct knowledge of the snake, the shape of snake does not disappear from my sight... but for me ONLY wrong knowledge of 'real' snake will get sublated. Though I could see the curved snake with its broad hood in the front, sharp tail at the end, now I have the bAdhita j~nAna of this seemingly 'real' snake & with that bAdhita j~nAna of that 'real' snake, there is no more anxiety & fear to trouble me.

So, bAdhA or bAdha means when one knows/realizes the true nature of the object. Though it appears in all its (seeming) reality, one's realization would be that it is not real; it is mere false appearance & does not have actual existence. Shankara applies the same logic & says though brahma j~nAnI, like other loukika-s, sees this world, for him the knowledge of the seemeing reality of the world will get sublated with the real knowledge of Atman. He explains this beautifully in sUtra bhAshya ( 2-1-14) :

atashcha idaM shAstrIyaM brahmAtmatvaM avagamyamAnaM svAbhAvikasya shArIrAtmatvasya bAdhakaM saMpadyatE rajvAdhi buddhaya iva sarpAdi buddhInAM, bAdhitE cha shArIrAtmatvE tadAshrayaH samasthaH svAbhAvikO vyavahArO bAdhitO bhavati.

From the above, it may be noted that for a brahma j~nAnI too, there exists the jagat & he too sees the vyavahAra as others do, but the difference for him is that the seeming reality of the existence of the world has been sublated (bAdhita) by the really real, non dual nature of brahman.

Comment from Michael Reidy

It occurred to me in this discussion of bAdha/sublation that the prime examples of its working viz. dream and confusion, can have their own distorting effect. We need to distinguish between manner and matter, between the act of sublation and that which is being sublated. Because of the examples of sublation that are the analogy for the ultimate sublation happen to deal with the unreal, we may be nudged into thinking, that this relative state when sublated upon our achievement of a realisation of the absolute, will be likewise unreal, fantastical, and without substance.

As we have seen, bAdha stresses that the state that is sublated is not thereby annihilated but continues to exist, preserved if you like, with a different understanding of its nature. If we focus on the activity of sublation rather than the matter that is sublated then counter intuitive and incredible positions about the status of the world for the j~nAnI may be avoided.

This is the thinking behind the Tripura Rahasya's statement:

..."I say that you do not understand the advaita shastra; nowhere do the sastras declare the jagat to be unreal. But yet they proclaim advaita to be certain. shruti-s such as "He became all", Only the non-dual Supreme Being shines as the universe", declare the jagat to be real and thereby non-duality is not impaired. Though the town reflected in a mirror seems distinct yet it cannot exist without the mirror and so is no other than the mirror; in the same manner the jagat though seeming distinct is no other than the Supreme Self. So non-duality is unimpaired." (pg.240)

Jagat is sublated on realisation. Our understanding of what it is alters radically. The acts of sublation that we are offered as analogies have as their matter dream and confusion but we ought not to let that fact alter our view of creation. What creation is for the j~nAnI is beyond the dichotomies of reason.

bAdha - part 3

Definition - Dr. K. Sadananda

Here are some simple rules on bAdha - negation or sublation.

1. That which is real cannot be negated - In fact we use this as a definition of ‘real’: ‘that which can never be negated (at any time) is real’.

2. That which is unreal need not be negated – e.g. the son of a barren woman. There is no need to negate those things that have no existence or locus of existence at any time.

3. Only that which appears to be real but is not really real can be negated. What we are negating is our assumption of reality to the transients - all the so-called human suffering arises due to our giving importance to the transient dualities – e.g. heat and cold at the body level, pleasure and pain at the mind level and pride and insult at the intellect level, since they are all transients and do not have any existence in say deep-sleep state. Hence Krishna says that forbearance is required by recognizing their transient nature and by understanding that which is changeless in the transients.

Many philosophers only subscribe to the first and the second aspects and not to the third. Yet, many of them do recognize that their 'real' can be of two types - that which is changeless and that which changes. They may not make distinction between the two, even though the distinction is obvious. These changeless and changing entities, Advaita Vedanta calls pAramArthika and vyAvahArika satyam, respectively.

Advaita subscribes to the third aspect also as apparently real but really not real.

Any change is a transformation and there is a rule of transformation that there is a matter/energy balance during the transformation which is conserved. The conserved one is the substantive that remains the same during the transformation and therefore does not undergo transformation. 'bAdha' therefore involves 'transformation' and that which never undergoes any transformation has to be infinite and is therefore always 'real'. The absolutely infinite can only be one - that is Brahman.

Krishna emphasizes this law of conservation in a cryptic form (B.G. II-16) in the famous statement:

nAsato vidyate bhAvo nAbhAvo vidyate sataH - that which non-existent cannot come into existence and that which exists cannot cease to exist.

He applies this law to the existence of the jIvAtma-s in the beginning of his teaching:

na tve vAham … there was never a time I was not there, nor you, nor these kings in front of us… etc.

Creation therefore involves a transformation of something that is already there which never ceases to exist.

We now introduce a few additional rules to our list.

4. Only the finite can undergo transformation. Transformation involves change or bAdha, and change can be recognized only from the point of a changeless reference. From this it follows that:

5. Brahman cannot undergo transformation since by definition Brahman is infinite. Hence Brahman can be the absolute reference from which all changes can be recognized. The last statement is 'tongue in cheek' since, Brahman being infinite, there cannot be 'anything' other than Brahman. Therefore, all transformations, including the reactants and products of transformations, have to be in Brahman. But there is nothing in Brahman other than Brahman. If there appears to be, it is only seemingly present and that which is seemingly present can be negated or it is bAdhitam - seemingly present but not really present.

6. Hence all transformations in Brahman are only apparent transformations and not real since no real transformation can occur in Brahman or for Brahman. There is only name and form but no real substance to transform reactants and products other than Brahman which never undergoes any transformation. Therefore recognition of their apparent nature is the 'bAdha' or sublation that is required by those who think the names and forms are real and suffer as a consequence of that misunderstanding.

Now we take this to the another extreme case.

Any transformation can be recognized only by a conscious entity who himself does not undergo any transformation - One who knows past (before transformation) and future (after transformation) but himself remains as witness of the transformation, without undergoing any transformation - is the subject I. Hence 'I' cannot undergo any transformation since if 'I' undergoes transformation, I need another subject which does not undergo transformation to recognize this transformation of 'I'. The subject 'I' can never become an object for transformation! Hence I can never be bAdhita vastu. I am a conscious-existent entity, similar to Brahman who is also satyam-j~nAnam and anantam, as per the scriptures. I cannot undergo transformation and neither Brahman can undergo transformation. Hence the scripture declares that I am that Brahman - aham brahmAsmi.

Hence, the ultimate 'bAdha' or sublation is the negation of my notion of what I am - by negating what I am not. I am the subject and not an object for any transformation; anything that transforms cannot be 'I'.

Now applying rules 1 to 3, I am the only one that is real and everything 'else' is only apparent and therefore negatable or sublatable. I am satyasya satyam - absolutely real; never negatable since I am the subject who subjects all objects to negation as I move from waking to dream to deep-sleep states.

This process of negation is nididhyAsana and has to be done constantly until I am fully established in myself as myself. In that understanding even the bAdha is itself sublated since there is nothing other than I. Abidance in that clear understanding is nididhyAsana.

bAdha - part 4

Definition - S. N. Sastri

'bAdha' is a technical term in advaita vedAnta which is used in a specific sense by all writers on advaita from Sri Shankara onwards. The actual definition of this term is given in vedAntaparibhAshA, which is the authoritative work on such matters. The following is the definition:--
The destruction of an effect is of two kinds. In one the destruction is together with that of the material cause, and in the other the material cause remains intact. The first is bAdha or ‘sublation’, and the second is nivRtti or ‘cessation’. The cause of the first is the realisation of the truth of the substratum, brahman, for without that, Nescience which is the material cause is not removed. The cause of the second is the rise of a contrary mental modification, or the removal of defects, like the cessation of a pot by the blow of a club, in which case the material cause of the pot, namely clay, still remains. Another example is, when a person first sees a snake in a rope and subsequently thinks that it is not a snake but a crooked stick. In this case also the material cause, ignorance of the rope, remains and so there is only nivRtti or cessation of the illusion of a snake, and not bAdha. If he realizes that it is only a rope, then there is bAdha because the ignorance of the substratum, rope, has also been removed.
The same definition has also been given in vivaraNa of prakASAtman and in vivaraNaprameyasangraha of svAmI vidyAraNya. The definition is:
ajnAnasya svakAryeNa saha tattvajnAnena nivRttiH bAdhaH-
This has been translated by G.Thibaut as follows:--
"Sublation (bAdha) is the termination, by means of the cognition of truth, of Nescience together with its effects".
It follows from the above that when brahman is realized there is bAdha or sublation of Nescience along with its effect, the world.
advaita vedAnta has, like any other science, its own terminology and consequently its own technical terms. The meaning of such technical terms has to be understood by seeing in what sense writers in Sanskrit on advaita have used them. Other such technical terms are upAdhi, prAj~na, etc. The term 'upAdhi' has a totally different meaning in nyAya philosophy from that given to it in advaita. The word 'prAj~na' has a meaning in mANDUkya upaniShad which is quite different from the dictionary meaning. All this is already known to most members, but I am stating this only for the information of beginners in advaita.

bhAga tyAga lakShaNa

We are already That – the truth, reality or whatever other word is preferred. We do not need to (nor can) do anything to bring about this already existing fact. One aspect of the value of the scriptures, therefore, is in their ability to bring about the realization of this already existing fact.
As things stand at present, I know that I am ‘I’ and that Brahman is ‘That’ – it is unthinkable that I can be Brahman. I think I am an insignificant, limited, body-mind which is a created thing whereas Brahman is the unlimited, all-powerful, ubiquitous creator. How can we be the same? But the mahAvAkya tat tvam asi cancels out all of these contradictory elements and tells me that ‘I’ am ‘That’, i.e. Brahman. This canceling out of contradictory elements, leaving an equality of the non-contradictory parts is called bhAga tyAga lakShaNa. The oneness that is pointed to (lakShaNa) is understood by ‘giving up’ (tyAga) the contradictory parts (bhAga).
There is an excellent metaphor that explains how this works. Suppose that you and a friend, A, both went to school with a third person, X. Although you were not particularly friendly with X, you knew him quite well but, since leaving school you lost touch and have forgotten all about him. Today, you happen to be walking along with A and see Y, who is a famous film star, walking by on the others side of the street. You have seen films starring Y and admire him very much. A now makes some comment such as “Y has come a long way in the world since we knew him, hasn’t he?” You are mystified since you have never even spoken to Y as far as you know and you ask A to explain himself. A then makes the revelatory statement: “Y is that X whom we knew at school.”
All of the contradictory aspects, that X is an insignificant, scruffy, spotty youth that you once knew at school, while Y is a rich, famous and talented actor, are all cancelled out, leaving the bare equation that X and Y are the same person. Furthermore, the knowledge is apArokSha – immediate. We do not have to study the reasoning or meditate upon it for a long time.
In the example of tat tvam asi, the canceling out of body, mind etc. is possible because of what has gone before. We have investigated these beliefs and exercised our reason, negating the false impressions (neti, neti). Without this preparation, there could not have been the sudden understanding that tat and tvam are indeed the same.

Om Tat Sat

                                                        

(Continued...) 

_{(My humble salutations to  above mentioned Philosophers and  Advaita org   for the collection)}