Terms and Definitions of Vedanta - 4

shravaNa, manana and nididhyAsana
Dr. Shyam Subramanian

shravaNa means hearing of course – but it is not simply a matter of the physical act of hearing. It is not meant that a mahAvAkya such as tat tvam asi is some sort of a Sanskritized ‘abracadabra’ where, as soon as those words are heard by a qualified seeker, the veils of ignorance will magically part and the Truth be revealed. ‘Hearing’ in this case means ‘understanding’.
 
If you say e = mc2 to a novice student, he may have heard you alright but he has not really ‘heard’ i.e. he has not understood what you are saying. So the teacher has to unfold the equation. Similarly, tat tvam asi has to be unfolded – what is tat, what is tvam, and what is this aikyam [identitity]. In what sense is one to understand this aikyam?
 
The student’s difficulty in understanding each of three components must be carefully anticipated by a qualified teacher so that this equation is communicated to the student with caution and clarity. This entire process is shravaNa alone.

In the words of the pa~nchadashI:
"The mode of the introduction of the mind of the student from parokSha [indirect] j~nAna to aparokSha [direct] j~nAna is indicated in the sixth chapter of the chhAndogya upaniShad, while Uddalaka Aruni instructs the student Svetaketu. While the indirect knowledge of Brahman is declared in such statements of the Upanishad as ‘Satyam-j~nAnam-Anantam Brahma,’ – Truth-Knowledge-Infinity is Brahman – the direct knowledge of it is the theme of the sixth chapter of the chhAndogya upaniShad, which expatiates upon the great sentence, ‘Tat-Tvam-Asi’ - ‘That Thou Art’. The demonstrative pronouns, ‘That’ and ‘‘Thou’, refer to a remote object and an immediate object respectively, as is well known. In this sentence, ‘That’ indicates Ishvara, or God, and the word ‘Thou’ indicates jIva, or the individual. The separative connotation of these two indicative words may appear to prevent the identification of Ishvara and jIva, since, at least from the point of view of the jIva, Ishvara is a remote object who existed even before creation, and the jIva is a subsequent manifestation posterior to creation. But the inseparability of the cause and its effect requires the recognition of an identical substance present both in God, the Creator, and the individual, the created embodiment.

“The usual illustration offered to explain this basic identity of this Supreme Cause with the individual effect is the way in which we recognize the identity of a person here and now with the very same person seen somewhere else at a different time. In the identification of the single person in this manner, the associations of the person with a different place and a different time from the place and the time in which he is recognized now, are ignored, and only the person concerned is taken into consideration, for instance, when we say ‘This is that Devadatta’, indicating thereby that this Devadatta who is in this place at this moment is the same Devadatta who was seen at some other time earlier in some other place. In a similar manner, the identity of the basic Substance in God and the individual is established by a separation of this Substance from the limiting adjuncts of remoteness and immediacy associated with God and the individual - Ishvara and the jIva."

Once shravaNam has been completed the job of the shastra and the guru is over. In the Kena Upanishad, the student actually asks the Guru after the teaching is concluded: “Sir, please tell me about the Upanishad” and the guru confirms that “I have already given you that instruction about Brahman”!
 
Suppose a student says: I have completely understood tat tvam asi – now what? Well, now you go back to class and hear all over again! – why? Because you still have understood nothing! If tat tvam asi is understood, it means I have understood myself to be akarta [not a doer], abhokta [not an enjoyer], nitya asa~Ngah [forever unattached], nitya shuddhi [ forever pure], and nitya mukta [forever free] etc. If after this my question is ‘what now?’, then with certitude this understanding is incomplete.
 
Here, we need to understand the relationship between knowledge and its result because there seem to be some misconceptions about this in many people. This relationship is of two types: chodya-chodaka sambandha and pratipAdya-pratipAdaka sambandha.

Suppose I am given a map from Google maps showing how to reach Pittsburgh from Philadelphia . The knowledge gained from this map does not actually get me to Pittsburgh. The map has only informed or better prepared me for that particular journey. In order to "experience" or "reach" Pittsburgh I now need to act on that knowledge.  Similarly, a cookbook knowledge does not allow me to taste a gulab jamun [ a dessert made with rosewater syrup]. I have to actually make it. These are examples of the former type of knowledge (chodya-chodaka, goal oriented).

Fortunately, this is not the case with brahmavidyA – this is a extremely crucial point to bear in mind. This type of knowledge belongs to the latter type or pratipAdya-pratipAdaka. Here the knowledge itself gives the result. How is this possible? This is possible ONLY when the thing to be attained is already a given, is already pre-attained, but we are unaware of it due to ignorance. The best example of this is also Adi Shankara’s favorite example of the tenth man. Ten men cross the river and each of them tries to get a head count to verify that all ten men reached the other bank safely. But in the process, each forgets to count himself and so always falls short by one. A competent person in whom these men have faith tells the man who is counting that ‘you alone are that tenth man’. Here, the knowledge conveyed by the words “That thou art” itself brings about the end of the search.

pratipAdya means 'that which is to be revealed', while pratipAdaka means 'that which reveals'. The moment we catch the implied meaning, (not the primary meaning) of tat tvam asi, that very moment the Truth is as though attained. So, knowledge gained from shravaNa alone is primary. Hence alone does Shankara begin the brahmasutra bhAShya with his famous treatise on adhyAsa because, without establishing adhyAsa as a fact, there is no way to establish the knowledge gained from the mahAvAkya-s, which is direct and immediate, as the means to liberation or mukti. And, once it is established that the only and immediate means to mokSha is understanding of the mahAvAkya-s, then there is only one primary means to mokSha and that is shravaNa. If someone thinks that, after getting knowledge one has to perform some actions or sAdhanA, then more shravaNa is needed, till the real implication has been correctly and comprehensively understood. Hence alone does shraddhA assume paramount importance – for the words to reveal themselves, one must surrender to them and allow them to work.
 
Now there is a misconception among many (even within the fold of Vedanta) that the knowledge of ‘tat tvam asi’ so gained is only ‘indirect’  or ‘intellectual’ – parokSha j~nAnam - and it has to be converted by meditation into direct knowledge or aparokSha j~nAnam. Or that mere book knowledge only produces j~nAnam and what is needed is put that into practice to gain vij~nAna! Some stock examples will also be provided, such as that one will not get a taste of a mango fruit by mere book knowledge - only by tasting it can it be known. Shankara categorically dismisses this (in his upadesha sAhasrI):

18.201
(objection)
The Bliss of liberation is not obtained after ascertaining the meaning of the sentence (tat tvam
asi) unlike the satisfaction which is felt by eating.
(Sankara's reply)
Indirect knowledge, it is true, is the result produced by the sentences regarding the non-Self but it is not
so in the case of those regarding the Innermost self. It is, on the other hand, direct and certain knowledge like that in the case of the tenth boy.

Proponents of such types of misconstrued and misconceived views of Vedanta will say shravaNam is hearing the mahAvAkya, mananam is understanding these words and nididhyAsanam is intensely meditating on those words till a mystic experience of the Atman – Atma sAkShAtkAra [realization of Atma] - is attained… at some point in time. What leads to mokSha, then, is the actual special Atman "experience" brought about by the meditation (nididhyAsana), not the understanding of the mahAvAkya (shravaNa) itself!
 
Once again, this is extremely misleading. Using the tenth man example, parokSha j~nAnam or indirect knowledge is simply the instruction that the tenth man very much is alive – confirming the presence of the tenth man. So when the shruti talks about brahman as the substratum, as satyam, that ‘sarvam khalvidam Brahman’ [all this Brahman alone] etc, that is parokSha j~nAnam. What then is aparokSha j~nAnam? The understanding that ‘that’ Brahman is ‘me’ alone! - in other words the understanding of ‘aham brahmAsmi’. Again, going back to the tenth man example, when the true identity of the tenth man is revealed and that too as myself and when this is understood, that alone is aparokSha j~nAnam.

Once I have gained the conviction based on my shraddhA [faith] in the shabda pramANa [scripture as a source of knowledge], the sense of closure to my seeking alone is the freedom resulting from the knowledge that I am what I was seeking. Shankara affirms this as much in the vAkya vRRitti: “When, as explained above, the mutual identity between the two words ‘thou’ and ‘that’ is comprehended, then the idea ‘I am not Brahman’, entertained by ‘thou’, shall immediately end.” And again the same text goes into great length to provide a template, as it were, for the teacher to unfold the intended meaning of the mahAvAkya so as to confer this liberating knowledge. So once again, the mahAvAkya itself and hence shravaNa alone is the primary means to mokSha.
 
Without shravaNa, without gaining a clear and complete and comprehensive understanding of the words of the mahAvAkya-s (which the Upanishads or shruti itself says is the only means to know Brahman, e.g. Br. Up 3.9.26: I ask you of that puruSha who is to be known ONLY from the Upanishads), there can be no j~nAnam. And without j~nAnam, there can be no mokSha. Once this understanding (and to say ‘intellectual’ understanding is a tautology, since there is no other kind of understanding) has taken place, there is nothing more to be known, and nothing more to be done.
 
Then what role does manana and nididhyAsana play? Their need arises from the fact that there may be lack of either clarity, or conviction, in this knowledge. Lack of clarity is in the form of doubts. After all, the Universe is 14 billion years old and I am lucky if have 14 more years to live! How can I possibly resolve this Universe into myself? Solar and nuclear powers – so immense – and yet the Upanishad says I verily am the Source of this power… when I cannot bench press 50 pounds! Isn’t this all quite far-fetched? is it possible all this could be a farce? In what way can I understand myself to be equated to God? How can God be dismissed as being unreal? Many, many such doubts may be thrown up again and again by the mind and this is the job of yukti [reasoning] or mananam. It is not an independent logical analysis but a progressive and gradual removal of these internal intellectual  obstacles by taking recourse to the teaching already assimilated during the process of shravanam - by a constant dwelling on the Vedantic teaching and by means of questioning the guru as well.
 
Finally nididhyAsana is needed, fully to internalize and assimilate the teaching. In other words, anubhava [personal experience], which involves assimilating the knowledge as one's own. Once again this anubhava is confused by people as meaning some kind of mystic experience that comes and goes. One keeps on waiting for the Atman experience – that grand ‘promised’ mega-spectacle when the elusive Atman finally reveals itself in all its glory and majesty as a reward for years of effort - which once and for all and forever will end this sense of duality. Sadly this itself is one of the biggest obstacles.

My waiting itself is a sign of my habitual notions holding sway over my antaHkaraNa [mind – seat of thought and feelings]. We may keep getting plagued by our saMsAric anubhava as in ‘I am limited’, ‘I am small’, ‘I am mortal’, ‘I am inadequate’, ‘the world is a source of grief unto me’. From beginningless time, these vAsanA-s have led to a buildup of habitual notions which do not easily and readily go away. As Shankara says in the Br. Up 1.4.10: "Moreover, false notions do not arise in a Realized Man… however sometimes memories, due to the impressions of false notions antecedent to the dawning of knowledge, simulating those notions, suddenly appear and throw him into the error of regarding them as actual false notions."

What is the remedy then so that I can abide in the pUrNatvam, the wholeness that is ever my True intrinsic nature?? Directing my thoughts at all times towards the knowledge of my true nature, that which has already been doubtlessly assimilated by me (through the process of shravaNa) will alone enable an abidance in that knowledge, which is in the form of full freedom from all limitations. Until when? Until it is spontaneous and the saMsAra bhAvana [ the experience of 'saMsAra' as something real ] goes away. What should be clear here is that, for nididhyAsana, the understanding of tat tvam asi already needs to be complete! One cannot NOT know and do nididhyAsana. There is no enquiry, no vichAra involved here. ‘’Aham BrahmAsmi’ has to be already completely understood and known to me as a fact. The job of nididhyAsana then is only this: to not allow my habitual tendencies to come in the way. As Shankara says in the Br.Up1.4.7, the j~nAnI needs to “regulate the train of remembrance of the knowledge of the Self (Atma vij~nAna smRRiti) by means of renunciation and dispassion.” And hence alone does
vairAgya and saMnyAsa become critical, nay indispensable, here.

Now suppose one takes a position: OK, I have no interest in shravaNa, in scriptural teachings, I will resort to some other means to control the mind and its flow of thoughts so that they be directed inwards. Won’t I gain a vision of the Atman? Shankara categorically dismisses this: "for it is not a means to liberation... there is no other means for the control of mental states except the knowledge of the Self and the train of remembrance about it"

Note here the very crucial point that knowledge of the Self must already be present for nididhyAsana to occur. An ignorant jIva – one lacking in self-knowledge – cannot do nididhyAsana. Hence, there is no equating nididhyAsana with meditation - Yogic, etc or any other method that has not been preceded by vedAnta shravaNa-manana. The steady recollection of Self-knowledge, by a constant flow of the mind towards the Self, enabled with renunciation and dispassion, serves to counter the residual effects of prior karma. When I have a thought, it is consciousness plus the content of the thought. My attention previously being focused solely on the content, the consciousness was as though hidden. Similarly, when I perceive an object, it is existence plus name and form. But my attention was previously exclusively on the name and form and the existence aspect is as though hidden. nididhyAsana then is an abidance on my part in the Atma, which is ever-experienced; in the recognition that, at all times, the existence principle or consciousness principle is in and through all thoughts and all perceptions, being of the nature of one’s own Self which is limitless. Then, as the bhaja govindam says: yasya brahmani ramate chittam nandati nandati nandatyeva – He alone is in Bliss, whose mind is steadily established in Brahman.

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

mithyA

Part-1

 

Definition - Ramesh Krishnamurthy

The advaitins often say that the world is mithyA. This is a term that causes much confusion. Often one comes across people who talk about the "unreality of the world" or about "illusion" without having given much thought to what the term mithyA indicates.

So here is my understanding for what its worth. I am sharing this because this understanding came to me during one of those rare moments of insight, and filled me with exhilaration for just a short while :-)

When it is said that the world is mithyA, it does not mean that the world does not exist at all (like a hare's horns or a sterile woman's son) or that it is entirely a product of one's imagination. Rather, mithyA refers to that which is true within a given frame of reference. In that sense it is *arbitrary*, not "really real". This is opposed to satya, which is truth beyond any frames of reference.

Here is a simple (perhaps simplistic) example to illustrate this:

Suppose I were to take 6 men to the banks of the river Ganga. I point to the river and ask each of the men, "what’s this?"

Their responses are as follows: A: That's a fluid B: That's water C: That's a chemical made up of two elements - hydrogen & oxygen D: That's a river E: That's the Ganga F: That's a goddess - Mother Ganga.

Which of the above is correct? Actually all of them are correct, but only within their own frames of reference, and each frame is *arbitrary*. What is relevant for one person is not relevant for the other. It is in this sense that world of objects is mithyA, which is somewhat misleadingly translated as "illusory".

And yet, in spite of the seeming differences, there is a fact common to all the statements - all the men perceived *something*, they only called it by different names. That *something* is the substratum which is pure being - brahman.

Now, is brahman the fluid? Yes Is brahman the water? Yes Is brahman the river? Yes

The fluid, the water and the river are *relative realities* (mithyA). They are real within their respective frames of reference. At the same time, they are also the absolute reality (satya), as they are brahman.

So is the world of objects real?

All objects are brahman and hence real, but a given name-form is mithyA as it is true only within a frame of reference.

The above example, if understood clearly, would be a counter to those who mistakenly criticize advaita for being "world denying" or for encouraging a "negative attitude towards life"..

Another interesting point emerges from the above example: while there can be no mithyA without satya, there can be no satya without mithyA either (in the sense that satya is perceived only through the lens of mithyA). For "pure" satya alone, one has to resort to ajAtivAda, in which there is no saMsAra, no mokSha, and certainly no mailing list!! †

Yet another point from the same example: the world of objects does not disappear into nothingness on enlightenment. If that were the case, jIvanmukti would not be possible, as living requires interaction with the external world. With his senses, the j~nAnI perceives objects like anybody else. But he recognizes that when the mind rushes to attach name & form to that which is perceived, it does so only within a frame of reference. And as all frames of reference are arbitrary, the j~nAnI does not cling to any. In that sense, the j~nAnI sees brahman alone. This "non-clingingness" is the essence of manonAsha (destruction of the mind) & vAsanAkShaya (elimination of attachments & aversions)

But this does not prevent him from using any frame of reference. On the contrary, while we the unenlightened are constrained to use only this or that frame (due to our vAsanA-s), the jnAnI is utterly free to choose whatever frame he pleases. By being established in brahman, he can ride the waves of mAyA with utter abandon! That is why jIvanmukti is described as "freedom", "bliss" etc

Hence one finds that some j~nAnI-s stay in solitude, while others are very active in the world. It is their absolute freedom!

† any discussion about satya can be only within the mithyA realm. There would have been no conception of satya in the absence of mithyA, as all philosophizing is in the mithyA jagat. Even the shruti is in the mithyA jagat.

The notion of independence is dependent on the notion of dependence!

So I wasn't making an ontological claim about satya being dependent on mithyA. Rather, I was indicating that all "standpoints" have mithyA status. The mithyA standpoint that recognizes the mithyAtva of all standpoints is what we call the pAramArthika standpoint.

mithyA
- Part 2

Definition - S. N. Sastri

Madhusudana Sarasavati has, in Advaitasiddhi, given five definitions of mithyA taken from the works of different AchAryas. Of these, the definition which appealed to me most is the following :-- pratipannopadhau traikAlikanishedhapratiyogI mithyA-- "mithyA is that which is negated in all the three periods of time in the locus in which it appears". Silver appears on nacre, but it is found to have not existed in any of the three periods of time in the place in which it appeared.

It is prAtibhAsika while the substratum, nacre, is vyAvahArika. When it is said that the silver does not exist in all the three periods of time it is to be understood that it does not exist with the same level of reality, i.e., the same ontological status as its substratum, nacre.

Similarly, the world appears on the substratum, brahman, but it has no absolute reality. It does not have the same ontological status as its substratum. It is neither real like brahman, nor is it unreal like the horn of a rabbit. so it is said to be 'sattvena asattvena vA anirvacanIyA', what cannot be described as either real or unreal. It is vyAvahArika satya while the substratum, brahman, is pAramArthika satya. Both vyAvahArika satya and prAtibhAsika satya are mithyA. The former is negated only by the knowledge of brahman while the latter is negated by the knowledge of its substratum.

When it is said that the world is negated by the knowledge of brahman, it does not mean that the world disappears. The j~nAni continues to see duality, but he knows that it is not real and is not affected by whatever happens. He becomes free from the notions of being a doer and an enjoyer and free from likes, dislikes, etc., which are the cause of all suffering.

 

mokSha

 

Definition - Sunder Hattangadi

The word `mokSha' is derived from the root verb `mokSh' which means: to wish to free one's self. seek deliverance; to free one's self from (acc.) , shake off ; to free or deliver from (abl.); to liberate , emancipate (from transmigration) ; to loosen , untie , undo ; to detach , extract , draw out of ; to wrest or take away anything from ; *

A synonym for mokSh is `muc' (or `much'): to loose , let loose , free , let go , slacken , release , liberate from; to free one's self , get rid of , escape, to relax the throat i.e. raise a cry ; , to slacken the reins ;, to deprive of life , kill) ; to set free , allow to depart , dismiss , dispatch to ; to relinquish , abandon , leave , quit , give up , set aside , depose, to quit the body or give up the ghost i.e. to die) ; to yield , grant , bestow; to send forth , shed , emit , utter , discharge , throw , cast , hurl , shoot at , to throw one's self down from) loosed , to be set free or released. ; to deliver one's self from , to get rid of , escape (esp. from sin or the bonds of existence); to abstain from ; to be deprived or destitute of, to cause to loose or let go or give up or discharge or shed; to gladden , delight , yield enjoyment, to wish to deliver (from the bondage of existence) , (to wish or be about to set; to be about to give up or relinquish (life); to wish or intend to cast or hurl to wish to free one's self; to desire final liberation or beatitude *

Some have explained the derivation as an acronym formed by combining the first two letters of the words moha (delusion) and kShaya (destruction), mo(h)a + kSha(ya).

The word is sparsely used in the Vedas, only once in the 10 major upanishads (Brihad. 3:1:3), and once in Chandogya upan., though the meaning is conveyed in many other phrases. It occurs more frequently in Shvetashvatara , Tejobindu, Maitri and Muktika upanishads.

A word allied to both is `mumukShu', one who desires mokSha or freedom.

The verb declensions of the verb `muc' are somewhat more in number.

3 Brahmasutras refer to mukti by word -1:3:2; 3:4:52; 4:4:2

Gita uses both words quite frequently, besides many other phrases.

mokSha is counted as the fourth and ultimate goal (niHshreyas or Summum Bonum) of human life (puruShArtha-s) , preceded by the foundation of Dharma (virtuous actions), Artha and Kama (wealth and pleasures conducive to the prosperity or `abhyudaya') in this world. The epic, Mahabharata, has one whole section devoted to `mokSha- Dharma'.in Shati Parva (Book 12). Bhagavata Purana has many touching stories related to mokSha, one of the best-known being `gajendra-mokSha', the liberation of the King of Elephants by Vishnu Himself.***

At the phenomenal level (`vyAvahArika') of discussion, the word mokSha naturally brings up its antonym – bandha, or bondage. Thus many of the phrases pointing to the meaning of mokSha are couched in words saying `freedom from bondage'. The bondage is also referred to as `chit-jaDa granthi', the knot of Ignorance lodged in one's `heart'.

At the noumenal level (`pAramArthika') neither word holds valid (Gaudapada Karika on Mandukya Upanishad 2:32).

Scriptures and Sages have declared that the knowledge of the true nature of one's own self (svarUpa- or Atma- j~nAna) is the only key to understanding the mystery of Existence, and this Knowledge alone secures limitless and eternal Happiness (Ananda), and ends the recurrent cycles of births and deaths (saMsAra or prapa~ncha). This knowledge itself is mokSha or mukti. Other epithets for the liberated individual are: j~nAnI, sthitapraj~na, yogArUDha, guNAtIta (Self-Realized, Liberated, Enlightened, etc.).

As Gita states (18:30), the understanding of bondage and freedom depend on the `sAttvika' (pure) nature of the intellect.

The bondage refers to the ego's desires for actions (karma) that give pleasures (rAga) and avoid pain (dveSha) to the body and mind, through contacts with objects (viShaya). As objects are infinite, so desires also seem to be endless. The pleasures, however, are ephemeral, and alternate with the pain of either not getting them or of losing them once they are achieved.

The thirst for their enjoyment can be overcome by the restraint of senses and the proper performance of one's duties and their results as sacrificial offerings (`yaj~na') to the Supreme Spirit (Brahman) .

mokSha or mukti has been described as `sadyo'- (immediate) in this life itself, and `krama'- (gradual) going through grades of expanding awareness of more and more subtle worlds ( e.g. mahA, jana, tapa, satya or brahma loka).

Jivan-mukti and videha-mukti are other terms one comes across, indicating the dissolution of one's ego while living in the present body, or happening after the body's death respectively.

Some examples of phrases from the scriptures: (for translations pl. ref. Celextel link below):**

Ishavasya upan. 2 – na karma lipyate nare | Katha upan. 2:3:8 – yaM j~nAtvA muchyate | Mundaka upan. 3:2:8 – nAma-rUpAd vimuktaH | Chandogya upan. 7:26:2 – sarvagranthInAM vipramokShaH | Brihadaranyaka upan.3:1:6- sA muktiH, sA atimuktiH, iti atimokShAH | Shvetashvatara upan.6:16 – saMsAra-mokSha-sthiti-bandha-hetuH | Maitri upan. 6:34:8 – etaj j~nAnaM cha mokShaM cha | :11 - mana eva manushhyaaNaa.n kaaraNaM bandhamokShayoH | bandhaaya vishhayaasaktaM muktyai nirvishhaya.n smR^itamiti ..

Gita -

3:9- yaGYaarthaatkarmaNo.anyatra loko.aya.n karmabandhanaH . tadartha.n karma kaunteya muktasaN^gaH samaachara ..

4:9 - punarjanma naiti maameti so.arjuna :16 - tatte karma pravakShyaami yajGYaatvaa mokShyase.ashubhaat.h :32 - taansarvaanevaM GYaatvaa vimokShyase

5:17 - gachchhantyapunaraavR^itti.n GYaananirdhuutakalmaShaaH :28 - vigatechchhaabhayakrodho yaH sadaa mukta eva saH

7:29 - jaraamaraNamokShaaya maamaashritya yatanti ye

8:15- maamupetya punarjanma duHkhaalayamashaashvatam.h . naapnuvanti mahaatmaanaH sa.nsiddhiM paramaa.n gataaH .. :16- aabrahmabhuvanaallokaaH punaraavartino.arjuna . maamupetya tu kaunteya punarjanma na vidyate ..

9:1 - GYaanaM viGYaanasahitaM yajGYaatvaa mokShyase.ashubhaat.h :3 - apraapya maa.n nivartante mR^ityusa.nsaaravartmani :28 - sa.nnyaasayogayuktaatmaa vimukto maamupaiShyasi

11:54 - bhaktyaa tvananyayaa shakya ahameva.nvidho.arjuna . GYaatuM draShTu.n cha tattvena praveShTu.n chaparantapa ..

13:35 - bhuutaprakR^itimokSha.n cha ye viduryaanti te param.h

15:4 - tataH padaM tatparimaargitavyam yasmingataa na nivartanti bhuuyaH

16:5 - daivii sampadvimokShaaya nibandhaayaasurii

17:25 - daanakriyaashcha vividhaaH kriyante mokShakaaN^kShibhiH

18:30 - bandhaM mokSha.n cha yaa vetti buddhiH saa paartha saattvikii :49 - asaktabuddhiH sarvatra jitaatmaa vigataspR^ihaH . naiShkarmyasiddhiM paramaa.n sa.nnyaasenaadhigachchhati ..

3:13 - yaGYashiShTaashinaH santo muchyante sarvakilbiShaiH :31 - shraddhaavanto.anasuuyanto muchyante te.api karmabhiH

5:3 - nirdvandvo hi mahaabaaho sukhaM bandhaatpramuchyate

10:3 - asammuuDhaH sa martyeShu sarvapaapaiH pramuchyate

18:53- vimuchya nirmamaH shaanto brahmabhuuyaaya kalpate

2:39 - buddhyaa yukto yayaa paartha karmabandhaM prahaasyasi :51 - janmabandhavinirmuktaaH padaM gachchhantyanaamayam.h

4:14 - maa.n yo.abhijaanaati karmabhirna sa badhyate

14:6 - sukhasaN^gena badhnaati GYaanasaN^gena chaanagha

Brahmasutra –

1:3:2 – muktopasRRipyavyapadeshaat.h |

3:4:52 - evaM muktiphalAniyamastadavasthAvadhRRiteH....|

4:4:2 - muktaH pratij~nAnAt.h |

Definition - Dr. K. Sadananda

From the Vedantic understanding, I would like add the following:

mokSha as you illustrated is freedom from bondage. The desire for that (mumukShutva) is the utmost desire that one should have to fulfill one's goal in life - that is to be absolutely happy with no limitations of what-so-ever. Hence it is the highest puruShArtha or highest human goal to be achieved. Hence freedom from limitations is mokSha. Hence Shankara defines mokSha as freedom from any body identification - sthUla, sUkShma, kAraNa sharIra which are by definition are limited. Absolute limitless freedom (anantatvam) and infinite inexhaustible happiness (anandatvam) are thus equated with mokSha.

Since mokSha involves limitlessness and infiniteness; it cannot be gained or given. In this respect advaita Vedanta stands tall in comparison to other Vedantic interpretations, where mokSha is given through the grace of God, and Lord Narayana alone has the capacity to give for those who deserve - 'maam evaye prapadyante maayaam etaam tarantite' - by complete surrender to me alone one can gain mokSha or one can cross over the insurmountable delusory mAyA. That which can be gained or given comes under the category of aprAptasya prApta - 'gaining something that I do not have' - If mokSha comes under that category, then it is not intrinsic with me as it is gained or given. Hence there is a beginning for mokSha. That which has a beginning must have an end - essentially that which is given or earned can be lost too. Therefore mokSha becomes finite and not infinite since only finite things alone can be given.

Hence advaita Vedanta says mokSha cannot be of the type 'aprAptasya prApta' but should be of the form 'prAptasya prApta' that is gaining something that I already have or that which is intrinsic with me. Happiness is not something that I gain, but something I have to realize. A quiet and contented mind is a happy mind. Mind free from the notions of limitations is the mind free from any longing to be free. That is the mind free from all limitations - limitations of place, time and qualities. Hence amRRitabindu U. says manaeva manushyaaNaam kaaraNam bandha mokSha yoH|

Mind alone is responsible for both bondage and freedom. Identification with the finite is bondage and realization of one's own true advaitic nature is freedom. Like all other knowledge, this knowledge has to take place in the mind alone - as Swami Dayananda-ji used to say 'there is no nasal knowledge'. One cannot become free; one has to understand that one is free. One cannot become infinite one has to understand that one is infinite. That is mokSha, as per advaita.

Difference between nirguNa and nirvisheSha

Ramesh Krishnamurthy

Any philosophy is meaningful only so long as it accommodates anubhava, in the sense that it must not be opposed to anubhava. Therefore, when we use terms such as nirguNa or nirvisheSha, the understanding must be such that it is not opposed to the world of experience but only sublates the latter.

In other words, nirguNa must not be opposed to the presence of guNa-s. If there is such an opposition, nirguNa would become the dualistic opposite of saguNa - when saguNa comes, nirguNa goes and vice-versa. Where there is guNa, there would be no nirguNa and vice-versa. Thus, being limited by the presence of guNa-s, it would effectively become a kind of saguNa in its own right - an oxymoron.

Therefore, nirguNa in the vedAntic sense implies freedom from (or transcendence of) guNa-s rather than absence of guNa-s. nirguNa implies 'guNa mukta' rather than 'guNa rahita' - the freedom from guNa-s must necessarily include the freedom to take on any and all guNa-s. Another way to understand this is that absence of a particular guNa implies the presence of its dualistic opposite. True freedom from guNa-s requires freedom from both the opposing guNa-s, which effectively implies the freedom to include both the opposing guNa-s. Only such a nirguNa can imply true non-duality.

Similarly, one may consider the usage of the word non-duality or advaita. advaita is not opposed to dvaita, but inheres in and through dvaita. If advaita were opposed to dvaita, then dvaita would have to go for advaita to come and vice-versa, leading to a duality of dvaita and advaita.

To understand advaita, one must recognize that dvaita itself includes the entire field of opposites, such as tall/short, coloured/colourless, known/unknown, empirical being/non-being, etc. To make advaita itself an opposite to dvaita would (as mentioned above) lead to a duality of dvaita and advaita and make jIvanmukti impossible.

Therefore, we say that the tree, the rock and the person are all brahman, but (nirguNa) brahman is not specifically any of these while simultaneously being all of these. This is because while brahman is free from tree-ness, rock-ness and person-ness, etc., it is also simultaneously free from non-tree-ness, non-rock-ness, non-person-ness and so on.

S N Sastri

In the term 'nirguNa', the word 'guNa' refers to the three guNas of mAyA. When brahman is associated with mAyA constituted of the three guNas it is spoken of as saguNa brahman. Here 'guNa' does not have the usual meaning of 'quality' or 'attribute'. So the usual translation of 'nirguNa brahman' as 'attributeless brahman' is not quite correct. The three guNas which constitute brahman are not qualities. Qualities have always to be in association with some substance and cannot stand on their own. For example, blueness, which is a quality, has always to be associated with some substance. In his bhAShya on the gItA (13.1), Shri Shankara says:

'It is prakRRiti or mAyA, made up of the three guNas, that has become transformed as all the bodies, organs and objects for subserving the ends of the individual souls, namely, enjoyment and liberation.'

This shows that the guNas ,which constitute mAyA, are not qualities in the usual sense of the word.

The word 'visheShya' usually means 'a distinguishing feature'. When brahman has any upAdhi such as mAyA, avidyA, mind, etc., the upAdhi becomes a distinguishing feature. In the taittirIya upaniShad (II.vii), brahman is described as 'aniruktam' - inexpressible. Shri Shankara says in his bhAShya on this statement that only what has a visheSha can be expressed. brahman is inexpressible because it has no visheSha. Thus it is without visheSha, or nirvisheSha. When this nirvisheSha brahman is looked upon as having a visheSha in the form of an upAdhi, it becomes savisheSha brahman.

Thus 'savisheSha' brahman means 'brahman with upAdhi' and 'nirvisheSha' brahman means 'brahman without upAdhi'.

Thus nirvisheSha brahman is the same as nirguNa brahman, and savisheSha brahman is the same as saguNa brahman.

The upaniShads describe brahman in the following terms:

• vij~nAnam Anandam brahma (bRRihadAraNyaka upaniShad (III. ix. 28.7)) - brahman is Consciousness Bliss;
• vij~nAnaghana eva (bRRihadAraNyaka upaniShad (II. iv. 12)) - brahman is pure Consciousness only;
• satyam j~nAnam anantam brahma (taittirIya upaniShad (II.i.1)) - brahman is Reality, Consciousness, Infinite;
• prajnAnam brahma (Aitareya upaniShad (V.3)) - Consciousness is brahman.

We generally understand the above statements as referring to nirguNa brahman. But the following statement in the bhAShya shows that even these statements cannot refer to nirguNa barman.

Shri Shankara says in his bhAShya on the kenopaniShad (II.i) that all the above descriptions refer, not to nirguNa brahman, but to brahman with upAdhi in the form of the mind, body and senses. The relevant portion in the Sanskrit text is:

tathA coktam-'vijnAnam Anandam brahma', 'vijbAnaghana eva', 'satyam j~nAnam
anantam brahma', 'prajnAnam brahma' iti ca brahmaNo rUpam nirdiShTa
shrutiShu. satyamevam, tathApi tadantaHkaraNadehencriyopAdhidvAreNaiva
vijnAnadishabdairnirdishyate tadnukAritvAd
dehAdivRiddhisangkocachedAdiShunAsheShu khamiva na svataH.

 

paramArtha - vyavahAra - pratibhAsa
Part 1

Definition by Rishi Lamichhane:

The Ultimate Reality (pAramArthika satya) does not depend upon mental activity for its existence in any way. Illusions and hallucinations (which are prAtibhAsika satya) have no existence apart from the mind that imagines them. Relative reality (vyAvahArika satya) also depends upon mind for its existence, but the functioning of the mind is not enough in itself.

It might help to take an example of each.

pAramArthika: My existence is not dependent upon the mind in any way.

prAtibhAsika: The dream-tiger has absolutely no existence apart from the dreamer's mind, the dream-tiger is mental activity alone. Wherever the mind sees the dream-tiger, if it saw a dream-goat instead, the perception would be just as valid.

vyAvahArika: A pot does not exist unless there is mental activity superimposing it upon its material cause (i.e. clay). However, the pot's existence is not dependent upon any one mind and the same pot could be superimposed on the same clay by any mind. This means that it is possible to superimpose the pot on the clay because it has been designed that way for all minds, and not just for any one mind. It is only because the pot exists as a potential in awareness for all beings that it can be superimposed on clay by any being. Unlike prAtibhAsika satya, this superimposition is not arbitrary (i.e. you cannot superimpose a wallet on the clay instead of the pot, and if you do, it is no longer vyAvahArika, it is prAtibhAsika).

[Note that the word ‘satya’ should be understood in this context as ‘level of reality’; its usual meaning is ‘true or real’; e.g. brahman is spoken of as satyam, whereas the world is mithyA.]

Definition by Sampath:

Let us consider the following story,

“Once a young lioness, going about in search of prey, saw a flock of sheep and jumped upon them. She died in the effort; and a little baby lion was born, motherless. It was taken care of by the sheep and the sheep brought it up. It grew up with them, ate grass, and bleated like the sheep. And although in time it became a big, full-grown lion, it thought it was a sheep.

“ One day another lion came in search of prey and was astonished to find that in the midst of this flock of sheep was a lion, fleeing like the sheep at the approach of danger. He tried to get near the sheep-lion, to tell it that it was not a sheep but a lion; but the poor animal fled at his approach. However, he watched for his opportunity and one day found the sheep-lion sleeping. He approached it and said, ‘You are a lion.’

“’I am a sheep,’ cried the other lion and could not believe the contrary but bleated. The lion dragged him towards a lake and said, "Look here! Here is my reflection and yours." Then came the comparison. It looked at the lion and then at its own reflection, and in a moment came the idea that it was a lion. "I do not look like a sheep - it is true, I am a lion!" and with that he roared a roar that shook the hills to their depths! “

The following conclusions can be drawn from the above story:

• The lion has realized that it has always been a lion even when it thought that it was a sheep. Thus the false knowledge that it had has been annihilated.*
• The essential nature of the lion is unaffected at all times. It is pAramArthika. It is eternally unsublatable. It is in the play of vyAvahArika where we see the "becoming" and "unbecoming".
• At the vyAvahArika level we may say that the sheep has "become" a lion. But the truth is that the lion was always the same like an infinite sky. The "Sheep" nature is like a cloud which comes over it, plays for a moment, then vanishes. But the sky is ever the same eternal blue.
• The Sheep existed only in the mind of the lion! So is the vyAvahArika state unreal from the absolute standpoint. We see the world as we are! There is a tree in the dark. A thief would imagine it to be a police man. A boy would imagine it to be a ghost and so on. But the tree remains unchanged.

* A question may be asked: What benefit has the lion obtained by realizing that it is not a sheep? It could have spent its life happily thinking itself to be a sheep.

Reply: It has got rid of "FEAR" by realizing that there is nothing which could destroy it. This is surely a benefit in whatever way you may consider it! Fear is bondage. Fearlessness is liberation. Because fear arises out of duality alone! The Katha Upanishad says,

yadidam kincha jagat sarvaM praaNa ejati niHsRitam mahadbhayaM vajramudyataM ya etadviduramRitaaste bhavanti || 2 ||

Whatever there is-the whole universe-vibrates because it has gone forth from Brahman, which exists as its Ground. That Brahman is a great terror, like a poised thunderbolt. Those who know It become immortal.

bhayaadasyaagnistapati bhayaattapati suuryaH bhayaadindrashcha vaayushcha mRityurdhaavati paJNchamaH || 3 ||

From terror of Brahman, fire burns; from terror of It, the sun shines; from terror of It, Indra and Vayu and Death, the fifth, run.

This fear alone has kept the sun, air and death in their respective places and functions, allowing none to escape from their bounds. When the gods Indra, Chandra, Vayu, Varuna will attain to fearlessness, then will they be one with Brahman, and all this phantasm of the world will vanish.

 

paramArtha - vyavahAra - pratibhAsa
Part 2

Definition by Ram Chandran:

In Vedanta literature there are some discussions related to the three notions of reality: prAtibhAsika satya, vyAvahArika satya and pAramArthika satya. Before the discussions, let us make sure that we understand that Truth is only one and it is never threefold. These narrations are just reflections of our own perceptions at different situations.

prAtibhAsika satya has neither basis, nor any existence. It is our illusion and a good example is the reality during dream. When there is twilight, a little light and a little darkness, we come by a rope and mistake it to be a snake. Really speaking, there is no snake there. The snake is only in our mind and the thing that is really there is only the rope. This is also referred as prAtibhAsika satya.

When we stand in front of a mirror, we see our reflection in it. When we move away, the reflection vanishes. Therefore, the reflection depends on the original object and only when it is there, will we see the reflection. Here, there is one basis, namely, the original thing. Without the original, there is no reflection. This is an illustration of vyAvahArika satya.

On the other hand, pAramArthika satya is an entity which is present everywhere and at all times. This is the true and eternal reality. A number of examples can be provided to illustrate the pAramArthika satya:

• Gold and golden ornaments - here the form and names such as bangle, ring, necklace have changed but the gold remains without any change.
• Clay and pots of different shapes and sizes.
• There are many bulbs with many different voltages and different colors.
• Even though we see many forms, many names, many races, many creeds and many castes in this world, we must know that the God that is present in all of them, the inner being, is in reality only one. Those with sama dRRiShTi and sama bhAva [unbiased, impartial perception and interpretation] will be able to see "Only God" with different names and forms.

Everything that we do is at the vyAvahArika level only and even the description and explanation of pAramArthika are also at the vyAvahArika level. No one except Brahman knows what the pAramArthika level is and even this assertion is only at the vyAvahArika level. The sages and saints are always careful and they have avoided making any false claims. Our problem is the lack of understanding of what they say and, most of the time, we attribute our mistakes to them.

They employ a `reference point' to illustrate the Truth at the vyAvahArika level and they are aware of our limitations. It seems that we overextend their assertions and try to go beyond! In the rope and snake example - the reference point (rope) is the Truth at the vyAvahArika level. Due to darkness (ignorance) the rope appears as the non-existent snake. But with the correct understanding (torch light) the truth is revealed.

Now reasoning is employed to illustrate the Truth at the pAramArthika level - the rope of vyAvahArika became the Brahman of pAramArthika and the non-existent snake of vyAvahArika became the non-existent World of pAramArthika. We do need to recognize that that this illustration with additional explanation is only at the vyAvahArika level! This example or analogy does not provide any clue about pAramArthika or Brahman to those who determine not to accept any analogy. The `dream' analogy is another example that is used to point to pAramArthika reality using a vyAvahArika framework.

The Truth at the pAramArthika level does require us to extend our understanding beyond the vyAvahArika level. Any of our claims about the TRUTH at the pAramArthika level are just further speculation. TRUTH can't be understood analytically by any `brilliant mind (intellect)' and that is the bottom line. This may explain why scripture becomes relevant for us to accept or reject a `speculated truth.'

For Hindus, the `Vedas or shruti - the revealed truth' became the authority for resolving issues related to the establishment of the Truth. The `shruti' is the experience of the `SELF' by the jIvanmukta. Any documentation of Vedas will not qualify for the term - `shruti.' All documented versions of Vedas become `smRRiti - a diluted form of Truth.' Consequently TRUTH (Self-Realization) can never be described in words. Everything that is written, spoken or remembered will fall into the vyAvahArika level.

paramArtha - vyavahAra - pratibhAsa
Part 3

Definition by S. N. Sastri:

We have to make a distinction between 'vyAvahArika plane' and 'vyAvahArika standpoint'. We are all in the vyAvahArika plane. The upaniShad-s, which speak about brahman, are also in the vyAvahArika plane. All teachings, all discussions, all relationships such as teacher and disciple, are also only in the vyAvahArika plane. Not only this world, but all the higher worlds, including brahma loka are within the vyAvahArika plane. ShrI Shankara says in his bhAShya on gItA 8.16 that brahma loka is also limited by time. [brahma loka – the abode of Brahma, the creator, is the term for ‘heaven’.]

In the pAramArthika plane there is no shAstra, no guru, no shiShya. There is only brahman and there is no one even to say that there is nothing other than brahman.

But even though we are in the vyAvahArika plane, we can speak from the vyAvahArika standpoint as well as the pAramArthika standpoint. When we accept the existence of the world and when we speak of brahman as the cause of the universe or as the witness of the actions of the jIva-s we are speaking from the vyAvahArika standpoint. From the pAramArthika standpoint brahman is pure consciousness without any attributes. It is not a cause nor a witness because we can speak of a cause only in relation to an effect and we can speak of a witness only when there is some thing to be witnessed. When there is nothing other than brahman there is neither effect nor cause and neither witness nor any thing to be witnessed. From this standpoint we cannot even say that it is all-pervading because there is nothing else for it to pervade. brahman is described as omniscient, omnipotent, etc., only when it is associated with mAyA and so that is only from the vyAvahArika standpoint.

The upaniShad-s speak about brahman from both the standpoints. When they speaks of brahman with attributes, i.e. brahman associated with mAyA, they are speaking from the vyAvahArika standpoint. When the upaniShad speaks about brahman without attributes, it is speaking from the pAramArthika standpoint.

As far as nirguNa brahman is concerned, the taittirIya upaniShad says that "words as well as the mind recede from it without reaching it". This is because words can, by their primary meaning, denote only substances which have either a quality, or an activity, or a relationship with some other known substance. brahman has no such quality, etc. and so it cannot be denoted by the primary meaning of any word. It is because of this that lakShyArtha or implied meaning has to be resorted to for getting the meaning of the mahAvAkya-s such as 'tat tvam asi'.

brahman is described as satyam, j~nAnam, anantam – existence, consciousness, infinite – in the Taitt. U. but it has been explained by ShrI Shankara in his bhAShya that these words do not describe brahman in a positive manner; they only say that brahman is different from all that is unreal, all that is insentient, and all that is finite. Thus brahman can be spoken of from the pAramArthika standpoint only in a negative manner. Another instance of such a description is the words "neti, neti", which mean that brahman is different from everything that we experience in the universe. Here brahman is described by the method of adhyAropa and apavAda---superimposition and negation. ShrI Shankara says in his bhAShya on Br. U. 2.3.6.:

How is it sought to describe brahman, the Truth of truth? By the elimination of all differences due to limiting adjuncts, the words "Neti, neti" refer to something that has no distinguishing mark, such as name, form, action, heterogeneity, species or qualities. Words refer to things through one or more of these marks. But brahman has none of these distinguishing marks.

Therefore it cannot be described as, "It is such and such ", as we can describe a cow by saying, "There moves a white cow with horns". brahman can be described only by the superimposition of name, form and action. When, however, we wish to describe its true nature, free from all differences due to limiting adjuncts, the only way is to describe it as – not this, not this.

It must be said that even the mahAvAkya 'tat tvam asi" and the other mahAvAkya-s are also from the vyAvahArika standpoint. From the pAramArthika standpoint there is no 'tvam' or jIva different from brahman and so there can be no such statement where the identity of two entities is postulated.

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.

prakRRiti

Definition - Mahadevadvaita

prakRRiti literally means before creation: pra - before and kRRiti - creation.

Swami Krishnananda : The stuff out of which the world is made is called prakRRiti. It is a general term, designating the matrix of all things. The basic building bricks of the cosmos are variations of prakRRiti. There is no morality in prakRRiti - it is an impersonal power and it becomes a characteristic of judgment only when it is individualised subsequently. No question of judgment is possible in a cosmic set-up. prakRRiti or the matrix of the universe, animated by a reflection of Consciousness or Brahman, divides itself into the cosmic forces called sattva (equilibrium), rajas (distraction) and tamas (inertia) [Note: these are the three guNa or ‘qualities’]. These three properties of prakRRiti are really its very constituents, not merely qualifications or adjuncts, and stand to prakRRiti in the relation of the three strands of a rope to the rope itself. (Ref. 1)

Swami Dayananda Saraswati : prakRRiti is that out of which any product, any creation, is ultimately born and is the word given to the Lord as the material cause. The word prakRRiti means that which has the essential capacity to create. prakRRiti is also called the cause. Lord Krishna says in the Bhagavad Gita that I have two prakRRiti-s :

prakRRiti-1 (actually Swamiji calls it svarUpa prakRRiti) : svarUpa could be translated as the very being of something. This is the cause for everything; the truth of everything, without which nothing is possible. This is the absolute prakRRiti. For example, ice is cold and that coldness is its svarUpa. You cannot remove it and still have ice. And here similarly, atman cannot give up its nature, awareness. Awareness is the svarUpa of Atman; it is not a quality.

(This description is slightly edited to avoid more Sanskrit words) prakRRiti-2 (Swamiji calls it svabhAva prakRRiti) : svabhAva could be translated as nature or characteristic. It consists of 5 elements, mind, body and intellect. Because the effect, kArya, is not separate from the cause, it is also called prakRRiti. Therefore we have the expression kArya-prakRRiti. A physical body consisting of 5 elements is also kArya-prakRRiti as are the sense organs and mind. In other words, anything created, anything put together is a kArya prakRRiti. Again - kArya means effect. However, when we look upon prakRRiti in its causal form it is also called karaNa-prakRRiti or svabhAvika-prakRRiti. (Ref. 2)

prakRRiti is the cause of both subtle and gross bodies of all beings. As the child is born of the mother, similarly prakRRiti is the material out of which this creation is born. But the mother herself cannot produce a child without a father and so too, prakRRiti requires an efficient cause - that is Brahman. (Ref. 3)

According to the Bhagavad Gita, prakRRiti is uncreated or beginningless.

References:

1. The Spiritual Import of the Mahabharata and the Bhagavadgita by Swami Krishnananda.
2. Bhagavad Gita Chapter 7 Verses 4 – 6 commentary by Swami Dayananda.
3. Chapter 14 Swami Dayananda's Bhagavad Gita home study course.

In the Advaitin archives, there is an article on prakRRiti written by Prof V Krishnamurthy.

Submitted by Vinayaka - From the translation of the Bhagavad Gita by Swami Tapasyananda

prakRRiti is the Sanskrit expression for Nature. It does not mean matter as we understand it today, because the matter of the scientist is a late evolute of prakRRiti. It is an expression and a theory introduced by the sAMkhya philosophy, and this sAMkhya conception of it and its analysis have entered into all systems of Indian philosophy and even the sciences as they were developed in ancient India.

prakRRiti has three constituents, sattva, rajas and tamas called guNa-s. These three are in a state of equilibrium. It is on the disturbance of this equilibrium that evolution and involution of the creative cycle depends. A guNa in ordinary language means a quality or attribute, but the guNa-s of prakRRiti are its constituents. Even the word constituent is misleading. Perhaps 'dispositions' may be more appropriate. They cannot be isolated as substances or as quantities but are known only through their effects in the form of various qualities and substances that constitute the world of experience and are classifiable into three groups. As far as this threefold analysis of prakRRiti into sattva, rajas and tamas is concerned, sattva has effects like luminosity, peace, knowledge and pleasure and objects with such properties; rajas expresses as dynamism, passion, attachment and the like; and tamas, as inertia, darkness, dullness, ignorance and the like. Objects partaking of such characteristics are the products of sattva, Rajas and tamas respectively.

While the Gita is mainly concerned with the psychological and the spiritual aspects of the guNa-s, the sAMkhya philosophy, which originally propounded this doctrine of prakRRiti with its three constituents called guNa-s, derived all the cosmic categories as their evolutes, and the whole universe in its subtle and gross aspects as the permutations and combinations of these categories.

sachchidAnanda (sat-chit-Ananda)

Definition - Ananda Wood

Further to the last three weekly definitions on 'sat', 'chit' and 'Ananda', here is a piece of verse attempting to summarize them as three aspects of one truth.


'sat' or 'existence'

The world is nothing else but truth.
That is its plain reality.

Each lie that's told shows falsity,
producing thus a seeming show
of what does not in truth exist.

This seeming show is partly true,
but it is also partly false.
What's truly shown is here confused
with false appearances that seem
to hide what they more clearly show.

What then is that reality
which may be found, when falsity
is questioned and thus clarified?

The falsity that's questioned here
is of our bodies and our minds.
For it is through these instruments
that we perceive and think and feel.

It is these instruments which act
to show us the appearances
that they produce, through all of their
perceiving and conceiving acts
towards their objects in the world.

And it's by questioning these acts
that we may come to clarity:
about what's true and real here,
in the appearances of world
which we perceive and think and feel
through all our personalities.

But to what truth may we thus come,
through this reflective questioning?
Just what reality is it
that we may thereby realize?

This questioning reflects within,
to a reality of self
that's found in every one of us.

There, truth is found that shows itself,
without the need for any act
which gets put on or taken off.

That truth of self is found direct,
by merely being what it is.
It is just that reality
whose truth is unmistakable.

In that reality of self,
truth is exactly that which has
no falsity mixed into it.

'chit' or 'consciousness'

Whatever world may be perceived,
or thought about or felt conceived,
in anyone's experience,
this world is shown by seeming acts
of partial body, sense and mind.

Each act creates a seeming show
that's known by light of consciousness.

That light is knowing in itself.
Its very being is to know.
It knows itself without an act,
by merely being what it is.

There, consciousness knows just itself,
as its own true identity.

What's called a 'knower' thus turns out
to be identical with what
may also be described as 'known'.

These are two different ways in which
we speak of an identity
where nothing alien intervenes
between what knows and what is known.

That is true knowledge: known direct,
by coming back to what one is,
to knowing in identity.

That consciousness which knows itself
is shown by all appearances
that are perceived or thought or felt
in anyone's experience.

Thus, each perception, thought or feeling
shows what we call 'consciousness'
and what we call 'reality'.

Both of these words refer to what
is always shown in common -- by
all differing appearances
which are perceived and thought and felt
by different persons in the world.

But that which is thus shown in common
cannot be two different things.
For if it were, it would be shown
in common by this seeming two;
and that would make it one alone.

That one alone is spoken of
as 'consciousness' when thought turns back
to look for it as that which knows.

And that same one is said to be
'reality', when looking out
beneath the show of differences
that are perceived and thought and felt
by different persons in the world.

Two words thus point to what is one.
It is at once the self that knows
and all the world's reality.

'Ananda' or 'happiness'

When knowing self and what is known
are thought by mind to be at odds,
there comes a state where mind appears
conflicted and dissatisfied.

This is a restless state of mind,
believing that it is in want,
for lack of something it desires.
This state is called 'unhappiness'.

But when desire is fulfilled,
the mind then comes to happiness
in which its conflicts get dissolved.

That happiness is not a state
which comes and goes in changing mind.
It is instead what motivates
the mind's achievement of desire.

As mind seeks objects, all this search
is for the sake of happiness.
It's in the end for happiness
that any object is desired.

That final goal of happiness
is shared in common by all minds.

It stays unchanged: throughout all change
of mental states, in search of all
the different objects sought thereby.

When a desire is achieved,
the mind is brought to happiness --
found at the centre of each heart --
where change and difference don't apply.

All imperfection there dissolves:
in that perfection for whose sake
all life is lived, all acts are done,
and all these happenings take place
in world and personality.

- Dhyanasaraswati

From Ribhu Gita – (Sri Ramana was very fond of quoting from this famous text )

Your True Nature is always the undivided , non-dual Brahman !
Which is a mass of Being-Consciousness-Bliss (Sat Chit Ananda)
Motionless , Ancient , still Eternal,
Without Attributes. without Confusion , without Sheaths
Without parts and without impurity
Completely free from any illusion of Duality
Full , Peerless and the ONE !

sAdhana chatuShTaya

Definition - Dr. Ram Chandran

The vivekachUDAmaNi (one of Shankara's important works on advaita philosophy) specifies the required qualifications for a seeker as – the one who discriminates between real and the unreal, whose mind is turned away from the unreal, who possesses calmness and cherished virtues, and who is longing for liberation.

The foremost qualification is viveka - discrimination between the Real and the unreal. Next comes vairAgya – renunciation of all transitory enjoyments of fruits of one's action. The resting of the mind steadfastly on its Goal (Brahman) by detaching continually detached itself from the senses is shama or calmness. Turning the sense-organs away from sense-objects and keeping them under control is dama or self-control. Controlling the mind by self- withdrawal from the influence of external objects is uparati. titikShA or forbearance requires the person to bear all distress without reacting or looking for remedies and keeping the mind from anxiety. shraddhA or faith with dedication, devotion and conviction is the most crucial virtue which enables the person to visualize the truth stated by the scriptures, sages and saints. samAdhAna or self- steadiness (steadfast peace) requires constant concentration of the intellect on the ever-pure Brahman. The last but not least is mumukShutva, the desire to free oneself from bondage to worldly attractions by recognizing one's True Divine Nature. In other words a student who treads the path of Truth must, therefore, first equip himself / herself with sAdhana chatuShTaya - the FOUR MEANS OF SALVATION.

As stated above these consist of: viveka (discrimination), vairAgya (dispassion), shamAdi ShaTka sampatti (the six-fold qualities of perfection), and mumukShutva (intense longing for liberation). [sampatti means ‘accomplishments’; ShaTka means ‘consisting of six’; shamAdi refers to shama, the first of them.] Then alone will he/she be able to march forward fearlessly on the path. Vedic scriptures implicitly and explicitly declare that not an iota of spiritual progress is possible without the above mentioned four qualifications. These qualifications are acquired in sequence – just like going from elementary-school to middle-school, secondary-school and college. viveka dawns in a seeker through the Grace of God; vairAgya that is born of Viveka is enduring and ever lasting. The shamAdi ShaTka sampatti, the six-fold virtues consist of shama, dama, uparati, titikShA, shraddhA and samAdhAna, is impossible without the presence of vairAgya. These six qualities should be taken as one because they are interrelated and they together can bring the body mind and intellect under control. mumukShutva is the intense desire for liberation from the wheel of births and deaths with its concomitant evils of old age, disease, delusion and sorrow. If one is equipped with the first three qualifications (viveka, vairAgya and shamAdi ShaTka sampatti), then mumukShutva, the intense desire for liberation will come without any difficulty.

The above list of the necessary qualifications for salvation stated above certainly will appear later in weekly definitions. I believe for this week (and possibly for several weeks) let us discuss the importance of the six-fold virtues or shamAdi ShaTka sampatti. This could be the right time to point out that these are also important ingredients for j~nAna Yoga. Also j~nAna yoga can be explained through shravaNa (listening to the Truth uttered in the scriptures from a qualified guru), manana (contemplating on the Truth uttered by the guru) and nididhyAsana ( practicing deep and constant meditation).shravaNa is not only an integral part of j~nAna Yoga, it is also one of the nine modes of Bhakti Yoga. shravaNa is considered superior to mere reading of the scriptures and a qualified guru should impart the teachings directly to the student. Only a student with shraddhA will be able to learn the truth about Atman from the guru. The internet discussions, web pages and books are just preparation before meeting a teacher and will never replace the direct contact with a live teacher. manana indicates that the student should spend some time in solitude and quiet in order to think deeply about the implications of what has been learnt. nididhyAsana is deep and constant meditation and from the discussed two steps it is now obvious to the seeker that brahman is the only reality that counts and its realization is all the aspirant wants

'sAkShin' or the 'witness'

Definition - Ananda Wood

In Advaita philosophy, our perceptions of the world are considered objectively, as part of an objective world which is perceived through them.

This world is taken to include our bodies, our senses and our minds -- as changing instruments which act in the world. These instruments make up our personalities. And, as they act in their containing world, they produce a succession of perceived and thought and felt appearances, which come and go in each of our minds.

But how is this succession known? It's known through passing states of mind, whose limited attention keeps on turning from one changing appearance to another. Here, in the mind, each passing state brings an appearance which replaces past appearances and which is then replaced in turn.

To know that change has taken place, what knows the change must carry on. As mind's appearances get changed, a continued knower must stay present through the coming and the going of these changing appearances.

That knower must stay present silently. It is completely uninvolved with the distraction of noisy appearances, which clamor to replace each other in the mind's attention.

That silent knower is called 'sAkShin' or the 'witness'. It is an impartial witness that remains invariably the same, beyond all change and difference. For it is never in the least affected by any of the differing appearances which come and go before its disinterested witnessing.

That witness is not a changing doer. It does not do anything which changes it in any way. It is just that pure knower whose continued presence is shared in common by us all, beneath all changes and all variety of personality and world.

From there, the world is rightly known, with a complete and impartial objectivity.

In the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 3.8.11, Yajnyavalkya describes the witness briefly -- as an unchanged observer, beneath all continuity of space and time in changing world. The relevant passage is appended below, with a somewhat free translation.

tad vA etad akSharam gArgI
adRRiShTam draShTRRi, ashrutam shrotRRi,
amatam mantRRi, avij~nAtaM vij~nAtRRi;
nAnyad ato 'sti draShTRRi, nAnyad ato 'sti shrotRRi,
nAnyad ato 'sti mantRRi, nAnyad ato 'sti vij~nAtRRi;
etasmin nu khalv akShare gArgI
AkAsha otash cha protash ca.

[This, Gargi, is just that which is not changed.
It is not seen, but is the see-er.
It is not heard, but is the hearer.
It is not thought, but is the thinker.
It is not known, but is the knower.
Apart from it, there is no see-er.
Apart from it, there is no hearer.
Apart from it, there is no thinker.
Apart from it, there is no knower.
Gargi, in this alone which is not changed,
all space and time are woven, warp and woof.]

The witness is of course not truth itself, but a concept that is used to point towards truth. If a sAdhaka follows where this concept points, the concept is left behind and finally disappears.

Viewed by reflecting back from mind, the witness is conceived as a changeless knower, which knows a succession of changing states that come and go. But when the mind reflects completely back to this changeless knower, it turns out that the knower is itself the true reality of each passing state. So, in knowing these states, the knower only knows itself.

What was approached as the 'witness' is thus realized to be a self-illuminating reality whose very being shines with knowing light. In that realization, the 'witness' concept is completely dissolved in a non-dual self.

What the witness concept does is to provoke the mind into asking questions that reflect it back into its truly knowing self. But when the mind gets reflected all the way back, it completely disappears along with all the objects it has conceived.

Accordingly, the witness is a conceptual limit that the mind approaches, by removing what is found to change from this mind's idea of itself. As more and more of the changing mind is removed from its idea of itself, the mind approaches closer and closer to its true self.

So long as anything that changes remains, the mind must look questioningly back to a changeless witness at the final limit of the changing mind. On getting closer and closer to that witness, the mind gets closer to changelessness and to the absence of all changing things.

In that borderland near to the final limit, the mind may get stuck in a sense of listless and hopeless nothingness. Tennyson describes this somewhat mythically, but rather beautifully, in his poem "Tithonus":

The woods decay, the woods decay and fall,
The vapours weep their burthen to the ground,
Man comes and tills the field and lies beneath,
And after many a summer dies the swan.
Me only cruel immortality
Consumes: I wither slowly in thine arms,
Here at the quiet limit of the world,
A white-haired shadow roaming like a dream
The ever-silent spaces of the East,
Far-folded mists, and gleaming halls of morn....

Tithonus is here speaking to the Goddess of Dawn, with whom he has had a love affair. As a result of that affair, she has granted him a boon of immortality, but not of the eternal youth that he forgot to ask for. I take the whole poem as describing an unpleasant aftermath of visionary or mystic exaltation, leaving poor Tithonus badly stuck and wasting away "here at the quiet limit of the world". He's stuck of course because he hasn't actually reached that limit, but stays teetering a little distance still away from it. That distance is an immeasurable gulf which still remains to be leapt across.

When the leap is made and the witness is finally reached, all world and mind and witnessing are found dissolved in knowing truth.

Advaita reasoning is thus directed back paradoxically, to a supporting truth from which no supported mind or world can truly be recovered.

Note from Dhyanasaraswati

Swami Ranganathanada speaks of the sAkShin in reference to the Bhagavad Gita , 2-29:

'When Sri Krishna tells Arjuna that the true Self of man is unborn, immortal, and eternal, he is referring to this sAkShin (vide Gita 2- 16, 13-22, 15-10, 18-17).

The Gita conceives Reality as that which never changes. The ego, being subject to change, is unreal; so also are all its objects. Hence Sri Krishna asks Arjuna to transcend the dualities of experience like heat and cold, pain and pleasure, and identify himself with the permanent and unchanging Being, the sAkShin (witness).

The sAkShin being the ultimate subject or observer, the difficulty of comprehending it truly is well expressed by Sri Krishna thus:

"Some look upon this Self as marvelous; others speak about It as wonderful; others again hear of It as a wonder. And still others, though hearing, do not understand It at all." '

sat

Definition - Ananda Wood

In the Hindu tradition, three aspects are distinguished for approaching truth. These aspects are called 'sat' or 'existence', 'chit' or 'consciousness', and 'Ananda' or 'happiness'. From these aspects, there arise three 'mArgas' or 'ways of approach'.

The existence aspect gives rise to the 'yoga mArga' or the 'way of union'. The consciousness aspect gives rise to the 'j~nAna mArga' or the 'way of knowledge'. And the happiness aspect gives rise to the 'bhakti mArga' or the 'way of devotion'.

In this posting, the 'sat' aspect is described. The other two aspects will be described in the next two weeks.

By 'sat' is meant a reality that's shown in common, by differing appearances.

Accordingly, sat may be described as 'tattva' or 'that-ness'. It is a changeless that-ness which transcends all these changing appearances that show it to us, through these bodies and these senses and these minds. For short, it is sometimes called just 'that', as opposed to the 'this' of its manifold appearances. Since that reality is changeless, it is found to be the same in each individual, and throughout the entire universe.

Approached individually, the reality is called 'svarUpa' or 'true nature'. A 'rUpa' is a form, appearing through some act of perception. The prefix 'sva-' means 'own'. So 'svarUpa' means 'one's own form'. It is the inmost form that is revealed by looking at an individual from her or his or its own point of view, without any intervention from outside.

When an individual is perceived from outside, the perception is then indirect. A perceiving mind or body intervenes, between the perceiver and the individual perceived. This intervention creates a mental or physical appearance -- which is then liable to change, from changing points of view.

But when an individual is seen fully from within, there is no intervening distance between the point from which one looks and some other point to which the looking is directed. There is, accordingly, no difference between what sees and what is seen. What's seen is then no outward appearance -- thus seen to differ and to change, from various outside points of view. What's seen instead is the true nature of the individual, there found exactly as it is, in a direct realization of itself.

That true nature may be sought as one's own self. Or as the self in anyone, at the centre of each living personality. Or that same nature may be sought as the reality of any object in itself, in its own individuality. And that same nature called 'svarUpa' may be sought universally: as the complete reality of the entire universe, including every object and each personality. The universe is then treated as an individual whole.

In every case, the reality called 'sat' is what stays the same, throughout the changing life of each person or each object or the universe. As life proceeds through a variety of different happenings, we see in them an ordered functioning, which somehow expresses purposes and meanings and values that we find intelligible. It's only thus that we can understand what happens, as we reflect from change and difference to a sense of purpose and meaning and value that we find shared in common with what we see.

'sat' is accordingly a shared reality, which is expressed in common by all nature's life, both in our personalities and in their containing world. This gives rise to the yoga mArga or the way of union. Here, truth is approached by a progressive harnessing of personality. All faculties of body, sense and mind are harnessed back into their underlying source of life, from which they have arisen.

As the harnessing progresses, the personality becomes more integrated and its capabilities expand, beyond their usual limitations. The way of yoga is thus aimed at a complete integration, by absorption back into that underlying source where all limitations and all differences are found dissolved.

The 'sat' aspect is described in the Mundaka Upanishad 1.1.6, as appended below (with a somewhat free translation).

yat tad adreshyam agrAhyam agotram avarNam
acakShuH-shrotaM tad apANi-pAdam

[It's that which can't be seen or grasped,
which has no family, no class,
no eyes or ears, no hands or feet.]

nityaM vibhuM sarva-gataM susUkShmaM tad avyayam
yad bhUta-yonim paripashyanti dhIrAH

[It is just that which carries on,
extending subtly everywhere,
beyond the finest subtlety.
It is that being which remains,
found always changeless at the source
of all becoming in the world.
That's what the wise and steadfast see.]

Note from Dhyanasaraswati

SRI RAMANA ON 'SAT' SANGA

"...association with the unmanifest sat or absolute existence (is required).... The shAstra-s say that one must serve (be associated with) the unmanifest sat for twelve years in order to attain Self- realization...but as very few can do that, they have to take second best, which is association with the manifest sat, that is, the guru."

Questioner: You say that Association with the Wise (satsa~Nga) and service of them is required of the disciple.

Sri Ramana Maharshi: Yes, the first really means association with the unmanifest sat or absolute existence, but as very few can do that, they have to take second best which is association with the manifest sat, that is, the guru. Association with sages should be made because thoughts are so persistent. The sage has already overcome the mind and remains in peace. Being in his proximity helps to bring about this condition in others, otherwise there is no meaning in seeking his company. The guru provides the needed strength for this, unseen by others.

SOURCE: Silent Teachings & Sat-sanga. Sri Ramana Maharshi

satyam and mithyA

The Sanskrit word for "truth" is satyam and this is also the word for reality. The only reality is brahman. Ignorance is ignoring (literally "turning away from") this truth through identifying ourselves with a body, mind, belief, cause or whatever. We mistakenly take these things to be real in their own right instead of simply a form of one essential reality.

Another frequently used metaphor in Advaita is that of clay and a pot made from the clay. The clay exists before the pot is made. Whilst the pot is in use to hold something, it is still clay. And after the pot has been broken, the clay is still there. Advaita defines "real" as being that which exists in or transcends all three periods of time (i.e. past, present and future) - trikAlAtIta, so that it is only actually the clay that is real by this definition. Yet whilst the clay is in the form of the pot, it would not be true to say that the pot does not exist. Clearly it has some reality but it cannot be described as real according to the definition. But neither is it false, since we can use it to carry water about, while the clay in the form of an amorphous lump is not much use for this purpose. The pot's reality is entirely dependent upon the clay and, moreover, it is always clay and nothing but clay whether it is in the form of the pot or not. Thus the pot has a "dependent reality." There is no English word to describe this – the Sanskrit word that is used is mithyA.

Similarly, the world did not exist a few billion years ago and will be swallowed up by the sun in few more. The reality upon which it depends is Brahman. Brahman exists before during and after the world. The world too, whilst it exists, is nothing but Brahman in essence. Brahman is the only reality; the world is neither completely real nor completely unreal – it is mithyA. And the same applies to every "thing" in the world, be it people, houses, minds, concepts, emotions etc.

With this explanation, then, another possible definition for ignorance is available – ignorance is pursuing mithyA instead of satyam. Having mixed up real and unreal, most people spend their lives trying to derive happiness from material objects or transient relationships instead of coming to the realization that our already existent essence is limitless consciousness. Because we already are That, there is not, strictly speaking, anything that we can do to become That. Once the ignorance of the fact is removed, the already existent truth is revealed. This means, somewhat surprisingly, that it is knowledge of mithyA that brings about enlightenment, not knowledge of satyam, because it is the mithyA that constitutes the apparent bondage.

satkArya vAda

Definition - S. N. Sastri

This is the theory of the sAMkhya school. It is in contrast to asatkArya vAda which is the theory held by the nyAya-vaisheShika school. According to asatkArya vAda the effect is not pre-existent in its material cause, but it is altogether a new creation. That is to say, the effect, kArya, is asat, non-existent, in the cause. The cause becomes non-existent and from that non-existence a new product emerges as a new creation. sAMkhya rejects this theory, pointing out that, if the effect is not already in the cause, then anything can be produced from anything else; curd can be produced from water and oil from sand. So the sAMkhya-s hold that the effect, kArya, must exist (sat) in the cause. The sAMkhya-s further hold that there is a real transformation or pariNAma of the cause into the effect and that both the cause and the effect are real.

advaita vedAnta accepts one part of satkArya vAda, namely, that the effect pre-exists in the cause, as is clear from the quotations from Shri Shankara’s bhAShya given below:

bhAShya on Br. Up. 1.2.1—

“The effect exists before it is produced. The manifestation of the effect (from the cause) points to its pre-existence”.

“Obstruction is of two kinds. When an effect, such as a pot, has become manifest from its cause, clay, darkness and the wall, etc., are obstructions, while before its manifestation from the clay the obstruction consists in the particles of clay remaining as some other effect such as a lump. Therefore the effect, pot, although existent, is not perceived before its manifestation, as it is hidden”.

From the above statements it is clear that the effect exists in the cause according to advaita vedAnta.

The other part of the sAMkhya theory of satkArya vAda, namely, that there is an actual transformation of the cause into the effect and that the effect is also real, is not accepted by advaita vedAnta. According to advaita the effect is only a different configuration of the cause and is not real. The effect is only a vivarta or transfiguration of the cause and not a transformation. This is clear from the following statements in the bhAShya:

Ch. 6.1.4--- The effect is non-different from its material cause. All modification is mere name.

Ch. 6.2.2--- The same existence continues in a different configuration. As, for instance, a snake forms into a coil, and clay continues in different forms as dust, lump, potsherds, etc. A snake is the same whether it is coiled or stretched out. A man sitting does not become different when he lies down. Similarly gold remains as gold whether it is in the form of a chain or a bangle or any other ornament.

A pot is merely a configuration of clay and has no reality apart from clay.

shamAdi ShaTka sampatti

 Definition - Dr. Ram Chandran

In the past week, we have started with the discussion on the four step preparatory process known as the sAdhana chatuShTaya. To recapture our thoughts, they are the following:

1. viveka (discrimination of Real from unreal)

2. vairAgya (detachment or dispassion from sense objects)

3. shamAdi ShaTka sampatti (a collective group of six behavior traits)

4. mumukShutva (intense desire to achieve permanent bliss)

 

The sAdhana chatuShTaya is described by Shankara in the vivekachUDAmaNi as follows:

Adau nityAnityavastuvivekaH parigaNyate |
ihAmutraphalabhOgavirAgasttadanantaram ||
shamAdiShaTkasampattiH mumukShutvamiti sphuTam || - Verse 19.

The first discipline is the discrimination between the Real and unreal. The next discipline is the detachment or dispassion from the enjoyments of the world here and after death (heaven). The third discipline is the practice of the six behavior traits - shama, dama, uparati, samAdhAna, shraddhA and titikShA; the fourth discipline is the intense desire for escape from this saMsAra or realization of the divinity in her or him.

In the coming months, the definition for the topics, viveka, vairAgya, and mumukShutva will be taken up. At this time, let us focus on shamAdi ShaTka sampatti which include shama, dama, uparati, samAdhAna, shraddhA and titikShA.

1.shama
shama means mind-control. This is very hard to achieve. The mind can cause bondage; it can also confer liberation. It is an amalgam of rAjasika and tAmasika modes, the passionate and dull attitudes. It can be easily polluted. Mind takes every opportunity to run helplessly behind the senses. When there is a single hole in a pot of water it becomes empty within a short time. Similarly even if a single sense is out of control, we will likely be thrown into bondage. Therefore, every sense has to be mastered. The potency and purity of the mind can be maintained by good practices like DhyAna (meditation and contemplation), japa (mental prayer), bhajana (group recitation) and pUjA (worship). With the strength and skill thus reinforced, the mind gets fine tuned. manas or mind is but a bundle of thoughts, a collection one's wants and wishes. As soon as a desire arises from the mind, the buddhi (intellect) should evaluate its value and validity - is it good or bad, will it help or hinder, where will this lead or end? If the mind does not submit to this probe, it will land itself in the path of ruin. If it does and obeys the intelligence, it can move along the right path. We have three chief instruments for uplifting ourselves - Intelligence, Mind and the Senses. When the mind gets enslaved by the senses, we get entangled and bound. The same mind, when it is regulated by the intellect, can make us aware of our true identity – the Atman. Thus, the act of ignoring the stream of thoughts which come on account of the past tendencies (vAsanA-s) and diverting our attention towards what has to be done in this life constitutes shama. Strong willed people can achieve this by mere will power. Others will have to strive for it with the help of dama.

2. dama
dama means keeping the body and the senses under control. This can be achieved only by sAdhana or spiritual exercise and not by any other means. One has to avoid spending precious time in useless pursuits. One has to be ever vigilant. One has to engage the senses of perception and of action and the body in congenial but noble tasks which would keep them busy. There should be no chance for tamas or sloth to creep in. And, every act must also promote the good of others. While confining oneself to activities which reflect one's natural duties (svadharma), it is possible to sublimate them into sAdhana for the body and the senses. dama means controlling the external indriya-s. External indriya-s are ten in number. They are: five j~nAnendriya-s (instruments of perception) and five karmendriya-s (instruments of action). When, on account of the tendencies of the past lives, desires arise in the mind, these external indriya-s will set out to fulfill them. Even though the mind encourages the person to perform a wicked act, there is a technique that can be employed to overcome the temptation. This is called dama and it comes from the wisdom got from studying the scriptures. Even here, one has to utilize the mental power to achieve the goal. It is interesting to note that the external indriya-s are easier to control than the mind. If dama is practiced properly, the will power will also increase and therefore shama can be achieved with relative ease. On the other hand, if one tries to practice it ostentatiously, it will do more harm because, the desires which are dormant in the mind will flare up and will completely spoil whatever shama one has achieved and, at the same time will destroy dama too. Therefore it is important to practice dama honestly.

3. uparati
The third qualification with which one has to be equipped is uparati. This implies a state of mind which is above and beyond all dualities such as joy and grief, liking and disliking, good and bad, praise and blame, which agitate and affect the common man. These universal experiences can be overcome or negated by means of spiritual exercises or intellectual inquiry. Man can escape from these opposites and dualities and attain balance and stability. uparati can be achieved, if one is careful, while engaged in day-to- day living, to avoid entanglement with, and bondage to, differences and distinctions. One should free oneself from identification with castes like Brahmin, kShatriya, vaishya and shUdra, or clans like gotra-s, or conditions like boyhood, youth, adult and old age, or genders like masculine and feminine. When he succeeds in discarding these and is firmly established in the Atmika Reality alone, he has really achieved uparati. uparati literally means 'to rest'. Stimuli such as form, sound, touch, smell, etc., attract the mind and cause bondage. We become attracted to an object we see because we think that there is something very special in it. When discrimination dawns on us and when we realize that they are not permanent and that indulging in such attraction will only bring misery, we will no more be attracted by them. Consequently, the sense organs will stop running after them. Such a recess of the sense organs is called uparati. Do not look at the world as the world with a worldly eye. Look upon it with the eye of Atma, as the projection of paramAtman. That can make one cross the horizon of dualities into the region of the One. The One is experienced as many, because of the forms and names man has imposed on it. That is the result of the mind playing its game.

uparati promotes inner exploration, nivRRitti, not outer enquiry and activity, pravRRitti. Along nivRRitti lies the path of j~nAna (Intellectual Inquiry); along pravRRitti lies the Path of Karma (Dedicated Activity). The sacred activities like rituals and sacrifices (karma) laid down in the Vedas cannot confer liberation from bondage to birth and death, mokSha. They help only to cleanse the Consciousness. It is said that they raise man to Heaven; but Heaven too is but a bond. It does not promise eternal freedom. The freedom which makes one aware of the Truth, of his own Truth, can be gained only through shravaNa (listening to the guru), manana (ruminating over what has been so listened to) and nididhyAsana (meditating on its validity and significance). Only those who have detached their minds from desire can benefit from the guru. Others cannot profit from the guidance. Those who expect and look forward to the fruits of their actions can engage in them until their consciousness is cleansed. After that, their actions are of no value. So, one must be ever conscious of the Atma, as pervading and penetrating everything, so that attraction and repulsion, the duality complex, cannot affect him. When dama is practiced with the help of uparati achieved by the power of discrimination, it leads us to shama. On the other hand, if dama is practiced either out of fear or for the sake of acquiring some supernatural power, it will cause more harm than good. Therefore, only when dama is practiced with the help of uparati, it will yield favorable results.

4. titikShA
The fourth qualification is titikShA. This is the attitude of forbearance, which refuses to be affected or pained when afflicted with sorrow and loss, and the ingratitude and wickedness of others. In fact, one is happy and calm, for one knows that these are the results of one's own actions now recoiling on him, and one looks upon those who caused the misery as friends and well-wishers. One does not retaliate nor does he wish ill for them. One bears all the blows patiently, and gladly. The natural reactions of a person, whoever he may be, when someone injures him is to injure in return; when someone causes harm to do harm and when someone insults him to insult back by some means or other. But, this is the characteristic of the pravRRitti path - the path of objective involvement. Those who seek the inner path of sublimation and purification, the nivRRitti path have to avoid such reaction. Returning injury for injury, harm for harm or insult for insult only adds to the karmic burden, which has to be endured and eliminated in future lives. This burden is termed AgAmin or lineal. One cannot escape the task of undergoing the consequences of one's thought, word and deed in due course. Paying evil for evil can never lighten the weight of karma; it will only become heavier. It might confer immediate relief and contentment, but it cannot but make the person suffer later. titikShA, therefore, instructs man to do good to the person who injures him. titikShA makes way for uparati.

5. shraddhA
The fifth among the virtues to be cultivated is shraddhA. shraddhA means unwavering faith in the sacred scriptures or shAstra-s and in the moral codes they contain as well as in the Atma and the guru. Faith is the sign of shraddhA. Gurus are worth worshipping. They show us the path of fulfillment, the shreyomarga. The shAstra-s are designed to ensure the peace and prosperity of the world and the spiritual perfection of mankind. They have before them this great aim. They show the way to its realization. So, one must place faith in such holy shAstra-s, gurus, and elders. The gurus, on their part, must instruct people only in the knowledge of the Atman that is immanent in all Beings, [sarva jIvAt maikya j~nAna]. He who has shraddhA will achieve this j~nAna. They must themselves have full faith in it and live according to that faith without the slightest deviation. shraddhA means conviction or faith. It is now clear that the first four aspects are achieved with the help of discrimination. Discrimination in turn, comes from the knowledge of scriptures. Those who teach us the scriptures are gurus. Only when we have unflinching faith, can we understand those aspects properly. We will be able to experience them too. Therefore, shraddhA or faith is the basis of the above four aspects.

6. samAdhAna
samAdhAna means single pointed concentration. Normally, one concentrates hard when one is subjected to fear, desire etc. For example, examination fear makes the student concentrate on his studies. This cannot be called samAdhAna. By constantly asking ourselves - 'What is our real nature or True Being?', 'What is the real nature of creation that we perceive?' etc., we will gradually lose attachments in worldly affairs. We will then naturally develop concentration on the ultimate Truth. This is called samAdhAna. samAdhAna comes from the past tendencies which have been carried by us during this birth. samAdhAna will increase the power of discrimination. Increased power of discrimination will further foster samAdhAna. shraddhA and samAdhAna will help achieve titikShA. titikShA bestows uparati and uparati in turn will cause dama, which ultimately bring about shama.

The collection of these six virtues is called shamAdi ShaTka sampatti (a treasure of six virtues). Acquiring these constitutes the third step in sAdhana.

The entire discussion of sAdhana chatuShTaya including shamAdi ShaTka sampatti is also available in the tattva bodha (Shankara’s other famous work). Detailed lessons of tattva bodha (lessons 1 to 12) by Swami Atmandaji (a former member of this list) are available.

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

Om Tat Sat

                                                        

(Continued...) 

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