End Of Knowledge

Category: General Vedanta

  • Existence Equals Consciousness

    Student: I am having trouble understanding how existence (satyam) and consciousness (jnanam) are the same thing. They appear to be different.

    Vishnudeva: The “difference” between existence and consciousness is only a seeming difference “created” by the apparent manifestation of rupa, form (viz. objects). But if upon investigation form is found to be unreal (mithya/asat) then any difference “created” by form is equally unreal. In other words, to answer the question of how there is no difference between existence and consciousness, you must first question your assumption that the appearance of objects is actually dividing reality (you/atman/brahman) into the categories of “existence” and “consciousness” in the first place. If form is not real, then no real division is being created between existence and consciousness. 

    But the manifestation of form as an actual entity, independent of its cause, is impossible. Why? Because if a form has manifested, then it manifested from a cause that was already existent (because nowhere in life do we see anything manifesting from nothingness). And if the form latently pre-existed in the cause, then its manifestation is not a novel creation different from the cause, but the cause itself assuming an incidental form. Because the incidental form, upon analysis, is false (seeing as it is just the cause in a different form), then nothing was created. If nothing was created, then no difference was created between existence and consciousness. There is only the appearance of difference. 

    Once again, we return to the faithful clay pot metaphor. The pot-form is not itself a thing, but rather an incidental, false appearance of the clay. And if the pot-form is false, then any change or division it seems to impart to the clay is also false. So, no real division is created in the clay by the appearance of the pot-form. To be clear, Vedanta is not denying the experience of objects, such as a pot-form. But it is certainly denying that forms are actually real. And by denying that forms are actually real, Vedanta denies that any appearances created by forms—such as the seeming division between existence and consciousness—are actually real. 

    Something to consider: Speaking from the empirical perspective (vyavaharika), the experience of the clay-pot form is false. But is the entire experience of the clay pot false? No, because even though you are undeniably experiencing the falseness of the pot-form, you are simultaneously experiencing the reality of the clay underlying the false pot-form. You must admit that the the pot-form “is” (meaning, “it exists”) because it is experienced. But the “isness” or existence of the pot-form does not belong to the pot-form itself, because the pot-form cannot exist independently of the clay. Instead, the existence of the pot-form is really the existence of the clay itself.

    So, while on the one hand you are experiencing the mithya (false) pot-form, you are also experiencing the satya (real, meaning, “empirically real”) clay. The satya clay and the mithya pot are, for lack of a better description, experienced “side-by-side.” In other words, from the standpoint of experience, the two are inseparable. Thus, it is through understanding alone that we can see the mithya pot and know that we are in fact experiencing the satya clay. 

    Taking this a step further, consider the experience of clay itself. Clay, as a form (object appearing in consciousness), is false (for reasons you already know). But is the entire experience of the clay false? No, because even though the clay-form is false, you nonetheless experience that the clay “is”; it exists. But does the “isness”/existence of clay belong to the clay itself? No, because “isness” exists uniformly throughout all objects. Particular objects come and go but “isness” in general remains. Hence, “isness” cannot belong to any particular object. This means that in the experience of the clay, you are experiencing the mithya clay as well as the satya “isness” i.e existence in general. But when you negate the actuality of the mithya clay, then you understand that all you are really experiencing is the satya “isness.” 

    Student: But wait, how can I experience myself as “isness”? If I say I am experiencing “isness” then doesn’t that mean “isness” is an object, and hence, not my self?  

    Teacher: You are only experiencing objects as objects. But as previously mentioned, “isness” i.e. existence is not an object. It is a “state” of being, meaning the fact that objects are existent, rather than non-existent. Speaking of non-existence, when you are experiencing the clay, are you experiencing your self as non-existent? 

    Student: No. 

    Teacher: So, the clay “is” and your self “is.” This “isness” is present in both the subject and the object. But when existence is not itself an object with qualities, then how does the “isness” of the subject (viz. consciousness free of qualities) differ from the “isness” of the object? Or, in other words, how can you differentiate your “isness” from the “isness” of the objects?  

    Student: I can’t. “Isness”/existence is one. The seeming difference only belongs to the insubstantial forms. 

    Teacher: Good. Another question: How can you say that you exist? 

    Student: Because I am conscious. 

    Teacher: Correct. But notice that you are not actively “being conscious” in order to exist. You exist for the very fact that you are obviously, self-evidently, and effortlessly, conscious.  

    Student: True. 

    Teacher: Then how is that consciousness different from your existence? When you have investigated the nature of the mind and discerned that it is merely an object appearing in consciousness, then you have seen that the mind (and by extension, thought) cannot establish the existence of the self that is aware of the mind. When the mind cannot establish your existence, then what is left?  

    Student: If the mind is false, and therefore cannot establish my existence, then consciousness is the reality of my self. 

    Teacher: So, if 1) you are consciousness, 2) you exist, then how is consciousness different from existence? You have already seen that existence cannot belong to the forms themselves, so there is only one other option—consciousness. It is not that existence comes out of consciousness, or that consciousness comes out of existence. In reality, they are the exact same thing. Try to find a difference between the two that is not dependent on the appearance of an insubstantial, false form, in the mind.  

    Here is another way to think of it: The word “exists” is a verb that means, “to have objective reality or being.” But if we say, “the tree exists,” is the tree performing some action to either create or maintain its “isness”? No. If it be argued that existence is an action, then what is the agent of that action? If such an agent exists, then upon what is the agent’s existence based? Is there then a second agent that maintains the first agent’s existence, while the first agent maintains the existence of the tree? If that be the case, then there could a third agent to maintain the existence of the second agent, and a fourth agent to maintain the existence of the third agent, ad infinitum. Hence, existence is not what something does; existence is what something “is”; existence is the nature of reality that is not dependent on objects or action.

    So, rather than saying, “the tree exists,” it would be more accurate (though slightly awkward) to say, “Existence is tree-ing.” In other words, the existence itself that must have necessarily existed prior to the tree-form is now appearing as a tree-form. Otherwise, we are left with the logical conundrum of predicating the existence of existence on the appearance of forms that we would not even be acknowledging if they did not first exist as existence itself. 

    Look at the forms. Notice that they exist. Then notice that the existence of the forms (the fact that they are, rather than are not) is not produced by the forms themselves, nor does it belong to the forms. A tree, a rock and a man all equally “are.” This means that forms have existence, but existence itself has no form.  

    Now, ask yourself: What else is existent, but neither belongs to, or is produced by, forms? Or, what else exists but is not an object? 

    Student: Easy. Consciousness. 

    Teacher: Now, considering that both consciousness and existence are formless non-objects with no defining characteristics, how then can you establish a difference between the two? Only if consciousness and existence are objects with characteristics can you distinguish one from the other. But no such basis for establishing a difference between the two actually exists. Trying to differentiate existence from consciousness is like trying to differentiate space from space. 

    Speaking of space: When a clay pot appears in space, it seems to divide space into “inside space” and “outside space.” But in reality, space remains undivided because the space “inside” the pot is the exact same space as the space “outside” of the pot. There only seems to be a division because of the pot. In the same way, the appearance of forms makes you look like “inside consciousness” and “outside existence.” But the seeming difference between “existence” and “consciousness” is merely created by the false appearance of the form, because formless existence and formless consciousness are the exact same thing. So, once again, try to find a difference between the two. 

    Try to find consciousness without existence, and existence without consciousness. By the law of agreement, if consciousness and existence are always experienced together, with absolutely no break or variation, then they are not two different things being experienced simultaneously. Instead, they are the exact same thing. For instance, when you experience fire, you invariably experience heat and light. Remove heat and light, and there is no fire. Heat and light, then, are the very nature of fire. You cannot start a fire to create light, but not heat because they are the same thing. 

    Similarly, you never experience consciousness apart from experience, or vice versa. Remove existence and there is no consciousness (because consciousness itself exists). Remove consciousness, and there is no existence (because who or what exists apart from consciousness?). Can you imagine being conscious without existing? Can you imagine existing without being conscious? No. So, if existence and consciousness are invariably present together, and neither has distinguishing characteristics, how can it be shown that the two are different?

    To recap: The nature of the self is existence (satyam) and consciousness (jnanam). Existence and consciousness are the exact same “thing.” But when the mind is present, it seems to divide the self into a conscious subject that knows existent objects. But, upon investigation, the mind is a false appearance. Therefore, the division created by the mind between consciousness “inside” and “existence” outside, is also false.

  • Maya Does Not Exist

    Billy: Who is affected by Maya? Is it the Ego or the Atman?

    V: Maya does not exist. Gaudpada, Advaita Vedanta’s first known teacher, makes the non-existence of maya explicitly clear in his Mandukya Karika at verse 4.59. I will include the commentary on this verse by Shankaracharya, Vedanta’s greatest teacher, for emphasis:  

    “The entities that are born are thus not born in reality (meaning: Though the universe and its inhabitants appear in Atman, they never actually come into existence). Their birth is like the appearance of a thing through maya (magic). Just as things produced by magic have no reality, the universe has no reality.” 

    Shankara’s commentary: 

    “(An objection is raised): Then you are, in effect, admitting that maya is an existent entity (by saying that it creates the universe).”

    “Answer: Not so. As the verse above says, ‘sa cha maya na vidyate,’ meaning, ‘ And that maya does not exist.’ The idea is that maya is a term relating to something non-existent (because the creation never actually comes into being. It only appears to do so.)”

    From this verse and the subsequent commentary, you can see that the term “maya” does not refer to a thing in and of itself. Instead, it is a term indicating that the appearance of the universe is false. Though Atman alone exists, it inexplicably appears as something other than Atman. This is maya.

    For a better understanding of maya, you can look at the traditional Vedanta parable of the rope snake: You are walking by a well on a dark night. You look down and we see a snake coiled by the well bucket. You freeze in terror. But, after several moments, the snake does not move or make a sound. You work up the courage to examine the snake more closely, only to find that it is not a snake at all, but a coil of rope attached to the well-bucket.

    In this story, a real rope is mistaken to be an unreal snake, similar to the way that the real Atman is mistaken to be an unreal universe. Here, you may be tempted to ask, “But how does this mistake occur? And to whom does it occur?”

    But why ask these questions? In the case of mistaking a rope for a snake, you never bother to ask why you saw the snake. And once you recognize the rope, you merely dismiss the appearance of the snake as unreal and move on. For all intents and purposes, the imagination of the snake occurred to you, but this is no problem because you know that the snake never existed in the first place. Hence, it was no real problem. No further inquiry, therefore, is required regarding the nature of the illusory snake or how it came to appear.

    Why? Because to investigate the “existence” of this illusory snake is to essentially ask the non-sensical question, “How did this non-existent snake come to exist?” A snake that is non-existent in the beginning (before it is imagined on the rope), and once again non-existent in the end (after the real rope is is recognized), is, logically, also non-existent in the middle (while it is being imagined).

    To explain further: Before the snake is imagined, it is utterly non-existent. And a non-existent entity, such as the child of a woman who cannot bear children, by definition, cannot exist, because existence and non-existence are of opposite natures, like light and darkness. Sure, this non-existent child can be imagined to exist, but this imagination does not bring the non-existent child into actual existence (because the child is just and idea in the mind). So, the existence of the snake is ruled out from the very beginning. Nonetheless, the snake is imagined and thought to be existent. But, upon inquiry, it is seen that the snake is not a snake, but a rope. Once again, the snake has been recognized as non-existent. If the snake does not exist in the first place, and does not exist in the end, then it did not exist in the middle while it was being imagined.

    So, in the case of the non-existent snake, it does not come into actual existence when it appears in the mind. The snake also does not come into existence in the rope because the rope ever remains a rope. Nor is the snake produced by the rope, because there is no potential for a snake within the rope (rope fibers cannot produce snakes). Neither does the snake does not come into existence through an interaction of the mind with the rope, because as previously mentioned, the snake neither exists in the mind or in the rope. Combining the two, then, will not magically create a real snake.

    When this is the case, the question of, “How did this snake come to exist?” becomes irrelevant, because the snake never actually came into existence. Similarly, the question of, “Why is there maya (the appearance of the universe) and who is affected by this maya?” is irrelevant because maya, illusion, is, by definition, non-existent. For instance, if you have a dream that you are abducted by aliens, do you try investigate the nature of those dream aliens upon waking?

    Billy: No. I simply dismiss them as non-existent. But unlike a dream about aliens, I do not know that maya is non-existent.

    V: Then, it is you who is affected by maya.

    Billy: But you said that I am Atman, who is unaffected by maya.

    V: If you know that you are Atman, who is unaffected by maya, then why are you asking about a maya that neither exists nor affects you?

    Billy: Ah, I am getting the picture now.

    V: Yes, you are. But right now, you are letting the tail of maya wag the dog of Brahman. You’ve got the situation backwards. You are trying to use the “rules” of the illusory maya world to understand the illusory maya world, when you should be trying to understand the real Atman. And when you understand Atman—or more importantly, that you are Atman—then the false, non-existent nature of maya is revealed. Then, you see that you, Atman, were never affected by maya in the first place. The entire idea of being deluded by illusion is seen to be part of the illusion itself. It was a problem that never existed. It only existed because you thought it existed.

    All my best,
    Vishnudeva

  • The Elephant Mind

    Hello Vishnudeva,
    When I meditate, my mind gets distracted and unwanted thoughts come into play. I can’t clear my mind and make it completely empty.

    V: That’s okay, because in Advaita Vedanta understanding one’s self is the purpose of meditation, rather than getting rid of thoughts. And this is a good thing, because as you have seen, it is virtually impossible to force the mind to stop thinking. In fact, efforts made to willfully restrain the mind lead to frustration and inner tension, both of which, ironically, are inimical to the practice of meditation itself.

    So, try not thinking of meditation as actively managing the mind. Instead, think of the mind as a tank of muddy water that you are passively observing. Here, the mind is the water, and the dirt floating in the water is thought. And trying to coerce the mind into not thinking is like trying to get dirt to settle to the bottom of a tank of water by throwing in more dirt. Why? Because the desire to clear the mind, and the mental efforts made to do so, are just more thoughts. They only further muddy the water of the mind.

    But when you simply observe the mind without judgement, it will, like an undisturbed tank of muddy water, settle and become clear on its own. Let the thoughts arise and resolve of their own accord, doing your best not to judge them, dwell on them, or contemplate their meaning. And when you inevitably get “hooked” by one of the mind’s alluring ideations or distracting anxieties, then just watch the mind judge, deliberate, reminisce, worry and ponder, and wait to see if it settles down, rather than stirring the mind up further by trying to force it to stop. If the mind clears up on its own, then good. If not, then simply watch it in all of its muddy glory until the allotted meditation time is over, and then “try” again next time. When you sit to meditate in the same place and at the same time everyday, your mind will eventually get the hint about what you are trying to do, and it will become more cooperative. And once you are able to allow the mind clear of its own accord through passive observation, you are ready to use meditation for its intended purpose, which is self inquiry.

    But this approach, because it requires immense amounts of diligence and patience, rarely comes easily to people. So, when a meditator is not yet able to allow their mind to settle on its own through passive observation, Vedanta offers another option: the practice of japa. With japa, the meditator interjects a thought into their mind—in this case, a sacred mantra—and then focuses all of their attention on that that thought, to the exclusion of all other thoughts. The other thoughts are still present in the mind, no doubt, but because the meditator is occupied with the mantra alone, their attention remains steady, focused and undivided, rather than flitting hither and thither from thought to thought.

    Here is a common story that explains the methodology of japa. In India, there are elephant trainers called mahouts. And when these mahouts would parade their elephants through the village, the elephants would cause chaos as they walked the streets with their trunks swinging about, knocking over vendor’s stands and snatching bananas and coconuts.

    Now, in order to stop the elephants form running amok in the village, did the mahouts restrain the elephants and wrestle them into submission? No, because it is impossible for a man to overpower an elephant by force. Instead, the mahouts gave the elephants something to do—they gave the elephants a stick to hold with their trunks. And when the elephants had a stick to hold on to, their trunks were properly occupied and they no longer felt the need to swing them around causing trouble.

    Your mind is like an elephant that must be coaxed into behaving, because it cannot be forcibly overpowered. The swinging trunk of the elephant is the process of your mind thinking, and the bananas and coconuts in the vendor’s stalls are the various thoughts. The mantra that you focus on in meditation is the stick. And by giving the elephant mind a stick to play with, the trunk of thinking is occupied. When the trunk of thinking is properly occupied, it no longer feels the needs to swing about wildly, continuously dividing its attention in an attempt to find newer, juicer or more interesting bananas and coconuts (thoughts). By directing the mind’s attention towards one single thought, all attention towards other thoughts is withdrawn, by default. The thoughts are there, but you are no longer paying attention to them. Considering that the mind cannot be compelled to stop thinking, this is the more sensible approach to meditation. And by training the mind with japa to not give needless attention to frivolous thoughts, you will be preparing yourself to meditate by passively observing the mind. Because “observing the mind” is really just allowing thoughts to appear in the mind, without fixing your attention on them.

    Here are some tips for doing japa properly:

    1. Use only a single mantra for this practice, one that you find meaningful. Continuously switching mantras is unhelpful, and using a mantra that your mind finds unappealing is ineffective.
    2. There are three ways to repeat the mantra: loudly, quietly and mentally. Saying the mantra loudly is especially good if, at first, you find it difficult to completely focus on the mantra. Once you’ve mastered the ability to keep your attention on the loud mantra, you can then practice saying it quietly, like you are muttering. Then, you can move on to repeating the name mentally.
    3. If you have trouble concentrating on the mantra alone, you can use a mala, which is a loop of beads similar to a Catholic rosary, or a Muslim misbaha. Using a mala aids in concentration by anchoring the repetition of the mantra to a physical object, thus occupying both the mind and the body.
    4. In the absence of a proper mala, any beads will do. Recently, one of my students made a mala out of some old Mardi Gras beads he had lying around, and his practice of japa has been progressing nicely. (I absolutely loved this “Mardi Gras Mala”, because it shows that it is not the paraphernalia, but the practice itself, that matters).
    5. To use the mala: Put your right ring finger through the loop of beads and let it hang at the first bead (called “meru”; you will know this bead because it is usually larger than the rest of the beads and marked with a tassel). Repeat the mantra one time, and then use your thumb or middle finger to cycle to the next bead. Repeat until you come to the other end of the mala. This is one round. You will know when the round is over when the meru bead is in front of your middle finger or thumb and you cannot move to the next bead. To do another round, flip the mala over so the meru is once again behind your ring finger, like when you started.
    6. Your goal is to bring your full attention to the mantra. But be gentle with your mind. Remember that you are coaxing it, rather than fighting it. If you find your mind wandering, don’t waste attention on being concerned about the the wandering. Just observe the wandering like a disinterested witness and gently bring your attention back to the name.
    7. Establish a set place and time to do your practice. Any place will do as long as it is clean and relatively quiet. And any time that suits you is fine as long as it is the same time everyday. Through regularity, your mind will come to recognize the time and place you choose as “meditation time” and “meditation place.” Then, the mind will know that it is time to concentrate, rather than wildly chase after thoughts, and it will fall into the practice of japa more quickly and easily.
    8. Sit on the floor or in a chair, whichever is most comfortable. You want the body to be at ease, in order that your mind doesn’t become distracted by physical discomfort. Breathe and fully relax the body. Then hold the mala comfortably with your right hand, while letting the remainder of the mala rest in your left hand.
    9. In addition to your formal meditation practice, you can also mentally repeat the mantra while you go about your daily affairs, especially if those activities are mundane and normally mindless, like washing dishes or taking a shower. An activity that requires your attention, such as driving, would not be suitable (or safe) for japa.

    If you have additional questions, just let me know. And good luck!

    All my best,
    Vishnudeva

  • Advaita, Karma & Reincarnation

    Hello Vishnudeva,
    I have a question: Since the whole world and everything which appears in it is just an illusion (Maya), and there is no real person, how does the Advaita Vedanta explain the doctrine of Karma and reincarnation?

    V: Hi Henry. Advaita Vedanta is nothing but the teachings of the Upanishads. On that basis, Advaita Vedanta accepts the theory of karma put forth in the Upanishads themselves. An example of this theory is found at verse 4.3.3 of one of the most ancient Upanishads, the Brihadaranyka:

    “[Rebirth] is like this. As a caterpillar, when it comes to the tip of a blade of grass, reaches out to a new foothold and draws itself onto it, so the self, after it has rendered the body inert, reaches out to a new foothold and draws itself onto it.”

    H: In other schools of Indian philosophy there is a kind of Dualism between Jiva Atma and ParamAtma. I can understand this doctrine, but not according to Advaita Vedanta, because there never existed an individual person or entity in the first place. I would like to know your stand on this subject.

    V: You are correct that in Advaita Vedanta, there is ultimately no dualism between jiva atma and paramatma. But that does not make the jiva atma non-existent, seeing as the jiva atma (body/mind entity) is obviously experienced by all conscious beings. And Shankara, Advaita’s greatest teacher, says that the claims of even a thousand scriptures cannot contradict common experience and turn fire cold or light into darkness. 

    So, Advaita does not deny the existence of the jiva atma, because it is obviously experienced, as is the world. And in that world, there are natural laws, one of which is karma and rebirth. Action causes results, which must necessarily be reaped by the agent of those actions. Since a living being performs innumerable actions in life, reaping the results of those actions requires future lives. 

    Now, even though Advaita does not question the existence of karma and rebirth, it does question its reality. There is a difference, for we can experience something, yet still question whether or not it is actually real. A common example is experiencing a dream, but questioning its reality upon waking.  

    But why would Advaita question the reality of life at all? Well, if the theory of karma and rebirth is true, then every moment in the present is the effect of a past action, and every reaction to the present moment is the cause for yet another moment in the future. And so forth. How then can liberation from karma and rebirth be achieved when every karma leads to more karma and future rebirths in and endless chain of cause and effect? 

    At best, we can perform good karma and try to go to some kind of heavenly realm when our body dies. The fly in the ointment though, is that the same scripture that endorses the performance of karma to get to heaven also says that our trip to heaven will be temporary, seeing as it was caused by a limited entity performing a finite number of actions life. This means that when the good karma that we’ve accrued runs out, we are once again born in the world. The implication here is that liberation from karma and rebirth cannot be found in the performance of karma itself, for a limited number of transient actions cannot logically produce an infinite, permanent result i.e. liberation. 

    Since liberation from karma and rebirth is the aim of all schools of Indian Philosophy, the issue of karma potentially presents an intractable conundrum: If we really are this body and mind, which is the effect of old karma as well the producer of new karma and new bodies, then how can we ever truly be free by doing more karma? We’re stuck in a loop! 

    Luckily, the scriptures (to which all orthodox schools of Indian Philosophy supposedly owe their allegiance) offers a solution:

    “The knower of Brahman attains the highest. Brahman is existence, consciousness, infinity” -Taittiriya Upanishad 2.1

    “This self is Brahman” -Mandukya 2

    “I take that to be the self, I who have the knowledge, I who am immortal…the breathing behind breathing, the sight behind sight, the hearing behind hearing, the thinking behind thinking…with mind (understanding) alone must one know it. There is no diversity here. From death to death he goes, who sees here any kind of diversity.” -Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 4.4.19

    “I am Brahman”–Brihadaranyaka 1.4.10

    Here, the scripture, irresespective of any particular school of philosophy’s views on atma and paramatma, rather plainly states that there is no relationship possible between “I” (jiva atma) and Brahman (paramatma/self) on the basis that paramatma and atma are non-different. 

    When paramatma and atma are non-different, then liberation, rather than being the result of action, is the result of understanding. It is not what we do that causes liberation. Rather, liberation is directly realizing what we are: “Oh! We’ve been free this whole time, because freedom is our nature.” 

    But…the jiva atma exists. How is this so, when there is only Brahman? 

    “The lord, on account of his maya, appears variously” -Brihadaranyaka 2.5.19

    The scripture answers by saying that the difference between jiva atma and paramatma consists in appearance alone. The difference is only “as if.” 

    For instance, from experience we know that there is a difference between a lump of clay and a clay pot. The lump of clay is just a formless mass but the pot is round. The lump of clay can’t be used for anything but the pot can hold water. On the superficial level, the lump of clay is not a clay pot. 

    But digging beneath the surface level of appearance, what is the actual difference between the lump of clay and the clay pot? In reality, the clay pot is nothing but clay. So while the clay may assume a form and a function, this does not alter its fundamental nature as clay. The pot may be broken and remolded, but it nontheless remains clay, despite any appearance to the contrary. 

    It is the same with paramatma. It is the clay that appears to be the clay pot of jiva atma. When the jiva atma thinks it is the clay pot of the body, it believes that it will be broken and refashioned endlessly. But when the jiva atma understands that it is really paramatma, and nothing but paramatma, it knows that karma and reincarnation are only happening on an “as if” basis, similar to a dream. Just as a dream is real when we think it is real, so is the jiva atma. But just as a dream is seen to ultimately unreal upon waking, so is karma and reincarnation seen to unreal upon waking up to the reality of Brahman. 

    Mandukya Karika 2.31-32 says, “Just as dream, magic or a city in the sky are seen to be unreal, so also is this whole universe known to be unreal from the Upanishads by the wise. There is no destruction, no origination, none in bondage, none striving or aspiring for salvation, and non-liberated (Because all are already the ever-free Brahman). This is the highest truth.”

    So, Advaita’s position on jiva atma and paramatma is that they are only superficially different. When this superficial difference is thought to be real, then we think that the jiva atma’s karma and reincarnation applies to us, defines us and limits us. When we see that jiva atma is really paramatma, then though the appearance of the jiva atma (body/mind) persists until death, it is known that the appearance in no way whatsoever affects us.

    Thank you very much,
    Henry

    V: You’re welcome Henry. This was a good question and I enjoyed answering. If you have additional questions, feel free to ask. Though, as you may have noticed, I am always speedy with my replies. Life always keeps me busy with plenty of karma, wink wink. 

    All my best,
    Vishnudeva

  • The “Best” Upanishad

    Q: There are so many Upanishads. Which one is the best?

    A: The Kaivalya Upanishad, although it is but one of many excellent Upanishads, is a good choice if you are looking for a small Upanishad that packs a big punch.

    Unlike many of the Upanishads—which are often laden with esoteric upasanas (meditations) and beautiful, but difficult to comprehend poetic expressions—the Kaivalya Upanishad is rather straightforward in its presentation of the Vedantic teachings.

    Though still quite poetic, the direct style of the Upanishad makes its mantras less susceptible to conflicting interpretations, which, in turn, makes it easier for the potential student to understand. This, coupled with the fact that the Upanishad gives an overview of all of the major ideas of Vedanta, make it a valuable tool for “acquiring” the self-knowledge (brahma-vidya) that leads to liberation. The name of the Upanishad itself, which means “aloneness,” is both a synonym for moksha and an indication of the non-dual nature of Brahman, which is, by default, “alone,” seeing as it does not admit of the existence of anything other than Itself.

    And how is this liberating self-knowledge “obtained”? The first mantra of the Upanishad says: “Find a teacher.”

    Kai. U. Verse 1.1: “Then, Ashvalayana approached Lord Paremeshti and said: ‘Teach me Bhagavan, the noblest and most secret knowledge of Brahman, by which the wise destroy all evils and attain that Purusha (person/self/Brahman) which is higher than the highest.’”

    Then, the Upanishad states the sadhana (spiritual practice) that supports this quest for the highest knowledge of Brahman:

    Kai. U. Verse 1.2: “The Grandsire (Paremesthi) duly replied, ‘May you know that [Brahman] by resorting to faith, devotion and meditation.’”

    Subsequently, the Upanishad praises renunciation as an adjunct to the pursuit of brahma-vidya and decries the efficacy of several common human pursuits that do not lead to liberation:

    Kai. U. Verse 1.3: “It is through renunciation that a few seekers have attained immortality—not through ritual (karma), not through progeny, not through wealth. Renunciates (those who eschew worldly and religious pursuits as a means to liberation) attain that which shines beyond heaven and that which resides in the heart.”

    Kai. U. Verse 1.4: “Through renunciation, the pure-minded have ascertained the object of Vedantic knowledge. Having become one with Brahman [lit. “paramrita”] while living, they resolve completely into Brahman at the time of their death.”

    Then, the Upanishad describes how to meditate on Brahman, imagining it to exist within one’s own heart. “Heart” here does not refer to the physical organ. Instead, it is a metaphor that indicates Brahman as the “innermost” essence of the meditator.

    Kai. U Verse 1.6: “Having turned one’s attention to the steady, pure, clear and pleasant lotus-like heart, one should meditate on Brahman, which is the source of all, incomprehensible, unmanifest, of many forms, auspicious, tranquil, immortal, beginningless, middleless, endless, non-dual, all-pervasive, consciousness, bliss, formless and wonderful.”

    The following verse (1.7) then provides a way to contemplate on Brahman, using the symbolism of Shiva.

    But, to avoid the literal interpretation that Brahman is Shiva—or any god in particular, for that matter—the Upanishad makes the following statements, clearly demonstrating the non-sectarian stance of Vedanta, as well as its insistence that knowledge of Brahman is the only legitimate path to liberation:

    Kai. U. 1.8–1.11: “He (Brahman) is Brahma (Paremesthi, the Creator). He is Shiva. He is Indra. He is the supreme imperishable, self-effulgent one. He himself is Vishnu. He is prana. He is time. He is fire. He is the moon. He alone is that which was in the past, that which is in the present and that which will be in the future. Having known that eternal one, the seeker transcends mortality. There is no other means for liberation. Clearly seeing one’s self in all beings, and all beings in one’s self, one attains the supreme Brahman; not by any other means.”

    Often times, people rightly suggest that the Mandukya Upanishad is potentially the “best” Upanishad, seeing as it propounds a key Vedantic teaching—the analysis of the Three States of Experience (waking; dream; deep sleep). But this teaching also occurs in a more direct, accessible way in the Kaivalya Upanishad, without the cryptic descriptions of the various “limbs” and “mouths” of the waking, dream, and deep sleep state entities presented in Mandukya Upanishad, descriptions that even traditional commentators have difficulty explaining.

    The gist of the analysis of the Three States of Experience is this: The three states of experience (waking, dream and sleep) all arise from, and resolve in, Brahman. But Brahman, one’s self, transcends them all.

    Kai. U. Verse 14: “That being who sports in the three cities (of waking, dream and sleep)—from Him has sprung up the diversity of the universe. He is the substratum, the bliss, the indivisible consciousness in whom the three cities resolve.”

    Kai. U. Verse 15: “From this being springs up prana, mind, the organs (of knowledge and action), space, air, fire, water and earth, which is the supporter of all.”

    Kai. U. Verse 16: “You are indeed the supreme Brahman which the self of all; which is the abode of all; which is the most subtle.”

    From here, I will simply quote the remaining verses of this profound, powerhouse of an Upanishad, which are rather self-explanatory (no pun intended), as least as far as Upanishads go. They are both first-person statements of one who has “acquired” self-knowledge, as well as a potential meditations for those seeking to become “established” in self-knowledge.

    So, enjoy! And if you feel compelled to get a better understanding of this Upanishad, please seek your friendly neighborhood Vedanta teacher for a more comprehensive explanation. (It doesn’t have to be me, but as the Upanishad says, you’ve got to have a teacher).

    Kai. U. Verse 17: “I am that Brahman that illumines the worlds of waking, dream and sleep. Having known thus, one is liberated from all bonds.”

    Kai. U. Verse 18: “I am distinct from all those (states) of experience, as well as the instruments of experience in those three states. I am the witness that is ever-auspicious, pure consciousness.”

    Kai. U. Verse 19: “Everything is born in me alone; everything is based on me alone; everything resolves in me alone. I am that non-dual Brahman.”

    Kai. U. Verse 20: “I am more subtle than subtly itself. I am equally vast. I am the manifold universe. I am the ancient one. I am the all-pervasive one. I am the lord. I am the purusha (person). I am the effulgent one. Verily, my nature is auspiciousness.”

    Kai. U. Verse 21: “I am without hands and legs; yet, I am endowed with incomprehensible power. I see without eyes. I hear without ears. Endowed with a distinct nature, I know (all beings). But there is no one who is a knower of me. I am pure consciousness.”

    Kai. U. Verse 22: “I alone am to be known through the Vedas. I am the initiator of the teachings of Vedanta. I alone am the knower of the Vedas. Merit (punyam) and demerit (papam) do not belong to me. There is no death for me. Birth, body, sense organs, and intellect do not belong to me. The elements (earth; water; fire; air; space) do not belong to me.”

    Kai. U. Verse 23: “Thus, having known the nature of the supreme self, which resides in the “heart,” which is partless, non-dual, the witness of all, without cause and effect, and ever-pure, one attains the nature of the supreme self.”

    Hari Om!