End Of Knowledge

Tag: brahman

  • 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 “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!

  • I Am Not This

    I am both the existent and the non-existent;
    And yet I am neither. 

    I am the ineffable Vishnu
    Best described as, “Not this, not this1.” 

    I am both the conscious and the non-conscious;
    And yet I am neither.

    I am the ineffable Vishnu
    Best described as, “Not this, not this.”

    I am both the limitless and the limited;
    And yet I am neither. 

    I am the ineffable Vishnu
    Best described as, “Not this, not this.”

    I am not this

    Not this

    1. Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 2.3.6. – “Now therefore the description (of brahman, one’s true nature): ‘Not this, not this.’ Because there is no other more appropriate description than, ‘Not this, not this.’

  • Bliss of Brahman

    Vishnudeva,

    I have two questions:

    1.You’ve said that during meditation we can observe our thoughts pass by and deduce that we are not our minds. But at other times we identify with our thoughts and our actions are led by the mind mostly. Why is this so? Is having a constant reminder that we are not our thoughts the only way to break this identity?

    Vishnu:  Yes, you are correct. You learn not to identify with your thoughts through practice.  Normally we are so wrapped up in our day to day affairs that we don’t notice that there’s a “gap” between ourselves and our thoughts.  We’re too distracted to notice that we aren’t actually affected by our thoughts.  Meditation helps to get rid of the distraction long enough to draw our attention to this fact.  Once we practice long enough, we can bring that perspective gained from the meditation seat into our day to day lives.     

    2. My second question is a speculative one. It is about the bliss of brahman.  As false and temporary it may be, we are all aware of the pleasures of the mind. On the other hand, identification with the atman seems a bland affair (from the perspective of the mind). Sure, we will be freed from the problems of the body and mind, but where is the positive joy in it? Can you please clarify on this?

    Vishnu:  What more could the mind want than to be free from problems?  That’s all it’s seeking through trying to get what it wants (positive joy) in the world anyway.

    Trying to describe what it’s like to know you’re not the body and mind is impossible without experiencing it yourself.  For instance, I can tell you in painstaking detail about the town I grew up in.  You’ll then naturally form some idea of it in your mind.  But until you actually see the town for yourself, it will be just that, an idea.  And some of the ideas you form in your mind will inevitably be distorted or incorrect.  Until you actually go there, you’ll never know what my hometown is really like no matter how much I describe it.  

    The best I can say is this:  Imagine having a terrible toothache.  It causes you great distress and pain.  You go to the dentist who says the tooth must be extracted.  The process of extraction takes work and even more pain.  But when when it’s over do you feel a positive sense of joy?  Not really.  The offending pain is simply removed and you return to your normal state.  If anything, all you feel is relief.    

    Similarly, when you have the terrible toothache of Body-Mind Identification, you go to the Vedanta Dentist who recommends extracting the Body-Mind Identification with self-knowledge.  This extraction takes much effort and is coupled with the additional pain of giving up the idea if yourself as an individual person, an idea which the ego cherishes so dearly.  When the process is over, your mind is not flooded with positive joy.  It merely returns to its natural state of peace, which is really just your true nature as brahman.  And brahman is naturally unperturbed by the state of the body-mind.  

    This doesn’t mean your mind will never be happy, sad, angry or otherwise disturbed.  But when it happens, you know it has absolutely nothing to do with you.  And the longer your mind dwells on that knowledge, it slowly becomes less happy, sad, angry or otherwise disturbed.  

    Truth be told, if one wishes to have more positive joy in their mind, self-inquiry is not necessarily the way to go.  Instead, they should vigorously root out all conflict in their personal relationships and strive to be content with a simple lifestyle.  They should impeccably follow their personal dharma as well as the dharma of the society/country they live in.  They should root out unnecessary desires and attachments.  They should practice yoga and meditate regularly. Granted, in order to prepare one’s mind for self-knowledge, one should be doing all of these things anyway.  Joy will follow.  But then through self-inquiry one goes beyond even joy (and sorrow) with self-knowledge.   

    I say this because Vedanta approaches the situation of joy from an entirely different angle than other paths.  It entirely destroys your identification with the entity (the mind) which experiences positive joy.  So the question of experiencing positive joy becomes irrelevant in light of knowing that you’re the self.  This doesn’t mean the mind won’t continue experiencing periodic bouts of positive joy, just like it did before self-knowledge.  But you don’t get wrapped up in the joy or attached to it, feeling like you need the joy to be okay.  And the flipside of the coin is that you don’t get wrapped up in sorrow or feel the same kind of aversion to suffering when it enters the mind because you know without a doubt that it isn’t affecting you in any way whatsoever.    

    All my best – Vishnudeva          

     

     

  • Doubt About Advaita

    S: Dear sir, greetings from India. I am a student of Advaita Vedanta and I’ve attended a few classes of Swami Paramarthananda in Chennai.

    Vishnudeva:  Greetings from America.

    S: I have a doubt regarding the Sankhya philosophy.  My basic question is this: What are drawbacks of moksha of Sankhya?  I feel the dualism / non-dualism difference is only nominal. What does it matter, if I get absolute peace following either “system”?

    Vishnudeva:  If you get absolute peace it doesn’t matter what “system” you follow, whether it be dualism or non-dualism.  There’s no drawbacks to the moksha of Sankhya if you attain it and it truly makes you feel free.

    S: My understanding is that the separation of purusha and prakriti in Sankhya is similar to the separation of the atma (self) from the anatma (not-self) in Vedanta.

    Vishnudeva:  Yes, it’s similar.  But Vedanta never says that anatma (not-self) is an independent, material entity like the prakriti of Sankhya. 

    S: It would be much easier to stop there (at the separation of purusha from prakriti). We would be free from the mortality and suffering of the body.  What is the need to prove the illusory nature of the world?

    Vishnudeva:  The only way to find out is to try it for yourself.  If you feel drawn to Sankhya, apply yourself to it fully and use its teachings to separate purusha from prakriti.  See for yourself if it gives you the freedom from suffering that you’re seeking.  If it does, then you can stop there without proving the illusory nature of the world.

    If it doesn’t, you can move on to Advaita Vedanta if you choose.

    S: What are the benefits of accepting only one brahman as opposed to an infinite number of purushas?

    Vishnudeva:  There’s only a benefit if there’s a benefit to you.  If realizing that you’re one of an infinite number of purushas gives you peace, then you won’t need to accept one brahman.  Although I would add that Vedanta isn’t about accepting brahman as one.  It’s about investigating the nature of brahman (which is just your true nature) and seeing what it is for yourself.  No acceptance is required when you see something firsthand, just like no acceptance is required when you walk outside and see the sun with your own two eyes.  In that case, it just is what it is and no acceptance or denial is possible.

    If you wish, I can give you all of the technical, philosophical answers for why I think that Advaita is a more tenable position than the dualism of Sankhya.  But establishing that a particular position is logically tenable doesn’t always equate with peace of mind (which is the real point of the spiritual journey). 

    Besides, Advaita isn’t looking for converts so there’s no reason to try to convince anyone of anything.  So you should follow the path that appeals to you most, the one that seems the most reasonable.  Otherwise, you won’t be able to properly commit to it.

    If you happen to decide that the path for you is Advaita Vedanta, then I am here to help you in whatever way I can.

    S: Thank you so much for your detailed reply. It helped clear many of my doubts. I really didn’t expect a thorough reply in a short time. Your mail was much appreciated.

    Advaita Vedanta is the path I have chosen to follow. The doubts in Sankhya arose because of its seeming similarity to Vedanta. Now they are put to rest. (I am particularly reassured when you say we can “see” the truth for ourselves and don’t have to accept anyone else’s idea.)

    Vishnudeva:  Yes.  This is a big advantage of Advaita Vedanta.  It makes claims about your true nature but then it gives you the tools to understand your true nature for yourself.

    S: I am guessing the many questions I have will get sorted as I walk along the path. I shall surely approach you if I am stuck with any doubt. Meanwhile, what advice do you have for someone starting on the path?

    Vishnudeva:  Yes, your questions will be sorted if you stay fully dedicated to the path.

    In general, the most important thing is to make sure that your mind is calm and focused.  Otherwise, you won’t be able to properly listen to the teaching, contemplate its meaning or meditate.

    There are many, many practices to promote a calm, focused mind.  So many in fact that it will be impossible to discuss them all here.  But two key practices are karma yoga and meditation.

    Karma Yoga

    Many people make karma yoga sound very complicated but it isn’t.  It’s simply a positive attitude you take towards action that prevents you from being overly concerned with the results of action.

    Karma yoga is very much like performing a regular action.  You decide what you’re going to do, you plan out how you’re going to do it, and then you do it.  Afterwards, you wait and see what the result of the action will be.

    The difference is that with karma yoga, you choose to not worry about whether or not you’ll get the result that you desired in the first place.  Why?  Because once you perform the action, you understand that you’ve done what you can and that the result is out of your hands.  At that point, there’s absolutely no logical reason to worry because there’s nothing else for you to do.  Worry disturbs the mind and directs it outward to the world so it’s useless, especially when trying to go “inward” to investigate your true nature. 

    So say I want a new job.  I find the job I want, brush up my CV and turn it in to management.  Because I’m practicing karma yoga, I don’t worry whether I’ll get called for an interview or not.  I did my part in the process so I am at peace.  I wait patiently for the result.

    Management calls me for an interview.  Because I’m practicing karma yoga, I do my best to prepare for the interview.  Once I’ve done that appropriately, I know that worrying won’t help anything.  I am at peace and I patiently await the interview. 

    I do very well at the interview.  Management tells me that they’ll call to tell me their decision.  Because I’m practicing karma yoga, I know that I did what I could at the interview and that worry will not change the results in any way whatsoever.  I am at peace and I wait patiently.

    Management calls and tells me I didn’t get the job.  Because I am practicing karma yoga, I don’t feel angry or sad.  I know that I did what I could and I am at peace about that.  I take the attitude that what was supposed to happen happened. I learn what I need to from the situation, view it as a chance for personal growth, and move on.

    If I am religiously inclined, I view all of my actions as an offering to Isvara (the entire universe and all of its inhabitants) and the results of my actions as a gift from Isvara, a gift that is exactly what I need at the time, whether I know it or not.  And because of that I am thankful.

    The result of taking this approach to action is peace of mind, which is essential to self-inquiry (Vedanta).

    Meditation

    This topic is too big to even summarize.

    But in general, establish a regular meditation routine.  It’s best to do it at the same time and same place each day.  When the mind is stilled in meditation, it is the perfect platform for doing Vedantic self-inquiry. 

    Also, meditation is where you take what you’re told from the teaching and experience it directly.  For instance, if Vedanta says, “You’re not the body” or “You’re not your thoughts” you can see that for yourself while meditating.  Then you take that understanding with you from the meditation seat to your regular everyday life.

    Listening and contemplating

    Listen to Vedanta teachings daily.  Of course I’ll recommend Swami Paramarthanada but you should choose the teacher that appeals to you the most.  Listen with an open mind and be willing to set your current beliefs and opinions about yourself aside.

    After listening to a teaching, contemplate it’s meaning during your day.  This contemplation is to be done during regular activities as well as during meditation.

    I hope this serves as an overview and helps get you started.  Let me know if you have further questions.

    All my best – Vishnudeva