In the Manava Sastra or Institutes of Menu the origin of the Universe is thus unfolded: “It existed only in the first divine idea, yet unexpanded, as if involved in darkness, imperceptible, indefinable, undiscoverable by reason, and undiscovered by revelation, as if it were wholly immersed in sleep. Then the sole self-existing power, who had existed from eternity, shone forth in person, expanding his idea and dispelling the gloom. With a thought he first created the waters, and placed in them a productive seed: this seed became an egg, in which he was himself born in the shape of Brahma, the great forefather of all spirits. The waters are called Nara, because they were the production of Nara, or the spirit of God: and since they were his first Ayana, or place of motion, he was thence named Narayana, or moving in the waters. In that egg the great Power sat inactive a whole year of the Creator: at the close of which
Concepts Advaita sankara
Sri Sankara,
there is one Absolute Brahman who is Sat-chit-ananda, who is of an absolutely homogeneous nature.
The appearance of this world is due to Maya—the illusory power of Brah- man which is neither Sat nor Asat.
This world is unreal. This world is a Vivarta or apparent modification through Maya. Brahman appears as this universe through Maya.
Brahman is the only reality.
The individ- ual soul has limited himself through Avidya and identification with the body and other vehicles. Through his selfish actions he enjoys the fruits of his actions. He becomes the actor and enjoyer. He regards himself as atomic and as an agent on account of Avidya or the limiting Antahkarana.
The individual soul becomes identical with Brahman when his Avidya is destroyed. In reality Jiva is all-pervading and iden- tical with Brahman. Isvara or Saguna Brahman is a product of Maya.
Worship of Isvara leads to Krama Mukti.
The pious devotees (the knowers of Saguna Brahman) go to Brahmaloka and attain final re- lease through highest knowledge. They do not return to this world. They attain the Nirguna Brahman at the end of the cycle.
Knowledge of Nirguna Brahman is the only means of liberation. The knowers of Nirguna Brahman attain immediate final release or Sadyomukti. They need not go by the path of gods or the path of Devayana. They merge themselves in Para Brahman. They do not go to any Loka or world.
Sri Sankara’s Brahman is Nirvisesha Brahman (Impersonal Absolute) without attributes.
Concepts shuddha advaita
Vallabhacharya proposed that Brahman is not only real but also possesses positive attributes such as knowledge, bliss, and eternality. He also critiqued the Advaita notion of Maya as being too contradictory.
Paradoxes in Advaita: Vallabhacharya’s Key Observations
Vallabhacharya’s key objections to Advaita were based on several points of contradiction:
1. Attribution of Qualities to Brahman: Vallabhacharya argued that Brahman must have qualities. Scriptures often describe Brahman as “Sat-Chit-Ananda” (being, consciousness, and bliss), are themselves attributes.
2. The Reality of the World: If the world is truly a product of Brahman, how can it be unreal? Denying the reality of the world while affirming the reality of Brahman seemed contradictory to Vallabhacharya.
3. Self-Reflection: If Brahman is the cause of the world and everything within it, then the soul (Jiva) and the world must be real manifestations of Brahman. The idea of the world being an illusion doesn’t sit well with this understanding.
4. Maya as Independent: Vallabhacharya rejected the notion of Maya being a separate entity that creates the illusion of the world. He proposed that the world is a real and direct manifestation of Brahman.
Shuddhadvaita: The Philosophy of Pure Non-Dualism
In Shuddhadvaita, Vallabhacharya emphasized that Brahman is both the material and efficient cause of the universe. There is no Maya or illusion at play; rather, the world is a real expression of Brahman’s power. Every being and object is a manifestation of the divine, and the diversity we perceive is not an illusion but a lila (divine play) of Brahman.
Vallabhacharya’s Shuddhadvaita philosophy elevates the personal relationship between the soul and the divine. He saw God (Krishna) as the ultimate expression of Brahman, with whom the soul seeks a loving relationship.
Concepts sutra bhashya
Sutras are concise aphorisms. They give the essence of the ar- guments on a topic. Maximum of thought is compressed or con- densed into these Sutras in as few words as possible. It is easy to remember them. Great intellectual people only, with realisation, can compose Sutras.
They are clues or aids to memory. They cannot be understood without a lucid commentary (Bhashya). The commentary also is in need of further elaborate explanation.
Thus the interpretations of the Sutras gave rise to various kinds of literary writings such as Vrittis (gloss) and Karikas.
The different Acharyas (founders of dif- ferent schools of thought) have given their own interpretations of the Sutras to establish their own doctrines.
The Bhashya of Sri Sankara on Brahma Sutras is known as Sariraka Bhashya. His school of thought is Kevala Advaita.
The Bhashya of Sri Ramanuja who founded the Visishtadvaita School is called Sri Bhashya.
The com- mentary of Sri Nimbarkacharya is known as Vedanta-parijata- saurabha.
Sri Vallabhacharya expounded his system of philosophy of Suddhadvaita (pure monism) and his commentary on the Brahma Sutras is known as Anu Bhashya
Concepts mimamsa veda
Vedas consist of three portions viz., the Karma Kanda which deals with sacrifices or ceremonial rites, the Upasana Kanda which treats of Upasana (worship) and the Jnana Kanda which deals with knowledge of Brahman. Karma Kanda represents the feet of a man, Upasana Kanda the heart, and the Jnana Kanda the head. Just as the head is the most important portion of a man, so also the Upanishads which treat of the knowledge portion of the Vedas is the head of the Vedas. Hence it is said to be the Siras (head) of Vedas.
Mimamsa means the investigation or enquiry into the connected meaning of the sacred texts. Of this Mimamsa two branches have been recognised, the Purva Mimamsa (earlier) and the Uttara Mimamsa (the latter). The former systematises the Karma Kanda—the portion of the Veda which pertains to action and sacri- fices and which comprises Samhitas and the Brahmanas; the latter systematises the Jnana Kanda i.e., that part of the Vedas which in- cludes the Aranyaka portion of the Brahmanas and the Upanishads. Jaimini is the author of the Purva Mimamsa. Sri Vyasa (Badarayana or Krishna Dvaipayana) the Guru of Jaimini is the author of the Brahma Sutras otherwise known as Vedanta Sutras. The study of Brahma Sutras is a synthetic study of the Upanishads. It treats of the Vedanta philosophy.
The Vedas are eternal. They were not written by any individual. They came out from the breath of Hiranyagarbha (Lord Brahma). Vedanta is the end or gist of the Vedas. It deals with the knowledge portion. Vedanta is not mere speculation. It is the authentic record of transcendental experiences or direct and actual realisation of the great Hindu Rishis or seers. Brahma Sutras is the Science of the Soul.
Concepts Self
The Witness Self or the Observing Self
Witness Self
by Jayaram V
There are three selves in you and you are probably aware of them. First, there is the physical self consisting of your body and brain, or what you may call the physical mind. Next, there is the mental self, consisting of your mind, thoughts, perceptions, feelings, memory and subconscious. Then you have the observing self, different from both, which you may discern at times in your meditation.
In the Vedas and the Upanishads, this observing Self is also called the witness Self, or the Seer. It is generally believed that this witness Self detaches itself from the body at the time of death and takes on a new body at the time of its rebirth. Depending upon to which religion you belong you may ascribe different qualities and attributes to it, such as whether it has a specific form and shape or not, and whether it is eternal or transient.
Hinduism recognizes other hidden bodies, namely the breath body, intelligence body and the bliss body. In truth, they are its hidden aspects. In this discussion we focus upon the three Selves only, because irrespective of your religious beliefs and convictions, everyone can experience them in their wakeful, dream and sleep states.
You may also consider the observing Self as the subtle Self made up of breath, intelligence or higher mind, and bliss. You enter these layers when you purify your mind and body and practice meditation regularly.
Generally, during the wakeful state the observing Self becomes mixed up with both the mind and body. When it happens, we become attached to the things we perceive and suffer from attraction and aversion, attachment, desires, passions, afflictions and emotions. For the observing Self, the world is the field of observation, with which it become involved.
This involvement or attachment is the prime cause of our mental states, stress, anxiety, insecurity, fear, anger, aggression, duality and so on. It is also responsible for our karma, latent impressions called Samskaras and rebirth.
To experience peace, stability and happiness, we need to separate the observing Self from the mind and body and become centered in that rather than in our minds and bodies or the things we observe. If you become an observing Self and remain detached from the happenings around you, you perceive things with greater clarity, insight and calmness. You will be in greater control of your thoughts and emotions and relate to the world without becoming involved with it.
This is the secret the ancient seers mastered. Through the practice of yoga they learned to detach themselves from their minds and bodies and became centered in their witness selves. The Upanishads refer to the Observing Self as the true Self (Atman), and the Yogasutras as Isvara, the lord of the body and the mind.
Whatever name you may give, as long as you remain focused on this Self and become centered in it you will experience things differently. Although the Buddhists do not believe in an eternal Self, they do believe in the witness Self, which they consider transient and subject to rebirth, karma and modifications. They practice mindfulness to become centered in it and gradually dismantle the formations and aggregations that make up the personality.
For a spiritual person, the observing Self is like a sanctuary. Our chances of experiencing peace and stability are greater when we are centered in it. It is helpful even in worldly life. In my experience, I find that when I am my observing Self, I am in greater control of my thoughts and emotions and I become more observant and intuitive. I am also able to fathom the true nature of other people, their hidden motives and thoughts, and the masks they wear. It also helps me in decision making and problem solving.
The best way to enter this state is by focusing your mind upon your breathing and slowly becoming mindful of what is happening in you and around you. Another approach is to practice the "Not This, Not This" method (neti neti) mentioned in the Upanishads and remind yourself that you are not your mind and body.
Ethical self-cleansing, breathing, concentration and meditation are also helpful. Anyone can practice this wonderful technique and develop an expansive and mindful awareness. In this stress filled world of ours, it is extremely helpful to practice detached observation and remain in control of yourself.
To perfect this practice, you have to know that you are neither your mind nor body but a Witnessing Self, who is here to observe and enjoy this world of objects, unending perceptions and wonderful creations, without becoming attached to them. You have to plant this idea firmly in your mind, remembering from time to time that that you are the observing Self and your purpose here is to observe the world consciously and learn valuable lessons about yourself, the world and others from it. If you persist in your practice, gradually the idea will take root in you and you will become detached, composed and collected in your daily life, relationships, thinking and actions. You will bridge the gap between the observer and the observed, and grasp the essence of things that is not perceptible to the ordinary senses.
Concepts Maya
What is mAyA?
Sankrara sp
maayaa is illusion -
both at the individual and cosmic level.
maa means No and yaa means That.
That which is not self-existent yet appears to exist, like a mirage, is called maayaa.
When we devote our mind, energy and resources to believing in that which is not existent, (snake rope) then it appears to exist
and that is maayaa.
The Concept of Maya in Advaita
Maya is a crucial concept in Advaita philosophy. It is the force that creates the illusion of the world’s diversity, making us see individual objects, people, and experiences as separate and real. However, according to Shankaracharya, this multiplicity is an illusion; only Brahman is truly real.
He asserts that Maya is not independent of Brahman but is a projection of it. Just as a dream appears real while we’re dreaming, Maya makes the world appear real to us, even though it’s not. In reality, there is only Brahman, and once the illusion of Maya is lifted, a person attains Moksha (liberation).
Vallabhacharya proposed that Brahman is not only real but also possesses positive attributes such as knowledge, bliss, and eternality. He also critiqued the Advaita notion of Maya as being too contradictory.
——————————-
Maya or illusion is deeply rooted in attachment.
When we are attached to or have a desire for something,
it becomes a source of illusion for us.
The less attachment, the more inner strength;
the more inner strength, the nearer the goal.
Vairagya and abhyasa - non-attachment and constant awareness of absolute reality--
are like two wings of a bird
which can fly from the plane of mortality to the height of immortality.
Those who do not allow their wings to be clipped by the illusion of maya,
can attain perfection.
When yogis speak of non-attachment, they are not teaching indifference,
but are teaching how to love others genuinely and selflessly.
Non-attachment, properly understood, is love.
Read also:
http://bhoj11.blogspot.in/2012/08/maya-why-is-it-illusion.html
Ramakrishna Quotes on mAyA
http://www.angelfire.com/ma/ramakrishna/maya.html
"To love only members of the BrAmho SamAj
or of one's own family is mAyA;
to love one's own countrymen is mAyA.
But to love the people of all countries,
to love the members of all religions, is dayA.
Such love comes from love of God, from dayA."
"mAyA is nothing but 'woman and gold'.
A man living in its midst gradually loses his spiritual alertness.
He thinks all is well with him,
like the scavenger who carries a tub of night-soil on his head,
and, in course of time, loses his repulsion to it.
One gradually acquires love of God through
the practice of chanting God's name and glories."
"Remember that dayA - compassion, and mAyA - attachment,
are two different things.
Attachment means the feeling of 'my-ness' towards one's relatives.
Compassion is the love one feels for all beings of the world.
It is an attitude of equality.
MAyA also comes from God.
Through mAyA, God makes one serve one's relatives.
But one thing should be remembered:
mAyA keeps us in ignorance and
entangles us in the world,
whereas dayA makes our hearts pure
and gradually unties our bonds."
"How is it ever possible for one man to liberate another
from the bondage of the world?
God alone, the Creator of this world-bewitching mAyA,
can save men from mAyA.
There is no other refuge but that great teacher,
Sat-chit-Ananda [existence-knowledge-bliss].
How is it ever possible for men who have not realized God
or who have not received His command,
and who are not strengthened with divine strength,
to save others from the prison-house of the world?"
What is the nature of maya?
Professor V. Krishnamurthy
http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/teachers/maya_profvk.htm
Is maya real or imaginary?
Let me first attempt to state the questioner's viewpoint. Unless mAyA is already present, neither concealment nor projection can take place. Is mAyA then coeval with brahman? Do they exist side by side? Does this not contradict the non-dual status of brahman? Where does mAyA operate? What is its base of operation? These questions raise very profound issues.
The base of activity of mAyA cannot be brahman because the latter is Absolute luminosity and there is no place in it for ignorance or darkness. Nor can the jIva be the base of operations of mAyA. For jIva itself cannot come into existence until mAyA has operated. There seems to be an irresolvable logical difficulty here.
But the difficulty will vanish once we realize that we are here making an implicit assumption that is not valid. We are actually assuming the prior reality of time and space before the appearance of mAyA. Otherwise we could not have asked the question: Where does mAyA operate? When does it come into existence? These questions are valid only if you have a frame of reference in time and space independent of mAyA. But time and space, says Shankara, are themselves creations of mAyA. (cf. `mAyA-kalpita-desha-kAla- kalanAt' in his dakshiNAmUrti-stotra, sloka no.4).
In fact, this is also the answer to the physicist's question: When did time originate? Time did not originate in a timeless frame because we would then be begging the question. The very fact that we are conscious of the passage of time is a consequence of mAyA. So questions such as, `Where does mAyA operate?' and `When did it start operating?' are not properly posed. Time and space cannot claim prior existence. It is therefore wrong to ask whether mAyA is prior to jIva or later than jIva. Ultimate Reality is beyond space and time. In the words of Swami Vivekananda, time, space and causation are like the glass through which the Absolute is seen. In the Absolute itself, there is neither space, nor time nor causation.
As in the field of modern physics, so in the field of vedanta, time and space are modes incidental to sense perception and should not be applied to what is trans-empirical. jIva and mAyA are both given a priori in our experience and we have to take them as such. They are anAdi (beginningless). The only relevant question that you can ask about them is about their nature and final destiny. Examination will show that mAyA is neither real nor unreal.
`I am ignorant' is a common expression, within anybody's experience. Hence mAyA is not completely unreal. But it disappears with the onset of knowledge. So it is not real either. Thus it is different from both the real and the unreal. In Sanskrit it is therefore called `sad-asad- vilakshaNa', meaning that it is different from both the real and the unreal. And for the same reason it is said to be `anirvachanIya', meaning, that which is undecidable or that which cannot be defined one way or the other. It is in this sense we say that the world of perception, the common world of experience, cannot be rejected out of hand as totally false, like the hare's horn or the lotus in the sky; nor can it be taken to be totally real because it suffers contradiction at a higher level of experience. It is real in the empirical sense and unreal in the absolute sense.
This is also the case with a dream. For the dreamer, the dream is real. The acceptance of the reality of the dream to the dreamer is the king-pin of Shankara's explanation of Advaita. He bases many of his arguments on this phenomenal reality of the dream. This reality, called `vyAvahArika-satyaM' is in between the total unreality - `asat' - of the barren mother, and the total reality - `sat' - of brahman. The dream and similarly the perceptible universe is neither `sat' nor `asat'. It is `mithyA'. The meaning of the word `mithyA' is not falsehood but comparative unreality. It is not total non-existence like hare's horn but it is midway between the absolute truth of brahman and the absolute falsehood of hare's horn.
There are actually different analogies to explain the peculiar relationship between brahman and the universe. The analogy that Shankara very often uses is the relationless relationship of the rope that is mistaken for the snake, because of poor lighting. The rope appears as a snake no doubt, but actually there is no snake there, ever. Even when it appeared to be there, it was not there. But the one who saw it did really get scared on `seeing' the snake and only when help came in the form of better lighting did the person realize that what `was there' all the time was only a rope.
The second analogy that is used in the literature is the appearance of water in a mirage. And the third one is that of the dreamer and his dream. Each of these three analogies has its own limitation in explaining the relationship between brahman, which is invisible, and the universe, which is visible. Brahman is the rope; the visible universe is the snake. What appears as the universe is not really the universe. When spiritual illumination takes place we will know that what was there all the time was only brahman. Similarly in the example of the mirage and water, the water appearance is only an illusion. What is there in reality is only sand, no water. The dream of course is totally a mental aberration, fully subjective and it vanishes the moment the person wakes up.
The three analogies are not however just three analogies in place of one. There is a gradation, says Ramana Maharshi. First it may be questioned, with reference to the analogy of the rope and the snake that when the lighting situation improves the appearance of the snake is no more there, whereas, in the case of brahman versus universe, even after learning that brahman is the substratum of truth, and the universe is only a superimposition like the snake on the rope, we still continue to see the universe; it has not disappeared!
For this the Maharishi wants you to go to the analogy of the mirage. Once you understand it is the mirage and no watershed, the appearance of water is no more there. But now there is another objection: 'Even after knowing that there is only brahman and the universe is only an appearance, one gets certain wants fulfilled from this appearance of a universe: one gets one's hunger satisfied, thirst quenched and so on. But the water in the mirage does not quench one's thirst; so to that extent the analogy is inappropriate'.
The analogy of the dream meets this objection, says the Maharishi. The dreamer has his thirst quenched in the dream. The thirst itself is a dream thirst and it is quenched by drinking (dream) water in the dream; so also the wants that one feels in this universe like hunger and thirst are also quenched by corresponding objects in this universe. Thus in this sense the analogy of the dream is reasonably perfect. Maybe that is why Shankara uses the analogy of the dream so emphatically to describe the reality or unreality of the universe.
In Advaita the concept of reality is always comparative. Relative to materials, things made out of the materials are unreal. In other words if a bucket is made out of plastic, the bucket is unreal relative to the plastic. It is the cause that is `more real' than the effect. The cause of the world versus the world itself gives us a comparison about their relative reality. When we say that the universe is unreal, we mean that it is unreal as the universe, but it is surely real as brahman, its cause.
In order to explain this relative unreality the theory of superimposition is meticulously worked out by Shankara. While the snake is superimposed on the rope, the rope undergoes no aberration or modification in the process. It is the same rope all the time. What appears to you is only in your mind. The visible universe is just a perishable (kShara) superimposition on brahman. Brahman does not undergo any change in the process. All the time brahman remains as brahman, the imperishable (akShara) substratum. This is where the nirguNa (attributeless) character of brahman is effectively applied by Shankara to his explanation of this mysterious relationship.
This phenomenon of brahman not being visible but something else, the universe, being visible, is exactly what the term `mAyA' means. It does two things. It hides brahman from you. Simultaneously it projects the universe to you.
The declaration that this is what is happening comes forth from the Lord Himself in Gita IX - 5, 6. 'Everything that is perceptible is pervaded and permeated by Me, who is unmanifested. All the beings are established in Me but not I in them; they are not in Me either, this is my divine yoga.'. He remains unmanifested while what is visible is basically a permeation by him. While he remains unchanged, and imperceptible, the universe is what is perceptible. Everything visible is supported by Him as the only substratum, whereas He Himself is not supported by anything. He is His own support.
The snake appears on the rope, the rope does not undergo any change, but the snake is supported by the rope, (meaning, without the rope there is no snake). But in reality the snake was never there and so it is also true to say that the snake is not in the rope. To the question: Where is the snake?, the answer is: it is in the rope. To the question, Is the snake there?, the answer is, there is no snake, the snake was never in the rope. It is in this strain that the Lord gives out, almost in the same breath, what appears to be two contradictory statements. Everything is in Me; and nothing is in Me. This is the cosmic mystery of the existence of the Universe.
It is and is not - sad-asad-vilakshaNa, mAyA!
"like the moonshine that falls
both on the deservi
ng palatial terraces
and the undeserving shrubs of the forest,
let Your grace pour on me too,
however undeserving I am."