"Looking for brahman", confusion

Another habit is to look for brahman. To look for where is brahman.

Sarvam khalvidam brahma, then why look for brahman?

The truth is that, one does not know brahman, so looks for brahman, but one need not look for brahman for two reasons.

1.       All that is here is brahman ( knower, known and knowledge all the three, subject object both)

2.       Brahman vastu is available for knowledge as oneself the atma.

In the example of clay and pot, if we take a few jugs and mugs, the entire world of jugs and mugs can be resolved into one reality clay, it if it pointed out that the pot form is only mithya and clay is the satyam.

In the case of atma gnanam, the brahman is not available as an object, like clay is available. I can show you a pot, then I can ask you to look at clay. You look at clay and then you understand that pot is clay. Hence you are now able to gather the understanding of pot and clay, and understand clay as satyam and pot as mithya, and henceforth resolve all that is made of clay into one clay in your understanding, so you continue to see pots and jugs, but you know there is only clay.

But brahman is not available as an object like clay, so when I show you a tree and say, tree is brahman, sky is brahman , wall is brahman, that it is brahman, is not available for your knowledge. I can only point out that tree is wood, and if you look further, wood is some cellulose, you keep going ad infinitum, any object has its existence in an object which is not that object. Tree, has its existence depending on non-tree. Table, on non-table ( wood). Wood on non-wood ( celloluse).. and so on. That is the nature of jagat. Applies to our own body also.

That search for satyam, is since the means of knowledge is not recognized to be the shabda pramana of the shastra.

The shastra offers this knowledge, says tat tvam asi. You are that brahman. The Drk Chaitanya, the conscious being who is the witness, oneself the atma, the knower of all that is objectified, this person that you are, is that brahman. You need not know yourself like to how you came to know clay. Clay was not already evident, it had to be pointed out that the pot is indeed clay, you had to look,in your mind, you had to understand that all the while, while looking at a pot, you saw clay.

But atma is not an object of sight, but atma is yourself, you who are evident in every sight.

So pratibodha viditam matam. In every sight you are. And in fact who you are, is not limited to the upadhi of being  ,seer consciousness. This again is a pramana vakya, known only through shastra pramana. And it is an assimilable gnanam (knowledge), since this is not contradicted by your own experience.

If you see, you are the waker, dreamer and sleeper, but the ‘I’, has ONLY anvaya ( invariable co-presence), but NO vyatireka (co-variable absence) w.r.t to the waker, dreamer and sleeper.

When waker is, I am, but when I am waker always not IS, since when dreamer is I am, but I am not the waker, rather I am the dreamer.

So while ‘I’ atma has invariable co-presence with ‘waker’, when waker is absent, ‘I’ still IS as dreamer or sleeper. So being a waker, or a seer, is not intrinsic to ‘I’. Just goes a long way in making it clear that ‘I’ is indeed brahman. Helps us assimilate the shastra provided gnanam, by removing any obstructing doubts generated by other means of knowledge. Its not just assimilation, in fact every experience proves that atma is sat , it is satyam. Which means unchanging, as the waker, dreamer, sleeper, undergoes no change. In all thoughts ‘ I’ am. And that I is unchanging. So nature of ‘I’ is anantam, it is satyam and obviously it is ‘chit’ as one Is a conscious being. So our experience not ‘NOT contradicts’ shastra pramana, in fact it validates pramana. And the guru himself/herself uses these prakriyas to help us assimilate the gnanam that is conveyed, the fact that one is purnam brahman. Upanishad itself does that, through statements like pratibodha viditam matam.

Your own body mind, undergoes change, but you are not changing with it, you are aware of the changes to body mind. So it is an assimilable gnanam, that you can indeed be the changeless adhistanam. Adhishtanam does not mean layer underneath as clarified in this post http://vedareflections.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-upadhi-and-adhistana-brahman-is-the.html

, but rather means all pervading brahman.

So, you are that brahman which is all pervading (all pervading is a lakshana, from brahmans standpoint brahman alone is).

This is understanding. You can settle in this understanding, that knower, known , knowledge all the 3 are brahman. By having name and form, brhaman undergoes no change whatsoever, so this problem of pure and impure consciousness is not really there.

Shastra stands vindicated when it says sarvam khalvidam brahma.

Om Namah Shivaya.

The upadhi and the adhistana – brahman is an the underneath layer confusion

I am a person, with a body and a mind. This is to be understood as an upadhi.

One has to clearly understand the nature of an upadhi as well as the nature of the adhistAnam atma.

We have to be clear, when examples are used. Usually example of a pot and clay, or a jewel and gold are used.

Here sometimes people confuse thinking that the adhistanam of an upadhi is like a substance, like a substance of a pot is clay. Clay is not an underneath layer of pot. Someone did not take the clay and changed the shape of the clay to make it a pot. The clay was in the form of a lump and was shaped to a pot.

From point of view of clay, clay is alone there. Clay does not acknowledge, name or form or function. As far as clay is concerned there is no change in form etc.

Clay as a lump is clay. Clay as a pot is clay. Pot is broken, clay becomes clay fragments, it still remains clay. As far as clay is concerned it is never subject to any change at all.

This is a pramana vakya that clarifies the meaning which is attributed to be the nature of the adhistAnam atma. We take the required meaning from the clay pot example.

Atma has never undergone any change, nor is it even subject to change. Even to call atma ‘changeless’ is talking from the standpoint of change alone.

That atma is oneself.

If that atma is oneself, then how do you place the upAdhi.

What is the relationship of the upadhi, the body mind upadhi w.r.t the adhistAnam.

The relationship is satyam and mithya. Satyam is independent of mithya.

Mithya depends on satyam for its existence. All the way  it depends on satyam.  In fact knowing satyam, satyam alone exists.

Hence mithya cannot be said to be non-existent, and cannot be said to have any existence of its own as its existence is brahman.

So this individual , aham, I , while is looked upon as a person, with a body mind, if the truth is known cannot be looked upon as anything but atma. In fact whatever you look upon is the atma, the looker is atma, what is looked upon is atma, this knower known duality is mithya and atma is satyam. So atma transcends duality , is non dual, it is both imminent in duality as well as at the same time, transcends the duality, as the atma never underwent any change, neither it can change, in fact the word change doesn’t exist in its dictionary, the word changeless itself it is said to be is only a lakshanam, a lakshyArtha, a definition used to point to the nature of the vastu. That vastu is yourself. You are self evident, so you are not subject to anything.

How do we know all these, how these are figured out? Its not figured out by human mind, it is known through shastra pramana, and independent means of knowledge.

In fact there is a question all of us may have, what is the use of all this Vedanta. The answer is very simple, we all want to be something, to become someone, to be something that we want to be. You have a problem, centered around yourself, or centered around someone you value, something you value, you have a problem about it, which makes you unhappy, so you seek a solution, ultimately to make you happy about that.

What vedanta offers it says, whatever that is , that you want to be, a fulfilled person, in all respects, in all situations, that you are already, without doing anything, no matter what happens, or doesn’t happen, whether you do anything or don’t do anything, whatever may be the case, “ you are what you want to be” . This is not known, but those who want to know can know, a means of knowledge is available, it can be made use of.

So even those looking for a practical benefit, this knowledge gives you the freedom to act freely and do what must be done with no hesitation.

Nature of pramana - part 2

In the previous post we established that the prama may not take place in a doubt free manner, when there are certain inadequacies on the part of the pramata or the pramana.

In the case of atma gnanam, we rely on vedanta as a pramana. vedanta is a pramana ONLY when it is taught by a shrotriya brahmanishta guru, in fact minimum should be a shrotriya ( provided he doesnt add his own flavor or misunderstanding in the soup).

Words from a shrotriya brahmanishta guru serve as a pramana.

The question of inadequacy of pramana arises, only if the guru is not a shrotriya.

Here since we are in the AVG parampara, and have exposure to greats such as Swami Paramarthananda and Pujya Swamiji, we need not explore the inadequacy of pramana.

Therefore what we need to examine is the inadequacy of the pramata, or oneself, which comes in the way of nischaya gnanam.

Here I am attempting to first list then discuss the possible inadequacies. In the subsequent posts I will try and expand each of these inadequacies.

1. Absence of systematic exposure,leading to incomplete shravanam ( clarity about tvam pada, tat pada and aikya gnanam)

2. Absence of medha shakti ( memory power)

3. Understanding the wrong meaning of the usage of a word. ( Not understanding the meaning of words in the manner in which it is suppossed to be understood)

4. Perceived opposite experiences/knowledge, that appear to contradict the knowledge

5. Opposing emotional states that contradict the knowledge

6. Lifestyle and living mode leading to attitudes the contradict the knowledge

7. Strong beliefs , not based on experiences/knowledge, that contradict the knowledge

8. Influence/advise/opinions of other people that contradicts the knowledge

Nature of Pramana- Part 1

I am seeking with the grace of lord dakshinamurti to understand and explore the nature of any pramana or means of knowledge.

What I seek to do, is not to enter any vedantic enquiry, or vedantic context of pramana, rather simply look at the nature of pramana, in ordinary human experience and gain certain understanding of how a pramana works, and later based on that understanding, extend the understanding to the vedantic context.

As we already know, a pramana implies both the presence of pramata (knower) and prameya (known). The knowledge that takes place in the buddhi of the pramata is what we call in sankrit the word for 'knowledge' is prama. So prama is the root word.

When the pramata, prameya and pramana come together, in ideal conditions, prama takes place in the pramatas buddhi. Over here the pramata does not have a choice.

For instance If Ram is standing on the banks of a river, and a boat appears in front. Ram has no choice or control as to the appearance of the boat. Ram was not looking for a boat on the river. But Ram was available with his eyes open, available to 'see' through his 'eyes'. So Ram, is the pramata, the pramana is his eyes, and the prameya is the boat. The prama is that , ' I see a boat'.

Let us examine this simple situation further.

What is it that we would call nischaya gnanam (doubtless knowledge) of the boat?

If the conditions were dark in the evening, it is possible that Ram has mistaken a log of wood for a boat.

On the other hand if Ram were having a cataract in his eyes , in that case also, it is possible that he mistook a log of wood for a boat.

Therefore Ram might have a conviction, that I indeed saw a boat. If this boat was somehow involved in a court case, a murder case near the river, on the exact same time Ram was standing by the river, Ram in that case gets called to the court. The advocate questions him " Mr Ram , it was late in the evening, it was dark, remember you cannot lie in a court of law. Are you sure that you saw a boat?".
Now while Ram would all this while have been 'sure' that he saw a boat, now he can be doubtful. He might think , "Yes, The advocate is right. It was the late evening, there was some darkness. It is indeed possible that it was a log of wood. Although I am almost sure it was a boat, I cant be completely sure."

So here, Ram suffers from the inadequacies surrounding the pramana, the conditions that rule the pramana. The pramana, the 'eye' itself is in good condition, but there are other obstructing factors, that prevent the pramana from operating in such a manner as to create doubt free knowledge. Or nischaya gnanam.

In general there can be absence of nischaya gnanam due to following inadequacies -

> Inadequacy of pramana

Example would be a cataract in the eye.

> Inadequacy surrounding pramata
LAte evening darkness or perhaps even Ram might be feeling sleepy and is not paying attention

> Inadequacy of prameya
This has to be examined. The prameya is the way it is. If it is a log of wood covered in smoke, and you arent sure of it is a boat, then even then, the best knowledge you can get is that it is 'either a log of wood , or a boat'. So really speaking we do not judge how the prameya should be, so this is not appplicable.

So prama may not take place if there is inadequacy on part of the pramata or the pramana.

In the next post we can see, how this translates into the vedantic context, and what are the types of inadequacies that may obstruct atma gnanam.

What is spirituality

Once swamini svatmavidananda was asked what is spirituality. I think she gave an exemplary answer that befits a follower of shnkaracharya.
She said, it is a change in vision, wherein what we generally consider as mundane, ordinary and boring, is understood to be ishvara in terms of knowledge. Hence we appreciate our ordinary life, for being the extraordinary grace of the lord.

People world over are seeking and looking for 'spirituality', as something other worldly, external, to be experienced in some meditative state, some special experience etc.
However the indian sage says, whatever you do, going to office, cooking, etc, is karma yoga, an act of devotion to bhagavan and the results are received from bhagavan.

Whatever you encounter in your life situation is karma phala, from bhagavan.

Whatever simple life you lead, is blessed with bhagavans presence in every step of it.

Hence strictly speaking, there is no need to look for something spiritual outside of your daily life. Your daily life, is resplendent with the glamour of ishvara.

Our culture and practices, teach us to consider everything as sacred, and ishvarise our life. Hence we consider all relationships, etc. as filled with love, devotion and a positive sense of sacredness ( sacredness does not mean a fearful devotion, rather a loving devotion).

It teaches us to maintain the dharma of a relationship.

Krishna with kuchelan, taught us how to be a good friend, there is ishvara in friendship.How to be a good father and King was taught to us by Janaka.
How to be a good mother was taught by yashodha. How to be a good warrior by Arjuna. How to be a good brother by bharatha and rama. How to be a good son by shri rama. Seeta mAthA is a great example of a loving wife, responsible mother and a queen.
There are stories where Umadevi or Parvati becomes angry and even shiva could not stop her anger when he cuts ganeshas head in haste.

So this effort to lead a responsible, loving, productive , positive and contributive life is really speaking true spirituality. And we do that by invoking bhagavan in our ordinary life, by recognising his presence in situations, relationship and in life itself.

Why dharma is non negotiable for a vedantin, even from knowledge point of view

For a vedantin the understanding of ‘jagath mithya’ is equated to the understanding that ‘jagat is ishvara’ or isavasyam sarvam idam.

This is really the pinnacle of vedantin, the knowledge that all that is here is ishvara svarupa.
Dharma is ishvara. In the way the individual relates to the world, the individual has to recognize the presence of dharma, therefore actions must confirm with dharma.

Dharma means to act appropriately in a situation. Do do what is to be done, and to avoid what is not to be done. Since in all of waking state, man is either engaged in action or inaction, strictly speaking dharma governs every single moment of ones waking state, one has to either choose to do the right action, or else avoid a particular action. ( this perhaps means no procrastination)

Now unless a vedantin commits oneself to dharma, the gnanam does not stand firm. The reason being, a vedantins actions when not in conformance with dharma, are in opposition to the knowledge itself, which affirms that what is here is ishvara. Adharma is possible only from the point of view of the karta. To the vedantin who has assimilated that akarta is the truth and any actions appear to be so only due to the three gunas , which is ishvara, really speaking, there is no karma. There being no karma, there is no possibility of adharma as well. So what the gnani does, is dharma (from standpoint of agnani, since from the gnanis standpoint there is no karta karma etc. really speaking) , gnani being akarta. That is why we as a civilization have always taken advice on what needs to be done, from great gnanis and mahatmas.
The attempt of a mumukshu is to assimilate the vision of Vedanta, that ‘aham akarta, abhokta’, and till that vision is firmly held one must deliberately avoid adharma through purusharta nishchaya, which is sheer determination and effort. There is no shortcut around it.

Typically calling out , the neo vedanta wherein, this isnt affirmed. the new vedantin person says I am akarta, so doesnt matter what I do. We have heard instances where some guru fools his disciples / exploits and then says , I didnt do any of this. Really speaking this is a form of self delusion. If you are saying it doesnt matter what you do, you are already a doer. Understanding that I am non doer, can only be deemed complete with the firm understanding that action itself is impelled off the gunas as well as the prarabdha which is in essence ishvara or mithya. And what is satyam is the non doer. We cannot bypass ishvara and reach satyam, since satyam is ishvara alone, there doesnt exist an alternate satyam. And we cant understand ishvara without acknowledging dharma, since for the karta, dharma IS the primary introduction to ishvara.
Saying bye to dharma is like entering the building called ishvara ( 5 star hotel), meeting the watchman and saying hi to him and leaving. Saying, I have seen the watchman, i know what the building is now. One has to enter the building. Stay in there for a while and for that one has to keep the watchman happy to be able to continue the stay. Only after staying in the five star hotel of ishvara for a while, does he gain the necessary vairagya, viveka and atma bala to assimilate brahma gyanam. And for that one has to follow the rules of the 5 star hotel, otherwise the watchman will get you. This is dharma.
hara namah parvati pataye
hara hara mahadeva

Atma vichara is shastra vichara

When we do shastra vichara, to know the atma, we rely on the guru to unfold the meaning of words of the shastra.

Take for instance the meaning of the word satyam. Satyam is sometimes translated into english. And understood as substratum. Any english translation can be used, but it is crucial to understand the appropriate meaning of the word used. If I use the word substratum, many meanings are possible for substratum.
Substratum can mean that, the soil is the substratum of a lawn. So there is soil as substratum, and grass grows on top of the lawn. So is that the same as satyam. Answer is NO. That is not what we mean by satyam as used in shastra. So what does satyam mean in shastra.

Shastra gives example, one of which is gold and chain and bangle etc.
If you take any form of gold, say a bangle. Here the bangle is all in all GOLD. It is fully gold alone. However the bangle is still present. we cant say there is no bangle, there is only gold. No I can wear the bangle, so something called bangle IS. The bangle has no existence of its own. Bangle draws its existence from gold. Bangles existence is gold, but bangle has a certain meaning. Shastra calls the bangle, the chain, the earring as mithya. And gold as satyam. As you can see the bangle, chain, earring all are gold, all are satyam alone. You dont need to FIND the substratum , deep inside, there is no need to go underneath. If we go underneath, break down gold further, we will get atoms of gold, we wil get electrons, protons, neutrons etc.
This doesnt say anything , simply says even gold is not satyam. Gold is also mithya. So how to define satyam, what is the lakshana (unique definition) for satyam?
Simple, satyam is 'that which does not draw its existence from anything else', 'is 'self existent'.
Shastra uses another word gnanam. Gnanam means that which IS, the knower, known knowledge all the three is gnanam. The gnanam is from the root word 'gna'. Gna is the root for gnata, gnanaa and gneya all the three. The content of knower, known, knowlege is gna. This gna is conscious. Is there any source of consciousness other than atma, other than you? NO, only source of consciousness or gnanam, or gna dhatu, is you. So you are the gnanam, and you are self evident, self existent, you do not need to become evident to yourself, yo uare self evident. You are self existent, you ARE, hence you meet the definition of satyam. So you are satyam. So are you the substance of all that is here, as satyam. Answer is YES.
So is the tree you?
Yes! Since the tree is satyam. The treeness is an attribute of satyam alone. We have already seen the need for a 'self existent' ISness. And that is you alone. So you are the tree as well.
How can you say that? I cant be a tree...

Arre, when it is being said you are the tree, it is implied we are talking about you are the satyam, and tree is satyam, Hence you are the tree.
We know already that the attribute tree IS, attribute Mind IS. But what Is is satyam alone, which is you.

By being the sky, does satyam become less satyam than it is being the tree? So is there two satyams? the tree satyam and the sky satyam? Arre when you count satyam, there is only one. Advayam brahma. this is non dual.

Words have to be understood, shastra is all about shabda pramana. Words are unfolded by guru and understood by sishya, in same way as understood by guru. Which is gnanam. Which is atma gnanam.

Harhara parvati pataye
harahara mahadeva.