The Atma Jyoti Blog

This is Part 6 of a serialized commentary on “A Method Of Enlightening A Disciple” from Shankara’s Upadeshasahasri–A Thousand Teachings

9) “The form of that person is like a cloth dyed with turmeric, or like grey sheep’s wool, or like the scarlet insect called Indragopa, or like a tongue of fire, or like a white lotus, or like a flash of lightning. He who knows this–his splendor is like a flash of lightning.

“Now, therefore, the description of Brahman: Not this, not this [Neti, Neti]; for there is no other and more appropriate description than this: ‘Not this.’ Now the designation of Brahman: The Truth of truth. The vital breath is truth and It [Brahman] is the Truth of that.” (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 2:3:6)

It is a fundamental tenet of the upanishadic philosophy that neither the Supreme Self nor the individual Self have any form or quality whatsoever. So what is the first part of this verse talking about? It is saying that any “form” of the Self is really only a kind of symbolic indication of its presence, just like a person is not his voice, but when we hear the voice speaking we know the person is present. To get this idea across several examples are given: 1) A cloth may be dyed yellow, but the yellowness is superficial, having nothing at all to do with “clothness.” 2) Sheep’s wool is the thing, and greyness merely incidental. 3) Being an Indragopa insect has nothing to do with being red. 4) A tongue of fire is just a momentary condition, but the fire persists because that is the reality. 5) Lotuses may be many colors–whiteness is not lotusness. 6) Lightning is a process of purifying the atmosphere, its flash is just happenstance. Those who know these truths about the Self are splendid, but that splendor is just what others perceive–it is not the Self of those enlightened people. They alone “see” their Self.

There is a further lesson here: the Self can take on many attributes or forms, but it never really is any of them–they are appearances only. Yet, the Self’s capacity for assuming form and quality must not be forgotten. The simplistic denial of this is a mark of ignorance, not discrimination, and certainly is not Advaita.

Brahman cannot be described as an object, for It is not separate from us nor does It have attributes or qualities. Yet, the upanishad says that Brahman can be “described” by saying It is “not this, not this.” The idea is that when we negate all that can be said, what remains is a hint of Brahman, the No Thing (not to be confused with Nothing, as Westerners are wont to do). We can say what God is not–and nothing more. It is most interesting to note that early Christian theology made a great point of this truth. Just as it also taught that God alone was real, and that evil did not exist. These three principles reveal the Indian origin of Jesus’ teaching, however far contemporary Christianity has strayed from it.

Read previous installments of A Catechism of Enlightenment.

This is Part 5 of a serialized commentary on “A Method Of Enlightening A Disciple” from Shankara’s Upadeshasahasri–A Thousand Teachings

8) “It [the Self] is that which transcends hunger and thirst, grief, delusion, old age and death. Having realized this Self, brahmins give up the desire for sons, the desire for wealth and the desire for the worlds and lead the life of religious mendicants. That which is the desire for sons is the desire for wealth and that which is the desire for wealth is the desire for the worlds; for both these are but desires.

“Therefore a brahmin, after he is done with scholarship, should try to live on that strength which comes of scholarship. After he is done with that strength and scholarship, he becomes meditative and after he is done with both meditativeness and non-meditativeness, he becomes a knower of Brahman.

“How does the knower of Brahman behave? Howsoever he may behave, he is such indeed.

“Everything else but this is perishable.” (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 3:5:1)

It [the Self] is that which transcends hunger and thirst, grief, delusion, old age and death. The Self is not just devoid of hunger, etc., but it exists utterly beyond such things which are impossible to it. The nature of the Self precludes such things.

Having realized this Self, brahmins give up the desire for sons, the desire for wealth and the desire for the worlds and lead the life of religious mendicants. That which is the desire for sons is the desire for wealth and that which is the desire for wealth is the desire for the worlds; for both these are but desires. When we realize that the Self is transcendent, beyond all the mirages we have been identifying with and either seeking or avoiding, we turn from them as the vain illusions they are. Seeking Brahman, we become the true Brahmins–the knowers of Brahman.

The word translated “religious mendicant” is not sannyasi or yati–both exclusively referring to official monastics–but bhikshacharyam: one who lives on food-alms (bhiksha). I have no doubt that the upanishad includes sadhus in this verse, but not exclusively. It seems to me there is a much deeper meaning here. The awakened one no longer seeks the foolish and pain-giving objects so prized by the world, and so no longer desires to “make” anything of himself or his life. Rather, he wishes to be only what he eternally is. This is why one of the Venerable Master Seung Sung’s teachings is: Make Nothing. This is profound and worthy of our pondering.

Instead of “making a life” and all that entails, the wise live seeking for nothing earthly, but only awaiting and living on the “bhiksha” that life brings to them as a consequence of their karma. They reap, but sow no more. What comes to them spontaneously, as a matter of course, is the “alms” the universe gives them to evolve through. What a blessed and free life!

Therefore a brahmin, after he is done with scholarship, should try to live on that strength which comes of scholarship. After he is done with that strength and scholarship, he becomes meditative and after he is done with both meditativeness and non-meditativeness, he becomes a knower of Brahman. When we climb a stair we start at the bottom and go to the top. That is hardly news, but the same applies to spiritual life. Egotists and simplistic children in adult bodies are always trying to be at the top instantly. But that is impossible, so the upanishad outlines the stages we should go through if we would really reach the heights of consciousness.

First there must be serious study, and from that will come the spiritual intelligence and resolve to engage in dedicated spiritual practice, particularly meditation. Through meditation he goes beyond even the duality of meditation/non-meditation, reaches the knowledge of Brahman, and attains liberation (moksha).

How does the knower of Brahman behave? Howsoever he may behave, he is such indeed. Everything else but this is perishable. The ego is always seeking ways to avoid real spiritual life, as that will be its dissolution. Philosophizing is a favorite byway, and that includes: “How can we know someone is enlightened?” This produces some maddening and hilarious theories that, as is intended, lead nowhere. For a sensible person asks: “How can I become enlightened?” and lets the rest fend for themselves. In the Gita Krishna describes the interior state of an enlightened person in terms that can be only known to the individual. No one can make a checklist and go around seeing who is and who is not enlightened. Like all spiritual life, it is totally subjective. As Yogananda’s chant says: “He who knows…he knows. None else knows.” And nothing is wrong with that, for our enlightenment never depends on another’s enlightenment. Those who think it does have a very harsh and bitter road to wander, getting nowhere until the mist of their delusion lifts. As we see from the upanishads, a true teacher says: “You are That”–not “I am That.”

There is a really third-rate movie called Blood-Bath In the House of Death starring Vincent Price. It is pretty awful, but has some funny moments. At one point the eager little groupie-Satanists are preparing for a ritual at which Satan, “the Master,” will appear. They ask their teacher, Vincent Price: “How will we know him?” And Price snaps back in disgust: “You’ll know him when you see him, stupid!” That happens to be the straight truth. So the upanishad says that an enlightened person acts like he does. He is enlightened and that is that. Everything else but that state–including deeds and words of any kind–is perishable and of no reality at all.

Read previous installments of A Catechism of Enlightenment.

This is Part 4 of a serialized commentary on “A Method Of Enlightening A Disciple” from Shankara’s Upadeshasahasri–A Thousand Teachings

6) “The Self which is free from sin, free from old age, free from death, free from grief, free from hunger, free from thirst, whose desires come true and whose thoughts come true–That it is which should be searched out, That it is which one should desire to understand. He who has known this Self from the scriptures and a teacher and understood It obtains all the worlds and all desires.” (Chandogya Upanishad 8:7:1)

This is easily understood, yet some comment may be of use. First we see that the Self is absolutely and eternally free of all defects. Next we see that the Self is omnipotent in its sphere, that whatever it “wills” or “thinks” comes to be. Knowledge of the Self should be our uppermost intention in life, for when It is known then everything is gained.

7) “That which breathes through the prana is your Self that is within all. That which moves downward through the apana is your Self that is within all. That which pervades through the vyana is your Self that is within all. That which goes out with the udana is your Self that is within all. This is your Self that is within all.” (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 3:4:1)

This verse tells us that the Self is not some antiseptic, indifferent, utterly separate entity from our bodies, but that it is consciously active within us. Deism postulates that God made the world and then walked away to leave it spinning on its own, and it is easy to lapse into a kind of deism on the individual level when we learn that the Self is untouched by anything and its nature is beyond all things. But, as is usual, the truth is a combination of opposing ideas, somewhere in the middle of them.

Prana pervades and functions in all living things, including us. There are five forms of prana. They are: 1) Prana, the prana that moves upward; 2) Apana: the prana that moves downward, producing the excretory functions in general. 3) Vyana: the prana that holds prana and apana together and produces circulation in the body. 4) Samana: the prana that carries the grosser material of food to the apana and brings the subtler material to each limb; the general force of digestion. 5) Udana: the prana which brings up or carries down what has been drunk or eaten; the general force of assimilation.

The Self is not the prana, but the inner force which impels the prana in its five modes. Part of the idea is that the Self is involved in all the functions of living beings. The Self “lives” through and in our gross and subtle bodies. Without the Self there would be no life, nor anything at all.

Further, it is not the universal prana, the Vishwaprana, that lives in each one of us, but rather our own personal Self-directed life-force. God is running the great cosmos, but we are running our private cosmos all on our own. Total responsibility is ours, but this implies total capability, a very positive fact. We are weaving our own dreams within the Cosmic Dream. We are writing, producing, directing, and acting in our own dramas.

Read previous installments of A Catechism of Enlightenment.

This is Part 3 of a serialized commentary on “A Method Of Enlightening A Disciple” from Shankara’s Upadeshasahasri–A Thousand Teachings

4) “In the beginning all this verily was Atman only, one and without a second. There was nothing else that winked. He bethought Himself: ‘Let Me now create the worlds.’” (Aitareya Upanishad 1:1:1)

The Self alone is ever-existent. Creation goes in cycles. Before creation there is absolutely nothing but the Brahman-Self. The statement that “there was nothing else that winked” means that there was no movement or action whatsoever, that there was neither sentient nor non-sentient being–only the Paramatman.

The impulse to project the creation comes from Brahman Itself. In the same way the impulse to enter into relative experience comes from each individual being, and from no other. Brahman does not come into this. The Gita (9:6-8) says: “My wandering creatures, are always within me. These, when the round of ages is accomplished, I gather back to the seed of their becoming: these I send forth again at the hour of creation. Helpless all, for Maya is their master, and I, their Lord, the master of this Maya: ever and again, I send these multitudes forth from my Being.” But it is speaking only of those who have decided to enter the dream to develop their scope of consciousness (see Ladder of Light). The initial entry into creation comes from each spirit alone.

Like God, we have been creating many “worlds” through reincarnation, being born in a vast chain of embodiments, living out a different drama in each life. It is all under the aegis of the Self.

5) “All this is Brahman. From It the universe comes forth, in It the universe merges and in It the universe breathes. Therefore a man should meditate on Brahman with a calm mind.

“Now, verily, a man consists of will. As he wills in this world, so does he become when he has departed hence. Let him with this knowledge in mind form his will.” (Chandogya Upanishad 3:14:1)

The doctrine of Maya is fundamental to upanishadic thought, because at all times the student must keep the perspective that everything is an appearance only, that things are only images in our consciousness. They are dream images within the mind of the dreamer. The fact that they have no objective reality will not disturb those of us who love plays and movies. The creation is not for entertainment but for training in consciousness–which is real. After all, words are only symbols, not realities, but nobody objects to language being insubstantial. As things are, so they are.

So when the upanishad tells us that “all this is Brahman,” it is telling us that the dream and the Dreamer are the same, only momentarily divided by the illusion of Maya. Both the real and the unreal are Brahman. Reality and fantasy have the same substance: Brahman. The cosmos rises from Brahman, evolves in Brahman, and melts back into Brahman, just as ice forms from water, floats in the water, and after a while melts back into water. Such an insight should give us unshakable peace, peace in which we should meditate on Brahman in order to unite with It.

The second part of this verse does not seem to fit, but it does, being a reflection on the injunction to meditate on Brahman. Meditation, being a matter of inner and outer stillness, is yet an action of will. To meditate is to exercise our will in the most creative manner. Therefore the subject of will is introduced. The Gita (6:5, 6) says this: “What is man’s will and how shall he use it? Let him put forth its power to uncover the Atman, not hide the Atman: man’s will is the only friend of the Atman: his will is also the Atman’s enemy. For when a man is self-controlled, his will is the Atman’s friend. But the will of an uncontrolled man is hostile to the Atman, like an enemy.”

The upanishad presents us with a fact we would rarely come to realize on our own: we “are” our will. This is not in the absolute sense, but from the fact that intelligent will is a prime characteristic–or at least a potential–of the human being. It is true, most people run on whimsy, desire, and delusion. But they are being instinctual like animals, and not functioning in their full humanity. The ideal in the upanishads is the fully conscious and therefore fully “wilful” person. But that is not enough; the will must be oriented toward the knowing of Brahman–not just a desire to know, but a willing to know which is manifest in the entire life. If the will is perfectly consonant or aligned with the truth of Brahman, then upon his departure from this world the yogi will attain to Brahman or at least ascend to those high worlds in which liberation is assured and attained.

Yet it is all up to us, so we are advised in conclusion to form and exercise our will according to what we have learned.

Read previous installments of A Catechism of Enlightenment.

This continues a serialized commentary on “A Method Of Enlightening A Disciple” from Shankara’s Upadeshasahasri–A Thousand Teachings

3) The third verse presented by Shankara is preceded by one that I think you will find informative, though its wording is similar to the first part of Shankara’s quotation. It brings out some things that Shankara considered anybody would know who was inquiring after the Self, but in the West that is not the case. So here it is:

“That infinite, indeed, is below. It is above. It is behind. It is before. It is to the south. It is to the north. The Infinite, indeed, is all this.

“Next follows the instruction about the Infinite with reference to ‘I’:

“I, indeed, am below. I am above. I am behind. I am before. I am to the south. I am to the north. I am, indeed, all this.” (Chandogya Upanishad 7:25:1)

The idea here is that the Infinite–Bhuma, the unconditioned, infinite Brahman–is all-pervading, that there is nowhere that the infinite is not, indeed there is nowhere or no thing that is not the Infinite Itself.

Next, the same thing is said about the “I” principle, or aham. This is not the delusive ego, ahankara, that is being spoken about, but the positive asmita: I-ness; the sense of “I am;” “I exist.” It is the awareness of our very existence as a real entity. This “I” sense is all-pervading on the individual level, just as the Bhuma pervades all levels, cosmic and macrocosmic. For the real “I” is all that we are in truth. That real “I” is the Atman-Self, so the upanishad continues (with Shankara):

“Next follows the instruction about the Infinite with reference to the Self: The Self indeed, is below. It is above. It is behind. It is before. It is to the south. It is to the north. The Self, indeed, is all this.

“Verily, he who sees this, reflects on this and understands this delights in the Self, sports with the Self, rejoices in the Self, revels in the Self. Even while living in the body he becomes a self-ruler. He wields unlimited freedom in all the worlds.

‘‘But those who think differently from this have others for their rulers; they live in perishable worlds. They have no freedom in all the worlds.” (Chandogya Upanishad 7:25:2)

“Self” in this verse means both the individual and the universal Selves, the jiva and Brahman. So whatever is said applies to both equally, though on the finite and infinite levels. The yogi, knowing this, sports, rejoices, and revels in the Selves. He is a true master–a master of himself, and one who shows others the way to become masters themselves. Absolute freedom is his. That is this possible is shown by the lives of the great masters of all traditions. All the major religions of the world have had masters manifested in them. Sometimes it has seemed they were masters in spite of their religion. Many were persecuted–and some were killed–by their religious leaders. Nevertheless, they were masters and we should honor them all.

However…those who do not have Self-consciousness, but believe in the illusions of difference and separation are the servants (even slaves) of just about everything–their minds, bodies, associates, society, and so on. All their “worlds” are changeable, rushing toward dissolution. Bondage alone is their past, present, and future until they change their consciousness.

This begins a serialized commentary on “A Method Of Enlightening A Disciple” from Shankara’s Upadeshasahasri–A Thousand Teachings

The opening verse of Shankara’s Upadeshasahasri–A Thousand Teachings–is: “We shall now explain a method of teaching the means to liberation for the benefit of those aspirants after liberation who are desirous and are possessed of faith.” Shankara then outlines in a section titled “A Method Of Enlightening A Disciple” how the aspirants should receive the first instructions in the inquiry as to the nature of the Self. The texts cited certainly need comment–as Shankara assumed those who used his text would do.

There are very many citations, most being from the upanishads though some are from the Bhagavad Gita and some minor sources. We will look at each one in turn from first till last.

1) “In the beginning this universe was Being [Sat] alone, one only without a second.” (Chandogya Upanishad 6:2:1)

Brahman is Pure Being, absolute unity, ekam, evam, adwitiyam–one, only, without a second. This is perhaps the purest statement that can be made about Brahman, and also the most accurate–always keeping in mind that nothing can be said about Brahman in the highest sense.

2) “Where one sees nothing else, hears nothing else, understands nothing else–that is the Infinite. Where one sees something else, hears something else, understands something else–that is the finite. The Infinite is immortal, the finite mortal.”

“In what does the Infinite find Its support?”

“In Its own greatness–or not even in greatness.” (Chandogya Upanishad 7:24:1)

When the Infinite is perceived, it alone IS. There is absolutely nothing else. This takes two forms. The highest is the perception of nothing but Pure Being. The other is the perceiving of “others” but at the same time directly seeing that the “others” are mere appearances and that Brahman is manifesting as everything.

But when we believe in “others” as really being “other” in their essential nature, then we are in finite consciousness and subject to all that entails, experiencing ourselves falsely as finite and ever-changing.

The short dialogue about the support of the Infinite is intended to show us that Brahman is Its own support–Its own greatness (mahima.) Besides Its very Being, Brahman neither has nor needs any support at all. For this reason the upanishads usually declare Brahman as supportless, as we will see later.

Read Further installments of A Catechism of Enlightenment.