Achieving Awareness ( sat-cit-ānanda brahman ) by Awareness Investigation ( Neti, Neti, Neti — Who…

by JagmOHaN Singh Sekhon June 14, 2021

Achieving Awareness ( sat-cit-ānanda brahman ) by Awareness Investigation ( Neti, Neti, Neti — Who Am I)

“Love says ‘I am everything.’ Wisdom says ‘I am nothing.’ Between the two, my life flows.”

All Are In The Circle Of Love,but still they can love die to the false knowledge of themselves that they carry.
So what’s with humans who walk about in the world with invisible placards that read ‘not made for love’?
Is commitment phobia the only reason or are these people pro-gender (feminism/masculism) — attracted to opposite but think they’re better off without them?
What are such people threatened by that they can’t get enough nerve up to either be in love or respond to it?
Lost in their own ‘ātma-vicāra’, without knowing their own bliss, they seek bliss ( sat-cit-ānanda brahman ) in others.
Such people also claim to meditate but seldom know what they do. Through meditation, the practitioner realizes that he is not tied to the things he normally identifies with, whether it be personality, thoughts, feelings, emotions, memories, sensations, bodies, perceptions, will, gender, occupation, etc.
The name ‘ātma-vicāra’ [refers] only to [the practice of] always keeping the mind in [or on] ātmā [oneself]; whereas dhyāna [meditation] is imagining oneself to be sat-cit-ānanda brahman [the absolute reality, which is being-consciousness-bliss]. At one time it will become necessary to forget all that one has learnt.
By awareness one attains union with the Absolute by denying the body, name, form, intellect, senses and all limiting adjuncts and discovers what remains, the true “I” alone.
To know who you are, you need to realize and release who you are not. Because if you carry the false knowledge of you you shall only reject true love which approaches you in its naked form.

It is to turn the mind within to see our true nature.

Once we recognize that we are not the body but the Spirit, we will see everything to be full of spirit. It is the Universal Self that has manifested as all that we see and perceive and sense.
When everything is animated by the same Self, the same Self that we are, no one can be outside the orbit of our love.
Whatever we experience in our outward life as a body-bound mind or ego, we are destined to experience for a purpose, and the ultimate purpose behind all that we experience is for us to learn the essential lesson of detachment.
Nothing that we experience — other than ‘I am’ — is real or lasting. It is all just a fleeting appearance, as are the body and mind that we mistake to be ourself. But so long as we attend to these fleeting appearances — that is, so long as we allow them to encroach in our consciousness — their seeming reality will be sustained and nourished.
Therefore, if we wish to rest peacefully in and as our essential being, ‘I am’, we must learn to ignore all appearances, and we can ignore them only by being completely indifferent to them (‘holy indifference’, as the Christian mystics call it). That is, only when we are truly indifferent to everything else, knowing it all to be just a fleeting dream, will we have the strength to cling firmly to ‘I am’ alone.
Clinging to ‘I am’ alone means having our entire consciousness centred on, in and as ‘I am’ to the complete exclusion of everything else. Only in this state of absolute self-attentiveness or self-abidance can we experience the profound peace and infinite joy of just being, knowing nothing other than ‘I am’.
Because of the strong desire for and attachment to the fleeting experiences of our ephemeral mind that we have accumulated during the course of innumerable dreams (so-called bodily ‘lifetimes’), our attention is constantly being drawn back to such things, but the more we cultivate the habit of being self-attentive — even if at first it is just for brief moments now and then — the more our desires and attachments will be weakened, and the more our love just to be will be nourished and grow.
Therefore persistent practice of self-attentiveness is necessary — in fact, it is the only solution to all our problems. No matter how difficult the struggle to overcome all our desires by means of simple self-attentiveness — trying to know ‘who is desiring all these things?’ — may appear to be, we can be sure that we will certainly succeed by steadfast perseverance.
That is, though our love to be self-attentive (which is true bhakti or devotion to God, since the true form of God is none other than ‘I am’, our own essential self) may appear at first to be very weak and tenuous, when we steadily cultivate it by practice, it will gradually begin to snowball, increasing in intensity exponentially, until eventually it will entirely consume us and all our petty desires, thereby establishing us firmly and eternally in the infinitely peaceful and joyful state of pristine self-conscious being.
Therefore we should never despair, but should patiently and persistently continue to practise simple self-attentiveness or self-remembrance. As Sri Ramana says in the eleventh paragraph of Nan Yar? (Who am I?):

… If one clings fast to uninterrupted svarūpa-smaraṇa [self-remembrance] until one attains svarūpa [one’s own essential self], that alone [will be] sufficient. …

The love to be self-attentive that we now have at least in small measure and that we must continue to cultivate is the truest and most pure form of God’s grace, because he is the clear light of consciousness that shines in our heart as ‘I am’, and because of his infinite love for us, he enkindles in our heart the clarity to discriminate the real from the ephemeral, and this clarity manifests itself as the love to attend only to that which alone is real, ‘I am’.

‘Who am I?’, or more precisely ‘I [am] Who?’,

Awareness alone is I’

It is important to understand that what we mean here is not awareness in the sense of awareness of phenomena, or even in the sense of that which is aware of phenomena, but only in the sense of pure awareness, which is the awareness that is never aware of anything other than itself. Awareness of phenomena, or what is aware of phenomena, is transitive awareness, which is ego or mind, which literally means awareness that points out, indicates or shows, whereas pure awareness is intransitive awareness, which literally means awareness that is devoid of pointing out, indicating or showing.
Pure intransitive awareness alone is real awareness, because it exists and shines eternally without even undergoing any change, whereas transitive awareness appears in waking and dream but disappears in sleep, so it is an unreal appearance, whose source and foundation is intransitive awareness. That is, in order to be aware of anything other than ourself we must be aware, but in order to be aware we do not need to be aware of anything other than ourself. For example, in waking and dream we are aware and are also aware of things other than ourself, whereas in sleep we are aware without being aware of anything other than ourself. Being aware of anything other than ourself is transitive awareness, whereas just being aware without being aware of anything other than ourself is intransitive awareness.
This distinction between transitive and intransitive awareness is one of the fundamental principles we need to understand. Nowadays many people with a superficial understanding of advaita say that we are only awareness, or that everything is awareness, but because they fail to understand that real awareness is intransitive, and that transitive awareness is just an illusory appearance and therefore a mere semblance of awareness , what they mean by ‘awareness’ is only transitive awareness, which is the nature of ego or mind. Therefore in order to understand this principle clearly and correctly, it is necessary for us to understand the distinction between transitive and intransitive awareness and to be able to recognise from each context whether he is using or any other term that means awareness in the sense of transitive awareness or intransitive awareness.
The need for us to understand the distinction between transitive awareness and intransitive awareness and to be able to recognise from each context whether we are using awareness in the sense of transitive awareness or intransitive awareness can be illustrated by the statement ‘awareness alone is I’. If the mind, which is the cause for all awareness and for all activity, ceases [or subsides], perception of the world will depart [or be dispelled]’. In both cases we use the same word to mean awareness, but in each case we are obviously referring to a different form of awareness, because if it were the same awareness in both cases, that would imply that the mind is the cause for ‘I’ in the sense of our real nature.
When we say, ‘awareness alone is I’, we imply that awareness is what we actually are, so the awareness we are then referring to is not the transitory awareness of phenomena, which appears in waking and dream but disappears in sleep, but the permanent awareness that shines in all three states without a break and without ever undergoing any change. Since that awareness shines in sleep without any awareness of phenomena, it is pure intransitive awareness, which is the source and foundation from which awareness of phenomena appears in waking and dream and into which it disappears in sleep. Therefore this pure intransitive awareness alone is real awareness, whereas awareness of phenomena is just an illusory appearance and hence a mere semblance of awareness .
On the other hand, when we say ‘If the mind, which is the cause for all awareness and for all activity, ceases [or subsides], perception of the world will depart [or be dispelled]’, the awareness we are then referring to is not real awareness (intransitive awareness) but only the transitory awareness of phenomena (transitive awareness), which is why we say that the cause for such awareness is mind. Mind (in the sense of ego, which is the perceiving element of the mind) is the cause for such awareness because it alone is what is aware of phenomena. In fact awareness of phenomena is the very nature of the mind, so whenever we appear as mind, as in waking and dream, we are aware of phenomena, and whenever we cease to be mind, as in sleep, we cease to be aware of phenomena.
This is why we say that if the mind ceases perception of the world will depart, and since our rising as mind is what prevents us being aware of ourself as we actually are (our real nature ). ‘Just as unless awareness of the imaginary snake goes, awareness of the rope, [which is] the [basis, base or foundation], will not arise, unless perception of the world, which is [a fabrication, imagination or mental creation], departs, seeing [one’s own form or real nature], [which is] th real us, will not arise’.
The fact that what we meant by awareness when we said, ‘Awareness alone is I’, is only pure intransitive awareness is confirmed in the statement that, ‘What is the nature of [such] awareness?’ ?, ‘The nature of [such] awareness is sat-cit-ānanda’. The compound term sat-cit-ānanda, which is actually fused into one word, transliterated correctly as saccidānanda, is a well-known philosophical term of Sanskrit origin, which is widely understood and frequently used to describe the nature of the one absolute reality. Though it is composed of three words, it is not intended to imply that the absolute reality is composed of three distinct elements, but only that the single non-dual nature of the one absolute reality can be described in three different ways.
Sat basically means being or existing, but by extension also means what actually exists, the existing substance, reality, truth, existence, essence, real, true, good, right, or what is real, true, good or right, so in this context it means existence or reality in the sense of what actually exists and is therefore real. Cit means consciousness or awareness, from a verbal root meaning to know, be aware of, perceive, observe, attend to or be attentive, but rather than meaning just the quality of being conscious or aware (as the English words ‘consciousness’ or ‘awareness’ basically mean), it means what is conscious or aware (in other words, it denotes a substance — one that is inherently aware — rather than a mere quality), not in the sense of transitive awareness (namely what is aware of anything other than itself), but in the sense of pure intransitive awareness (namely what is aware of nothing other than itself). And ānanda means happiness, joy or bliss. Thus saccidānanda, or as it is more commonly spelt in roman script, sat-cit-ānanda, means existence-awareness-happiness: that is, existence that is both aware and happy, or awareness that both exists and is happy, or happiness that both exists and is aware — in other words, a single substance or reality that exists, is aware and is happy.
Thus through these two first answers is revealed three important truths about the real nature of ‘I’. Firstly it is revealed that our real nature is only awareness (in the sense of what is aware). Secondly it is revealed that this awareness is not awareness of anything other than ourself, but is just sat-cit, our fundamental awareness of our own existence, ‘I am’. Thus it is implied that what we actually are is only pure self-awareness, awareness that is aware of nothing other than itself, and hence self-awareness is our very being, and our being is itself our awareness of our being. In other words, there is absolutely no distinction between what we actually are (our being or existence: sat) and our awareness of our existence (cit). Our existence and our awareness of our existence are therefore one, and hence our real nature is only this fundamental awareness of our own existence, which we always experience as ‘I am’. Thirdly it is revealed that this fundamental awareness of our own existence (sat-cit) is itself perfect happiness (ānanda). In other words, we are what actually exists (sat), what is eternally aware (cit), and what is infinitely happy (ānanda), and hence our existence, our awareness and our happiness are not three separate things, but are one indivisible non-dual whole, which is what we refers to elsewhere , the ‘own form’ or real nature (svarūpa) of oneself (atman) .
When we are seemingly aware of otherness, as in we are in waking and dream, we experience a mixture of relative happiness and unhappiness, but when we are aware of nothing other than ourself, as we are in dreamless sleep, we experience absolute, unqualified happiness. Since we experience absolutely no duality or otherness in sleep — that is, since we are aware of nothing other than our own existence, ‘I am’ — what we experience then must be our real nature (svarūpa). Since we are aware that we exist in sleep, our real nature is both our existence (sat) and our awareness of our existence (sat-cit), and since we are aware that we are happy in sleep, our real nature is also happiness (ānanda), namely the happiness of being aware of nothing other than our own existence, ‘I am’, as is explained by means of a series of logical arguments premised on our own experience above.
Going back to the original question and answer version ‘I [am] who?’, and the first two answers, ‘awareness alone is I’, and ‘the nature of [such] awareness is being-consciousness-bliss’.
The term nēti nēti refers to the rational process of self-analysis described in the ancient texts of vēdānta, a process that involves the analytical elimination or rejection of everything that is not ‘I’. Nēti is a compound of two Sanskrit words, na, which means ‘not’, and iti, which is a quotative marker and therefore serves a similar function to quotation marks in English, so nēti nēti literally means ‘not’, ‘not’, but implies ‘not this, not this’. The ancient texts of vēdānta use these words nēti nēti when explaining why all the adjuncts that we mistake to be ourself, such as the body, senses, life-force, mind and ignorance-enveloped viṣaya-vāsanās (inclinations or propensities to experience phenomena), are not ‘I’.
The rational and analytical process which is thus described in the ancient texts of vēdānta as nēti nēti or ‘not this, not this’ is essentially the same as the logical analysis of our experience of ourself . If we did not first critically analyse our experience of ourself in such a manner, we would not be able to understand either the reason why we should seek true self-knowledge, or what exactly we should investigate in order to know our real nature.
However, we should critically analyse our experience of ourself in our three states of awareness, namely waking, dream and sleep, in order to understand that we are nothing other than our fundamental self-awareness, ‘I am’, which is the only thing that we experience in all these three states, and though this process of self-analysis is essentially the same as the process that is described in the ancient texts of vēdānta as nēti nēti. ‘Eliminating everything mentioned above as not I, not I, the awareness that stands isolated [or separated] alone is I’, …. ‘awareness alone is I’.
In this expanded sentence the adverbial participle that we translated as ‘eliminating’ is which is a compound that literally means ‘doing nēti’, so qualifying , ‘awareness’, by adding the relative clause , ‘that stands isolated [or separated] eliminating [or doing nēti of] everything mentioned above as not I, not I’, is potentially misleading, because it could create the impression that simply by thinking ‘nēti nēti’ or ‘this is not I, this is not I’ we can separate our fundamental self-awareness from everything with which we now confuse it. In fact, many scholars who attempt to explain the ancient texts of vēdānta, which often describe this analytical process of nēti nēti or negation of all that is not our real nature, interpret it to be the actual means by which we can attain self-knowledge. However, the sages who first taught the rational process of self-analysis called nēti nēti did not intend it to be understood as the actual practice of self-investigation (ātma-vicāra) but only as the means to gain the understanding required in order for us to be able to investigate what we actually are.
So long as we assume that we are really this physical body, thinking mind or any other phenomenon or object of perception, we will imagine that we can know ourself by attending to such things, and hence we will not be able to understand what is really meant by terms such as ātma-vicāra, self-investigation, self-examination, self-scrutiny, self-enquiry, self-attention, self-attentiveness or self-remembrance. Only when we understand that we are nothing other than our fundamental self-awareness — our adjunct-free awareness of our own existence, which we experience just as ‘I am’, not as ‘I am this’ — will we be able to understand what actually is the ‘self’ or ‘I’ that we should investigate, scrutinise or attend to.
Once we have understood that we are not actually this physical body, thinking mind or any other object known by us, we should not continue thinking, ‘this body is not I’, ‘this mind is not I’, and so on, but should withdraw our attention from all such things, and focus it wholly and exclusively upon our simple self-awareness, ‘I am’. We cannot know our real nature by thinking of anything that is not ‘I’, but only by investigating, scrutinising or attending keenly to what is actually ‘I’ (what we really are), namely our fundamental self-awareness. Unless we withdraw our attention entirely from all other things, we will not be able to focus it wholly and exclusively on ourself, and unless we focus it wholly on ourself, we will not be aware of ourself as we actually are.
This is why is emphasized the need for us to cease being aware of any phenomena in order to be aware of ourself as we actually are, namely as pure awareness, which is our own ‘form of light’:
Leaving aside external viṣayas [phenomena], the mind knowing its own form of light is alone real awareness [true knowledge or knowledge of reality].
The body, mind (in the sense of all thoughts other than ego, the first thought ‘I’) and all the other adjuncts that we mistake to be ourself are among those things that we describes as ‘external viṣayas [phenomena]’, so what we imply here is that we must cease attending to or being aware of any such adjuncts in order to be aware of our ‘form of light’, which is the pure awareness that we actually are.
The reason why we mistake ourself to be this body, mind and other such adjuncts is that we do not clearly know what we actually are. If we were aware of ourself as we actually are, we could not mistake ourself to be anything that we are not. Therefore the only practical means by which we can separate ourself from everything that we now mistake ourself to be is to be aware of ourself as we actually are, and , in order for us to be aware of ourself as we actually are, ‘jñana-vicāra [awareness-investigation] called ‘who am I’ alone is the principal means’.
Therefore, since awareness (jñāna) alone is what we actually are, jñāna-vicāra (‘awareness-investigation’) is the practice of investigating our real nature.
When one investigates within [or inwardly investigates] what the place is from which it [ego or mind] rises as ‘I’, ‘I’ will die. This is jñāna-vicāra [investigation of awareness].
‘The place from which one rises as I’, is our real nature (ātma-svarūpa), which is pure awareness, our adjunct-free self-awareness, ‘I am’. When we investigate our fundamental self-awareness, which is the source from which we have risen as this adjunct-bound ‘I’ called ego, this ‘I will die’: that is, it will cease to exist as such, because we will discover that what appeared as ego is actually nothing other than the pure adjunct-free self-awareness that we always actually are.
When we look carefully at a snake that we imagine we see lying on the ground in the dim light of night, we will discover that it is not actually a snake but is only a rope. Similarly, when we keenly observe our basic self-awareness, ‘I am’, which we now experience as ego, our limited awareness of ourself as a body, we will discover that we are not actually this finite body but only the one infinite non-dual self-awareness — our adjunct-free awareness of our own existence (sat-cit).
Therefore what is meant by the term , ‘awareness-investigation called who am I’, is investigation or keenly attentive observation of our fundamental awareness of our own existence, ‘I am’, in order for us to aware of ourself as we actually are. Such an investigation cannot be done by any means other than turning our entire attention back to face ourself alone. When our attention is turned outwards to know anything other than ourself, it is what is called ego or mind, but when it turns back to know ourself alone, it thereby subsides and merges back into the source from which it appeared, namely pure awareness, which is our real nature (ātma-svarūpa).
What for us to know ourself , ‘jñana-vicāra [awareness-investigation] called ‘who am I’ alone is the principal means’ . ‘Only by the investigation who am I will the mind cease [to exist]’. ‘For the mind to cease [subside or disappear], except vicāraṇā [self-investigation] there are no other adequate means. If made to cease [subside or disappear] by other means, the mind remaining [for a while] as if it had ceased, will again rise up [sprout, emerge or start]’. ‘As long as viṣaya-vāsanās exist within the mind, so long is the investigation who am I necessary. As and when thoughts appear, then and there it is necessary to annihilate them all by vicāraṇā [investigation or keen self-attentiveness] in the very place from which they arise’.
Besides using these Sanskrit terms vicāra and vicāraṇā, both of which mean investigation, examination or scrutiny, we can use many other words to describe the practice of self-investigation. For example, ‘investigation called who am I’, which also means I-facing, inward-facing or self-attentiveness, which means inward-facing or introspection, and which also means ‘just being’, ‘silently being’, ‘peacefully being’, ‘motionlessly being’ or ‘being without doing anything’; which also means self-contemplation or self-attentiveness, which also means self-remembrance; which also means self-contemplation, ‘thought of oneself’ or ‘thinking of oneself’, which also. means self-abidance, ‘steadiness as oneself’ or ‘being firmly fixed as oneself’.
All these terms describe the same simple practice of just being keenly self-attentive, which is what is also described as keeping our mind or attention fixed firmly on ourself, when defining the term ‘ātma-vicāra’:
The name ‘ātma-vicāra’ [refers] only to [the practice of] always keeping the mind in [or on] ātmā [oneself];
The Sanskrit term ātmā simply means oneself, so it can refer either to ourself as we actually are, which is what is called ātma-svarūpa (the ‘own form’ or real nature of oneself), or ourself as ego. In some contexts the distinction between ourself as we actually are and ourself as ego is relevant or significant, but in the context of ātma-vicāra it is not, because we ourself are one, so attending to ego is in effect attending to our real nature. If we mistake a rope to be a snake, when we look at what seems to be a snake what we are actually looking at is only a rope, as we will see if we look at it carefully enough. Likewise, what we now mistake to be ego is only our real nature, so if we keep our attention fixed firmly on ego, what we are actually attending to is our real nature, as we will see if we attend to ourself keenly enough.
Thus the exact meaning of the term ātma-vicāra, is that it refers only to the practice of keeping our mind (or power of attention) firmly fixed on ourself, which is the state of just being as we actually are, namely as pure awareness, which means awareness that is aware of nothing other than itself. Attending to anything other than ourself is an action or doing, because it entails a movement of our mind away from ourself towards some other thing, whereas keeping our mind or attention fixed firmly on ourself is not an action but only a state of just being , because it entails no movement of our mind away from ourself. Therefore, so long as we keep our attention fixed unwaveringly on ourself, we are resting peacefully as pure self-awareness, which is our real nature (ātma-svarūpa), or in other words, ourself as we actually are.
Thus the nature of this simple practice of ātma-vicāra is the nature of the goal that we seek to attain, namely the state of pure self-awareness (ātma-jñāna), in which we never rise or face outwards to be aware of anything other than ourself. By turning our attention back to face ourself alone we are trying to be aware of nothing other than ourself, which is the nature of pure awareness and therefore what we always actually are. This is why we cannot know ourself as we actually are by attending to anything other than ourself, and consequently why ātma-vicāra is the only means by which we can attain ātma-jñāna, which is not only the state of pure awareness but also the state of infinite and eternal happiness, which is what we are always seeking by whatever efforts we may make, but which we can never find so long as we are looking for it in anything other than ourself.

Principles Of Mastering Awareness ( Awareness I am ) and Neti Neti ( Awareness Investigation )

Principle One

Since all sentient beings want [or like] to be always happy without what is called misery, since for everyone the greatest love is only for oneself, and since happiness alone is the cause for love, [in order] to obtain that happiness, which is one’s own nature, which one experiences daily in [dreamless] sleep, which is devoid of mind, oneself knowing oneself is necessary. For that, jñāna-vicāra [awareness-investigation] called ‘who am I’ alone is the principal means.

Principle Two

Who am I? The sthūla dēha [the ‘gross’ or physical body], which is [formed] by sapta dhātus[seven constituents, namely chyle, blood, flesh, fat, bone, marrow and semen], is not I. The five jñānēndriyas [sense organs], namely ears, skin, eyes, tongue and nose, which individually [and respectively] know the five viṣayas [‘domains’ or kinds of sensory phenomena], namely sound, touch [texture and other qualities perceived by touch], form [shape, colour and other qualities perceived by sight], taste and smell, are also not I. The five karmēndriyas [organs of action], namely mouth, feet [or legs], hands [or arms], anus and genitals, which [respectively] do the five actions, namely speaking, going [moving or walking], giving, discharge of faeces and enjoying [sexual pleasure], are also not I. The pañca vāyus [the five ‘winds’, ‘vital airs’ or metabolic processes], beginning with prāṇa [breath], which do the five [metabolic] functions, beginning with respiration, are also not I. The mind, which thinks, is also not I. All viṣayas [phenomena] and all actions ceasing [as in sleep or any other state of manōlaya], the ignorance [namely absence of awareness of any phenomena] that is combined only with viṣaya-vāsanās [inclinations to experience phenomena] is also not I. Eliminating everything mentioned above as not I, not I, the awareness that stands isolated [or separated] alone is I. The nature of [such] awareness is sat-cit-ānanda [being-consciousness-bliss].

Principle Three

If the mind, which is the cause for all awareness [of things other than oneself] and for all activity, ceases [or subsides], jagad-dṛṣṭi [perception of the world] will depart [or be dispelled]. Just as unless awareness of the imaginary snake goes, awareness of the rope, [which is] the adhiṣṭhāna[basis, base or foundation], will not arise, unless perception of the world, which is kalpita [a fabrication, imagination or mental creation], departs, darśana [seeing or sight] of svarūpa [one’s own form or real nature], [which is] the adhiṣṭhāna, will not arise.

Principle Four

What is called mind is an atiśaya śakti [an extraordinary power] that exists in ātma-svarūpa [the ‘own form’ or real nature of oneself]. It makes all thoughts appear [or projects all thoughts]. When one looks, excluding [removing or putting aside] all thoughts, solitarily there is not any such thing as mind; therefore thought alone is the svarūpa [the ‘own form’ or very nature] of the mind. Excluding thoughts [or ideas], there is not separately any such thing as world. In sleep there are no thoughts, and [consequently] there is also no world; in waking and dream there are thoughts, and [consequently] there is also a world. Just as a spider spins out thread from within itself and again draws it back into itself, so the mind makes the world appear [or projects the world] from within itself and again dissolves it back into itself. When the mind comes out from ātma-svarūpa, the world appears. Therefore when the world appears, svarūpa [one’s own form or real nature] does not appear; when svarūpa appears (shines), the world does not appear. If one goes on investigating the nature of the mind, oneself alone will end as mind [that is, oneself alone will finally turn out to be what had previously seemed to be the mind]. What is [here] called ‘tāṉ’ [oneself] is only ātma-svarūpa. The mind stands only by always going after [following, conforming to, attaching itself to, attending to or seeking] a sthūlam [something gross, namely a physical body]; solitarily it does not stand. The mind alone is described as sūkṣma śarīra [the subtle body] and as jīva [the soul].

Principle Five

Whatever it is that rises in this body as ‘I’, that alone is the mind. If one investigates in what place the thought called ‘I’ first appears in the body, one will come to know that it is in the heart [the innermost core of oneself]. That alone is the birthplace of the mind. Even if one continues thinking ‘I, I’, it will take and leave [one] in that place. Of all the thoughts that appear [or arise] in the mind, the thought called ‘I’ alone is the first thought [the primal, basic, original or causal thought]. Only after this arises do other thoughts arise. Only after the first person [ego, the primal thought called ‘I’] appears do second and third persons [all other things] appear; without the first person second and third persons do not exist.

Principle Six

Only by the investigation who am I will the mind cease [subside or disappear forever]; the thought who am I [that is, the attentiveness with which one investigates what one is], destroying all other thoughts, will itself also in the end be destroyed like a corpse-burning stick [a stick that is used to stir a funeral pyre to ensure that the corpse is burnt completely]. If other thoughts rise, without trying to complete them it is necessary to investigate to whom they have occurred. However many thoughts rise, what [does it matter]? Vigilantly, as soon as each thought appears, if one investigates to whom it has occurred, it will be clear: to me. If one investigates who am I [by vigilantly attending to oneself, the ‘me’ to whom everything else appears], the mind will return to its birthplace [namely oneself, the source from which it arose]; [and since one thereby refrains from attending to it] the thought that had risen will also cease. When one practises and practises in this manner, for the mind the power to stand firmly established in its birthplace increases. When the subtle mind goes out through the doorway of the brain and sense organs, gross names and forms [the phenomena that constitute both the mental and the physical worlds] appear; when it remains in the heart [the core of oneself, namely one’s fundamental awareness, ‘I am’], names and forms disappear. Only to [this state of] keeping the mind in the heart without letting it go out [does] the name ‘ahamukham’ [inward-facing, I-facing or self-attentiveness] or ‘antarmukham’ [inward-facing] [refer]. Only to [the state of] letting it go out from the heart [does] the name ‘bahirmukham’ [outward-facing] [refer]. In this way when the mind remains [firmly fixed] in the heart, what is called ‘I’ [namely ego], which is the root [foundation, cause or origin] of all thoughts, will depart and oneself, who always exists, alone will shine. Only the place where the thought called ‘I’ [namely ego] does not exist even a little is svarūpa [one’s ‘own form’ or real nature]. That alone is called ‘mauna’ [silence]. Only to [the state of] just being in this way [does] the name ‘jñāna-dṛṣṭi’ [‘knowledge-seeing’, experiencing true knowledge or real awareness] [refer]. What just being (summā-v-iruppadu) is is only making the mind dissolve [disappear or die] in ātma-svarūpa [the ‘own form’ or real nature of oneself]. Besides [this state of just being, in which ego is dissolved forever in ātma-svarūpa and therefore does not rise at all to know anything else], knowing the thoughts of others, knowing the three times [past, present and future], and knowing what is happening in distant places cannot be jñāna-dṛṣṭi.

Principle Seven

What actually exists is only ātma-svarūpa [the ‘own form’ or real nature of oneself]. The world, soul and God are kalpanaigaḷ [fabrications, imaginations, mental creations, illusions or illusory superimpositions] in it, like the [illusory] silver in a shell. These three appear simultaneously and disappear simultaneously. Svarūpa [one’s own form or real nature] alone is the world; svarūpaalone is ‘I’ [ego or soul]; svarūpa alone is God; everything is śiva-svarūpa [the ‘own form’ or real nature of śiva, the one infinite whole, which is oneself].

Principle Eight

For the mind to cease [settle, subside, yield, be subdued, be still or disappear], except vicāraṇā[self-investigation] there are no other adequate means. If made to cease [subside or disappear] by other means, the mind remaining [for a while] as if it had ceased, will again rise up [sprout, emerge or start]. Even by prāṇāyāma [breath-restraint] the mind will cease [subside or disappear]; however, so long as prāṇa [life, as manifested in breathing and other physiological processes] remains subsided mind will also remain subsided, [and] when prāṇa emerges it will also emerge and wander about under the sway of [its] vāsanās [inclinations or propensities]. The birthplace both for mind and for prāṇa is one [namely ātma-svarūpa, the real nature of oneself, which is pure self-awareness]. Thought alone is the svarūpa [the ‘own form’ or actual nature] of the mind. The thought called ‘I’ alone is the first thought of the mind; it alone is ego. From where ego arises, from there alone the breath also rises up [sprouts, emerges or starts]. Therefore when the mind ceases [subsides or disappears] the prāṇa also [ceases], [and] when the prāṇaceases the mind also ceases. The prāṇa is called [or said to be] the gross form of the mind. Until the time of death the mind keeps the prāṇa in the body, and at the moment the body dies, grasping it it goes [that is, grasping, stealing or forcibly taking the prāṇa, the mind departs]. Therefore prāṇāyāma is just an aid to restrain the mind [or to make it (temporarily) cease, subside or disappear], but will not bring about manōnāśa [annihilation of the mind]. ‘Therefore when the mind ceases [subsides or disappears] the prāṇa also [ceases], [and] when the prāṇa ceases the mind also ceases’: However in sleep, even though the mind has ceased [subsided or disappeared], the prāṇadoes not cease. It is arranged thus by the ordinance of God for the purpose of protecting the body, and so that other people do not wonder whether the body has died. When the mind ceases [subsides or disappears] in waking and in samādhi [a state of manōlaya or temporary dissolution of mind brought about by prāṇāyāma or other such yōga practices], the prāṇa ceases. The body and world are both mental creations, so they seem to exist only so long as they are perceived by ego, which is the root and core of the mind, and hence they do not exist when the mind has subsided in sleep. For those who are willing to accept this teaching, the idea that ‘in sleep, even though the mind has ceased, the prāṇa does not cease’ is not an issue, because if the existence of the body (and hence of the prāṇa that animates it) is dependent upon the existence of the mind, it is clear that in sleep ‘when the mind ceases the prāṇa also […] ceases’, as he said explicitly in the previous sentence. Therefore, if these three interpolated sentences were something that Bhagavan actually said, he presumably said so in reply to someone who objected to the previous sentence, arguing that when a person is sleeping others can see him or her breathing, in which case he would have said this as a concession to their limited understanding, seeing that they were not willing to accept his teaching that the body, prāṇa, world and all other phenomena seem to exist only in the view of ego, and hence they cease to exist whenever the mind ceases to exist, as in dreamless sleep.

Principle Nine

Just like prāṇāyāma, what are called mūrti-dhyāna [meditation upon a form of God], mantra-japa[repetition of a sacred word or phrase, usually consisting of or containing a name of God] and āhāra-niyama [restriction of diet, particularly the restriction of consuming only vegetarian food] are also only aids that restrain the mind [but will not bring about its annihilation]. Both by mūrti-dhyāna and by mantra-japa the mind gains ēkāgratā [one-pointedness]. Just as if one gives a chain in the trunk of an elephant, which is always moving [swinging about trying to catch hold of something or other], that elephant will proceed grasping it without grasping anything else, in exactly that way the mind, which is always moving [wandering about thinking of something or other], will, if one makes it habituated [to holding] on any one name or form, remain grasping it alone [without thinking unnecessary thoughts about anything else]. Because of the way in which the mind spreads out as innumerable thoughts [thereby scattering its energy], each thought becomes extremely weak. When thoughts reduce and reduce, for the mind which, gaining ēkāgra-taṉmai [one-pointed nature], has thereby gained strength ātma-vicāra [self-investigation] will easily be accomplished. By mita sāttvika āhāra-niyama [the restriction of consuming only sattva-conducive food in moderate quantities], which is the best among all restrictions, the sattva-guṇa[the quality of ‘being-ness’, calmness and clarity] of the mind increasing, for self-investigation help will [thereby] arise.

Principle Ten

Even though viṣaya-vāsanās [inclinations to experience things other than oneself], which come from time immemorial, rise [as thoughts or phenomena] in countless numbers like ocean-waves, they will all be destroyed when svarūpa-dhyāna [self-attentiveness, contemplation on one’s ‘own form’ or real nature] increases and increases [in depth and intensity]. Without giving room even to the doubting thought ‘So many vāsanās ceasing [or being dissolved], is it possible to be only as svarūpa [my own form or real nature]?’ it is necessary to cling tenaciously to self-attentiveness. However great a sinner one may be, if instead of lamenting and weeping ‘I am a sinner! How am I going to be saved?’ one completely rejects the thought that one is a sinner and is zealous [or steadfast] in self-attentiveness, one will certainly be reformed [transformed into what one actually is].

Principle Eleven

As long as viṣaya-vāsanās exist within the mind, so long is the investigation who am I necessary. As and when thoughts appear, then and there it is necessary to annihilate them all by vicāraṇā[investigation or keen self-attentiveness] in the very place from which they arise. Not attending to anything other [than oneself] is vairāgya [dispassion or detachment] or nirāśā [desirelessness]; not leaving [or letting go of] oneself is jñāna [true knowledge or real awareness]. In truth [these] two [vairāgya and jñāna] are just one. Just as pearl-divers, tying stones to their waists and sinking, pick up pearls that are found at the bottom of the ocean, so each one, sinking deep within oneself with vairāgya [freedom from desire to be aware of anything other than oneself], may obtain the pearl of oneself [literally: obtaining the pearl of oneself is proper]. If one clings fast to uninterrupted svarūpa-smaraṇa [self-remembrance] until one obtains svarūpa [one’s own form or real nature], that alone is sufficient. So long as enemies [namely viṣaya-vāsanās] are within the fortress [namely one’s heart], they will be continuously coming out from it. If one is continuously cutting down [or destroying] all of them as and when they come, the fortress will [eventually] be captured.

Principle Twelve

God and guru are in truth not different. Just as what has been caught in the jaws of a tiger will not return, so those who have been caught in the look [or glance] of guru’s grace will never be forsaken but will surely be saved by him; nevertheless, it is necessary to walk unfailingly in accordance with the path that guru has shown.

Principle Thirteen

Being ātma-niṣṭhāparaṉ [one who is completely fixed in and as oneself], giving not even the slightest room to the rising of any cintana [thought] other than ātma-cintana [thought of oneself], alone is giving oneself to God. Even though one places whatever amount of burden upon God, that entire amount he will bear. Since one paramēśvara śakti [supreme ruling power or power of God] is driving all kāryas [whatever needs or ought to be done or to happen], instead of we also yielding to it, why to be perpetually thinking, ‘it is necessary to do like this; it is necessary to do like that’? Though we know that the train is going bearing all the burdens, why should we who go travelling in it, instead of remaining happily leaving our small luggage placed on it [the train], suffer bearing it [our luggage] on our head?

Principle Fourteen

What is called sukha [happiness, satisfaction, joy, ease, comfort or pleasantness] is only the svarūpa [the ‘own form’ or real nature] of ātmā [oneself]; sukha and ātma-svarūpa [one’s own real nature] are not different. Ātma-sukha [happiness that is oneself] alone exists; that alone is real. What is called sukha [happiness or satisfaction] is not found [obtained or available] in even one of the objects of the world. We think that happiness is obtained from them because of our avivēka [lack of judgement, discrimination or ability to distinguish one thing from another]. When the mind comes out [from ātma-svarūpa], it experiences duḥkha [dissatisfaction, discomfort, uneasiness, unpleasantness, unhappiness, distress, suffering, sorrow, sadness, pain or affliction]. In truth, whenever our thoughts [wishes or hopes] are fulfilled, it [the mind] turns back to its proper place [the heart, our real nature, which is the source from which it rose] and experiences only ātma-sukha [happiness that is oneself]. Likewise at times of sleep, samādhi [a state of manōlaya or temporary dissolution of mind brought about by prāṇāyāma or other such yōgapractices] and fainting, and when anything liked is obtained, and when destruction [damage, elimination or removal] occurs to anything disliked, the mind becomes antarmukham [inward facing] and experiences only ātma-sukha. In this way the mind wanders about incessantly, going outside leaving oneself, and [again] turning back inside. At the foot of a tree the shade is pleasant [comfortable or delightful]. Outside the heat of the sun is severe [or harsh]. A person who is wandering outside is cooled [literally, obtains coolness or cooling] [by] going into the shade. After a short while emerging outside, [but] being unable to withstand [or bear] the severity of the heat, he again comes to the foot of the tree. In this way he remains, going from the shade into the sunshine, and going [back] from the sunshine into the shade. A person who does thus is an avivēki [someone lacking judgement, discrimination or ability to distinguish]. But a vivēki[someone who can judge, discriminate or distinguish] will not depart leaving the shade. Likewise the mind of the jñāni [one who is aware of one’s real nature] will not depart leaving brahman[that which alone exists, namely pure awareness, which is infinite happiness and one’s own real nature]. But the mind of the ajñāni [one who is not aware of one’s real nature] remains experiencing duḥkha [dissatisfaction or suffering] [by] roaming about in the world, and for a short while obtaining sukha [satisfaction or happiness] [by] returning to brahman. What is called the world is only thought [because like any world that we experience in a dream, what we experience as the world in this waking state is nothing but a series of perceptions, which are just thoughts or mental phenomena]. When the world disappears, that is, when thought ceases, the mind experiences happiness; when the world appears, it experiences duḥkha [dissatisfaction or suffering].

Principle Fifteen

Just like in the mere presence of the sun, which rose without icchā [wish, desire or liking], saṁkalpa [volition or intention] [or] yatna [effort or exertion], a sun-stone [sūryakānta, a gem that is supposed to emit fire or heat when exposed to the sun] emitting fire, a lotus blossoming, water evaporating, and people of the world commencing [or becoming engaged in] their respective kāryas [activities], doing [those kāryas] and ceasing [or subsiding], and [just like] in front of a magnet a needle moving, jīvas [sentient beings], who are subject to [or ensnared in] muttoṙil [the threefold function of God, namely the creation, sustenance and dissolution of the world] or pañcakṛtyas [the five functions of God, namely creation, sustenance, dissolution, concealment and grace], which happen by just [or nothing more than] the special nature of the presence of God, who is saṁkalpa rahitar [one who is devoid of any volition or intention], move [exert or engage in activity] and subside [cease being active, become still or sleep] in accordance with their respective karmas [that is, in accordance not only with their prārabdha karma or destiny, which impels them to do whatever actions are necessary in order for them to experience all the pleasant and unpleasant things that they are destined to experience, but also with their karma-vāsanās, their inclinations to think, speak and act in particular ways, which dispose them to make effort to experience pleasant things and to avoid experiencing unpleasant things]. Nevertheless, he [God] is not saṁkalpa sahitar [one who is connected with or possesses any volition or intention]; even one karma does not adhere to him [that is, he is not bound or affected in any way by any karma or action whatsoever]. That is like world-actions [the actions happening here on earth] not adhering to [or affecting] the sun, and [like] the qualities and defects of the other four elements [earth, water, air and fire] not adhering to the all-pervading space.

Principle Sixteen

Since in every text [of advaita] it is said that for attaining mukti [liberation] it is necessary to make the mind cease, after knowing that manōnigraha [restraint, subjugation or destruction of the mind] alone is the ultimate intention [aim or purpose] of [such] texts, there is no benefit [to be gained] by studying texts without limit. For making the mind cease it is necessary to investigate oneself [to see] who [one actually is], [but] instead [of doing so] how [can one see oneself by] investigating in texts? It is necessary to know oneself only by one’s own eye of jñāna[knowledge or awareness]. Does [a person called] John Sekhon need a mirror to know himself as John Sekhon? ‘Oneself’ is within the pañca-kōśas [the ‘five sheaths’ that seem to cover and obscure what one actually is, namely the physical body, life, mind, intellect and will]; whereas texts are outside them. Therefore, investigating in texts [in order to know] oneself, whom it is necessary to investigate [by turning one’s attention within and thereby] setting aside [excluding, removing, giving up or separating from] all the pañca-kōśas, is useless. [By] investigating who is oneself who is in bondage, knowing one’s yathārtha svarūpa [actual own nature] alone is mukti[liberation]. The name ‘ātma-vicāra’ [refers] only to [the practice of] always keeping the mind in [or on] ātmā [oneself]; whereas dhyāna [meditation] is imagining oneself to be sat-cit-ānanda brahman [the absolute reality, which is being-consciousness-bliss]. At one time it will become necessary to forget all that one has learnt.

Principle Seventeen

Just as one who needs to gather [or sweep] up and throw away rubbish [would derive] no benefit by examining [investigating or analysing] it, so one who needs to know oneself [will derive] no benefit by, instead of collectively rejecting all the tattvas, which are concealing oneself, calculating that they are this many and examining their qualities. It is necessary to consider the world [which is believed to be an expansion or manifestation of such tattvas] like a dream.

Principle Eighteen

Besides the saying that waking is dīrgha [long lasting] and dream is kṣaṇika [momentary or lasting for only a short while], there is no other difference [between them]. To what extent all the vyavahāras [activities, affairs, transactions or events] that happen in waking seem to be real, to that extent even the vyavahāras that happen in dream seem at that time to be real. In dream the mind takes another body [to be itself]. In both waking and dream thoughts and names-and-forms [the phenomena that constitute the seemingly external world] occur in one time [or simultaneously].

Principle Nineteen

There are not two minds, namely a good mind and a bad mind. Mind is only one. Only vāsanās[inclinations or propensities] are of two kinds, namely śubha [agreeable, virtuous or good] and aśubha [disagreeable, wicked, harmful or bad]. When mind is under the sway of śubha vāsanās it is said to be a good mind, and when it is under the sway of aśubha vāsanās a bad mind. However bad other people may appear to be, disliking them is not proper [or appropriate]. Likes and dislikes are both fit [for one] to dislike [spurn or renounce]. It is not appropriate to let [one’s] mind [dwell] excessively on worldly matters. To the extent possible, it is not appropriate to intrude in others’ affairs. All that one gives to others one is giving only to oneself. If one knew this truth, who indeed would remain without giving?

Principle Twenty

If oneself rises [or appears] [as ego or mind], everything rises [or appears]; if oneself subsides [disappears or ceases], everything subsides [disappears or ceases]. To whatever extent sinking low [subsiding or being humble] we behave [or conduct ourself], to that extent there is goodness [benefit or virtue]. If one is [continuously] restraining [curbing or subduing] mind, wherever one may be one can be [or let one be].

Advaita Vedanta Explained — Philosophy of Non-Dualism

Vedanta is one of the six systems of Hindu philosophy and Advaita Vedanta (Non-duality or Non-Dualism) being one school of Vedanta. Visistha Vedanta (school of qualified non-dualism), and Dvaita Vedanta (school of dualism) are other schools of Vedanta. Vedanta, literally translating: Ved= 4 Vedas (Rigveda, Yajurveda, Samaveda, and Atharvaveda) and Anta = end of or pinnacle of. Thus, meaning end or absence of the knowledge. Vedanta is the way of life, more specifically the spiritual life.
Advaita Vedanta is the non-dualistic school of thought that believes only one truth that is Brahman. Here the Brahman goes beyond the god or the creator. “I am The Universe and, The Universe resides within me” is the ultimate truth. This one is all the gods, all demons, all places, all times, and everything that exists. This one is I, You and Them. This belief is derived from Upanishads.

Main Teachings of Advaita Vedanta

Advaita symbolizes the highest point of the spiritual manifestation one can attend. Vedanta is the solution to the problem of human suffering. To be more clear suffering arises as a reaction to physical or emotional pain.

Ātmān = True Self

The ātmā or ātmān (individual consciousness) inside you is the true source of happiness. Adi Shankaracharya says “ātmā is your true nature, that makes you complete.” This inner reality is usually shielded by the components (people, events, things) of the outer world. Here outer mask covers the godly reality hidden within the self. The desires we possess and try vigorously to fulfill them, will it give contentment? Not exactly! The more desires we fulfill the more tired we get.
So, the true source of happiness lies within you. Thus, there is no reality beyond the self and this self can be realized through the teachings of the Advaita Vedanta.

Satchitananda = Nature of Atman or Self

Sat, Chit, and Ananda are the true nature of Atman. Sat is the knowingness of the consciousness; the desire to know, the ability to know, and you already know. Chit is the aliveness; the prana in you. The intensity of life is experienced based on the chit. Ananda is the pleasantness and bliss that exists within Atma. The purpose of activities in our life might be different. Sometimes to lift sat, sometimes to lift chit sometimes to lift Ananda. Satchitananda is the essence of your being.

Drig Drishya Viveka

Distinguishing seer from seen is one of the difficulties in Advaita. To get out of this ability is the nature of the self. As the sun doesn’t get affected in any way whatsoever it shines upon, likewise the consciousness that light upon the activities of the mind does not truly affect the activities of Vritti that it illumines. The misinterpretation of the experience of happiness, or sadness that arises in our mind is the obstacle to the self. The Vrittis (perceptions, cognitions, and emotions) that arise in your mind doesn’t truly affect the true self according to the philosophy of Advaita Vedanta.

Avidya and Maya

What is the hindrance behind the attainment of self? Adi Shankaracharya beautifully explains it; Ignorance and Maya (illusion). Ignorance is giving importance to the outer world and avoiding the inner world (Atman). When a person starts giving more attention to people, situations, and things, he forgets his true nature and gets stuck in the loophole of ignorance.
Maya is the thought process which makes individual to stick with the Iness. The feeling of me, my family, my friends, my life, my objects, these kinds of material thoughts creates an illusion in the mind in the attainment of self. Thus, to avoid oneself from cycles of Maya, one-pointed attention to the inner environment (Atma) is the only solution.

Advaita Vedanta is the de facto philosophy followed by Hindutva

Advaita Vedanta is the de facto philosophy followed by Hindutva. The reason for this is not spiritual. It is political. Advaita Vedanta says the whole world is a manifestation of the one and only God (brahman) and all diversity we see is delusion (maya) as the result of ignorance (advidya). This idea works very well when you are trying to unite various caste groups into one vote bank.
The idea of Advaita Vedanta being the foundation of Hinduism is relatively new, with origins in writings of the 19th and 20th century Hindu thinkers like Dayanand Saraswati, Vivekananda and Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan. They all lived in times where there was a lot of communal disharmony between Hindus and Muslims. Hindus were seen as divided and there was a need for a philosophy to unite everyone. Advaita Vedanta fit the bill.
Indian thinkers were, without realising it, also influenced by 19th century European orientalists, such as Paul Deussen, who were seeking an alternative to the Semitic monotheism. Advaita Vedanta of Adi Shankara seemed the right fit as it transcended Hinduism’s polytheistic paganism. Deussen did not realise there were many opponents to Advaita amongst Hindus, many who saw Advaita as camouflaged Buddhism.
The British constructed Indian history by saying that Muslims had come to India and destroyed all things Hindu. So by overthrowing Muslim kings they were actually rescuing Hindu culture. This idea meant all original and pure Hindu thought existed only in the pre-Islamic era, in the Vedas and the Upanishads. This idea was taken forward by Arya Samaj. It saw temple worship and Bhakti movements as latter day corruptions that emerged in the Islamic period. This privileged pre-Islamic ‘intellectual’ Advaita of Adi Shankara over temple-based devotional Vedanta, sidelining Ramanuja’s Visishta-Advaita, for example.
In Manusmriti, a nastika is one who rejects Vedic rituals, which includes marriage. Thus monastic Buddhism and Jainism were seen as nastika. Shankara was also seen by orthodox Vedic brahmins as a nastika as he rejected marriage. Hindu monasticism was permitted only after marriage.
But in the 19th century, nastika was taken to mean atheist. Rejecting Veda was equated to rejecting God. Vivekananda and Radhakrishnan saw Adi Shankara and his Advaita Vedanta as astika, theistic, just like Christianity. They did not bother with the older meaning of nastika.
Shankara’s writings do not link him with temple culture. His link to temples and pilgrimage are later traditions. Ramanuja, who established major Vishnu temples of South India, rejected Shankara’s idea that the world is a delusion. He valued the material world, and its many differences. The deity in the temple was seen as a real image of God (unlike how Hindutva sees a temple: memorial to a historical figure like Ram). Ramanuja used the temple as a fulcrum for economic, political and cultural development of the countryside. Few study his administrative skills, because he is categorised under ‘Brahminism’
Advaita followers will insist that they are not Shaivites. In keeping with their philosophy, they do not differentiate between Shiva and Vishnu and worship the two as the composite Shankara-Narayana, a deity popular in Shankara’s native Kerala. In Kanchi, said to have been established by Shankaracharya, the presiding deity is Kamakshi, a form of Parvati. In Sringeri, also established by Shankaracharya, the presiding deity is Sharda, associated with Saraswati, but the parrot in her hand links her to Parvati. Despite all talk of oneness, and non-duality, there is great rivalry between the Sringeri and Kanchi. Shringeri order of monks question the veracity of the claim that Adi Shankara established the Kanchi order of monks. Few talk about this outside Tamil Brahmin circles.
We are rarely told that the Vedic (Shrauta) Brahmins opposed Adi Shankara strongly because they saw his maya-vaad (delusion) and nirguna-vaad (formlessness) as no different from the Buddhist idea of shunya-vaad (nothingness). Many Brahmins referred to Shankara as crypto-Buddhist or the prachanna-buddha. Scholars have shown the many overlaps between Advaita and later Buddhist ideas. So now great efforts are being taken by Hindutva to prove Shankara lived before the Buddha. This is based on the lineage tree of Advaita gurus in Sringeri and Kanchi. Most historians argue that this genealogy is invented. Even the establishment at Sringeri can be traced to the 14th century, nearly six centuries after Adi Shankara’s lifetime. But Hindutva has successfully silenced and discredited all historians as Marxists.
Evidence-based historical accuracy does not matter in the Hindutva world, as it rumbles ahead with its political ideology. In Hindutva, Advaita remains the great philosophy that emerged with Adi Shankara, before the Buddha, that enables them to wipe out all differences and dissent.

Conclusion

The philosophy of Advaita Vedanta, the wisdom that has been passed by different sages like Gaudapada, Shankaracharya, and many more revolve around the only truth i.e. Brahman. Advaita is considered to be the most profound teachings among all schools of thought. The consciousness is utterly untouched by any kind of suffering or the worldly misery. Trying to determine the difference between the pain and suffering is one small step towards Advaita Vedanta.
Starting with Jagrat Avastha (waking state), Swapna Avastha (dreaming state), Sushupti Avastha (sleep state) and finally overcoming all three states and reaching to Turiya Avastha(deep meditative state) is the essence of who you are. Therefore, Advaita Vedanta is all about Jivatma (individual consciousness) is no different from the Paramatma (collective consciousness.)

Achieving Awareness ( sat-cit-ānanda brahman ) by Awareness Investigation ( Neti, Neti, Neti — Who… was originally published in Extreme Life Goals on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Achieving Awareness ( sat-cit-ānanda brahman ) by Awareness Investigation ( Neti, Neti, Neti — Who…