Shanmugam

Don't know.. But I think this wrong idea is popular in English speaking world only, and the idea probably came from India. Buddhism disappeared in India because Buddha rejected Vedas. .Most of the Buddhists live in China, Japan, Tibet Burma, Thailand and other South Asian countries. Buddha was born sometime during 600 BC and Upanishads were composed about the same time (probably between 800 BC - 600 BC). Many people don't know that even upanishads were rebellion against vedas. Vedas which existed during Buddha's time only covered ritualistic portion. Later on Upanishads were also added as a part of Vedas, because the Upanishads conveyed the teachings in the disguise of vedic terms.. If you read the Upanishads you will notice this. The authors were very clever. Those days no one can say anything against Vedas. It was similar to the situation that was faced by Jesus. ( He said things like 'kingdom of god is within you', 'I am (brahman) the truth, the way and life" etc while at the same time conforming all he said by citing verses from Torah. He was crucified in spite of this). Read this verse from Vedas: "To the Gandhâris, the Mâgavants, the Angas, and the Magadhas, we deliver over the takman, like a servant, like a treasure!" Full text here: http://www.adishakti.org/pdf_files/atharva_veda_(sacred-texts.com).pdf The above hymn from Atharva veda is addressed to diseases.. They are asking diseases to go to the people living in regions like Gandhâris, the Mâgavants, the Angas, and the Magadhas etc... These are names of individual kingdoms. Magadha was the kingdom where Buddha preached his entire life. And since people lived in those areas were skeptical about vedas, the whole hymn was composed to show the hatred. Here is the map of Vedic India: Vedas are neither infallible nor eternal. But I think Shankara was in the same situation to present his ideas in accordance to Vedas. That is why I think he based his whole commentaries on the premise that Vedas are infallible. You will notice this stated by Shankara a lot in his commentaries. Of course, no one can be exactly sure about the past, but this is my best guess based on what I studied so far about the history of Indian philosophy,

Actually, Buddhist term Sunyata (translated as emptiness but it is actually intended to mean 'devoid of attributes') is same as Nirguna Brahman (Brahman devoid of attributes).. Buddha was not preaching any kind of nihilism, but it is just people's misunderstanding. Here is a beautiful piece by Osho, who elaborates it here: "For centuries emptiness has been condemned. "Emptiness is beautiful. "And the foolish people have been telling you. "The empty mind is the devil's workshop." The empty mind is God's workshop! The occupiedmind is the devil's workshop. "But one has to be truly empty. Just being lazy does not mean that you are empty; not doing anything does not mean that you are empty. Thousands of thoughts are clamoring inside. You may be lazy on the outside, but inside much work is going on. Many walls are being created, new prisons are being prepared, so that when you get fed up with the old you can enter into the new. Old chains may break any time so you are creating new chains in case the old chains break; then you will feel very empty. "Once in a while it happens naturally – because it is your very nature to be free. So once in a while, in spite of you... seeing a sunset, suddenly you forget all your desires. You forget all lust, all hankering for pleasure. The sunset is so beautiful so overwhelming, that you forget the past and the future; only the present remains. You are so one with the moment, there is no observer and no observed. The observer becomes the observed. You are not separate from the sunset. "You are bridged; in such a communion you come into a clearing, and because of the clearing you feel joyous . But again you are back into the black hole for the simple reason that coming out into the clearing you need courage to remain in the empty sky. "That's what I call sannyas. "This courage I call sannyas – not escaping but coming into the clearing, seeing the sky unclouded, listening to the songs of the birds without distorting. And then again and again you are becoming more and more attuned with the emptiness and the joy of being empty. Slowly slowly, you see that emptiness is not just emptiness; it is fullness, but a fullness of which you have never been aware, a fullness of which you have never tasted. "So in the beginning it looks empty; in the end it is full, totally full, overflowingly full. It is full of peace, it is full of silence, it is full of light." - The Dhammapada: The Way of the Buddha, Vol. 10, Talk #1

Vedanta "It is this Akshara (the Imperishable), O Gargi, so the knowers of Brahman say. It is neither gross nor subtle, neither short nor long, not red, not viscid, not shadowy, not dark, not the air, not the ether, not adhesive, tasteless, odourless, without the sense of sight, without the sense of hearing, without the vital principle, mouthless, without measure, neither interior nor exterior,. It eats nothing, nobody eats it." - Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 3-8-8. ............................................................................. Buddhism “There is that dimension, monks, where there is neither earth, nor water, nor fire, nor wind; neither dimension of the infinitude of space, nor dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, nor dimension of nothingness, nor dimension of neither perception nor non-perception; neither this world, nor the next world, nor sun, nor moon. And there, I say, there is neither coming, nor going, nor staying; neither passing away nor arising: unestablished, unevolving, without support [mental object]. This, just this, is the end of stress.” - Buddha (in Nibbāna Sutta: Unbinding (1))

I just replied to your question, since you said you wanted to hear from me what I wanted to say... I started this thread with an intention to show everyone how Vedanta and Buddhism are not contradictory to each other.. They are essentially the same and lead to the same goal.

1) Absolute cannot be described in words. Hence, there is no way to impart the knowledge of it without the teaching method called 'adhyaropa apavada'. 2) All the concepts, words, ideas that are used are deliberately superimposed in self to make people understand, then even those attributes are also negated. 3) The purpose of the whole teaching method is to culminate in the direct experience.

I accidentally submitted the prior message while I didnt complete it.. The purpose of the excerpts above and the ones below is to show the purpose of all the teaching... Here is the full post: Known technically as 'the Absolute' (brahman), it is of the nature of immediate experience, void of all the attributes of transmigratory life. This is the meaning of the word 'that' (in the phrase 'That thou art'), familiar to the experts in the Upanishads. - Shankara (B.S.Bh.IV.i .2) In the case of enquiry into the Vedic ritual, the Vedic and other traditional texts alone are the criterion. But this is not so in the case of the enquiry into the Absolute. Here it is the same texts that are the authority, but with immediate experience (and firm remembrance, etc.) added in the case of the purely metaphysical texts . For knowledge of the Absolute requires to culminate in immediate experience (anubhava), and (unlike the part of the Veda dealing with commands and prohibitions) has an already-existent reality for its object. - Shankara (B.S. Bh.I.i.2) Repeated resort to the appropriate means of knowledge is indeed useless in the case of the person who can attain immediate experience of the fact that his true Self is the Absolute merely from hearing the text 'That thou art' spoken once. But for him who is not able to do so, repetition is the proper means. - Shankara in (B.S.Bh.IV.i .2) True, it has been said that the Veda itself proclaims that reason must be respected, as it enjoins pondering as well as hearing. But this should not be used as a pretext for allowing empty hypothetical reasoning to gain entry. For in the present context only those arguments that are sanctioned by the Veda may be resorted to, and that only as an auxiliary to the attainment of direct experience. - Shankara in (B.S.Bh. II. i. 6)

@Anna1 no, not related to what you said just now... I was typing a post but accidentally submitted before completing.. I am completing it now

Known technically as 'the Absolute' (brahman), it is of the nature of immediate experience, void of all the attributes of transmigratory life. This is the meaning of the word 'that' (in the phrase 'That thou art'), familiar to the experts in the Upanishads. - Shankara (B.S.Bh.IV.i .2) In the case of enquiry into the Vedic ritual, the Vedic and other traditional texts alone are the criterion. But this is not so in the case of the enquiry into the Absolute. Here it is the same texts that are the authority, but with immediate experience (and firm remembrance, etc.) added in the case of the purely metaphysical texts . For knowledge of the Absolute requires to culminate in immediate experience (anubhava), and (unlike the part of the Veda dealing with commands and prohibitions) has an already-existent reality for its object. - Shankara (B.S. Bh.I.i.2)

Not saying that words should not be used... The point of the whole discussion is to say that words are only pointers.. They are just teaching devices. I thought it may be helpful for people who cling to ideologies and concepts..

@Anna1 Yes, but not just cosmology alone; The teaching method followed by Shankara finally negates all words that was deliberately used in the first place, including the words like 'consciousness' (or awareness), being,knowledge etc...

@Joseph Maynor Here is a very important point to understand why Buddha said there is no Atman. It is also from Shankara's commentary: "Objection : "Is not even Atman denoted by the word 'Atman' ? Reply: No. for there are Srutis like 'From which words fall back', 'That in which one sees nothing else'. Question: How then do texts like 'Atman alone is below ... .' and 'It is Atman' reveal Atman ? Reply: This is no fault. For, the word (Atman), primarily used in the world of differences to denote individual soul as distinct from the body it possesses, is extended to indicate the entity which remains after the rejection of body and other not-selfs as not deserving that appellation, and is used to reveal what is really inexpressible by words". - Shankara - Ch. Bh. 7-1-3, p. 542. ................................................. Buddha directly denied Atman as it is used by the people in the world (an individual soul existing in the body) . Upanishads extended the word Atman to mean the absolute (and changing the meaning of the word Atman).. Read the following Buddhist Sutta, it looks like the neti-neti method: "So, bhikkhus any kind of form whatever, whether past, future or presently arisen, whether gross or subtle, whether in oneself or external, whether inferior or superior, whether far or near, must with right understanding how it is, be regarded thus: 'This is not mine, this is not I, this is not myself.' "Any kind of feeling whatever... "Any kind of perception whatever... "Any kind of determination whatever... "Any kind of consciousness whatever, whether past, future or presently arisen, whether gross or subtle, whether in oneself or external, whether inferior or superior, whether far or near must, with right understanding how it is, be regarded thus: 'This is not mine, this is not I, this is not my self.'" - Anatta-lakkhana Sutta

Didn't get it.. Can you elaborate?

@Joseph Maynor (more excerpts, especially for you, because I noticed that you started a few threads about definitions of the absolute) "Hence that Brahman cannot be denoted by the epithet 'jnanam' (knowledge) either. Nevertheless, it is indicated though not expressed, by the word ''jnanam' denoting the semblance of consciousness which is really a modification of the mind. It is not directly denoted by that term because Brahman is devoid of genus and other specific features which alone are the occasion for the application of words to a thing. So is it with regard to the term 'Satyam' (truth). For Brahman is by its very nature devoid of all specific features. The term Satyam really refers to the genus 'being' inhering in external objects, and when Brahman is described as 'Sat yam' (Real), it is only indicated by that term. But Brahman is not actually expressed by the term 'Satyam'. Shankara - Tai. Bh. 2-1, p. 285.

@Joseph Maynor Read these excerpts of various commentaries by Shankara: "The Absolute is that in which there is no particularity. There is no name, no form, no action, no distinction, no universal, no attribute. It is through these determinations alone that speech proceeds, and not one of them belongs to the Absolute. So the latter cannot be taught by sentences of the pattern 'This is so-and-so'. In such upanishadic phrases and words as "The Absolute is Consciousness-Bliss' (Brhad.III.ix.28.7) . 'A mere mass of Consciousness' (Brhad.II.iv.12) , 'Brahman', 'Atman', the Absolute is artificially referred to with the help of superimposed name, form and action, and spoken of exactly in the way we refer to objects of perception, as when we say 'That white cow with horns is twitching'. But if the desire is to express the true nature of the Absolute, void of all conditioning adjuncts and particularity, then it cannot be described by any positive means whatever. The only ' possible method then is to refer to it through a comprehensive denial of whatever positive characteristics have been attributed to it in previous teachings, and to say 'neither this nor that'. - (Brhad.Bh.II.iii.6) - Shankara "Nor can the Absolute be properly referred to by any such terms as Being or non-being. For all words are used to convey a meaning, and when heard by their hearers convey the meaning the speaker had in mind. But communicable meaning is restricted without exception to universal, action, attribute and relation.... The Absolute, however, does not belong to any universal (genus), so it cannot be expressed by a noun such as 'Being' or 'non-being'. Being without attributes, it cannot be described by any adjective denoting an attribute. And being actionless, it cannot be expressed by any verb denoting activity. For the Upanishad speaks of it as 'Without parts, without activity, at rest' (Svet .VI.19) . Nor has it any relation with anything. For it is 'One', 'without a second', 'not an object' and 'the Self. Hence it cannot be expressed by any word. And the upanishadic texts themselves confirm this when they say 'That from which words fall back' (Taitt .ll.9) , and in other passages." - (Bh.G.Bh.XIII.12) - Shankara And because the Absolute has no particular characteristics, the Veda indicates its nature by denying of it the forms of all other things, as is shown, for instance, in the following pa sages: 'And so, therefore, the teaching is "neither this nor that"' (Brhad.II.iii.6) , 'It is other than what is known, and above the unknown' (Kena I.U), 'That from which words fall back without obtaining access, together with the mind' (Taitt .II.9) . And the Vedic texts also relate how when Badhva was questioned by Baskalin he gave his answer merely by not speaking. 'Sir, teach me in words', Ba§kalin said. But the Teacher remained silent. Finally, at the second or third time of asking, Badhva replied, 'I am telling you, but you do not understand. This Self is utter silence' - (B.S.Bh.III.ii.17) - Shankara ........................................................ This teaching method 'Adhyaropa apavada' is not properly followed by many modern teachers who teach Vedanta today. That is why people get stuck in all kinds of concepts..I recently came across books by Swami Satchidanandendra Saraswathi, who was a Sanskrit scholar and vedantic monk. He dedicated his whole life in bringing out the kind of teaching method that was actually adopted by Shankara. He lived up to the age 94 and has written over 200 books. In fact, he rediscovered this teaching method again. Here is how he describes in short, in one of his books: (a) In order to disclose the nature of the self as Brahman in itself Srutis like the following negate all specific features superimposed on it by the unenlightened common mind :- "It is this Akshara (the Imperishable), 0 Gargi, so the knowers of Brahman say. It is neither gross nor subtle, neither short nor long, not red, not viscid, not shadowy, not dark, not the air, not the ether, not adhesive, tasteless, odourless, without the sense of sight, without the sense of hearing, without the vital principle, mouthless, without measure, neither interior nor exterior,. It eats nothing, nobody eats it." - Br.3-8-8. (b) Lest, by this strict denial of all properties it may be taken to be absolute nothing (s'unya), it is taught by means of illusory attributes seemingly pertaining to it owing to Upadhis (apparently conditioning factors). (c) At the close of the teaching the rescission of even the imputed attributes used as a device for purposes of teaching, lest it should be regarded as actually belonging to it. (modern teachers stop with (a) and (b) ) ...................... And Buddhism has a different teaching model, uses different kinds of concepts but ultimately the goal is the same. All theories in traditions are only teachings devices, they are not the truth themselves. For example, many people don't know that Vedanta itself is an intentional superimposition to remove superimposition on Self.

@Joseph Maynor Actually, they only appear to be contradictory... Both Buddhism and Vedanta have their unique teaching methods...The concepts they use in such teaching methods are only devises for the cessation of suffering. There is a point when all such concepts are to be dropped. For example, In Vedanta there is a method called Adhyaropa apavada "Who so knows the Self, thus described, as the fearless Absolute (brahman), himself becomes the Absolute, beyond fear. This is a brief statement of the meaning of the entire Upanishad. And in order to convey this meaning rightly, the fanciful alternatives of production, maintenance and withdrawal, and the false notion of action, its factors and results, are deliberately attributed to the Self as a first step. And then later the final metaphysical truth is inculcated by negating these characteristics through a comprehensive denial of all particular superimpositions on the Absolute, expressed in the phrase 'neither this nor that'. Just as a man, wishing to explain numbers from one to a hundred thousand billion (points to figures that he has drawn and) says, 'This figure is one, this figure is ten, this figure is a hundred, this figure is a thousand' , and all the time his only purpose is to explain numbers, and not to affirm that the figures are numbers; or just as one wishing to explain the sounds of speech as repre sented by the written letters of the alphabet resorts to a device in the form of a palm-leaf on which he makes incisions which he later fills with ink to form letters, and all the while, (even though he point to a letter and say "This is the sound "so and so"') his only purpose is to explain the nature of the sounds referred to by each letter, and not to affirm that the leaf, incisions and ink are sounds; in just the same way, the one real metaphysical principle, the Absolute, is taught by resort to many devices, such as attributing to it production (of the world) and other powers. And then after wards the nature of the Absolute is restated, through the concluding formula 'neither this nor that', so as to purify it of all particular notions accruing to it from the various devices used to explain its nature in the first place'. - Brhad. Bh.IV.iv.25 by Shankara Not only that.. any term that is used to define the absolute is only a teaching device. They are not ultimately real.

@ajasatya If that happens, that would be great... But I posted this for people who cling to a certain school that holds scriptures as authority.. I posted this for people who consider that their ideology or school alone is superior, to show them that all these different schools, all these different scriptures are pointing out to the same truth... I know that there are a lot of confusions which have arisen because of interpretation of scriptures, and people fight with each other saying that their interpretation is correct.. So, there are only two options: either burn them all or show them that all point to the same thing.

There is, monks, an unborn— unbecome — unmade — unfabricated. If there were not that unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, there would not be the case that escape from the born — become — made — fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, escape from the born — become — made — fabricated is discerned - Buddha (in Nibbāna Sutta: Unbinding (3)) ........................................................ Verily, that great unborn soul, undecaying, undying, immortal, fearless is Brahman - Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 4.4.25

More from Katha Upanishad - 2.2.11 - 2.2.15 11 As the sun, which helps all eyes to see, is not affected by the blemishes of the eyes or of the external things revealed by it, so also the one Atman, dwelling in all beings, is never contaminated by the misery of the world, being outside it. 12 There is one Supreme Ruler, the inmost Self of all beings, who makes His one form manifold. Eternal happiness belongs to the wise, who perceive Him within themselves−not to others. 13 There is One who is the eternal Reality among non−eternal objects, the one truly conscious Entity among conscious objects and who, though non−dual, fulfills the desires of many. Eternal peace belongs to the wise, who perceive Him within themselves−not to others. 14 The sages realize that indescribable Supreme Joy as "This is That." How can I realize It? Is It self−luminous? Does It shine brightly, or not? 15 The sun does not shine there, nor the moon and the stars, nor these lightnings−not to speak of this fire. He shining, everything shines after Him. By His light all this is lighted

Upanishads are the basis for Indian schools of thought. Of this Brihadaranyaka Upanishad and Chandogya upanishad are the oldest. These are the earliest available literature in India which teach non-duality. I have been reading these texts for the past few days and I came across this wonderful section, which is the 6th part of Chandogya Upanishad. I found it very impressive and it brought tears in my eyes as I read it. So, I am sure you will enjoy this as well. I am posting the entire 6th part here... Chapter I − The Non−Duality of the Self 1 Om. There once lived Svetaketu the grandson of Aruna. To him his father said: "Svetaketu, lead the life of a brahmacharin; for there is none belonging to our family, my dear, who, not having studied the Vedas, is a brahmin only by birth." 2−3 Svetaketu went to his teacher’s house when he was twelve years old and studied the Vedas till he was twenty−four. Then he returned to his father, serious, considering himself well read and arrogant. His father said to him: "Svetaketu, since you are now so serious, think yourself well read and are so arrogant, have you, my dear, ever asked for that instruction by which one hears what cannot be heard, by which one perceives what cannot be perceived, by which one knows what cannot be known?" Svetaketu asked: "What is that instruction, venerable Sir?" 4−6 "Just as, my dear, by one clod of clay all that is made of clay is known, the modification being only a name, arising from speech, while the truth is that all is clay; "Just as, my dear, by one nugget of gold all that is made of gold is known, the modification being only a name, arising from speech, while the truth is that all is gold; "And just as, my dear, by one pair of nail−scissors all that is made of iron is known, the modification being only a name, arising from speech, while the truth is that all is iron−even so, my dear, is that instruction." 7 "Surely those venerable men did not know that. For if they had known it, why should they not have told it to me? Therefore do you, venerable Sir, tell me about it." "So be it, my dear," said the father. Chapter II − Brahman: the Cause of the Universe 1 "In the beginning, my dear, this universe was Being (Sat) alone, one only without a second. Some say that in the beginning this was non−being (asat) alone, one only without a second; and from that non−being, being was born." 2 Aruni said: "But how, indeed, could it be thus, my dear? How could Being be born from non−being? No, my dear, it was Being alone that existed in the beginning, one only without a second. 3 "It (Being, or Brahman) thought: ‘May I be many; may I grow forth.’ It created fire. That fire thought: ‘May I be many; may I grow forth.’ It created water. That is why, whenever a person is hot and perspires, water is produced from fire (heat) alone. 4 "That water thought: ‘May I be many; may I grow forth.’ It created food (i.e. earth). That is why, whenever it rains anywhere, abundant food is produced. From water alone is edible food produced. Chapter III − The Threefold Development 1 "Of all these living beings, there are only three origins: those born from an egg, those born from a living being and those born from a sprout. 2 "That Deity thought: ‘Let Me now enter into those three deities by means of this living self and let Me then develop names and forms.’ 3 "That Deity, having thought: ‘Let Me make each of these three tripartite,’ entered into these three deities by means of the living self and developed names and forms. 4 "It made each of these tripartite; and how these three deities became, each of them, tripartite, that learn from me now, my dear. Chapter IV − The Threefold Development further explained 1 "The red colour of gross fire is the colour of the original fire; the white colour of gross fire is the colour of the original water; the black colour of gross fire is the colour of the original earth. Thus vanishes from fire what is commonly called fire, the modification being only a name, arising from speech, while the three colours (forms) alone are true. 2 "The red colour of the sun is the colour of fire, the white the colour of water, the black the colour of earth. Thus vanishes from the sun what is commonly called the sun, the modification being only a name, arising from speech, while the three colours alone are true. 3 "The red colour of the moon is the colour of fire, the white the colour of water, the black the colour of earth. Thus vanishes from the moon what is commonly called the moon, the modification being only a name, arising from speech, while the three colours alone are true. 4 "The red colour of lightning is the colour of fire, the white the colour of water, the black the colour of earth. Thus vanishes from lightning what is commonly called lighting, the modification being only a name, arising from speech, while the three colours alone are true. 5 "It was just through this knowledge that the great householders and great Vedic scholars of olden times declared: ‘No one can now mention to us anything which we have not heard, thought of, or known.’ They knew all from these three forms. 6−7 "Whatever, appeared red they knew to be the colour of fire; whatever appeared white they knew to be the colour of water; whatever appeared black they knew to be the colour of earth. "Whatever appeared to be unknown they knew to be the combination of these three deities (i.e. colours). Now learn from me, my dear, how these three deities, when they reach man, become each of them tripartite. Chapter V − The Threefold Nature of Food 1 "Food when eaten becomes threefold. What is coarsest in it becomes faeces, what is medium becomes flesh and what is subtlest becomes mind. 2 "Water when drunk becomes threefold. What is coarsest in it becomes urine, what is medium becomes blood and what is subtlest becomes prana. 3 "Fire when eaten becomes threefold. What is coarsest in it becomes bone, what is medium becomes marrow and what is subtlest becomes speech. 4 "The mind, my dear, consists of food, the prana of water and speech of heat." "Please, venerable Sir, instruct me further." "So be it, my dear" Chapter VI − The Physical Nature of the Mind, the Prana and Speech 1 "That, my dear, which is the subtlest part of curds rises, when they are churned and becomes butter. 2 "In the same manner, my dear, that which is the subtlest part of the food that is eaten rises and becomes mind. 3 "The subtlest part of the water that is drunk rises and becomes prana. 4 "The subtlest part of the fire that is eaten rises and becomes speech. "Thus, my dear, the mind consists of food, the prana consists of water and speech consists of fire." "Please, venerable Sir, instruct me further." "So be it, my dear" Chapter VII − How the Mind consists of Food 1 "A person, my dear, consists of sixteen parts. Do not eat any food for fifteen days, but drink as much water as you like. Since the prana consists of water, it will not be cut off if you drink water." 2 Svetaketu did not eat any food for fifteen days. Then he came to his father and said: "What, Sir, shall I recite?" His father said: "The Rik, Yagus and Saman verses." He replied: "They do not occur to me, Sir." 3 His father said to him: "Just as, my dear, of a great blazing fire a single coal, the size of a firefly, may be left, which would not burn much more than that, even so, my dear, of your sixteen parts only one part is left; and therefore with that one part you do not remember the Vedas. Now go and eat and you will understand me." 4 Svetaketu ate and approached his father. Then whatever his father asked him, he showed that he knew it. 5−6 Then his father said to him: "Just as, my dear, of a great lighted fire a single coal the size of a firefly, if left, may be made to blaze up again by adding grass to it and will thus burn much more, "Even so, my dear; of your sixteen parts only one part was left and that, when strengthened by food, blazed up. With it you now remember the Vedas. Therefore, my dear, the mind consists of food, the prana consists of water and speech consists of fire." After that he understood what his father said, yea, he understood it. Chapter VIII − Concerning Sleep, Hunger, Thirst, and Death 1 Uddalaka the son of Aruna said to his son Svetaketu: "Learn from me, my dear, the true nature of sleep. When a person has entered into deep sleep, as it is called, then, my dear, he becomes united with Pure Being (Sat), he has gone to his own Self. That is why they say he is in deep sleep (svapiti); it is because he has gone (apita) to his own (svam). 2 "Just as a bird tied by a string to the hand of the bird−catcher first flies in every direction and then finding no rest anywhere, settles down at the place where it is bound, so also the mind (i.e. the individual soul reflected in the mind), my dear, after flying in every direction and finding no rest anywhere, settles down in the Prana (i.e. Pure Being); for the mind (the individual soul) is fastened to the Prana (Pure Being). 3 "Learn from me, my dear, what hunger and thirst are. When a man is hungry, as they say, it is water that has led (i.e. carried away) what was eaten. Therefore, just as they speak of a leader of cows, a leader of horses, a leader of men, so do they speak of water as the leader of food. So, my dear, know this offshoot (i.e. the body) to have sprung forth from a cause, for it cannot be without a root. 4 "And where could its root be except in food (earth) ? And in the same way, my dear, as food too is an offshoot, seek for water as its root. And as water too, my dear, is an offshoot, seek for fire as its root. And as fire too, my dear, is an offshoot, seek for Being (Sat) as its root. Yes, all these creatures, my dear, have their root in Being, they dwell in Being, they finally rest in Being. 5 "When a man is said to be thirsty, it is fire that has led (i.e. carried away) what was drunk by him. Therefore as they speak of a leader of cows, a leader of horses, a leader of men, so do they speak of fire as the leader of water. So, my dear, know this offshoot (the body) to have sprung forth from a cause, for it cannot be without a root. 6 "And where could its root be except in water? And in the same way, my dear, as water is an offshoot, seek for fire as its root. And as fire too, my dear, is an offshoot, seek for Being as its root. Yes, my dear, all these creatures have their root in Being, they dwell in Being, they finally rest in Being. "And how these three deities (fire, water and earth), on reaching a human being, become each of them tripartite has already been said. When a person departs hence, his speech merges in his mind, his mind in his prana, his prana in heat (fire) and the heat in the Highest Being. 7 "Now, that which is the subtle essence−in it all that exists has its self. That is the True. That is the Self. That thou art, Svetaketu." "Please, venerable Sir, give me further instruction," said the son. "So be it, my dear," the father replied. Chapter IX − The Absence of Individuality in Deep Sleep 1−2 "As bees, my dear, make honey by collecting the juices of trees located at different places and reduce them to one form, "And as these juices have no discrimination so as to be able to say: ‘I am the juice of this tree,’ or ‘I am the juice of that tree’−even so, indeed, my dear, all these creatures, though they reach Pure Being, do not know that they have reached Pure Being. 3 "Whatever these creatures are, here in this world−a tiger, a lion, a wolf, a boar, a worm, a fly, a gnat, or a mosquito−that they become again. 4 "Now, that which is the subtle essence−in it all that exists has its self. That is the True. That is the Self. That thou art, Svetaketu." "Please, venerable Sir, give me further instruction," said the son. "So be it, my dear," the father replied. Chapter X − The Absence of Particularized Consciousness in Deep Sleep 1−2 "These rivers, my dear, flow−the eastern toward the east and the western toward the west. They arise from the sea and flow into the sea. Just as these rivers, while they are in the sea, do not know: ‘I am this river’ or ‘I am that river,’ "Even so, my dear, all these creatures, even though they have come from Pure Being, do not know that they have come from Pure Being. Whatever these creatures are, here in this world−a tiger, a lion, a wolf a boar, a worm, a fly, a gnat, or a mosquito, that they become again. 3 "Now, that which is the subtle essence−in it all that exists has its self. That is the True. That is the Self. That thou art, Svetaketu." "Please, venerable Sir, give me further instruction," said the son. "So be it, my dear," the father replied. Chapter XI − The Indestructibility of the Jiva 1 "If, my dear, someone were to strike at the root of this large tree here, it would bleed but live. If he were to strike at the middle, it would bleed but live. If he were to strike at the top, it would bleed but live. Pervaded by the living self, that tree stands firm, drinking in again and again its nourishment and rejoicing. 2 "But if the life (i.e. living self) leaves one of its branches, that branch withers; if it leaves a second, that branch withers; if it leaves a third, that branch withers. If it leaves the whole tree, the whole three withers. 3 "In exactly the same manner, my dear," said he, "know this: This body dies, bereft of the living self; but the living self dies not. "Now, that which is the subtle essence−in it all that exists has its self. That is the True. That is the Self. That thou art, Svetaketu." "Please, venerable Sir, give me further instruction," said the son. "So be it, my dear," the father replied. Chapter XII − The Birth of the Gross from the Subtle 1 "Bring me a fruit of that nyagrodha (banyan) tree." "Here it is’ venerable Sir." "Break it." "It is broken, venerable Sir." "What do you see there?" "These seeds, exceedingly small, "Break one of these, my son." "It is broken, venerable Sir." "What do you see there?" "Nothing at all, venerable Sir." 2 The father said: "That subtle essence, my dear, which you do not perceive there−from that very essence this great nyagrodha arises. Believe me, my dear. 3 "Now, that which is the subtle essence−in it all that exists has its self. That is the True. That is the Self. That thou art, Svetaketu." "Please, venerable Sir, give me further instruction," said the son. "So be it, my dear," the father replied. Chapter XIII − The Invisibility of an Existent Object 1 "Place this salt in water and then come to me in the morning." The son did as he was told. The father said to him: "My son, bring me the salt which you placed in the water last night." Looking for it, the son did not find it, for it was completely dissolved. 2 The father said: "My son, take a sip of water from the surface. How is it?" "It is salt." "Take a sip from the middle. How is it?" "It is salt." "Take a sip from the bottom. How is it?" "It is salt." "Throw it away and come to me." The son did as he was told, saying: "The salt was there all the time." Then the father said: "Here also, my dear, in this body you do not perceive Sat (Being); but It is indeed there." 3 "Now, that which is the subtle essence−in it all that exists has its self. That is the True. That is the Self That thou art, Svetaketu." "Please, venerable Sir, give me further instruction," said the son. "So be it, my dear," the father replied. Chapter XIV − The Means of Self−Knowledge 1 "Just as someone, my dear, might lead a person, with his eyes covered, away from the country of the Gandharas and leave him in a place where there were no human beings; and just as that person would turn toward the east, or the north, or the south, or the west, shouting: ‘I have been brought here with my eyes covered, I have been left here with my eyes covered!’ 2 "And as thereupon someone might loosen the covering and say to him: ‘Gandhara is in that direction; go that way’; and as thereupon, having been informed and being capable of judgement, he would, by asking his way from one village to another, arrive at last at Gandhara−in exactly the same manner does a man who has found a teacher to instruct him obtain the true knowledge. For him there is delay only so long as he is not liberated from the body; then he reaches perfection. 3 "Now, that which is the subtle essence−in it all that exists has its self. That is the True. That is the Self That thou art, Svetaketu." "Please, venerable Sir, give me further instruction," said the son. "So be it, my dear," the father replied. Chapter XV − Ultimate Liberation 1 "Around a dying person afflicted with illness, my dear, his relatives gather and ask: ‘Do you know me? Do you know me?’ He knows them as long as his speech is not merged in his mind, his mind in his prana (breath), his prana in heat (fire) and the heat in the Highest Deity. 2 "But when his speech is merged in his mind, his mind in his prana, his prana in heat and the heat in the Highest Deity, then he does not know them. 3 "Now, that which is the subtle essence−in it all that exists has its self. That is the True. That is the Self. That thou art, Svetaketu." "Please, venerable Sir, give me further instruction," said the son "So be it, my dear;" the father replied. Chapter XVI − Liberation for the Knower of Brahman 1 "My dear, they (i.e. the police) bring a man whom they have seized by the hand and say: ‘He has taken something, he has committed a theft.’ When he denies it, they say: ‘Heat the axe for him.’ If he has committed the theft but denies it, then he makes himself a liar. Being false−minded, he covers himself with falsehood, grasps the heated axe and is burnt. Then he is killed. 2 "But if he did not commit the theft, then he makes himself what he really is. Being true−minded, he covers himself with truth, grasps the heated axe and is not burnt. He is released. 3 "As that truthful man is not burnt so also one who has known Sat is not born again. Thus in That (Sat) all that exists has its self. That is the True. That is the Self. That thou art, Svetaketu." − Source: http://www.consciouslivingfoundation.org/ebooks/13/CLF-chhandogya_upanishad.pdf

Katha Upanishad - Verse 1.2.20 "Subtler than the subtle, greater than the great, in the heart of each living being, the âtman (self) reposes. One free from desire, with his mind and the senses composed, sees the glory of the âtman and becomes absolved from grief." Shankara’s Commentary: How then does one know the âtman is explained? Subtler than the subtle, i.e., subtler than grain, etc.; greater than the great, i.e., greater than things of great dimensions, such as the earth (whatever thing is in the world, that is known to exist only by virtue of the eternal âtman; divorced from the âtman it becomes a non-entity; therefore, this âtman alone is subtler than the subtle and greater than the great, because all names, forms and actions are only conditions imposed upon it). This âtman is seated, as the âtman, in the heart of every living creature, irons Brahma down to the worm. That âtman to whose realization, hearing, thought and meditation are indicated as aids; one free from desire, i.e., one whose intelligence has been diverted from all external objects, either of this world or of the world to come (when he is so,—the mind and the senses which are called Dhâtus.—because they support the body, become composed); sees, i.e., directly realizes, in the form ‘I am he’, the glory of the âtman, devoid of increase or diminution due to Karma; and, therefore, he becomes absolved from grief. (Note: the word atman and brahman both are the same.. atman is usually translated to 'soul' in English, but it is not really an entity like 'soul')

@Dizzy You can actually get Upanishads for free in pdf format online... Many of the Upanishads are very small, spanning only 4-5 pages, except Brihadaranyaka and Chandogya Upanishad, which are large... It may be difficult to understand certain concepts, but give it a try... Also, a lot of hymns in Upanishads are either just praises (eulogy) or about a certain meditation called Upasana. I am still doing research on Upasana and how they are described. Here is Briharanyaka upanishad with translation: http://www.consciouslivingfoundation.org/ebooks/13/CLF-brihadaranyaka_upanishad.pdf Meanings of some words can vary according to the context and some words can be wrongly translated. So, it may be useful to read it with Shankara's commentary.. Here is the version with Shankara's commentary: https://archive.org/download/Brihadaranyaka.Upanishad.Shankara.Bhashya.by.Swami.Madhavananda/Brihadaranyaka.Upanishad.Shankara.Bhashya.by.Swami.Madhavananda.pdf If you still find it difficult, you can refer the modern version: http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/brhad_00.html . This is a discourse given by Swami Krishnananda. However, I am not sure about the quality of his interpretation. You can search for the pdf version for any Upanishad online. But stick with only the important 13 upanishads. (There are 108 upanishads in total).. Only those 13 of the 108 are considered as important and have been cited by many important people. All others are modern creations (written after 800 AD to 1800 AD probably) which have been written with different intentions.. I have read Ramanayana but not about Milarepa. Ramayana is very popular in India. Everyone knows the story and many people have read the whole book.

An excerpt from Kena Upanishad: A teacher tells a student about Brahman: " It is the Ear of the ear, the Mind of the mind, the Speech of speech, the Life of life, and the Eye of the eye. Having detached the Self from the sense−organs and renounced the world, the Wise attain to Immortality. The eye does not go thither, nor speech, nor the mind. We do not know It; we do not understand how anyone can teach It. It is different from the known; It is above the unknown. Thus we have heard from the preceptors of old who taught It to us. That which cannot be expressed by speech, but by which speech is expressed−That alone know as Brahman, and not that which people here worship. That which cannot be apprehended by the mind, but by which, they say, the mind is apprehended−That alone know as Brahman, and not that which people here worship. That which cannot be perceived by the eye, but by which the eye is perceived−That alone know as Brahman, and not that which people here worship. That which cannot he heard by the ear, but by which the hearing is perceived−That alone know as Brahman, and not that which people here worship. That which cannot be smelt by the breath, but by which the breath smells an object−That alone know as Brahman, and not that which people here worship."

Yes, actually much of the Chandogya Upanishad is nothing but poems praising Vedas.. And much of Vedas has to do with sacrificing animals and grains in fire to manipulate natural forces so that one can get more cattle, rainfall, children, wealth etc. It is this one part which is very interesting. However, In Shankara's commentary you will find that he says even the other parts are useful, as they are actually a form of meditation technique called Upasana. For me, most of his commentary seem to justify the eternal and infallible nature of Vedas, which I can't agree with. But reading the history of how non-dual teachings emerged is interesting, as you said. I have a lot of interest on that. Also, even if you don't remember Isaac Newton, gravitation will still work. But we still appreciate him and remember him because he was the one who first explained it.

thats true... I am reminded about the following verses from Vivekachudamani: Loud speech in a stream of words, the efficiency in expounding or commenting upon the scriptures, erudition—these bring only a little joyous, material satisfaction to the scholar; but they are insufficient to bring about liberation. - verse 58 Without knowing the supreme Reality, the study of the scriptures is futile. Having known the supreme Reality, the study of the scriptures is equally futile - - verse 59 The labyrinth of words is a thick jungle which causes the mind to wander, in its own confusion. Therefore, true seekers of Brahman should earnestly set about to experience the Real Nature of the Self. - verse 60 However, I was surprised because of an absence of replies from other people because they all engage in a lot of contemplative and philosophical questions about the nature of reality anyway... The above excerpt from Chandogya Upanishad has many excellent analogies in pointing out the truth which will help many people.. Also, It deserves an appreciation because of its rebellious nature and the fact that it taught something about ultimate reality at the time when people were engaged in rituals like sacrificing animals and plants in fire. It is good for people to know the source of all the teachings that they hear today in the name of non-duality.The saying 'You are that' (tat tvam asi) actually comes from this text, specifically from the story that you read above. (Notice how many times the phrase 'That thou art,' is repeated in the text).

No one else had to say anything on this post?