
How to attain Brahman according to Advaita Vedanta (Sri Gaudapada’s Mandukya Karika)



The following dialogue is taken from Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, Talk number 265, my additions are in red:
Questioner: There are said to be sadeha mukta (liberated in body) and videha mukta (liberated without body).
Sri Ramana Maharshi: There is no liberation, and where are muktas [the liberated ones]?
Questioner: Do not Hindu sastras [scriptures] speak of mukti [liberation]?
Sri Ramana Maharshi: Mukti is synonymous with the Self. Jivan mukti (liberation while alive) and videha mukti (liberation after the body falls) are all for the ignorant. The Jnani [liberated one] is not conscious of mukti or bandha (bondage).
Bondage, liberation and orders of mukti are all said for an ajnani [ignorant or unliberated one] in order that ignorance might be shaken off.
There is only mukti and nothing else.
The following is the taken from Vichara Shangraham, a text attributed to Sri Ramana Maharshi. Vichara Sangraham is often translated simply as ‘Self Enquiry’ and literally means ‘A compendium of (Self) Enquiry’. This excerpt is very the last section of the text:
Question: What are the characteristics of the jivan-mukta (the liberated in life) and the videha-mukta (the liberated at death)?
Sri Ramana Maharshi: ‘I am not the body; I am Brahman which is manifest as the Self. In me who am the plenary [absolute] Reality, the world consisting of bodies etc, are mere appearance, like the blue of the sky’. He who has realized the truth thus is a jivan-mukta.
Yet so long as his mind has not been resolved, there may arise some misery for him because of relation to objects on account of prarabdha (karma which has begun to fructify and whose result is the present body) [ie. due to destiny], and as the movement of mind has not ceased there will not be also the experience of bliss.
The experience of Self is possible only for the mind that has become subtle and unmoving as a result of prolonged meditation. He who is thus endowed with a mind that has become subtle, and who has the experience of the Self is called a jivan-mukta. It is the state of jivan-mukti that is referred to as the attributeless Brahman and as the Turiya.
When even the subtle mind gets resolved, and experience of self ceases, and when one is immersed in the ocean of bliss and has become one with it without any differentiated existence, one is called a videha-mukta. It is the state of videha-mukti that is referred to as the transcendent attributeless Brahman and as the transcendent Turiya. This is the final goal.
Because of the grades in misery and happiness, the released ones, the jivan-muktas and videha- muktas, may be spoken of as belonging to four categories — Brahmavid, vara, variyan and varishtha. But these distinctions are from the standpoint of the others who look at them; in reality, however, there are no distinctions in release [liberation] gained through jnana [self-knowledge].
Before Zen spread to Japan and was known as Zen, it was in China and known as Chan. Here 8th Century Chan Master Hui Hai gives us a wonderful short-cut to enlightenment or nirvana:

Hui Hai: The Shurangama Sutra says: ‘Perceptions employed as a base for building up positive concepts are the origin of all ignorance (avidya); ‘perception that there is nothing to perceive – that is nirvana, also known as deliverance.’
Questioner: What is the meaning of ‘nothing to perceive’?
Hui Hai: Being able to behold men, women and all the various sorts of appearances while remaining as free from love or aversion as if they were actually not seen at all – that is what is meant by ‘nothing to perceive’.
Questioner: That which occurs when we are confronted by all sorts of shapes and forms is called ‘perception’. Can we speak of perception taking place when nothing confronts us?
Hui Hai: Yes.
Questioner: When something confronts us, it follows that we perceive it, but how can there be perception when we are confronted by nothing at all?
Hui Hai: We are now talking of that perception which is independent of there being an object or not. How can that be? The nature of perception being eternal, we go on perceiving whether objects are present or not. Thereby we come to understand that, whereas objects naturally appear and disappear, the nature of perception does neither of those things; and it is the same with all your other senses.
[Tom: what is being signified here by ‘eternal’ perception that is independent of objects? :-)]
Questioner: When we are looking at something, does the thing looked at exist objectively within the sphere of perception or not?
Hui Hai: No, it does not.
Questioner: When we (look around and) do not see anything, is there an absence of something objective within the sphere of perception?
Hui Hai: No, there is not.
Questioner: When there are sounds, hearing occurs. When there are no sounds, does hearing persist or not?
Hui Hai: It does.
Questioner: When there are sounds it follows that we hear them, but how can hearing take place during the absence of sound?
Hui Hai: We are now talking of that hearing which is independent of there being any sound or not. How can that be? The nature of hearing being eternal, we continue to hear whether sounds are present or not.
Questioner: if that is so, who or what is the hearer?
Hui Hai: It is your own nature, which hears, and it is the inner cogniser who knows.

[Aparoksha = direct; Anubhuti = experience]
By Adi Sankaracharya (788-82 CE)
Translated by Swami Vimuktananda, this version edited by Tom Das
Swami Vimuktananda: Shankara discusses the identity of the individual Self and the universal Self through the direct experience of the highest Truth.
Tom: the original text has no subheadings – I have added these. My brief comments and annotations are in square brackets. I have added bold type for emphasis of what I feel are key points. Occasionally I have removed some verses or I have changed the order of some verses where I have felt this makes sense thematically. I hope these additions are of benefit for sincere seekers of liberation.
Om Shanti, Shanti, Shanti
[Q. Who is ‘pure in heart’?
A: He who has the 4 qualifications listed below
Q: How to become ‘pure in heart’?
A: Devotion to God, renunciation and karma yoga as per verse 3]
[[3] The 6 treasures]
[Question]
[Answer – what I am not, neti-neti, via negativa]
[The philosophical paradigm: all phenomena is a creation of thoughts/ignorance:]
[All is Brahman, what I am, via positiva]
[What I am – I am Brahman]
[ie. Why do you say ‘There is no Atman/Self’?]
[This will be explained below]
[Shruti literally means ‘heard’ or ‘that which is heard’, and refers to revealed scripture, the highest form of scripture in Vedic tradition, and the examples are the Vedas and Upanishads. Traditionally Shruti is not of human origin but of Divine origin, as opposed to Smriti or ‘remembered’, which comes from the minds of human beings. This text, not being the Vedas or Upanishads would be considered to be Smriti. Most epics such as Ramayana, Mahabharata and Bhagavad Gita are all Smriti scriptures]
[So far we have discerned the difference between Self and Not-Self (ie. the phenomenal world including the body and mind). Now we see this too is an artificial duality and now the focus is on Advaita, or non-duality:]
[The Mahavakya or great saying ‘Sarvam Khalvidam Brahma’ or ‘All this is Brahman’ is taken from the Chandogya Upanishad 3.14.1]
[ie. duality causes fear]
[ie. lack of duailty, or nonduality, removes suffering]
[ie. The 3 states change, they come and go, and so are without any enduring essence, as opposed to Atman]
[The illusion of duality: the illusion of the individual person or Jiva, the illusion of the manifold universe]
[Note: If I think I am the body, then this is taking the Self (myself) to be the body]
[The need for practice]
102-103. The steps, in order, are described as follows: the control of the senses, the control of the mind, renunciation, silence, space, time, posture [asana], the restraining root (Mulabandha), the equipoise of the body, the firmness of vision, the control of the vital forces, the withdrawal of the mind, concentration, self-contemplation and complete absorption.
[These above stages are similar to and include the classical 8 stages of Patanjali’s Raja Yoga. Shankara will redefine these steps in the next few verses giving them a non-dual spin]
[Yama or self-control is usually defined as being ethical, truthful, not stealing, etc]
[The one kind of thought are those of the Mahavakyas such as ‘I am Brahman’, etc]
[Niyama, or discipline usually includes virtuous habits to externally and inwardly cleanse the body and mind respectively]
[as in verse 104, the underlying method utilised is the realisation that ‘All is Brahman-Atman’. The emphasis is on a shift of perspective rather than just taking yourself to be the body-mind and renouncing objects from that ignorant perspective]
[The Silence refers to the Self, Atman/Brahman, which is what we are. ‘Mind turns back without reaching it’ refers to Taittiriya Upanishad II.9]
108-109. Who can describe That (i.e., Brahman) whence words turn away ? (So silence is inevitable while describing Brahman). Or if the phenomenal world were to be described, even that is beyond words. This, to give an alternate definition, may also be termed silence known among the sages as congenital. The observance of silence by restraining speech, on the other hand, is ordained by the teachers of Brahman for the ignorant.
[True Silence is Self-Knowledge and not mere cessation of speech]
[True solitude is Self-Knowledge, in which there is only One without a Second, the implication is that solitude is not the mere retiring to a forest in seclusion]
[Shankara’s humour that the true Yogic asana/posture are not mere contortions of body that ‘destroy one’s happiness’ but meditation upon Brahman]
119-120. The negation of the phenomenal world is known as Rechaka (breathing out), the thought, “I am verily Brahman”, is called Puraka (breathing in), and the steadiness of that thought thereafter is called Kumbhaka (restraining the breath). This is the real course of Pranayama for the enlightened, whereas the ignorant only torture the nose [more humour from Shankara here].
[The method is to make thought changeless, which means to only have one thought such as ‘I am Brahman’ as per verses 119 and 123, and then to realise this thought as nothing else but Brahman or Atman (self), and then forget all thought. Shankara equates this Samadhi with Knowledge]
127-128. While practicing Samadhi there appear unavoidably many obstacles, such as lack of inquiry, idleness, desire for sense-pleasure, sleep, dullness, distraction, tasting of joy, and the sense of blankness. One desiring the knowledge of Brahman should slowly get rid of such innumerable obstacles.
[Against the intellectual approach:]
[Cause and effect refers to karma and the phenomenal world. When this world is removed, only Brahman remains:]
[ie. When the pot is destroyed, the earth from which it is made remains]
[Here the cause is Brahman and the effect is the world, ie. by removing all objects from perception through meditation (negative method 1) or by negating all objects of perception as being not-self (negative method 2) the Self should be discovered, but then the Self should be seen being in All Objects (positive method)]
[The above described Raja Yoga is purely mental, having been stripped of the more external practices. Therefore for those whose minds have not been purified, the external and physical aspects of yoga, denoted here as Hatha Yoga, should also be performed]
[Devotion to and faith in Guru and God are recommended methods of purification of mind. When the mind is sufficiently pure, then Shankara’s form of Raja Yoga on the mental levels alone leads directly to liberation]

Kashmir Shaivism is a non-dual tantric tradition in which Pratyabhijna or ‘recognition’ is the goal. In Kashmir Shaivism, the absolute is termed ‘Shiva’ and the relative world of people and objects is termed ‘Shakti’ (which means energy or power). Shiva and Shakti are given equal status and are said not to exist apart from each other – where one exists, the other also exists.
In Non-Dual (Advaita) Vedanta, the Self (Atman) is the Absolute (Brahman) and it is said to project Maya-Shakti which in turn projects the world of people and objects. Maya is said to be dependent on the Absolute Self and not vice-versa, so the two are not given equal status.
This obviously causes confusion in some seekers, so here Ramana explains them both:
The following is an excerpt from Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, Talk 288:
Explaining Maya of Vedanta and swatantra [tantra] of Pratyabhijna (independence of recognition), Sri Bhagavan said:
The Vedantins say that Maya is the sakti of illusion premised in Siva. Maya has no independent existence. Having brought out the illusion of the world as real, she continues to play upon the ignorance of the victims. When the reality of her not being is found, she disappears.
‘Recognition’ [ie. Kashmir Shaivism] says that Sakti (power) is coeval with Siva. The one does not exist without the other. Siva is unmanifest, whereas Sakti is manifest on account of Her independent will swatantra. Her manifestation is the display of the cosmos on pure consciousness, like images in a mirror.
The images cannot remain in the absence of a mirror.
So also the world cannot have an independent existence. Swatantra becomes eventually an attribute of the Supreme. Sri Sankara says that the Absolute is without attributes and that Maya is not and has no real being. What is the difference between the two? Both agree that the display is not real. The images of the mirror cannot in any way be real. The world does not exist in reality (vastutah).
Both schools mean the same thing. Their ultimate aim is to realise the Absolute Consciousness. The unreality of the cosmos is implied in Recognition (Pratyabhijna), whereas it is explicit in Vedanta. If the world be taken as chit (consciousness), it is always real. Vedanta says that there is no nana (diversity), meaning that it is all the same Reality.
There is agreement on all points except in words and the method of expression.
Tom: note that in both Advaita Vedanta and Kashmir Shaivism, the essential teaching is the same – ie. one is advised to turn within, that is turn away from objects, and realise the Pure Consciousness, the Self Within, devoid of objects. Only the conceptual framework and superficial aspects of the teachings vary.
Last month I wrote a post titled Q. Some teachers (eg. Bentinho Massaro, Anadi, Adi Da Samraj) claim to have surpassed the traditional notion of enlightenment and say co-creation is the next evolutionary step…any thoughts?.
There have always been spiritual teachers who claim to have gone beyond the traditional notions of enlightenment and who claim that they have had a special enlightenment that is somehow unique to them. Often their teachings, in my view, leave much to be desired and wreak of egotism, and those seekers who know what to look for sense this fairly quickly. Their teachings often rehash a mixture of traditional and non-traditional methods, which is fine in itself as far as I am concerned, but then they mix in a good helping of old fashioned ego and narcissism: ‘I am the best, follow me’. The teachings are often presented in a more glamorous way which is ultimately less effective at best and very damaging at worst.
It may interest you to know that Ramana Maharshi was also asked about these types of teachers who claim something more that ‘traditional realisation’ and something special for themselves, and in this post I will give you an example of what Ramana said in response to this.
The following excerpt is from Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, Talk 201, and Ramana is initially asked about Sri Aurobindo who apparently stated that Self-Realisation was only the beginning of the journey and not the end:
They further asked for Maharshi’s opinion of Sri Aurobindo’s Yoga, and his claim to have probed beyond the experiences of the Vedic rishis and the Mother’s opinion of the fitness of her disciples to begin with the realisation of the Upanishadic rishis.
Tom’s comment: ‘The Mother’ or Mirra Alfassa was a westerner from Paris who taught alongside Sri Aurobindo and set up Sri Aurobindo’s Ashram
M.: Aurobindo advises complete surrender. Let us do that first and await results, and discuss further, if need be afterwards and not now. There is no use discussing transcendental experiences by those whose limitations are not divested. Learn what surrender is. It is to merge in the source of the ego. The ego is surrendered to the Self. Everything is dear to us because of love of the Self.
Tom’s comments: you can see how Ramana Maharshi’s first response is not to criticise another teacher or teaching but to find some common ground and focus upon this. This would presumably be of most benefit for the seeker, which is Ramana’s primary concern, rather than engaging in some intellectual debate or trying to prove his teaching style to be superior
The Self is that to which we surrender our ego and let the Supreme Power, i.e., the Self, do what it pleases. The ego is already the Self’s. We have no rights over the ego, even as it is. However, supposing we had, we must surrender them.
D.: What about bringing down divine consciousness from above?
Tom’s comments: this presumably was another of Sri Aurobindo’s teachings, namely that divine consciousness should descend onto us from above. Here Ramana responds by quoting various scriptures:
M.: As if the same is not already in the Heart? “O Arjuna, I am in the expanse of the Heart,” says Sri Krishna “He who is in the sun, is also in this man”, says a mantra in the Upanishads. “The Kingdom of God is within”, says the Bible. All are thus agreed that God is within. What is to be brought down? From where? Who is to bring what, and why?
Realisation is only the removal of obstacles to the recognition of the eternal, immanent Reality. Reality is. It need not be taken from place to place.
D.: What about Aurobindo’s claim to start from Self-Realisation and develop further?
M.: Let us first realise and then see.
Tom’s comments: Again, Ramana’s instinct is to sidestep any intellectual argument and instead encourage the seeking in practical terms. Ramana now considers other theories on enlightenment and liberation, and again gives a practical response:
Then Maharshi began to speak of similar theories: The Visishtadvaitins say that the Self is first realised and the realised individual soul is surrendered to the universal soul. Only then is it complete. The part is given up to the whole. That is liberation and sayujya union. Simple Self-Realisation stops at isolating the pure Self, says Visishtadvaita.
The siddhas say that the one who leaves his body behind as a corpse cannot attain mukti [liberation]. They are reborn. Only those whose bodies dissolve in space, in light or away from sight, attain liberation. The Advaitins of Sankara’s school stop short at Self-Realisation and this is not the end, the siddhas say.
There are also others who extol their own pet theories as the best, e.g., late Venkaswami Rao of Kumbakonam, Brahmananda Yogi of Cuddappah, etc.
The fact is: There is Reality. It is not affected by any discussions. Let us abide as Reality and not engage in futile discussions as to its nature, etc.


Perhaps the most important single text that traditionally outlines the Jnana Marga (Path of Knowledge) is Shankara’s Vivekachudamani. This text has been used for centuries as a step by step manual to take one from (apparent) ignorance to Moksha (liberation) in which there is no suffering and it has been recommended by all the great Advaita sages including Sri Ramana Maharshi.
There are many gems littered throughout the text, and here is one of them which you may have missed:
In verse 160 Shankara tells us that the one who is book-learned in Vedanta considers himself to be a mix of ‘body and soul’. In doing so, the one with mere book-learning still retains identification with the body, and so remains in ignorance and continues to suffer. In verse 162 Shankara, as is characteristic of the writing in Vivekachudamani, repeats his point and elaborates on it to make the meaning clear and beyond doubt:
There are many who know the scriptures, know the teachings, but still identify with the body in some way. These verses are a warning against this view. Shankara concludes this small section as follows, dispensing his sagely advice:
So don’t take yourself to be the body, just as you do not take your shadow to be yourself, do not take your body to be your-Self. Also, do not take yourself to be both the body and something else and in doing so retain a sense of limitation. You are That alone, you are the Self.

Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi states in Guru Vachaka Kovai:
722. On scrutiny, supreme devotion [parabhakti] and Jnana are in nature one and the same. To say that one of these two is a means to the other is due to not knowing the nature of either of them.
731. Know that the path of Jnana and the path of Bhakti are inter-related. Follow these inseparable two paths without dividing one from the other.
B13. Attending to Self is devotion to the supreme Lord, because the Lord exists as Self.