As the vision of the śāstra becomes clearer, the seeker naturally encounters deeper and more refined doubts. Questions arise about the very nature of the Self — if ātman is ever‑present and self‑revealing, why does it seem hidden, and how can it be both the witness and non‑dual? Doubts extend to the status of the world: if the jagat is mithyā, why does it feel undeniably real, and how does multiplicity arise from the non‑dual? The seeker also wrestles with the relationship between the individual and Brahman — if I am limitless, why do limitation and ego persist, and what exactly is the “I” referred to in the mahāvākyas? Even the nature of knowledge becomes a point of enquiry: how does one distinguish conceptual understanding from direct recognition, and why does assimilation take time if knowledge is instantaneous? Methodological questions arise as well — how does the śāstra reveal what cannot be objectified, why does it employ adhyāropa–apavāda, and what ensures that the guru’s teaching aligns with sampradāya? Practical doubts follow: what is the role of nididhyāsana, how does one address viparīta bhāvanā, and how can knowledge coexist with emotional disturbance? Finally, the seeker examines liberation itself — if freedom is one’s nature, what does it mean to “attain” it, what changes after liberation, and how can the jīvanmukta still appear to function within duality? These doubts are not obstacles but essential gateways; when examined through śāstric reasoning, they refine understanding and prepare the mind for firm, unshakable clarity.
Ponder over the above questions, the following texts and subpages explore some answers.
1. Doubts About the Self (Ātma‑svarūpa‑saṁśaya)
Why is the ever‑present Self not recognized?
How can the Self be both witness and non‑dual?
What remains after neti neti?
The Upaniṣads declare the Self to be nitya, śuddha, buddha, mukta — ever‑present, ever‑pure, ever‑conscious, ever‑free. Yet the seeker wonders: if the Self is self‑revealing (svayaṃ‑prakāśa), why is it not recognized? Śaṅkara explains that the Self is not an object of knowledge; it is the very subject. Recognition is obstructed not by absence of the Self but by adhyāsa — the habitual superimposition of body‑mind attributes onto the witnessing consciousness. The doubt “How can the Self be both the witness (sākṣī) and non‑dual?” is resolved by distinguishing empirical witnessing (a function of the mind) from the absolute standpoint where consciousness alone is. The śāstra uses neti neti not to negate the Self but to remove every mistaken identification, revealing what cannot be negated.
2. Doubts About the World (Jagat‑satyatva‑saṁśaya)
If the world is mithyā, why does it feel real?
How does multiplicity arise from non‑duality?
How can Brahman be nirguṇa yet the cause?
The world appears undeniably real, yet the śāstra calls it mithyā — neither absolutely real nor absolutely unreal. The advanced seeker questions how something dependent can produce such vivid experience. Śaṅkara clarifies that mithyā does not mean illusion in the sense of non‑existence; it means dependent existence (paratantra‑sattā). The world is real enough to function (vyavahāra‑siddha), but not real enough to contradict non‑duality. The doubt “How does multiplicity arise from the non‑dual?” is addressed through māyā — not as a second entity but as the name for the inexplicable appearance of forms. The Upaniṣads resolve the paradox by teaching that Brahman is the material and intelligent cause (abhinna‑nimitta‑upādāna‑kāraṇa) of the universe, yet untouched by creation, just as gold remains gold whether in the form of an ornament or a lump.
3. Doubts About the Individual (Jīva‑brahma‑aikya‑saṁśaya)
If I am Brahman, why do I feel limited?
What is the “I” in tat tvam asi?
Why does ego persist after knowledge?
The mahāvākyas declare the identity of jīva and Brahman, yet the seeker feels limited. Śaṅkara explains that limitation belongs to the upādhi — the body‑mind complex — not to the Self. The doubt “If I am Brahman, why does the ego persist?” arises because habitual patterns (vāsanā) continue even after knowledge. Knowledge removes ignorance, not the momentum of past conditioning. The śāstra distinguishes between the pramātā (the knower in ignorance) and the jñānī (the one who knows the knower is mithyā). The persistence of ego‑thoughts does not contradict knowledge; it only indicates the need for nididhyāsana to neutralize viparīta‑bhāvanā.
4. Doubts About Knowledge (Jñāna‑saṁśaya)
What distinguishes conceptual from direct knowledge?
Why is assimilation gradual?
Can knowledge coexist with emotional disturbance?
The seeker wonders whether knowledge is conceptual or experiential. The śāstra is clear: Self‑knowledge is not an experience but the recognition of the ever‑present reality. Experiences come and go; the Self does not. The distinction between parokṣa‑jñāna (indirect knowledge) and aparokṣa‑jñāna (direct recognition) is crucial. Śravaṇam produces the immediate knowledge “I am Brahman,” but mananam removes doubts that obscure its firmness. Nididhyāsana does not produce new knowledge; it removes habitual contrary tendencies. Thus, the doubt “Why is assimilation gradual if knowledge is instantaneous?” is resolved: knowledge is instantaneous, but the mind’s alignment with that knowledge may take time.
5. Doubts About Methodology (Pramāṇa‑saṁśaya)
How does śāstra reveal the non‑objectifiable?
Why adhyāropa–apavāda?
What ensures sampradāya alignment?
Vedānta is a unique pramāṇa because it reveals what cannot be known through perception or inference. The seeker questions how the śāstra can reveal the non‑objectifiable. Śaṅkara answers: the śāstra does not objectify the Self; it removes ignorance about the Self. The method of adhyāropa–apavāda — deliberate superimposition followed by negation — is central. The Upaniṣads first present Brahman as the cause of the universe to turn the mind toward the limitless, then negate causality to reveal Brahman as ever‑free. The doubt “How do I know the guru’s teaching is aligned with sampradāya?” is addressed by ensuring the teaching follows this methodology and is grounded in śruti, yukti, and anubhava.
6. Doubts About Practice (Sādhana‑saṁśaya)
What is the role of nididhyāsana?
How to address viparīta bhāvanā?
Is meditation required for liberation?
Advanced seekers often ask: “What is the role of nididhyāsana after knowledge?” Śaṅkara states that nididhyāsana is for those whose knowledge is obstructed by habitual patterns. It is not a means to liberation but a means to the firmness of liberation. The doubt “Is meditation required?” is resolved by distinguishing meditation as a mental discipline from nididhyāsana as a cognitive alignment. The śāstra emphasizes that liberation is through knowledge alone, but the mind may require contemplative refinement to abide in that knowledge effortlessly.
7. Doubts About Liberation (Mokṣa‑saṁśaya)
If I am already free, what is “attainment”?
What changes after liberation?
Can a jīvanmukta still experience emotions?
The seeker wonders: “If I am already free, what does it mean to attain freedom?” The śāstra clarifies that liberation is not an event but the removal of ignorance. Nothing new is gained; only the false notion of bondage is removed. The doubt “What changes after liberation?” is answered by distinguishing the jīvanmukta’s inner freedom from the continued functioning of the body‑mind due to prārabdha. Emotions may arise, but they do not bind. The Upaniṣads describe the jīvanmukta as one who is “asangaḥ” — untouched, like space.
8. Doubts About Apparent Contradictions (Virodha‑saṁśaya)
How can Brahman be both cause and non‑cause?
How can the Self be witness and non‑dual?
How can ignorance be beginningless yet end?
The śāstra often presents seemingly contradictory statements to refine understanding. Brahman is said to be both the cause and not the cause of the universe; the Self is both the witness and non‑dual; the world is neither real nor unreal. These contradictions are pedagogical, not literal. They dissolve when the seeker distinguishes levels of reality — pāramārthika, vyāvahārika, and prātibhāsika. What appears contradictory at one level becomes perfectly consistent when the standpoint is shifted. This is the heart of Advaita’s subtlety.
Direct Inquiry gives some answers
A powerful dialog between J Krishnamurti and BBC anchor in the direct discovery of the insights to be conflict free. Many avenues addressed directly in these 30 minutes. It brings out many points of Vedanta. Fearlessness, choiceless awareness and contentment. How conditioned thoughts are the root cause of our problems. Well worth watching.
Be attentive to listen to this.