|
Topic III: Philosophy of Advaita Vedanta
|
|
Table of Contents
- The Karma kanda practices (saadhanas)
are a prelude to the pursuit of jnana
kanda. The human tendency to seek
happiness in material acquisitions
and achievements and the dawning of
the wisdom that one must find happiness
within oneself by recognizing one’s
true nature as the infinite Brahman
are brought out in Brhadaranyaka
Upanishad, Mundaka Upanishad and
Katopanishad. Brahadaranyaka Upanishad
IV.iv.22 – “ The Braahmana, seeking
to know It (Brahman) ( purify their
minds) through the chanting of Vedas,
(and, later), performance of sacrifices
and duties (of the chosen avocation),
and charity, (leading) an austere
and dispassionate life and thereby
developing a desire to know Brahman,
become sages and (thereafter,) renouncing
worldly life altogether, become monks
(sanyasis) ( to engage in enquiry
into the Self – atma vicaara).”
Mundaka Upanishad I.ii.12 – “ Having
understood by experience and inference
the troubles and impermanence of worldly
life and impermanence of the effects
of all karma and thus developing dispassion
towards the worldly life, desiring
to know the eternal Reality, to pursue
enquiry into atma (Brahman), a Brahmana
should take to renunciation (sanyaasa)
and go with sacrificial faggot in
hand ( symbolic of respect , faith
and devotion) to a traditional teacher
who is well versed in the Vedas and
is abiding in Brahman (“stotriya
brahmanishtha”) . (“The word,
”Brahmana” in these Upanishads refers,
not to Brahamna by birth but to the
seeker engaged in the practice of
karma yoga, as a preparatory step
to the pursuit of jnana yoga and to
the seeker engaged in jnana yoga.)
Jabala Upanishad IV.1 (Janaka is the
student, Yajnavalkya is the teacher)
– “ After completing the period of
disciplined studentship (brahmacarya)
one may become a householder (grahastha).
After being a householder one may
become a forest-dweller (vanaprastha).
Having become a vanaprastha one may
renounce the world (and thus become
a sanyasi). Or, alternatively, one
may embrace sanyasa from brahmacarya
itself or from the stage of a householder….(it
can also be that ) a person may renounce
worldly life that very day on which
distaste for it dawns on him…..” Kathopanishad
Mantra II.i.1 & 2 - “The self-evident
Lord has endowed the mind and the
sense organs with outward-going capacity.
Therefore people tend to perceive
only external objects and not the
atma within. But a rare wise man,
seeking liberation from births and
deaths and turning the vision inwards
sees (i.e. after study, recognises)
the pratyagatma (the Brahma caitanyam
available in the individual).” “The
foolish ones wallow in external objects
and are caught in the bondage of mortality
(i.e., the cycle or birth and death
and suffering and sorrow). Whereas
the wise ones, with discrimination,
having learnt that the goal is immortality
(i.e. liberation from the cycle of
births and deaths) give up the desire
for the impermanent objects of the
perceived world.”
- This does not mean that one should
give up one’s occupation or cease
to earn. On the other hand, except
in respect of persons who have renounced
the worldly life, family and possessions
and have formally adopted a life style
devoted exclusively to Jnana Yoga,
called, vividisha sannyaasa,
Sastra enjoins on all such persons
the duty of fulfilling the obligations
pertaining to one’s station in life
– obligations not only to one’s own
family, but to society, ancestors,
teachers, mankind as a whole, and
environment (plant and animal kingdom
and the insentient objects of the
world) so as to contribute to ecological
and cosmic harmony (panca-mahaa-yagna)
as well as the obligation to oneself
to obtain facilities for one’s own
spiritual progress. For a spiritually
inclined person, even while continuing
to live a worldly life, there should
be no omission of duties and obligations
covered by panca maha yajna or deviation
from righteousness or deviation from
satyam (truthfulness), ahimsa (non-violence
(exceptions will be for the defense
of the nation, et.) If there is surplus
wealth, it should be devoted to the
welfare of the needy. This is generally
referred to a life of adherence to
dharma. Kathopanishad I.ii.24
emphasizes that, unless one desists
from bad conduct and keeps his senses
under control and mind concentrated
and free from anxiety, he cannot attain
Brahman by gaining knowledge of identification
with Brahman ( na aviratah duscaritaat
na asaantah na asamaahitah na asaantamanasah
va api prajnaanena enam aapnuyaat).
- The qualification to be acquired for
studying Jnana kanda is called “sadhana
catushtayam” – which consists
of (a) discrimination between the
eternal and the ephemeral (atma
anaatma viveka), (b) absence of
desire for the enjoyment of the (fruits
of one’s actions) in this world, as
also in the other world; in other
words, non-attachment to enjoyment
of objects both here and hereafter
(vairagya) (c) six –fold discipline
( shadka sampatti) consisting
of (i) control of or mastery over
the mind (sama), control of
the external sense organs (dama),
(iii) strict adherence to one’s duties
and obligations, called dharma (uparati),
endurance of heat and cold, pleasure
and pain, tolerance of all discomfort
(titiksha), (iv) faith in sastra
and guru (teacher) (sraddha),
and of mind – citta-aikaagrataa
and calmness of mind (citta naischalyam(
called samadhanam and (d) intense
yearning for liberation for liberation
(mumukshutvam) . The means
for acquiring this sampatti consists
of karma yoga and upasana. Though
the chances of benefiting from the
pursuit of jnana kanda are greater,
if one takes to that pursuit after
acquiring sadhana catushtaya sampatti,
one who has not yet acquired it is
not precluded from pursuit of jnana
kanda for lack of it. One can practice
the elements of sadahana catushtaya
samaptti and the pursuit of jnana
kanda simultaneously.
The components of sadhana catushtaya
samaptti are mentioned in Brahadaranyaka
(kanva sakha) IV.iv.23 as the features
of a jnani, which are the same as
qualifications of an aspirant) and
what is not mentioned there, viz.,
sraddha, is mentioned in the madhyantina
sakha.
Introduction
The core of the teaching in Advaita
Vedanta is the identity of Jivatma
and Paramatma. For knowledge of Paramatma,
we have to rely entirely on Sastra.
But the real nature of Jivatma, that
is, our own real nature, can be known
by inward enquiry. It is called tvampada-vicaara.
There are variations of tvampada-vicara.
These are drgdrsyaviveka, pancakosaviveka,
avasthaatrayavivieka and analysis
of stages of life. Jivatma is a mixture
of pratyagatma, the sukshma sarira
and sthoola sarira. When the unenlightened
man refers to himself as “I”, he is
referring to the sthoola-sukshma-sarira
complex (what we generally refer to
as the body-mind-complex). He is not
aware of the pratyagatma, which is
the same as Brahman, the pure, infinite
consciousness. The identification
with Brahman which Sastra shows as
the only means of liberation from
samsara is not possible unless we
recognize pratyagatma as our real
nature, and learning from Sastra that
pratyagatma is not different from
Brahma caitanyam, identify ourself
with Brahman.. We have no preconceived
notion about Brahman; so, we readily
accept what sastra says about Brahman.
But about ourselves, in successive
janmas, we have been regarding ourselves
as the limited personalities based
on the body mind complex and so, when
Sastra tells us that we are the pure
consciousness identical with the infinite
Brahman, we do not readily accept
it. That is why enquiry into one’s
own real nature (tvam-pad-vicaara)
is more important than enquiry into
the nature of Brahman (tat--pada-vicaara).
(The term, “drgdrsyaviveka” refers
to the general thesis that whatever
is known is anaatma (not-atma)
and that the ultimate seer is atma.
Here we are applying it to atma as
the witness of the mind itself. We
do not find many passages in the Upanishads
on this subject. Two prakarana granthas
have been cited in this section).
Brhadaranyaka III.4.2 talks of atma
as the Seer of the Seer, Hearer of
the hearer, Thinker of the thinker,
Knower of the knower. Kenopanishad
talks of Brahman being known with
each cognition, i.e., as Sankaracarya
explains, as the witness of cognitions.
Part I of Sankaracarya’s Atmajnanopadesavidhih
is a step by step presentation of
drgdrsyaviveka as applied to atma
as the witness of the mind. Verse
2 – “That the seen is different from
the seer, the atma, is well known
to all. Now, the question is asked,
‘what the atma is?’”. Verses 3 to
6 establish that the body is not atma,
since the body is perceived as ‘this’
(i.e., as an object) and also because
when consciousness leaves the body,
the body becomes inert like wood et,
when fire leave them. Verses 7,8 and
9 exclude the sense organs because
they are merely instruments of perception.
Verses 10 and 11 say that the mind
and the intellect are not atma because
they are objects of Consciousness
and are also instruments of perception.
Verses 22 to 24 say that the ego (ahamatha)
is not the atma, either, because it
is also an object of perception, like
jars and other things, is absent in
sushupti and is endowed with various
qualities like pain, pleasure and
so on and possesses mundane qualities
(such as aversion, desire etc.). Part
II verse 1 – “What, then is the atma?
It is distinct from all the things
mentioned before and is the innermost,
all-pervading like space, subtle,
eternal, without any parts, without
attributes, unblemished, having no
activities like going and coming,
devoid of the ideas of ‘me’ and ‘mine’
and also devoid of desire, aversion
and effort, self-effulgent by nature,
like the heat of the fire or like
the light of the sun, having no connection
with the elements such as space etc,
possessing no organs like the intellect
etc., free from the gunas of satva
etc., not having the prana and other
vital airs, untouched by hunger, thirst,
grief ,delusion, old age and death;
it is the atma which resides in the
hearts of all beings and is the seer
of all the intellects. In verses 3
to 7, the objection is raised,” Since
the agency of the action of seeing
is what is called ‘seeing’, how can
the atma which is devoid of the idea
of ‘me’ and ‘mine’ and of desire,
aversion and effort, be called a ‘seer.
Further, , unlike the intellect which
undergoes modifications and knows
a limited number of objects, one after
another, the atma is devoid of change
and does not depend on instruments
etc; how can such an atma be a ‘seer’
in the sense of knowing a limited
number of objects, one after another.”.
The answer is given in verses10 and
12. “……There is a relation of superimposition
between the atma and the intellect,
which, though of a non-effulgent nature,
like a crystal, appears to be effulgent
owing only to the proximity of an
effulgence, namely, the atma which
is purely of an effulgent nature.”
“And it is only in relation to other
things that the atma is called a knower.
The sun may be taken as an example.
Though entirely devoid of the ideas
of ‘me’ and ‘mine’ and also of desire
and effort, atma is called an illuminator
in relation to things illumined owing
only to its proximity to them, being
just light devoid of all change (prakaasatvam
prakaasa-swaroopa-sannidhi-matrena
prakaasena avikriyamaanena). It
is an illuminator in no other way.
It is the ignorant that superimpose
the agency of the action of illumining
things on the sun when things are
illumined by the sun. Similarly, the
agency of the quality of a seer (action
of knowing objects – drsyatvam)
is superimposed, in relation to the
manifestation of things like the intellect
and other things, on the atma which
is of the nature of pure Consciousness
(aatnamah drk-roopasya) devoid
of all change as well as free from
attributes (sarva-vikriyaa-viseshana-rahitasya)
and is the witness of all intellects
and their modifications (sarva-pratyaya-saakshinah).
Atma does nothing but stand in the
proximity to the objects of knowledge,
as Consciousness, not different from
Itself (drsya-sannidhi-matrena
caitanya-swaroopena ayatiriktena).
It cannot be a seer (knower) in no
other way (anyathaa-drshtatva-aabhaavaatii).
In verse 14, there is a comparison
of the loadstone moving iron only
by its proximity. The idea is given
in a nutshell in Drgdrsyaviveka verse
1– “Colors (roopam) are perceived
by the eye and the eye is their perceiver.
It (the eye) is perceived and the
mid is its perceiver. The mind with
its modifications is perceived and
the Witness (sakshi, i.e.,
the atma) is verily the perceiver.
But it (the sakshi) is not perceived
by any other. (roopam drsyam locanam
drk tat-drsyam drktu maanasam; drsyaa
dhii-vrittaya-saaakshii drgeva na
drsyate). Details follow. Verse
2 – “The forms appear on account of
various distinctions such as blue,
yellow, gross, subtle, short, long
etc. The eye, on the other hand, sees
them, itself remaining one and the
same.” Verse 3 – ‘Characteristics
of the eye such as blindness, sharpness
or dullness, the mind cognizes; the
mind also cognizes characteristics
of the ear, skin etc.” Verse 4 – “
Consciousness (citih) illumines
desire, determination and doubt, belief
and non-belief, constancy and its
opposite, understanding, fear and
others, because Consciousness is a
unity (ekadaa). Verse 6 – “
Buddhi appears to possess luminosity
on account of the reflection of Consciousness
in it. Buddhi is of two kinds – egoity
(ahamkrti) and the internal
organ (antahkarana).
Verse 12 – “Give up the misconception
of the identification with the body
etc and know yourself to be Existence-Consciousness-Bliss,
the witness of the intellect (dhii-saaksi).
How the apramata atma can be said
to be a ‘witness’ has been explained
in the main text (Section1.).
This
is discussed in Taittiriya Upanishad
Brahmanandavalli. . It talks of “annamaya
kosa” corresponding to the sthoola
sarira, “praanamaya kosa” corresponding
to that part of the sukshma sarira
which consists of the five vital airs
– prana, apana, vyana, udana, and
samana and the five organs of action
(karmendriyas), “manomaya
kosa” corresponding to that part
of the sukshma sarira which consists
of the mind, i.e.,. the cognizing
faculty, which is also the generator
of emotions and shares the five organs
of perception (jananendriyas),. “vijanamaya
kosa” corresponding to that part
of the sukshma sarira which consists
of the intellect,, i.e., the deciding
faculty, which shares the jnaanendriyas
and which includes the ego (the ahamartha)
and “anandamaya kosa” corresponding
to the karana sarira of the
seep sleep state in which a person
experiences ignorance and bliss. The
kosas are introduced one after the
other as atma. First, the Upanishad
describes the annamaya kosa and says
it is atma. Then, saying that there
is something interior and subtler
than that, namely pranamaya kosa,
negates the annamaya kosa (that is,
dismisses it, saying that it is not
atma – it is anatma) and so
on, until it negates even anandamaya,
describing its parts as “priya”,
moda” and “promoda”
which are grades of experiential happiness
and, finally, reveals the ultimate
conscious principle and avers that
that is atma, Brahman.
- Another way of analysis is to
examine the three states of waking,
dream and deep sleep called, respectively,
“jaagrat avastha”, “swapna
avastha” and “sushupti
avastha”. This is discussed
in Mandukya Upanishad which has
to be studied with Mandukya Karika
which is supposed to be a commentary
on the Upanishads but is, in itself,
an elaborate prakarana grantha.
From the Upanishad, itself, we
can derive the existence of a
changeless consciousness, apart
from the changing mind. In Mantra
2, the Upanishad declares the
identity of atma and Brahman in
the following terms. :- “Ayam
atma Brahma”. Thereafter it describes
the experiencer of the waking
state (jagrat avastha), called
Vaisvaanara, the experiencer
of the dream state (swapna avastha),
called taijasa and the
experiencer of the deep sleep
state (sushupti avastha),
called praajna. In the
crucial mantra 7, it defines atma
as that which is neither conscious
of the internal perceived world
nor conscious of the external
perceived world, which is not
even a mass of consciousness or
simple consciousness. (Na antah
prajnam, na bahih prajnam, na
prajnaanaghana, na prajnam).
Thus it rules out atma being the
ahamkara operating in the jagrat
avastha and the swapna avastha
and lying dormant in the sushupti
avastha. By saying that it is
not simple consciousness, it rules
out a consciousness which is aware
of everything simultaneously.
That is to say atma is not a knower-consciousness
in any sense.. And it hastens
to add that atma is not unconsciousness
(na aprajnam). Thereafter
it describes atma as being beyond
empirical dealings (avyavahaaryam).
This word clearly distinguishes
atma from any consciousness which
functions as the knower (pramaata)
or doer (karta) or enjoyer (bhokta);
thus this word serves to differentiate
the changing ahamkara from the
changeless atma. The other words
occurring in the mantra also differentiate
the changeless pure, superior
consciousness that is atma from
the changing ahamkara which is
involved in perceived worldly
transactions as the pramaata,
karta and bhokta. These are adrshtam
(unperceived)…., prancopasmamam
(in which all phenomena cease),
saantam (unchanging), sivam
(auspicious) and advaitam
(free from ideas of difference
or undifferentiated). That
the changeless consciousness continues
as the constant conscious entity
behind the changing knower –consciousness
in the states of waking etc. is
indicted by the words “eka-atma-pratyaya-saaram”.
- In jagrat avastha, my body, my sense
organs and my ahamkara are all
fully active and I am perceiving
external objects and transacting
with an external world (persons
and things outside me). In swapna
avastha, my body and my sense
organs are dormant and my ahamkara
projects a dream world. During
sushupti, both the body and ahamkara
are dormant. The ahamkara operating
in the jagrat avastha, called
visva), is not there when
the ahamkara operating in the
swapna avastha, called taijasa,
has come; neither the visva
nor the taijasa is there
when the ahamkara is dormant,
as praajna, in the sushupti
avastha.. Neither the taijasa
nor the praajna is there when
the visva has come again. But
still, I regard myself as the
same conscious being. In doing
so, I am invoking a constant conscious
entity that was there when the
visva was transacting with the
perceived world, that was there
when the taijasa was dreaming,
that was there when the prajna
was sleeping and that is there
when the visva has come again.
This constant consciousness is
the atma, the real I.
- In this connection we can refer
to the following passage in “Upadesa
Sahasri” of Sankaracarya: - The
disciple is asking “But at no
time Your Holiness, have I ever
seen pure consciousness or anything
else”. The teacher answers, “Then
you are seeing in the state of
deep sleep; for you deny only
the seen object, not the seeing.
I said that your seeing is pure
consciousness. That (eternally)
existing one by which you deny
(the existence of the seen object)
when you say that nothing has
been seen, (that precisely) is
the seeing, that is pure consciousness.
Thus as (It) does not depart (from
you) (Its) transcendental changelessness
and eternity are established solely
by Itself without depending upon
any means of knowledge.” The pupil
said, “….And there is no apprehender
different from this apprehender
to apprehend it.”
- That consciousness continues even
during sushupti when all instruments
of knowledge including the ahamkara
are dormant is expressed poetically
in Brhadaranyaka Upanishad IV.iii.23
to 30 – “ That It does not see,
smell, taste, speak, hear, think.
touch, or know is because although
seeing, smelling, tasting, speaking,
hearing, thinking, touching and
knowing then, it des not see,
smell, taste, speak, hear, think,
touch, know; for the vision of
the witness can never be lost,
because it is imperishable.” Sankaracarya’s
commentary – “The vision of the
witness is possible like the sun,
etc, revealing things. Just as
the sun and the like are naturally
ever-luminous and reveal things
through their constant light…….so
is the atma called a witness on
account of its imperishable eternal
vision. ……. Just as the sun and
the luminaries reveal things through
their constant, natural light,
and not through one produced for
the time being ( so is the atma
a witness through its eternal,
natural consciousness) and that
is its function as a witness in
the primary sense, for there cannot
be any other witness besides it…………………….
Objection: This is contradicted
by our experience that we sometimes
see and sometimes do not see.
Reply: This is simply
due to the particular activities
of our organs…….Therefore the
vision of the atma is imperishable,
and through that imperishable,
self-luminous vision the atma
continues to see in the state
of deep sleep. How is it, then,
(it is said) that it does not
see ……Those things that caused
the particular visions ( of the
waking and dream states) viz.
the mind, the eyes and forms were
all presented by avidya as something
different from the atma. They
are n unified in the state of
deep sleep, as the jivatma has
been embraced by Paramatma. Only
when the atma is under limitations,
do the organs stand as something
different to help it t particular
experiences. But it is now embraced
by its own paramatma, which is
pure consciousness and the atma
of all….Hence the organs and objects
do not stand as different entities;
and since they are absent, there
is no particular experience, for
this is the product of the organs
etc., not of the atma, and only
appears as the product of the
atma. Therefore it is an erroneous
notion produced by this (absence
of particular experience) that
the vision f the atma is lost.
- In short, the reference is to
the continued presence of the
atma caitanyam consciousness as
the witness of the non-functioning
mind, even when ahamkara is dormant
and there is no experience of
an external world of objects or
an internal dream world. It is
only when the sense organs and
ahamkara are functioning that
one perceives an external world
of objects and it is only when
the ahamkara is active, even though
the sense organs are dormant,
that one sees a dream). The atma
caitanyam is eternal – there is
no interruption in Its presence
behind the ahamkara, whether the
ahamkara is active or dormant.
- Advaita Vedanta
does not deny the experiential or
empirical reality (‘vyavaharika
satyatvam’) of the perceived world.
The seeming contradictions in Upanishad
statements can only be reconciled
on the basis of the Advaita Vedanta
doctrine of different orders of reality.
The concept of different orders of
reality is available in Chandogya
Upanishad - vide II.vi.1– “That (Brahman)
created all that exists. That (Brahman),
having created that entered into that
very thing. And, having entered there,
It became the true and the untrue,
Truth became all this. (“satyam
ca anrutam ca; satyam abhavat”).
Sankaracarya explains, “It follows
from the context that satyam
is truth falling within the range
of the empirical, and not absolute
truth. For the absolute truth is only
one, which is Brahman. But here the
relative truth, as found in the empirical
(perceived world) is referred to;
as for instance, water is said to
be true in comparison with the water
in a mirage which is false. Untruth
is the opposite of that. Again, what
is that became all this? That which
is the absolute truth. What is that,
again? It is Brahman; for it is Brahman
that has been introduced as the topic
of discussion by the sentence ‘Brahman
is truth, knowledge, infinitude.’
Thus, the word, “true” “t” in small
case has been interpreted as vyaavahaarika
satyam, the word “untrue” as pratibhasika
satyam and the word “True” with capital
“T” as paaramaartika satyam. This
is the authority (“pramaana”) for three orders of reality, in the
descending order - absolute reality
(paramartika satyam),
empirical reality (vyavaharika
satyam) and subjective reality (pratibhasika
satyam).
- The Taittiriya mantra 2.1.1 – “satyam
jnanam anantam brahma” reveals the
nature of Brahman in a nutshell. The
following is a paraphrase of extracts
from Sankaracarya’s commentary:-
(a)Sankaracarya first clarifies that
the sentence, “satyam, jnanam, anantam
brahma” is a definition of Brahman
(brahmanah lakshanaartah vakyam).
The three words, satyam, jnanam, anantam
are not adjectives (not visheshaani).
A noun can be distinguished only when
there is the possibility of its ruling
out some other adjective that does
not belong to it), as for instance
a blue or red lotus. An adjective
is meaningful when there are many
nouns which belong to the same class
and which are capable of having many
adjectives; but it can have no meaning
with regard to a single noun, where
there is no possibility of any alternative
adjective. There is a single Brahman,
just as there is a single sun; there
do not exist other Brahmans from which
It can be distinguished, unlike a
blue lotus that can be (marked out
from a red one) Definition marks out
an entity from everything else (sarvata
eva nivartakaani).
(b)Taking the words of the definition,
Sankaracarya says, that that which
does not change the nature that is
ascertained to be its own is satyam……So,
the word, ‘satyam’ distinguishes Brahman
from mutable things. …To indicate
that It is not insentient like earth,
the word ‘jnanam’ is juxtaposed. The
word, ‘jnanam’ means consciousness.
Juxtaposed with the words, ‘satyam’
and ‘anantam’, it negates the idea
of the agent of knowing. If Brahman
be the agent of knowing, satyam and
anantam cannot be part of the definition.
If It is the agent of knowing, It
becomes changeful and so cannot be
satyam. That indeed is infinite which
is not limited by anything. (cf. another
Vedic text, ’The Infinite is that
where one does not know anything else’.
If it is the agent of knowing, it
becomes delimited by the knowable
and the knowledge, and hence there
cannot be infinitude (anantam). …Besides,
if It has such distinctive attributes
as becoming the agent of knowing,
It cannot logically be pure existence.
In the 6th Chapter of Chandogya
Upanishads starting with ‘O, good
looking one, in the beginning this
was existence alone’ 6.8.7 says, ‘That
which is this subtle essence, all
this has got That as the atma. That
is satyam…’ Thus the words, ‘satyam’
and ‘sat’ are equated, Therefore the
word, ‘jnanam’ (knowledge) having
been used… along with ‘satyam’ and
‘anantam’, is derived in the cognate
sense of the verb, and it is used
to form the phrase ‘jnanam brahma’
(Brahman is knowledge) to rule out
any relationship between noun and
verb as that of an agent etc. as also
for denying non-consciousness like
that of earth, etc. From the phrase,
‘jnanam brahma’ there is possibility
of thinking that Brahman is limited,
because human knowledge is limited.
To obviate this, the text says, ‘anantam’
(‘infinite’).
(c) Explaining the word, “infinitude”
Sankaracarya says that it has been
said at the beginning of the mantra
that Brahman is satyam, jnanam and
anantam. ……As to that, there are three
kinds of infinitude (aanantyam)
– space-wise, time-wise and entity-wise.
To illustrate, the sky is unlimited
from the point of view of space, for
it is not limited in space. But the
sky is not infinite as regards time
or entity. Why”? Because it is a product.
Brahman is thus not limited in time
like the sky, since It is not a product.
A created thing is circumscribed by
time, but Brahman is not created.
Therefore It is infinite from the
point of view of time as well. Similarly,
It is infinite from the point of view
of entity, because It is non-different
from everything else. A thing that
is different acts as a limitation
to another. For example, the idea
of horsehood excludes the idea of
cowhood and the idea of cowhood becomes
delimited. Such limitation is seen
in the case of distinct objects. Brahman
is not differentiated in this way.
Therefore it has infinitude from the
point of view of substances. How is
Brahman non-different from everything?
Because it is the cause of everything.
Wouldn’t Brahman be limited by Its
own effects? No, since the objects
that are effects are unreal.`….Existence
( i.e., Brahman as sub-stratum of
everything) alone is true .(Chandogya
6.1.4 and 6.2.1)….. Brahman then is
spatially infinite, being the cause
of space etc. …Indeed, no all pervading
thing is seen in this world to originate
from anything that is not so. Therefore,
the spatial infinitude of Brahman
is absolute. Temporally, Brahman’s
infinitue is abslute since Brahman
is not a product. And because there
is nothing different from Brahman,
Brahman is infinite in terms entity
as well. Thus the reality of Brahman
is absolute.
In his commentary on the Chandogya
mantra 6.2.1, “sat eva soumya idam
agra aaseet ekam eva advidiiyam…”
Sankaracarya explains, “The word ‘sat’
means mere Existence, a thing that
is subtle, without distinction, all
pervasive, one, taintless, partless,
consciousness, which is known from
all the Upanishads. The word ‘eva’
is used for emphasis. (Sadeva
– sat iti astitvamaatram vastu
nirvisesham sarvvagatam, ekam, niranjanam,
niravayavam, vijnaaanam yat aagamyate
sarvavedantebhyah. Ekasabdah avataaranaarthah.)
Before creation, it was not possible
to grasp it as possessed of name and
form. ….By the words, ‘One only’,
is meant that there was nothing else
coming under the category of its product.
’Without a second’ means that It (Existence)
has no second thing different from
Itself”.
Readers may notice a discrepancy from
the outline of the philosophy in the
main paper, when it is said, here,
that Brahman is the cause of creation
and that Brahman is non-different
from everything. Elsewhere, Sankaracarya
himself will make it clear that creation
does not proceed from nirguna Brahman,
but from a Brahman associated with
Maya. And when Sankaracarya talks
of unity and says that Brahman is
non-different from everything, what
he means, as far as the writer can
make out, is that the one Brahman
alone, as the sub-stratum, lends existence
to everything and the superimposed
nama roopa being mithya, Brahman is
the sole reality and there is no other
real entity to delimit Brahman. “There
is no world other than Brahman” is
like saying that there is no pot other
than clay.
- Other passages in the Upanishads revealing
the swaroopam of Brahman (I.
e the nature of Brahman) are cited
below (“Brahman” and “Atma” are interchangeable
words) That Brahman is non-dual (advayam,
advaitam, advidtiiyam)
is stated in Chandogya Upanishad 6.2.1
and 6.2.2, in Kaivalya Upanishad 19
and 23, Brhadaranyaka Upanishad 4.3.22,
Mandukya Upanishad 7, Nrsimhaottaratapaniya
Upanishad 8 and 9, Ramopoorvatapaniya
Upanishad 5, and Muktikopanishad 2.73.
The Chandogya mantra 6.2.1, “Ekam
eva advidiiyam” negates swagata
bheda (internal difference as
in an entity having parts, by the
word, ‘ekam’, swajatiiya bheda
(difference between members of the
same species) by the word, ‘eva’ and
vijatiiya bheda (difference
between one species and another) by
the word ‘advidiiyam’ This is an elaboration
of the non-duality of Brahman, establishing
the unique status of Brahman as the
only reality.. That Brahman is infinite
(anantam), we can see in Taittiriya
Upanishad 2.1., - “Satyam, janma,
anantam Brahma” and in Swesvatara
Upanishad 1.9 – “Anantah ca atma visvaroopah…”
In Mandukya Upanishad mantra 7, it
is said- “It is not the inward awareness.
It is not the outward awareness. It
is not the intermediate awareness.
It is not the undifferentiated mass
of awareness. It is not the knowing
awareness. It is not non-awareness.
It is unperceivable. It is not accessible
to transaction. It cannot be grasped.
It is attributeless. It is not accessible
to thought. It is not amenable to
communication. It is the constant
atma that subsists in all the changing
states of the ahamkara.. It is the
remainder of the annulment of the
perceived universe. It is changeless.
It is auspiciousness. It is the non-dual
reality free of all mithya ideas of
difference. ……That is atma tat is
to be known. (Na antah-prajnam,
na bahih- prajnam, na ubhyatah-prajnam,
na prajaana-ghanam na prajnam na aprajnam;
adrshtam avyavahaaryam agraahyam alakshanam
acintyam avyapadesyam ekatma-pratyaya-saaram
prapancopasamam saantam sivam advaitam......sa
atma…”. Kathopanishad I.ii.20
and I.ii..21 - “Subtler than the subtlest,
greater than the greatest”. “Nearer
than the nearest, farther than the
farthest ……..unmoving moving everywhere.”
Isavasya Upanishad 4 – “It
is unmoving , one, faster than the
mind” (Isavasya Upanishad 8 – “He
is all pervasive, pure, bodiless,
without wound, without sinews, taintless,
untouched by sin, omniscient, ruler
of mind, transcendent, and self-existent.”
Kaivalya Upanishad 17 – “I am that
Brahman which illumines the perceived
world of waking, dream, and sleep”
Kaivalya Upanishad 21 - I see without
eyes, hear without ears. Assuming
various forms, I know everything.
There is no one who is the knower
of Me. I am ever the pure consciousness.
“ (“ .... Cit sadaa aham.”).
Kaivalya Upanishad 18 “I am distinct
from all those which are the subject,
the object and the instrument. In
all the three states - jagrat, swapna
and sushupti – I am the witness who
is the pure consciousness (cinmaatra)
and who is ever auspicious.” Kaivalya
Upanishad 23 – “........the nature
of Paramatma which is manifest in
the mind, partless, non-dual, the
witness of all, distinct from cause
and effect and pure...” Taittiriya
Upanishad II.iv.1 - “Words and sense
organs, along with the mind return,
unable to reach That” Mundakopanishad
I.i.6 - “That which cannot be seen
or grasped, that which has no source,
that which has no features, that which
has no eyes, ears, etc, that which
has no hands, feet etc. that which
is eternal, that which is infinite,
that which is all pervading, that
which is the subtlest of the subtlest,
that which is undiminishing and that
which is the source of all creation…”
Mundakopanishad III.i.8- “ “That which
cannot be apprehended by sight or
by words or by other indriyas.), that
which cannot be attained by penance
or rituals….The divisionless…..” Mundakopanishad
III.i.7 – “ That ( i.e., Brahman)
is infinite, effulgent, not accessible
to thought, formless, subtler than
the subtlest; farther than the farthest.
It is, at the same time, near at hand
in this body. It is available to be
recognized in one’s very heart, (i.e.,
as the consciousness behind the ahamkara)”.
Kathopanishad I.iii.15 - “That which
is soundless, touchless, formless,
undecaying, tasteless, internal, smellless,
imperishable, immortal, beginningless,
endless, (infinite), greater than
the greatest, distinct from intelligence,
(i.e., distinct from ahamkara) and
changelessly constant…..” Isavasya
Upanishad 5 - “It moves; it does not
move. It is far. It is near. It is
inside all this. It is outside all
this. ”Kaivalya Upanishad 20 – “I
(Brahman) am smaller than the smallest
and, in the same way, I am bigger
than the biggest; ……..I am the ancient
one; I am the ruler of all; I am the
effulgent one; I am the very auspiciousness.”
Kaivalya Upanishad 6 - “Brahman which
is the source of all, pure, free from
sorrow, beyond thoughts, unmanifested,
many-formed (in association with thoughts),
auspicious, tranquil, immortal, free
from beginning middle and end, non-dual,
all pervasive, formless and wonderful
and which is consciousness and ananda.”
Kaivalya Upanishad 7 –“Brahman which
is the cause of all beings, the witness
of all and beyond Maya.” Kaivalya
Upanishad 16 – “You alone are that
infinite, eternal, supreme Brahman
which is the self of all, which is
the abode of all and which is subtler
than the subtlest - that Brahman alone
are you.” Kaivalya Upanishad 17 –
“I am that Brahman which illumines
the perceived world of waking dream,
sleep, etc.....” Mundakopanishad II.i.2
- “Effulgent, formless, all pervading,
pervading the inside and outside of
the perceived universe, unborn, without
prana and mind, pure, superior to
the (other) superior (i.e. Maya)”
Svetasvatara Upanishad VI.19 - “Without
parts, actionless, beyond fluctuations,
free from all defects, untainted,
the means of crossing the sea of samsara
and attaining moksha)” Kenopanishad
I.3 - “Eyes do not reach That nor
do words and not even the mind. We
do not know ‘That Brahman is of this
kind’. How to make Brahman known we
do not know” Kenopanishad I. 4.- “
(Because) It is different from the
known and It is beyond the unknown
– This is what we have heard from
our teachers who have taught us about
That Brahman.” Kathopanishad II.iii.12
- “Not by words nor by sight and not
even by the mind can It be reached.
But he who says that It does not exist
can never attain It.” Brhadaranyaka
Upanishad III.ix.26, IV.ii.4, IV.iv.22,
and IV.v.15 - “This Atma is that which
has been described as ‘Not this, not
this’. It is imperceptible, for It
is never perceived; undecaying, for
It never decays; unattached, for It
is never attached; unfettered, It
never feels pain and never suffers
injury. r…..” Brhadaranyaka Upanishad
IV.iv.20 - “It is to be realized (in
accordance with the instructions of
a teacher) as non dual (for) It is
unknowable, eternal. The Atma is taintless,
is superior to unmanifested space
(i.e. Maya), is unborn, infinite and
constant” Brahadaranyaka Upanishad
4.4.20 – “It should be realized in
one form only. It is unknowable and
eternal. It, the atma, is taintless,
beyond space (akasa), birthless,
infinite and constant”. Chandogya
Upanishad VI.ii.1 “O, good looking
one, in the beginning this was Existence
alone, One only and without a second.”
Chandogya Upanishad Viii.i.v – “This
(Brahman) does not grow old when the
body grows old or die when the body
dies (or killed when the body is killed)………..
This is the Atma which is beyond sin,
beyond decrepitude, beyond death,
beyond sorrow, beyond hunger and thirst….”
Kenopanishad I.6 – “That which man
does not comprehend with the mind.
That by which…..mind is pervaded.”
Kenopanishad I.5 – “That which is
not uttered by speech, that by which
speech is revealed, know that alone
to be Brahman, and not what people
worship as an object.” Brhadaranyaka
Upanishad IV.iii.15 – “This infinite
is relationless.” Brhadaranyaka Upanishad
IV.iv.25 – “That great birthless Atma
is undecaying, immortal, undying,
fearless (because there is no second
thing), and infinite.” (The word used
for ‘fearless is ‘abhayam’.
(Sankaracarya interprets abhayam as
‘devoid of avidya’). Brhadaranyaka
Upanishad IV.iii.6 – ‘’Atma is self-effulgent”.
“Mundaka Upanishad III.i.7 – “It is
great because of its all-pervasiveness
and It is all pervasive and self-effulgent.
Its features cannot be thought of.
It is subtler than the subtlest…..Among
sentient beings It is perceived as
seated in this very body, in the cavity
of the heart – (“heart” is the term
used for the mind.) Brhadaranyaka
Upanishad III.viii.8 - …..”This Immutable
Brahman is neither gross nor minute,
neither short nor long, neither red
color nor oiliness, neither shadow
nor darkness, neither air nor ether,
unattached, neither taste nor smell,
without eyes or ears, without the
vocal organ or mind………,without the
vital force , not a measure, and without
interior or exterior”. Kathopanishad
I.iii.15 – That which is soundless,
touchless, colorless, undiminishing,
and also tasteless, eternal, odorless,
without beginning, and without end,
distinct from Mahat, and ever constant.”
Brhadaranyaka 3.8.8 – “It does not
eat anything nor is It eaten by anybody”.
(‘Eating’ refers to experience. So,
It is neither the experiencer nor
the experienced.) Brhadaranyaka V.iii.22
– “Atma has no punya or papa”. Brhadaranyaka
IV,iii.30 – “That it does not know
in that state, because , though knowing
then, it does not know; for the knower’s
function can never be lost.” (This
is a description of sushupti, in which
out of which the original consciousness
and cidabhasa, the original consciousness,
sakshi alone is functioning). “Chandogya
Upanishad VI.ii.1 – “One only, non-dual”.
Brahadaranyaka Upanishad IV.iv.16
– “That to which time is below (i.e.
That which is beyond time.”) On the
same lines, Brhadaranyaka IV.iv.15
– “…. The Lord of all that has been
and will be…”And in Brhadaranyaka
III.ix.26, IV.ii.4, IV,iv.22 and IV,v.15
– “….. It is “asitah” ( i.e.,
not fettered by space, time or entity).
Brhadaranyaka Upanishad II.iii.6 –
“Now therefore the description of
(Brahman): ‘not this, not this’. Because
there is no other and more appropriate
description than this ‘not this’.”
Brhadaranyaka Upanishad IV.iv.19 “There
is no plurality whatsoever in It.
He who regards the apparent plurality
as real goes from death to death.”
Brhadaranyaka Upanishad IV.iv.20 –
“It should be realized in one form
only.” – Sankaracarya adds in his
commentary – “as the homogenous pure
caitanyam”. Brhadaranyaka Upanishad
III. Iv. 1,III.v.1 – That which is
self-evident is the Brahman which
is within all” Chandogya Upanishad
VII.24.i – 'The Infinite is that where
one does not see anything else, does
not hear anything else and does not
know anything else”.. That which indeed
is the Infinite is immortal.” Kathopanishad
I.ii.14 – “…that thing which you see
as different from dharma , different
from adharma, different from cause
and effect and different from the
past and the future.” Brhadaranyaka
IV.iv.15 and 17 - ´Lord of the past
and the future”. “Below which the
year with its days rotates”. Kathopanishad
I.ii.18 – “The intelligent Self is
neither born nor does it die. It did
not originate from anything, nor did
anything originate from It. It is
birthless, eternal, undecaying and
ancient. It is not injured even when
the body is killed”. Swesvatara Upanishad,
1.9. Kathopanishad I.ii.19 – “…It
does not kill nor is it killed.” (I.e.
Brahman is akarta and abhokta). Kaivalya
Upanishad 21 – “It is without hands
or feet”. Brhadaranyaka III.iv.2,
III.viii.11 – “You cannot see the
seer of sight…..you cannot know the
knower of the knower” “’It is never
seen but is the Seer… It is never
known but is the knower. There is
no other Seer than It…There is no
other knower than It”. (These are
descriptions of the consciousness
in oneself which is self-evident and
which one cannot know as an object).
-
Upanishad passages, apart from
the four famous mahavakyas which assert
the identity of the consciousness
recognized in oneself and the all
pervading Brahma caitanyam can be
found in Taittiriya 2.1.1, Chandogya
6.2.1, 8.2.3, 8.4.1, Swetasvatara
1.12, Brhadaranyaka 1.4.7, 2.4.1 3.4.1,
3.51, 3.8.11, 4.3.7, 4.4.25, Swetasvatara
3.13, 3.18, Aitereya 1.3.11, 3.1.4,
Mundaka 2.2.8, 2.2.9, 3.2.5, 3.2.6,
3.2.7, Kaivalya 10, 16 etc. The passages
have been cited in Note entitled “Refutation
Of Plurality Of Atmas And Of Atmas
Being Part Of Brahman” in the Appendix.
- There are various passages in the
Upanishads from which we can derive
the doctrine of the unreality or the
lower order of reality of the perceived
world. When Brahman is said to be
non-dual, or one without a second
(advayam, advaitam, advidiiyam,
ekam) as in Brahadaranyaka,
Kaivalya, Chandogya, Mandukya and
in Swesvatara or Brahman is said to
be infinite, as in Taittiriya and
Swesvatara, it means that the perceived
world is of lower order of reality.
There
are numerous other statements indicating
the unreality of the experienced perceived
world. Brhadaranyaka 4.4.19 and Katha
2.1.11 - “There is no diversity whatsoever
in It”. (This is negation of dwaitam,
the ignorant notion that the experienced
perceived world is real.) Brhadaranyaka
4.3.31, 2.4.14 and 4.5.15 – “When
there is something other than Brahman,
as it were, one can see something
else…….know something else.” The words,
“as it were” (or “as though” – “iva"
in Sanskrit) indicate that everything
except Brahman is unreal. Similarly,
in Brhadaranyaka mantra IV.iv.19 and
Katopanishad II.i.11, the word “iva”
is used in the passage “He who sees
diversity, as it were, in It goes
from death to death” following the
passage declaring that “there is no
diversity whatsoever in It. “(“neha
nana asti kinca na, mrtyoh sa mrtyum
apnoti ya iha nana iva pasyati”)
The word “iva” referring to the perception
of plurality indicates that plurality
is unreal. In Taittiriya Upanishad
II.vii.1, it is said that whenever
the aspirant perceives the slightest
difference in It (Brahman), he is
smitten with fear, In Brhadaranyaka 2.3.6, 3.9.26, 4.2 4, 4.4.22 and
4.5.15, Brahman is described as “not
this, not this” (“neti neti”)
indicating that it is of a higher
order of reality than the perceived
world. In 3.4.2, 3.5.1, and 3.7.23,
talking of Brahman that is immediate
and direct, the atma within all, the
Upanishad says that except That (i.e.,
Brahman), everything is aarttam.
Sankaracarya explains in 3.5.1 that
“aarttam” means that everything
else is perishable, beset with troubles
and unsubstantial like dream, illusion
or mirage. In Brahadaranyaka 2.3.6,
the Upanishad says “Brahman is the
Truth of truth, the vital force (“praana”)
is truth, and It is the Truth of that.
“Praana” stands for the universe.
Also, read with 2.3.1 to 2.3.5, we
can see that the word “truth” with
“t” in small case refers to the gross
and subtle parts of the perceived
world and our bodies and Brahman is
said to be the Truth of these. This
is also meant to show that the perceived
world including our bodies and minds
is of a lower of reality than Brahman.
.Chandogya 6.8.7 says that It (Brahman)
is the subtle essence and the Reality
- which implies that the perceived
world, the superimposition is unreal.
. Distinguishing from the infinite,
immortal Brahman, Chandogya 7.24.1
says, “The finite is that that in
which one sees something else…… knows
something else. That which is finite
is mortal.” In Prasna 3.3., it is
said that from Brahman is born this
prana (prana stands for the experienced
universe), just as there can be a
shadow when a man is there. In Yajurveda
it is said of Brahman said that though,
It is not one that can be born, it
is born as manifold objects—which
is a rhetorical assertion of the unreality
of creation. In Swetasvatara 3.10,
the Upanishad talks of an entity that
is superior to that which is superior
and says that one who knows that entity
which is attributeless and beyond
the threefold affliction as oneself
becomes immortal. In the commentary,
it is said that ‘that which is superior'
refers to the perceived universe and
the entity superior to that refers
to Brahman. In the sixth chapter of
Chandogya Upanishad, which deals with
Brahman as the eternal unchanging
Existence, in 6.1.4, 6.1.5 and 6.1.6,
the Upanishad gives the examples of
a lump of clay, an ingot of gold and
a lump of iron and their formation
as a pot, ornament and nail-cutter,
respectively, to show that Brahman
as the essence, as the Existence,
alone is real and the names and forms
superimposed on Brahman are unreal.”
Kaivalya 23 Upanishad says, “There
is neither earth nor water nor fire
nor air nor space.” Aitereya 3.1.3
says that it is Consciousness (i.e.,
Brahman) that lends reality (existence)
to Hiranyagarbha …. the five elements
and all creatures.
- There is also logic in saying that
the perceived world is unreal. If
the perceived world is real, it cannot
be negated by knowledge. Only if advaitam
(Brahman as the sole reality) is accepted,
can we talk of moksha through the
knowledge of the mithyaatvam of the dwaitam and the satyatvam
of advaita
(jaganmithya
brahmasatyam). Another
argument which Sankaracarya gives
is that space and time are part of
the perceived universe, that you cannot
talk of a space and time located in
which this creation took place¸ because
that would lead to infinite regress
and that therefore, creation has to
be unreal. Suresvaracarya talks of
an ‘outward view ‘and an ‘inward'
view. Phenomenality and non-existence
of the perceived world are not opposed.
We cannot deny the practical reality
of the world. From the relative standpoint
of avidya, the perceived world exists
and is real and meaningful. It is
not a mirage. This is the ‘outward
view. But, from the standpoint of
Brahman, there is neither avidya nor
the perceived world. This is what
Suresvaracarya calls ‘the inward view’.
- Upanishads indicate specifically that
Brahman is not the cause of the perceived
universe. Brhadaranyaka 2.5.19 – “Brahman
is without prior or posterior”. Kathopanishad
1.2.14 “different from cause and effect”;
Kathopanishad 1.2.18 – “It did not
originate from anything nor did anything
originate from it”. A real cause has
to undergo change to become effect
and once a real cause becomes effect,
it ceases to exist in that form. Therefore
passages in the Upanishads indicating
changelessness and eternity would
mean that Brahman cannot be the modifying
material cause (parinaami upaadaana kaaranam) of the perceived
world. Muktikopanishad -“It is changeless.”
Kathopanishad 1.2.18 – “It is neither
born nor does it die”; Kathopanishad
1.3.15, Swetasvatara 5.13, Kaivalya
6. - -.Katha 1.2.18, 1.3.15, 2.2.13,,
Mundaka 1.1.6 Kaivalya 6, 16; Brhadaranyaka
3.8.8.,, Mundaka 1.1.5.,1.1.7, 1.2.13,
2.1.1., 2.2.2, 2.2.3, 2.2.7, 2.2.11,
Prasna 4.9, 4.10, Chandogya 8.3.4,,
8.7.4, 8.1..1, 8.12.1., Brhadaranyaka
2.5.1 to 2.5.14, 4.4.16, 4.4.17, 4.4.25,,
Katha 2,2.8,, Swetasvatara 1.7, 1.10,
4.8, 4.18, 5.6, 6.6, 6.17, 6.13, 6.19.
– “It is immutable” “It is transcendental”
“It is without beginning (anaadi)”, “It is birthless (ajah)”,
“It is without end (anantam)”
“It is eternal (nityam)”,
“It is indestructible (aksharam)”,
“It is immortal (amrtam)”.
So, Brahman modifying and becoming
the perceived universe is illogical.
. In Taittiriya Upanishad Bhashya
Vartikam, Sureswaracarya gives three
reasons to show why Brahman cannot
be actual creator. (I) Brahman is
all-pervasive. So, there cannot be
anything that can be Its effect. (ii)
Brahman is one and non-dual. So, there
cannot be a second entity to be related
with It in terms of cause-effect relation.
(iii) Brahman is immutable. Creation
involves not only transformation of
matter but visualisation and action.
Therefore, Upanishad mantras negating
thinking and action on the part of
Brahman would mean that Brahman cannot
be the intelligent cause (nimitta
kaaranam) of the perceived
universe. Swetasvatara 1.9, 6.19 –
“It is actionless” ”; Swetasvatara
6.8 – “It has neither body nor instruments”
”; Katha 1.2.19 -“It does not kill
nor is It killed (this negates action
and enjoyment and suffering)” Brhadaranyaka
3.8.8 – “That immortal does not have
vocal organ or a mind”. Mundaka 2.1.2
– ‘It does not have vital force or
a mind ". In Kaivalya 22, Brahman,
speaking in the first person says,
“I have neither birth nor body, nor
sense organs nor the mind-intellect
equipment. (Na janma dehendriya buddhih asti) So, Brahman being the intelligent
cause (nimitta kaaranam) of the universe is also not
logical. But Upanishads do say in
other places that Brahman visualised,
wished, thought, deliberated on creation,
vide Chandogya 6.2.3 , Taittiriya
2.6.1, Aitereya 1.1.3, 1.1.4, 1.3.1.,1.3.2,
1.3.11 and created the perceived universe,
vide Chandogya 6.2.3, Taittiriya 2.1.1
”,,2,7.1, 3.1.1, Aitareya 1.1.2. The
explanation is twofold. (a) The universe
is not a real product of Brahman.
Brahman is not a modifying material
cause (not “parinami upaadaana kaaranam”.) It is
not like milk becoming curd. It is
only vivarta
upaadaana karanam. “Vivarta”
is a technical term, indicating the
unreality of creation. (The unreality
of Brahman becoming many is indicated
by the prefix ‘pra’ in the passage
‘bahusyaam prajaayeti’ in Chandogya
Upanishad 6.2.3.). Brahman does not
undergo any modification. In its nature
as all pervading Existence, it is
just available as the substratum (adhishthanam)
for nama roopa to be superimposed.
The actual material cause (parinami upaadaana kaaranam) is Maya
which superimposes, on the sub-stratum,
the differentiated nama roopa on account
of which we perceive a world of objects.
Similarly, the entity that visualises
and designs the names and forms to
be superimposed and impels Maya to
unfold and superimpose the names and
forms is Iswara. Iswara is Maya in
which the Consciousness aspect of
Brahman (Brahma caitanyam) is reflected. (In Taittiriya Upanishad Bhashya
Vartikam, Sureswaracarya gives three
reasons to show why Brahman cannot
be actual creator. (I) Brahman is
all-pervasive. So, there cannot be
anything that can be Its effect. (ii)
Brahman is one And non-dual. So, there
cannot be a second entity to be related
with It in terms of cause-effect relation.
(iii) Brahman is immutable. So, Brahman
cannot be the cause of the world.)
- In various Upanishads we see that
Brahman is said to be the sub-stratum
(“adhishtaanam”) of the universe.
Words such as “sub-stratum” “root”
“support” “That in which things are
fixed “ occur in Katha 1.2.11, 2.2.8.
2.3.1, Brhadaranyaka 2.5.15, Brhadaranyaka
4.4.17, Mundaka 2.2.2 Chandogya 8.14.1,
Taittiriya 3.10.3, Nrsimhaottaratapaniya
2 and Ramottaratapaniya. Swetasvatara
1.8 talks of Brahman as the support
of the unmanifested and the manifest
universe. Chandogya VI.viii.4, starting
from food and passing through water
and fire, says, “O, good-looking one,
through fire as the sprout understand
Existence as the root and concludes
“All these things have Existence as
their root. Existence is their abode.
Existence is their place of merger”.
In the fifth section of the second
chapter of Brhadaranyaka Upanishad
declares that the shining immortal
being (Brahman, atma) is in the cosmic
body. In 2.5.1 to 14, Yajnavalkya
talks of the effulgent immortal being
(Brahman, atma) as the earth, water,
fire, air, space, sun, moon, the human
species, the cosmic body etc.., as
associated with them, as being the
underlying unity and as Brahman and
as the Self. Brhadaranyaka III,iv.1
and 2 talk of Brahman as the inner
essence of all (sarvaantarah). In
the eighth section of the third chapter
of Brhadaranyaka Upanishad, Iswara
‘s pervasion of the universe is metaphorically
said to be the warp and woof of earth,
water, fire etc. , Iswara is referred
to as the unmanifested space and in
the eighth mantra, the Immutable Brahman
is said to be That that pervades Iswara.
In Chandogya Upanishad mantrasVI.iii.2
.and VIII.xiv.1. the words, “namaroope
vyakaravaani” and “ namaroopayoh nirvahitaa”
occur. The first says “I (referring
to Brahman) shall clearly manifest
name and form (- we have to add ‘through
Iswara’}. The second (based on Sankaracarya’s
commentary) says”Thatwhich is indeed
called space (i.e. Brahman) is the
manifester of name and form. (Again,
we have to add ‘through Iswara’) (‘Space’
is a word often used in Upanishads
to refer to Brahman.) Sankaracarya’s
commentary - “Because like space,
It is bodiless and subtle.” Sankaracarya
gives the example of water manifesting
foam. Sankaracarya goes on to say
“That which exists in the names and
forms (i.e., that which is the support,the
substratum of nama roopa) is Brahman.
That is not touched by name and form,
is different from name and form (and)
yet it is their manifester. That is
immortal. That is the Atma.” Chandogya
6.3.2 – speaking of Existence-Brahman,
“That Deity….deliberated, ‘Well, by
entering into these three gods (fire,
water and earth, in the form of each
individual jiva, let me manifest name
and form’”. Brhadaranyaka Upanishad
I.vi.1 –“The (experienced) universe
verily is made up of three things
– name, form, function.” Brhadaranyaka
Upanishad I.iv.7 – “The universe was
then undifferentiated. It differentiated
itself only as name and form. So even
now the universe is only manifested
as name and form – it gets such and
such name and such and such form.”
Taittiriya Upanishad mantra II.vii.1
– “In the beginning all this was the
unmanifested. From that emerged the
manifested (asat va idam agra aasiit;
tato vai sat ajaayata”. And in
Brahadaranyaka 1.4.7, the Upanishad
says that Brahman entered the universe.
Explaining the word, “entered”, Sankaracarya
says that, like the reflection of
the sun etc. in water, the entrance
of Brahman means only Its being perceived
like a reflection in the differentiated
universe. Before the manifestation
of the differentiated universe, Brahman
is not perceived, but after the differentiated
universe is manifested, Brahman is
perceived within the intellect. like
the reflection of the sun, etc. in
water and the like. What this amounts
to is that Brahman has to be recognized
as the sub-stratum of Existence, in
general and, in particular, as the
consciousness behind the minds and
as the source of the reflected consciousness
in the minds. In his commentary on
Chandogya, 6, 8,7, Sankaracarya says
“The Self (Atma, Brahman) through
which all this universe becomes possessed
of its self (Existence) That itself
is the source called Existence, the
Truth, the Supreme Reality. Hence
that indeed is the self of the world,
its inmost, its quintessence, its
very reality” In his commentary on
Taittiriya 2.6.1, explaining the word,
“praajaayaayeti” Sankaracarya explains,
“Multiplication, here, does not refer
to something becoming extraneous as
one does by begetting a son. How then?
Through the manifestation of name
and form -- Then that evolution of
name and form is (what is called)
the appearance of Brahman as the many.
In no other way is it possible for
the partless Brahman to become either
multiple or finite, as for instance
the finitude and plurality of space
are surely the creations of extraneous
factors. …..Therefore it is only because
of Brahman that name and form have
their being under all circumstances,
but Brahman does not consist of them.
They are said to be essentially Brahman
since they cease to exist when Brahman
is eliminated.. Again, in the commentary
on Taittiriya 2.6.1, Sankaracarya
says, “….there being no existence
for any of these modifications of
name and form apart from the Brahman”.
From these also, it is clear that
Brahman in Its aspect as the eternal
unchanging Existence provides the
sub-stratum, that the sub-stratum
is alone real and the changing nama
roopa superimposed on It are unreal..
(In all passages which talk of manifestation
of nama roopa, by Brahman, (e.g.,
Chandogya 6.32 – “………entered into
these three deities through this jiva
and differentiated nama roopa”), we
have to understand that the manifestation
of the universe is due to the unfolding
of the Maya part of Iswara and not
any transformation of Brahman. Brahman’s
role is only the eternal presence
as Existence, the substratum for the
alternation of unevolved and evolved
nama roopa. Brahman is also the sub-stratum
for the vyavaharika mithya Maya, just
as the rope is the sub-stratum for
the pratibhasika mithya snake.
- When we say that Brahman is non-dual
or Brahman alone is real, we are referring
to the paramarthika satyam. When we
say that Brahman is everything, we
are including vyavaharika satyam and
referring to the substratum, the paramarthika
satyam and the names and forms, the
vyavaharika satyam, superimposed on
It, together, without prejudice to
the latter being of a lower order
of reality (Brahma satyam jaganmithya).
When we say that the world is unreal
or mithya, we are referring to the
names and forms only, thevyavaharika
satyam.
- Brahman is not just Existence but
Existence-Consciousness-Infinity.
However, the Consciousness aspect
is recognizable only in certain forms
of nama roopa, what we call the animate
as distinguished from the inanimate.
But the essence of the entire cosmos
is Brahman alone. In Brhadaranyaka,
from 3.7.2 to 3.8.11, the Upanishad
leads us from the subtle principle
of the universe (Hiranyagarbha, called
sootra), from sootra to the
causal principle (Iswara, called
antaryami and aakasa)
– up to this, the vyavaharika prapanca
- and from akasa to the absolute,
Brahman, called aksharam (the
Immutable) – i.e., from the samashti
sukhma prapanca upahita caitanyam
to samashti kaarana prapanca
upahita caitanyam to nirupaadhika
caitanyam. (This is to teach us
that the ultimate essence is nirguna
Brahman, not any form of saguna Brahman).
Brhadaranyaka 3.7.23, dealing with
Iswara, the Inner Controller, Iswara
and 3.8.1, dealing with nirguna Brahman
as” it is never the known, but is
the Knower; there is no other Knower
than He/It”. Description in the same
terms indicates that Iswara, in His
real nature is Brahman. There is only
one Brahman on which the notions of
jiva and Iswara are superimposed.
In his commentary on 3.8.12, which
concludes the topic, Sankaracarya
says, “What is the difference between
them, the Immutable (aksharam) and
the Internal Ruler (antaryami)?Intrinsically
there is neither difference nor idenitity
among them, for they are by nature
pure Consciousness……The unconditioned
Self (nirupadhika atma) , being beyond
speech and mind, devoid of attributes
and one, is designated as ‘not this,
not this’; when it has the limiting
adjuncts (upadhis) of the body and
organs, which are characterized by
avidya , desire and work, It is called
the samsari jiva and when the atma
has the limiting adjunct of the power
of eternal and unsurpassable knowledge
(i.e. Maya), It is called the Internal
Ruler, Iswara. The same atma, nirupadhika,
absolute and pure, by nature is called
the Immutable, the Supreme (aksharam,
para). Similarly, having the limiting
adjuncts of the bodies and organs
of Hiranyagarbha, the Undifferentiated,
the gods, the species, the individual,
man, animal, spirits etc., and the
atma assumes the particular names
and forms. Thus we have explained
through the Sruti vakyam ‘It moves
and does not move’ (Isavasya 5). In
this light alone such texts as ‘This
is your atma (within all) ( Brhadaranyaka
3.4.1,2 and 3.5.1), “He is the inner
self of all beings (Mundaka 2.1.4),
‘This (Brahman) is hidden in all beings’
( Katha 1.3.12), Thou art That ( Chandogya
5.8.7), ‘I myself am all this’ (Chandogya
7.25.1), ‘All this but the atma’(
Chandogya7.25.1) and ‘There is no
other witness but He’ (Brhadaranyaka
3.7.23) will not become contradictory;
in any other view they cannot be harmonized.
Therefore the entities mentioned above
differ only because of their limiting
adjuncts, but not in any other manner,
for all the Upanishads conclude ‘One
only without a second‘ (Chandogya
6.2.1).
To say that ‘everything’ is Brahman
is the same thing as to say ‘Brahman
alone is real; the world is mithya’
– vide Brhadaranyaka Upanishad IV.v.7
- “idam sarvam yadayam atma’. Idam
sarvam yadayamatma = Everything that
is here is atma = Nothing exists separate
from atma = Everything is dependent
on atma for its existence. Whatever
has dependend existence is mithya
= everything other than atma is mithya
= The nama roopas including our body
mind complexes are mithya. Even Iswara
is mithya.
- We have already seen in Section 6
that the since Brahman is non-dual,
eternal, changeless, and devoid of
attributes and devoid of instruments
of knowledge and action, Brahman cannot
be creator of the perceived world,
whether as the material cause or the
intelligent cause, though passages
are there saying that Brahman visualized
and Brahman created the universe.
We have to look for an entity or entities
other than Brahman, as the intelligent
and material cause (parinaaami upaadaana
kaaranam and nimitta kaaranam) of
the universe. In certain passages,
Upanishad itself introduces Maya and
talks of creation proceeding from
the association of Brahman with Maya.
In abhasa vada we regard this association
to be a reflection of Brahma caitanyam
in Maya and we talk of the entity
formed by such reflection as Iswara
and we attribute to Iswara the functions
of visualizing creation and impelling
Maya to unfold nama roopa and superimpose
the nama roopa on the sub-stratum,
Brahman, the Existence. And, so, even
though the word, “Brahman” and “ Iswara”
occur without a clear distinction,
wherever we meet with passages in
the Upanishads which talk of omniscience
and omnipotence, or of visualization
or the act of creation or of differentiation
of nama roopa, we have to take them
to refer to such an Iswara aided by
Maya as the cause of the perceived
universe, the nirguna Brahman (the
pure Existence-Consciousness- Infinity)
serving only as the sub-stratum ,
without undergoing any change.), Since
Brahman is non-dual, Iswara and Maya
have, necessarily, to be of a lower
order of reality.
-
In his bhashyam on Brahmasutra
II.ii.14, Sankaracarya makes the following
statements:-
- Brahman is changeless and eternal
and cannot undergo any modification
whatsoever.
- Origin, continuance and dissolution
of the world would result from
‘Iswara’ who is by nature eternal,
pure, consciousness and free,
as also omniscient and omnipotent.
-
Nama roopa, which are in
the omniscient ‘Iswara’ conjured
up by avidya which cannot be categorized
as existent or non-existent, the
seed of the samsara universe,
are mentioned in the sruti and
smriti as the Maya sakti of the
omniscient Iswara or as Prakriti.
- ‘Iswara’ conforms to the limiting
adjuncts - nama roopa – created
by avidya, like space conforming
to the conditioning factors like
pot, jar etc.
- ‘Iswara’s rulership, omniscience
and omnipotence are contingent
on the limiting adjuncts (upadhis)
conjured up by avidya.
-
Sruti also talks of functions
like rulership only in the vyavaharika
plane. Though we do not get a
clear picture from these, this
much is certain – Nirguna Brahman
is not the creator. Creation is
a matter of nama roopa conjured
up by Maya. God conforms to the
limiting adjuncts, the nama roopa,
created by Maya.
- As an example of the same entity being
both the intelligent cause and the
material cause of the universe, Upanishad
refers to the spider producing the
web out of its own body guided by
its own instinct (vide Mundaka 1.1.7
- “Just as the spider spins out the
web out of its own body and withdraws
it unto itself, so out of the Immutable
does the universe emerge here (in
this phenomenal creation.)”. Another
example is the person perceiving his
own vasanas as a dream world. He is
not only the creator of the dream
inasmuch as it is he who is creating
a dream world but the raw material
for the dream world is also his own
vasanas. Like that Iswara is not only
the visualizer, but the material for
creation is also in Iswara as Maya.
- What are the Upanishad passages from which we can derive Iswara, together
with Maya, being the cause of the
universe?
Mundaka Upanishad I.i.9 - “That
omniscient One ….from His envisioning
(jnanamaya tapah’)does Hiranyagarbha
and this universe ofnama roopa originate.”
Chandogya Upanishad VI.ii.3- “That
(Existence) visualized(tat aikshata)
‘I shall become many. I shall be born.”
Taittiriya Upanishad II.vi.1 – “He
(the Self) wished (sa akamayata)
‘Let be many. Let me be born……….He
undertook a deliberation (sa tapah
atapyata). Having deliberated,
he created all that exists.”- Aitereya
UpanishadI.i.1 “……..He thought (sa
aikshata) ‘let me create the worlds’
Swetasvatara Upanishad IV.1—“Know
Maya to be prakriti) and maheswara
to be mayii .Prakriti is the
word used for the material cause of
the universe. Mayii means the
master of Maya.” Swetasvatara
IV. 9 says that Mayii creates veda
…..and whatever is mentioned in the
Veda, i.e. the entire universe. In
the commentary, which some believe
is Sankaracarya’s, the question is
asked, “How can the changeless Brahman
be the creator of the universe?” The
answer given is that that is possible
because of Its power called Maya.
Maya conjures up the universe and
owing to the influence of that Maya,
jivas regard themselves to be different
from Brahman and wallow in the ocean
of samsara. Swetasvatara Upanishad
I.9 talks of three unborn entitles-
(i) jna (the omniscient), the
iisa (the ruler), (ii) ajna
(the ignorant), aniisa (the
ruled) and (iii) eka bhoktrubhogyaayukta
(the one ordained to provide experienceable
objects for the experiencer), says
that the infinite atma is in the form
of the universe and is akarta. It
concludes saying that the one who
realizes the three – iisa, aniisa
and bhoktrybhogyaayukta - to be Brahman
(is liberated). In the commentary,
jna, ajna and bhoktrubhogygayukta
are equated to Iswara, jiva and prakriti
(i.e. Maya). The significance of this
passage is that Iswara and Maya are
distinguished from nirguna Brahman.
(In the commentary, here also, there
is a discussion as to how the changeless
non-dual abhokta Brahman be in the
form of Iswara, jiva and the universe.
And the answer given, again, is that
on account of the upadhi, Maya, associated
with Maya Brahman appears to be divided
into the products of Maya - Iswara,
jiva and the universe. And it is clarified
that there is no question of duality
because the anirevacaniiya Maya is
not a substance. Knowing Iswara, jiva
and the universe to be Brahman means
that Brahman is the adhishtanam and
since Iswara, jiva and the universe
are products of Maya (i.e. mithya),
they are not different entities. Swetasvatara
1.7 says that the three are supported
by Parabrahman. In the commentary,
in keeping with 1.12, the three are
said to refer to bhokta, bhogyam and
prerita (i.e. jiva, jagat and
Iswara). 1.12 says that bhokta, bhogyam
and prerita are said to be Brahman.
In the commentary, it is clarified
that ‘bhokta’ refers to jiva, ‘bhogyam’
to the jagat and ‘prerita’ to antaryami,
parameswara. Though as, Swami Mrdananda
points out, the distinction of jiva,
jagat and Iswara as three entities
is relevant only in the state of ignorance
and when one gains knowledge one will
come to know that they are all only
manifestations of the non-dual Brahman,
the significance of 1.7 and 1.12 is
that Iswara is mentioned as an entity
separate from Brahman and as the impeller
(i.e. the one who sets in motion the
creation process) and as the Inner
Controller. (In the Sastra, the Inner
Controller, antaryami, is an appellation
of iiswara). Swetasvatara 4.12 talks
of the creator of gods as maharshi
(all-seeing, i.e. omniscient). Swetasvatara
1.11 distinguishes jnanam and upasana.
It says by jnanam (the knowledge.
‘I am Brahman’) one gets freed of
papa and other afflictions and overcomes
the cycle of births and deaths. It
continues and says that, by meditation
on Brahman, one attains Iswara, on
the fall of the physical body, enjoys,
there, visvaaiswaryam (all auspicious
benefits) and, getting all desires
fulfilled and realizing identity with
nirguna Brahman ( cf. commentary),
at the end, becomes Brahman. The significance
of this mantra also, is that Iswara
is distinguished from nirguna Brahman
(- the word used for Brahman is ‘kevala’).
1. 10 talks of the one God who rules
over Pradhaana and atma
(here, the word ‘atma’ refers to jivatma)
(in the commentary the word, is ‘Purusha’).
The significance is that the mantra
goes on to say that by meditating
on that God, and (later) by tattabhaava
(knowing ‘I am Brahman’) one gets
liberated from visvamaaya.
Pradhanam is the word for the material
cause of the universe in the Sankhya
system ands has been borrowed in Advaita
Vedanta as the equivalent of Maya.
Viswamaya means samsara. Swetasvatara
6.16 – “He (Brahman) is the creator
of the universe, the knower of the
universe (viswavid), the atma
of all, the origin of all, the omniscient,
the creator of time, one endowed with
attributes ( such as freedom papa)
(gunii), the repository of
all knowledge, the master of pradhanam
and intellect of jivas (kshestrajna,
vijnanaatma), the ruler of
gunas, i.e satva, rajas, tamas, -
which means Maya - and the cause of
the bondage by, experience of and
liberation from samsara. The significance
is that the mantra talks of saguna
Brahman, Brahman endowed with omniscience
as being the ruler of Maya and being
the creator. Swetasvatara 1.8 – “The
ruler of the universe (i.e. Iswara)
rules over the perishable manifested
universe (ksharam, vyaktam)
and the imperishable unmanifested
(aksharam, avyaktam) and also
the jivas who are bound by the notion
of being bhoktas.” In the commentary,
it is said that by meditating on the
sopadshika paramatma in the macrocosmic
and microcosmic forms (samashti
and vyashti) and gaining knowledge
of the nirupadhika Iswara, one gets
liberated. Swetasvatara Upanishad
VI.17 talks of Brahman as being in
the form of the universe, as immortal,
as being in the form of Iswara (iisasamsthah),
the knower of everything, , all pervading,
protector of the universe and as the
one who administers (the laws of)
this universe, because no other entity
is capable of doing so. In Kaivalya
Upanishad 7, there is mention of Iswara,
saguna Brahman, clearly distinguished
from nirguna Brahman; this mantra
talks of meditation on Parameswara,
the Lord, with three eyes and blue
neck, the cause of all the manifested
world and the witness of all. In his
commentary on 3.8.12, which concludes
the topic, Sankaracarya says, “What
is the difference between them, the
Immutable (aksharam) and the Internal
Ruler (antaryami)?Intrinsically there
is neither difference nor idenitity
among them, for they are by nature
pure Consciousness……The unconditioned
Self (nirupadhika atma) , being beyond
speech and mind, devoid of attributes
and one, is designated as ‘not this,
not this’; when it has the limiting
adjuncts (upadhis) of the body and
organs, which are characterized by
avidya , desire and work, It is called
the samsari jiva and when the atma
has the limiting adjunct of the power
of eternal and unsurpassable knowledge
(i.e. Maya), It is called the Internal
Ruler, Iswara. The same atma, nirupadhika,
absolute and pure, by nature is called
the Immutable, the Supreme (aksharam,
para). Similarly, having the limiting
adjuncts of the bodies and organs
of Hiranyagarbha, the Undifferentiated,
the gods, the species, the individual,
man, animal, spirits etc., and the
atma assumes the particular names
and forms. Chulika Upanishad talks
of Maya as the cause of modification.
Gopichand Upanishad talks of “mayaasahita
Brahman”. Certain other Upanishads
also talk of Maya as the power of
Brahman or of Brahman with Maya (Mayasahita
Brahman) in connection with creation.
In Brhadaranyaka Upanishad first chapter,
section 2 and 3, we see Hiranyagarbha
creating the five elements, and living
being including gods and asuras and
animals. Prasnopabishad 1.4 also talks
of Prajapati (i.e. Hiranyagarbha)
as deliberating (on knowledge acquired
in the past life and which related
to objects revealed by the Vedas)
and creating the pair of food and
prana (which stand respectively the
experiener and the experienced. In
Swetasvatara Upanishad VI.18 (and
in Yogasara Upanishad), it is said
that Iswara created Brahmaa (Hiranyagarbha)
first and gave the Veda to him. In
Mundaka Upanishad also, in 1.1.1.,
it is said that Brahmaa (Hiranyagarbha)
was the first among the gods to be
born. Kaivalya 6 talks of Brahman
as “brahmayonim” (the cause of Brahmaa,
i.e. Hiranyagarbha). Iswara alone
is uncreated. All gods, personified
aspects of Iswara’s cosmic functions
are all created. (Iswara, Maya, jiva,
karma and time are alone beginningless
in the vyavaharika plane). Hiranyagarbha
is the personified aspect of Iswara
in his function as creator. We also
find in Bhagavadgita Prakriti as the
modifying material cause and the instrument
used by the Lord for creation vide
7.6, 9.7, 9.8, 9.10, 13.19 and 13.20.)
. Maya consists of matter only and
can only be the material cause of
the universe. For any entity being
the intelligent cause, consciousness
has to be derived from the Brahman,
the non-dual Consciousness.
-
On the basis of the passages
cited in the present section and the
previous section, we arrive at an
entity called Iswara, constituted
of Maya in which Brahma caitanyam
is reflected , as the intelligent
cause (nimitta karanam), visualizing
and planning creation in accordance
with the karma of jivas and guided
and impelled by him Maya, as the modifying
material cause (parinami upadana karanam)
transforming into the perceived world,
i.e. what was nama roopa in unevolved
form becoming manifested nama roopa
and being superimposed on the changeless
substratum, the Existence-Consciousness,
Brahman, by the combination of which
sub-stratum and the superimposed nama
roopa we are able to experience the
universe, though what we perceive
is only the nama roopa. Brahman, the
sub-stratum is not only Existence.
It is also Consciousness. Some of
the nama roopa, viz., our minds are
so constituted that they can reflect
the Consciousness aspect of Brahman,
the sub-stratum. Thus, the minds of
living beings become conscious entities
and they, in turn lend sentiency to
the sense organs and bodies.
-
Though Iswara, instead of Brahman,
is postulated as the intelligent and
material cause of the universe.(“abhinna
nimitta upaadaana kaaranam”) and Maya
becomes the changing cause of the
universe (parinami upadana karanam)
we call Brahman as the “vivarta kaaranam”
of the universe, because Brahman does
not undergo change when nama roopa
are superimposed. But, without undergoing
any change, the Existence aspect of
Brahman serves as the sub-stratum
for nama roopa to be superimposed.
But for the existence of the sub-stratum,
the unreal universe cannot appear.
The false snake that is perceived
on the rope encountered in semi-darkness
cannot appear but for the existence
of the rope. Brahman is also, indirectly,
the nimitta kaaranam, because, but
for the presence of Brahma caitanyam,
Iswara will not have the reflected
consciousness, which enables him to
function as the intelligent cause
of the universe.
-
As examples of the same entity
being both the intelligent cause and
the material cause of the universe,
Upanishad gives the example of the
spider producing the web out of its
own body guided by its own instinct
(vide Mundaka 1.1.7 - “Just as the
spider spins out the web out of it
own body and withdraws it unto itself,
so out of the Immutable does the universe
emerge here (in this phenomenal creation.)”.
Another example is the person perceiving
his own vasanas as a dream world.
He is not only the creator of the
dream inasmuch as it is he who is
creating a dream world but the raw
material for the dream world is also
his own vasanas. Like that Iswara
is not only the visualizer, but the
material for creation is also in Iswara
as Maya.
- The avarana sakti of Mayii is indicated
in certain Upanishads. - Swetasvatara
Upanishad 1.3 talks of Paramatma being
veiled by the three gunas (satva,
rajas, and tamas of His power (paramaatmasakti).
Paramatmasakti is Maya). 1.6 says
that jivas, regarding themselves to
be different from Iswara (prerita),
get caught up in samsara and, blessed
by Iswara, attain immortality through
Iswara. 1.8 says that jivas are bound
on account of the sense of enjoyership
(bhoktrubhava). Kaivalya 12 says “The
jivatma deluded by Maya, identifies
with the body, does all and actions”.
Krishna Upanishad talks of the world
being deluded by Maya. Swetasvatara
IV.9 also talks of jivas being under
the influence of Maya. (Delusion caused
by Maya and the power of Maya which
veils our Bramatvam is mentioned in
Bhagawadgita 7.5, 7.13, 7.15 and 7.25.)
- That Maya does not enjoy the same
order of reality as Brahman we can
infer from certain Upanishad mantras.
The non-dual nature of Paramatma itself
excludes the existence of any other
entity of the same order of reality.
Maya is no exception. Besides we have
Upanishad mantras which indicate the
lower status of Maya. Following the
Sankhya system, the first category
in the order of the evolution of the
differentiated universe is called
‘Mahat’. Katopanishad I.3.11 says,
“Superior to Mahatis Avyaktam (i.e.
Maya). Superior to Avyaktam is ‘Purusha’
(i.e., the infinite, Brahman). There
is nothing superior to Purusha. He
is the ultimate and He is the supreme
goal.” Mundaka Upanishad III.ii.8
– “The vidwaan (i.e., the one
who has known himself to be Brahman),
having become freed from name and
form, reaches the self-fulgent Purusha
(i.e. Brahman) that is superior to
the superior.” Here,the second “superior”
refers to Maya. Mundaka Upanishad
II.i.2 “Purusha (i.e., the infinite,
Brahman) is transcendental, because
It is formless, complete, coextensive
with all that is external and internal,
birthless, without prana and without
mind, pure and superior to the superior
aksahara ( imperishable).”
(Here also, the second “superior”
called akshara refers to Maya and
Brahmanis said to be superior even
to Maya. Maya is said to be aksharam
(imperishable) because it is an endless
cycle of projection and resolution
of nama roopa and it is said to be
superior because in its status as
the cause of the material universe,
it is superior to the its effect,
the projected universe. (The word
‘akshara’ (imperishable) has different
meanings in different contexts. In
Mundaka Upanishad passage “aksharaat
paratah parah”, the word, ‘aksharam’
means Maya. In Brhadaranyaka 3.8,10
and 11, the word, ‘aksharam’ means
nirguna Brahman. In Brahadaranyaka
3.8.9, the word, aksharam means ‘Iswara’.)
The same kind of phrase “paraatpara”
as a description of Brahman occurs
elsewhere. Swetasvatara Upanishad
3.8 and Kaivalya Upanishad 7 and Swetasvatara
Upanishad 3.3 stalk of Brahman as
being beyond Maya (tamasahparastaat).
Svetasvatara Upanishad 5.1. is a very
clear enunciation of the lower status
of Maya. It says that in the imperishable,
infinite Brahman rest vidya and avidya;
vidya is imperishable (in the sense
that once the covering of avidya is
overcome, vidya, the knowledge of
one’s nature of Brahman is indestructible);
avidya is perishable (in the sense
that the avidya-covering is destroyed
when one gains the knowledge of jiva
brahma aikyam); the one who rules
over these (the atma) is different
from the two..
(On the macrocosmic scale, superimposed
on the Existence-Consciousness-Infinity
and endowed with the reflected consciousness
the universal causal body is called
“ Iswara”, the universal subtle body
is called “Hiranyagarbha”, and the
universal gross body is called “ Virat”.
On the microcosmic scale, similarly
superimposed on the Existence-Consciousness-Infinity
and endowed with the reflected consciousness,
the individual causal body is called
“praajna” and it experiences the deep
sleep state, the individual subtle
body is called “taijasa” and experiences
the dream state and the individual
gross body is called “visva” and it
experiences the waking state.)
- We experience mind as a conscious
entity entertaining one thought after
another. Various Upanishad passages
teach us that, superior to the mind,
we have in us an unchanging consciousness,
called atma or pratyagatma or sakshi.
Apart from the four famous mahavakyas,
many of them reiterate that the pratyagatma
is none other than Brahman. Thus,
Upanishads make it clear that there
are not many atmas but there is only
one all pervading, divisionless, non-dual
consciousness; it is this consciousness
that is available for recognitionby
individual beings through observation
of the functioning of the mind. Kaivalya
Upanishad 10 – “Clearly recognizing
Atma to be present in all beings and
clearly recognizing all beings in
oneself.......” Isavasya Upanishad
6 – “ He who sees all beings as non-different
from his Atma and sees the Atma of
those beings as his own Atma....”Kaivalya
Upanishad 16 – “You alone are that
Infinite eternal supreme Brahman which
is the Atma of all.....” Kaivalya
Upanishad 17– “I am that Brahman which
illumines the worlds of waking, dream,
sleep etc.” Kaivalya Upanishad 14
refers to Jivatma as indivisible Bliss-Consciousness
(aanandam akhandabodham) in whom alone
the three ‘cities’ go into dissolution”.
(‘Three cities’ refers to the jagrat
prapanca, the swapna prapanca and
the sushupti prapanca, i.e., the sthoola,
sukshma, karana prapancas – this negates
the idea of plurality of atmas). Taittiriya
Upanishad II.1 and I.6, Mundaka Upanishad
III.i.7, Svetasvatara Upanishad III.11
and Brhadaranyaka Upanishad I.iv.7
talk of Brahman as being available
for recognition as Sakshi in the Jivatma
( - interpretations based on Sankaracarya’s
commentary - ) ( “yo veda nihitam
guhayam” “ Tat srushtva tat eva pravisat.”,
“nihitam guhayam” ”sarva bhoota guahasaya”
“sa esha pravishtah”) . Similarexpressions
occur in Svetasvatara Upanishad mantras
III.7, IV.15, IV.16, IV.17, VI.11,
Mundaka Upanishad II.i.10, Kaivalya
Upanishad 23 etc. Kena Upanishad1.6
– “That which man does not comprehend
with the mind, that by which, they
say, the mind is encompassed, know
that to be Brahman”. (What encompasses
the mind is the atma. ‘That atma is
Brahman’ means that there is the only
common atma in all). Svetasvatara
III.19 -“Though It is devoid of hands
and legs, It grasps everything and
moves about everywhere. Though It
is devoid of eyes, It sees everything.
Though It is devoid of ears ,It hears
everything. Though It is devoid of
mind, It knows everything but nobody
knows It. The rishis call It the First,
the infinite and the Supreme.” (This
is a reference to Brahman as being
the atma in all, appearing to see
etc. when the cidabhasa is seeing
etc.). Mundaka Upanishad II.ii.9 -
“In the supreme bright sheath i.e.,
in the vijnanamaya kosa, the intellect
of individual beings, is Brahman,
the light of lights (“jytotisham jyoti”),
free from taints and divisionless
(“virajam, nishkalam)” Brhadaranyaka
Upanishad IV.iii.7 talks of the infinite
entity (Purusha) as being in the midst
of the organs as the self-effulgent
light within the heart. Brhadaranyaka
Upanishad IV.iii.32 – “……..one, the
witness, without a second (the reference
is to sakshi). This is the sphere
of Brahman.” Kathopanishad II.ii.9,
10, 11 and 12 talk of Atmaas being
the one in all beings. Taittiriya
II.1.which is invoked as 1 – “Satyam
Jnanam Anantam Brahma; He who knows
that Brahman as hidden in the cavity
that is the intellect...........”
Mundaka Upanishad II.i.10 -“He who
knows this supremely immortal Brahman
as hidden in the cavity that is the
intellect....” (Brahman is Existence-Consciousness-Infinity.
As the eternal Existence forming the
substratum of nama roopa – Sat – It
is recognizable everywhere but as
Consciousness- cit – It can be appreciated
only as the witness of the mind.)
Mundaka Upanishad III.i.7 – “It (Brahman)
is great (because of its all pervasiveness)
and self-effulgent….. It is further
away than the far off. It is near
at hand in this body. Among sentient
beings, it is perceived in the cavity
of the heart (.i.e. the intellect)
by the enlightened”. “Swetasvatara
Upanishad II.15 – “When one knows
atmaas Brahman”. Kenopanishad I.2.
- “The ear of the ear, the mind of
the mind, the speech of the speech,
the breath of the breath, the eye
of the eye.” Those who know this atma,
after giving up identification with
the sense organs and renouncing this
world become immortal.” (“Mind of
the mind” means that atma is different
from the mind and is superior to the
mind). Kenopanishad 1.6 – “That which
man does not comprehend with the mind,
that, by which, they say, the mind
is comprehended, know that to be Brahman.”
A very clear support for the proposition
that the original consciousness available
in Jivatmas is none other than the
consciousness that is Brahman occurs
in Chandogya Upanishad VIII.xii.3.
It says, “This tranquil one, that
is, jivatma, rising up from this body
(the reference is to videhamukti)
becomes one with the Supreme Light(i.e.,
Brahman) and is established in his
own nature.” ( The words, “ becomes
one with the Supreme light” and “
is established in his own nature”
clearly mean that the consciousness
constituting the essence of the individual
jivatmas called Atma is the same as
the all pervading, infinite consciousness
called Brahman.) Brhadaranyaka Upanishad
IV.iv.13- (based on Sankaracarya’s
commentary”) – “He, the knower of
Brahman, who has realized and intimately
known the Self – How? – as the innermost
Self – as ‘I am the supreme Brahman’
that has entered this place (the body)……………all
this is his Atma and he is the Atma
of all…..” “In Aiterya Upanishad mantra
III.1.2, enumerating various functions
of the mind, it is said that all these
are the names of Consciousness and
III. 2. 3 says that this atma is Brahman.
- While the
existence of a changing conscious
entity which we call the mind and
an unchanging conscious entity which
is referred as the atma or Pratyagatma
or Sakshi is a matter of personal
experience, the fact that what there
is in the mind (antahkarana) is the
reflected consciousness is a matter
of inference. Since Brahma caitanyam
is all pervading, the question arises
why is it that we experience only
our antahkarana as a conscious entity
and our body and sense organs as sentient
and why things we categorize as inanimate
objects are not sentient. This disparity
cannot be explained unless we predicate
a reflected consciousness and a special
capacity, onaccount of its subtlety,
on the part of antahkarana to reflect
consciousness and to impart it to
the sense organs and the body. - which
capacity grosser nama roopa like table
etc do not possess. There are variouspassages
in the Upanishads to show that the
body mind complex by itself is inert
(being made of food – vide Chandogya
Upanishad VI.v.4 and VI.vi.2) and
it is the atma that lends sentience
and consciousness to the body, sense
organs and the antahkarana. Cf. the
portion in Taittiriya Upanishad III.7.i
which says, “ ….Because if the space-like
all pervading …..Brahman was not there,
who could inhale and exhale?.....This
one, this supreme atma which resides
in the heart (i.e., in the mind, as
the witness of all thoughts) blesses
everyone with consciousness and happiness.”
Commenting on Kenopanishad I.i –(“Directed
by whom does the mind pervade the
objects? Directed by whomdoes prana
function?” and I.i - “…..the mind
of the mind, the prana of the prana.….”),Sankaracarya
says,”Because the antahkarana is not
able to perform its functions – thinking,
determination etc. – unless it is
illumined by the light of consciousness.”).
Similarly, in his commentary on Kena
Upanishad manta 1.6 – “That which
man does snot comprehend with the
mind, that by which, they say, the
mind is encompassed, know that to
be Brahman”, he says, “The mind can
think only when it is illumined by
the light of the Consciousness”. .
Svetasvatara Upanishad VI.11– “Hidden
in all beings is the non-dual Effulgent
One (Brahman). It is all pervading,
is the real nature of all beings ….It
resides in all beings. It is the witness
of all. It is what makes (the mind)
conscious. the lender of consciousness.
(“ceta” = cetayita).
Sankaracarya says, in his commentary
on Brhadaranyaka Upanishad III.iv.2,
“(Yajnavalkya addressing Ushasta)
‘you asked me to present the Atma
as one would a jar etc. I do not do
so, because it is impossible. Why
is it impossible? Owing to the very
nature of the thing. What is that?
Its being the witness of vision etc,
for the atma is the witness of vision.
Vision is of two kinds – ordinary
vision and real vision. Ordinary vision
is a function of the mind as connected
with the eye; it is an act and as
such it has a beginning and an end.
But the vision that belongs to the
Atma is like the heat of the fire;
being Its very nature, it has no beginning
or end. Because it appears to be connected
with the ordinary vision, which is
produced and is but a limiting adjunct
of it, it is spoken of as the witness,
and also as differentiated into witness
and vision. The ordinary vision, however,
is colored by the objects seen through
the eye, and of course has a beginning;
it appears to be connected with the
eternal vision of the Atma and is
but its reflection; it originates
and ends, pervaded by the other. Because
of this, the eternal vision of the
Atma is metaphorically spoken of as
the witness, and although eternally
seeing, is spoken of as sometimes
seeing and sometimes not seeing. But
as a matter of fact the vision of
the Atma never changes….You cannot
know that that pervades knowledge
which is the mere function of the
intellect.’”.Brhadaranyaka UpanishadIII.vii.23–
“........ Mundaka Upanishad II.ii.10
and Kathopanishad II.ii.15 – “There
the sun does not shine, nor the moon
nor the stars, not to speak of lightning
or fire – (i.e., Brahma caitanyam
as Sakshi illumines the mind and sense
organs by being the source of cidabhasa
and through them the world. But nothing
in the world or the sense organs or
the mind can illumine It, because
they themselves are illumined by It.
The illumined cannot illumine the
illuminator.) It alone is thelight
(i.e., It alone is the independent
consciousness.) Other lights come
after It. It is by Its light alone
all else shines. (i.e., Whatever else
is sentient or conscious is sentient
only because it reflects this real
light, that is, the original consciousness.
Mind is conscious only because the
original consciousness is reflected
in it.) Kathopanishad II.ii.13 talks
of atma as the conscious among the
conscious. Sankaracarya explains,
in his Bhashyam that the words, “among
the conscious” refers to the manifesters
of consciousness, such as the living
creatures beginning with Hiranyagarbha
and adds “just as it is owing to the
fire that water etc. that are not
fire come to be possessed of the power
to burn, similarly, the power to manifest
consciousness that is seen in others
is owing to the consciousness that
is the Atma”. Brhadaranyaka Upanishad
II.v.19 – “He transformed Himself
in accordance with each form; that
form of His is for the sake of making
Himself known. (Roopam roopam pratiroopo
babhoova; tadasya roopam praticakshanaaya”
( Sankaracarya’s commentary – “The
same Lord, in the process of manifesting
name and form, ‘transformed Himself
in accordance with each form’. Why
did He come in so many forms? ‘That
form of His was for the sake of making
Himself known’ Were name and form
not manifested the transcendent nature
of this atma as undifferentiated Consciousness
would not be known. When, however,
name and form are manifested as the
body and instruments of knowledge,
it is possible to know this nature
of the atma.”) Kathopanishad II.ii.9
and 10,giving the example of the shapeless
fire principle assuming the shape
of the different logs of woodthat
are being burnt and the air assuming
separate forms in accordance with
different shapes of different objects,
the atma, though the same in all beings,
assumes different forms in accordance
with each shape (i.e. the different
character of different body-mind complexes)
(roopam roopam pratiroopah).. The
division is not in the original consciousness,
but the antahkaranas, the reflecting
media, being many, the reflections
are also many. Brahadaranyaka II.v.19
– “Paramatma assumes manifold forms
on account of Maya” (“Indro mayaabhih
pururoopa iiyate”. Here, the word,
‘Maya’ means cidabhasa. In each intellect,
there is reflected consciousness.
And, through the many reflected consciousnesses,
atma appears to be many. Brhadaranyaka
IV.iii.7(“’Which is the atma?’. ‘This
infinite entity (Purusha) that is
identified with the intellect and
is in the midst of the organs, the
light within the heart, hrdayantarjyotih.
Assuming the likeness – i.e., the
likeness of the intellect, it moves
between two worlds; it thinks, as
it were, and shakes, as it were’”).
within the intellect”), In his commentary,
“..’vijnanamaya’, identified
with the intellect; atma is so called
because of our failure to discriminate
its association with its limiting
adjunct (upadhi), the intellect,
for it is perceived as associated
with the intellect….. ‘Within the
heart’;….heart, here, means the intellect,
which has its seat in the heart……The
word, ‘within’ indicates that the
atma is different from the modifications
of the intellect. Atma is called light,
because it is self-effulgent, for,
through this light, the self-effulgent
atma, this aggregate of body and organs
– i.e., the body-mind complex - effulgence
of Atma that the body mind complex
goes out and works, as if it were
sentient, like the shining of a jar
placed in the sun .Or likean emerald
or any other gem dropped into milk
etc imparts its lustre (effulgence)
to the milk etc., so does the effulgent
atma….. imparts its lustre to the
body and organs, including the intellect.
…..The intellect being clear (svacca)
and close to the atma, easily catches
the reflection of the atma…..next
comes the manas which catches the
reflection of the atma through the
intellect; and lastly the body through
the organs”. …...That is why, depending
on the degree of discrimination, each
one identifies himself with one or
other component of the body mind complex……’It
thinks as it were’; By illumining
the intellect, which does the thinking,
atma, through its self-effulgent light
that pervades the intellect…..seems
to think. ……Hence the people think
that the atma thinks but really it
does not.” Chandogya Upanishad VI.iii.2
– “That Deity (which is the non-dual
Existence – Brahman -) envisioned,
“Let it be now, by entering into these
three Gods, in the form of the jivatma
of each individual being…..” Sankaracarya,
in his Bhashyam, explains, “each jivatma
is merely the manifestation of the
Deity (Brahma caitanyam.). It arises
from the ‘contact’ of the Deity with
the subtle elements like the intellect
etc. It is like the reflection of
a person, seeming to have entered
into a mirror and like the reflection
of the sun in water, etc. This becomes
the cause of multifarious ideas, such
as, ‘I am happy’, ‘I am sorrowful’,
‘I am ignorant’ etc., owing to the
non-realization of the true nature
of the Deity. Since the Deity has
entered merely as a reflection in
the form of a jivatma, It does not
itself become connected withhappiness,
sorrow etc. As a person, the sun,
and others enter into a mirror, water
etc. merely through their reflections,
are not touched by the defects of
the mirror, water etc.” In his commentary
on Brhadaranyaka Upanishad 1.4.7 which
talks of the atma entering into the
created bodies, Sankaracarya, in his
commentary poses an objection, “Since
the objects that have been entered
into are subject to transmigration,
and the Supreme Self is identical
with them, It too comes under transmigration.
It will also be subject to samsara
that we experience”. To this, Sankaracarya
answers, “the consciousness that experiences
samsara is not that of Brahman Itself.
Like the reflection of sun in water,
the consciousness that is involved
in such perceptions as one is happy
or miserable is only the reflection
of Brahman in the limiting adjuncts
(upadhis) like the intellect”. Brhadaranyaka
4.3.7says –“He thinks, as it were;
He shakes, as it were.” (This means
that the original consciousness does
not itself think, but when the mind
thinks, it appears to think. Mind,
being inert, cannot think, by itself.
So, here also, association of the
original consciousness with the mind
is envisaged in the form of a reflection).
In his commentary on Brhadaranyaka
2.1.19, which deals with sushupti,
Sankaracarya says, “The atma caitanyam
(vijnaanamaya atma) pervades
the intellect with a reflection of
its own consciousness……..It
follows the nature of its limiting
adjunct, the intellect, just as a
reflection of the moon etc, follows
the nature of water and so forth.”
- Yet another important mantra which
establishes clearly that there is
in the body mind complex a consciousness
which is different from Brahma caitanyam
is Brhadaranyaka Upanishad mantra
II.iv.12 (clarification in mantra
13) where the phrase “na pretya samjna
asti” (“there is no longer any consciousness”)
occurs. In this mantra, in the Yajnavalkya
Maitreyi dialogue, Yajnavalkya gives
the example of salt water and salt
crystals formed out of it. Atma, the
original, all pervading consciousness
is compared to salt water or the ocean.
Here, there is no plurality or individuality;
the original consciousness is divisionless;being
all pervading, it is also available
in the jivatmas. But parts of the
salt water can become crystallized
on account of heat, and thus acquire
individuality. Like that, on account
of the presence of the body mind complex,
which is compared to the heat, the
divisionless consciousness gets reflected
in the mind and thus, with a separate
reflected consciousness – a particular
consciousness - in each mind, having
an individuality of its own, emerges.
Thus there is a plurality of ahamkaras,
experiencing the world in diverse
ways. When the salt crystals are put
back in the water, salt again becomes
homogenous (divisionless). Like that,
when the jnani’s sthoola sarira dies
and sukshma sarira and karana sarira
disintegrate at the time of videhamukti,
the particular consciousnessperishes.
.The words are, ‘there is no longer
consciousness’ (“na pretya samjna
asti”). These words cannot refer to
atma caitanyam (brahma caitanyam),
because it is eternal; what the jnani
attains at the time of videhamukti
is oneness with Brahma caitanyam.
So, there is no question of the Brahma
caitanyam ceasing to be. What ceases,
in videhamukti, is the sukshma sarira
which includes the ahamkara comprising
the antahkarana and the reflected
consciousness. It is the ahamkara
which is referred as ceasing to be,
in videhamukti, when the mantra says
“na pretya samjna asti”. Therefore
the cessation of consciousness that
is mentioned in the mantra can only
refer to the reflected consciousness,
the cidabhasa in the antahkarana with
which the jivanmukta was carrying
on the day to day activities until
the fall of the sthoola sarira.
- Another question that arises is that
if Brahma caitanyam is all pervading,
how is it that I do not know want
you are thinking and I do not see
the movie you are seeing. The answer
is that for knowing anything as an
object or idea, two things are required.
(i) there must be a second entity
other than the knower and (ii) a focusing
on or exclusive pervasion of a single
object or idea at a time by the consciousness
involving modification of the consciousness
from one configuration to another,
corresponding to the objects or ideas
coming one after another. Brahman,
being non-dual, there is no second
entity that It can know. Even if It
is taken as the knower, since It is
all pervading (sarvagatah), divisionless
(nirvikalpa) and changeless (nirvikara),
Brahma caitanyam cannot arise as one
flash after another to focus on or
pervade one particular object to become
a particular configuration after another
corresponding to the particular objects.
Division and differentiation in the
form of a separate reflected consciousness
in each antahkarana – multiple secondary
consciousnesses as abhasa vada would
have it - or conditioning by the individual
intellects as avacceda vada would
have it or the false notion of reflection
in the multiple modes of Maya, the
intellects, as pratibimba vada would
have it, is necessary for multiple
knower –consciousnesses to be formed.
Since my knower-consciousness is confined
to my intellect and yours to you,
I do not know what you are thinking
and you do not know what I am thinking.
That is why, when the teacher shows
the sushupti as an example for us
to understand the state of mukti,Brhadaranyaka
IV.iii.30, says, “There is not that
second thing separate from it that
It can know.” And, describing videhamukti,
when the jnani’s sukshma sarira and
karana sarira themselves have disintegrated
– talking of the paramarthika plane
where there is nothing other than
Brahman, Brhadaranyaka Upanishad II.iv.14
says “What can one see through what?”
Chandogya 7.24.1 – “The Infinite is
that where one does not see anything
else, does not hear anything else,
does not know anything else.” For
Brahman, there is not even knowing
transaction (Cf. Mandukya Upanishad
mantra 7 – “avyavaharyam”). The vyavaharika
prapanca exists only for the vyavaharika
jivas. The jnanis among them see it
as mithya and the ajnanis see it as
real. It is the different minds in
different individuals that enable
each of us to perceive and think separately
about separate things. If a stone
is thrown into a pool of water where
sun is reflected, that reflection
alone is disturbed, not the reflection
in other pools. (2). When we refer
to Brahman as Sakshi, we are not diluting
this proposition in any way. There,
we are only reiterating the eternal
presence of the all pervading consciousness,
with emphasis on Its availability
in the individual beings. The knowing
of objects and ideas occurs, not at
the paramarthika level, but at the
lower order of reality, the vyavaharika
level. At the vyavaharika level, there
is a multiplicity of names and forms
and there is division of knower, known
and knowing instrument. The presence
of Sakshi serves as the source for
the antahkarana to obtain a reflected
consciousness. The antahkaranas with
their cidabhasas are multiple; each
individual being has its own separate
antahkarana with cidabhasa in it.
Each antahkarana with cidabhasa in
it (called ahamkara) focuses on a
particular object or idea, separately,
and, having the capacity to undergo
modification, assumes one configuration
after another, corresponding to the
objects and ideas coming one after
another. This is what is said in the
first portion of Brhadaranyaka mantra
II.ii.14. Talking of mithya dwaitam,
- knower, known and knowing instrument
– it says, “when there is duality
(dwaitam), as it were, (the words,
‘as it were’ are significant, because
they are the authority for saying
that the division of knower, known
and knowing instrument is unreal –
mithya -) one sees another……. one
knows another.” If the knowing consciousness
was not in the form of separate individual
consciousnesses, and if there was
only the original consciousness common
to all, the objects of the world would
all enter the common consciousness,
in one jumbled confusion – confusion,
space-wise and time-wise. For example,
you may see the garbage being dumped
in the street in the food you are
about to take. You may see a grandfather
who died long ago holding the new-born
grandson – and so on.
- Brahman is described as Sat Cit Ananda.
Aananda is translated in English as
Bliss. But the word ananda used to
define Brahman’s nature, does not
refer to experiential happiness. It
should be equated with anantatvam
i.e. infinitude – infinitude not only
space wise, but time wise and entity-wise
– indicated by the word “anantam’
occurring in the Taittiriya Upanishad
mantra II.i – “ Satyam Jnanam Anantam
Brahma”. This anantatvam (or poornatvam)
is reflected in the pure, calm mind
of a Jnani who has identified himself
with the infinite Brahman. Having
identified himself with Brahman, the
infinitude, he can have the sense
that he is the infinitude, which is
also a sense of utter fulfillment.
Such a sense, we can say, is supreme
happiness. We have to distinguish
between “swaroopa ananda”, ananda
as the nature of Brahman and “kosa
ananda”. Kosa ananda is, as a sense
of fulfillment caused by the reflection
of the anantatvam aspect of Brahman.
It is experienced by all of us when
our mind is calm at the interval between
the attainment of a desired object
and the arising of another desire.
The ananda experienced by a jnani
is unconditional happiness. i.e.,
it is not dependent on contact with
objects and it has no gradation.;
happiness experienced by others is
conditional and graded. The word ananda
denoting the infinitude of Brahman
is used as such in some places in
the Upanishads.–Brhadaranyaka Upanishad
III.ix.28 (7) –“vijnaaanam aanandam
Brahma ....paraayanam tishtam aanasya
tat vida’ (“Knowledge, Bliss, and
Brahman ......the supreme goal of
him who has realized Brahman and is
established in It.”- Taittiriya Upanishad
2.41, 2.91 – “…..if one knows the
bliss that is Brahman (aanandam
brahmano vidwaan) Taittiriya Upanishad
III.vi.1 – “aananda brahma iti vijanaat”
(“He knew Bliss as Brahman”). Taittiriya
Upanishad II.v.1– “ananda atma” (“Bliss
is Atma” ,i.e., Brahman) Taittiriya
Upanishad II.vii – “ ko hi eva anyaat
kah pranyaat yat esha aakaasa (Brahman)
aananda na syaat” (“Who indeed will
inhale, who will exhale, if this Bliss
be not there in the supreme space
within the heart) - Taittiriya UpanishadII.iv.1
and II.ix.1 – “anandam bramano vidwaan
na vibheti kadacaneti (kudascaneti}”
(“The enlightened man is not afraid
of anything after realizing that Bliss
that is Brahman”) Chandogya VII.xxiii.1
“yo vai bhooma tat sukham” (“ The
Infinite alone is Bliss”). – Brhadaranyaka
IV.iii.32 “Esha brahmalokah....esha
asya parama aanandah. Eta anandasya
anya bhootani maatram upajivati” (“This
is the state of Brahman....This is
Its supreme bliss. On a particle of
this very bliss other beings live.”)
Kathopanishad II.ii.14 refers to Brahman
as supreme bliss (“paramam sukham.”).
Kaivalya Upanishad 6 refers to Brahman
as consciousness and bliss (“cidaandam
“).
- The ananda, the experiential happiness
which a Jnani derives from his sense
of utter fulfillment or desirelessness
(the state of being without any desire)
is brought out in certain places in
the Upanishads. In the “Ananda mimamsa”
portion in Taittiriya Upanishad (Chapter
II, Valli 2, anuvaka 8 and in Brhadaranyaka
Upanishad mantra IV.iii.33),it is
equated with the absence of desire
for the happiness available in the
plane of Hiranyagarbha,which is the
highest planeof the vyavaharika satyam.
When no object is desired, the mind
is calm and quiet; not lacking anything,
there is a sense of fulfillment. H
ere there is absence of desire for
the highest attainable world. So,
the sense of fulfillment must be the
most intense. In Taittiriya Upanishad
Chapter 2, Valli 2, anuvaka 7), the
name for Brahman is “ rasah”. “Rasah”,
in Sanskrit, in such contexts is the
synonym for ananda. The mantra says,
“The One described as Self Created
(i.e. Unborn) in the previous mantra,
is indeed rasah (ananda swaroopam).
Attaining that rasah (identifying
himself with that ananda, the Brahman)the
jivatma becomes anandi (enjoys supreme
happiness.) Uninterrupted ananda is
obtained by the knowledge ‘I am the
infinite Brahman’.
- The logic of saying that Brahman’s
nature is ananda is contained in Brhadaranyaka
Upanishad in the second chapter, fourth
section, fifth Mantra. Here, Yajnavalkya
tells Maitreyi, his wife (who is such
anexpert in Vedic lore that she carries
on a long and wonderful debate with
her husband who is a Jnani) “Verily
the husband is dear (to the wife)
not for the sake of the husband, my
dear, but it is for her own sake that
he is dear. Verily the wife is dear
(to the husband) not for the sake
of the wife, my dear, but it is for
his own sake that she is dear. Verily
sons are dear (to parents) not for
the sake of the sons, my dear, but
it is for the sake of the parents
themselves that they are dear. Verily
wealth is dear not for the sake of
wealth, my dear, but it is for one’s
own sake that it is dear. ……..verily
worlds are dear not for the sake of
the worlds, my dear, but it is for
one’s own sake. Verily gods are dearnot
for the sake of gods, my dear, but
it is for one’s own sake that they
are dear. Verily beings are dear not
for the sake of beings, my dear, but
it is for one’s own sake that they
are dear. Verily all is dear not for
the sake of all, my dear, but it is
for one’s own sake that all is dear………”
The argument is that everyone ultimately
loves only oneself and all other love
is only because it subserves the primary
love of oneself. And one loves only
that which is a source of happiness.
So, it is conclude that Atma is the
source of happiness and, therefore
the nature of Atma is ananda.
- In his commentary on Brhadaranyaka
III.ix.28 (7), Sankaracarya discusses
whether the bliss (ananda) of Brahman
mentioned in Sruti passages – such
as Brhadaranyaka IV.ix.28 (7) Taittiriya
III.6, Taittiriya II. 7, Chandogya
VII.xxiii.1, IV.iii.22 is an object
of cognition. The word, ‘ananda’ is
commonly used to refer to pleasure
that is cognized. And the passages
cited above would (seem to) fit in
if the bliss that is Brahman is an
object of cognition. But, since negation
of knowing when there is oneness,
such as in Brhadaranyaka II.vi.14,
II.v.15 – “But when to the knower
of Brahman everything has become the
atma, then what should one see and
through what?”, Chandogya VI.xxiv.1
– “Where one sees nothing else, hears
nothing else, knows nothing else,
that is the infinite”…we have to discuss
in order to ascertain the true meaning
of the ananda passages. The discussion
between the opponent, an intermediary
and the Advaitin proceeds. Advaitin
says, “Absolute separation from body
is liberation, and when there is no
body, there can be no organs…..there
will be no knowledge, there being
no body and organs….I it is said that
, being of the nature of eternal knowledge-bliss,
Brahman cognizes his own nature as
bliss eternally, that is not possible.
Because, if that is so, a videhamukta
would also cognize bliss. But the
man under bondage, when freed from
relative existence, would regain his
real nature as Brahman. He is like
a handful of water thrown into a tank.
He does not retain a separate existence
so as to know the blissful Brahman.
Hence to say that the videhamukta
knows the blissful atma is meaningless.
If, on the other hand, if it is said
that the videhamukta, standing different
from Brahman knows the bliss of Brahman
and the pratyagatma as ‘I am ananda-swaroopam’,
that will contradict the oneness of
Brahman and go against all sruti passages.
There is no third possibility. If
it is said that Brahman ever knows
Its own bliss, then it is superfluous
to distinguish between awareness and
non-awareness. If It is constantly
aware of Its bliss, then that is its
nature; hence there is no sense in
maintaining that it cognizes Its own
bliss. ……….Therefore, the text ‘Knowledge
Bliss Brahman’ (vijnaanam aanandam
brahma’) must be interpreted as
setting forth the nature of Brahman
(Brahman’s swaroopam) and not signifying
that the atmaananda is cognized.”
(In other words, experiential pleasure
which is an object of experience and
is subject to gradation and arrival
and departure is opposed to the aprameyatvam,
nirvikaratvam and nityatvam of Brahman.
The word ‘ananda’ should therefore
be translated as ‘anantam’, infinitude).
- All over the Upanishads, we get statements
mentioning the benefit of the knowing,
“I am Brahman”. (Some of the statements
have been paraphrased, in the light
ofSankaracarya’s commentaries). Chandogya
Upanishad VII. 1. iii – “I have heard
from masters like you that he who
knows the Brahman transcends sorrow.”
Taittiriya Upanishad II.i.1 “The knower
of Brahman attains Brahman. (“Brahmavid
apnoti param”). Mundaka Upanishad
III.2.ix – “Anyone who knows that
supreme Brahman becomes Brahman indeed."
….Heovercomes grief, rises above punya
papa; and becoming freed from the
knots of the heart (i.e., overcoming
self-ignorance), he attains immortality.”
Kathopanishad II.ii.12 – “Eternal
peace consisting in the blissfulness
of the Self is for those who recognize
the One God (Paramatma) who, because
of his inscrutable power makes by
His mere existence one form, His own
Self that is homogenous and consists
of unalloyed consciousness diverse
through the differences in the impure
conditions of name and form and who
recognize Him as residing in the space
of the heart within the body, i.e.,
as manifested as knowledge in the
intellect, like a face appearing to
exist in a mirrorand have identified
with Parmatma., not for others”. Kathopanishad
II.ii.13 – “To those who recognize
the Paramatma in their hearts, the
eternal among the ephemeral, the indestructible
consciousness among the destructible
manifesters of consciousness such
as the living creatures beginning
with Hiranyagarbha accrues eternal
peace that is their very Self, not
for others. Kathopanishad I.iii.15
– “One becomes freed from the jaws
of death by knowing That (i.e., Brahnan)
which is soundless, colorless,undiminishing,
and also tasteless, eternal, odorless,
without beginning, and without end,
distinct from Mahat, and ever constant.”
Taittiriya Upanishad II.vii – “whenever
an aspirant getsestablished in this
unperceivable, bodiless, inexpressible,
and unsupported Brahman, he reaches
the state of fearlessness.” Svetasvatara
Upanishad II.14. –“Knowing the Atma,
one becomes non-dual, fulfilled and
free of sorrow.” Swesvatara Upanishad
II.15 – “when one knows Brahman as
Atma, i.e., knows “I am Brahman” (“the
original consciousness in me is the
infinite Brahman”), the Brahman which
is unborn, whose nature is immutable,
which is unaffected by avidya and
its products and which is effulgent,
one becomes freed from all bonds.”
Swesvatara Upanishad III.7 – “Knowing
that Brahman that is beyond the universe
and Hiranyagarbha and is infinite,
that is the indweller of all beings,
that encompasses the universe, men
become immortal.” Brhadaranyaka Upanishad
IV.iv.23 -“This (Brahman described
as ‘not this, not this’) is the eternal
glory of a knower of Brahman. It neither
increases nor decreases through work;
therefore one should know the nature
of that alone. Knowing it one is not
touched by evil action. Therefore
he who knows it as such becomes self-controlled,
calm, withdrawn into himself, enduring
and concentrated and sees the Atma
in his own body; he sees all as the
Atma. Papa does not overtake him,
but he transcends all papa. Papa does
not trouble him but he consumes all
papas. He becomes free of papa, taintless,
free from doubts and a Brahmana, i.e.,
knower of Brahman.” Swesvatara Upanishad
IV.17 - “Benefited by the teaching
that negates the universe anddiscriminates
between atma and anatma and reveals
the unity of Jivatma and Brahman,
he who knows that Brahman becomes
immortal.” Taittiriya Upanishad II.ix.1
- “He who knows ananda that is Brahman
has no fear.” _ Taittiriya Upanishad
II.1.i– “Brahman is Existence-Consciousness-Infinity;
he who knows that Brahman as existing
in the cave-like space of the heart
(I/e., mind) (i.e., as the consciousness
behind one’s own mind) and thus having
identified himself with that infinite
Brahman, enjoys, simultaneously, all
the desirable things.” Chandogya Upanishad
VII.xxiv.2 – “The atma is indeed below,
the atma is above, the atma is behind,
the atma is in the south, the atma
is in the north, the atma indeed is
all this. Anyone who sees thus, reflects
thus, understands thus, revels in
the atma, disports in the atma, has
union in the atma, and has joy in
the atma. He becomes a sovereign.
He has freedom of movement in all
the worlds’ (“…, Evam pasyan evam
manvaana evam vijaanan aatmaratih
aatamakridah aatmamithunah aatmaanandah
sa swaraat bhavati tasya sarvaeshu
lokeshu kaamacaarah bhavati”. Mundaka
III.i.3 – “When the seeker recognizes
the effulgent Sakshi as the all pervading
Brahman, who, in the form of Iswara,
is the creator of the universe, becomes
free from punya papa, becomes taintless
and attains total identity with Brahman.”
Mundaka Upanishad II.i.10 – “He who
knows this supremely immortal Brahman
as existing in the heart destroys,
here, the knot of ignorance.” Brhadaranyaka
Upanishad IV.iii.21 – “That is his
form (The identity with all is his
form); it is the form of atma in which
all objects of desire have been attained;
hence there is no desire. Desireless,
he abides in the atma.” (“Tat vaa
asya etat aaptakaamam aatmakaamam
akaamam roopam.” Brhadaranyaka Upanishad
IV.iv.12 – “If a man knows Atma (Brahman)
as “I am this” then desiring what
and for whose sake will be suffer
when the body is afflicted?” Sankaracarya’s
commentary – “If a man.....knows the
atma which is his own atma as well
as the Paramatma – knows how? – as
‘I am this Paramatma’, the sakshi
of perceptions of all beings, which
has been described as ‘not this, not
this’ and so on, than which there
is no seer.........knower and is in
all beings, and which is by nature
eternal, pure consciousness and free,
desiring what other thing, of the
nature of a result, distinct from
his own Self and for whose sake, i.e.,
for the need of what other person
distinct from himself , because he
as the atma has nothing to wish for,
and there is none other than himself
for whose sake he may wish it, he
being the atma of all, therefore desiring
what and for whose sake will he suffer
in the wake of the body – deviate
from his own nature, or become miserable,
following the misery created by his
limiting adjunct, the body, i.e.,
imbibe the afflictions of the body?
For, this is possible for the man
who identifies himself with anatma
(that which is not atma, i.e. the
body mind complex) and desires things
other than atma and struggles and
desires something for himself, something
else for his son, and a third thing
for his wife and so on, goes round
the births and deaths and is diseasedwhen
his body is diseased. Bur all this
is impossible for the man who sees
everything as his atma.” Kathopanishad
II.ii.11 – “ Just as the sun which
is the eye of the world is not tainted
by the ocular and external defects,
similarly the Atma that is one in
all beings is not tainted by the sorrows
of the world, it being transcendental.”
Sankaracarya’s commentary – “People,
after having superimposed on the Self
(the atma) the false notions (adhyaasa)
of action, agent, and the results
of action, like the snake falsely
perceived on the rope, experience
the misery of birth, death etc. consequent
on that superimposition; but the atma,
though it is the Self (atma) of all,
is not tainted by the sorrow of the
world arising from false superimposition.
Why? (Because It is) outside, i.e.,
just like the rope vis a vis the snake,
it is extraneous to the superimposition
of false notion. Prasna Upanishad
IV.10 – “He who realizes that shadowless,
pure, immutable attains the supreme
immutable itself.” Kaivalya 9 –“He
alone is everything which was in the
past , which is in the present and
which will be in the future and He
alone is eternal. Having recognised
Him, one crosses immortality. There
is no other means for liberation.”
Kaivalya Upanishad 10 - “Clearly recognizing
oneself to be present in all beings
and clearly recognizing all beings
in oneself, the seeker attains the
supreme Brahman; not by any other
means”. (“Sarva bhotastam atmaanam
sarva bhootani ca aatmani sampasyan
brahma paramam yaati na anyena hetuna”).
Kaivalya Upanishad 23 – “Recognizing
the paramatma for which there is no
earth, no water, no fire, no air,
no akasa, which is in the cavity of
the heart of beings, which is divisionless,
and non-dual, which is thee witness
of all, and which is beyond the manifested
and the unmanifested , one attains
that pure paramatma. Brhadaranyaka
Upanishad I.iv.2 – “From a second
entity only fear arises.” (The gist
is that the jnaani has the advantage
of fearlessness, in that nothing in
the world which is mithya can disturb
him who is the satya atma.
- As explained earlier, Sarvatmabhava
(the sense that I am all) is without
prejudice to the knowledge, “Brahmasatyam
jaganmithya” Whereas asangatvam (the
sense that I am satyam Brahman, the
world is mithya; the mithya world
cannot affect me) is paramarthika
drshti, sarvatmabhava is a vyavaharika
drshti; it is a positive perspective
of the all pervading aspect of Brahman...
Isavasya Upanishad 6 – “He who sees
all beings in the atma and the atma
in all beings feels no hatred.” (“yastu
sarvaani bhootani atmani eva anupasyanti
sarvabhooteshu ca atmaanam tato na
vijugupsate”). ‘Seeing all beings
in the atma’ refers to the nama roopa
and ‘seeing atma in all beings ‘refers
to the adhishtanam, Brahman. n this
connection, we can usefully refer
to Brhadaranyaka Upanishad II.4.vi.
“The Brahmana rejects him who knows
the Brahmana to be different from
the Self. The Kshatriya rejects him
who knows the Kshatriya to be different
from the Self. Worlds reject him who
knows the worlds to be different from
the Self. The gods reject him who
knows the gods to be different from
the Self. Beingsreject him who knows
beings to be different from the Self.
All reject him who knows all to be
different from the Self. This Brahmana,
this Kshatriya, these worlds, these
gods, these beings and this all are
only the Self (one’s own atma)” Brhadaranyaka
II.iv.6 – “One who views Brahman as
if having diversity in It goes from
death to death.”
- Upanishad statements that knowledge,
not karma, is the means of liberation
are are as follows: - Kaivalya Upanishad
3 – “It is through renunciation that
a few seekers have attained immortality
– not through rituals, not through
progeny, not through wealth.....”
(“ na karmana na prajayaa na dhanena
tyaganaike amrutatvamaanasuh”). Mundaka
Upanishad I.2. 7 “....Indeed those
who consider karma to be a means for
moksha are fools. They enter old age
and death again and again.” MundakopanishadI.9
– “.....These ritualists do not know
the glory of moksha due to their attachment.
Consequently these wretched ones fall
down when the Punya is exhausted.”
Brhadaranyaka Upanishad III.viii.10
– “ He...who in this world, without
knowing this Immutable, offers oblations
in the fire, performs sacrifices and
undergoes austerities even for many
thousand years, finds all such acts
but perishable; he, O Gargi, who departs
from this world without knowing this
Immutable, is miserable. But he, O
Gargi, who departs from this world
after knowing this Immutable, is a
knower of Brahman”. The same idea
is expressed indifferent words in
Brhadaranyaka Upanishad I.iv.10 –
“Whoever in like manner knows It as,
‘I am Brahman’, he becomes all this.
Even the gods cannot prevail against
him, for he becomes their self. Whereas
he who worships another god thinking,
‘He is one, and I am another does
not know. He is like an animal to
the gods.” Kenopanishad II.4 – “Through
knowledge is attained immortality”
“(...vidyayaa vindate amrutam”). Brhadaranyaka
IV.iv.14 – “Those who know It become
immortal” Also cf. Nrsimhapurvatapani
Upanishad I.6. Cf. Brhadaranyaka Upanishad
IV.iv.19 – “Brahman has to be recognised
by the mind alone. (“manasaa eva anudrashtavyah”.)
Kathopanishad II.i.11 – “This is to
be attained by the mind alone. “Taittiriya
Upanishad II.2.1 – “The knower of
Brahman attains Brahman” (“Brahmavid
apnoti param”) “The knower of Brahmanbecomes
immortal.” Kathopanishad II.iii.8
– “Superior to the Unmanifested (Maya)
is the Infinite who is......without
worldly attributes, knowing Whom a
man becomes freed and attains immortality.”
(“....Yam jnaatva mucyate jantuh...”).
Brhadaranyaka Upanishad IV.iv.7 –“....that
very Atma I regard as Brahman. Knowing
Brahman, I am immortal.” (“Tam eva
manya aatmanam vidwaan brahma amrutah
amrutam.) Brahadaranyaka IV.iv.14
– “Those who know It become immortal”.
Mundaka III.ii.9 – “Anyone who knows
that supreme Brahman becomes immortal”.
Swesvatara Upanishad 2.15 says that
the knower of Brahman is released
from bondage. Prasna Upanishad IV.10
– “He who knows that shadowledss,
bodiless, pure, immutable attains
that supreme Immutable itself” Prasna
VI.6 – “You should now that Purusha
(the infinite) who is worthy to be
known ……..”Kena II.5 – “The wise ones,
having known (Brahman) to be in all
beings ….become immortal”. Swetasvatara
I.11 – “Knowing Brahman, one becomes…..free
from the cycle of births and deaths.”
The same mantra talks of the result
of meditation, as distinguished from
knowledge, as the means of kramamukti.
Swetasvatara Upanishad III.7 – “That
to which there is nothing superior,
which is not limited, which is in
every jiva conforming to the body
of that jiva, which is non-dual, which
encompasses the universe, knowing
that parabrahman one becomes immortal”.
Swetasvatara Upanishad III.8 and VI.15-
“ Knowing that Paramatma that is Pratyagatma,
Sakshi, that is the infinite, that
is all pervading, that is effulgent........men
become immortal. For attaining this
Brahman, there is no other means”
(“.......na anya panthaa vidyate ayanaaya.”).
Kaivalya Upanishad9 - “He alone is
everything which is in the past, which
is in the present and which will be
in the future. Having known Him one
crosses mortality. There is no other
means for liberation.” (“..... na
anya panthaa vimuktaye”). Swetasvatara
Upanishad Vi.15- “………Knowing That
one becomes immortal. For moksha,
there is no other means (Tameva viditvaa
atimrtyumeti; naanyah panthaaa vidyate
ayanaaya). “Kaivalya Upanishad 10
– “Clearly recognizing oneself to
be present in all beings and clearly
recognizing all beings in oneself,
the seeker attains the Supreme Brahman,
not by any other means”). (.....na
anyena hetuna”)..Karma and Upasana
involves the attitude that Brahman
is different from oneself (dwaita
bhaava). Brhadaranyaka I.iv.10
says ‘He who thinks that Brahman is
one and he is another does not know.”
- Many philosophers, including even
some exponents of Advaita Vedanta
and yoga sastra talk of an accomplishment
beyond knowledge or a mystic experience
or nirvikalpa samadhi in which the
mind is stilled (manonaasa takes place)
as the ultimate means to realize Brahman.
Visishtadvaita and dwaitam philosophers
talk of bhakti as the ultimate means
of liberation. But, as shown above,
Sastra itself says that knowledge
of Brahman is the only means of liberation(manasaa
eva anudrashtavyah}. Mind is the only
instrument available to man to gain
knowledge. If the mind is stilled,
no knowledge, not to speak of knowledge
of Brahman, is possible.
- Some exponents of Vedanta talk of
the necessity of mental repetition
of ‘ahambrahmasmi’ (called prasankyaayana),
after gaining ahambrahmasmi jnanam.
To refute this, Sankaracarya uses
Brhadaranyaka IV.iv.1 where Yajnavalkya
tells Janaka that by gaining knowledge
of Brahman he has attained that which
is free from fear, i.e., Brahman;
there is no instruction to do prasankyaayana.
In Naishkarmyasiddhi II.82, Sureswaracarya
says praskhyayana is a mental action
and action is not undertaken for attaining
something which is already available.
Moksha is not a thing that is attained;
it is ever one’s nature (nityasiddah).
- There is
more than one place in the Upanishads
where there is a clear indication
that it is possible to be liberated
from samsara in this very life. Brhadaranyaka
Upanishad IV.iv.6 – “Being but Brahman
he becomes merged in Brahman. (Brahma
eva san brahma aanpoti”). (This
refers to jivanmukti followed by videhamukti.)
In this mantra, the Jivanmukta is
described as “one without desires
(akaamah), who is free from
desires (nishkaamah), whose
desires have been fulfilled (aaptakamah)and
for whom all objects of desire are
but the atma (aatmakamah)”
(His goal was atma and he has attained
it. When a person has attained atma,
i.e. has gained and assimilated ahambrahmasmi
jnanam it is as good as having fulfilled
all anaatma desires as well, because
atma is the essence of everything.
Identified with Brahman he has a sense
of completeness (poornatvam0
and is without desires. Brhadaranyaka
Upanishad IV.iv.14 – “Being in this
very body we have somehow known that
Brahman…….Those who know It become
immortal,” Brhadaranyaka Upanishad
IV.iv.7 – “When all the desires that
dwell in his mind are gone, he……….becomes
immortal and attains Brahman in this
very body. Just as the slough of a
snake is cast off and lies in the
ant-hill, so does this body lie.”
Nrsimhapurvatapani Upanishad II.6
talks of the knower of Brahman becoming
immortal, here itself.In Kathopanishad
2.3.14, it is said, “when all desires
clinging to one’s heart fall off,
then a mortal becomes immortal (and
he) attains Brahman here (i.e. even
when he is living.”) In 2.3.15, it
is said “when all knots of the heart
are destroyed, then a man becomes
immortal and attains Brahman here
(even when he is living).” Mundaka
Upanishad 3.2.5 – “Having attained
(known) Brahman, the seers become
contented with their knowledge, established
in identity with paramatma, composes
with the senses withdrawn. Having
known the all pervasive One everywhere,
these discriminating people , ever
merged in contemplation enter into
the All (at the time of the falling
of the body, i.e., they drop the upadhis
conjured up by avidya, like space
confined within a pot on the breaking
of the pot”. Jivanmukti is not attainment
of any new nature. It is discovery
of one’s eternal nature. That is why
in Chandogya, the guru tells Swetaketu
“Thou art That” in the present sense
and not in the future tense, “Tat
tam bhavishyati”. Sankaracarya cites
the instance of Rishi Vamadeva. Brhadaranyaka
Upanishad, citing Rg veda IV.xxvi.1,
says, “knowing Brahman, Rishi Vamadeva
attained sarvatmabhava”. The present
participle, says Sankaracarya, is
used only when what it indicates is
simultaneous with what the main verb
indicates. So, knowing Brahman and
attaining sarvatmabhava are simultaneous.
It means that liberation has been
attained in this life itself (even
while the rishi was in the womb).
- Brhadaranyaka
Upanishad IV.4.vi – “Regarding this
there is this Mantra verse: ‘Being
attached, the (transmigrating self)
together with its karma attains that
on which its subtle body or mind is
set. It experiences (in the other
world) the karma phalam for whatever
karma it had done in this world. When
it is exhausted, it comes again from
that world to this world for newkarma.
Thus does the person with desires
(transmigrate). But in the case of
the person who is without desires,
(without desires because ) for whom
all objects of desire have been attained,
(attained because has no desires),
(he has no desires because) for whom
there is no desire other than the
atma (identified with the atma, what
should one see, hear, think or know
and through what?), his organs do
not depart. (Since the man who has
no desire has no work and therefore
his organs (sukshma sarira) have no
cause to go to the next world). Being
but Brahman, he is merged in Brahman
(ya akaamah nishkaamah aaptakaamah
aatmakaamah na tasya praana utkraaamanati,
brahmaiva san brahma aapyeti)”. Kaivalya
Upanishad 4 – “Through a life of renunciation,
the pure minded seekers clearly grasp
the meaning of teaching of Vedanta.
Having become one with the Infinite
Brahman (while living), all those
seekers get totally resolved into
Brahman at the time of final death.”
Mundaka III.ii.4 – “The atma of the
knower (of Brahman) merges in the
abode that is Brahman”. Prasna Upanishad
VI.5 – “ Just as the these flowing
rivers that have the sea as their
goal get absorbed on reaching the
sea, the sixteen constituents of the
all seeing Purusha, i.e., one who
has recognizes his identity with Brahman
, the one who has Purusha (Brahman)
as one’s goal, (the sixteen digits
being the ten indriyas, the five pranas
and the ahamkara) disappear on reaching
Purusha (Brahman), when their nama
roopa are destroyed and the one (the
entity that remains undestroyed) is
simply called Purusha (Brahman)”.
(Depending on the context, the word,
“Purusha” refers to jivatma or Iswara
or Brahman). Mundaka Upanishad III.ii.7
also indicates that the sukshma sarira
and karma sarira of a jivanmukta disintegrate
and are dissolved in their cosmic
source - “.To their sources return
the constituents of the body and to
their respective gods go all the presiding
deities of the senses”. Brhadaranyaka
III.ii.11 – “’Yajnavalkya’ asked he,
‘when this liberated person (jivanmukta)
dies, do his organs go up from him,
or do they not?’ ‘No’, replied Yajnavalkya…””.
- We get references to kramamukti in
Prasna Upanishad V.5 and Swesvatara
Upanishad I.11 Prasna 5.5. – “Any
one who meditates on the supreme Purusha,
using the three letters of Om (as
aalambanam, symbol) goes, after death,
to the bright Sun-world……He becomes
freed from papa and he is led to the
world of Brahmaa (Hiranyagarbha) by
the saama mantras. There he sees (gains
knowledge of) the supreme Purusha
(i.e. Brahman)”. After teaching that
that by knowing Paramatma all afflictions
( klesas) are destroyed and one is
liberated from the cycle of births
and deaths, Swetasvatara Upanishad
I.11 goes on to describe the process
of upasana and kramamukti. It says
“If one meditates on Parameswara during
life, on the fall of the physical
body, the sukshma sarira goes to join
Iswara (the kaaranabrahma, the macrocosmic
causal body, enjoys sarva-aiswarya
(all happiness, powers, etc.), and,
thereafter, as aaptakaamah (i.e. with
a sense of all desires being fulfilled
by knowledge of identity with Brahman)
becomes Brahman”
- The ultimate reality, in Advaita Vedanta
is not a principle external to ourselves.
It ispure existence, i.e., an eternal
all pervading presence without form
and without attributes which is also
pure consciousness. Or, as gratefulness
to Iswara for having provided facilities
for gaining jnanam and seeking His
grace to retain jnanam, he may use
ahamkara, without prejudice to his
identification with Brahman, and do
namaskara to Iswara.” This is the
nirguna Brahman (attributeless Brahman).
And that is identical with our own
consciousness. There is no duality
whatsoever. However, with that as
the substratum, there is, as a lower
order of reality, as mithya, a superimposition
of manifold forms; the combination
of the two appearsto us as objects
of the world including living beings.
This is the vyavaharika plane, as
distinguished from the paramarthika
plane, where there is no universe
at all, not to speak of gods. In the
vyavaharika plane, the objects include
gods. At the highest level, there
is Iswara, the saguna Brahman (Brahman
qualified with the attributes of omniscience,
omnipotence and all pervasiveness),
the creator. Iswara is uncreated (i.e.
He is always there, in the vyavaharika
plane, without beginning and without
end.). Iswara himself, as reflected
consciousness in Maya belongs to the
vyavaharika plane. When Iswara creates
the various constituent parts of the
universe, he designates subordinate
forms of reflected consciousnesses
to preside over them. These are personified
as gods. Starting with Hiranyagarbha
presiding over the whole cosmos, we
have deities like Indra, Agni, Vayu,
Varuna etc. presiding over various
forces of nature and over the constituent
parts of living beings. Aspects of
creation, sustenance and dissolution
of the universe are also personifies
as Brahmaa (Hiranyagarbha), Vishnu
and Siva. Incarnations of Iswara,
(called “avataras”) like Rama, Krishna
etc. are also accepted as phenomena
on the vyavaharika plane. Avataras
are regarded as Iswara descending
in various worlds in various forms
and with various manifestations of
his powers on critical occasions when
restoration of cosmic harmony is called
for. The bodies and minds of gods
and even avataras are also mithya
(vyavaharika satyam.) It is made clear
in certain Upanishads that there is
only one absolute reality; that is
called Brahman, and gods are only
manifestations - nama roopa – on the
vyavaharika plane. In Brhadaranyaka
Upanishad III.ix.1 to 9,in the dialogue
between Vidagadha and Yajnavalkya,
read with Brhadaranyaka Upanishad
III.ix.26, it is made clear that the
various gods mentioned in Vedas ,
like Vasus, Rudras, Adityas, Indra,
Prajapati, Hiranyagarbha are only
manifestations of the one absolute
non-dual, attributeless Brahman. To
the question, “how many gods are there”,
the answer starts with 3003 and comes
down, step by step to 33, to 6, to
3, to 2, to 1 ½ and finally to one
To the question “Which is that one
God? the answer is “It is Brahman”.
That gods are only nama roopa and
the reality is only Brahma caitanyam
is brought out in the story in Kenopanishad
where the gods think that what was
the victory of god is their glory.
To disabuse them of this false idea,
Brahman appears as a Yakshha. The
gods could not make out what it was.
One god after another is sent by Indra
to find out. Agni goes; the yaksha
asks “What power isthere in you”.
Agni says “I can burn up all this
than is there on the earth”. The Yaksha
places a straw in front of Agni. Agni
is not able to burn it. Similarly
Vayu foes; Vayu is unable to blow
the straw away. Then Indra himself
goes; when Indra approaches, the Yaksha
vanishes. Then Uma appears; Indra
asks “What is the yaksha that appeared
and vanished?” Uma tells him “It was
Brahman”. He long and short of it
is that the essence of everything,
even of the gods is Brahma caitanyam.
But for Brahma caitanyam, gods are
also inert. Svetasvatara Upanishad
VI. 7 – “He is the ruler of all the
rulers; he is the god of all gods…”
Mundaka Upanishad II. I. 7– “From
him take their origin the numerous
gods, the heavenly beings……..” Kaivalya
Upanishad 8 - “ He (Brahman) is Brahmaa,
he is Siva, he is Indra, He is the
imperishable, the supreme majesty,
the self-effulgent; He is Vishnu,
he is prana, He is time, He is fire,
He is the moon.” –Aitereya UpanishadIII.i.3–“This
one that is essentially consciousness
is Brahmaa (‘a’ with elongated a);
he is Indra, he is Prajapati, he is
all these gods. And he is the five
elements – earth, air, space, water,
and fire – and he is all the beings
in subtle seed form and all beings
born from eggs, wombs, sweat, and
the soil, horses, cattle, elephants
and human beings. Including all these,
whatever there is in this universe,
flying beings, those moving on the
ground, those that are immoveable
– have their existence only in consciousness
and everything is functioning in their
own field of work or role only by
getting the requisite power and knowledge
only from that consciousness. That
consciousness is the substratum of
everything. (Consciousness is the
one reality in which all phenomenal
things end, just as the superimposed
snake ends in its base, the rope,
on the dawn of knowledge.) That consciousness
is Brahman.” Mahanarayana Upanishad
III.12, talking of Brahman, says that
He (Brahman) is Brahmaa (‘a’ elongated),
Siva and Indra. Maitri Upanishad 4.5-6)
says “devas like agni, vayu and surya
are but the body of Brahman”. Taittiriya
Upanishad 1.5.1 – “The gods are the
limbs of Brahman”. Svetasvatara Upanishad
IV.8 – ’All Gods are superimposed
on Brahman”. IV. 12 –“Gods are created
by the omniscient Creator”. IV.13
-“The creator is the master of the
gods”. IV.17 – “The gods are united
in Brahman or Iswara, i.e. they are
non-different from Brahman or Iswara”.
From all this, it is clear that the
various gods like Indra, Varuna etc.
are merely aspects of the one Iswara
and the personification is a symbolic
way of expressing Iswara’s powers
and functions; the personification
is meant for meditation. Iswara himself
is mithya. The sole reality is Brahman
which is nothing but pure existence-consciousness.
. Moreover, even these personifications
as Gods,according to Sastra, these
so called gods, apart from Iswara,
the gods like Indra, Varuna, Agni,
Vayu, Surya, Candra etc, are only
exalted jivas, i.e., those whose prarabdha
karma is sopunya-predominant that
they deserve to enjoy life in the
higher worlds and are entrusted by
Iswara to perform certain delegated
functions in the cosmos for the duration
of a particular unit in the cycle
of creation. When that unit of creation
is over, period is over they take
rebirth on the earth or lower worlds,
depending on the punya-papa proportion
of the prarabdha karma assigned for
that particular janmas in that unit
of creation, unless they attain knowledge
of identity with Brahman while they
are there in the other world.
- In regard to Hiranyagarbha, there
are two views – one that He is Paramatma
Himself and the other that He is also
an elevated jiva only – a jiva who,
in the previous creation, was an aspirant
and being the foremost among those
practicing meditation and rites has
attained the status of Hiranyagarbha
in the current creation. The view
is based on Rg. Veda I.clxiv.46 –
“They call It Indra, Mitra, Varuna
and Fire”, Aitereya Upanishad 3.1.3
– “The Consciousness that is Brahman
is Hiranyagarbha, It is Indra, It
is Virat and all these Gods” and Manusmriti
X.ii.123 – “Some call It Agni, others
Manu and Virat”. Mundaka Upanishad
I.i.1 talks of Brahmaa (Hiranyagarbha)
as the first-born among the gods and
qualifies him as the creator of the
universe and protector of the world
(Sankaracarya - “He was born independently,
unlike other worldly creatures who
take birth under the impulsion of
punya and papa.”). The second view
is based on Brhadaranyaka Upanishad
1.4.1 speaking of Hiranyagarbha– “
…Because he was first and before this
whole (band of aspirants) burnt all
papa” (Sankaracarya’s commentary begins
with “it has been explained that one
attains the status of Hiranyagarbha
through a combination of meditation
and rites”, Brhadaranyaka 1.4.2 –“He
was afraid”, Brhadaranyaka 1.4.3 –
“ He was not at all happy”, Swetasvatara
4.12 – “Hiranyagarbha, the first-born”
and Manusmriti Xii.50 – “ Sages are
of the opinion that attainment of
oneness with Virat…. Hiranyagarbha……is
the highest result produced by satva
or pure materials (rites coupled with
meditation). In his commentary on
Brahadaranyaka 1.4.6, Sankaracarya
says, in effect, that different predications
are possible depending on the quality
of the limiting adjuncts of the consciousness
that is paramatma. Hiranyagarbha,
possessing limiting adjuncts of extraordinary
purity, is described by srutis and
smritis mostly as the paramatma and
seldom as the transmigrating jivatma
gaining the status of Hiranyagarbha.
The beauty of it is that all the gods,
not excluding Iswara, is unreal. The
ajnaani, the one who does not
know his own real nature worships
them as different persons.
- On analysis, it will be seen that
since nirguna Brahman cannot be an
object of worship, the purpose of
teaching saguna Brahman is only to
enable man to go through worship and
meditation of saguna Brahman and graduate
to jnana yoga (study of Upanishads)
and gain knowledge of nirguna Brahman.
Cf. Sankaracarya’s statement “citta
avataara upaaya maatratvena”. The
infinite Brahman or even the all pervading
formless Iswara cannot be visualized.
So, in order that devotees may have
symbols of their choice for purposes
of doing worship (pooja) or
meditation, scriptures provide various
forms, called gods. The spiritual
seeker should not regard the gods
that they worship as real, vide Kenopanishad
1.5,6,7,8. A devotee starts the spiritual
practice (sadahana) with worship and
meditation of a particular form, a
particular god, such as Rama, Krishna,
etc. But, as emphasized in Kena Upanishad
1.5, 6, 7.8, the gods worshipped by
people are unreal. Therefore, the
spiritual seeker has to progress further
and leaving adherence to a particular
form, learn to appreciate the whole
universe as the manifestation of Brahman.
He must see everything and every being
that is glorious as Brahman. This
is called viswaroopa-darsanam. But
even this also is only a stepping
stone. Ultimately he has to dismiss
all the gods, not excluding Iswara
and the universe itself as unreal,
learn to appreciate the nirupaadhika,
nirguna Brahman and go on to identify
himself with that real Brahman.
-
A jnani has no need of saguna
Brahman worship or saguna Brahman
meditation, but, as an example to
those in the lower stages of spiritual
progress, he may do saguna Brahman
worship and saguna Brahman meditation.
In this, a jnani who has gained knowledge
through the teaching of Advaita Vedanta
does not make any distinction between
gods of one religion and another.
He can accept Jesus and Mohamed as
he does Rama and Krishna as avataras
of Iswara, appearing in the vyavaharika
plane and he can happily worship in
a church or a mosque as he does in
a temple. The idea is that, in religion,
meant as the teaching of preparatory,
purificatory disciplines that qualify
a seeker of liberation for jnana kanda,
there can be many paths. But when
it comes to philosophy, the Advaita
Vedanta devotee will adhere to his
faith that the sole reality is nirguna
Brahman, the Existence-Consciousness
–Infinity andthe ultimate means of
liberation is only one and that is
identification with nirguna Brahma
(jivahbrahma aikyam). Even when the
jnani worships in a temple or pray
to god, he does so with the knowledge
that it is not he (i.e., by identity,
the Brahman) but the mithya sariraand
the mithya ahamkara that are doing
so.
- The jnani will concede sufficient
reality to the world, as vyavaharika
satyam, in order to follow dharma
but will, at the same time dismiss
the world as mithya so that it does
not affect him.”
- The sadhanaor process for obtaining
the knowledge “I am Brahman” consists
of “sravanam”, “mananam” and“nididhyasanam”.
Cf. the passage in Brhadaranyaka Upanishad
II.4.5 – “atma vai are drashtavyah
srotavyah nididhysasitivyah.”
a) Sravanam is study of sastra by
listening to the teaching of a competent
teacherwho can interpret the scripture
properly, i.e., a teacher belonging
to the teacher-student lineage of
Vedantic teaching – the guru sishya
parampara. Upanishads are full of
seeming contradictions and obscurities.
The problem is that any part of the
upanishadic lore can be subjected
to harmonious interpretation only
by aperson who knows the whole; since
no student will know the whole until
he reaches the end of his study, studying
by oneself will only end up in confusion
or misconceptions. Seeming contradictions
and obscure portions can be clarified
only through study of commentaries
that analyze the purport of the passages
in accordance with the rules of harmonious
construction called mimamsa. There
are countless commentaries and sub-commentaries
and explanatory works and there are
works containing arguments and counterarguments
among philosophers of different schools
of thought and only a teacher who
has himself studied under a competent
teacher in a course covering the original
works, the commentaries and important
prakarana granthas and works of disputations
can convey the purport and meaning
of Upanishadic passages. An ideal
teacher is a jnani of the gurusishya
parampara (the traditional teacher-disciple
lineage, a strotriya brahmanishta
i.e., one who has himself learnt under
a competent teacher belonging to the
guru sishya parampara and has himself
also acquired the clear and fully
assimilated knowledge that he is Brahman.
The idea is that unless he himself
has learnt under a competent teacher
how can he teach and unless he himself
is convinced without any mental reservation
that he is Brahman, how can he tell
the student sincerely, “Tattvamasi”
( “You are Brahman”) to enable the
student to be convinced “ aham brahma
asmi” (“Í am Brahman”). Since one
cannot know whether the teacher one
has approached is a brahmanishta (the
difficultyis that jnanam is a mental
state and only a jnani himself knows
whether he is a jnani; no external
signs are infallibly reliable to indicate
whether one is a jnani.),the best
thing is to make sure that the teacher
is at least one who has himself learnt
under a teacher of the guru-sishya
parampara ( i.e., a srotriya), hoping
that your punya has made you reach
a srotriya who is also a brahmanishta.
If the student is perfectly endowed
with sadhana catushtaya sampatti,
sravanam itself should enable him
to gain the knowledge ‘ahambrahmasmi’
effectively. But for others, there
may be obstacles to the gaining of
this knowledge, at the intellectual
and emotional levels.
b) Mananam is meant for getting the
obstacle at the intellectual level
removed. It is the process of getting
doubts arising in the course of the
study clarified by one’s own cogitation
and by discussion with the teacher.
c) Nididhyasanam is meant for getting
the obstacle at the emotional level
removed. Even after mananam has eradicated
intellectual doubts, the habit of
emotional identification with the
body mind complex (dehaatmabhaava)
acquired through the countless past
janmas may remain. Nididhyasanam is
meant for the destruction of this
habit. It is of no use if the mind
is able to say, ‘I am Brahman’ when
the listening to the guru has taken
place, but on reaching home, habitual
fixations of the mind take over and
one does action and thinks , attributing
reality to the body-mind-complex and
its relations , such as “ my son has
a chronic health problem; I am distressed”,
“ I had invested in shares; the stock
exchange index has come down; I am
dejected”, “ I am becoming old; I
am fearful; nobody will look after
me”, “ What shall be in my next janma?
Shall I be born in a good family?
Or shall I become a plan or an animal
or an insect?”. “Shall I be healthy
in my next janma or shall I suffer
from heart problems and diabetes?”
“Why not go and see what heaven is
like? Let me find out what Yagna or
meditation I should do to go to heaven”.
“Ice cream is so tasty; I must have
it during lunch today”. ““T.M Krishna
is singing at the Academy. Sanjay
is singing at the Millipore Fine Arts.
Both are at 5 p.m. I want to listen
to both. Why should these sabhas clash
like this? In any case I must listen
to one of them. The Vedanta class
also happens to be at 6 p.m. But I
will cut the class today and go to
listen to Sanjay”. To remove these
emotional disturbances (called vipariita
bhaavana)” which blow away ‘the
ahambrahmasmi’ thought one had in
the class, one has to dwell on the
various important aspects of the teaching
such as - “I am the immortal Brahman.
Where is the question of any worry
about what I shall be in the next
birth or where is the quesstion of
going to heaven?”. “I am not this
body or this mind. No doubt prarabdha
is there and the physiological afflictions
of the body will be there, but I have
placed my ‘’I” in the pure consciousness.
I should not let this mind worry about
anything. Let the body go through
its prarabdha; this mind which is
attuned to the pure consciousness
should be calm and reposed”. “I am
the asanga Brahman. “Wife, children
etc. are all nama roopa superimposed
on me, the Brahman. Since, in this
janma, this particular nama roopa
of a body has married that nama roopa
called wife and given birth to certain
other nama roopa called children,
this nama roopa has to discharge its
duties to those nama roopa but there
is no place for sorrow, worry or anxiety.
No doubt as the vyavaharika father,
if my son is ill, I have to take him
to the hospital and put him under
the care of a competent physician.
But his condition should not disturb
the mind. I have disidentified from
the mind. I am saantam Brahman. Whatever
happens to my son is prarabdha. Nothing
that happens to him should disturb
this mind.” And so on. Even while
experiencing things, transacting with
persons and handling situations in
the world, the “I am Brahman” thought
should be running as a constant undercurrent
in the mind and should surface immediately
if there is the slightest tendency
of intrusion of any notion related
to dehaatmabhaava (identification
with the body mind complex).
- In the course of the studyof Sastra,
three kinds of doubt have to be overcome.
(a) Praamaana asambhaavana –
Whether sruti reveals Brahman? This
is discussed and the conclusion is
that sruti does not reveal Brahman
but only removes one’s false notion
of abramatvam ( sense of limitation).
(b) Prameya asambhaavsna –
Whether Sruti teaches advaitam or
dwaitam?
This debated by the opponents of advaita
and advaitin. The conclusion is that
sriti teaches advaitam.
(c) Pramatru asambhaavana –
How can I,occupying a small corner
in a town or village and going through
the vicissitudes of life be the infinite
Brahman. The conclusion arrived at
by nididhyaasanam removing the vipariita
bhaavana is not only “ I am Brahman’
but ‘I have never been anything other
than Brahman’.
- When we talk of jivabrahma aikyam,
it is from the point of view off nirupadhika
jiva and nirupadhika Brahman. When
we talk of karya-karana-sambandha,it
is from the point of view of sopadhikamjiva
and sopadhika Brahman.
|
|
|