Contents
- A problem faced by the Advaita preceptor
is to explain the apparent contradiction
between Upanishad passages like Brhadaranyaka
IV.iv.9 – It has to be realized only
by the mind”, Katopanishad II.i.2
– “It is to be attained only by the
mind” an d Upanishad passages like
Taittiriya Upanishad II.iv.1 – “Words,
along with the mind, return, unable
to reach Brahman” , Kenopanishad
I.6. “That which man does not comprehend
with the mind” In fact, Brhadaranyaka
Upanishad, IV.iv.19 which says “Through
the mind alone It is to be raised”
(“manasaa eva anudrashtavyam”) is
immediately followed by IV.iv.20 says
which “It is unknowable” (“etat
apramayam”)”. How we reconcile the
apparently contradictory statements
is explained below.
a) One approach is to say that Brahman
cannot be known means that Brahman
cannot be known as an object but there
are methods by which we are made to
recognize Brahman. No one will deny
that he exists as a conscious being.
Initially, one may mistake the mind
as one’s true nature, but when a constant
“I” is invoked as the same entity
witnessing the changing conditions
of the mind, one recognizes the ultimate
sakshi. And “knowing Brahman” means
that from the study of Sastra, we
have to understand that the sakshi
is none other than the Brahma caitanyam.
In effect, the Existence and Consciousness
aspect of Brahman is self-evident
but the Infinity aspect, we have to
learn from Sastra. In his commentary
on Brhadaranyaka Upanishad IV.iv.19,
Sankaracarya interprets ‘manasaa eva’
in ‘manasaa eva anudrashtavyam’ as
‘purified by the knowledge of the
supreme Truth and in accordance with
the instructions of the teacher’.
And in his commentary on IV.iv.20,
he interprets ‘apramayam’ as ‘Unlike
a thing being known by another, Brahman
is the One only; hence It is unknowable.’
How to recognize Brahman without knowing
It as an object is stated in Kenopanishad
II.4 – “Being the witness of all cognitions
and, by nature, being nothing but
Consciousness, Brahman is indicated
by the cognitions themselves, in the
midst of cognitions, as pervading
all of them. (“Pratibodhaviditam
matam”). Kenopanishad 1.4 says that
That (Brahman) is different
from the known and, again, It is different
from the unknown”. Sankaracarya explains,
“The known is very much within the
grasp of the act of knowing, that
which is the object of the verb ‘to
know’’. Inasmuch as everything is
known somewhere, by somebody, all
that is manifested ('vyaakrtam’ is
certainly known. The idea is that
Brahman is different from that. But
it should be taken to be unknown,
the Upanishad says, ‘Again, It is
different from the unknown’. ‘From
the unknown’ means ‘from what is opposed
to the known’. The reference is to
that which consists of the unmanifested
avidya which is the seed of the manifested.
(Thus it boils down to Brahman being
different from the evolved as well
as the unevolved nama roopa).
(b) Another approach is to say that
Sastra does not reveal Brahman
in positive terms. (there is no vidhimukha
bodhana). Cf. 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, not this’”. Internally,
we negate all names and forms like
the body, sense organs, the mind and
intellect and arrive at the unnegatable
pure Consciousness (Cit). Externally
we negate all names and forms and
arrive at the unnegatable pure Existence
(Sat). And we learn from Sastra that Sat
is Cit; Cit is Sat and through the
Mahavakyas like “Tattvamasi” one owns
up one’s true nature as “aham brahma
asmi”. In other words, Mahavakyas
do not reveal any new entity. The
consciousness available in us, the
Atma, is self-evident. What mahavakyas
do is to remove the wrong notion that
it is limited and equate it with the
infinite Brahman.
(c) Elaborating the points made above
further, For defining anything in
positive terms, there are five methods.
(1) If it is an object that is of
common experience, when we refer
to it by its name, the listener understands
what we are talking about. E.g.,
all of us have experienced the sun.
So, when anybody wants to convey information
about the sun, he does so mentioning
the name, ‘sun’ and the listener understands
what object he is referring to. This
is called definition by ‘roodi’ or
‘dravyam’. Or we can define a thing
by its attribute ( ‘guna’). E.g.,
Jasmine flower can be defined by its
fragrance. Or we can define a thing
by its function (‘kriya’) E.g., a
knife can be defined by its the work
of cutting. Or we can define a thing
by the species to which it belongs
(‘jaati’). E.g., we can define mango
as a member of the tree species.
Or we can define a thing by its relationship
with something else (‘sambandha’).
E.g., we can define Rama as Dasaratha’s
son. In the case of Brahman, none
of these is of any use, because, according
to Sastra, Brahman is not an object
of experience (‘Brahman is aprameya’),
It is attributeless (‘nirguna’), It
is actionless (‘akarta’, ‘nishkriya’)
it is one without a second (’advayam’)
and it is relationless (‘asanga’).
(d) However, there is one pseudo-positive
method. We said that Brahman cannot
be defined by relationship, because
Brahman is asanga. While this is so,
in so far as real relationship
is concerned, it is not so, when it
comes to a question of unreal relationship.
As an unreal relationship between
adhishtanam and adhyasa, Brahman can
be defined. We can define rope
as the adhishtanam of the unreal snake
perceived on the rope; we can define
the waker’s mind as the adhishtanam
of the dream world. Similarly Brahman
is defined as the adhishtanam of the
unreal world – Brahman, the Existence,
the satyam, as the substratum of the
mithya nama roopa. Asangatvam
(Brahman’s relationlessness) is not
affected because the relationship
between the real and the unreal is
itself unreal.
(e) In fact, in this connection, there
is a debate. The opponent says that
if the relationship is unreal, the
definition is also unreal. The proponent
answers “what does it matter if the
definition is unreal as long as it
gives knowledge”. The opponent asks
“if definition is unreal, the knowledge
it gives is also unreal; what is the
use of unreal knowledge?” The proponent
answers, “Because ignorance is unreal,
unreal knowledge is adequate to remove
unreal ignorance. To cure dream disease,
dream medicine will do; in fact, dream
medicine alone can cure dream disease.
Samsara is caused by ignorance of
Brahmatvam. Moksha is not a real event.
One is ever liberated (nitya mukta).
What happens is that the false
notion that one is limited is negated
by the knowledge that one is the infinite
Brahman. Both the ignorance of brahmatvam
(our nature as Brahman) and the knowledge
‘ahambrahmasmi’ (jnanam) are antahkarana
vrittis and as such are unreal. Unreal
knowledge is adequate to remove unreal,
ignorance. (Ahambrahmasmi jnanam
is unreal but the ‘aham brahma’ referred to
is real; it is the infinite consciousness).
- In Brahma sutra, Vyasacarya
points out the fallacies of philosophies
which talk of a real creation and
of a creator who is only the intelligent
cause ( “nimitta karanam”) of the
universe and not the material cause
(“upadana karanam”) . The main points
are –
- To contact the material, the
intelligent cause must have
a body and it must be a doer.
In that case, it becomes subject
to pleasure and pain, desire,
hatred etc; in short, it becomes
a samsari (transmigrating
entity). This is contrary
to the notion of God being
perfect.
- Since space, time and matter
emerge only when creation takes
place, there are certain questions
which defy answer. They are
as follows:-
- Where was the creator
when he created the
world?
- When did he create?
(Time and space are
part of creation.
If you predicate a
time and space, prior
to creation, there
has to be a time and
space in which they
originated and so
on and that will lead
to infinite regress).
- Why did he create?
- Where was the raw
material which constituted
his own body?
- Where was the raw
material which he
could use to create
the universe?
- Beings appear in the universe
with different physical and
mental characteristics, finding
themselves in different situations,
undergoing experiences involving
enjoyment and suffering of
diverse nature. A creator
who creates this diversity
will be a partial and cruel
creator. Even in a scheme
of transmigration with karma
of men being responsible for
rebirth and enjoyment and
suffering, the diversity in
the first creation will remain.
This is contrary to the concept
of a perfect God.
- If the world and the
Jivatma‘s notion that he is
a karta transacting with a
real world were real, kartrutvam
and the consequent samsara
would be inherent and what
is inherent cannot go away
– which means that there would
be no liberation (moksha).
Since Sastra teaches moksha
as the highest goal in life,
it is clear that the world,
the jivatma’s identification
with the body mind complex
and his notion of kartrtvam
and the consequent samsara
are all unreal.
- If Brahman really transforms
into jivas, Brahman will also
become a samsaari. and attaining
a samsari Brahman would be
futile.
- Advaita Vedanta avoids such
problems, by saying that
(i) there is no real creation
or creator
(ii) Mithya Iswara, Brahma
caitanyam reflected in Maya,
is the intelligent cause and
mithya Maya is the material
cause of the mithya universe.
(iii) the cycle of creation
and dissolution, jivas and
their karma are beginningless;
there is nothing like the
first creation or the first
karma or the first janma,
iv) the cycle of creation
and dissolution is an alternation
of Maya evolving and manifesting
as diverse nama roopa which
include bodies and minds of
living beings and resolving
into unmanifested condition
in Iswara,
(v) the reality is Brahman,
who as Existence-Consciousness-Infinity,
serves as the substratum for
the unevolved as well as the
evolved condition of names
and forms
(vi) Iswara including Maya
is mithya and
(vii) though there is
no origination for a jiva
and his karma, for any particular
jiva, it is possible to be
free of the cycle of births
and deaths by gaining knowledge
of his real nature as the
infinite Brahman
- Gaudapadacarya defines reality as
that is ever existent and unreality
as that is temporarily existent. Pursuant
to his definition, Gaudapadacarya
points out that none of the three
states – the jagrat, swapna, sushupti
– is permanent; when the one is there,
the two others are not there. When
we are dreaming or in deep sleep state,
the world of the waking state is not
there. Therefore, the world
we experience during the waking
stage is also unreal.
- Aitereya Upanishad I.iii.12 says,
“Of Him there are three abodes – three
(states) of dream. This one is an
abode, this one is an abode, this
one is an abode.” This Upanishad is
referring to all three states of experience
of the Paramatma in the empirical
(vyaavahaarika) form of jivatma –
the waking state (jagrat avastha),
dream state (swapna avastha) and deep
sleep state (sushupti avastha) as
states of dream. This is tantamount
to saying that the world of waking
experience is as unreal as the world
of dream experience.
Though, for practical purposes, there
is no difference between jivanmukti and
videhamukti, there is a theoretical difference.
A jivanmukta continues to perceive
a world through his antahkarana, though
it has been falsified by jnanam. But,
after videhamukti, that antahkarana is
no longer there to perceive the falsified
world. The consciousness which has ever
been non-different from Brahma caitanyam
is no longer appears to be conditioned
by the body.
Sometimes, it is said that Maya is a peculiar
power of Brahman. Even saying “it
is a power” is not correct, because power
can increase or decrease. If power undergoes
change, possessor of power has also to
undergo change, but Brahman is changeless.
Nor can we say it is a product of Brahman,
Because Brahman is neither cause
nor effect. We cannot say that it is a
state of Brahman, because Brahman does
not go from one state to another. It is
not possible to say either whether Maya
is a part of Brahman or is separate from
Brahman. If we say that Maya is a part
of Brahman, we are faced with two logical
problems. One problem is that Brahman
is partless and Maya cannot be accepted
to be even a part of Brahman. The other
problem is that when a part undergoes
change, the whole will also undergo change.
Maya does change from the unevolved condition
to the evolved differentiated condition
of names and forms. So, Brahman will also
have to undergo change. This cannot be,
because Brahman is changeless. To avoid
these problems, if we say that Maya is
separate from Brahman, as a real entity, we
have to accept two real entities – one,
Brahman, two Maya. We cannot accept
this, because Brahman is non-dual,
i.e., there cannot be a second real
entity. So, we say that Maya is
“anirvacaniya” (i.e., indefinable) and
that it is Mithya (i.e., that Maya
is of a lesser order of reality than Brahman.)
Once we accept a status of a lesser order
of reality for Maya, Brahman’s status
as the only absolute changeless reality
is not affected and the question of Maya
being a real power or a real part of Brahman
does not arise.
Iswara is aware that he is Brahman.
Avarana sakti is like the cloud that hides
the sun from the sight of human beings
on earth; the cloud does not affect the
sun. Like that, the true nature of human
beings i.e., the fact that they are Brahman
is hidden by the avarana sakti of Maya
from the mental vision of human beings.
But since Iswara is himself Maya endowed
with the reflection of Brahman, he is
not affected by the avarana sakti of Maya.
He is like the magician who produces illusory
objects and deludes the audience
but is himself not deluded.
Vidyaranya gives an ingenious explanation
for Jivas being affected by the avarana
sakti of Maya and Iswara not being affected.
He says Iswara’s upadhi is satva guna
predominant Maya and Jiva’s is rajo and
tamo guna predominant Maya. (Upadhi
is a technical term for an object which
appears to transfer its character to another
object that is close by.); Maya gives
the false idea to jivas that they are
different from Brahman.
In Mandukya Karika, Gaudapadacarya refutes
all philosophers who talk of attainment
of Moksha as an event in time. His logic
is that whatever has a beginning must
have an end. So a moksha that is attained
will be temporary. Unless, as Advaita
Vedanta says, being beyond samsara is
our permanent nature and what is called
liberation is only the removal of the
wrong notion that one is bound, moksha
will be a temporary experience.
One of the examples is the story of the
tenth man. Another example is digging
of a well. When you dig a well you are
not creating space there; space is already
there. When you scoop out the mud, you
are removing a covering, the false notion
that space was not there. Like that liberation
is removal of the covering of avidya,
removal of the false notion that I am
not the infinite Brahman.
- Several examples
are given in the Sastra to illustrate
the juxtaposition of Brahman,
the paramarthika satyam, the substratum
(“adhistanam”) and the superimposed
(“adhyasta”) mithya world, the vyavaharika satyam
– Brahmasatyam jaganmithya. The example
often given is clay and pot. Certain
similar examples are gold and ornaments,
water and waves and wood and furniture.
Cf. Chandogya Upanishad- VI.i.4 –‘O,
good looking one, as by knowing a
lump of gold all things made of earth,
all things made of earth become known.
All transformation is what is initiated
by the tongue ands it is name only.”
Taking clay and pot, let us see what
are the similar features which serve
to illustrate Brahman and the universe.
(a) Clay alone is substance. Clay
is the substance. Pot shape is
not a substance. It is only nama
roopa When pot is made, no new
substance is created. Pot shape
does not occupy any space other
than that occupied by clay or
add to its mass or weight. Pot
has no existence of its own. If
clay is spirited away, there will
be no pot. Clay is the sub-stratum.
Pot is only a shape given to clay
and a name by which the shape
is distinguished (nama roopa).
In this sense clay, the sub-stratum
alone is real. The superimposed
shape called pot is unreal. Like
that Brahman as Existence (though
imperceptible), as the sub-stratum
(adhishtanam) is the only real
entity that is there; the nama
roopa superimposed (adhyastam)
on Brahman are unreal. We experience
the clay and the pot shape together.
Like that, we experience the real
Existence and unreal nama roopa
together as the universe.
(b) Pot is evanescent. Clay was
there before pot was produced.
Clay is there when pot has been
produced and clay will still be
there when pot is destroyed Clay,
the substance, the sub-stratum,
remains as clay, whether a pot
shape is given to it or a tile
shape is given to it. The shapes
appear and disappear but clay
stays. Like that, Brahman, the
Existence, is there for ever (“nityam”).
The nama roopa appear and disappear
(they are “anityam”).
(c) The pot shape is not away
from clay. It is there where the
clay is. Mithya is not away from
its adishtaanam. The locus of
mithya is its sub-stratum. So,
we say that there is no pot other
than clay. The locus of the adhyasta
nama roopa is Brahman, the Existence.
So, we say that there is no world
other than Brahman.
(d) Clay is one. Shapes are many.
Clay is one. Pots, jugs etc. are
many. Like that, Brahman, the
sub-stratum, is one. The superimposed
nama roopa are many.
(e) Functional indispensability.
The lump of clay cannot hold water.
Pot holds water. The sub-stratum
without nama roopa is not functional.
For transaction, nama roopa are
necessary. Thus Brahman is not
accessible for transaction (“is
avyavahaaryam”). It is the nama
roopa with existence borrowed
from Brahman that transact with
each other. (Bhagavadgita - “guna
guneshu vartante”.)
(f) Mutual exclusiveness of name
and form. Pot and tile or bangle
and chain can't coexist in the
same entity (pot does not exist
in tile; tile does not exist in
pot. Bangle does not exist in
chain; chain does not exist in
bangle) but clay exists as the
sub-stratum of pot and tile. Gold
exists as the substratum of bangle
and chain. Like that, in the mithya
universe, the nama roopa are exclusive
of each other, but the sub-stratum,
Brahman as existence is common.
- (a) No example (drshtaaantam)
would be similar in all features with
that which it is compared (daarshtaantam).
Clay-pot is a good example to illustrate
that the substance is Brahman and
the universe of nama roopa that are
superimposed are not substances to
be counted as second entities, but
when it comes to real-unreal relationship
(“satya mithya sambandha”), the point
becomes arguable, because the example
can be construed to illustrate modifying
material cause (“parinami upaadaana
kaaranam”) and the reality of the
cause and effect being of the same
order of reality. Though not quite
like milk turning into curd, clay
does undergo some sort of change -
a change in shape. Further, the pot
maker is of the same order of reality
as the clay and has to do work to
bring about the change of shape. The
plane on which the lump of clay and
the shape as pot exist is also the
same. Thus, it can be argued that
the clay pot example illustrates parinaami
upadana kaaranam and the sub-stratum
and superimposition being of the same
order of reality, unlike Brahman and
the nama roopa. Brahman, as Existence,
does not undergo any modification
when nama roopa are superimposed on
It; it is not as if nama roopa were
another shape of Brahman, the Existence.
Brahman does not superimpose
the nama roopa. And Brahman and nama
roopa are not of the same order of
reality. Therefore, examples other
than clay-pot are given in Sastra
to show that the sub-stratum and the
superimposed name and form belong
to different orders of reality.
(b) In semi-darkness, a person
mistakes the rope to be snake.
Though the snake, as a pratibhasika
entity, is actually perceived,
there is no real snake there.
When another person comes along
with a torch and flashes the torch,
it is known that what was perceived
as a snake is only a rope. Similar
examples - A person looking from
a distance, sees the sea-shell
half-submerged in the sand of
the beach and mistakes it to be
silver. Though the silver, as
a pratibhaasika entity is actually
perceived, there is no real silver
there. When he goes there and
digs the sand, he discovers that
what he mistook to be silver is
only a shell. A person dreams
and takes the dream world to be
a real world existing outise.
But when he wakes up, he realizes
that there was no such world.
Like these, jivas are ignorant
of Brahman, the adhishtanam and
mistake the perceived nama roopa
to be real. But when the guru
reveals Brahman and knowledge
of Brahman is gained, the world
of nama roopa is dismissed as
mithya.
(c) When the snake appears,
the rope does not undergo any
change. It exists only as
a sub-stratum for the snake to
be superimposed. Like that Brahman
does not undergo any change when
nama roopa are superimposed. Brahman
only serves as the substratum,
in Its aspect of existence for
nama roopa to be superimposed.
So, rope-snake is a goof example
for Brahman being vivarta upadana
karanam.
(d) The rope is not affected
by the snake. The poisonous nature
of the snake is not transferred
to the rope. The illness contracted
by the dream I or the happiness
of begetting a child is not transferred
to the waker. Like that the good
and evil of the world does not
affect Brahman.
(e) The snake exists only for
the man coming across the rope
in semi-darkness. From the point
of view of the rope, if we imagine
the rope to be sentient, at no
time, there is a snake.
Like that, the world exists for
the jivas. For Brahman, there
is no world at all.
- So, the rope-snake and the dream are
often cited as good examples to illustrate
the unreality of the world. But, when
the light is thrown on the object,
the snake disappears; when the man
wakes up from sleep, the dream world
disappears. But, even after the knowledge
that Brahman alone is satyam and the
world is mithya is gained, the jivanmukta
continues to perceive a world. Therefore,
in Sastra, other examples are given,
namely,
(i) the desert and the mirage that
is mistaken for water and is negated
on reaching the spot but water continues
to be perceived in a mirage at a spot
a further distance away.
(ii) the rising and setting of the
sun, which continue to be perceived
as such even after it is known it
is not the sun going round the earth
but it is the other way about and
(iii) the perception that the earth
is flat, which continues even after
it is known that the earth is elliptical.
- Another dissimilarity to be overcome
is that for the pot there is an intelligent
cause other than the material cause.
This problem is solved by the Advaita
Vedanta thesis that Maya is the material
cause of the universe and Iswara,
deriving consciousness as reflected
consciousness from Brahma caitanyam,
is the intelligent cause.
- When we talk of nama roopa existing
in potential form in Maya and Maya
unfolding the nama roopa, clay pot
example is useful; all shapes are
exist in potential form in clay; the
potter only bring out particular shapes.
- All this has been stated only to
show that any example given to illustrate
the relationship between Brahman and
the universe is only intended to illustrate
a few aspects but not all and no example
should be stretched beyond a point.
Complete concordance between any example
and the thing to be illustrated should
not be expected; one should only take
the aspects pointed out by the teacher
who gives the example; the example
is not invalidated if it does not
fit in other aspects.
- Mandukya karika is an elaborate and
illuminating commentary on Mandukya
Upanishad, written by Gaudapadacarya
– Sankaracarya’s ‘paramaguru’ – teacher’s
teacher-, in which the main theme
is brahmasatyam jaganmithya.
In the karika, in ‘alaata saanti prakaranam’,
Gaudapadacarya gives the example of
the firebrand to show the reality
and non-dual nature of Brahman and
the unreality of the world. When a
firebrand which is a fixed single
point of light is rotated and moved
in various ways, we perceive varieties
of light patterns. We do experience
the multiplicity of light patterns
but we know that they are not real.
Even when the motions take place,
the only thing that really exists
is the non-dual firebrand. We cannot
say where the light patterns
originate or where they go when the
motion is stopped. It is not as if
the various light patterns were produced
as entities from the firebrand when
the firebrand was set in motion or
they were resolved as entities into
the firebrand when the motion was
stopped. Nor can you say that they
came from something outside and went
back to something outside. From
the firebrand example given by Gaudapadacarya
in his Mandukya Karika we learn that
just as the different effulgent patterns
that appear when the firebrand is
rotated or moved in other ways have
no independent existence and that
what really exists is the single lighted
tip of the firebrand, the world does
not have real existence and that
what really exists is only Brahman.
The firebrand is only one but the
patterns that appear are many. Like that,
on the non-dual Brahman countless
objects appear. You cannot say that
firebrand is the cause and patterns
are the effects. Real cause effect
relationship can exist only between objects
of the same order of reality.
So, you cannot say that Brahman is
the cause and the world is a real
effect.
- Another line of approach which Gaudapadacarya
adopts in the earlier section in his
Karika, the ‘vaitathya prakaranam’,
is to show that like the world that
we experience during dreams (the swapna
prapanca)), the world that we experience
in the waking stage (jagrat prapanca)
is also unreal. He wants us to extrapolate
our experience of the swapna prapanca
to the jagrat prapanca. The dream
world that I perceive as external
to me is nothing but thoughts in the
mind. While I am dreaming, I do experience
a world of external objects but when
I wake up I know that there was no
such world, that the external objects
that I experienced were nothing but
thoughts passing through my mind.
Gaudapadacarya says that just as the
swapna prapanca is unreal from the
point of view of the one who has woken
up, the jagrat prapanca is unreal
from the point of view of one
who has understood that the only entity
that exists as absolute reality (paramarthika
satyam) is Brahman.
- The first definition - given
by Padmapada in Pancadipika
Falsity is the character of not being
the locus of either being or non-being.
The falsity is constituted by being
different from sat (being)
and asat (non-being). The example
given is the illusory silver perceived
on the shell.
- The second definition -
given by Prakasatman in Pancapadika-vivarana
The falsity of a thing consists in
the thing being negated for all three
periods of time in the locus in which
it appears. ( The falsity (mithyaatvam)
consists in being the pratiyogi
(negatum) of a negation
(nisheda) which is traikalika (for
all three periods of time – past,
present and future ) in a locus in
which it appears. The illusory silver
is false in the sense that it is negated
for all three periods of time – past,
present and future – in the shell
in which it is presented as an object
of experience.
This is based on the scriptural text,
“There is nothing else whatsoever”.
The world of multiplicity is eternally
negated in the non-dual Brahman which
is the locus of the appearance of
the world and as such, the world is
false.
- The third definition – this is also
given by Prakasatman
The false is what gets canceled by
cognition..This is based on the scriptural
text, “The enlightened is freed of
names and forms.” The illusory snake
is false in the sense that it is canceled
by the cognition of rope as rope.
. The world is false in the sense
that it it is canceled by the knowledge
kof Brahman.
- The fourth definition - given
by Citsukhacarya in Tattvapradipika
The falsity of anything positive
is its character of its being
the pratiyogin. (counterpart)
of the absolute negation that resides
in what appears to be its own substratum.
The shell silver is something positive
and it is false. Why is it false?
It is false because it is eternally
negated in the very shell that appears
to be its locus. The objects of the
world are also false in the same sense.
For example, a cloth is a positive
object and it appears to reside in
the threads which constitute it. But
in those very threads the cloth is
eternally negated. The cloth is therefore
false.
- The fifth definition - given by Anandabodhacarya
in Nyayadipavali.
What is different from the real (sat
), i.e., that is, other than the
real, is false. According to
Advaita Vedanta, Brahman alone is
real (sat ); the objects of
the world, like a pot or cloth, are
different from Brahman. They are,
therefore, false.
In Gaudapadacarya’s Mandukya karika, it
is said that one of the criteria for holding
that both the external world and the mind
is mithya is mutual dependence (“anyonya
asrayatvam”) which is tantamount to absence
of independent existence. The world cannot
be proved without the mind. Only when
a thing is perceived or inferred on the
basis of certain perceptions can we say
that a thing exists. So, mind is necessary
to predicate the existence of objects.
The other way about, if there is no world
as object, there is no place for mind
as subject. The known is proved by the
knower and the knower is proved by the
known. This is the mutual dependence which
makes us relegate both the mind and the
world to the category of mithya.
Apropos of mithya, a question that has
been discussed in Advaita Vedanta
literature, in the context of the
example of rope snake to illustrate the
unreality of the world is whether there
is actual perception of a snake on a rope
or is it just a thought in the mind. It
is said that mere imagination of a snake
cannot produce fear. Only if the cognition
itself is to the effect that there is
a snake in front, the person will be frightened.
This is the basis for saying that snake
is experienced but it is negated when
the rope is revealed. Similarly, the question
is asked, “Is the dream tiger a perceived
object or is it mere imagination. If it
was mere imagination, the dream I, confronted
with a tiger in the forest would not be
frightened. The rope-snake and the dream
tiger are said to be mithya of the pratibhasika
variety. Like
that, the world is also mithya
but of the vyavaharika variety. . There
is a difference between the snake mithya
and the world mithya. Snake disappears
when the rope is revealed. But the world
continues to be experienced by the jivanmukta
even after Brahman is revealed. So, Advaita
Vedanta cites the example of mirage, sunrise
etc. Even after we know that they are
not real, we continue to experience them.
Whatever is perceived but is not real
is called ‘anirvacaniiya’ in Vedanta;
it is another term for mithya.
- In Buddhism, there are two branches
- Hinayana and Mahayana. There are
two schools in the Hinayana branch
– Sountraantika and Vaibhashika. Both
the schools of Hinayana accept the
existence of consciousness as well
as a world of objects outside the
mind and maintain that any object
has only momentary existence. This
is called “ubhaya astitva vada”.
(There is an internal difference,
between Sautrantika and Vaibhashika,
which is not relevant for the purposes
of this discussion. The internal difference
is - for the Sautrantika, the
acceptance of the existence of
a world outside the mind is a matter
of perception and for the Vaibhashika,
it is a matter of inference.) In the
Mahayana also, there are two schools
– Yogacara and Madhyamika. Yogacara
denies the existence of the world
outside the mind but accepts the existence
of consciousness. Sautrantika, Vaibhashika
and Yogacara – all three – say that
consciousness is momentary. (They
do not accept any unchanging consciousness.)
That is to say, one cognition arises,
exists for just a moment and disappears
before the next cognition arises.
This doctrine is called “Kshanika
Vijnanam”. For the Madhyamika school
of Mahayana, reality is nothingness
(sunya); So, it is called sunyavada.
In effect, there are three main doctrines
– (i) “Ubhaya astitva vada” - the
doctrine that there is a world of
objects having momentary existence,
as well as momentary consciousness
(ii) “Kshanika vijnanam” - the doctrine
that there is no external world at
all ; what there is only consciousness
and that consciousness is momentary
and (iii) “Sunyavada” – the doctrine
that reality is nothingness
. In Brahmasutra, Vyasacarya
and in his Bhashyams, Sankaracarya
refute (i) the doctrine that there
is no world outside the mind (ii)
the doctrine that consciousness is
momentary and (iii) the doctrine that
reality is nothingness.
- The Hinayana doctrine that any object
in the external world has only momentary
existence is refuted as follows:-
(i) It is contradictory to the Hinayana
doctrine of cause –effect relationship
(“karya-karana sambandha”). If Hinayana
philosophers want to maintain
karya karana sambandha, they have
to give up the idea of momentary existence
of objects or vice versa, because
the essential nature of a cause continues
to inhere in the effect; for example,
clay continues to exist when pot shape
is given to a lump of clay and certain
chemical elements of milk continue
to exist when milk turns into curd.
(ii) Our experience is – and science
also tells us – that matter is never
totally destroyed. It only changes
from one form into another (law of
conservation of energy and matter.)
(iii) Buddhism also believes in rebirth
and the cycle of samsara. And
it talks of deliberate destruction
(“prasankyayana nirodha”) of samsara
by the seeker pursuing certain spiritual
practices (“sadhana”). If samsara
like everything else has only momentary
existence, and will in any case die
a natural death, in a moment,
where is the question of deliberate
destruction through sadhana? So, the
doctrine of momentary existence of
objects and the concept of sadhana
do not go together.
(iv) If it is said that every object
has only momentary existence, it is
tantamount to saying that every object
is created out of nothing; such creation
is contrary to experience. If
nothingness is the cause of objects,
since cause inheres in effect, we
should be experiencing only nothingness
everywhere, but we say ‘pot is ‘ ,
tree is’ etc. If nothing is
required for producing something,
to accomplish a thing, no effort would
be needed.
(v) The fact that for growing a
mango tree, we sow mango seed and
not cocoanut seed proves that a
specific material transforms into
a specific product. This proves continued
existence of an object in a different
form, not momentariness.
- The doctrine of the Yogacara school
of Mahayana that there is no external
world outside the mind is refuted
as follows:-
(i) Our experience clearly proves
the existence of a world outside the
mind. If there is only consciousness
and there is no external world at
all, how is it that cognition is not
uniform but varied and differentiated
like a tree, river, mountain, a man,
an animal and so on and like color,
sound, smell etc.
(ii) In sushupti, we continue
to have consciousness but there
is no cognition only because contact
of sense organs and mind with
external objects is severed. The
moment we wake up, the contact
is revived and there is cognition
of external objects.
(iii) To explain cognition of
differentiated objects, the Mahayana
philosopher says that what appear
as differentiated objects are
impurities of kshanika vijnanam.
This is countered by pointing
out that impurities in a substance
are not the same as the substance.
Since the only thing that this
Mahayana philosopher accepts is
kshanika vijnanam, there is no
place for anything else such as
impurities. Now, he tries to escape
by saying that impurities are
also kshanika vijananams. The
absurdity of this statement is
pointed out by saying that since,
in this school, kshanika vijananams
are the reality, if impurities
are kshanika vijnanams, impurities
can never be removed – which means
that there is no moksha.
(iv) Unless the existence of
a world outside the mind is conceded,
how can one explain the distinction
between a thought arising from
the contact of the mind through
the sense organs with an object
outside and a mere thought when
no external object is present?
Sitting in Chennai one thinks
of Varanasi. Later, one travels
to Varanasi and bathes in the
Ganga. One is in office and is
thinking that he forgot to tell
his wife, before leaving for office,
that he was taking her to a cinema
in the evening. Later, one comes
home and takes one’s wife to a
theatre. One is wondering why
one’s friend has not come. Later,
the friend comes and one talks
to one’s friend for half an hour.
One imagines how nice it would
to have ice cream when it
is so hot. In the evening, one
goes to the ice cream parlour
and takes ice cream. One comes
back from a holiday in the Himalayas
and returning to Chennai, remembers
the cold in the Himalayas while
he is walking in the scorching
sun in Anna Salai. If there is
no external world, how can all
this be explained? Even for a
jivanmukta, there is an external
world outside the mind, on the
vyavaharika plane. To this, the
Buddhist uses a counter argument
and cites the example of the dream
which is really only thoughts
in the mind but which, nevertheless,
are perceived as objects. This
is refuted by saying that
there is a difference; objects
perceived in the dream are known
to be false when we wake up but
the objects of the waking world
are not negated every morning
like that. Further, whereas swapna
prapanca (the dream world) is
nothing but the vasanas within
the mind of the particular person
and it being outside is only an
illusion and no other person perceives
it, jagrat prapanca actually
exists outside the mind and the
same objects are perceived by
all persons. If it
is held that jagrat prapanca is
also only in the mind, one should
be able to say which is the other
world the experience of which
could produce the vasanas which
can be projected by the mind as
the jagrat prapanca. For this,
there will be no answer. Further
how can you explain the distinction
between erroneous perception
like perception of snake on the
rope and right perception of rope
as rope? None of the above phenomena
can be explained unless the existence
of an external world outside the
mind is conceded. (In Advaita
Vedanta also, in certain formulations,
it is said that there is no external
world. But, there, the existence
of a world outside the mind is
not denied. What is pointed out
is that there is no world of the
same order of reality as Brahman,
the paramartika satyam; both
the world and the mind are superimpositions
on Brahman and are categorized
as vyavaharika satyam.)
- The doctrine of both schools of Hinayana
and the Yogacara school of Mahayana
that consciousness has only
momentary existence (kshanika vijnanam)
is refuted as follows:-
(i) If it is held that consciousness
arises, exists for just a moment
only and is gone before the next
consciousness arises, one cannot
explain memory (“smriti”). We
remember only what we have experienced.
Experience occurs first and recollection
thereafter. Only if there is a
consciousness that exists continuously
from the time of experience up
to the time of recollection can
the mind connect the past and
the present and produce the recollection
vritti. That the mind so connects
is adequate proof of the existence
of a permanent consciousness.
Unless the same consciousness
which was there at the time of
experience is still there
at the time of remembrance, one
cannot say that one remembers
that one experienced a particular
object in terms such as “I
remember that I met Devadatta
during the festival at the temple.”
If there is nothing like a continuous
consciousness, remembrance
cannot take place.
(ii) If consciousness is momentary,
recognition (“pratyabhinja”) cannot
take place. The difference between
smriti and pratyabhinja is that
in smriti, the object experienced
is not present at the time of
remembrance; in pratyabhinja,
the object experienced is present
at the time of recognition. Pratyabhinja
also proves the continued existence
of the subject, besides proving
the continued existence of the
object. Unless the same consciousness
was there at the time of the first
experience and is still there
at the time of the subsequent
experience, one cannot recognize
the object experienced previously
and being experienced currently
to be the same, in t1erms such
as “The Devadatta who is now in
front of me is the same Devadatta
whom I met during the festival
at the temple.”
(iii) To this, there is a counter-argument
by the Kshanika vijnana adherents.
They say that the person you see
now or think you see now is not
the same person you met or you
thought to be there earlier. That
person or the thought of that
person existed only at that moment.
This person or the thought of
this person exists only at this
moment. You are deluded into thinking
that it is the same person or
the thought of the same person
because the person that existed
then or you thought existed then
and the person existing now or
is thought to be existing now
are similar. And they give the
example of the flame appearing
to be the same, though, at each
moment, a separate drop of oil
is being burnt and the example
of the stream appearing to
be a continuous entity, even though
the water molecules that were
there at any given point a moment
ago have been replaced by another
set of molecules already. The
Vedantin refutes this by saying
that even for recognizing similarity
between an object that existed
in the past or the mere thought
of such an object and an object
that exists at present or the
thought of such an object, the
same consciousness that experienced
the object or had the thought
of such an object in the past
should exist at present. Even
if one may say that similarity
of objects is possible in rare
cases, how can anybody doubt the
recognition of oneself as a continuous
personality? One says “I who went
to bed yesterday and slept soundly
am now awake and am talking to
my wife about our program of visits
this Sunday.” Unless the same
“I” consciousness that was there
when one went to bed yesterday
is continuing to exist now when
one is awake and talking to one’s
wife, how can this phenomenon
be explained. (The kshanika vijnanam
of the Buddhists is the ahamkara
of Advaita Vedanta. In Advaita
Vedanta, besides ahamkara, which
is the changing consciousness,
there is atma (sakshi), the
unchanging consciousness, invoked
as the constant I existing during
the changing cognitions of the
mind.)
(iv) In Advaita Makarandam,
the author uses a graphic argument.
A person can never know his own
birth or death. One’s birth is
the last moment of one’s prior
non-existence. One’s death is
the first moment of one’s posterior
non-existence. One is not there
to know either. Like that a momentary
consciousness cannot know that
it is momentary. It is not there
when it is born and it is not
there when it dies. Another momentary
consciousness cannot know it either,
because consciousness No.1 dies
before consciousness No.2 is born
and consciousness No.3 is not
yet born when consciousness No2
dies. So, the question is who
is there to know that consciousness
is momentary? Unless a continuous
consciousness is accepted, the
existence of momentary consciousness
or a series of momentary consciousnesses
that succeed one another cannot
be established.
(v). If all that there
is momentary consciousness,
(a) there cannot be any notion
of means and ends. When the thought
of end comes, the thought of means
is gone.
(b) There cannot be any notion
of possessor and possessed. When
the thought of possessed comes,
the thought of possessor has gone,
and
(c) There cannot be the notion
of an article having a name. When
the thought of name comes, the
thought of the article has gone.
- Refutation of sunyavada - Commenting
on the third sentence of the Chandogya
Upanishad mantra VI.ii.1 – “O,
good looking one, in the beginning
this was Existence alone. One only
without a second”, Sankaracarya says,
“The nihilists (vainaasikaa),
say that this world, before creation,
was non-existence, merely absence
of existence. …….Objection: If the
idea of the nihilists is that before
creation it existed as non-existence,
one only, without a second, how can
they speak of a connection with time,
association with number and non-duality?
Vedantin: Quite so. This is not logical
for those who accept only absence
of existence. And their admission
of mere non-existence is illogical
also because the existence of the
person who denies existence cannot
be denied. If it is held that the
one who admits (non-existence) exists
now but not before creation, then
it is not so, because there is no
proof of non-existence of Existence
before creation. It is illogical to
imagine that there was non-existence
alone before creation.” Vidyaranya
also refutes by asking the philosopher
who says that there is nothing “You
say that there is nothing. But are
you there or not?” He cannot but say
“I am”. This is enough to establish
that to say that there is nothing
is absurd.
(N.B (i) The refutation of Buddhist Schools
about Reality described above is based
on Sankaracarya's bhashyams. However,
in a book, entitled " A Crtical Survey
Of Indian Philosophy" by Chanradhar Sharma,
a retired University Professor of Philosophy,
reprinted first by Motilal Banarsidas,
Delhi, in 1960 , he has propounded a completely
opposite view. Dismissing misconceptions
about consciousness and sunya and citing
the works of Asanga, Vasubandhu, Asvagosha
and Nagarjuna, he has established that
Mahayana Buddhism is not different, in
essence , from Advaita Vedanta. He has
shown that in Mahayana Buddhism., the
phenomenal world and the limited intellects
are only empirical manifestations related
to ignorance and that the ultimate reality
is a permanent, immortal. never-changing,
non-dual, universal, self-luminous, Pure
Consciousness. InTrimsika K., it is said
that the Pure Consciousness transcends
the intellect and all its categories as
well as the plurality of the phenomenal
world. It is Pure and Undefiled Existence
(anasravo-dhatuh); it is beyond finite
thought (acintyah), it is the Good (kusalah),
it is the eternal (dhruvah), it is Blissful
(sukhah), it is Liberation (vimukti),
it is Buddha's Body of Pure Existencce
(dharmakaaya).
(ii) In Lankavatara, Buddha himself is
said to have described Reality (Tathagatagarbha)
to be self-luminous (prakriti-prabhaaswara),
absolutely pure (adi-visuddha), to be
immanent in all beings (sarva-sattva-dehaantargata),
to be immortal (nitya), permanent (dhruva),
eternal (saasvata) and blissful (siva)..
(iii) The force behind creation is the
beginningless tendency inspired by Ignorance
in the Aalaya (Absolute Consciousness)
to manifest itself as subject and as object..
The Real Self, says Asanga, is essentially
Non-dual. It is beyond Ignorance and beyond
intellect. Ego is only an illusion (bhrama).
Liberation, therefore is only the destruction
of ignorance. (Mahayanasutralankara).
(iv) In certain texts, even the word,
"Brahman" is used. Lalitavistara describes
Reality as full of Bliss in the beginning,
in the middle and the end, One, Full,
Pure and the Abode of Brahman.
(v) Though Buddha's teaching was based
on Upanishadic philosophy, after Buddha'a
death, the Hinayanists misunderstood Buddha's
teachings. Proclaiming that the No-soul
theory and the theory of Universal Momentariness
were the cornerstone of Buddhism, they
reduced mind to fleeting ideas and matter
to fleeting sensations. The Vaibhashikas
and the Sautrantikas said that everything
is momentary. Nothing is permanent. Later,
Asanga, Vasubandhu, Asvagsha and Nagarjuna
brought Buddhism closer to Advaita Vednata.
But the Dinnaga school (Swantantra vijnana
vadins) reversed the trend and proclaimed
that not only are phenomena momentary
but they degraded Vasubandhus's permanent
Consciousness to the level of a momentary
vijaanana or a unique momentary Particuar
which they call Svalakshana. But there
was no later philosopher who could restore
the Reality of Buddhism to the non-fdual,
never-changing, permanent Consciousness
propounded by Asanga, Vasubandhu, Asvagosha
and Nagarjuna. Why Sankaracarya was not
aware of the works of these authors is
a mystery. (Some of them are now available
only in Chinese translations.
(vi) The following extract from "The Concept
of Mukti in AdvaitaVedanta" by A..G.Krishna
Warrier, University of Madras, also supports
Chandradhar Sharma's view:- To a bikku
who asked "What is that place where distinctions
like water and earth, fire and air have
no footting, where long and short, fine
and coarse, good and bad or name and form
cease absolutely?":, the Buddha answered
"It is vinnaana (consciousness) which
is signless, infinite, radiant on all
sides, where all distinctions cease and
where vinnaana (as constituted), after
cessation, disappears. (Dighanbikaya and
Majjhima). Buddhagosha says that the first
vinnaana (vijnaana) is another name for
Nirvana while the second is one of the
skhandas. (Sumangala Vilasini).( Buddhagosha's
interpretation is based on certain Nikaya
passages. Speaking of the parinibbaana
of Vakkali, the Buddha said that his vinnaana
cannot be localized (apatitthita. (Samyukta
and Dhammapada Atthasaalini). Apatitthita
vinmnana is explained as consciousness
which requires no support for its origin.
It is free, steady, happy and fearless..
Thus, according to Buddhagosha, Nirvana
is inexpressible and infinite. It is a
transcendental state. The Milinda Panha
compares Nirvana to aakaasa or samudda,
implying that is not annihilation. Like
aakaasa, Nirvana is inexpressible, beyond
empirical determination (Udaana).
- In Advaita Vedanta, knowledge (discovery
of one’s identity with Brahman) is
the ultimate means of moksha. Some
philosophers talk of karma or upasana
as the immediate means of moksha.
(Both karma and upasana are action
involving motion. Karma is a movement
of the body. Upasana is thought which
is a movement of the mind). This is
refuted by Sankaracarya.
Sankaracarya’s logic is as follows:-
Moksha is attaining Brahman (i.e.
identification with Brahman).
The positive result of Karma is
only of four types as shown in
brackets. Brahman dos not fall
in any of these four.
(a)(Reaching a destination) Brahman
is all pervading (sarvagatah);
there is, therefore, no question
of reaching Brahman.
(b)(Production. E.g., Seed
is sown; crop is produced.) Brahman
is ever one’s nature. Brahman
is unborn and eternal (“aja”,
“nitya”. The question
of Brahman or Brahman-ness (“Brahmatvam”)
being produced does not arise.
(c)(Modification.) Brahman and
one’s own nature as Brahman are
changeless (“nirvikara”);
the question of modifying to become
We read so many obituaries in
the newspapers but our peace of
mind is not affected. But it happens
to be the death of a close relative,
we are sad. Once I understand
that I am not this individual
body and mind but I am the infinite
Brahman, nothing in the vyavaharika
world which includes the individual
body and mind I am born with will
affect me since I have disidentified
with them.
- Another important point, emphasized
by Sankaracarya elsewhere is that
in karma and upasana, one has to regard
the Lord to be different from oneself
whereas jnana leading to liberation
is discovery of one’s identity with
Brahman. Karma and upasana are based
on dehaatmabhaava, whereas jnanam
is destruction of dehatmabhava.
- The fundamental tenets of Advaita
philosophy consist of
(i)Three orders of reality,
with Brahman as the Existence-Consciousness-Infinity
as the highest order of reality
and the substratum, the nama roopa
appearing on that substratum as
the next lower order of reality,
and the dream world and erroneously
perceived things like snake on
the rope, as the lowest order
of reality – paramartikam, vyavaharikam
and pratibhasikam, respectively
(the latter two which have no
independent existence being called
mithya)
(ii))Identity of the consciousness
of the jivatma and the all pervading
consciousness, Brahman,
(iii) Avidya (Maya)
(iv) Iswara and
(v) Adhyasa
- By the avarana sakti of Avidya the
awareness of the true nature of Jivatma
as Brahman is covered (concealed from
the Jivatma). The vikshepa sakti of
Avidya misleads the jivatma into regarding
the world as real and identifying
himself with the body mind complex.
This is called adhyasa. Adhyasa is
defined as mistaking a thing to be
other than what it really is. In the
process of adhyasa, jivatma, owing
to self-ignorance, superimposes anatma
(the body mind complex) and its properties
on atma and say, “I am fat” “I shall
die soon”(false transference of the
characteristic of the body on atma)
“ I wrote a short story today” ( false
transference of the doership, the
kartrtvam on atma) “I enjoyed
my dinner today ” (false transference
of the enjoyership, the bhoktrtvam
on atma) “ I am a scholar” (false
transference of the intellect on atma)
“I am a father”, “I am a husband (false
transference of the relationship of
the body on atma), “ my house is leaking”
(false transference of the possessorship
on atma). So doing, jiva is afflicted
by the limitations and tribulations
arising from this superimposition.
The other way, when one says “I am
a conscious being” it is superimposition
of the consciousness belonging
to atma on anatma.
- 3. Opponents of Advaita Vedanta argue
that adhyasa is not possible, because
the requirements of adhyasa are not
there for superimposition of anatma
on Atma to take place. The requirements,
they say, are as follows:-
(i) The real object should
be perceived in front.
(ii) There must be ignorance
of the identity of the real
object.
(iii) There must
be similarity in features between
the real object and the thing
that is superimposed.
(iv) The person who is
superimposing a thing should have
experienced a real member of the
superimposed species previously
so that the impression left by
that experience (samskaara)
is there in the mind when he is
superimposing.
These requirements are not met
in the case of Atma anatma superimposition,
according to them, as shown below.
(i) Atma is not perceived as
an object,
(ii) Since atma is self-evident,
the identity of atma is not unknown,
(iii) There is no similarity
between atma and anatma, and
(iv) anatma is unreal; so, the
question of anyone having experienced
a real anatma previously does
not arise and, therefore there
can be no samskara of the experience
of anaatma.
- 4. These objections are countered
by Sankaracarya in his adhyasa bhashyam
which is an introductory portion of
his commentary on Brahma Sutram as
follows:-
(i) For adhyasa to take place,
it is not essential that the object
should be perceived .It is sufficient
if the entity is known. Atma is
known in the sense the atma is
self-evident as the sakshi, (the
constant consciousness available
for recognition, particularly,
in sushupti).
(ii) The condition required
for adhyasa is not total ignorance
of the identity but part ignorance.
We all say, “I am”; that means
the existence aspect (sat amsa)
and the consciousness aspect (cit
amsa) of atma
are known to us. But there is
one part that is not known to
us; that “I am infinite” is not
known to us (the anantatva aspect
of atma is not known). (Example.
That there is a thing with a particular
shape in front is known. But that
the thing has the characteristics
of a rope is not known. And the
characteristics are mistaken to
be those of a snake).
(iii) Similarity is not an invariable
requirement. There are cases where
there is no similarity and still,
there is adhyasa, e.g., space
is not similar to anything but
we do superimpose blueness and
a dome like shape on it.
(iv) No doubt samskara of a previous
experience is necessary. But it
need not be of the experience
of a real entity. Even if the
samskara is of the experience
of a false entity, in the past,
it is sufficient to produce the
present adhyasa. (Suppose I
am familiar with the banyan tree
and I have the habit of doing
perambulation (pradakshinam)
of the tree. I go to a village
in another region; there I see
a tree with leaves similar to
those of the banyan tree. I mistake
it to be a banyan tree and do
pradakshinam. Later I go
to another village where there
is a tree of the same species.
On the basis of the samskara of
the previous adhyaasa, I do pradakshinam
of this tree also). (The example
given in a prakarana grantha called
‘Vicara sagara for the first adhyasa
is mistaking a butter tree, madhuka
vrksha, madhuca latifolia,
for a mango tree). For the question
how the first adhyasa arose, the
answer is that avidya which en
genders adhyasa is beginningless
(anaadi). Another example
is samskara arising out of the
experience of a vyavaharika
adhyasa being the basis for
a pratibhasika adhyasa
is - . Suppose a person sees a
ghost in a movie and this samskara
(retained memory) leads to
his perceiving a ghost in his
dream. The ghost in the movie
is not a real ghost. But the samsakara
of having seen that is adequate
to create the perception of the
dream ghost which is also unreal.
Similarly the experience of having
perceived a false world previously
is sufficient to produce the samskara
necessary to produce the current
perception of a false world.
- 5. Sastra-based logic for postulating
adhyasa is as follows:-
Upanishads say that atma is
asangah, apanipadou, amanah. So
atma is akarta and abhokta. But
jivatmas identify themselves with
the body mind complex and engage
themselves in worldly and religious
transactions. This cannot
happen, unless they are deluded
into transferring the kartrutvam,
bhoktrutvam etc. belonging to
anatma to atma.
- Adhyasa is two-fold. (a) arthaadhyaasa
and (b) jnanaadhyaasa. The
appearance of a false object on the
substratum of a real object is arthadhyasa.
The thought that mistakes the false
object to be the real object is jnanadhyasa.
The mirage see on the
sand is arthadhyasa. The thought in
the mind of the traveler in the desert
that it is water is jnanadhyasa.
In respect of the world, the ajnani
has both arthadhyasa and jnanadhyasa.
The jnani ceases to have jnanadhyasa
and he has only arthadhyasa.
The ajnani takes the world to be real and,
consequently, he has samsara. The
jnani continues to perceive the world
but he knows that it is false; therefore
he is free of samsara.
- When you say “I am the doer” or “I
am the enjoyer” or “I am the thinker”,
you are superimposing ahamkara on
atma. This is called “dharmi adhyasa”.
When you say “I am angry” you are
superimposing an attribute of ahamkara
on atma. This is called “dharma adhyasa”.
When you say “I am conscious”, you
are superimposing the ‘attribute'
of atma on ahamkara. This is also
dharmi adhyasa. There cannot be dharma
adhyasa involving the superimposition
of atma on ahamkara. Because, first,
adhishtanam cannot be superimposed
on upadhi. Secondly, if you say that
atma is myself, it is not error (adhyasa),
but jnanam (“ahambrahmasmi” knowledge).
- There is another classification of
adhyasa, connected with the concept
of upadhi. The entity which is superimposed
on another or en entity the characteristics
of which are falsely seen in another
is called upadhi and the entity
on which the superimposition takes
place or to which the characteristics
appear to have been transferred is
called upahitam. The adhyasa
takes place where the two real entities
are close to each other or an unreal
entity is located on a real entity.
Two kinds of examples are given. One
is the closeness of the transparent
crystal and the red hibiscus flower.
The redness of the flower is falsely
transferred to the crystal and the
crystal appears to be red. In this
case, both the upadhi and upahitam
are real entities. This is called
samsarga- adhyasa. Here,
what is mithya is not the upadhi but
the relation of the red color of the
flower to the crystal. The
other example which is more suitable
for the case of the superimposition
of avidya and the world of plurality
on Brahman is the rope and the snake.
The snake is superimposed on the rope
the rope appears to be poisonous and
frightening. Similarly avidya and
the differentiated nama roopa are
superimposed on Brahman. This is called
swaroopa-adhyasa. Here, the
superimposed entity itself is mithya;
the upadhi is unreal and the upahitam
is real.
There is an alternative terminology
– Sopaadhika adhyaasa and
Nirupaadhika adhyaasa.
Since the superimposition of the
red color on the crystal is a
false transference from a real
upadhi (the red flower), it is
called sopadhika adhyasa. Whereas,
the superimposition of the snakeness
is a false transference from an
unreal upadhi, it is called nirupadhika
adhyasa. The superimposition of
Maya and nama roopa on Brahman
is nirupadhika adhyasa.”
- The very concept of Iswara and jiva
is adhyasa. Brahman, qua Brahman,
is not the cause, the inner controller,
or the witness of the universe, all
of which are characteristics of Iswara.
Similarly, Brahman is not a cognizer
or an agent or an enjoyer; all these
characteristics belong to jiva. But
the non-dual Brahman, on account of
the association with avidya appears
in the dual forms of Iswara and jiva.
Maya is the upadhi for Brahman to
appear as Iswara and Maya’s product,
the intellects of jivas, are the upadhis
for Brahman to appear as jivas. When
reality is attributed to the upadhis,
Brahman is called visishta caitanyam
or visishta Brahman. When
the upadhis are understood to be mithya,
Brahman is called upahita caitnyam
or upaahita Brahman. Since
the experienced universe is a combination
of Brahman as Existence and the superimposed
nama roopa, what we experience on
the vyavaharika plane, is sopaadhika
Brahman, whether we make the mistake
of taking the world of nama roopa
to be real or not. . Nirupaadhika
Brahman is there only on the paramarthika
plane. A day to day example
for visishta and upahita is as follows:
- I ask you to give me water to drink.
You have to bring it in a tumbler.
The tumbler is an integral part of
your bringing the water. Now, the
water is tumbler-visishta. When I
drink the water, I swallow only the
water, knowing that I am not supposed
to swallow the tumbler but I am still
holding it. So, at the time of drinking,
the water is tumbler-upahita. Upahita
caitanyam is experienced even after
it is known that the upadhi is mithya,
just as you hold the tumbler while
drinking water, even after knowing
that you can’t swallow the tumbler.
When Brahman is said to be “jnanam” in
the mantra, “Satyam jnanam anantam Brahma”
the word “jnanam” refers to the eternal
consciousness which is Brahman’s nature.
It is called “swaroopa jnanam”.
It is not swaroopa jnanam that destroys
self ignorance. If that was the case,
since swaroopa jnanam is eternal, nobody
would ever be ignorant. In fact swaroopa
jnanam illumines ignorance as well as
knowledge, through cidabhasa. What
destroys self-ignorance is vritti jnanam, the
vritti that I am Brahman. This vritti jnanam
(knowledge) is gained by the ahamkara.
The notion that I am a limited individual
is destroyed by the vritti that I am the
infinite Brahman. When I say “I”, if I
identify with ahamkara, I am in samsara.
If I own up the unchanging infinite consciousness
as I, it is moksha. In both cases it is
my ahamkara which does the job of identification,
but the entities regarded as myself is
ahamkara in the former case and Brahman
in the second case.
Mahavakyas do not reveal any new entity.
The consciousness available in us, Atma,
is self-evident – is recognised by us
already. What a mahavakyam does is to
remove the wrong notion that it is limited.
What is revealed by mahavakyas is the
Bramatvam status of the already recognised
entity. To illustrate this, in Taittiriya
bhashyam II.1, Sankaracarya relates the
story of a team of ten persons crossing
a (dangerous river by swimming). On reaching
the other shore the commander wants to
check whether all have reached safely.
He counts one by one. Engrossed in counting
others, he misses counting himself and
arrives at nine and he is sad that one
of then had got drowned while crossing
and wails. A person who is passing by
hears the wailing, and being told the
reason, counts the members of the team,
one by one. He comes to the commander
last, and points out ‘You age the tenth
man’. In this story, the passer-by is
not bringing a tenth man; he is only revealing
the tenth-man status to the tenth man.
The consciousness in me I have already
recognised. What I understand through
mahavakyam is that it is infinite. You
do not create space. When you are in a
room, you may have a wrong notion that
space is limited by the walls of the room.
You demolish the walls; you recognize
that what you thought was room-limited
space is in fact the all pervading space.
Mahavakyas are sentences containing words
which are in saamaanaaadhikaranya,
i.e., all the words in the sentence, being
grammatically in the same case, point
to the same entity, though each has a
different significance. There are three
main methods of analyzing the samanadhikaranyam
of the wordsa in the mahavakyas. The method
of analyzing the mahavakya “Tattvamasi”
occurring Chandogya Upanishad is called
jahallajahallakshanaa or bhaagatyaagalakshanaa.
The literal meaning (vacyaartha)
is ‘jivatma’ consisting of ahamkara (antahkaranam
plus cidabhasa) which has limited knowledge
(alpajnatbvam) and limited powers
(alpasaktimatam) and the original
consciousness. The vacyartha of ‘Tat’
is Iswara, consisting of reflected consciousness
in Maya with omniscience (sarvajnatvam)
and omnipotence (sarvasaktimavam)
and the original consciousness. The word,
‘asi’ says that the two are identical.
The question is, ‘how can we equate the
jivatma, the one with limited knowledge
and limited powers with Iswara, the one
with unlimited knowledge and unlimited
powers. So, we give up the vacyartha and
take recourse to the implied meaning (lakshaartha)
of ‘tat’ and ‘tvam’. In doing so, we discard
the mithya parts of the word ‘tvam’, viz.,
the ahamkara and retain the satya part
, viz., the original consciousness. Similarly,
wde discard the mithya part of the word
‘tat’, viz., Maya and the reflected consciousness
and retain the original consciousness.
And the original consciousness part of
‘tvam’ is equated with the original consciousness
part of ‘tat’ by the word.’asi’. Thus
‘tat’ and ‘tvam’ are understoofd as being
identical. Since we discard one part of
the meaning and retain the other part
in the words. ‘tvam’ amd ‘tat’, this is
called jahallajahallakshana or bhagatyagalakshana.
(This bhagatyagalakshana method is what
is adopted in Sankaracarya’s Vakyavritti
verses 44 - 48). (In “tattvamasi,
the word “tat” juxtaposed with the word
“tvam” negates the limitation of jivatma
and the word “tvam” juxtaposed with the
word “tat” negates the remoteness of paramatma.)
In the case if “ahambrahmasmi” the question
is “how can the finite jivatma be identical
with the infinite Brahman?” Here also
by bhagatyagalakshana, we negate the ahamkara
part of “aham” and retain the Brahma caitanyam part
of “aham” and equate with Brahman. (In
“ahambrahmasmi”, the word “Brahman” negates
limitation and the word “aham” negates
remoteness). In some other Mahavakyas,
like “prajnaanam brahma” which means that
the consciousness of the jivatma is none
other than Brahma caitanyam or “ayam atma
Brahma” which means this atma is Brahman”
the words in the mahavakyas directly equate
the original consciousness in the jivatma
and Brahman; so, no elimination is necessary
and here the process is called “ajahallakshana”.
In some cases, it is necessary to
substitute, for an entire word, an associated
meaning. The example is “sarvam khalu
idam Brahma” (“the world is Brahman” and
“idam sarvam yadayam atma”) The
world of nama roopas is mithya How can
the mithya world be equated with satya
Brahman? So, we discard the word, ‘world’
entirely and substitute for it, as
an associated word, viz., the subs-stratum,
‘Existence’. Existence is Brahman. So,
the equation becomes valid. Here,
since one of the words in the sentence
is discarded entirely, the method is called
jahallakshana. Where the vacyartha or
lakshyartha of two or more words of the
equation is the same, it is called aikyasaamanaadhikaranyam.
Where one or more of the words of the
equation have to be discarded, it is called
bhadhaayaasaamanaadhikaranyam.
(‘Tattvamasi’ occurs in Chandogya Upanishad
6h chapter where section 2 begins with
the words, ‘…in the beginning this
was Existence alone, One only, without
a second’. So, the question is, why are
we taking the vacyartha of ‘tat’ to be
Iswara and not Brahman. The answer is
that immediately after section 2,
section 3 says “That visualized, ‘I shall
become many. I shall be born’. That created
fire….” and, thus goes on to describe
creation. So, the vacyartha of ‘tat’ which
occurs in VI.viii.7 onwards is taken to
be Iswara. Similarly, in sections 5 and
6 of Chapter 6, the body and mind produced
from food is described and in 6 3.3 ,
the entry of Parmatma in the form
of jivatma is mentioned. . So, the vacyartha
of ‘tvam’ is taken as jivatma.)
(Other types of samanadhikaranyam are
– karya-kaarana-saamanaadhikaranyam, e.g.
clay pot, amsa-amsi-saamanaadhikaranyam,
e.g. desert land, guna-guni-bhaava-saamnaadhikaranyam
(viseshana-vishishya-bhava-s.), e.g. blue
lily and jaati-vyakti-bhava-saamaanadhikaranya,
e.g. mango tree.)
Brahman is said to be infinite, space
wise, time wise and entity wise. When
you talk of a thing that is attained by
you, it has to be a finite thing; before
attaining it, it has to be away from you.
Conversely, there can be no such event
as attaining the thing that is infinite.
By definition, ‘the infinite’ precludes
the existence of any second entity. So,
to talk of your being away from the infinite,
to start with, and your attaining it,
later, is illogical. Therefore, ‘attainment
of Brahman’ can only be a figure of speech.
One is ever Brahman; one has been ignorant
of this fact and the ignorance is removed
through study of Sastra. In short, only
if you are infinite yourself you
can discover your infinite nature.
Transformation from finite to another
finite is useless. Transformation from
infinite to infinite is not necessary.
Transformation from finite to infinite
is not possible. Only if we are already
infinite but are ignorant of it can we
discover our infinity.
By knowing the meaning of the word, “Tvam”
(“Thou”) or “Tat (“That”) alone, you do
not attain liberation. By enquiry into
the true meaning of “Tvam”, you may understand
that you are not the body or the mind
but the unchanging consciousness available
to be invoked as the constant “I” in and
through the changing conditions of the
body and mind. That is not enough.
Because you may think that there are as
many consciousnesses as there are bodies
and minds. Similarly by enquiry into the
true meaning of Tat, you may know that
Brahman is the infinite Existence-Consciousness-Infinity,
the only reality, the sub-stratum of all
false manifestations, but what benefit
is there for you in it? Only when the
meaning of “Tvam” and “Tat” are tied by
“asi” and when the teacher says “Tat tvam
asi”, you understand “aham brahma asmi
(I am that Brahman), then alone you are
free from samsara.
It is said that atma is self-effulgent
(swayam-prakaasa). “Self-effulgence” means
‘self evident’ – an objectifying
instrument of knowledge (pramana) is not
required for it to be recognized as existing.
In Taittiriya Upanishad Bhashya Vartikam,
Chapter II, verse 681), Sureswacarya explains
this. There are only three possibilities
for atma to be known by another agency.
(1) Through anatma. This is not possible
because anatma is insentient. (2) Through
atma itself. This is not possible because
one and the same entity cannot be the
knower and the known. (3) Through another
consciousness. This is not possible,
because there is no other consciousness.
(Cidabhasa cannot objectify atma because
cidabhasa itself is a reflection of atma
caitanyam; the reflection cannot illumine
the original).
An opponent argues “If Brahman is not
known It should be treated as unknown.
This rules out the possibility of attaining
the knowledge of Brahman and leads to
the futility of sastra.” To this, Sureswacarya
answers, “This argument is untenable.
Brahman is both known and unknown. Brahman
is none other than pratyagatma and pratyagatma
is always immediate (aparoksha). In this
sense, Brahman is known. But only through
sastra that one gets the knowledge that
Brahman is identical with pratyagatma.
In this sense, (but for sastra) Brahman
is unknown.
In the main paper, The Taittiriya Upanishad
definition of Brahman in 2.1.1
“Satyam Jnaanam Anantam Brahma”
has been translated as “Existence-Consciousness-Infinity”.
The logic of this translation is as follows:
-
Translated literally, the English word
“Truth” would not convey the intended
meaning. In his commentary on Taittiriya
2.1.1, Sankaracarya explains that a thing
is said to be “satyam” (true) when it
does not change the nature that is ascertained
to be its own (and a thing is said to
be unreal if it changes the nature ascertained
to be its own)..
From this it follows that the word “truth”
implies changelessness. In his commentary
on Taittiriya 2.6.1, Sankaracarya says,
“Apropos of this, existence is first being
spoken of. It remains to be explained
as to what kind of truth is meant in the
assertion that was made thus: ‘Brahman
is truth, knowledge, infinitude'. Hence
it is being said: Brahman's truth is affirmed
by speaking of Its existence; for it has
been asserted that the existing is the
true (cf. Chandogya 6.2.1). Therefore
the very affirmation of existence amounts
to an avowal of reality.”
In his commentary on Taittiriya 2.1.1,
he says, “‘pure existence is Truth, according
to another Vedic text.”
The other Vedic text referred to is Chandogya
6.8.7. Commenting
on Chandogya 6.8.7, Sankaracarya explains
that “the word ‘That' refers to what has
been spoken of as existence.
The commentary on 6 8.7 goes on to say
“That which has been spoken of as Existence
is the subtle essence of the universe,
the source of the whole universe. All
this has got this existence as their self….
This whole universe has become possessed
of a self through this atma, which is
called Existence……. And the atma through
which this entire universe has 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 essence, its quintessence,
its very reality.” And, in his commentary
on the Chandogya Upanishad passage 6.2.1
Sankaracarya explaining the word “sadeva” says, “The
word ‘sat' means mere Existence” and
goes on to describe it as a thing that
is subtle, without distinction, all pervasive,
one, taintless, partless consciousness
which is known from all Upanishads.” Further, he says,” That which is this universe which is perceived
as a modification possessed of name, form
and movement that was Existence alone,”
Thus, he equates “Truth” and “Pure existence.”
This is the logic of translating “Satyam”
in Taittiriya 2.1.1 as “Existence .
From one item of the definition of Brahman,
we can derive other items. (Most of these
are specifically there in the Upanishads.
But, here, we are just indicating the
inter-connections. For example, Brahman
is said to be non-dual (“advayam”).
Only if there is a second entity can there
is a relationship. So “Brahman is “asanga”
is a corollary. (Sruti specifically says
that atma is asanga - Brhadaranyaka
4.3.15, 3.8.8, 3.9.26, 4.2.4, 4.4.22,
4.5.15. “Asanga” means it cannot
have any relation or transaction with
anybody or anything. (Mandukya 7 – “avyavahaaryam)
and it cannot be doer or enjoyer (cannot
be”karta” or “bhokta” vide
Kathopanishad 1.2.19, Swetasvatara 6.12,
6.19). Also being asanga (relationless)
means It is neither cause nor effect,
because to be cause is to have relation
with effect and to be effect is to have
relation with cause. When Upanishad says
that Brahman is eternal (nityam),
that it is not born nor does it die and
that it is not born from anything nor
is anything born from it, it not only
means that It is neither cause nor effect,
but it means that It has no beginning
or end. (It is “anaadi” and “anantah”).
That which has no beginning and has no
end impels that it remains the same and
is free from other intermediary changes
also. So, changelessness of Brahman is
also derived. Changelessness also implies
that It is neither cause nor effect (“kaaryaakaaranavilakshana”),
because cause has to undergo change to
become effect and an effect is one that
has an end. Changelessness also implies
that Brahman is beyond time and space,
because change is takes place in space
and is an event in time. Brahman
(Aatma) is said to be all pervading (“sarvagatah”,
“sarvaga” (“sarvavyaapi”)
.Mundaka 1.1.6, 3.2.5, 5, Swetasvatara
1.16, 3.11, 3.21, 6.13, 6.17) and formless
(amoorthah) (Mundaka Upanishad
2.1.2, Maitri Upanishad 6.3, 7.1,2)..
Change is event in time and takes place
for an entity with form, that is, with
boundaries, located in space. So, changelessness
is derived from all pervasiveness also.
Brahman is the support (adhishtaanam)
of not only the objects of the world but
of time and space which is part of nama
roopa and is infinite,-. So, the corollary
is that Brahman is beyond tine and space.
Cf. Swetasvatara 6.2 - Creator of time
(“kaalakaarah”); Brhadaranyaka
4.4.16 – “the Lord…….below which the year
itself rotates”;
‘Kathopanishad 1.2.14 – “…that thing which
is different from the past and the present”;
Kathopanishad 2.1.13 “He is the ruler
of the past and the future” (These refer
to time-wise transcendence). Swetasvatara
3.14 (which, it seems, reproduces Taittiriya
Aranyaka third Prasna) reads, “.” “With
thousand heads and thousand feet and having
enclosed the universe, the Purusha (the
Infinite) stands ten inches beyond.” (This
refers to space-wise transcendence. When
Brahman is said to be all pervading, we
have to understand it properly. It is
not as if there was already a universe
and Brahman pervaded it. Brahman is the
eternal Existence. And on that Existence
names and forms are superimposed in an
alternating cycle of manifested and unmanifested
condition. It is like space which is already
there and you insert perceptible objects
in it. So, the corollary is that
atma is beyond time and space. Also,
Taittiriya Upanishad 2.1 and Swetasvatara
1.9, 5.1, say that Brahman is infinite
(“anantam”). (The word, “Brahman”
itself means unsurpassably big. Only that
which has no limits, i.e., only the infinite
can be said to be unsurpassably big.)
The infinitude applies to space, time
and entity, as Sankaracarya points out
in Taittiriya bhashayam 2.1. From this
also, we have to understand that Brahman
is beyond time and space and other entities.
From infinity time wise, also, we can
go to eternality of Brahman (nityatvam)
and beginningless and endlessness of Brahman
(anaaditvam and antaraahityam) and
vice versa. Similarly, from infinity space
wise, we can infer formlesness (niraakaaratvam)
and all pervasiveness (sarvagatatvam)
and from infinity entity wise, we can
infer non-duality -, there can be no other
real entity). There can be only
one infinite. ‘Many infinite things' is
a contradiction in terms. Since there
can be so other real entity, the world
has to be of a lower order of reality.
So, Brahman defined as satyam (Existence)
and jnanam (Consciousness) as also anantam
(infinitude) means that the existence
nature and consciousness nature of Brahman
is all pervasive, eternal and non-dual.
Any finite entity will be one that
is attained in time or is yet to be attained.
The infinite cannot be attained by the
finite. Brahman, being infinite, we cannot
attain Brahman unless we ourselves are
infinite. There can be no two infinite
entities; if such proposition is put forward,
the one will limit the other; so both
will become finite. So when it is said
that Brahman is infinite and jivatma is
infinite, as in the santipatha, ‘Poornamada
poornamaidam’ jivatma in its real nature
has to be ever identical with paramatma.
That is why Brahman is called “siddha
vastu” (that which is already attained)
and not sadhya vastu (that which
is to be attained). To have attributes
is to be limited. What is big is not small.
What is love is not hatred. So, when Brahman
is said to be infinite, it follows that
Brahman is without attributes (‘nirguna”);
Svetasvatara Upanishad 6.11 and Brahma
Upanishad 3 specify that Brahman is nirguna.
To have attributes is to be subject
to change. Brahman which is without attributes
(“nirguna”) will therefore be changeless.
“Nirguna’ includes ‘devoid of form’; being
devoid of form is all pervading.
1. We come across apparently contradictory
or intriguing passages in the Upanishads.
These have to be interpreted, taking into
account relevant passages where the meaning
is clear. Kenopanishad 1.4
– “That (Brahman) is surely different
from the known; and again It is above
the unknown” Sankaracarya explains,
“Inasmuch as everything is known somewhere
by somebody, all that is manifested is
certainly known. The idea is that Brahman
is different from that (the manifested
universe). The unknown is opposed to the
known. This consists of the unmanifested
in the form of avidya, which is the seed
of the manifested. Brahman is different
from that also. (In short, Brahman is
different from the projected nama roopa
as well as from Maya). Further, what is
known is finite, mortal and full of misery;
and hence it is to be rejected. So, when
it is said that Brahman is different from
the known, it amounts to saying that Brahman
is not to be rejected. Similarly when
it is said that Brahman is different from
the unknown, it amounts to saying that
Brahman is not en entity to be obtained.
In the ‘vakyabhashyam’ for this
mantra, Sankaracarya says, “Since Brahman
is the atma of all, there is no other
knower than It; so, It is different from
the known. Cf. Swetasvatara Upanishad
2.19 – ‘He (the Purusha i.e., Brahman)
knows al that is to b e known. There is
no one who knows Him’. Brhadaranyaka 2.4.14
– ‘When to the knower of the atma, everything
has become the atma ….what one should
know through what’. Brahman is different
from the unknown because, to know an unknown
thing, effort to know is undertaken by
people. But Brahman is of the nature of
consciousness (vijnaana-swaroopam)
and self-evident and no process of knowing
is necessary to know (recognize) Brahman.
In this sense, Brahman is different from
the unknown.Just as the light does not
depend on any other light to be revealed,
Brahman being of the very nature of consciousness
is self-evident and does not depend any
instrument or process of knowledge to
be revealed. Kenopanishad II.2 (where
the teacher is testing whether the student
has understood the teaching and the student
says) - “Not that I do not know. I know
and I do not know as well. He among us
who understands that utterance ‘not that
I do not know, I know and I do not know
as well’, knows that (Brahman)”. This,
Sankaracarya says is the student repeating
in another language the meaning of mantra
1.4 which has been taught to him. In the
vakyabhashyam, Sankaracarya explains the
student’s statement: – “I cannot say that
I do not know Brahman because I am the
Brahman of the nature of eternal jnana
swaroopam (nitya-vijnaana—brahma-swaroopam)
So, I know. On the other
hand, I do not know, because knowing as
an attributive knowledge (visesha-vijnaanam)
is knowing a second entity that is conjured
up, not one’s swaroopam. Therefore, in
the paramarthika plane, I do not know.
2. Kenopanishad II.3 - “It is
known to him to whom it is unknown; he
does not know it is known. It is unknown
to those who know well and known to those
who do not know.” According to Sankaracarya,
this mantra presents the two views – the
view of the ignorant man and the man who
has gained knowledge. In the vakyabhashyam,
Sankaracarya explains– “He who has come
to know Brahman as himself and, so, his
desire to know has ceased, he knows Brahman.
That is, he who knows Brahman as being
not an object of knowledge but as
himself, he is the one who knows Brahman.
Since Brahman is different from the known,
one who claims that he knows Brahman does
not know Brahman. The former is the man
of right vision (samyagdarsi);
the latter is a man of erroneous vision
(mithyaarsi). The erroneous vision
is possible because on account of non-discrimination
between Brahman and the limiting adjuncts
and because of their familiarity with
the limiting adjuncts such as the intellect,
the man of erroneous vision considers
the senses, the mind and the intellect
as the atma. Kenopanishad II.4 - “Brahman
is really known when it is known with
each state of consciousness (pratibodhaviditam).”
Sankaracarya’s commentary – “Being the
witness of all cognitions and by nature
being nothing but the power of Consciousness,
the atma is indicated by the cognitions
themselves, as the common factor in the
cognitions. There is no other door to
awareness of It. Therefore when Brahman
is known as the innermost Self (witness)
of cognitions, then it is known well.
Only by accepting Brahman as the witness
of all cognitions can it be established
that It is by nature a witness that is
not subject to growth and decay, and is
eternal, pure in essence, the atma, unconditioned,
and one in all beings, just as it is in
the case of space, because of the non-difference
of its characteristics despite its existence
in pots, caves etc.” In the vakyabhashyam,
Sankaracarya explains, ‘‘In every cognition’,
i.e. in cognition after cognition’ refers
to the pervasion (of Brahman) in every
cognition. Since every cognition is pervaded
by the eternal consciousness, the atma,
every thought is illumined by that atma,
like the shining of the iron ingot pervaded
by the fire. Like that, through the shining
of the thoughts, one should recognize
the illumination by the atma. (The gist
of all these Kenopanishad mantras is that
atma cannot be known as an object but
It has to be recognized as the witness
of thoughts. When it is said that Brahman
or Atma is the consciousness recognized
as the witness of all cognitions, we should
not make the mistake of taking the atma
to be a knower-consciousness It is witness
in the sense that, in its presence, the
antahkarana becomes sentient on account
of Its reflection and whereas the knower
consciousness, the knower I, is a changing
I, the atma is invoked as the unchanging,
constant I.)
3. Katopanishad mantra I.ii.21 says,
“While sitting, It goes far away; while
sleeping, it goes everywhere”. Sankaracarya
explains, “Sleep is the cessation of the
activities of the senses. The delimitation
of Consciousness caused by the senses
(in the waking state, when Consciousness
has such limited expressions as, “I am
a man’, ‘I see a blue thing’) ceases for
a sleeping man. When the Self is in such
a state (of sleep), It seems to go (i.e.
to be present) everywhere. When it is
in a state of particularized consciousness,
It, though stationary by Its on nature,
seems to travel far, in accordance with
the movement of the mind etc., because
it is conditioned by the mind etc.”
In short, the when the mantra talks of
it being stationary, It is referring to
the sarvagata nirupadhika Brahma caitanyam
and when it refers to It traveling far,
It is referring to the ahamkara
which includes the reflection of the brahma
caitanyam.
4. Isavasya Upanishad 4 – “It is unmoving,
one, faster than the mind” ((Sankaracarya’s
commentary – “Motion is deviation from
one’s own condition. So, ‘unmoving’
means that It is ever of the same nature;
It is the everlasting Consciousness. ‘One’
indicates that It is the one in all beings.
;. Faster than the mind’ refers to its
being characterized by volition etc.”
An objection is raised “How can there
be such contradictory statements that
it is constant and motionless, and yet
faster than the mind.” Sankaracarya explains
“There is no inconsistency, for this is
possible from the standpoint of Its being
nirupadhika and sopadhika. As nirupadhika
Brahman, in Its original nature, It is
spoken of as ‘unmoving, one’. When
It follows the upadhi, the mind characterized
by doubt and volition It is said to be
faster than the mind. The mind, though
encased in the body in this world, is
able to reach such distances as the world
of Brahmaa (Hiranyagarbha) in a single
moment through volition; and therefore
the mind is well known as the fastest
thing in the world. When the speedy mind
travels fast to the world world of Hiranyagarbha
etc., the reflection of the atma that
is consciousness is perceived to have
reached there, as it were, even earlier;
and hence It is said to be faster than
the mind. Though the all pervasive nirupadhika
atma is devoid of all worldly attributes
and is immutable, in the eyes of the non-discriminating
people, It appears to be many, one each
in different bodies, experiencing all
modifications of samsara brought
about by the upadhis.
5. Kathopanishad I.ii.21
- “Remaining stationary, It goes
far; while sleeping, It goes everywhere.”
Sankaracarya explains that in sushupti,
the differentiated consciousness of the
knowing instruments is dormant and the
undifferentiated original consciousness
the atma is there seems to go everywhere.
In the state when the differentiated knower-consciousness
is active, the atma, though by Its own
nature is motionless (being all-pervading)
seems to travel far in accordance with
the movement of its upadhi (the mind).”Kathopanishad
I.ii.20 - “Atma is the subtler than the
subtlest and greater than the greatest”
(“anoraniiyaan mahatomahiiiyan)”. Sankaracarya
explains that the contradiction can be
resolved if we take the substratum. As
the substratum of everything, atma (Brahman)
is the substratum of the greatest as well
as the tiniest. Whether it is a mountain
nama roopa or a microbe nama roopa, atma
is the Existence. Brahman as Existence-Consciousness-Infinity
is of a higher order of reality than the
nama roopa. In this way, also, Brahman
can be said to be greater than the greatest.
Similarly, in terms of formlesslessness
and unobjectifiability, Brahman can be
said to be subtler than the subtest. Sankaracarya’s
commentary – “Whatever great or atomic
thing there is in the world, its substance
(aatmatvam) is the eternal atma.
Without atma, they become non-existent.
The very atma is subtler than the subtle
and greater than the great, because It
is conditioned by all names, forms and
activities which are its limiting adjuncts;
i.e. And that atma exists as the
atma in the heart of all beings beginning
with brahmaa and ending with a clump
of grass.”
- When we analyze
sushupti, not only do we realize that
existence-consciousness and not ahamkara
is our real nature but we appreciate
various aspects of that real nature.
If existence or consciousness was
an attribute of the ahamkara, we would
cease to be conscious and cease to
exist when ahamkara is non-functional.
But we continue to as existence and
consciousness. What comes and goes
is not our real nature. Ahamkara comes
and goes but existence-consciousness
does not. Therefore existence-consciousness
is our real nature. Similarly, in
sushupti, when ahamkara is non-functional
and existence-consciousness is still
there, we have no sense of location,
we have no punya papa, we have no
sorrow, and we have no attributes.
If sorrow, punya papa etc. were to
belong to sakshi, not ahamkara, they
would be there in sushupti in which
ahamkara is not there and sakshi alone
is there. So, we can reasonably conclude
that located existence-consciousness,
punya papa, sorrow etc. and attributes
are not our real nature. We are the
unlocated, attributeless existence-consciousness,
free of punya papa, sorrow etc.
- When we apply the
law that what comes and goes is not
our real nature, we also arrive at
the conclusion that the knower-consciousness
(the ahamkara) which experiences the
external world in jagrat avastha,
changes as the experiencer of the
dream-world in swapna avastha and
becomes dormant in sushupti avastha
is not our real nature. If the jagrat
prapanca experiencer was my nature,
I would always be awake. If the experiencer
of the swapna avastha was my real
nature, I would always be dreaming.
If the non-experiencing ahamkara was
my true nature, I would always be
sleeping. What is constant through
all these shifting experiences of
the ahamkara is the unchanging consciousness,
the sakshi. Therefore that alone is
my true nature.
- This method of reasoning
is called anvaya-vyatireka. What is
constant in all the states is called
anvaya or anuvritti. What is there
in one or more states and not in the
others is called vyatireka or vyavritti.
What is anvaya is the real nature.
Another approach is that if sorrow
etc were my nature, i.e. if they belong
to atma, not ahamkara, they cannot
be removed by knowledge. But sastra
says “The knower of atma transcends
sorrow”. So, sorrow etc. belongs to
ahamkara, not atma.
Can we recognise the
non-dual Brahman? Brahman is the unobjectifiable
Existence-Consciousness- Infinity . A
vyaavahaarika example for Brahman, the
imperceptible Existence –Consciousness
being available for recognition as the
Existence in mama roopa in general and
as reflected consciousness, particularly,
in minds is light. Light manifests only
where there are certain other forms of
matter like solids, liquids, air, etc.
Light is there is a vacuum also; though
it is not manifest there; it is transmitted
across the vacuum. For the astronaut in
outer space, it is all darkness around,
because there is no air for light to manifest.
But, an astronaut from one space vehicle
can see the other space vehicle; the light
reflected by the other space vehicle is
transmitted across the airless space and
falls on his retina. (This is what enables
the docking of space vehicles). A day
to day example is my hand that you see.
I cannot show to you light directly. Pure
light is invisible. So, I introduce my
hand in the field of the all pervading
invisible light and I tell you that there
is a principle called light because of
which alone the hand is visible. Then,
I withdraw my hand and ask you to understand
the existence of the light, even though
it is not visible without the medium of
the hand. Like that, Existence
is there, whether nama roopa are there
or not. Pure Existence cannot be perceived.
When nama roopa are superimposed, together
the nama roopa together with Existence
are experienced as objects. That is what
Brahman manifesting as the universe means.
Intellectually, you have to eliminate
nama roopa to appreciate pure Existence.
Pure existence-pure consciousness is not
available for perception. It is the mixture
of the real sub-stratum, Existence, Brahman
and the mithya nama roopa that is presented
to us as objects. But we should have the
wisdom to distinguish what is real and
what is mithya. When you ask for water
to drink, it has to be brought to you
in a container, say, a paper cup. But
after you have drunk the water, you discard
the paper cup. Pure existence-consciousness
has to be conveyed to our intellect through
nama roopa. Just as you drink the water
and discard the paper cup, when existence—consciousness
along with nama roopa manifests as the
universe, you have to discard the nama
roopa and understand the reality, the
sub-stratum, the pure existence.
It is true that you can experience It
only along with nama roopa. But, you can,
intellectually eliminate nama roopa, i.e.,
the variety of objects outside and nama
roopa inside, i.e., your body and mind
and then what would be left would be pure
existence outside and pure consciousness
inside. That is to say, we can adopt the
negative method. The negative method of
defining Brahman is known as “not this,
not this” (“neti neti”). We start
from the axiom that Brahman is nodal,
attributeless and infinite. So, we have
to negate whatever is one among many and
whatever has attributes and is limited.
Plurality of objects arises from attributes,
called roopa in Sanskrit and, corresponding
to the attributes constituting an object,
a name (nama) is given to the object.
What distinguishes one object or one being
from another and makes it limited are
the nama roopa, the set of attributes,
whether it is shape, colour, vibration,
texture, smell etc. in things and the
life instincts, the emotional expressions
and the intellectual qualities in beings.
In respect of these, there are variations;
therefore we experience plurality. But
what is common to all is existence (isness).
You look around. You see objects and beings.
All are cognised in space and time. Existence
is all pervading and indestructible. In
between objects and beings also, there
is existence. If there were no existence
in between two trees, a third tree would
not grow between the two trees. When a
tree is cut and burnt, isness is not destroyed;
it is transferred from the tree to ashes.
When a pot is broken, what is destroyed
is pot shape; isness of clay is transferred
from pot shape potsherd shape. You go
deeper and deeper, deeper than space itself.
The sub-stratum of space itself is Existence.
Space is a nama roopa with the attribute
of sound (sabda). Thus, when you
dismiss (negate) all nama roopa at one
level after another, intellectually, you
will arrive at pure existence. This existence
is to be recognized as Brahman.
One may ask, “What you say is all right
in theory. But, in practice, I only experience
the world with nama roopa. If I have to
see a rose, nama roopa like colour and
shape must be there. If I have to hear
music, existence, sound nama roopa
must be there and so on. So, how can I
recognize Brahman, pure Existence?” The
answer is – “It is true that your experience
of the world is with nama roopa. What
you are experiencing is Brahman with nama
roopa superimposed on It. But since pure
Existence-Consciousness is not objectifiable,
you are not aware that you are experiencing
Brahman as well as nama roopa. So, it
follows what cannot be objectified is
Brahman. Now enquire “what is it that
cannot be objectified?” What is it that
does not become an object? Everything
and every being in the outside world is
an object for your sense organs and mind.
Your own body with its sense organs is
an object to your mind. You objectify
your mind also. You are aware of your
thoughts and the e changing conditions
of your mind. So, you negate your body
and your mind. But there is one thing
that does not become an object. That is
the I that is aware of the changes of
the mind which I invoke as the same I
when I talk of my having been angry yesterday
bur my being calm today or my having slept
happily, knowing nothing yesterday and
my recollecting that state today, on waking
up. This I is the consciousness, the sat-cit
(Existence –Consciousness), called Brahman.
Behind what we experience as inanimate
objects, it is recognisable as existence
and behind what we experience as the knowing
mind, it is recognisable as consciousness.
. If all objects are negated, one
may be inclined to think that there is
nothing. In fact, one of the branches
of Buddhism says that nothingness is the
reality. But to say or think that
nothingness is the reality – that itself
requires consciousness. There is only
one thing that can’t be experienced but
the existence of which cannot be denied;
that is the constant I, the atma. This
is the unnegatable remainder (nisheda
avadhi). When faced with the
advice, ‘neti neti’, in Brhadaranyaka
Upanishad, the unenlightened will ask,
‘if I negate everything, nothing remains;
so it is nihilism’. To that Sastra would
ask ‘what is it that says that there is
nothing?' Even when the mind is not functioning,
there is one thing that remains. That
consciousness is yourself, the Brahman’.
Cf. Brhadaranyaka Swayamjyotibraahmana,
Ushastabraahmana and Kaholabraahmana.
Yet another way of recognizing Brahman
is by negating the knower (pramata). Limitation
arises in any knower--known situation.
Knower is limited because he is not the
known. And anything that is known is limited
because it is not the knower. But there
is no known if there is no knower. So,
by negating the knower, we can eliminate
the known also. When the knower and the
known are negated, what remains is consciousness.
The proof is our dreamless sleep. In the
state of dreamless sleep (sushupti avastha),
there is no known, knowing or knower.
In the waking state (jagrat avastha),
there is a knower in us and we perceive
objects or entertain thoughts. In the
dream state (swapna avastha), also, there
is a knower in us and we perceive a dream
world. But in sushupti, there is no perception
or thought. The knower himself is not
functioning. But even in that state, I
continue to exist as a conscious being.
The consciousness that continues to exist
even when the knower is not functioning
is to be recognised as the atma.
I n this avastha-, however, what we
arrive at is the consciousness behind
our mind. In technical language, this
is called the avastha traya viveka”,
the method of analysing the states of
waking dream and deep sleep. But that
is not the end of the enquiry. Once I
recognise that my real nature is pure
consciousness-existence, observing other
people I may arrive at the inference that
their real nature is also pure consciousness-existence.
But I have to understand that there are
not many consciousnesses, but the consciousness
in me in you and the others is the same
consciousness and that there is only the
non-dual Brahman-Existence-consciousness
that is infinite, in terms of space, time
and entity which, in nama roopa, we have
to recognise as existence in all objects
and in living beings as consciousness
as well as existence. This understanding
is obtained through the study of
Sastra. For the finitude, we cannot resort
to logic.
In the Avastha Traya Viveka, in Mandukya
Karika, the microcosm (vyashti) and the
macrocosm (samashti) are equated to show
we are not limited individuals. The consciousness
associated with the vyashti upadhi,
the sthoola sarira ) (visva) the
consciousness associated with the samashti
upadhi, sthoola prapanca ( Vaisvaanara)
are equated. Similarly, consciousness
associated with the vyashti sukshma
sarira (taijasa) and the consciousness
associated with the samashti sukshma
sarira , (Hiranyagarbha ) are
equated and the consciousness associated
with the vyashti karana sarira,
(prajna) and the consciousness associated
with the samashti karana sarira
(Iswara ) are equated. This shows
that consciousness in all bodies is the
same and there is nothing like my consciousness
and your consciousness.
To recognize the unchanging principle
that is self-evident and immediate, we
introduce consciousness through avastha
traya viveka. But that is not enough,
because we recognize consciousness through
the functioning of the mind; therefore,
we may think that it is located in the
mind and since minds are plural, we may
think that consciousness is also
plural. So we have to say that it is none
other than the existence that we recognize
as the existence which is the common substratum
of nama roopa of the world that we experience.
Existence is not localized; it is not
limited in space, time or by entity. Existence
is also consciousness. Consciousness
is also unlocalised and unlimited.
It is the infinite Brahma caitanyam.
Being immediate to the mind, it is recognised
as the unchanging consciousness behind
the mind in us.
Sastra says that the non-dual, eternal
consciousness – Brahman-Atman – is without
a beginning and end. We can give supporting
logic (Saastra-sammata-yukti) for
this. To know that consciousness had a
beginning at a point of time, the absence
of consciousness prior to that point of
time has to be known. But, can we talk
of prior non-existence (pragabhava), in
the case of consciousness? The crucial
question is what was it that could know
the prior non-existence of consciousness?
Is it consciousness itself or is it something
other than consciousness? The latter alternative
has to be ruled out, because everything
other than consciousness or a derivative
of consciousness like ahamkara is insentient
and what is insentient can never is credited
with the knowledge function. The former
alternative is also untenable. If consciousness
or a derivative of consciousness exists
at the time of apprehending the prior
non-existence of consciousness, ex hypothesis,
consciousness is not non-existent then.
Similarly, to know that consciousness
ended at a point of time, the absence
of consciousness posterior to that point
of time (pradhwamsaabhaava) has to be
known. For any such knowledge itself,
consciousness or a derivative of consciousness
is required. Therefore, consciousness
is eternal. (Vide Sureswacarya’s Taittiriya
Upanishad Bhashysa vartika Chapter II,
verse 651).
Similarly Sastra says that Existence
is eternal. For this also we can give
supporting logic. To know that existence
originated at a particular point of time,
a conscious entity has to exist prior
to that point of time to be aware of the
origin. So existence can have no beginning.
To know that existence ended at a particular
point of time, a conscious entity has
to exist posterior to that point of time
to be aware of the end. So existence has
no end.
In Advaita Vedanta., there is a concept
of flowing eternity, as distinguished
from absolute eternity. Brahman, being
infinite and beyond time is absolutely
eternal. But we have to have a term for
entities that operate in time but the
beginning of which cannot be traced. This
is called “pravaaha nityam”. The cycle
of srshti, sthiti, laya, the chain birth
and death of jivatma, karma and karmaphalam
and Maya would fall in this category.
There is a logic in saying that antahkarana
is also matter, to support the sastra
(Tattvabodha) talking of the antahkarana
being produced by the satva amsa of the
five subtle elements and Chandogya Upanishad
referring to antahkarana as a product
of food. Antahkarana interacts with other
forms of forms of matter; e.g., administration
of electric shock for various mental disorders,
the use of lie detector and psychosomatic
diseases.
1. Brahman is all pervading consciousness.
Antahkarna functions as a conscious entity
but pot does not. You cannot explain this,
unless you postulate that the texture
of the antakarana nama roopa superimposed
on Brahman is such that it can reflect
the consciousness, whereas the pot does
not have that capacity. It is somewhat
like the difference between a good conductor
of electricity and a bad conductor.
2. This division of certain nama roopa
like the mind being made sentient by consciousness
being reflected in them and other
nama roopa not having such capacity and
hence remaining to be insentient is required
for bhoktru bhogya (enjoyer-enjoyed)
transaction. If such division was not
there, before I begin to put food into
my mouth, it will fly away.
3. If the eternal, unchanging consciousness
alone is there, there would be nobody
who is bound and Sastra would not
be taking the trouble of teaching the
means to attain moksha. A conscious entity
that is susceptible to be affected by
the avarana sakti of Maya has to be there
to listen to sastra.
4. Pratyagatma (Brahman) being changeless (nirvikara) and
amanah is not srotra (not
a hearer) or a pramata (not
a knower). Sastra cannot address it. Nor
can it address a mere antahkarana which
is inert. So a conscious entity other
than pratyagatma is required to listen
to “tat tvam asi” and to say “aham brahma
asmi”. This is the antahkarana which
is enabled to be such an entity owing
to the reflection of consciousness in
it. (This logic is called arthapatti’).
5. As ahamkara, I listen to the mahavakyam,
“tat tvam asi”. By bhagatyaga lakshanaa,
I discard the limitedness indicated by
the literal meaning of the word, “tvam”
and the distance indicated by the literal
meaning of the word,” tat” and retain
the implied meaning of the two words,
which is “caitanyam” and understand the
jivabrahmaikyam. When I say “aham brahma
asmi”, though the thought is in ahamkara,
by “aham” I refer to atma. Once I know
“aham brahma asmi” I discard ahamkara,
i.e. I disidentify myself with ahamkara
and abide as Brahman.
6. The expression ‘I know’’ indicates
two things. Since it is a verb, it indicates
modification. Since it is a knowing process,
it indicates sentiency. Thus for the verb
‘know’, you require a subject which is
changing and which is sentient. Atma cannot
be subject, because atma is nirvikara.
Mind, by itself, cannot be the subject,
because, though it is a changing entity,
it is insentient. So, we have to introduce
cidabhasa. It is ahamkara (antahkarana
pervaded by cidabhasa) that says, ‘I know’.
It is ahamkara, neither pure atma nor
pure anatma, that can be the pramata,
the karta, bhokta, the samsari and the
liberated.
7. In Brhadaranyaka (III.iv.2 etc.),
the Upanishad talks of atma as the seer
of the seer (“drashterdrashta”),
knower of the knower (“vijnatervijnaata”)
etc. From this it is clear that there
is a knower-consciousness and another
consciousness which is the substratum
of that consciousness. This does not mean
that atma perceives or knows ahamkara.
To perceive anything or to know anything,
the consciousness has to undergo modification.
Atma being changeless cannot be seer or
knower. The meaning is that, in the presence
of atma, cidabhasa is formed in the antahkarana.
This is also what is meant when it is
said that atma, as Sakshi, illumines the
antahkarana. It is like my standing
in front of a mirror. I don’t do anything.
By my mere presence, reflection is formed
in the mirror.
8. The eternal unchanging consciousness
cannot be said to be the instrument of
knowing specific separate objects, one
after another. For having pot knowledge,
tree knowledge, tiger knowledge, one after
another, and each person having different
cognitions, we need to have separate,
changing consciousnesses in each person.
Antahkarana with reflected consciousness
is what meets this requirement.
If the knowing consciousness was not in
the form of separate individual consciousnesses,
and if there was only the original consciousness
common to all as a pramata, 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 water
in fire, cow in pot, the garbage 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. We
cannot even imagine the state of everybody
perceiving everything together and, not
only that, perceiving the past, present
and future simultaneously. At the same
time, to be able to be aware that I am
the same person in and through the changing
conditions of the body and the mind, I
have to invoke an unchanging consciousness.
Thus we have to postulate cidabhasa, the
reflected consciousness in individual
minds as well as the unchanging, all pervading
consciousness, the atma.
9. In Brhadaranyaka Upanishad, there
is a statement, “na pretya samja asti”.
One interpretation is that this refers
to the disintegration of the karana sarira
and sukshma sarira of a jnani at the time
of videhamukti. How this is support for
cidabhasa has been explained in the main
text. Another interpretation is “In the
body, after death, there is no consciousness”.
When the Upanishad says that after the
body dies, there is no consciousness in
it, it cannot be referring to the eternal,
all pervading consciousness; the
all pervading, eternal consciousness is
there everywhere, in everything and
at all times. It is there in the dead
body also. If the Upanishad cannot
be referring to the eternal consciousness
available in the individual, the atma,
the sakshi caitanyam, what is it that
it is referring to when it says that
consciousness is not there in the body
after death? It must be referring to a
consciousness which is in the body when
it is alive and which goes out when the
body dies. What goes out when the body
dies is the sukshma sarira. Cidabhasa
is a part of the sukshma sarira. So, it
is the cidabhasa that is referred to in
the mantra.
10. The existence of a
changing consciousness separately
in each of us by which each of us separately
cognizes different objects one after another
is a matter of experience. But when
we connect the pramata of a cognition
involved in a past experience and
the pramata of the cognition involved
in a present experience, as the same entity,
we are invoking an unchanging, constant,
I, which was behind the pramata of the
past experience and is now behind the
pramata of the present experience .
What is present in the changing pramatas
is cidabhasa and what is invoked as the
changeless, constant I is the cit (atma).
11. Cidabhasa is mithya. It
belongs neither to atma nor the intellect.
The example is the reflection of my face
in the mirror. If the reflection of consciousness
belongs to the mirror, the reflection
should continue to exist even after I
have walked away from the mirror.
If it belongs to the face, there should
be a reflection of the face even after
the mirror is taken away.
Mind is not self-effulgent; it becomes
a knower-consciousness on account of the
reflection of cidabhasa in the antahkarana.
But the thoughts in our mind and the changing
character of the mind itself are known
to us. In this sense the mind is self-evident.
As and when a thought arises, cidabhasa
pervades it and on account of this we
become aware of tour thought. Similarly,
on account of the pervasion of cidabhasa
in the antahkarana we are aware of the
changing character of the mind, the changes
caused by vasanas.
In Pancadasi, Vidyaranya gives beautiful
examples for the original consciousness, the
reflecting medium and the reflected consciousness
(1) at the macrocosmic level and (2) at
the microcosmic level. The examples, respectively,
are (1) space pervading the
cloud, water vapor laden cloud, space
reflected in the conglomerate of water
vapor droplets in the cloud and (2) space
conditioned by a water filled pot, the
water in the pot and space reflected in
the water in the pot. At the macrocosmic
level, Brahma caitanyam is compared to
space pervading the cloud. The reflecting
medium, namely, Maya, is compared
to the conglomerate of water vapor droplets
in the cloud. The reflection of the consciousness
aspect of Brahman in Maya is compared
to the reflection of space in the
conglomerate water droplets in the cloud.
At the microcosmic level, Sakshi caitanyam
is compared to the space pervading the
pot. The reflecting medium, namely, the
sukshma sarira is compared to the water
in the pot. The reflection
of consciousness in the sukshma sarira
is compared to the reflection of space
pervading the pot in the water contained
in the p.
The difficulty of distinguishing the
original consciousness, the Sakshi, from
the reflected consciousness, the cidabhasa
is illustrated by Vidyaranya. He gives
the example of a wall on which the general
sunlight falls. On the same wall, superimposed
on the general sunlight, reflected sunlight
emanating from a mirror also falls. In
this situation, one cannot perceive the
general sunlight and the reflected sunlight
separately. Similarly, in jagrat and swapna
both Sakshi and cidabhasa are functioning
simultaneously. So we are not able to
distinguish Sakshi clearly. If the mirror
is taken away, then one perceives the
general sunlight separately. Like that,
in Sushupti, when the antahkarana is dormant,
Sakshi alone is ‘shining’. So, by analyzing
the sushupti experience, an intelligent
man can recognize the Sakshi.
My shadow is non-separate from me, in
the sense that I can't walk away, leaving
my shadow. But it is not part of me either.
When I go to the coffee kiosk, I don't
order two cups of coffee, one for me and
one for my shadow. Brahman and the nama
roopa are like a man and his shadow. The
nama roopa are superimposed on Brahman;
the Nama roopa are not away from Brahman.
But they are not part of Brahman.
Once ahambrahmasmi jnanam is gained,
the sancita karma is destroyed and there
is no aagami karma. Only the unexhausted
portion of prarabdha continues till the
physical body falls. When the physical
body falls, the sukshma and karana sariras
are dissolved; there is no rebirth; the
jnaani ‘becomes’ Brahman. There is a discussion
in Brahma Sutra 3.3.32, whether there
are exceptions. A person cites instances
from Smriti (Itihasas and Puranas) of
certain jnanis being reborn and raises
the doubt whether ahambrahmasmi jnanam
leads to liberation. The examples are
the Vedic teacher, Rishi Apantaratamas
who was reborn as Veda Vyasa (Krishna-dwaipayana),
at the behest of Vishnu, at the junction
of dwapara and kali Yuga, of Vasishta
who was reborn as Mitra-Varuna, as directed
by Hiranyagarbha, of Bhrgu and others
who were reborn from the sacrifice of
Varuna and of Daksha, Narada etc.
The Vedantin maintains that ahambrahmasmi
jnanam does lead to liberation. But in
the case of certain jnanis, called adhikaari
jivas, even though they become jivanmuktas,
they take rebirths. These rebirths are
for the sake of fulfilling missions, entrusted
to them by Iswara, relating to the welfare
of the world like propagation of Veda.
They retain their jnanam and continue
to be jivanmuktas. They have control over
the materials required for bodies, sense
organs and minds and create new bodies
and minds. The bodies and minds created
may be one after another in succession
or many bodies simultaneously. These are
controlled by the reborn jivanmukta. These
adhikari jivas remember their past lives.
The rebirth is not account of sancita
karma; sancita karma has already been
destroyed. The mission for which they
take bodies is a part of their prarabdha.
These are special prarabdhas, where a
part relating to loka sangraha remains,
even after the end of the janma in which
jnanam is gained. The missions may extend
to many yugas even. When the loka sangraha
prarabdha is over and the missions are
fulfilled, these jivanmuktas attain videhamukti.
Since once merged in Brahman there can
be no rebirth and the jiivanmuktas having
rebirths and fulfilling missions
is itself a vyavaharika phenomenon, it
is reasonable to assume that until they
attain videhamukti and ‘become’ Brahman’,
they are merged in Iswara. The adhikaari
jivas should be distinguished from reincarnations
(avataras) of Iswara. Adhikari
jivas are reborn on account of prarabdha,
whereas avataras are born out of Iswara’s
wish. (Incidentally, in the Smriti, there
is mention of a jnaani having entered
another body in the present janma itself.
A woman-jnani, Sulabha, wanted to have
a discussion with Janaka; she entered
Janaka’s body and after finishing the
discussion with him, reentered her own
body.) (In Brahmasutra 3.3.32, there is
also mention of certain ajnanis remembering
their past lives. They are called jaatismaras.)
(This is an elaboration of a topic already
included in the main paper.)
1. Iswara srshti does not bind us. If
it did, jnanis would also be bound because
they also continue to live amidst jiva
srshti. World is Iswara srshti. Our
body and mind are also Iswara srshti.
What binds is the reality (satyatvam)
we attach to the world and our body and
mind. Attaching reality to the world and
our body and mind is jiva srshti, (it
is our own making). The cause is avidya.
As already mentioned in the main text,
jivatmas who have not attained knowledge
of jivabrahmaikyam are governed by karma.
Iswara is the administrator of the karma
(karmaphaladata) and, through Maya, creates
the world including bodies and minds in
accordance with the requirements of the
myriads of jivatmas to go through enjoyment
or suffering as warranted by their karma.
The physical and mental equipment a person
is born with, in which family he is born,
in which environment he has to lead his
life and the major situations he has to
face in life will depend on his karma.
Not all situations in life, though, arise
solely out of one’s own karma. Karmas
of many people can combine to create a
situation. There is also what is called
niyati, examples of which are drought,
flood, war etc. which affect all people
in a region or the world as a whole.
How a person takes the initiative to create
situations , how he faces situations created
by others, how he makes use of the opportunities
available to himself to develop himself,
how he reacts to actions, behavior and
conduct of other people, all these depend
on his free will. In the same school,
with the same teaching faculty and library,
one works hard and studies well; another
with an equally good brain wastes his
time and fails to make the grade.
One manages his office, being a friend
of all; another manages the same office
as a ring master. The situations we are
faced with are Iswara srshti. How we face
them is Jivasrshti. . What is there
in creation is Iswara srshti. How one
reacts to it is jiva srishti. The glaring
example of this distinction is that we
read so many obituaries in newspapers
with emotional indifference but when it
comes to a question of our own kith and
kin we cry.
2. Another factor which operates in
our life is vasanaas, tastes and
attitudes resulting from the impressions
of the experiences of our previous lives.
Vasanas govern our action in the sense
that towards the same object, different
people have different likes and dislikes
and the same situation different people
face with different attitudes. One loves
music; another can’t stand any music One
loves swimming; another does not want
even to have a bath. One loses heart at
the slightest obstacle; another bulldozes
through the toughest situations. Vasanas
of the past can also be changed or overcome
by free will, with determination. Thus
our life is interplay of Iswara srshti
including niyati, our karma and vasanas
and jivasrshti.
3. The very fact that human beings have
a choice to do a thing, or not to do it
or do it in a different way, is proof
of free will. A powerful argument for
free will is that, unless you accept free
will, moksha will be impossible.
Aspiring for moksha and making use of
the opportunities available for spiritual
advancement are matters of free will.
Punya karma may even give you birth in
a family of spiritual seekers, but whether
you yourself take to the spiritual path
depends on your free will. Papa karma
may give you birth in a family of materialists,
but, with your free will, you can transcend
those surroundings and, if your aspiration
is intense, you will seek and find the
set up where you can pursue your spiritual
sadhana.
4. If free will is not accepted, there
will be certain other problems –
(i) The commandments and prohibitions
of scripture will become meaningless.
Scripture is advising man to do good actions
and avoid evil actions only because scripture
assumes that man has free will.
(ii) If man has no free will and not
merely his karmaphalam but fresh action
is also impelled by Iswara, Iswara becomes
responsible for the good action and bad
action done by man. The problem
then would be two-fold. By making some
men to do good action and some men do
bad action resulting in punya and papa
followed by enjoyment or suffering as
karmaphalam later, Iswara would become
partial and cruel. Secondly, if Iswara
is responsible for man’s good action and
bad action, no one can be rewarded nor
can any criminal be punished. A murderer
will say “I am not responsible for what
I did. The Lord made me do it.”
5. Since no one knows what one’s karma
is, the best way to act is to do action
according to Dharma. Dharma in, the modern
context, should be defined as principles
of self-improvement, developing one’s
potential, putting forth utmost efforts
to achieve legitimate goals, morality
– not only personal morality but what
may be called social morality - such as
doing or not doing to others what you
would like them to do or not to do to
you, working for the greatest good of
the greatest number, adhering to values
like non-violence,, truthfulness, charity,
having regard to ecological balance etc.
When one is in doubt in any situation
whether what one is intending to do is
right or wrong, there are two ways; follow
the example of great people, if available,
or see that your motive is pure and do
what your conscience dictates.
1. The word. ‘upadhi’ is used here in
the meaning of the body-mind complex of
living beings. Enjoyment and suffering
depends not only on the object of enjoyment
but on the upadhi, the physiological and
the mental equipment. Human equipment
enables man to enjoy music, but a buffalo’s
is not adequate for that. The dog can
hear frequencies of sound that we can't.
For a snail the line it moves on consists
the whole of its world. Animals – a dog,
a cat, a horse – are two-dimensional beings.
Their universe has the appearance and
properties of a surface. What we regard
as the properties of three dimensionality
of objects appear as movements to them..
A horse passing a stationary bush feels
that the bush has moved towards it and
turned round and waved a branch. We, human
beings know that the world is not a surface,
whereas animals cannot know it. They accept
everything as it appears. They cannot
correct what the eye sees. We can measure
in three directions, because, unlike the
animals, we have concepts. Taking a cube,
while measuring in one direction, we keep
in mind the two others. For an animal,
a sphere will resemble a vibrating undulating
surface. For an animal, a new sun rises
every morning. To Hanuman, the ocean he
was crossing to go to Lanka was a puddle
of writer in a depression caused by a
cow’s feet. When the demon, Surasa
grew in stature by stages in order to
swallow Hanuman, Hanuman could outgrow
her and she was then like a mosquito which
would go in and fly out of his mouth.
If I had the capacity to see atoms, I
would be seeing you not as a man with
a head, hands and feet, but as waves or
particles moving in concentric orbits.
In vayu loka, your upadhi will
enable you to travel in air without any
vehicle. To the prodigy, Sakuntala, it
takes only a minute to solve arithmetical
problems which will takes several days
to solve. But, even the loka where
you are born and the upadhi with which
you are born depends on karma. However
the upadhi can be improved by free will
within the limits of the loka in which
you are born (-- there are nava avadhaanis
who have, by yoga practice, developed
the capacity to grasp nine different questions
or attend to nine different matters simultaneously
and give answers. Developed by yoga practice,
instances of siddhis - physical
feats like floating in the air, swallowing
crushed glass etc. and even changing the
structure of a part of the body to make
it like stone which will deflect a sword
or like air to let the sword to pass through
and mental feats like foretelling the
future, reading another’s mind etc. are
also on record.
2. Enjoyment and suffering depends not
only the objects and upadhi but your reaction
to experiences, which again can be regulated
by free will
A living being will be reborn only as
a living being, because, the sukshma sarira
is a continuous entity, going from one
janma to another, carrying with it the
karma which has to be exhausted in successive
janmas.
Apart from the physical laws governing
the universe, there are divine forces
in the empirical plane. Evidence of such
forces is found in certain temples, churches,
mosques, drachmas etc. We have authentic
accounts of miracles in the form of the
sick getting cured in such places. There
are also authentic accounts of certain
persons who have acquired or have carried
forward from previous janmas Yogic powers
by which they are able to bring about
changes in the life of devotees.
In regard to temples etc., in certain
cases, the powers are attributed to Yogis
who have attained samadhi there and have
deliberately left their powers to operate
there. The important point to note,
in all these cases, is that not all who
visit and worship at the places mentioned
above get the benefit of the divine or
miraculous powers. This can only be explained
by postulating that what happens in these
places does not fall outside the law of
karma. Based on this premise, we should
say that if a particular person gets a
benefit, by way of cure or some other
material advancement, it is predestined
according to his karma itself that his
suffering should be over at that time.
It is just as a matter of the medium through
which that takes place. In these cases,
the medium for ending the suffering is
the divine or miraculous force at such
a place, just as the medium in other cases
is a skilled doctor or a generous benefactor.
Here also, free will comes into operation
inasmuch as the choice of and the decision
to go to a place of worship, like the
choice of and decision to go to a skilled
doctor is a matter of free will.
It is also possible to explain these
things in another way. Sastra concedes
that prarabhda karma can be mitigated
by prayascitta karma ( ritual,
worship etc. done in a spirit of atonement
for one’s papa.). We can say that miraculous
or yogic powers to which one resorts to,
inm a spirit of faith and devotion for
atonement of one’s papa, takes the place
of prarabdha karma. In any case, to what
extent prarabdha will be mitigated will
depend on the relative strength of prarabdha
and the remedial measure. Sankaracarya
concedes the existence of siddhis, acquired
by yoga sastra sadhana, powers such as
foretelling the future, reading another’s
person’s mind etc. So, it is possible
that persons with such powers can produce
psychic vibrations which can affect the
devotee. Where Sastra talks of a jnani
being a sathya-sankalpa i.e., one who
can obtain material, or provide remedy
or accomplish desired ends for devotees
by merely exercising his wish, we should
interpret it as the psychic vibrations
of a pure, unselfish, compassionate mind
having an effect on the forces of nature.
Normally, prarabdha quota of the
sancita which is next in the queue determines
the next birth. But in the case of those
who have performed religious sacrifices
(yagnas) or done upasana of deities, that
prarabdha is postponed until they have
enjoyed the fruits of that yagna
or upaasana in the appropriate higher
world.
Does Maya originate? No. Maya (moola
avidya) is beginningless (“anaadi”)
but Maya is not beginningless in the sense
that nitya Brahman is. Maya is said to
be anaadi, because for Maya there is no
cause. (Maya ca avidya ca swayam eva
bhavati – Nrsimhapoorvatapanaiya Upanishad
9.3). Brahman is beginningless in the
sense that It is eternal, infinite. There
are only four possibilities to consider
in trying to find out whether Maya has
a cause –Brahman, Iswara, the universe
(“jagat”), jiva, Brahman cannot be the
cause because Brahman is eternal and changeless
and for anything to be a cause of an effect,
the cause has to undergo change. Iswara
cannot be the cause, because Iswara is
himself constituted of Brahman-consciousness
reflected in Maya; the reflection cannot
precede the reflecting medium. Neither
jiva nor jagat can be the cause, because
jiva and jagat themselves are effects
(karya) of Maya. It is on account
of Maya that Iswara, jagat and jiva are
superimposed on Brahman. Maya is anaadi
but Maya is has an end (it is “sa-antah”)
for every jnaani; every one who understands
his identity with Brahman is free from
the avarana sakti of Maya. For Brahman
and, therefore, for the videhamukta Maya
never exists.
If Maya was also paramarthika, there
will be no moksha. Maya generates ignorance
of Brahmatvam and that leads to our notion
of plurality (dwaitam) Real dwaitam cannot
be eliminated. Dwaitam has to be vyavaharika,
if ignorance of our Brahmatvam is to be
dispelled. Moreover, if you say real dwaitam
goes, it means advaitam (the state of
being the non-dual Brahman) has come.
So, advaitam becomes one with a beginning
(“sa-aadi”). That which has a beginning
will have an end. So, you have to accept
that the advaitam that has come will go
away, some time or other. That means your
moksha will be temporary.
- In sastra, there is discussion about
the content (vishaya) and locus (asrsaya)
of Maya. By vishaya, what is meant
is the entity that is covered from
our vision (understanding). It is
our nature as Brahman that we, human
beings are ignorant of. Therefore
Brahman is the vishaya of Maya. To
be precise, Brahman is covered from
our ‘vision’ by the veiling power
(“aavarana sakti ”) of Maya.
On this point, there is consensus.
- But in regard to the location (asraya)
of Maya, there is difference of opinion.
Maya is mithya; it does not
have existence of its own. So, like
the snake on the rope, it has to depend
for existence on a real entity. That
is what is called its locus. According
to Sankaracarya, Sureswaracarya and
Prakasatman the locus is Brahman.
According to Vacaspati Misra, the
locus is jiva.
- Pros and cons of the two views –
(a) Jivas are, as parts of the
creation of the universe, the
products (karya) of Maya; Maya
is the cause (Karanam). Though
both Maya and jivas are chronologically
beginningless, in the logical
cause-effect order, Maya, as cause,
is prior to jivas, the effect.
Therefore, it would be illogical
to say that jivas are the locus
of Maya. In pralaya also, jivas
are contained in seed for, in
Maya, not the other way about.
Secondly, Jiva themselves are
mithyas. One mithya cannot be
the sub-stratum for another mithya.
Thirdly, if avidya is in jivas,
since avidya produces jagat and
reflection of Brahma caitanyam
in Maya is Iswara, we should have
the phenomenon of many jagats
and many Iswaras. Iswara cannot
be the locus because Iswara Himself
comes into being by the reflection
of brahma caitanyam in Maya. The
only real entity and entity logically
prior to emergence of any other
entities is Brahman. So, it would
be logical to say that Brahman
is the locus of Maya. In this
connection, we should note that
for Brahman there is no Maya;
the location is only from the
view point of jiva; “located in
Brahman” means superimposed on
(adhyasta) Brahman.
(b) The objection raised by those
who hold the second view is that
if Maya (moola avidya) is located
in Brahman, since Maya is a single
entity and liberation (moksha)
consists in destruction of moola
avidya, when any single human
being, through knowledge of his
nature as Brahman attains moksha,
all others will also be automatically
liberated. But this does not happen;
even after any one human being
attains moksha, all others continue
to be afflicted by the avarana
sakti of moola avidya and undergo
samsara.
(c)The upholders of the first
view adhering to their stand explain
that though moola avidya is a
single entity and it is located
in Brahman, caused by the avarana
sakti of moola avidya, each
jiva, separately, has the
dehaabhimaana ( identification
with his own body mind complex)..
It is this that is destroyed when
a particular jiva gains ahambrasmi
jnanam. The dehabhimana of other
jivas continues. It is somewhat
like an object concealed in a
dark room; there is no light;
people are groping around to discover
it; one person managed to go near
and touch it; he perceives it;
others are still ignorant.
- Another objection that is raised
is that Brahman, being of the nature
of jnanam (knowledge),
Avidya (Maya) being of the nature
of ignorance Are opposed to each other.
Therefore Brahman cannot be the locus
of Maya. The answer to this is three-fold.
(a) When Brahman is said to be of
the nature of jnanam, it is
not pramana jnanam (vritti jnanam)
involving the distinctions of the
knower, the known and the knowledge
that is meant, but swaroopa jnanam.
It is vritti jnanam that is opposed
to ignorance, not Swaroopa jnanam.
Moreover, Maya is mithya. Swaroopa
jnanam which is satyam is not opposed
to mithya Maya. On the other hand,
swaroopa jnanam through cidabhasa
illumines Avidya (Maya); not only
is Brahma caitanyam reflected in Maya,
but swaroopoa jnanam, through cidabhasa,
reveals avidya; by study of sastra,
the wise man comes to know about Maya
and the avarana sakti and overcomes
it by gaining knowledge of Brahman.
Thirdly, when the word, ‘ajnanam’
is used for Maya, it does not mean
ignorance of objects but a power which
produces ignorance of Brahmatvam in
jivas’ mind. It does not produce ignorance
in Brahman. What is opposed to ajnanam
in the sense of ignorance of Brahmatvam
in jivas’ mind is vritti jnanam; the
ahambrahmasmi vritti jnanam destroys
jivas’ ignorance of Brahmatvam.
We cannot say that time has a beginning.
Anything that begins has to begin in time.
Therefore to say that time began, we have
to postulate another time during which
this time began. And we have to postulate
a third time to locate a beginning for
the second time, and so on, without end.
So, to say that time has a beginning will
lead to infinite regress (anavastha
dosha). So, we have to accept that
time is beginningless. Since time is without
a beginning, we cannot say that time is
a product of Maya. Thus, time, along with
Maya, Iswara, the cycle of creation and
dissolution, jiva and karma, is a beginningless
entity. Seeking a definition of Maya,
the author of Vicara Sagara says that
time is the relation of Brahman and Maya.
Relation is not either of the related
entities; so, time is a part of neither
Brahman nor Maya. The relation of a real
and a mithya entity is also mithya.
The whole dream world is in our mind.
Vasanas in our mind alone modify to become
the dream. Like that Maya is Iswara’s
mind. In Maya, Iswara’s mind, the nama
roopa part of the universe is in seed
form and, in creation, Iswara’s mind,
Maya, modifies to become the differentiated
nama roopa. This unfolding of nama
roopa takes place within Iswara. Unlike
our being unaware that the dream is only
a projection of our vasanas, Iswara is
aware of what is happening in creation.
Iswara is omniscient and is aware of what
is for us the past and the future as well
as the present. The potential condition
of the universe is Iswara’s causal form
(kaarana prapanca is Iswara’s kaarana
sariram.). The subtle (invisible, amoortha)
aspect of the universe, the sukshma prapanca,
is Iswara’s aspect called Hiranyagarbha
and the gross (visible, moortha) aspect
of the universe, sthoola prapanca is Iswara’s
aspect called Virat. Iswara is not only
the creator (srshti karta) and the ground
of resolution of the universe (layasthaanam),
but is also the sustainer of the universe
(sthiti karta). In his function as a sthiti
karta, He is called the Inner Controller
(antaryami). We get a description
of Iswara as antaryami in Brhadaranyaka
Upanishad 3.7.3 to 3.7.23, such
as “He who inhabits the sun, but is within
it, whom the sun does not know, whose
body is the sun, and who controls the
sun from within, is the internal Ruler,
your own immortal self”, “ He who inhabits
the intellect, but is within it, whom
the intellect does not know, whose body
is the intellect, and who controls
the intellect from within, is the
Internal Ruler, your own immortal self”
The words, ’immortal self’ refers to the
fact that the essential nature of Iswara
is Brahma caitanyam, the atma. As
the Internal Controller Iswara is the
regulator of cosmic laws and administrator
of karma phalam. Incidentally, in this
connection, we also find the answer to
the question where are undiscovered laws
are located. For example before Newton’s
discovery, what was the location of the
law of gravity? The answer is ‘in Iswara’.
Iswara is witness of avidya and of everything
that takes place in the universe. That
is to say, the cidabhasa part of Iswara
is aware of the avyakta (the unmanifested)
and the vyakta (manifested) condition
of the universe and of not only the present
but the past and future. Time does not
resolve in pralaya (when the universe
resolves into unmanifested condition).
Iswara watches the fructification of the
karma of jivas and initiates a new creation.
- Earlier, it was said that Iswara,
Maya and the universe exist as lower
orders of reality only from the point
of view of jivas who, like Iswara,
Maya and the cycle of creation of
the universe, are beginningless and
that for nirguna Brahman, there is
no Iswara or Maya or universe even
as lower orders of reality. There
are two reasons why we jivas have
to postulate Iswara, Maya and the
universe. The eternal, non-dual, changeless
Brahman devoid of instruments of knowledge
and action is said to be the cause
of the universe, but we do experience
a universe; therefore we have to postulate
an intelligent cause and a material
cause other than Brahman. That
is Iswara and Maya, respectively.
Secondly, we, jivas, Sastra
says, are by nature Brahman but are
ignorant of the fact and we suffer
in samsara. Therefore we have to predicate
a power which hides our real nature
from us. And that is Maya. Since Brahman
is non-dual, all these that we predicate
have to be assigned a lower order
of reality. But all these predications
are only for us jivas. For Brahman,
there is no Iswara or Maya or a world
of nama roopa, not even as lower orders
of reality. As cited earlier, Upanishads
say that Brahman is acakshuh (devoid
of eyes), asrotram (devoid of ears),
arasah (devoid of tasting faculty),
and amanah (devoid of an objectifying
knower-consciousness). nishkriya (devoid
of action) etc. So, there is no question
of Brahman perceiving or knowing a
universe or jivas or Maya or Iswara
or a world of nama roopa, even as
lower orders of reality -Vide Chandogya
7.24.1 “The Infinite is that where
one does not see anything else……..know
anything else.”.
“Kaivalya Upanishad 23 – “For
Me there is neither Earth nor Water,
nor Fire nor Air nor Space. (‘Me’
refers to the ‘I’ mentioned in verse
22 – ‘I alone am the theme taught
in the Vedas’ – thus ‘for Me’ means
‘for Brahman)”. Mandukya Upanishad
mantra 7 – “….beyond empirical dealings…..in
which all phenomena cease…..non-dual
(…avyavahaaryam…..prapancopasamam……advaitam).
Verse 32 of Vaitathya prakaranam of
Mandukya karika – “There is no dissolution,
no origination, none in bondage, none
striving or aspiring for salvation,
and none liberated. This is the position
from the standpoint of paaramartika
satyam”. This means that, the vyavaharika
world exists only for jivas who are
in the universe. For nirguna Brahman,
there is no world and there is no
Maya or Iswara.
- We see from Brhadaranyaka II.iv.12,
that that once the physical body falls,
(“pretya”), for the videhamukta, there
is no longer the objectifying knower-consciousness,
the ahamkaara, and
we know from other passages that he
becomes Brahman Itself. Brhadaranyaka
3.2.11, and 4.4.7, Prasna 6.5 and
Mundaka 3.2.7, read with 3.2.6 also
say that a sukshma sarira of a Jivanmukta
dissolves at the time of videha mukti
in the cosmos, when he becomes Brahman
Itself. Without a sukshma sarira with
ahamkara, where is the question of
there bring anything else for
Brahman to know?
- Rememebering that an example is not
an illustration in all respects, we
can take the rope and the snake. Snake
is a superimposition. It is seen by
the passer-by in semi-darkness. When
light is brought it disappears. Rope
is like Brahman; it is the adhishtanam.
Snake is like the world. Semi-daarkness
is like Maya.The passer-by is like
the jiva affected by the avarana sakti
of Maya. Disappearance of the snake
when the light is brought is like
the disappearance of the world for
videhamukta. If we assume, for the
sake of argument, that the rope is
a conscious entity, we can say that
for the rope there is no snake. Like
that, for Brahman there is no world.
- In Brhadaranyaka Upanishad Bhashya
Vartika, (I.4.299 and 1.4 300-30,4
?) Sureswaracarya says that for Brahman
there is no world or avidya at all.
Sureswaracarya
says expressly that for Brahman, there
is no world or Maya. Sankaracarya
also says in Brahmasutra bhashyam
II.i.14, “Thus the Upanishads speak
of the cessation of all empirical
dealings in the state of the Highest
Reality (Evam paramaartha-avasthaayaam
sarva-vyavahaara-abhaavam vadanti
vedaaantaah sarve”) which means
that in the paramartika plane, there
is no world at all.
- In Advaita Vedanta, dream world (swapna
prapanca) is taken as an example
to show that, just as the swapna
prapanca is realised to be unreal
when we wake up, the waking world
(jagrat prapanca) becomes unreal
when we gain knowledge of the non-dual
Brahman.. That the swapna prapanca
is nothing but thoughts in the mind
of the ‘waker' is known when he wakes
up from sleep. (‘Waker' is a term
adapted for convenience to refer to
a person who has gone to bed and is
having a dream, to distinguish him
from the subject in the dream experiencing
the dream objects, which we shall
call “dream pramata” or “dream I ”
or “pratibhasika I”) In the dream,
the waker sees an elephant or a mountain.
Where is the required space in his
head for either? Or, in the dream,
he goes from New Delhi to New York
when only a minute of jagrat time
has passed. Where is the time required
for the journey? And when he wakes
up, he finds himself, not in New York
but in New Delhi. In the dream he
meets his old friend and talks to
him, but when he gets up he knows
that the friend died a few years ago.
Or, a barren woman dreams that she
has a son. Or a blind person may dream
that he has eyesight (Cf. Chandogya
8.10.1). Or a person is ill but is
still in his house when he goes to
bed. In his dream, he is hospitalised
and when he is discharged, the Doctor
advises him to continue for another
week with the tablets of medicine
a part of which he is taking home.
Will he find the medicines when he
wakes up? Or, when he goes to bed,
his bank balance is Rs.10000. In the
dream, he wins a lottery of 20 million
rupees. When he gets up, can he issue
a cheque against that? Or one goes
to bed on a new moon night switching
off all lights but in the dream one
is basking in the sun. Or one has
gone to bed after a full meal but
in the dream one feels ravenously
hungry or vice versa. And one sees
things in dream, which are strange
from the point of view of jagrat experience,
such as oneself with the head of an
elephant or water flowing upwards
or oneself flying the air or cutting
one's own head or oneself with eight
hands or oneself riding an elephant
with four tusks.. In the dream, a
chariot may turn into a man in the
dream itself or a man may turn into
a tree. When we wake up, we know that
we had a dream, but often, we do not
remember what the dream was, and,
if sometimes we do, we remember it
only vaguely. Thus, the space, time,
patterns of behaviour and cause-effect
relationship as they are required
for jagrat experience are not there
in the swapna prapanca. So we regard
the swapna prapanca as unreal.
- Sub-dream within dream clearer example
of unreality of jagrat prapanca .
Within my main dream, I may
have a sub-dream. I go to bed
at New Delhi and have a dream.
In the dream, I see myself going
to Chennai. Obviously this is
not myself lying in the bed. This
is a dream I projected by my mind
while I am still lying in bed.
This dream I does a lot of shopping
in Burma Bazaar and being tired
falls asleep as soon he reaches
the Taj Coramandel Hotel. There,
the dream I has a sub-dream. In
this sub-dream, the sub-dream
I is going to New York, stays
in Waldorf Astoria, and goes to
bed there after a sumptuous dinner.
When the New York sub-dream I
wakes up, he finds that he is
not in New York but at Chennai;
then the Chennai main dream I
realises that his going to New
York etc. were unreal and he has
remained in Chennai. When the
waker who was having the dream
wakes up, he finds himself at
New Delhi; then the waker realises
that even his shopping in China
bazaar at Chennai was unreal.
Now the dream as well as the sub-dream
has become unreal. If we substitute
the sub-dream for swapna
prapanca and the main dream
of the waker for our jagrat
prapanca, we can understand
what we mean by saying that the
jagrat prapanca as well
as the swapna prapanca
that we experience are unreal.
Just as, when the waker wakes
up at Chennai, both the Chennai
main dream and the New York sub-dream
become unreal, for one who has
“woken up” to the knowledge of
jaganmithya brahmasatyam
both the swapna and the
jagrat prapanca become
unreal (mithya).
- What happens during the state of dream
(swapna avastha) is as follows:-
During the course of sleep,
when a person is dreaming, his
physical body and his sense organs
are resolved and are non-functional
but his ahamkara is
functioning. But the ahamkara
is not in a position to contact
the external world because the
physical body and sense organs
are not available. In this state
of the ahamkara, vasanas,
also called samskaras,
i.e., impressions stored in the
citta portion of the ahamkara,
based on the person's experience
during the jagrat avasthas
of past period of life (janma)
and even of past janmas
are activated. In any particular
swapna avastha, some of these
vasanas emerge in the mind of
the waker and the waker's ahamkara
projects a dream world based
on those vasanas. The dream world
is not, really outside the waker's
ahamkara. But, due to the
power of nidra (sleep),
a mini-Maya, what are only
thoughts within the waker's ahamkara
appear to him as a world outside
his mind. That is how the waker
perceives a dream world. In this
dream world, there are not only
dream objects (swapna padaarthaas,
swapna prameyam), but a
dream knower (a swapna pramaata,
a dream I) who perceives the swapna
prameyam including other dream
persons, dream animals, dream
trees etc. and dream instruments
of knowledge (swapna pramaanam)
which includes not only dream
sense organs (swapna indriyas)
but also a dream mind (a swapna
ahamkara). It is with the
swapna indriyas that the
swapna pramaata contacts
the swapna prameyam and
it is with the swapna ahamkara
that he cognises the swapna
prameyam. During the dream,
the waker is identified with the
swapna pramaata. Identified with
the swapna pramaata, the waker
takes the swapna avastha
to be real. As soon as the he
wakes up, he realises that what
he thought was a real world was
merely thoughts in his own mind
based on his vasanas. Thus
he knows that the swapna prapanca
is unreal.
-
In Mandukya karika, in Vaitathya
prakaranam, the example for
jagrat prapanca being mithya
is swapna prapanca. In
Advaita prakaraman, the
example is pot space. If pot space
were real, when a pot is taken
from Adyar to Besant Nagar, there
should be a vacuum at the point
where the pot was is Adyar and
a struggle for the pot to enter
at the point to which the pot
has been brought in Besant nagar.
- Features of dream that show unreality
of jagrat prapanca. In Sastra,
the swapna avastha is taken
as an example for the unreality of
the jagrat prapanca, from the
point of view of the paramarthika
satyam. Just as the waker, during
the swapna avastha, divides
himself into swapna pramaata, a
swapna prameyam and a swapna
pramanam and, in ignorance, takes
them to be real, the jiva who in his
real nature is the divisionless Brahman,
divides himself, in the jagrat
avastha, out of ignorance, into
a jagrat pramaata, a jagrat prameyam
and a jagrat pramaanam and
takes them to be real. Like the waker
realising, when he wakes up, that
the swapna prapanca was unreal,
when the jagrat jiva “wakes
up”, i.e., gains the knowledge of
his real nature as Brahman, he dismisses
the jagrat prapanca as mithya.
The waker identifies himself with
the swapna pramata and experiences
the pleasure and pain of the swapna
pramaata. If the swapna I, as bhokta,
is having sexual contact with a woman,
the waker feels the pleasure of the
contact. If the swapna I, as the victim
in an accident is mauled by a tiger,
the waker is scared and often, the
fright is so intense that he wakes
up suddenly. Like that, the jiva,
who is really the asanga atma, identifies
himself with his body and mind and
takes the pleasure and pain of the
body and mind to be his pleasure and
pain. When the waker wakes up from
the dream and becomes the vyavaharika
jiva, he is disidentified with the
dream I. He realises that what happens
in the swapna prapanca cannot affect
him. A dog may have bit the dream
I in the dream but the vyavaharika
jiva does not find even a scratch
in his body. The dream I may have
met a beautiful girl in the dream
in a house which appeared like a house
known to him in the waking state and
may have wanted to marry her; when
the vyavaharika goes to the house
where he met the girl, all that he
finds there are an old woman and his
wife. In the dream a person may have
won a million rupees in a lottery
and deposited it in his bank. After
he wakes up and goes to the
bank he will find that his bank balance
is just the two thousand rupees entered
in the pass book on the previous day.
In the svapna example, there
are two conscious entitles – a pratibhasika
conscious entity, the dream I and
a vyavaharika conscious entity, the
waker I lying in bed. In the same
way, in jagrat avastha, there
is a vyavaharika conscious entity,
the pramaata I and a paramarthika
conscious entity, the sakshi
.Just as the waker, when he has woken
up as the vyavaharika jiva, realises
that the swapna prapanca is mithya,
when the vyavaharika jiva wakes up,
i.e. gains knowledge of his true nature
as the infinite Brahman, he realises
that the jagrat prapanca is mithya.
- When Advaita Vedanta gives the example
of swapna prapanca for saying
that, just as the swapna prapanca
(which is pratibhasika) is
unreal relative to the jagrat prapanca
(which is vyaavahaarika), the
jagrat prapanca (which is vyaavahaarika)
is unreal, relative to the paramartika
plane, an opponent argues that
both the swapna prapanca and
the jagrat prapanca enjoy the
same order of reality. His argument
is that the only difference is that
the swapna prapanca is within
the head of the waker and the jagrat
prapanca is outside his head and
both his head and the outside space
are vyaavahaarika. The Vedatin’s
answer is that when the opponent says
“the world is inside the head of the
waker” he is talking from the point
of view of the waker after he has
got up from sleep. But from the point
of the waker when he is in the state
of dream, the swapna prapanca
is outside his head. The adhyasa
of the jivatma in the jagrat avastha
– the jivatma taking the world to
be real - is comparable to the waker's
experience – the waker taking the
dream world to be real - when he is
still in the stage of dream and the
jaganmithya brahma satyam jnanam
of the jivanmukta is comparable
to the realisation of the unreality
of the dream world by the waker when
he has got up from sleep.
- Visishtdvaitins hold that swapna
prapanca is also a world created by
the Lord and the jiva’s sukshma sarira
goes out and experiences that world.
Advaitins agree that, through the
identification of the waker with the
swapna I, the jiva does exhaust some
of his prarabdha through his role
as the swapna I experiencing the swapna
prapanca. Whether the swapna prapanca
is called Iswara srshti or jiva srshti,
the fact remains that it is pratibhasika
and that the sukshma sarira of the
jiva is not separated from the sthoola
sarira lying in bed. The experience
is not by the sukshma sarira going
out but by its identifying itself
with the dream I that is out there
in the svapna prapanca and is experiencing
objects. If the sukshma sarira has
gone out into the swapna prapanca,
it means that only the sthoola sarira
is lying in bed. In that case, which
is the entity which gets scared when
the swapna I is mauled by a tiger
in the swapna and makes the sthoola
sarira get up? If the sukshma sarira
has gone out and fallen in love with
a girl in a house that appears to
be no different from a house known
to him in the jagrat avastha, he would
go to that house when he wakes up
and ask for the girl’s hand in marriage.
- Visishtadvaitins also accept that
Brahman is being all pervading is,
no doubt, is immanent in the universe.
Their Brahman (paramatma) is a saguna
Brahman, a personal God, called Narayana
or Vishnu. He has a twin property
(uubhaya vibhutii) – Leela Vibhuti
in the universe which exists for
his sport (Leela) and enjoyment
(bhoga, and a Nitya Vibhuti
–transcendence in the divine world
called Sree Vaikuntha Paramapadam.
(The transcendental body has five
modes (prakaras) – para,
vyuha vibhu, antaryaami, haarda roopa
and archa). Paramatma is the material
cause (upadana karanam) as
well as the intelligent cause (nimitta
karanam) of the universe and the
one who sustains it and resolves it
unto Himself. The universe consists
of insentient matter, prakriti, called
acit and sentient beings, jivatmas,
called cit. Cit and acit are
the worldly body (sariram, prakaara,
viseshanam, dharma) of paramatma.
Before creation, they are in subtle
(sukshma) form without form,
name and identification in paramatma.
Creation is the unfolding
by paramatma of the cit and acit with
name, form, identification etc. The
attributes of the paramatma are
satyam (independent existence
), jnanam (eternal, unchanging consciousness)
and anantam - not limited in
space or time or by entity (vastu
; freedom from limitation
entity wise is on account of paramatma’s
ubhayavibhuti (i.e., paramatma
alone is there in transcendental mode
and as Sriman Narayana and as the
worldly mode(prakaara) in the
form of cit and acit), omniscience
(sarvajnatvam), omnipotence
(sarvasaktimatvam), rulership
(Iisitatvam, rulership over cit and
acit), power to bring about whatever
he wills (sarvakalpatvam), changelessness
(nirvikaaratvam being the
support (aadhaara), and
the Controller (niyamaka) and Lord
(seshi) of cit and acit etc..
These are His attributes (dharmaas,
viseshnams); they distinguish
Him from the insentient, finite, changing
acit and the finite cit whose knowledge
as attribute is subject to contraction.
By the very function of distinguishing
Him from cit and acit, they constitute
His nature (swaroopam) like
the attributes of a cow (which distinguish
it from horse etc.). (Vide Ramanuja
in Vedanta Sangraha -(Swaroopa niroopana
dharma sabda hi dharma mukhena swaroopam
api pratipadhyanti gavaadisabdavat).
Thus, for example, He has dharma jnanam
as well as swaroopa jnanam. There
are countless jivatmas. Each jivatma
(called cit) has a separate
atma of his own, besides his body.
This atma also has two aspects, one,
knowledge and bliss (jnanam and aanandam)
as His nature (swaabhika, swaroopa)
and jnanam as attribute (dharmabhoota
jnanam). The dharmabhoota jnanam,
contracts in the state of samsara
on account of beginningless karma
involving ignorance of one's own swaroopam
and of paramatma; this dharmabhootajnanam
expands to its full stature in the
state of moksha. The goal of jivatma
is to know parmatma’s perfection.
Sadhana, with free will conferred
by paramatma, consists of cultivation
of virtues, study of Veda, karma yoga,
spirit of surrender to the paramatma,
and bhakti consisting of meditation
on the paramatma, resulting, with
paramatma’s grace, in attainment of
release from samsara (moksha). (Vision
of paramatma is not possible with
the ordinary means of perfection.
Bhakti is the unique form of knowledge
which enables the devotee to get a
vision of paramatma.) It is paramatma,
by His Grace, that effectuates the
jivtma’s release from samsara. Moksha
is not cessation of individuality;
it is attainment of residence in Vaikuntha
with the benefit of constant, blissful,
adoration of paramatma. Even in moksha,
the mukta jivatmas maintain their
separate individualism with desa
and vastu pariccheda (limited
in space and by entity). (Even nitya
suris like Garuda, Adisesha,
and Vishvaksena etc. who are eternally
without karma and hence never have
prakriti-sambandha, have the
desa and vastu paricccheda.) Visishtadvaitins
alsoclaim that in spite of being
the material cause of creation, paramatma
is changeless inasmuch as it is paramatma’s
body alone which gets expanded
as cit and acit and becomes
the universe but there is no change
in paramatma’s swaroopam. They say
that Svetasvatara mantra “nirguna”
means, not that paramatma is without
attributes (nirvisesha), but
that paramatma is pure and free of
all evil attributes; the word only
denies imperfections characteristic
of finite existence. He is sarvakalayaanagunaaakaraka.
Paramatma, cit, acit, creation,
sustenance and dissolution of the
universe are all equally real.
- The proposition that, apart from
Brahma caitanyam, there are myriad
caitanyams, as the body of Brahman,
and that these jivatmas remain,
both in the state of samsara
and in the state of moksha, remain
as separate entities is opposed to
the Advaita doctrine of jivabrahmaikyam.
The thesis that the body of paramatma
is transformed by paramatma into myriad
jivatmas, each with a separate atma
of its own, different from Brahma
caitanyam, with two types of jnanam,
one eternal swaroopa jnanam and the
other contracting and expanding dharma
jnanam is, also, according to the
Advaitin, contradictory to Sruti statements.
Apart, from the four mahavakyas,
there are numerous Sruti statements
which assert that the atma of jivatmas
is non-different from Brahman. Inter
alia, Taittiriya 2.1.1., first defines
Brahman “satyam, jnaanam, anantam
Brahma” and in the same mantra
says” from atma was born aakaasa”
and it thus equates Brahman and atma.
. In Sankaracarya's' commentary. he
says, “Since in the text, ‘From that
Brahman indeed which is this atma
(was produced this space)’, the word
atma is used with regard to Brahman
Itself; it follows that Brahman is
the atma of the cognising individual.
“One who worships another god
thinking ‘He is one, I am another,
he does not know” (Brhadaranyaka 1.4.10),
“One only without a second” (Chandogya
6.2.1). Chandogya
8.14.1 and Swetasvatara 1.12 equate
Brahman and atma. Brhadaranyaka IV.iv.18
also, which describes the sakshi as
the Prana of the prana, the Eye of
the Eye, the Ear of the Ear and the
Mind of the Mind, equates atma and
Brahman. Brhadaranyaka IV.iv.25
– “That great, birthless atma is undecaying,
immortal, ….infinite. Btrahman indeed
is fearless. He who knows the
atma as the fearless Brahman becomes
the fearless Brahman” In his commentary
on Brahma sutra 1.4.14 also, Sankaracarya
says, citing Taittiriya 2.1.1, ‘By
using the word, atma” with regard
to Him (Brahman) subsequently, and
by placing the atma successively inner
and inner in a series of sheaths,
counting from this body, He (Brahman)
is shown to be pratyagatma (Taittiriya
2.2 to 2.5).
Brhadaranyaka IV.iv.13 – “All is his
atma, and he again indeed is the atma
of all”. Taittiriya 2.1.1 defines
Brahman as infinity. The infinite
cannot have parts. If it has, it ceases
to be infinite. In Brahadaranyaka
3.4.1 and 3.5.1, Ushasta and Kahola
ask Yagnavalkya to teach them the
Brahman that is immediate and direct
- the atma within all and Yagnavalkya
starts the teaching saying “This is
your atma that which is in all “.In
the same Upanishad, in 3.8.11, Yagnavalkya
tells Gargi “This aksharam
is beyond thought but is the Thinker;
It is never known but is the knower”
and adds “There is no other Thinker
than It; there is no other knower
than It.” (This is a clear statement negating many conscious beings
as jivas, separate from Paramatma). In
4,3,7 the question is asked, “Which
is the atma?” and Yagnavalkya answers,
“ this infinite entity (“Purusha”)
that is identified with the intellect
and, attaining the likeness of the
intellect, thinks ‘as it were' and
shakes ‘as it were'.”. Swetasvatara
3.18 talks of the Lord of the universe dwelling in the body
going out and contacting objects through
the sense organs. 3.13 talks of Brahman
dwelling in the heart being the Lord
of the mind. In
Brhadaranyaka 1.4.7 Brahman is said
to have entered into the universe
including the bodies of beings. And
the Upanishad goes on to say that
when It does the function of living
It is called praana…..when
it thinks, It is called the mind.
Aitereya
Upanishad, 1.3.11 says that Brahman
wanting to enter the indriyas
and the mind asks, “if seeing, hearing
and thinking can be done without me,
who am I?”
All these indicate that Brahma caitanyam
and the atma that enables the sense
organs and the mind to function as
conscious entities are the same caitanyam.
In Mundaka 2.2.8 (in some texts it
may be 2.2.7), it is said Brahman
(called “the savajna” and “sarvavid”)
seated in space within the luminous
city of Brahman (i.e., the mind) is
said to be conditioned by the mind.
In Brahadaranyaka 4.4.5 also, “the
atma indeed is Brahman (ayam atma
brahma) is spoken of as “identified
with the mind, the intellect, praana
and the sense organs.” Again, in the
same strain, in 3.1.2, Aitereya Upanishad
talks of atma as the mind and in 3.1.3
enumerates various vrittis of the
mind like thinking, suffering and
memory as names of Consciousness (prajnaanam)
and in 3.1.4, says that this prajnaanam
(the consciousness behind the individual
minds) is Brahman.“.
In Brhadaranyaka 3.4.1, the
atma equated with Brahman which is
within all is spoken of as that ‘which
moves forward through the prana etc.
Brhadaranyaka IV.iv.18 – “Those who
have known the Prana of the prana,
the Eye of the eye, the Ear of the
Ear, and the Mind of the mind have
realized the ancient primordial Brahman.
In all the passages cited above, whether
we take the Brahma caitanyam as merely
conditioned by the mind or as reflected
in the mind, in all these passages,
since the same Brahman is said to
be associated with praana and the
mind, t talk of plurality of atmas
would be
contradictory. Mundaka Upanishad says
expressly that anyone who knows that
supreme becomes Brahman. So, how can
jivatmas be said to remain as separate
entities even in the state of moksha?
Mundaka Upanishad 3.2.5, 3.26
and 3.2.7 also go against the part
whole theory. 5 says, “Having attained
Brahman (i.e., having identified themselves
with Brahman), being contented with
the knowledge ‘aham brahma asmi',
remaining free of desire and tranquil,
the seers (rishis') attain
the all pervading entirely and, when
the body falls, merge in the Brahman
that is all.”(Sankaracarya compares
it to space apparently confined within
a pot merging in all pervading space
on the breaking of the pot.) 6 says,
“Those to whom the entity presented
by the Vedic knowledge has become
fully ascertained, at the supreme
moment of final departure all of them
become identified with the supreme
Immortality in the worlds that are
Brahman. Sankaracarya explains ‘in
the worlds that are Brahman” means
“in Brahman” and adds “like a lamp
blown out or like the space in a pot
when broken.”) 7 says “all become
unified with the Supreme Undecaying.””
In Mundaka Upanishad, II.ii.9, (in
some texts, it will be 2.2.10) it
is said that anyone who knows that
Brahman becomes Brahman indeed. Kaivalya
10 says, “Seeing one's own atma in
all beings and all beings in atma,
one attains the highest Brahman. And Kaivalya 16 says, “That which is the supreme Brahman,
the atma in all…..That alone art Thou,
Thou alone art That”. Brhadaranyaka IV.iii.32 – “It becomes (homogenous) like
water, one, the witness and without
a second. This is brahmaloka (the
paramarthika state of Brahman)”.
Chandogya Upanishad 8.12.3 is
significant. It says “This tranquil
one (the reference is to jivatma),
rising up from this body (the reference
is to videhamukti), ‘becomes one with
the supreme light' and ‘is established
in his own nature'.
Brhadaranyaka 4.4.6 is also significant.
Talking about Jivanmukti and Videhamukti,
it says”…..being but Brahman, he (i.e.,
Jivanmukta) is merged in Brahman”
Words like “Becoming one with
the supreme light” and “is established
in his own nature” “being but Brahman,
he is merged in Brahman” constitute
incontrovertible proof that the atma
in us is no different from Brahman.
In Brhadaranyaka 2.4.12 (repeated
in 4.5.13, the Upanishad, talking
of videha mukti, says that the (particular)
consciousness of jivas ceases at that
time (“na pretya samja asti”).
Whether we take ‘samja’ as cidabhasa
or the mere adhyasa of being separate
individuals or, as Visisjtadvaitins
would have it, as multiple atmas separate
from Brahman, this passage is sufficient
to refute the proposition that jivatmas
retain their identity as separate
entities even in the state of moksha.
That consciousness is only one and
though, conditioned by the body-mind
complex, it may appear as many, when
the conditioning ceases, the apparent
many merges in the one original consciousness
is well illustrated by the salt water
example in Brhadaranyaka IV.v.13.
- As regards refutation of atmas being
parts of Brahman there are specific
Sruti statements that Brahman is divisionless
(without parts) (“nishkalam”)
(Kaivalya 23, Swetasvatara 6.19, Mundaka
2.2.9 (in some texts, it is 2.2.10),
3.1.8, Brahma 1, Brahmabindu 21, Dhyabnabindu
13, Nadabindu 17) “It should be realised
in one form only” (Brhadaranyaka 4.4.20)
(Sankaracarya’s commentary – “It should
be realised in one form only, viz.,
as homogenous pure consciousness.
Without any break in it, like space.”).
Brhadaranyaka IV.iv.13 “As a lump
of salt is without exterior or interior,
entire, and purely saline in taste,
even so is the atma without interior
or exterior, entire and pure consciousness.
It acquires particular consciousnesses
on account of the association with
(the products of) the elements (body-mind
complexes). When a body mind complex
is destroyed, this particular consciousness
is destroyed. When the body falls,
there is no longer any particular
consciousness”. 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’”.)
In his commentary, Sankaracarya says,
“..’Vijanamaya’, 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 - goes
out and works, as if it were sentient,
like the shining of a jar placed
in the sun .Or like an emarald
or any other gem dropped into milk
etc imparts its lustre 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-effiulgent
light that pervades the intellect…..seems
to think. ……Hence the people think
that the atma thinks but really it
does not.”
Visishtadvaitins and Dwaitins say that
the world is as real as Paramatma .In
the earlier portions we have already discussed,
how, in the light of various Sruti statements,
such a view would be illogical.
- As regards the Dwaita and Visishtadvaita
thesis that Brahman is saguna (one
with attributes) the Advaitin replies
that to have attributes is to be limited.
To be small is not to be big. To be
good is to be not bad. Exclusion is
limitation. If Brahman is credited
with any attributes, we would be making
Brahman a limited entity. To be limited,
entity wise, Brahman has to be attributeless
(“nirguna”). Svetasvatara Upanishad
6.11 specifically says that Sakshi
(Brahman) is “nirguna”. This occurs
also in Brahma Upanishad 3. Nrsimhaottarataapani
says “aguna”. Apart from this,
there are numerous passages which
talk of Brahman being free of attributes,
mentioning specific attributes – vide
Mundaka 2.1.2 – “ formless, without
vital force and without mind”;
Katha 1.3.15 – soundless, touchless,
colourless, odourless”; Katha 1.2.22 – “ without vital airs and without mind”; Mundaka 1.1.6 – “without features, eyes and ears;
which has neither hands nor feet”
Brhadaranyaka 3.8.8 – “neither gross
nor minute, neither short nor long,
neither red colour nor oiliness, neither
shadow nor darkness…..neither flavour
nor odour, without eyes or ears, without
the vocal organ or mind, ….without
the vital force nor the mouth..” –
Prasna 4.10 – “Shadowless, bodiless,
colourless” All these go against the
proposition that Brahman is endowed
with attributes. Mandukya
7 makes it clear that Brahma caitanyam
is not the objectifying consciousness
(“Na prajnam”
– Sankaracarya’s commentary – “By
‘na prajnam’ is denied the awareness
of everything by a single act of consciousness;
i.e. dharmabhoota jnanam is negated.)
The interpretation of Visishtadvaitins
that “nirguna” means that Lord Narayana
who is Brahman, is devoid of all evil
and has only all auspicious attributes
(sarvakalyanagunaakaara), we
have the Kathopanishad mantra 1.2.14
which says that Brahman is beyond
dharma as well as adharma
(virtue as well as vice).
As Sureswacarya points out, the distinction
between the sacred and the profane
is meaningful only in the vyavaharika
plane.
- What has been said above is sufficient
to refute the view (of Visishtadvaitins
and Dwaitins that the Supreme
Being is not only swaroopa jnanam
but He has, as one of His attributes,
visesha jnanam (what they call
dharma jnanam) and they talk
of Brahman as omniscient (sarvajna)
etc. . Any knowledge, even omniscience,
involves triputi - and to make Brahman
a pramaata entertaining perception
or thought of objects (prameyam) involves
pramanam (knowing instruments). This
will not be in accordance with Sruti
statements that Brahman is amanah.
The word “sarvajna” is not applicable
to Brahman because Brahman is non-dual
(advayam) and there is no second entity
for It to know. Cf. Chandogya Upanishad
7.24.1 – “The Infinite is that
where one does not see anything else,
does not hear anything else and
does not know anything else”.
Dwaitins and Visishtadvaitins say that
liberation (moksha) happens for a successful
spiritual seeker only after death.
But, as shown in Part II, in the section,
entitled “Liberation in this life itself
– Jivanmukti”, there are a number of Upanishadic
passages which establish that a person
who gains knowledge of jiva brahma aikyam
is free of samsara, that is, gets moksha,
in the very life in which he gains the
knowledge.
Visishtadvaitins say that in Advaita,
since moksha involves negation
of jivas, moksha is a futile attainment;
jiva himself is not there to enjoy moksha.
The answer is that when we talk of jivatma
as bound and liberated, of the mixture
of Brahma caitanyam in the form of pratyagatma
and ahamkara. What we say is destroyed
on attainment of moksha is the ahamkara.
The pratyagatma, which is non-different
from Brahma caitanyam, is not destroyed.
Once there is videhamukti, there is no
longer any need to use two terms. All
that there is is Brahma caitanyam, the
infinite consciousness. The Advaitin's
moksha is discovery of Brahmatvam as a
jivanmukta and, in videhamukti, being
Brahma Itself. What more does one want
than being the Existence-Consciousness-Infinity?
(The contention of Visishtadvaitins mentioned
above is based on their failure to distinguish
the atma from ahamartha.
- Visishtadvaitins refer to the Advaita
doctrine of avidya and say that the
covering of consciousness, which is
the essential nature of Brahman, means
the e loss of Brahman itself. This
misconception has to be corrected
from many angles. One is that the
covering is not for Brahman, but for
jivas; it is like sun being covered
by a cloud and one is unable to see
the sun from the earth. So, when avidya
exerts the avarana sakti, it is the
jiva who is unable to have a vision
of Brahman. For Brahman, there is
no avidya at all. Avidya is mithya
(a lower order of reality) and it
cannot affect the paaramaarthika,
Brahman. We do say that avidya is
located in Brahman, because any mithya
entity must have a sub-stratum for
it to appear. The snake cannot appear
unless there is a snake. We have to
have some location for Maya. Since
there is no other go, we say that
Maya is located in Brahman. Being
located itself is mithya. There is
no Maya at all, as far as Brahman
is concerned. Location is only from
the point of view of the jiva. There
is no real snake located on the rope.
It is only for the on-looker in semi-darkness
that a snake appears to be located
on what he sees as an object, without
understanding its nature in full;
if you imagine the snake to be a conscious
entity, it would not see a snake at
all. Like that jivatmas are aware
of the existence of a conscious entity
within themselves, but are not aware
that that conscious entity is the
infinite consciousness. So, they regard
themselves as limited beings. Therefore
there is no question of the swayamprakasatvam
of Brahman being destroyed by avidya.
- Secondly, the Visishtadvaitin’s argument
proceeds on the basis of equating
Brahman and knowledge and avidya and
ignorance and saying that ignorance
is opposed to knowledge. But
Advaita makes a distinction between
swaroopa jnanam and vritti
jnanam. Secondly avidya itself
is not ignorance; it is a power that
engenders ignorance. Brahman is knowledge
(jnanam) in nature not in the sense
of vritti jnanam but swaroopa jnanam.
What are opposed to each other are
not swaroopa jnanam and ignorance
but vritti jnanam and ignorance. In
fact, on the vyavaharika plane,
swaroopa jnanam (Brahma caitanyam)
illumines ignorance as well as knowledge;
through the conditioning of
the intellect or reflection in the
intellect illumines the ignorance
of brahmatvam caused by avidya as
well as the knowledge of aham brahma
asmi imbibed through Sastra. Swaroopa
jnanam (Brahma caitanyam) is eternal
(nityam). Vide Brahadaranyaka IV.iii.23
- The vision of the witness can never
be lost, because it is imperishable
(Na hi drashturdrsherviparilopo
vidyate avinaasitvaat). Further,
since Brahman is eternal, the critic
can be hoisted on his own petard.
If an eternal Brahman of the nature
of knowledge is opposed to ignorance
of the nature of avidya, avidya would
have been destroyed at the very outset
and there would no jivas at all ignorant
of their nature as Brahman.
- Thirdly, the opponents cannot ignore
the Advaita doctrine that Brahman
is satyam and avidya is mithya. Mithya
cannot affect satyam. Therefore, there
is no question of avidya destroying
Brahman.
In sushupti, jivatma is said to be resolved
in Paramatma (Brahman). This should not
be taken literally, because the aavarana
sakti of moola avidya (Maya) is not destroyed.
Vikshepa sakti is suspended, but the avarana
sakti is still maintaining Brahma ajnaanam
(ignorance of Brahmatvam) in the resolved
antahkarana. So, unless he is a jnaani,
when a person wakes up, he does so with
Brahma ajnaanam and the consequent adhyaasa.
In sushupti on account of temporary suspension
of identification with upadhis, the distraction
by the world created by the vikshepa sakti
of Maya is not there. Adhyasa engendered
by the avarana sakti comes into play only
when the world created by the vikshepa
sakti is there as the premeyam. Since
the pramaata is resolved in sushupti,
there is no premeyam for the person in
sushupti. So, there is no adhyaasa for
the time being and samsara is suspended
for the nonce. When the person wakes up,
he says, “I slept happily; I did not know
anything”. The absence of cognition of
external objects and of internal cognition
is registered mechanically in the resolved
antahkarana (antahkarana in karana avastha).
Ananda (happiness) is also registered.
The source of the ananda is the ananda
swaroopam (the anantatvam) of atma. Since
the resolved antahkarana is in a calm
state, the atma ananda is reflected in
it without it being aware of it at that
time and that is registered by the resolved
antahkarana. In technical language, there
is a sukshma vritti in them antahkarana,
called avidya vritti pertaining to non-experience
of external objects, to the absence of
internal disturbance and to happiness.
(When the vritti is taking place, the
person is not aware of it but vritti is
taking place). Otherwise, we cannot
explain the ability of the person to say,
on waking up,” I slept happily; I did
not know anything” (sukham aham asvaaptam
na kincit avedisham). What was not
registered cannot be recollected. By arthapatti
pramanam, we know that atma caitanyam
had illumined sukham in the kaarana sariram
during sushupti. We also know that the
original consciousness (atma caitanyam)
as well as ajnaanam (ignorance of Brahmatvam)
continues to exist in sushupti.
1. Jivatma, inseparably until videha mukti,
is a mixture of (a) the all pervading
consciousness (b), the reflecting medium,
the antahkarana and (c) the reflected
consciousness. The word, “Jivatma” means,
in different contexts a different combination
of these three. When Mundaka Upanishad
is interpreted as referring to Jivatma
and paramatma as two birds sitting in
the tree, one eating the fruit and the
other looking on, “Jivatma” means the
mixture of (b) and (c). When in Chandogya
Upanishad 6.3.3, Brahman is said to have
entered into the three deities as jivatma,
“jivatma” should be taken as (c). When
the jnani says “I, the jivatma, am Brahman”,
jivatma" means (a). When Sastra talks
of travel of jivatma, after death, to
other lokas and of rebirth, Jivatma means
the mixture of (b) and (c).
2. When it is said that there is no world
other than Brahman, the reference is to
brahmasatyam jaganmithya. When it is said
that Brahman is free of the world, the
reference is to the paramartika status
of Brahman.
3. In Brahma Sutra, based on the six-fold
criteria for finding the purport of the
text, there are a number of discussions
how various words should be interpreted.
Examples are ‘praana’ and ‘aakasa’ which
in certain contexts refer to Brahman.
One should not mix up orders of reality.
Suppose, one convicted of murder pleads,
“Atma neither kills nor is it killed.
I am Atma, so, I did not kill and, therefore,
you should not punish me.” The judge would
turn round and say “I am not punishing
your Atma; I shall punish only your body.”
It is in this strain that Ramakrishna
Paramahamsa relates a story of a man thinking
that the elephant is atma and I am atma
and so, the elephant cannot kill me. So
saying he goes and lays himself in front
of a rogue elephant. The body of the elephant
comes and crushed the body of the man.
A Jivanmukta identifies himself with Brahman.
On the vyavaharika plane, he is looked
upon as Iswara. That is why guru is glorified
as Paramatma in the famous sloka “gururbrahma
gururvishnu gururdevo maheswara; gurureva
parambrahma tasmai sri gurave namaha”.
Correspondingly, when a devotee does namaskara
to a guru, the guru accepts it with the
thought that the devotee is doing namaskara,
not to the guru’s body, but to Iswara
or to the atma jnanam in the guru.
Brahadaranyaka Upanishad III.v.1, IV.iv.22
and IV.iv.23 use the word, “Brahmana”
for those who utilize karma yoga to attain
purity of mind, pursue jnana yoga and
know Brahman. . In the Jabala Upanishad,
the sage Atri asks Yajnavalkya, “May I
ask you, Yajnavalkya, how is one without
the sacred thread a Brahmana? Yagnavalkya
replied, “The conviction ‘I am the atma’
alone is his sacred thread."
Vajrasucika Upanishad discusses ‘Who is
a Brahman? It says that a Brahmana is
not a Brahman because of his caste or
his learning, or his righteousness but
by perceiving the atma directly (aparoksha
jnanam). In the Bhagawadgita, Lord
Krishna talks of jaati braahmanas,
persons born in a family of the brahmana
caste, karma braahmanas, persons
who are engaged in noble activates and
guna btraahmanas, the seekers or
accomplishers of jivabrahma-aikya jnanam.
There is no virtue in being merely a jaati
Brahmana; the karma Brahmana deserves
respect; the highest aspiration is to
be a guna Brahmana. There is a sloka which
says that at birth one is sudra, becomes
dwija by noble action, vipra
by learning and braahmana by
knowing Brahman. (‘Sudra’ indicates self-ignorance,
‘dwija’ refers to one initiated for the
pursuit of studies, ‘vipra’ refers to
a learned man and ‘brahmana’ refers to
the knower of Brahman.
When I say, “I know this,” the “I”, the
“know” and “this” are not simultaneously
cognized. Each piece of knowledge requires
a triputi – a pramata, pramanam
and prameya (or, to put in another version,
a karta , karanam and karma).
E.g. “I know the tree”. Tree becomes the
object of knowledge . When tree is
the object of knowledge neither ‘I” nor
the act of knowing can be the object
of knowledge. . When “I” is the object
of knowledge, neither “tree” nor the act
of knowing can be the object of knowledge.
When the act of knowing is the object
of knowledge, neither “I” nor “tree” can
be the object of knowledge. “I”, “know”
and “tree” - each requires, separately,
a knower, knowing and known. So the awareness
of “I’, “know” and “tree” takes place
successively, through a separate
triputi in each case – such as “I know
the tree”, “I know the act of knowing”
and “ I know the I that knows the tree”,
but so quickly that it appears
to be simultaneous.
- Knowledge (“prama”) is obtained by
five fold pramanaas – “pratyaksha”,
“anumaana”, “upamaana”, “sabda”, “arthaapatti”
and “anupalabdhi”.
(i) Pratyaksha Pratyaksha is direct
cognition, external as well as internal.
E.g., I know that there is a flower
pot out there in the garden; I see
it. Or I know that nadasvaram is being
played in the far distance, even though
I can't see it; I hear it. I know
that a rose has bloomed in the neighbor’s
garden beyond the wall; I smell it.
My eyes are closed; someone puts sugar
in my mouth; I know it is sugar because
the taste is similar to sugar which
I have tasted before. I know that
there is fire in the fire place even
when my back is turned towards the
fire because I feel the heat on my
skin. If anger arises in my mind I
know it.
(ii) Anumaana is knowledge by inference.
Inference is ascertainment of the
existence of a thing we come to know
even though it is not perceived (called
“saadhyam”) because of the existence
of a thing that is perceived (called
“hetu”) on the basis of the previous
experience of the invariable concomitance
of these two things (called “vyaapti”).
E.g., I see only smoke rising on the
top of the mountain; I know from previous
experience, say, observation of what
happens in the yaagssaala (sacrificial
hall) or in the kitchen that whenever
there is smoke there is fire; so,
I come to the conclusion that there
is fire in the mountain.
(iii) Upamaana. Upamaana is knowledge
obtained by comparison, where features
similar to a thing which one already
knows are observed in a freshly observed
thing. E.g., a person goes to a forest
and sees a “gavaya” (a species of
ox). He observes similarity between
that animal and the cow in his house.
Then he has the cognition “My cow
is similar to a gavaya” These are
cases of similarity of entities which
are not identical.
(iv) Sabda . The distinctive (exclusive)
means of knowledge by sabda , i.e.,
verbal testimony is called “sabdapramaana”.
When the statement gives information
that is not already known and for
which its syntactical relation that
is purportful is not sublated by other
evidence, that statement is sabdapramaana.
(Vide Vedanta Paribhasha). The pramaana
excludes absurd statements like “Let
it be made wet by fire”. The knowledge
arising from verbal testimony should
be above contradiction by any other
valid pramaana like pratyaksha. Sabda
pramana is of two kinds - that which
is in the form of written or spoken
testimony of a trustworthy person
(aapta) and that which is impersonal
(apaurusheya), viz., sruti
(Vedic testimony).
- “For the study of sastra, the criteria
of valid knowledge (pramanam)
are that (i) it should produce
knowledge (pramaa janakatvam),
(ii) the content should be something
that is not already known through
any other means of valid knowledge
(‘not already known’ except recollection)
(pramanaantara-anatigatatvam),
(iii) it should be free of ambiguity
(asandigdhwatvam), (iv)
it should not sublated by another
valid means of knowledge (abaadhitvam)
and (v) it should be have utility
(arthavatvam, prayojanatvam).
The purport of a topic has be ascertained
by six criteria – (i) the concordance
of what is taught in the beginning
and what is taught in the end (upakarama-upasamhaara-ekaroopam),
(ii) what is repeatedly taught (abhyaasa)
(iii) what is not already known
by other valid pramaana (apoorvata)
(iv) what contains a statement of
the benefit of the teaching (phalam)
(v) what is praised and the opposite
of what is condemned (arthavaada)
and (vi) what is logically acceptable
(upapatti). For example, we
ascertain that the purport of the
sixth chapter of Chandogya Upanishad
is to teach about Brahman
(i) from the passage in the beginning
,”All that there is here is
atma” “etat aatmyam-idam-sarvam”
according with the passage at the
end, “That is the Reality. That is
atma” “Tat-satyam tat-aatma”
(ii) the repetition of the sentence,
“Thou art That” (“Tattvamasi”)
nine times in 6.8.7 etc
(iii) the fact that the identity of
jivatma and paramatma is not known
from any other pramanam
(iv) the statement “For a man who,
having a teacher, acquires knowledge
in this world, the delay is for as
long only (as the remaining prarabdha
is exhausted). Then be becomes merged
in Existence.” “(Aacaaryavaan Purusha
veda. Tasya taavat-eva ciram yaavat-na
vimokshye atha sampathsye” (6.14.2)
(v) The praise of a knower of Brahman
and the condemnation of the ignorant
by the example of a man who mutters
a lie being burnt by the fire compelled
to be kept in the hand, as test in
olden days, and the one who spoke
truth not being burnt, to demonstrate
the rebirth of the ignorant and the
merging of the knower in Brahman (6.16.1-3)
and
(vi) the demonstration that there
is no substance in the form of the
world, the effect , other than Brahman,
the cause through the example of the
clay and pots, jars etc.
- Anupalabdhi. In this non-cognition
of a thing serves as pramaana. This
applies in the case of objects which
would ordinarily be capable of being
perceived by positive means of cognition,
had they existed in the locus in which
they are not perceived now. In other
words, when all the conditions for
the perception x is present, and yet
x is not perceived, such non-perception
would lead to a true cognition of
the absence of x. For example, there
is a garden in which there are flower
pots; among the flower pots, normally,
there is a pot with a beautiful rose.
One day when I look out from my widow,
I do not see the flower pot with the
rose. Therefore, I conclude that there
is non-existence of the flowerpot
with the rose in the garden. (Only
by anupalabdhi pramaana, the details
pertaining to one ritual, for example,
are known to be not the same as the
details of some other ritual. Certain
details which do not belong to a particular
ritual can only be known by this pramanam).
Threefold duties –
(1) Fivefold yajna (sacred
duties) – (a) Deva yajna , i.e. Vedic
sacrifices pertaining to the worship
of deities, (b) Rishi yajna , i.e., adhyayana
(chanting) and study of Veda, (c) Pitr
yajna, i.e., rituals pertaining to worship
of ancestors who are supposed to have
gone to one of the upper lokas, called
pitr loka, on account of their punya,
(d) Manushya yajna i.e., service to humanity
and (e) bhoota yajna i.e., promotion of
the welafre of the animal and plant kingdom
and respect for nature and ecology-
(2) Daana (charity) (if material
assistance is beyond one's resources,
one should impart knowledge to those who
need it) and tapas (austerity in life,
aparigraha -not acquiring wealth and other
things beyond what is required for sustenance
of oneself and one's family and the requirements
of yagna and sama dama, restraint in speech,
thought and action, not causing physical
or mental hurt to others which involves,
inter alia, adherence to satyam,
i.e, truthfilness which should be hitam
and priyam and ahimsa (non-violence).
Examples for satyam that is hitam and
priyam - Suppose that your son is taking
to evil ways. You have to advise him.
You have to tell him what is the correct
way of life but you should not scold him
while doing so. Suppose an innocent
person fleeing from persons trying to
murder him has taken refuge in your house
and those people come and ask you whether
he is in your house; you should not disclose
the fact that he is in your house; you
should, dodge the people who are searching
him. What is dharma (righteousness)
should be the guiding factor.
(This is a condensed version of a
topic already discussed in the main paper)
We generally refer to ourselves with
the help of the ‘I’ thought. Oneself revealed
through the I thought is of three types.
One I is the I experienced at present.
This presently experienced I is the ahamkara.
The second type is the I which oneself
had experienced in the past and which
is remembered now. This I which had been
experienced in the past and which is remembered
now is also the ahamkara. But there is
a third I. This is a recognized I.
This occurs in the form of the expression,
“The I that I had experienced in the past
and the I that I that is experienced now
are the same I.” The Sanskrit word
for recognition is pratyabhijna.
The I experienced in the past and the
I that is experienced at present are different
in terms of place, time and attributes.
For example, the past I was experienced
at Chennai in the year 1935 and the present
I is experienced at New Delhi in the year
1975. At Chennai, in 1935, the I belonged
to a young and cheerful but immature student.
At New Delhi, the I belongs to an old
man, saddened by many tragedies but wise
by virtue of various experiences. In technical
language, the vacyaartha of the
past I and the vacyaartha of the
present I do not tally. But I still equate
the past I and the present I when I do
the recognition and say that the Chennai
I is the same as the New Delhi I.
In any situation when this happens, we
have take recourse to lakshyaartha.
(Vacyaartha is the literal meaning. Lakshyartha
is the implied meaning). When we take
recourse to lakshyartha, in this case,
we adopt the method called bhaagatyaaga
lakshanaa, that is, we discard the
features that do not tally and retain
the aspect which tallies to make the equation
valid. Now the features to be discarded
are the youth, cheerfulness and immaturity
of the past I and the old age, sadness
and wisdom of the present I. What remains
is the conscious being devoid of the differences
of place, time and attributes. This conscious
being I refer to in equating the past
I and the present I validly after discarding
the different features is not the ahamkara
but the sakshi. Ahamkara is consciousness
associated with attributes. Sakshi is
consciousness devoid of attributes. One’s
real nature is not the ahamkara but the
sakshi. The presently experienced and
the past remembered I are the ahamkara.
The recognized I is the sakshi. The recognition
doesn’t necessarily have to be distant
in time, place and attributes. Even when
I do the recognition by saying I who listened
to the Gita bhashyam class yesterday am
the same I who am listening to the Mundaka
bhashyam today, even here, the recognized
I is not the ahamkara but the sakshi.
In Brhadaranyaka 4.3.1, there is Vedic
support for saying that people can
possessed by spirits. Bhujyu says to Yajnavalkya
that when he and some others went to the
Madra kingdom, they went to the house
of Patancala and saw that his daughter
was possessed by a gandharva.
In Hinduism, the important events in
a persons life are regarded as religious
ceremeonies. Cremation of the dead body
is treated as the last holy sacrifice
(yajna), the dead man conducts. Since
the body is dead, the son conducts this
yagna on the behalf of the deceased. The
woman is regarded as the sacred fire (agni)
in which the gods are invoked to offer
the seed and out of that offering the
human being is born (Brhadaranyaka 5.2.13.
The nuptial is called ‘garbha-daana-yagna’.Brhadaranyaka
5.4.20 gives the mantra to be uttered
– “He embraces her saying, “I am the prana,
you are the speech; you are speech, and
I am prana. I am the sama veda and you
are the rg.veda. I am heaven, and you
are the earth’ This mantra is meant to
engender harmony in the relationship of
the husband and wife. The sexual union
of the husband and wife is undertaken
as a sacred act for producing good children.
It is called vaajapeya yaga. In
the mantra connected with it, the husband
invokes Hiranyagsarbha to enter him,
In what is called sthanadaana mantra,
when the husbands hands over the baby
to be suckled by the mother, he implores
Saraswati, the goddess of learning to
enter the mother and feed the child. In
what is called the naamakararana cermony,
the father gives the child a secret name
and that name is ‘Veda’. Here, the word,
‘veda’ means caitanyam, The father says
‘ You are caitanyam’, i.e., ‘you are none
other than brahman’.So, as soon as the
child is born, ‘Tattvamasi’ is injected
into the child, hoping that when he grows
up, he will understand ‘ ahambrahmasmi’.
In the karma-japa ceremony, the
father utters the word, ‘vaak’
three times in the child’s right ear.
Vak represents veda . Three times to say
‘let rg.veda enter the child and purify
it’ ‘let yajur veda enter the child and
purify it’ and ‘let sama veda enter the
child and purify it’. In the iannapaasana
icweremony, the child is fed curd, honey
and ghee and the father says, when he
feeds curd, ‘I am giving you bhoo-loka’,
when he feeds honey, he says’ I am giving
you bhuvarloka’ and when he feeds ghee,
he says’ I am giving you suvaarloka” ;
It iis an expression of good wishes formthe
childmto possess everything in life. At
the time of delivery, the father does
prokshana’ (sprinkles water)praying
to prana-devata, so that praasootika
vaayu would effect easy delivery –
“O, Indra – referring to prana devata
– from the mother who is the ocean bring
out the child like the waves without destroying
the mother’. A homa (sacrificial fire
ceremony) is done even before the umbilical
cord is cut; the fathe\er keeps the baby
on his lap and prays to various devatas
for the longevity, healthy life, prosperity
and continuity of the cultural and spiritual
tradition. In Brhadaranyaka mantra 6.4.28,
the father glorifies the child, ‘You have
out-shone your father and your grand-father.
Younhave reached the extreme limit of
attainment through your splendour, fame
and brahmavarchas (brahaamanical power).
The husband also thanks the wife, “You
have donne a great job. You have given
us a child’. Eating food is called prsaana-agnihotra’
and bits of cooked rice are put in the
mouth as offering to the five aspects
of prana - prana, apana, vyana,
udana ,samana – and the eating is regarded
as offering to vaisvanara devata,
the presiding deity of digestion.
Brhadaranyaka V.xi.1 advises us to look
upon illness as an opportunity to practice
austerity or penance (tapas). ‘Tapas’
means willfully subjecting the body to
discomfort or pain. adopting an attitude
of prayer. It is a training to do without
comforts, to develop the capacity to bear
the opposites of material conditions and
facilities with equanimity and get a sense
of self-satisfaction when the attempt
is successful. In this mantra, by the
words, “pretam agnou abhyaavahadhati’
cremation is indicated as the proper funeral
for a grahastha’s dead body. If illness
one knows will send in death, one is advised
to look upon the journey of the dead body
as vanaprastha asrama.
We come across statements in the Sastra
that that our mind is illumined by sakshi
(is saakshi-bhaasyam). . Similarly
it is said that the dream world is sakshi-bhasyam.
Sakshi is not the knower-consciousness.
‘Illumines’ means ‘made known’. So, we
cannot attribute any act of knowing to
sakshi. So, what we mean by saying that
sakshi illumines or witnesses the mind
and by saying that the sakshi illumines
or witnesses the dream is that in
the presence of sakshi, cidabhasa is formed
in the mind and cidabhasa pervades the
vrittis in the mind and by that process,
objects of the external world or objects
of the dream world mistaken to exist outside
the mind are perceived.. Similarly,
when we say that our mind is self-evident,
what we mean is that as and when a thought
arises, cidabhasa pervades it and that
is how we become aware of our own thoughts
The example for the expression ‘sakshi
illumines the mind’ or’ sakshi illmines
the dream’ is the sun and the reflected
sunlight. The mirror is bright on account
of the reflected sunlight but we do not
say that the reflected sunlight
illumines the mirror; we say that the
sun illumines the mirror.
1. (a). Hinduism is not pantheism or
animism or paganism. If we go by Visishtadvaita
or dwaita, it is monotheism. For Visishtadvaita
the universe and the souls of living beings
with separate consciousness of their own
are the body of the One Supreme Being
personified as Lord Narayana. For Dwaita,
the universe and the living beings are
separate from Lord Narayana and the living
beings are dependent souls. But if we
go by Advaita Vedanta, Hinduism is not
even monotheism. It is centred on one
and only all pervading Supreme Being of
the nature of Existence- Consciousness-
Infinity, called Brahman. This is not
a personal God but a formless, attributeless,
all pervading, non-dual entity, identical
with consciousness of living beings. The
world that is experienced which
includes the bodies and minds of human
beings world is a combination of
the all pervading Existence aspect of
Brahman and unreal names and forms superimposed
on It. by an unreal power called Maya.
Even this is there only on the empirical
plane. On the plane of absolute reality,
i.e., for Brahman, there is no world at
all there is no world at all. The intelligent
cause that visualises creation and guides
Maya is Iswara, an unreal semblance of
Brahman-consciousness in Maya. Owing to
Maya’s power of veiling and projecting,
living beings, ignorant of their true
nature as Brahman, regard themselves as
limited individuals, separate from Brahman,
the outer world and other individuals
and undergo a cycle of action, enjoyment,
suffering, births and deaths, called samsara.
Liberation from samsara consists in the
realisation of their identity with Brahman.
The knowledge of identity with Brahman
requires an undisturbed, concentrated
mind. Spiritual practices to refine the
mind consist of worship of and meditation
on Iswara. But since Iswara also is not
a personal god and only a principle, scriptures
provide a variety of forms as symbols
of Iswara in various cosmic aspects. The
Rg Vedic hymns are addressed to such deities.
If they are worshipped with the notion
that they are real gods, it becomes polytheism.
But if they are worshipped as symbolic
representations of Iswara, it becomes
the spiritual practice to refine the mind.
(b) The Vedas in four compilations called
Rg., Yajur, Sama and Atharva Veda), in
not very clearly demarcated divisions
called Samhitas, Brahmanas, Aranyakas
and Upanishads. Samhitas are hymns (mantras)
in praise of deities (devas). Brahmanas
are commentaries on the mantras and description
of sacrifices to be performed along with
the chanting of mantras in praise of the
devas... Upanishad is the philosophical
portion, at the last part of the Vedas.
Aranyakas stand between Brahmanas and
Upanishads and contain portions partaking
of the nature of both but is generally
regarded as Vedic literature relating
to Upasana (meditation). ( For example,
Aitereya Aranyaka 3.2.3 – “This is this
Paramatma indeed that the votaries of
the Rg. veda meditate upon in the great
Ukhta, the Adhvaryus in fire, the Chandogas
in Mahavrata; Him in the heaven, Him in
the Akasa, Him in the waters; in the osadis;
in all beings. That One they call Brahman”.
)
2. (a) The misconception that Hinduism
is polytheistic arose from the interpretation
of the Vedic gods as real enmities.
Madwacarya selected about forty hymns
of the Rg. Veda and formulated a philosophical
interpretation of the Vedic hymns. This
approach was adopted later by Swami Dayananda
Saraswati and Aurobindo. In a recent Malayalam
treatise, called ‘Tattvamasi’, on the
same lines, Sukumar Azhikode has shown
that the Samhitas are the forerunners
of the philosophy of the Upanishads. The
divinities (devas, devatas) to
whom mantras are addressed are not personal
gods but the ancient rishis’ poetic description
of the One Supreme Being and Its manifestation
as the cosmos. The negation of any idea
of personalisation is evidenced
by the fact that Vedic mantras equate
all deities with the one Supreme Being
and where when any one deity is
praised the mantras talk of that deity
as all deities or as the universe or as
pervading the universe or as controlling
the universe, as shown below.
(b). Dirghtamas sukta ( Rg. veda.1.164.46)
- . “They call this deity Indra, Mitra,
Agni, the divine Suparna and Garuda).
That which is one and which
is Existence the wise call by many names
(ekam sat vipra bahudha vadanti)
- as Agni, Yama, Matarisvan etc.
(The same idea occurs in Yaska’s Nirukta
(7.4) – “The one only atma
is worshipped in many names. All the deities
are like limbs of the one Atma”.) Sukla
Yajurveda (Vajaneya samhita) 32.1 known
as Tadeva sukta (That alone hymn) - “
Agni is that, Aditya is That, Vayu is
That, Chandramas is That, Light is That,
Brahma is That, ……”.
Atharva Veda 13.4.20-21 -
“To him who knows this God simply as One.
Neither second nor third nor fourth is
He called. Neither fifth nor sixth
nor seventh. Neither eighth nor ninth
nor tenth is He called. He oversees
all – what breathes and what breathes
not. To Him goes the conquering (supreme)
power; He is the One, the One alone. In
Him all deities become One alone” Skambasukta
(10.7.) and Uccishtasukta (11.7) of Atharva
Veda talk of the One Supreme Power. Skambasukta
says that the knowledge of all the devatas
is the same. Rg. veda 3.55 says repeatedly
in 22 mantras that the divinity of all
the deities and their greatness are the
same. This sukta reveals the only one
all pervading caitanyam by which lightning
flashes, plants blossom, the sun rises
and sets. In Rg. Veda 10.114. 4-5. The
seer’s poetic imagination sees the atma
as the auspicious-winged bird (suparna)
which pervades the whole universe and
repeats the statement that the one is
imagined by the saints as many.
Rg. mantra 4.40.5 which talks of hamsa
referring to Aditya says that he exists
as the light for the earth, as vayu in
the antariksha and as the consciousness
caitanyam in man. And ends with the statement
“you are the only reality and the creator
of waters, of rays, of truth and mountains”.
Rg. Veda 8.52.2 talks of Agni, Surya and
Dawn (Ushas) being the same and
repeats the seminal Vedic refrains of
the one appearing as many. Rg. Veda 3.5.4
talks of Agni becoming Mitra, Varuna and
Vayu . Rg. Veda 3.54.8 – “One
that is all (visvam ekam)
is the Lord of the moving and the steady,
of what walks, what flies – this multiform
creation”. Rg Veda 1.89.10– “Aditi is
the space, the antariksha, and the life
source and support of all”. Atharva
veda 4.16– “ Whatever a man does, whether
he stands, or moves secretly or lies down
or gets up or whispers, Varuna knows Whatever
transaction takes place, He is there as
the third. This earth and the space are
His. His two sides are the two oceans.
At the same time, He is inherent in every
drop of water. Varuna is omniscient –
sarvajna – and the inner controller
of all”. Rg. mantra 1.2. 17
– “ The entire universe is encompassed
in the steps of Vishnu”.
(c) There is also direct negation
of the idea of deities being different
entities. In Hiranyagarbha sukta, Rg.
Veda 10.121.1-10, an intelligent seeker
asks, “To which deity (Deva) are
we to offer havis (kasmai devaaya havishaa
vidhema)? The Deva who is the
creator of all beings and is the support
of heaven and earth and who alone was
before creation, the Deva who is the source
of life and consciousness, the Deva whose
command all the gods obey, the Deva whose
shadow is mortality and immortality?”
The devatas of the sukta is “kaha”,
the word of interrogation – which means,
in reality, there is no deity at all other
than the Supreme Being.
(d) These are the forerunners of the
Upanishad declaration that there is only
one reality which manifests or appears
as many unreal forms. . The negation of
the multiplicity is explicit in the Upanishads.
In Brhadaranyaka Upanishad 3.9.1-9, we
have the Vigadha Yagnavalkya dialogue
starting with the question, “How many
deities are there?” and ending with the
question and answer “Which is the one
Deity?” “The vital force. It is Brahman,
which is called Tyat (That)”.Taittiriya
Upanishad 1.5.1. “It is Brahman; it is
the atma. The other gods are the limbs”.Kathopanishad
2.2.2 – “ As the moving (sun) He dwells
in heaven; (as air) He pervades all and
dwells in the inter-space (antariksha);
as Fire He resides on the Earth; as Soma
He stays in a jar; He lives among men.
He lives among Gods; He dwells in Truth;
He dwells in space; He is born in water.
He takes birth from the Earth. He is born
in the sacrifice; He emerges from the
mountains; He is unchanging; He is great”.
Wherever non-ualism is spoken of, it goes
without saying that there is nothing like
many deities. Brhadaranyaka
4.4.19 (also Kathopanishad) 2.1.11- “na
iha naanaa asti kincana). He who sees
differences, as it were, goes from death
to death”; (Mandukya karika- “This birthless
becomes differentiated through Maya, and
it does in no other way than this. For
should it become multiple in reality,
the immortal will undergo mortality”);
Chandogya Upanishad 6.2.1 “One only without
a second (ekam va advitiyam). Chandogya
3.14.1 “All this is Brahman (sarvam
khalu idam Brahma). Mandukya Upanishad
2. “All this is Brahman” (sarvam hi
etat Brahma). Brhadaranyaka Upanishad
2.1.20 “The vital force is truth and It
is the Truth of truth”. Brhadaranyaka
4.4.20 – “It should be realised in one
form only”.
3. (a). In the priesthood dominated
ritual oriented period of the Brahmanas,
what, in the Samhitas, were figurative
presentations of the all pervading Supreme
Being and Its manifestation as the cosmos
in the Samhitas got converted to physical
performance of elaborate rituals involving
offerings to various gods regarded as
anthropomorphic persons with a view to
acquiring wealth and prosperity on earth
and a life of pleasure in heaven and,
in Puranas, stories are woven around them.
Offerings which started with ghee, milk
and cooked cereals, passing through soma
juice, deteriorated into meat involving
the slaughter of animals, For example,
the Asawamedha yagna of the Rg veda is
the contemplation of atma caitanyam envisioned
as effulgence. In the Brahmanas, Asawamedha
yagna becomes a physical sacrifice in
which the horse is slaughtered and the
meat is offered to the deities. Still
later, more than 350 domestic animals
and 250 wild animals were required.).
Like that, not being able to understand
the metaphysical significance of the question
“kah” in Rg. Veda 10.121.1-10, the later
authors of Brahmana verses interpreted
“kah” to mean Prajapati and reserved a
yajna called “kaayam” for this
devata. .Similarly, where Rg. veda 1.140.1
talks of knowing the one who is pure,
dispels darkness and rides in the white
shining chariot, the implied meaning of
which is the one and only atma caitanyam,
Samana interprets it as a commandment
to cover the sacrificial fire with firewood.
In the same way, the Infinite Brahman,
called Purusha, becomes, in Puranas, Vishnu
sleeping on the bed which is a serpent
called Anantasesha in the milky ocean.
The all pervading aspect of the Supreme
Being is presented as the avatara, Vamana,
covering the earth and heaven with two
steps and Mahabali having cornered to
offer his own head for the third step.
(b) In the Mahabharata,
at the end of Asvamedhaparvam, 91st
chapter, yajnas that involve violence
are condemned. Rg. Veda 8.70.3 says that
Indra cannot be reached by yajna karma.
Even in the Brahmanas and Aranyakas, we
come across references, presumably belonging
to their earlier phase, to atma and atmajnanam
and denigration of actual performance
of sacrifices. Taittiriya brahmana (3.10.8)
says that atma is omnipotent. Aitereya
second aranyakam starts with “This is
the path, This is karma, This is Brahman,
This is existence”. The Satapatha
brahmana (14,.3.2.1) which says that the
atma of all beings is yagna echoes the
Rg. Mantra (1.164.35) “yagna is the navel
of the universe”. Satapatha brahmana (2.2.4.7.8
. 10.5.3.3) specifies that,
above all, yagna is meditation and it
should be continued throughout life and,
in 10.5.4, 16, it says that by physical
yagna one cannot attain moksha. We see
the denigration of rituals as kamya karma
in passages such as in Chandogya 5.10.3
, Brhadaranyaka 3.8.10, Brahadaranyaka
4.4.10, Mundakopanishad 1.2.7-10. Isavasya
Upanishad 9, etc. (Sacrifices and rituals
that are denigrated refer to those
done as kamya karma, sacrifices conducted
for obtaining material benefits, here
or heareafter and not the nitya
naimittika karma performed as nishkama
karma for acquiring purity of mind, as
preparation for the pursuit of jnana yoga,
cf. Brhadaranyaka Upanishad 4.4.22).
4. (a) The Samhitas are the initial
exposition of atma vidya in the symbolic
and poetic language used by the seers
who saw the invisible divine revelation
and transmitted it to mankind. The Upanishads
negated the ritualism of the Brahmanas
and rejuvenated the sprouts of atma vidya
of the Samhitas and gave direct, though
often poetic, expression to
atma vidya in all its range and subtlety.
Upanishads shine as the loftiest metaphysical
expression of human thought in the form
of the philosophy of atma vidya but the
nucleus of it can be found in the Samhitas
by any one who studies them in depth.
(Satapatha Brahmana 10.3.5.12 talks of
the Upanishads as the essence of the Vedas).
(b) The horse of the Asvamedha yagna
of the Samhitas is not a four-legged animal.
A deep study of the suktas of the Rg.
veda 1.112.163, relating to the Asvamedha
yagna will show that the sacrificial horse
is nothing but a figurative description
of effulgence which is how atma caitanyam
is often referred to. To this we can juxtapose
Brhadaranyaka Upanishad 1.1.1 – “ The
head of the sacrificial horse is the dawn,
its eye the sun, its prana the
air, its open mouth the fire called Vaisvanara,
its body the year, its back the
heaven, its belly the sky, its hoof the
earth, its sides the four quarters, is
ribs the intermediate quarters, its
parts the seasons, its joints the months
and fortnights, its feet the days and
nights, its bones the stars, its flesh
the clouds, its half-digested food is
the sand, its blood-vessels the rivers,
its liver and spleen the mountains, its
hairs the herbs and trees. Its fore-part
is the ascending sun, its hind-part is
the descending sun, its yawning is the
lightning, its shaking the body is the
thundering, its making water the raining
and its neighing is voice”.
(c). In the Samhitas, we come across
deities called Vishnu, Surya (Savita),
Varuna, Agni, Indra etc. A deep study
of the relevant suktas will show that
they are not anthromorphic personalities
but figurative and symbolic representation
of the Supreme Being or Its aspects in
cosmic manifestation. (In the Brahmanas,
they become persons and in Puranas stories
are built around them.) The meanings intended
by the seers of the Samhitas will be clear
if we go by Yaska’s Nirukta which is a
commentary on the Vedic terminology called
Nikandu. According to Niruktam, “Vishnu”
means the rays representing atma caitanyam
pervading the universe; “ Savita”
means creator ( of the universe); “Surya”
means the Inner Controller inherent in
all beings. The Surya of the Rg.veda 1.150.10
is not the physical sun but one who is
beyond tamas and papa. If we go by Rg.veda
10.85.3, 10.85.4, 10.116.3, 1.1638.3,
1.179.5, 1.179.10, and 1.107.9 which talk
of the Soma juice drunk by the knowers
of Brahman, as a thing to be drunk by
the heart and as not a thing accessible
to mere mortals, we will understand that
the Soma juice prescribed as offering
in sacrifice is not the juice of a creeper.
According to Rg.veda 4.5.3,”Agni” is one
who has gained the most secret knowledge.
Cow (go) means rays. A comparative
study of mantras 1, 2, and 3 of the 62nd
sukta of the first mandala of the Rg veda
and the 5th mantra and 18th
mantra of the 23rd sukta of the second
mandala will show that what the story
of cows being stolen and hidden in a cave
by an asura and the cow slaying the asura
is the figurative expression of Ajnaanam
(ignorance of one’s true nature) being
destroyed by atma jnanam (knowledge of
the Supreme Being). This is
also the meaning of the story of Vrtra
being slain by Indra. Very often, we come
across prayer for “dravinam”. But
what is referred is not secular wealth.
Rg. veda 2.23.15 will show that the prayer
is for the spiritual splendour obtained
by atma-jnanam. In Rg. mantra 1.163.1
“horse” stands for the power of the intellect.
The “Indra” of Rg. Mantra 8.92.2 is also
atma jnanam that destroys ajnanam (knowledge
of atma) that dispels ignorance.
(The “Indra” of Brhadaranyaka Upanishad
2.5.19 we know is none other than Brahman
itself.).
5. (a) Certain suktas of The Veda Samhitas
anticipate the philosophy of the Upanishads,
The rishi Dirghatamas says ( Rg. Veda
1.125.5 ) that atma is acittam
i.e. not accessible to human intellect
– which means that atma cannot be comprehended
as an external or internal object and
can only be recognised intuitively as
oneself. To this, we can juxtapose Taittiriya
Upanishad 2.9.1 – “Words, along with the
mind, return, unable to reach Brahman
(yato vaco nivartante apraapya manasa
saha)” and Kenopanishad 1.6 – “That which
man does not comprehend with the mind
(yat manasa na manute)” etc. In Yajurveda
31.2, there are mantras asserting the
immanence as well as the transcendentalism
of the Supreme Being; they talk of the
Supreme Being being all pervading in the
universe and at the same time being beyond
space and time. The all pervasiveness
and immanence are elaborately discussed
in Brahadaranyaka Upanishad third chapter,
eighth section and transcendentalism can
be seen in 3.9.26, 4.3.15 and 4.4.16,
Kathopanishad 2.1.12-13, Mundaka 2.1.2
etc. In Advaita Vedanta, Brahman, the
Existence-Consciousness-Infinity being
the satya sub-stratum of the mithya nama
roopa is immanence and advaitatvam and
asangatvam are transcendentalism. Ombhoorbhuvassuvah, tatsaviturvarenyam
bhargo devasya dhimahi dhiyo nah pracodayaat
- is a prayer. Superficially, it is an
invocation of the Sun God (Suryadevata) –
“We meditate upon that sacred effulgent Sun
God who illumines (activates) all our intellects”.
But if we go by root-derivation and
implied meaning (lakshyartha) of the
words, we arrive at a philosophical interpretation
– “Dhimahi” = We meditate upon. “Tat
savitu varenyam” = the sacchidananda swaroopan
of the creator of the universe. Tat
= the Existence aspect ., Bargha = eflulgent
( from ‘bharjate’ = that which burns down
darkness, i.e. destroys ignorance) =
the consciousness aspect . “Varenyam” =
literally, that which is worth choosing
by us, what is it that is chosen by all? Everyone
chooses only ananda, poornatvam ; so
ananda swaroopam. “Tat bhargo varenyam”,
together = sacchidananda swaroopam .
(Of) “ Savitu” = the creator ( sooyate iti
savita). “Devasya” = the Lord
who is also the intelligent cause of the universe.
“Tat savitu varenyam bhargo devasya”, together,
== the saccidananda swaroopam of that
Lord, Iswara, who is both the material and
intelligent cause of the universe).
“Yah” = which saccidaananda swaroopam, “Pracodayat”
= illumines (activates by giving satta
and spoorti , existence and consciousness),
Nah diyo” = our intellects . Thus, according
to this interpretation, “tatsavituvarenyam
bargho devasya” would indicate Brahma caitanyam
and “diyo yo na prachoayat” would indicate
atma caitanyam.. Thus the mantra
would read “Let us meditate on that
Brahman, who, as Iswara is the creator and
whose nature is the existence-consciousness-
infinity (sacchidananda ), non-different
from the consciousness of our own intellects
which are illumined by Brahman).” And so,
the prayer becomes an abheda dyanam .”,
with a meaning similar to that of
mahavakyams like “prajnanam brahma” of Aitereya
Upanishad, “ayam atma brahma” of
Mandukya Upanishad, “ahambrahmasmi” of Brhadaranyaka
Upanishad and “tattvamasi” of Chandogya Upanishad.
(c) As already stated, Dirghatamas sukta
(Rg. Veda 1.164.46) corresponds to Brhadaranyaka
4.4.19, though the Advaita Vedanta interpretation
goes further and relegates the entire
universe including all the gods and all
other beings and even Iswara, to the category
of mithya.
(i) Purusha sukta (Rg.veda 10.96, also
in Atharva veda 19.6, also in Yajurveda
Chapter 31) – “A thousand heads has He,
the Purusha, also a thousand eyes and
a thousand feet. He envelops the earth
on all sides; He pervades it and is beyond
it as far as ten fingers can count. (’Thousand’
stands for ‘countless’ and ’being beyond
as far as ten fingers’ stands for ‘transcendence’.).
Purusha is this, entire all that has been
in the past, all that is coming in the
future and all that exists. He is the
ruler of immortality. He is the totality
of all beings.
What we see here is all the greatness
of Purusha but yet there is more than
this. One fourth of Him only evolves in
the universe. Thence, as He spread in
all directions, appeared all those creations
that eat food and all those that eat not.
Three fourth of Him rises above as the
Infinite.
This Purusha shines like the sun
beyond tamas. By knowing Him one becomes
immortal. Other than knowing Him, there
is no way of conquering mortality. Though
unborn It appears to born in diverse ways.”
(When all pervasiveness and being the
past and the future and transcending all
are talked about, the reference is to
immanence and transcendence of time, space
and entity.) (In the eight Rk.of this
sukta, creation is spoken of as the result
of the yagna of the all pervading one
(Purusha). The creation cycle is
said to be endless.). “Both the Purushasukta
and the Hiranyagarbhasukta (cited earlier)
describe the Saguna form of Brahman pervading
the universe, inhering in it and modifying
into names and forms. We can also see
in them the idea of transcendental Brahman
being the adhishtanam of the nama roopa.
(ii) To these we can juxtapose
Brahadaranyaka 1.2.3 – “He (Virat) differentiated
himself in three ways, making the sun
the third form and air the third form.
So this Prana (Virat) is divided in three
ways. His head is the east and his arms
that (north-east) and that (south-east).
And his hind part is the west, his hip-bones
that (north-west) and that (south-west),
his sides the south and the north, his
back heaven, his belly the sky, and his
breast this earth. …”. Mundaka 2.1.4
– “The indwelling atma of all is surely
He of whom heaven is the head. The moon
and sun are the two eyes, the directions
are the two ears, the revealed Vedas are
the speech, air is the heart and it is
He from whose two feet emerged the earth”;
Mundaka Upanishad 2.2.11 – “All this is
in front is but Brahman, the immortal.
Brahman is on the right, as well as the
left; above and below is extended Brahman
alone. This world is nothing but Brahman,
the highest.” “Brhadaranyaka 1.4.7 - “It
differentiated into name and form…… This
Self has entered into these bodies….”;
Mundaka 2.2.2 – “ That …… in which fixed
all the worlds as well as the dwellers
of the earth is this Immutable Brahman”;
Mundaka 2.2.5 – “Know that atma alone
that is one without a second, on which
are strung heaven, the earth and the inter-space,
the mind and the vital force together
with all the other organs”; Chandogya
Upanishad 7.1.3 – “I have heard from masters
like you that he who knows Brahman
transcends sorrow”; Kaivalya Upanishad
9 – “He alone is everything which is in
the past, which is the present and which
will be in the future. Knowing Him one
overcomes mortality. There is no other
path for liberation; Mundaka Upanishad
3.2.1 – “ The wise ones who know this
supreme abode, this Brahman, in which
is placed this universe and which shines
holy, having become desireless ….overcome
rebirth”; Mundaka 3.2.8 – “As rivers,
flowing down, become indistinguishable
on reaching the sea by giving their names
and forms, so also the illumined soul,
having become freed from name and form,
reaches the self-effulgent Purusha that
is higher than the higher (Maya) .The
immanence and transcendentalism of the
Supreme Being is described in Brhadaranyaka
Third chapter, seventh section and in
3.9.26. and 4.4.16., Isavasya Upanishad,
1,8 From the Advaita point
of view, immanence of Brahman in the universe
is in the form of Existence which is the
sub-stratum of names and forms.
Transcendentalism of Brahman is in the
form of being the sole reality, unrelated
to the mithya names and forms of the universe.
In the Saguna form, as Iswara, all pervasiveness
is in the form of manifested nama roopa,
immanence is in the form of being the
Inner Controller (antaryami) in the universe
and transcendentalism is in the form of
the omniscient and omnipotent creator
and ruler of the universe.
(e) The Nasadiyasukta (Rg. Veda 10 129)
talks of the state before creation and
the incomprehensibility of creation. –
“ There was neither non-existence nor
existence (na asat asit n sa tadanim).
There was neither air nor space. What
is it that is covering and where? In whose
protection? Was water there, unfathomable,
deep? Death then existed not. Yet, nor
was there life immortal. There was no
knowledge of day and night.
That which was the One. (the non-dual
) breathed without air, by its own nature.
Apart from It there was nothing whatsoever.
Darkness there was, at first concealed
in darkness. All this was water unseen.
That which was covered by Void, that
One stirred, by the might of Its tapas
and came to be. Desire, the first sprout
of mind, arose.
Sages who searched within their hearts
discovered the connection of sat in asat.
Their line (of vision) was extended across.
What was above? What was below? There
were begetters; there were mighty forces,
the material universe (swadha)
below, impulse above.
Who verily knows, who can declare whence
it was born and whence comes this creation?
The gods are subsequent in the creation.
(Even they cannot know); who knows then
whence it first came into being?
He, the first origin of creation, whether
he formed it or did not form it?
He who is presiding over it all indeed
knows, or maybe He does not.”
(To this, we can add Rg.Veda 10.81.6
- “Where was the place, which was the
primeval material, and of what kind, from
which Vishwakarma (the creator of the
universe) created the world and disclosed
the heavens, he who is totally eye?” Hiranyagarbhgha
sukta cited earlier (Rg.veda 10.121).
Yajurveda Vajaneyasamhita 32.8 – “The
loving sage beholds that Mysterious Existence
wherein the universe come to have one
home; therein unites and therefrom issues
the whole; the Lord is warp and woof of
created beings” Agamarshana sukta – “This
world was brought into being by that luminous
god, the impeller of all action in accordance
with the laws of creation and the law
of life. Primordial matter lying in darkness
began to evolve. By this evolution, the
great expanse of matter began to gain
momentum. From this movement came into
existence space and time…..The sustainer
of the world caused the sun and noon,
the luminous bodies and the earth, the
heavenly region ……as in the previous cycles
of creation”.)
(f) The Nasadiya sukta will bring to
or mind Upanishad passages such as “Taittiriya
2.7.1 “In the beginning all this was the
unmanifested (asat). From that emerged
the manifested (sat). That Brahman
created Itself by Itself.” Taittiriya
2.6.1 –He (the atma) wished, ‘Let me be
many, let me be bon’. He undertook a deliberation
(sah tapah atapyata) .Having deliberated,
he created all that exists”; Kathopanishad
1.3.11 – “The Unmanifested is higher than
Mahat; the Purusha is higher than the
Unmanifested.”. Chandogya Upanishad 6.2.3
– “That (Existence) visualised”. Mundaka
Upanishad 1.1.9 – “From Him who is omniscient
in general and all-knowing in detail and
whose tapah consists in the exercise of
His omniscience evolve Hiranyagarbha and
this universe of nama roopa”.
(g) From the point of view of Advaita
Vedanta, one can see in this sukta the
nucleus of the ideas of Paramatma, Iswara
and Maya which we come across later in
the Upanishads. “There was neither
existence nor non-existence can be taken
to refer to the paramarthika plane beyond
the avyakta (Unmanifested) and vyakta
(Manifest) conditions of Maya. (For Brahman,
there is no universe). “By tapas
(deliberation) He awoke and desire arose
“can only refer to Iswara, .because Brahman
is amanah (devoid of mind). The
entity that covering what was there can
refer to Maya. “He who is presiding
over it all indeed knows” from whom this
creation came into being …He verily knows”
should refer to the omniscient Iswara.
“Maybe He does not” can refer to Brahman,
because Brahman-consciousness is not a
knower-consciousness. When we look
at the Rg.veda mantra 10.81.6, we are
in the midst of the riddle, “Since space,
time and matter are themselves are part
of creation, where was the creator? When
did he create? Out of what did he create?”
and we have to take recourse to the Advaita
Vedanta concept of unreal creation.
- Brahma caitanyam
(the original consciousness) can never
be objectified. – Vide Mundaka
“adresyam, agrahyam……” .Taittiriya
2.4.1 - “Yatho vaco nivartante aprapyaa
manasa saha” , Kena 5 “yat manasa
na manute….” , Kena 3 – “Eyes do not
reach That nor do words and not even
the mind’. But we infer that we can
recognize a changeless consciousness
other than the mind in us, which expressesas
a constant I in and through the changes
of our body and mind we can infer
from avasta traya vivieka etc. We
also infer that there must be a consciousness
in us from which the mind derives
its knower-consciousness, because
Sastra says that mind is matter, vide
Chandogya 6.5.4 and 6.6.2. That consciousness
is the Brahma caitanyam we
know only from Sastra. Apart from
mahavakyas, we have Katopanishad
2.2.12, 13, Svetasvatara 2.14, , 3.7,
4.17, , Brahadaranyaka 4.,4.23, Taittiriya
2.2.1, Kaivalya 23, Mundaka Upanishad
etc. E.g., Mundaka describes the transcendental,
all pervading Brahman (called Purusha)
in the first section of the second
chapter and in 2.1.10, says that he
who knows this immortal Brahman as
existing in the heart destroys here
the knot of ignorance. In the second
Chapter also, having described Brahman
in 2.2.4 and 2.2.5, in 2.2.7, it says,
“ That (that Brahman) which is omniscient
and all-knowing which is of this kind
is seated in the space within the
luminous city of the heart.“Ya sarvajnah
sarvavid asya esha mahimaa bhuvi divye
brahmapure hi esha vyomne atma pratishtitah”
Having described the nature and glory
of Brahman, the Upanishad says that
paramatma is installed (i.e. available
for recognition) in the heart of everyone.
The heart is called the residence
of Brahman, because in the heart only
the mind is located and in the mind
alone Brahman is manifest as the sakshi
caitanyam. Really speaking,
Brahman is not located in the heart,
Brahman, as sastra tells us, is all
pervading , vide Taittiriya 2.1 –
“…anantam”, Swesvatara 3.11, 3.21,
Mundaka 1.1.6). The all pervading
cannot be confined to any particular
location. Brahman is everywhere,
but only in the heart (i.e., in the
mind within the hear) Brahman is manifest.
The Upanishads says ‘the heart is
shining’, because within the heart
alone mind is there and in the mind
there are thoughts and thoughts are
like mirrors reflecting the sakshi
caitanyam in the form of cidabhasa
like pools of water reflecting the
sun. The Upanishad calls Brahman ‘manomaya
h’ because you cannot objectify
the Brahma caitanyam ( the sakshi);
you can recognize it only through
the cidabhasa., the reflection of
the sakshi caitanyam in the thoughts
arising in the mind.
(vide Sankaracarya’s commentary – “ ….the
omniscient¸ the effulgent One of such
glory , illuminated by all the states
of the intellect, this being the place
where Brahman is evermanifest in its nature
of Consciousness; in the space that is
within the heart, Brahman is pereceived
as though seated in that ……; for any going
or coming or staying , in any other sense
is impossible for one who is all-pervasive
like space. He, the atma, as seated there
is revealed variously through the
mental states; and hence He is associated
with the mind, being conditioned
by it”. (“ Sa esha sarvajna mahimaa devah
(divye_) dhyotanou iti sarvaboudhdha-pratyayakrta
dhyotane, (brahmapure) brahmanah atra
caitanyaswaroopena nitya abhivyaktvaat
brahmanah puram hrdyapundariikam
tasmin-aakase hrdpundariika-madhyasthe
, ptratishtitah iva upalabhyate.. Na hi
aakasavsat sarvagaytasya gatih aagatih
pratishtou anyathaa sambhavati”).
The same idea is reiterated in Mundaka
2.2.9 – “In the supreme bright sheath
is Brahman, free from taints and without
parts. It is pure and it is the light
of lights.” (“Hiranmaye pare kose nirajam
brahma nishkalam; yat subhram jyotishaam
jyotih-tat-aatmavidah-viduh”). Sankaracarya’s
commentary- “’In the supreme bright sheath’;
it is called a sheath because of its being
the place for the realization of the nature
of the atma, just as a scabbard is in
the case of a sword. It is supreme because
It is the inmost of all and shining, being
illumined with the intellectual perceptions.”)
Thus, logic can carry us to the point
where we can recognize a consciousness
other than the mind. But that that consciousness
is none other than the infinite all-pervading
Brahman, we have to know only from Sastra.
- By observing
the regressive transformation of objects
(e.g., pot being broken and becoming
potsherd and potsherd decaying and
becoming earth), we can infer that
while attributes of objects change,
the existence of an object in some
form or other remains. But it is only
from Sastra that we come to know that
(a) existence is the essence and the
reality, (b) that our
experience of a world of objects is
due only to the superimposition of
nama roopa consisting of attributes
on existence which is the sub-stratum
(c) that that existence is all pervading,
existing not only in objects but outside,
(d) that Existence is also Consciousness
and (e) that that Existence- Consciousness,
called Brahman is not different from
our inner consciousness called atma.
- Sastra says
that Brahman is non-dual, eternal,
changeless, devoid of instruments
of cogitation and action. From
this, we have to understand that (i)
the world we experience cannot have
the same status and (ii) Brahman cannot
be the actual creator. As regards
the status of the world, we rely on
Sastra – vide Taittiriya 2.6, which
indicates three orders of reality,
Brhadaranyaka 4.3.31,2.4.14,45.15,
which qualifies the existence of things
other than Brahman with the words,’
“as it were”, Brahadaranyaka 2.3.6,
which calls Brahman as the Truth of
truth, the praana (which stands for
the universe) etc. As regards the
actual creator, in the form of Iswara
associated with Maya, again, we have
to rely on certain statements in the
Upanishads, such as Swetasvatara 4.9,
4.10 etc.
- We experience
a universe of objects that exist.
By our intellect, we cannot know that
it consists of. the sub-stratum of
existence which is none other than
Brahman and names and forms (nama
roopa) superimposed on that sub-stratum
and what are created and resolve later
are only the superimposed nama roopa
consisting of various attributes like
shape, color, smell, emotions, thoughts
etc. We know this only from Sastra,
such as Kathopanishad 1.2.1, 2.2.8,
2.31, Brhadaranyaka 2.5.15, Mundaka
2.2.2, Chandogya 8.14.1, Taittiriya
3.10.3, ,Swetasvatara 1.8, Brhadaranyaka
1.4.7, Chandogya 6.1.4,5,6,6.3.2,,
8.4.1 etc.
- Upanishad
says in mahavakyams etc. that our
real nature is the infinite Brahman.
But we identify with our body mind
complex and regard ourselves as limited
individuals. That is to say, we are
ignorant of our real nature as Brahman.
What is the ignorance due to? That
we can know only from Sastra, such
as Kaivalya Upanishad 12 and Krishna
Upanishad 12. `Kaivalya 12, 13 –
“ The jivatma deluded by Maya identifies
with the body and does all actions
( which stands for all perceptions,
feelings and thoughts) undergoes experiences
in the waking state”, :”The jiva experiences
pleasure and pain, by his own maaya
( i.e., mistaking the false to
be true), in the dream
world conjured by himself. The
power of Maya to create ignorance
of their Brahmatvam in jivas (avarana
sakti) is indicated in Swetasvatara
Upanishad 1.3 and 1.4.
- Sastra declares
that one who knows himself as Brahman
attains Brahman. But we see bodies
dying, while people are still in a
state of ignorance. We also know that
we have a mind, apart from the body.
So, we have to conclude that the mind
(sukhma sarira) continues after death
and will have rebirths until it gets
the knowledge of identity with Brahman.
(cf. Katopanishad 2.2.7).
- We observe,
in life that there is suffering and
enjoyment for people unrelated to
their present actions, virtues and
vices. Attributeless Brahman cannot
be responsible for this divergence.
Nor can you attribute motive to Maya
which is inert matter, vide Swetasvatara
4.10 which uses the term ‘prakriti’.
(The word prakriti, borrowed from
Sankhya philosophy refers to the material
cause the universe.) That leaves Iswara.
That it is not Iswara who is responsible
for the unequal experiences of jivas
and that our enjoyment and suffering
are the result of our own actions
and thoughts in our past lives we
have to learn from Sastra. Vide Brahadaranyaka
Upanishad 4.4.6 – The man who has
desires transmigrates , together with
his karma, enjoys the results (in
the other world) and he returns from
that world to this world for
(fresh) work.”; Prasna Upanishad –
Udana ( a sub-division of prana that
carries the jiva in its travel after
death) leads the jiva to a virtuous
world as a result of (his) virtue
and to sinful world as a result of
(his) sin and to the human world as
a result of both (punyena punyam
lokam paapena paapam ubhayam eva manushyalokam).
Having talked of the blissful
state of sushupti., Kaivalya Upanishad
14 says tat, due to the karma of past
janmas, the jiva comes back to the
swapna and jagrat avasthas from
the blissful state of sushupti (
to undergo suffering and enjoyment).
- We know that
we have a knower-consciousness in
the form of ahamkara. That this ahamkara
is the inert mind made sentient by
its closeness to Brahma caitanyam
(in the sense of its being subtle)
we know only from Sastra, such as
Taittiriya 3.71 – “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 blesses
everyone with consciousness and happiness”;
Swetasvatara 6.11 – “Hidden in all
beings is the non-dual Effulgent One.
It is all pervading………It resides in
all jivas; it is the sakshi; it is
what makes (the mind) conscious (cetayita).
Kenopanishad 1.2 talks of atma as
the mind of the mind. Mundaka Upanishad
2.2.10 and Kathopanishad 2.2.15, having
described the original consciousness
in a poetic language, say, “It alone
is the light…. It is by Its light
all else shines”. Kathopanishad 2.2.9
and 10 talk of the atma inside all
beings assuming separate shapes in
accordance with different forms, like
fire assuming the form of each log
of wood and air assuming the shape
of the objects in which it is enclosed.
Brahadaranyaka 2.5.18 says Brahman
entered the bodies as a bird (the
word ‘bird’ is interpreted as the
sukshma sarira.) In 2.5.19,
it is said that Brahman transformed
Himself in accordance with each form;
and that form of His is for making
Him known (roopam roopam pratiroopo
behoove, tadasya roopam praticakhanaaya).
Chandogya Upanishad 7.3.2 talks of
Brahman entering into the three gods
in the form of the jivatma of each
individual being.
- Having been
taught that the transmigration of
jiva is due to the punya papa of jivas
and punya papa is the result of the
actins and thoughts of jivas, the
question arises, “What about the first
janma. What is it due to? If there
is no jiva doing action and engaging
in thoughts, there is no punya papa.
If there is no punya papa jiva would
not be born. Since this vicious circle
leads to infinite regress, we have
to say that the cycle of jivas, their
actions and thought, punya papa and
rebirth is without a beginning (it
is anaadi). Similarly, Iswara, the
creator has to exist somewhere but
space itself is a nama roopa created
by Iswara through Maya. This is, again
is a vicious circle. Therefore, here
also, we have to say that Iswara and
Maya are anaadi. Swetasvatara
Upanishad 1.9 says, in effect, “Jiva,
Iswara and Maya are anaadi.”
- We suffer
in samsara because of our identification
with the body-mind complex and taking
the world of nama roopa to be real.
Sastra says that the means of liberation
from samsara is negation of the sense
of reality of the world that we perceive
and knowledge of identity with Brahman
(brahmasatyam jaganmithya). If our
being body-mind complex and the world
of nama roopa were real, we cannot
be free of these by mere knowledge.
Therefore it is logical to say that
they are unreal. As cited in the main
text and also earlier here, there
are numerous texts to show that the
world of nama roopa is unreal.
- That the
means of liberation is knowledge of
our identity with Brahman, we know
only from Sastra. Upanishad
passages to this effect have been
cited in the main text.
- That liberation
is possible in this very life we know
only from Sastra. Upanishad passages
to this effect have been cited in
the main text.
- That there
is a Brahman which is of the nature
of Existence-Consciousness-Infinity
and It is without any attributes,
that itself we know only from Sastra.
Upanishad passages conveying this
idea have been cited in the main text.
- There are
two corollaries in respect of the
means prescribed by Sastra for liberation
from samsara, namely, disidentification
from the body-mind complex and identification
with Brahman – (i) He becomes free
of the sancita karma pertaining to
that body-mind complex which he has
disowned. (ii) By virtue of identification
with Brahman, he is no longer to be
regarded as a karta or bhokta. Passage
to this effect we get in Mundaka Upanishad
2. 2.8. But to know that prarabdha
that remains after its exhaustion
until the rise of knowledge continues
we know only from Sastra, vide Chandogya
Upanishad 6.14.2.
- That when
a jivanmukta dies (what is called
videhamukti takes place), the sthoola,
sukshma and karana sariras disintegrate
(dissolves in the cosmos) and the
caitanyam that is his real nature
is merged in Brahma caitanyam, we
know only from Sastra. Upanishad passages
to this effect have been cited in
the main text.
- The question
is often asked, “If the world is unreal,
why does Sastra teach creation? The
answer is that on the principle that
you have to go the known from the
unknown, and since a beginner is coming
after experiencing a concrete world,
Sastra goes along with him and talks
of the creation and evolution of the
world and later, when he advances
in the learning, negates the nama
roopa, as in “There is no diversity
whatsoever in It”, “Not this, not
this”) and teaches brahma satyam jaganmithya.
This method is called adhaaropa
apavaada. It is because ultimately,
the whole world is to be dismissed
as mithya that we find variations
in the details of creation in various
Upanishads. (For example, the order
of creation in Taittiriya is space,
air, fire, water, earth, vegetation,
food, man. In Chandogya, the order
is fire, water, from water food, from
food body and mind .In Aitereya, creation
is simultaneous.)
Brahman is the only reality. The nature
of Brahman is Existence-Consciousness-Infinity
(satyam jnanam anantam).
For Brahman, there is no universe. But
we, living beings (jivatmas) experience
a universe. The universe is unreal. In
the universe, itself, there are certain
things which we regard as real when we
experience it but which turn out to be
false later. To accommodate this phenomenon,
Advaita Vedanta postulates three orders
of reality, (a) the absolute (paramarthika),
in which category Brahman alone is, (b)
the empirical (vyavaharika) in which category
the perceived part of the world experienced
by us in the waking state falls and (c)
illusory (pratibhasika) in which the world
that we experience during the dream state
falls, as also erroneous perceptions like
a snake being seen on a rope, space being
seen as blue etc. The universe that
we experience is a mixture of existence
belonging to Brahman and nama roopa (attributes
like shape, color etc. of things and the
characteristics of our body and mind).
The sub-stratum is real and unchanging.
The nama roopa which are superimposed
on it is unreal and changing. Not only
do individual nama roopa undergo change,
but the whole set of nama roopa changes
in a cycle of differentiation (srishti)
and resolution into a seed form (laya).
The one who is responsible for this srishti
and laya is an entity called Iswara, constituted
of an unreal power, called Maya, located
in Brahman, in which the conscious aspect
of Brahman (Brahma caitanyam) is reflected.
With the conscious aspect, Iswara visualizes
creation and with the matter aspect, which
is Maya, the nama roopa which are in seed
form are unfolded by Maya through its
vikshepa sakti, under His guidance. We
jivas are a mixture of the indivisible
Brahma caitanyam, available for recognition
as consciousness behind our mind (called
atma or sakshi caitanyam), the subtle
body (sukshma sarira including the mind)
in which Brahma caitanyam is reflected
and the physical body. Our real nature
is Brahma caitanyam. The rest of us is
unreal. But, owing to the veiling power
(avarana sakti) of Maya, we are ignorant
of our real nature as brahma caitanyam
and identifying ourselves with our body
and mind, regard ourselves as limited
individuals. Atma is devoid of instruments
of knowledge and action; It is neither
a doer (karta) nor an enjoyer (bhokta)
but though we are really the atma, we
have the false notion that we are the
doers and enjoyers and with the aid of
ahamkara (the mind aided by the reflection
of brahma caitanyam, called cidabhasa)
interact with objects of the world and
other jivatmas. In the process, we undergo
suffering and enjoyment. The suffering
and enjoyment among the jivatmas is unequal
and not related to current actions and
thoughts. This is due to the law of karma,
according to which for whatever actions
we do or thoughts we entertain we have
to pay a price in the form of suffering
and enjoyment in future janmas. Iswara
is the administrator of the law of karma
(karmaphaladata), designs each creation
and each janma of a jivatma, correlating
the part of accumulated (sancita) which
has fructified (prarabdha) and the objects,
surroundings and situations of the universe
as well as the physical and mental equipment
of the jivatmas. But jivatmas have a free
will also. The means of liberation from
the cycle of action and thoughts, rebirths
and enjoyment and suffering (called samsara)
is knowledge of identity with Brahma caitanyam
(jiva-brahma-aikya jnanam). To gain this
knowledge and assimilate it, we have to
study sastra (the core of it is the Upanishads)
under the guidance of a teacher (guru)
who has come in the lineage of the teacher-student
succession (gurusishya parampara) and
who has himself gained and assimilated
jiva-brahma-aikya-jnanam (srotriya brahmanishta).
The preparatory spiritual practice to
gain what is called sadahana catushtaya
samaptti (sadhana) consists of karma yoga
and upasana. The sadhana catushtaya
samaptti consists of discrimination of
the permanent and the ephemeral (atma
anatma viveka), dispassion towards material
ends (vairagya), purity of mind (citta
suddhi), mental concentration (samaadhaana)
faith in sastra and guru (sraddha) and
earnest desire to gain jivabrahma-aikya-jnanam
(mumuksutvam). Thereafter we have to study
sastra under a guru who is srotriya brahmanishta.
Listen to the teacher expounding the sastra
is called sravanam. Getting doubts cleared
by reflection and discussion with the
guru is called mananam. Emptying the mind
of the notions and attitudes born out
of the identification with the body mind
in janma after janmas by dwelling on the
teaching of sastra to accomplish total,
unreserved mental identification with
Brahma caitanyam is called nididhyasana.
If this course of sravanam, mananam and
nididhyasanam is gone through successfully,
we get liberated from samsara (we will
get moksha). Moksha is only discovering
what was hidden from us, i.e., our real
nature as the infinite Brahman. The benefit
is unalloyed peace and happiness.
It is possible to get moksha in the very
life in which we gain jiva-brahma-aikya
jnanam. A person who has gained jiva-brahm-aikya
jnanam is called a jivanmukta. For a jivanmukta,
death is dissolution of all the three
bodies (the sthoola, sukshma and karana)
.The atma caitanyam of the jivanmukta
gets ‘merged’ in the brahma caitanyam.
The cycle of srshti, sthithi, laya, the
jivatmas, karma, Iswara and Maya
area beginningless (anaadi).
(The method of teaching followed in
the Upanishads is called adhyaropa
apavaada). Since none of the criteria
of definition is applicable for the purpose
of revealing Existence-Consciousness-Infinity,
Upanishads take recourse to tataastha
lakshanam. It presents the experienced
universe (adhyaropa) and the cause (karanam)
is said to be Existence-Consciousness
(sat-cit). Later, the effect (karyam)
is shown to be mithya (as in ‘neti neti’,
‘na bhoomirapo….’etc.) (apavada) and what
was previously called karanam is declared
to be the adhishtanam (the sub-stratum)
of the adhyasta jagat (the superimposed
universe) –vide Chandogya 6.8.6 – “Sarva
prajaa sat-aaayatanaah sat-pratishthaa”,
Chandogya 6.41 – vacaarambhanam vikaro
namadheyam).
- The first sentences of saanti paathas
of the four Vedas is as follows:-
- Rg.veda – Om vangme manasi
pratishtitaa
- Sukla Yajurveda - Om poornamadah
poornamidam poornaat poornamudacyate
- Krishna Yajurveda – Om sahnaavavatu
sahanou bhunaktu
- Samaveda – Om aapyaayantu
mamaangaani vak praanacakshuh
srotram atho balam indriyaani
ca sarvaani
- Atharvaveda – Om bhadhram
karnebhih srunuyaama devaah
bhadram pasyemaakshabhiryajatraah
- The full text of the Sukla Yajurveda
ssantipaatha is “Poornam adah poornam
idam. Poornaat poornam udacyate. Poornasya
poornam aadaaya poornam eva avasishyate.
Om saantih saantih saantih.”
- If one goes by the literal meaning
(vacyartha), the saantipaatha will
read as follows:-
That is whole. This is whole. From that
whole this whole is born. When this whole
is taken away from that whole, that whole
remains.”
This would look like a riddle. So
we look for the implied meaning (lakshyartha).
The lakshyartha is discussed below.
The first sentence is ‘poornamadah poornamidam’.
Adah = That Paramatma
Poornah = (is) limitless
Idam = This jivatma
Poornam = (is) limitless.
Thus we have, “That Paramatma is limitless;
this jivatma is limitless”. We know that
the limitless, the infinite, can be only
one; infinity and existence of two entities
are contradictory. Since there can be
only one poornam, infinity, we conclude
that paramatma and jivatma are one and
the same. Thus we arrive at jivatma paramatma
aikyam. Sopadhika paramatma, who is sarvajna,
sarveswara, sarvavyapi and sopadhika jivatma
whom is alpajna alpasaktiman and alpavyaapi
(possessing limited knowledge, limited
powers and limited spatial existence)
cannot be identical. So, when we talk
of identity (aikyam), we are talking of
the identity of nirupadhika jivatma and
nirupadhika jivatma.
Literal meaning of the sentence ‘poornaat
poornam udacyate’ would be ‘from poorna
paramatma poorna jivatma is born’. This
will contradict the previous conclusion
that jivatma and paramatma are identical,
because karana karya sambandha (cause
effect relationship) is always between
two entities. So, we have to conclude
that the meaning of the sentence is that
from sopadhika paramatma sopadhika jivatma
is born, i.e., jivas are created by Iswara.
The next sentence is ‘Poornasya poornam
aadaaya poornam eva avasishyate’. Poornasya
= from sopadhika atma
Poornam = poorna atma
Aadaaya = is separated
Poornam eva avasishyate = poorna atma
alone remains.
Thus we have ‘from sopadhika atma, poorna
atma is taken away, poorna atma alone
remains’.
From Atma + upadhi, if we take away
atma, what should remain ? Upadhi. But
the Upanishad says that atma alone remains.
That means when atma is not there, there
is no upadhi. The idea is that upadhi
cannot exist independently of atma. What
has no independent existence is mithya.
So, we understand that anatma is mithya.
The nama roopa including our body-mind
complex is mithya.
The final meaning of the santipatha
is “Nirupadjhika paramatma and nirupadjhika
jivatma are identical. From sopadhika
paramatma sopadhika jivatma is born. Upadhi
is mithya. Nirupadhika atma alone is satyam.
Thus, this santipatha is the essence
of the entire Uppanishad – ‘brahmasatyam
jaganmithya’.
From Chandogya Upanishad 8.12.3, we know
that the term, “uttama purusha”
in sastra refers to nirguna Brahman, not
saguna Brahman. This is relevant, because
Visishtadvaitins talk of purushottama
as an appellation of the personal God,
Lord Vishnu.
When a person dies, the presiding deities
of the indriyas withdraw from the sense
organs. So, when he travels to the next
world, after death, the sense organs are
non-functional. So, until he takes rebirth
in one of the worlds and the presiding
deities return to the sense organs there
is no memory or enjoyment. The punya papa
of the karma and upasana done and vasanas
acquired in that life are carried by this
non-functioning sukshma sarira. - vide
Brahadaranyaka 4.4.1 and 2.
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 vyaharika prapanca -
and from akasa to the absolute , Brahman,
called aksharam (the Immutable)
– i.e., from the samashti sukshma prapannca
upahita caitanyam to samashti kaarana
prapanca upahita caitanyam and from the
samashti karana prapanca upahita caitanyam
to nirupaadhika caitanyam. (This
is to teach us that the ultimate essence
is nirguna Brahman, not any form of saguna
Brahman). In 3.7.23, dealing with the
Inner Controller, Iswara and 3.8.11, dealing
with nirguna Brahman as” it is never the
known, but is the Knower; there is no
other Knower than He/It”, the 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 commentaty on 3.8.12, which concludes
the topic, Sankaracarya says, “What is
the difference between them, the Immutable
(aksharam) and the Internal Ruler
(antaryaami)?.Intrinsically there
is neither difference nor idenitity among
them, for they are by nature pure Consciousness……The
unconditioned Self (nirupaadhika 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., 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’”( Katho
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 harmonised. 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).
By saying “Vacarambhanam vikaro namadheyam”,
Chandogya establishes that kaaryam
(effect) is mithya and kaaranam
(cause) alone is satyam. In the universe,
every karanam itself is a karyam of something.
By saying “idam agra aasiit ekam eva advidiiyam”,
the Upanishad establishes that Brahman,
the ultimate cause (Taittiriya 2.6, Chandogya
6.2.3) not being a karyam, is satyam.
The first stage of teaching is that I
is different from anitya anatma.
(Waves which have location are different
from the locationless water.) But we
have to avoid dwaitam. So the final
stage of teaching is that there is no
anatma other than atma. (There is no wave
other than water; what appears as wave
is water only.) Infinite existence-consciousness
alone is the reality; anatma has no existence
of its own. If gold is withdrawn there
will be no ornament. Without Brahman,
there will be no world for jivas. (sa
ya esho anima etat aatmyam idam
sarvam tat satyam sa atma tattvamasi swetaketo
– Chandogya 6.8.7). The purpose of introducing
srshti and later negating it (by the adhyaropa
apavada method) is to teach Brahma
satyam jaganmithya. But whenever
creation, sustenance and dissolution are
talked about, “Brahman is cause” means
that as Existence, Brahman provides the
sub-stratum and as Consciousness, in Its
presence, cidabhasa is formed in Maya,
enabling Iswara to do creation etc. Failing
to reach Brahman, words along with the
mind turn back (yato vaco nivartante;
apraapya mnasaa saha (Chandogya
2.4.) .Therefore the upanishasd takes
recourse to this devious route.
Pramaata cannot claim to be Brahman.
Saakshi cannot say, “I am Brahman”
either, because sakshi is devoid of the
instruments of speech and mind. It is
the mixture of sakshi and pramata (with
cidabhasa) that says,“ I am Brahman”
but the “I” in that statement refers to
sakshi alone.
While studying the pancakosa viveka
in Taittiriya Upanishad, we can appreciate
the significance of the successive stages
of negation of the kosas. When
sruti says that annamaya is atma it enables
us to get rid of identification with wife,
children etc.; my body is different from
yours. (Incidentaly, in karma kanda, one
of the exceptions to the rule that one
who does karma enjoys karmaphalam is the
provision that if the father is ill, the
son can do sandhyavandanam etc. on the
father’s behalf, as a proxy; son does
the karma and the phalam goes to the father.)
Example for absence of disidentification
with the family is the sanyasi. When annamaya
is negated and manomaya and vijnamaya
are said to be atma, we get rid of the
fear of death and we can appreciate that
if the physical body itself is atma, when
it dies there will be unexhausted karma
and there will be I (the fallacies of
someone else undergoing karmaphalam or
karma going without karmaphalam.) When
pranamaya is negated, we can appreciate
the statements of people around when some
one dies that prana has gone. When manmomaya
and vijanamya are negated, we can appreciate
that they are instruments that we use
and what we use as instrument cannot be
ourselves. When anandamaya is negated
we can appreciate that the samsara that
we are free from during sushupti does
not belong to atma and the happiness that
we recollect is not swaroopa ananda
but its reflection registered in the kaarana
sariram.
Sakshi illumines the mind means is that
cidabhasa is formed in the mind and the
mind is able to illumine the external
world and to know its own thoughts.
Temporary happiness of ajnanis on achieving
a desired object before another desire
arises is the ananda swaroopam of Brahman
reflected in cidabhasa. Objects are not
the source of ananda (Vishaye ananda
naasti.) If objects give ananda, the
same object must give to all and to any
particular person all the time. What is
sweet to one man is another man’s poison.
Pudding is sweet to me when I start but
after the fifth or sixth helping I develop
aversion. Objects only provide the occasion
for the ananda swaroopam of Brahman to
be reflected in the calm mind. The constant
happiness of the jnani who has the knowledge
that he is Brahman is the reflection of
the infinitude of Brahman. (Pibhare
ramarasam. Raso vai rasah).
Tasting brahmarasam is owning up
the fact that poornatvam is my
permanent nature. The consequent sense
of utter fulfillment is called brahmarasa-anubhava.
A Purvapakshi raises objections to mutual
superimposition of atma and anatma.
- Can anatma be superimposed on atma?
Superimposition requires the following
conditions:-
(a) The general characteristic
of the sub-stratum should be known
and special characteristics should
be unknown
(b) The sub-stratum should not be
clearly perceived
(c) There should be similarity
between the sub-stratum and the superimposed
entity.
Atma, being nirguna, does not have
any general or special characteristics.
Atma is always self-effulgent. Atma
has no similarity with the anatma.
Therefore atma cannot be the sub-stratum
for any superimposition.
- Can atma be superimposed on anatma?
The sub-stratum of superimposition
has to be a real entity. If the sub-stratum
as well as the entity superimposed
are mithya, it will result in sunyavada.
Since anatma is mithya, it cannot
be the sub-stratum of superimposition
. If it is claimed that anatma is
real, it can never be sublated and
there will be no possibility of liberation.
- Only when it is established that
anatma is superimposed on atma can
atma be said to have some concealed
characteristic and similarity with
anatma. Only after it is established
that the atma has some concealed characteristic
and similarity with anatma can it
be said that anatma is superimposed
on atma. Thus there is the fallacy
of mutual dependence.
- If it is argued that mutual superimposition
is possible, because it is due to
avidya, it cannot be of any help,
because avidya itself is not logically
possible in atma which is self-effulgent.
Avidya can be mithya only if it is
superimposed on atma by itself but
this will have the defect of mutual
dependence. If another avidya superimposes
this avidya, there will be the fallacy
of infinite regress. If the superimposed
is real, there can be no liberation.
- If everything is due to superimposition,
there can be no distinction between
illusion and right knowledge. To say
that the same atma is the means of
knowledge, the object of knowledge,
the knowledge itself and the knower
is contradictory. If it is claimed
that there is no contradiction, then
it becomes vijnaanavaada in
which everything is nothing but internal
cognition.
Refutation by the Advaita Vedantin is
as follows:-
It is well known
that everyone has knowledge in the
form, “I am a man, I am a karta and
a bhokta”. This is not a mere remembrance;
it is a direct experience. It is devoid
of the cognition of difference between
himself and his body. It is not right
knowledge. Sruti statements such as
Brhadaranyaka 4.3.7, 2.5.19, 3.9.28,
3.4.1, 3.5.1, 4.3.15, Taittiriya 2.1.1.
and Chandogya 8.7.1 declare that atma
is not a karta or bhokta and is none
other than Brahman which is of the
nature of supreme bliss. So, when
a man says “I am a man; I am a karta
and a bhokta”, it is not right knowledge.
Logic also leads to the same conclusion.
Things which undergo change (such
as the body and the mind) have necessarily
to be limited in time, space and with
respect to other objects and, therefore,
they cannot be the all pervading,
eternal, non-dual atma. Consciousness
(swaroopa jnanam) is an undifferentiated
changeless entity. It is different
from the objectifying knowledge (vritti
jnanam) such as ‘knowledge of pot’,
‘knowledge of cloth’ etc.(obtained
either through the reflection of consciousness
or conditioning of consciousness in
the antahkarana). The notion of origination
and destruction of knowledge is only
due to the necessity of relating the
knowledge to the object of knowledge,
since we have to say which particular
object knowledge is about. If swaroopa
jnanam is split up and considered
to be many, then space, time and directions
will also be considered to be many.
Moreover, if kartrtvam etc are real,
then, there can be no liberation at
all, because what is the real nature
of a thing can never be removed from
it. If atma is not self-effulgent,
the whole universe will be insentient.
Being the object of supreme love of
all, atma is of the nature of bliss.
Therefore, atma is devoid of qualities,
eternal, self-effulgent and of the
nature of bliss.
Therefore, there is no escape from
the conclusion that the cognition,
“I am a man’ etc. is only a delusion.
And it is necessary to postulate a
proper cause for the delusion. The
cause has to be something which has
the capacity not only to conceal the
atma from the vision of the jiva but
also to make the jiva who, in reality
is the atma, identify himself with
the body and the mind and regard himself
as a karta and a bhokta. That cause
is the indeterminable avidya which
is superimposed on the non-dual atma.
Atma cannot be the cause of the delusion
because it is immutable. Mind, etc,
cannot be the cause of the delusion
because they are themselves the products
of avidya. Avidya is revealed in Sruti
statements such as – “(They realized)
the power of the Supreme Being which
is concealed by its own gunas” (Svesvatara
1.3), “Know Maya to be Prakriti and
the wielder of Maya to be the supreme
Lord” (Svesvatara 4.10), “The supreme
Being is perceived as having manifold
forms because of Maya” ((Brahadaranyaka
2.5.19), “They are covered by the
untrue” ( Chandogya 8.3.2), “Covered
by mist” ( Taittiriya Samhita 4.6.2.2),
and “( By identification with Iswara
one) finally becomes free from Maya
which is in the form of the form of
the universe” (Svesvatara 1.10). The
fallacy of self-dependence on the
ground that avidya is the cause of
its own superimposition is ruled out
because avidya is beginningless.
Upanishad says that atma is swaprakasa
(self-evident). It also says that atma
is to be known by the mind (cetasaa veditvyam).
How do we reconcile this? It means that
what is required for atma to be revealed
is removal of ignorance, the false notion,
“I am the changing body-mind complex”.
When this notion is removed, what remains
as the constant ‘I’ is the consciousness,
This is not known as an object but is
invoked as the very subject. In technical
language, for knowing anatma, vritti
vyaapti and phala vyaapti are
required but for recognizing atma, vritti
vyapti (to remove the ignorance) is required
but phala vyapti (to illumine the atma)
is not required.
Example. In a dark room, there are two
things – a flame and a stone. Each is
covered by a pot. One of your hands is
engaged otherwise. In the other hand,
you are carrying a torch with a long handle.
With that handle you knock off the pots
that are covering the objects. Knocking
of the pots is like vritti vyapti. To
see the stone, you have to direct the
torch light at the stone, because it does
not shine of its own accord. Directing
the torchlight is ike phala vyapti. But
to see the flame, you don’t have to direct
the torchlight at it; it is self-shining
(self-evident).
In Anubhuti Prakasa, elaborating Brhadaranyaka
Upanishad mantra 2.4.12, and following
Sankaracarya’s commentary, Vidyarayanya
discusses the emergence and dissolution
of cidabhasa based on the example of the
ocean and the lumps of salt given in the
Upanishad. First, he disposes of a possible
objection. Upanishad itself says that
Brahman is karya-karana-vilakshanah;
Brahman has not come out of anything and
nothing has come out of Brahman; then,
how can we say that jivatma has come out
of Brahman? The answer is that it is a
phenomenon created by Maya. In the paramarthika
plane, there is neither arrival nor departure
of the world. In the vyavaharika plane,
there is arrival and departure of the
world. Thereafter he discusses which aspects
of the ocean-salt lumps example should
be compared to what. Paramatma is compared
to the ocean. Jivatmas are compared to
the lumps of salt. Lumps of salt do not
appear in the ocean as such. For lumps
of salt to be produced salt pans are required.
The sthoola sukshma sariras are compared
to the salt pans. The heat of the sun
is required for evaporation of the water;
Avidya and the consequent adhyasa are
compared to the sun and its heat. Pure
atma cannot be a knower because atma is
nirvikara and knowing is modification
of the mind. Anatma cannot be a knower
because antma is inert (jadam).
Maya produces a third entity which borrows
consciousness (cetanatvam) from
the atma and savikaratvam (modifying
capacity) from anatma. This savikara cetana
entity is cidabhasa, the reflected consciousness
in the antahkarana. This combination of
antahkarana and cidabhasa does karma and
undergoes karmaphalam. Kartrutvam
(sense being a doer) presupposes free
will. Only if jiva is responsible for
his action he can be required to undergo
karmaphalam. Once cidabhasa is formed,
localization and finitude happen to jivas.
Neither localization nor finitude is real
but jiva has the adhyasa of localization
and finitude. Only by study of sastra
under a guru, particularly analysis of
mahavakyas, do jivas discover their identity
with Brahman and the adhyasa of localization
and finitude is removed. The juxtaposition
of tat-padartha with tvam-padartha removes
localization and finitude (pariccinnatvam)
of jivatma and the justaposition of tvam-padartha
with tat-padartha removed\s the remoteness
(parokshatvam) of paramatma and
the identity of the real nature of jivatma,
the consciousness with paramatma is recognised.
This is the state of jivanmukti. When
the lumps of salt ate dissolved in the
ocean they merge in it indistinguishably.
Like that, at the time of videhamukti,
the sthoola, suskhma and karana sariras
along with the cidabhasa in them dissolve
and the jivan muktas ‘merge in Brahman’
indistinguishably.
Formation of lumps of salt are events
in time. But jivatmas are anaadi
(beginning-less). The example should not
be extended to the aspect of an event
in time.
According to Sastra, perception of outside
objects happens by antahkarana ,along
with cidaabhaasa, going out and pervading
the object and assuming the shape of that
object, like light emanating from a lamp
contacting an object and assuming the
shape of that object.
In respect of any object, there are two
things - an externally existing object
and a mental object of that object. What
you experience (bhogya-vastu) is
not the external object (Iiswara-srshti)
but the internal image ( jiva-srshti).
The mental image of the same external
object, say a woman, is coloured in the
minds of different people in different
ways, according to their tastes and values,
their likes and dislikes (raaga dwesha)
etc, which constitute a complex pattern
due to prarabdha (the quota of
karmaphalam allotted for exhaustion in
a particular span of life (janma)
out of the accumulated punya papa ( (sancita
karma), vaasanas ( imprints
of tastes, attitudes tendencies and wisdom
in the mind on account of the experience
in previous janmas), and training, knowledge
undergone and wisdom gained in the current
janma.
The external object (bhoutika vastu)
is illumined by pramata. (pramtru-bhaasyam).
From pramaata, a mode of thought surchaged
by cidaabhaasa (saabhaasa vritti)
goes out, like a ray of light, through
sense organs (karanam). The vritti
envelops the object, assumes the shape
of the object and removes ignorance. This
is called vritti vyaapti. Vritti
is a mode of the mimd; it is a modification
(vikaara). When the vritti vikara
takes place, the pramaata, as the antahkarana
surcharged with cidaabhasa, also undergoes
modification. Vritti by itself is inert
(jada). So, we cannot say that
vritti illumines the object. The cidabhaasa
in the vritti envelops the object simultaneously
and illumines the object. The pervasion
and illumination of the object uncovered
by vritti vyaapti is called phala vyaapti.
Thus knowledge of the object is produced.
We said, earlier that the experience of
the object is not an external phenomenon;
it is an internal phenomenon; the experience
is in the form of the image formed in
the mind by vritti vyaapti and phala
vyaapti. What about the vritti involved
in this image? Vritti is jada, not self-illuminating
(not swayam-prakaasa). (The word,
‘illumination’ stands for the functioning
of consciousness.) We cannot say that
vritti is illumined by another vritti.
That would lead to infinite regress (anavastha
dosha). The Brahma caitanyam present
in jiva (saakshi) illumines the
vritti involved in the internal image.
How does sakshi illumine? By the very
formation of reflected consciousness (cidabhasa)
in that vritti. The very pervasion of
the vritti in the internal image by the
cidabhasa is called illumination by saakshi
(saakshi-bhaasyam). So, also, in
the same sense, any vritti involved in
a thought in the mind, without the current
presence of an external object, like recalling
a thing or incident, or speculation or
theorisising, is also said to be saakshi-bhaasyam.
Example. Sun is up above. Mirror is on
the ground placed in an appropriate angle.
Sunlight falls on the mirror. The sunlight
reflected from the mirror illumines the
dark room. We don’t say that mirror illumines
the room. We say that the sunlight illumines
the room. Sun is responsible for the sunlight;
therefore we also say that sun illumines
the mirror.
The Jivanmukta merges into Iswara during
videhamukti from the vyaavahaarika point
of view.
From Paaaramaarthika point of view there
is no actual merging, though it is said
that jivanmukta merges in Brahman. Jiva
is ever Brahman. So, there is no event
of merging in Brahman at the time of videha
mukti. The only event that takes place
is the dissolution of the individual bodies
(sukshma and karana sariras). This
is the merging in Iswara. From paramarthika
angle, there is no question of merging
in Brahman. Jiva is ever Brahman. When
the word ‘merging’ is used, we can only
talk of merging in Iswara. From the paramarthika
angle one is Brahman in videha mukti as
well as earlier, earlier than even the
jivanmukti stage, when the event of removal
of ajnanam takes place. From the vyavaharika
angle, sukshma sarira and karana sarira
of videhamukta get dissolved in the cosmic
sarirams; this is the merging in Iswara.
In the course of jnana yoga, in the beginning,
when provocative situations arise, one
has to deliberately recollect “aham brahaasmi”,
I am not the body or the mind. But later,
the aham brahmasmi attitude becomes spontaneous.
Not that when engaged in any secular activity,
the jnaani has to go on thinking “I am
Brahman”. Because his mind has to be engaged
in that activity and no two thoughts can
co-exist. Bu, when a situation arises
in which an ajnani would react, identified
with his body or his mind, feeling sorrow,
anger, etc., in the casre of a jnaani,
his firm knowledge “I am atma” comes into
play spontaneously and governs his reaction.
His thought will be “This is not happening
to me, the atma. Why should I worry?”,
“This cannot affect me, the atma”.
Animals have no free will. So, they do
not acquire agami karma. Exhaustion
of sancita karma does not require
free will. Since there is no free will,
there is also no learning from the experience
of karmaphalam.
Praarabdha is of two kinds – strong (prabala)
and weak (durbala).. Atonement
(parihaaram) for praarabdha is
possible if it is durbala, not if it prabala
and parihaaram such as yagna, puja, dhyaana,
etc, can counteract or attenuate durbala
praarabdha. In the case of miracles we
hear about, the tapo sakti or yogic powers
of the saint or yogi, applied by him in
favour of his devotee, becomes a substitute
for the devotee’s own parihaara karma.
The compassion of the pure mind of a jnanai
can produce vibrations which can affect
the natural forces in favour of the devotee..(
Jnanan and Yoga are not connected. One
can be a jnani but not a yogi or one can
be a yogi but not a yogi or one may be
both. If a jnanaj is a yogi, he will
exercise yogi powers only for loka sangraha.).
If praarabdha is prabala, neither one’s
own parihaara karma or a tapo sakti of
a saint or yogic power of a yogi can counteract
the praarabdha. That is how we often find
some people being benefited by approaching
a saint or yogi but some others getting
no benefit by approaching the same saint
or yogi.
If you are correcting a person because
you have a feeling of being hurt by his
action, it is wrong. But if, without such
feeling, you want to correct the person
in order to make him realise his mistake
and as guidance for his future behaviour,
correcting is all right.
Sanyasa is of two kinds – (1) vividisha
sanyasa, sanyasa taken for srvanam,
mananam and nididhyasanam, when one finds
that that the preoccupations of secular
life does not allow time for these. (2)
vidwat sanyasa , sanyasa taken by a person
who has aquired adequate jnanam by sravanam
and mananam and adopts sanyasa asrama
to ebgage himself exclusively in nididhasana.
We can, perhaps, cite the example of Yagnavalkya..
However, Eeven a grahastha can get moksha
through jnaanam. Cf. Gita 4th
ch. Sloka 23. Sankaracarya accepts this
in his bhashyam. He says, “If, on account
of praarabdha, a person is unable to take
sanyasa, say, compulsion of household
duties, jnaanam cannot go without phaalam;
he will also get moksha. The idea is
is that in sanyaasa, more facilities are
there for vedantic study. A grahastha
has less facilities on account of preoccupation
with worldly duties. That is why Sankaracarya,
in many places insists on sanyaasa as
the aasrama that is a must for pursuit
of jnaana yoga. We have to take it that
what Sankaracarya is emphasising is the
practical point of view..
“Iiswarasysa sankalpamaatrena sarvam
aavirbhavati”. For the mind of jivas,
there is a world outside the mind, as
a vyaavahaarika phenomenon. But for Iswara,
there is no world outside. The world is
in Iswara, i.e., in Maya part of Iswara,
whether it is in pralaya condition or
srshti condition and Iswara, the consciousness
aspect of Iswara knows that the world
exists in his mind, as it were. Maya can
be said to be Iswara’s mind, Iswara knows
that the world is in his mind, whether
it in manifest for or unmanifest form.
On the vyaavahaarika plane, sarvaatmakatvam
is related to Brahman being the satta
of the entire range of superimposed nama
roopa. In the paaramaarthika plane, there
is no world; there is only the infinite
non-dual Brahman. A Jivanmukta can have
the sense of sarvaatmakatvam (“I am everything”)
and so lacking nothing, be contented and
thus enjoy ananda, which is kosa ananda.
Or he can have sense of himself being
infinite. Dismissing the prapanca as non-existent,
he can abide in brahmabhaava. This is
also an antahkarana vritti, a sense of
being all relative states. Perhaps, ‘nirvriti’
may be a word that gives an idea of it.
The memory of an experience or knowledge
is stored as memory in the mind. This
is in the passive part of the mind. The
passive part of the mind is kaarana
sariram. This memory vritti is illumined
by karana sarira cidabhasa called
praajna. When you recollect it,
the vritti is illumined by the sukshma
sarira cidabhasa called taijasa.
When the same suskshma sarira cidabhasa
illumines a vritti pervading an object,
it is called visva or pramaata
Ignorance of a thing in a particular antahkarana
of a thing which is known by some other
antahkaranas (e.g.,”I don’t know Chinese”)
is also illumined by kaarana sarira cidabhasa.
The knowledge, say,that I know Russian,
is also illumined by kaarana sarira cidabhasa.
What about knowledge not discovered yet
by any human being, e.g., the law of gravitation
before Newton discovered it. It must exist
somewhere. You cannot discover a non-existent
thing? It exists in samashti karana sariram,
Maya, and that it is illumined by cidabhaasa
in Iswara.
Those who have studied Vedanta under
a guru but fail to reach the stage of
being a jivanmukta, in the current life,
owing to some obstacle or other like some
vipariita bhavana, called jnaanabhrashta,
are reborn in a family and grow up
in an environment conducive to the resumption
of the study, with the advantage of the
samskara (the carried-over vasana)
of the study already done in the previous
life. The example in Upanishads is the
Vamadeva rishi who became a full-fledged
jnani even while he is in the womb. In
modern days, we can cite the case of Ramana
Maharishi
These are terms related to the technique
of arriving at the implied meaning of
a sentence.. When the words in a sentence
in the same case denote the
same object through different phrases,
such words are said to be in samanadhikaranyam.
The method of arriving at the implied
meaning of the sentence is called lakshanaa.
The main lakshanaas are mentioned below.
(a) Ajahal-lakshanaa - Where all the words
in the sentence are accepted. Example
–
The sentence in Tattiriya Upanishad “
Satyam, jnanam, anantam Brahma”
and the mahavakyams “Prajnam Brahma”
and “ Ayamaatma Brahma”. In
“satyam,
jnanam, anantam brahma”, the words
meaning existence, consciousness and infinitude
respectively refer to the same entity,
Brahman. All the words are accepted. Similarly
the word “Prajnanam” rmeans
the consciousness recognized in us and
the Brahma” means the all pervading
consciousness Since they denote the same
entity we accept both the words in their
entirety and interpret the sentence to
mean that the consciousness in us and
the all
pervading consciousness are one and the
same.. The words in these sentences are
said to be in aikya samanadhikaranyam.
Another examole is (niilotpalam”
(“Blue lotus”). Both the qualification
“blue” and the substance “lotus”
refer to the same entity. So, we accept
both the words and interpret the sentence
to mean a lotus which is blue in colour”..
Here, the words are said to be in visheshena
visishta samanadhikaranyam.
(b) Jahal-lakshana – Where one of
the words in a sentence is rejected
and a related word is substituted. Example
“Village on Ganges”. A village
cannot be located on a river. So, instead
of the river, the bank of the river is
adopted and we interpret the sentence
to mean a”village on the bank of
the Ganges”. Here, the words are
said to be in “baadha samanadhkaranyam”.
(c) Jahal-ajahal-lakshanaa – The
mahavakyam “Tat tvam asi”.
The vaacyaartha (the literal meaning)
of “Tat” is omniscient, omnipotent,
omnipresent Iswara and the meaning of
“Tvam” is the jiva with limited
knowledge and powers and location. The
word ‘asi” indicates that
the two are one and the the same. This
is not logical. So, we go to lakshyaartha
(the implied meaning). Tat, Iswara ia
mixrture of Brahma caitanyam, the real
and cidabhasa and Maya, the mithya. Like
that, tvam, jiva is a mixture of Brahma
caitanyam (called pratyagatma), the real
and and the body-mind complex,with cidabhassa,
the unreal. Here we take real part of
Tat and of Tvam and reject the mithya
partsand equate the caitanyam called pratyagatma
and the caitanyam called Brahman and interpret
the sentence to mean “the consciousness
in you and the consciousness that
is Brahman are the same” (The teacher
is saying this to the student).
Apart from Brahman that is the paramarthika
infinite, there are vyavaharika entities
in regard to which it is not logical to
say that they had a beginning as an event
in time, So, we say that they are beginningless
(anaadi). These vyavaharika entities are
time itself, Maya, the cycle of creation
and
dissolution, Iswara , jiva and karma.
Why we can’t say that time had a
beginning is explained in Note No. 49..If
Maya and Iswara are said to have a beginning,
then we cannot explain creation. If the
pair of cidabhasa part of Iswara, the
intelligent cause and Maya, the material
cause of the creation dissolution cycle
is said to have a beginning, then we have
to postulate a prior pair of causes for
the origin of that pair of causes and
then, a still prior pair for that prior
pair and so on. This will lead to infinite
regress (anavastha doshai). So, there
is no escape from saying that Iswara and
Maya are beginningless. If creation is
said to have a beginning , we cannot explain
where was the pair o f the intelligent
and material causes of creation at that
time and when it did the first creation.
We cannot postulate a point in space and
a point of time for the existence of the
pair of causes of creation, because then
we have to talk of a prior space and a
prior time and this will lead to infinite
regress. So, we have no go but to accept
a beginningless cycle of creation and
dissolution. As regards Jiva and Karma,
If we postulate a beginning for jiva,
we have to say how did the punya papa
responsible for the birth of the jiva
arise and if we postulate a beginning
for punya papa, we have to talk of a prior
jiva who did karma in the form of actions
in order to produce the punya papa. Thus
we cannot but accept that jiva and karma
also form a beginningless cycle.
(Items of the debate that are too technical
to be easily understood have been
omitted)
Asrayaanupapatti – Logical inconsistency
in regard to locus
Objection: Avidya (nescience) cannot have
jiva as its locus of operation because
the jiva himself is a product of Avidya.
Nor can Avidya be located in
Brahman because Brahman is self-effulgent
knowledge and knowledge is opposed to
nescience.
Refutation: .The objection is based on
the misconception that there are two distinct
real entities, Brahman and jiva and that
Avidya is a third real entity. In Advaita,
jiva is a mithya entitity, constituted
by the association of Brahman with the
mithya upadhi in the form of Avidya, or
its product ,the intellect. (association
in the form of a seemimg or actual reflection
or conditioning, depending on the whether
the prakriya is pratibimba vada or aabhasa
vada or avacceda vada). Nescience (Avidya)
is opposed not to Brahman as self-effulgent
knowledge, pure consciousness ( swaroopa
jnanam) but to vrittijnanam, the combination
of antahkarana and consciousness seeming
to be reflected or actually reflected
in or conditioned by the antahkarana.
Therefore, there is no bar to Brahman
being the locus of Avidya. Even if jiva
is taken as the locus of Avidya, there
is no problem; because Avidya and Jiva
are both mithya and equally beginningless.
Tirodhaanaanupapatti – logical inconsistency
in regard to obscuration (aavaranam).
(This is another version of the discussion
already included in Note No. 58.)
Objection: To hold that Avidya obscures
Brahman which is eternal self-effulgence
amounts to saying that the nature of Brahman
is destroyed.
Refutation: The obscuration conceived
in Advaita Vedanta is not actual blotting
out of Brahman’s effulgence. The
obscuration ( tirodhaanai) is in the form
of jiva’s nonapprehension of jiva
himself being Brahman. This non-apprehension
no more affects Brahman than a blind man’s
failure to see the sun or the formation
of a cloud hiding the sun from a man’s
vision affects the sun.. Anirvacanayaanupapatti
– The concept of non-categorisability
is untenable.
Objection: The inability to categorise
Avidya as either real or unreal is not
tenable. All categories must be based
on experience and experience has to be
of either real or unreal entities.
Refutation - The definition of Avidya
as neither real nor unreal (sadasadvilakshana)
has t o be understood in the light of
what is meant by sat (the real) and asat
(theunreal). What is meant by the word
sat (the real) is that which is not amenable
to sublation at any time (past, present
or future) (trikalaabaadhyami). What is
meant by asat (the unreal) is that which
does not appear to be real in any locus
whatsoever. Avidya is vyavaharika. The
pratibhasika example is rope-snake; it
is not asat in the sense that it is not
absolutely unreal like hare’s horn
or barren woman’s son. Since the
snake appears to be real in illusory experience
in sem-darrknes. It is not absolutely
real, because it is sublated when a light
is directed at the rope. In the state
of self-ignorance, Avidya appears to be
real. But .when Brahman is known, it is
sublated.
Nivartakaanupapatti – Incapacity
of Brahman-knowledge to sublate positive
nescience.
Objection and refutation: For the Advaitin,
the knowledge that sublates positive
nescience must be that of nirguna Brahman.
But Ramanuja says that Brahman is
never without attributes and, in support,
cites passages describing Brahman
as a personal being with exalted attributes.
Ramanuja explains even
explicitly advaitic texts (e.g., “ekam
eva advitiiyam”) to suit his thesis
that Brahman has attributes. The point
at issue is one of textual interpretation.
The task is one of distinguishing passages
meant for meditation (upasana) which is
a part of the preparatory sadhana to qualify
for jnanayoga, where Brahman with attributes
is described from passages which explicitly
present nirguna Brahman the knowledge
of which is the means for liberation.
There are numerous mantras in the Upanishads
revealing Brahman as attributeless (nirguna)
and mantras specifying that knowing nirguna
Brahman one can get liberation.( Readers
can refer to Part III, Section 4.)
Nivrttyanupapatti
- Objection; Positive nescience cannot
be established at all. Ramanuja argues
that since bondage is real, the knowledge
of identity of Brahman and atma cannot
abolish Avidya. Only the grace of God
(Paramapurusha) moved by devotion can
abolish real bondage. This position is
also dogmatic and based on his concept
of bondage. It is a part of the view of
the ultimate reality being a personal
God with jiva as a separate real entity
and the jiva being in reality Brahman
Itself whereas samsara undergone by jiva
is due to jiva’s ignorance of his
real nature on account of the aavarana
sakti of Avidya. As a saadhana, devotion
( bhakti) is not ruled out in Advaita
Vedanta but Advaitins maintain that, ultimately,
liberation is only the abolition of the
self-ignorance which must ensue the knowledge
of nirguna Brahman and one’s identity
with that infinite Brahman.
- In the wake of Ramanuja, Venkatanatha
asks in his Satadushani whether
Avidya is different from Brahman or not.
If different, Advaita breaks down. If
not
different, Brahman can never free Itself
from it.
Advaitin’s answer is that Avidya
is a catdegory sui generis. It is
sadasadvilakshanam in the sense explained
above. The other word for that is mithya. Being mithya there is no question
of affecting Brahman being non-dual and
there is no danger to advaya. Though located
in Brahman, it is of a lower order of
reality, like the illusory snake located
in the rope. The failure to appreciate
the concept of mithya is at the root of
Visishtadvaitin’s and Dwaitin’s
objections.
In the Pancapadika, Padmapada defines
mithya as “being indefinable as
“sat”
(existence) or “asat” (non-existence).
In Nyayamrita, Vyasatirtha raises an objection.
He asks “What is meant by sat and
asat? Does it denote (a) negation of existence
qualified by non-existence or (b) total
negation of both existence and non-existence
or (c) total negation of non-existence
qualified by total negation of existence?
In Advaitasiddhi, Madhusudana Saraswati
gives the answer. He says that (b) and
(c) are entirely tenable. The main point
to bear in mind is that in using the terms “existence” and “non-existence”
in the definition of mithya, the Advaitin
does not denote a contradictory or incompatible
status. Both the judgments “the
pot is
existent” and “the rope-snake
is existence” are intelligible.
Yet, evidently, the kind of existence
in the case of the pot is not the same
as that of the rope-snake. In the case
of the pot, existence denotes unsublatability
(abaadhyatvam) in empirical experience,
whereas in the case of the rope-snake,
existence denotes existence which is liable
to sublation in empirical experience,
as evidenced by the later judgment , “this
is not snake”. When Advaitin talks
about the world being mithya, different
from being real or unreal (“sadasadvilakshana”),
the word ‘sat’ is used to
mean nonsublatability at any time (trikalaabadhyam”)
and the word ‘asat’ is used
to mean unfitness to appear as existent
in any locus (i.e., the utterly non-existent
like the hare’s horn – ‘tuccam’).
Therefore what is meant by saying that
the world is mithya is that while, located
in Brahman, it does appear and is experienced,
with jivas attributing reality to the
world (which includes the body-mind complex)
in the state of ignorance. It is negated,
i.e., dismissed as unreal when they come
to know Brahman, the paramarthika reality
and in the paramarthika plane it is totally
non-existent. Thus for Brahman, the universe
is non-existent, whereas for the jivas,
it is existent, in two forms, appearing
to be real for the ignorant and known
to be false for the knower of Brahman.
It is this unique combination of non-existence
and existence that is called mithya.
Brahman is the only reality. The nature
of Brahman is Existence-Consciousness-
Infinity (satyam jnanam anantam ).
For Brahman, there is no universe. But
we, living beings (jivatmas) experience
a universe. The universe is unreal. In the
universe, itself, there are certain things
which we regard as real when we experience
it but which turn out to be false later.
To accommodate this phenomenon, Advaita
Vedanta postulates three orders of reality,
(a) the absolute (paramarthika), in which
category Brahman alone is, (b) the empirical
(vyavaharika) in which category the perceived
part of the world experienced by us in
the waking state falls and (c) illusory
(pratibhasika) in which the world that
we experience during the dream state falls,
as also erroneous perceptions like a snake
being seen on a rope, space being seen
as blue etc. The universe that we experience
is a mixture of existence belonging to
Brahman, the sub-stratum, and nama roopa
(attributes like shape, color etc. of
things and the characteristics of our
body and mind) superimposed on the sub-stratum.
The sub-stratum is real and unchanging.
The nama roopa which are superimposed
on it is unreal and changing. Not only
do individual nama roopa undergo change,
but the whole set of nama roopa changes
in a cycle of differentiation (srishti)
and resolution into a seed form (laya).
The one who is responsible for this srishti
and laya is an entity called Iswara, constituted
of an unreal thing, called Maya, located
in Brahman, in which the conscious aspect
of Brahman (Brahma caitanyam) is reflected
(or seems to be the original corresponding
to the seeming reflectioion or by which
Brahma caitanyam is conditioined, depending
on the different prakriyas). With the
conscious aspect, Iswara visualizes creation
and from the matter aspect, which is Maya,
the nama roopa which are in seed form
are unfolded by Maya through its vikshepa
sakti. We jivas are a mixture of the indivisible
Brahma caitanyam, available for recognition
as consciousness behind our mind, specially
during sushupti (called atma or sakshi
caitanyam), the subtle body (sukshma sarira
including the mind) in which Brahma caitanyam
is reflected ( or seems to be reflected
or by which Brahma caitasyam is conditioned,
depending on the different prakriyas)
and the physical body. Our real nature
is Brahma caitanyam. The rest of us
is unreal. But, owing to the veiling power
(avarana sakti) of Maya, we are ignorant
of our real nature as brahma caitanyam
and identifying ourselves with our body
and mind and regard ourselves as limited
individuals. Atma is devoid of instruments
of knowledge and action; It is neither
a doer (karta) nor an enjoyer (bhokta)
but though we are really the atma, we
have the false notion that we are the
doers and enjoyers and with the aid of
ahamkara (the antahkarana with the association
of brahma caitanyam,) interact with objects
of the world and other jivatmas. In the
process, we undergo suffering and enjoyment.
The suffering and enjoyment among the
jivatmas is unequal and not related to
current actions and thoughts. This is
due to the law of karma, according to
which for whatever actions we do or thoughts
we entertain we incur puny papa and have
to pay a price in the form of suffering
and enjoyment in future janmas. Iswara
is the administrator of the law of karma
(karmaphaladata). He designs each creation
and each janma of a jivatma, correlating
the punya papa and the objects, surroundings
and situations of the universe as well
as the physical and mental equipment of
the jivatmas. The cycle of srshti, sthithi,
laya, the jivatmas, karma, Iswara and
Maya are beginningless (anaadi) . Jivatmas
have a free will by which they can alter
the prarabdha , the fructified part of
punya papa allotted for suffering or enjoyment
in the future in this life and add punya
to the accu.mulation of punya papa bundle
(sancita). In deed it is only by free
will a jiva is enabled to do preparatory
sadhanas and pursue jnana yoga and attain
liberation from samsara. The means of
liberation from the cycle of action and
thoughts, rebirths and enjoyment and suffering
(called samsara) is knowledge of identity
with Brahma caitanyam (jivabrahma- aikya
jnanam). To gain this knowledge and assimilate
it, one has to study sastra (the core
of it is the Upanishads) under the guidance
of a teacher (guru) who has come in the
lineage of the teacher-student succession
(gurusishya parampara) and who has himself
gained and assimilated jiva-brahma-aikya-jnanam
(srotriya brahmanishta). The preparatory
spiritual practice to gain what is called
sadahana catushtaya samaptti (sadhana)
consists of karma yoga and upasana. Thereafter
we have to study sastra under a guru who
is srotriya brahmanishta. Listening to
the teacher expounding and interpreting
the sastra is called sravanam. Getting
remaining doubts cleared by reflection
and discussion with the guru is called
mananam. Emptying the mind of the notions
and attitudes born out of the identification
with the body mind in janma after janmas
by dwelling on the teaching of sastra
to accomplish total, mental identification
with Brahma caitanyam is called nididhyasana.
If this course of sravanam, mananam and
nididhyasanam is gone throughsuccessfully,
one gets liberated from samsara. One attains
moksha). Moksha is only discovering what
was hidden from us, i.e., our real nature
as the infinite Brahman. The benefit is
unalloyed peace and happiness. It is possible
to get moksha in the very life in which
one gains jiva-brahma-aikya jnanam. A
person who has gained jivabrahma-aikya
jnanam is called a jivanmukta. For a jivanmukta,
death is disintegration of all the three
bodies (the sthoola, sukshma and karana).
This is called videha mukti. From the
vyavaharic point of view, it is merging
in Iswara. From the paramartika point
of view, one has ever been Brahma caitanyam,
The only change that takes place is the
disappearance of the mithya individuality.
|
