UpasanaYoga.org माण्डूक्य-उपनिषद् and गौडपाद-कारिका Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad with शाङ्कर-भाष्यम् English translation of Mūla mantras by A.K. Aruna Translation of Mūla Bhāṣyam by Swami Gambhirananda Translation of Kārikā verses and Bhāṣyam is adopted from Swami Nikhilananda Including translations of Ṭīkā gloss by Ānandagiri Use Collapse All and Expand All options to customize your view
Last Selected:⇦ Return Clicking ✅ below updates Last Selected. (If Browser retains data between sessions)
Format by A.K. Aruna, 2022 ver.6.0: UpasanaYoga. If downloaded, requires installed Devanāgarī Siddhanta1.ttf font, downloadable from UpasanaYoga. If run from UpasanaYoga website, it alternatively can use online Web Font. Any Devanāgarī in parentheses () is an alternate reading of text in Red. Top button "Collapse all panels" contracts the view in which individual items can be re-expanded, or again the top button "Restore all panels" reloads page to original view. The Devanagari text source is the Sharada Peetham, Sringeri (advaitasharada.sringeri.net). Chanted by Sadhu Amrutjivandasji & Sadhu Achalswarupdasji. Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad from the Atharva Veda, consists of 12 mantras (verses). It has a verse commentary (kārikā) by Gauḍapāda-ācārya, the teacher of the teacher of the well-known Śaṅkara-ācārya. Translation of Mantra Commentary is by Swami Gambhirananda; the translation of Kārikās and their Commentary and Glosses are by Swami Nikhilananda (available from https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/mandukya-upanishad-karika-bhashya). The Gloss commentaries (Most of which are translations or paraphrases of Ānandagiri’s Ṭīkā, or are Nikhilananda Notes) are found inside the Translation, Bhāṣya or Kārikā, and are viewed by placing your cursor or finger on the words in Orange-Red (here, these are not Red alternative Devanāgarī readings). The Upaniṣad consists entirely of the exposition on Om-kāra, with the Kārikā expounding on this teaching of the ultimate reality by means of Om-kāra.
by A.K. Aruna
First Update to HTML Jan 2018 with Creative Commons International License:
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/, or click the following logo:
Commentator’s invocation:प्रज्ञानांशुप्रतानैः स्थिरचरनिकरव्यापिभिर्व्याप्य लोकान्
भुक्त्वा भोगान्स्थविष्ठान्पुनरपि धिषणोद्भासितान्कामजन्यान्।
पीत्वा सर्वान्विशेषान्स्वपिति मधुरभुङ्मायया भोजयन्नो
मायासंख्यातुरीयं परममृतमजं ब्रह्म यत्तन्नतोऽस्मि॥१॥ I bow (nataḥ asmi) to that Brahman which after having enjoyed (bhuktvā)
[•Enjoyment consisting in witnessing the various mental moods of happiness, sorrow, etc.•]
(during the waking state) the gross objects by pervading all the human objectives through a diffusion of Its rays
[•The individual souls that are but reflections of Brahman on the intellect.•]
of unchanging Consciousness that embraces all that moves or does not move; which again after having drunk
[•i.e., having merged all in the unrealized Self.•]
(during the dream state) all the variety of objects, produced by desire (as well as action and ignorance) and lighted up by the intellect,
[•Existing only subjectively in the form of mental moods or impressions of past experience.•]
sleeps while enjoying bliss and making us enjoy through Māyā; and which is counted as the Fourth
[•Not possessed of the three states of waking, dream, and sleep.•]
from the point of view of Māyā, and is supreme, immortal, and birthless.
यो विश्वात्मा विधिजविषयान्प्राश्य भोगान्स्थविष्ठान्
पश्चाच्चान्यान्स्वमतिविभवाञ्ज्योतिषा स्वेन सूक्ष्मान्।
सर्वानेतान्पुनरपि शनैः स्वात्मनि स्थापयित्वा
हित्वा सर्वान्विशेषान्विगतगुणगणः पात्वसौ नस्तुरीयः॥२॥ May that Fourth (Turīya) one protect us which, after having identified Itself with the universe,
[•The cosmic gross body of Virāṭ•]
enjoys (during the cosmic waking state) the gross objects created by virtue (and vice); which again (during the cosmic dream state, as identified with the cosmic subtle body of Hiraṇya-garbha) experiences through Its own light the subtle objects of enjoyment that are called up by Its own intellect; which, further (in sound sleep or cosmic dissolution), withdraws promptly all these into Itself; and which lastly becomes free from all attributes by discarding every distinction and difference. ओमित्येतदक्षरमिदं सर्वं तस्योपव्याख्यानम्। वेदान्तार्थसारसङ्ग्रहभूतमिदं प्रकरणचतुष्टयम् ओमित्येतदक्षरमित्यादि आरभ्यते। ‘The letter Om is all this. Of this a clear exposition (follows)’ (Ma.1). These four Chapters (of the Kārikā) that sum up the quintessence of the Vedānta ideas are commenced with the text, ‘The letter Om is all this,’ etc.
अत एव न पृथक् सम्बन्धाभिधेयप्रयोजनानि वक्तव्यानि। यान्येव तु वेदान्ते सम्बन्धाभिधेयप्रयोजनानि, तान्येवेहापि भवितुमर्हन्ति; तथापि प्रकरणव्याचिख्यासुना सङ्क्षेपतो वक्तव्यानीति मन्यन्ते व्याख्यातारः। Accordingly, the connection, subject matter, and utility (of this treatise) need not be separately dealt with. The connection, subject matter, and utility that pertain to Vedānta itself should fit in here also.
[•The present book comprising the Upaniṣad text and the Kārikā of Gauḍapāda forms a sort of a treatise on the Vedānta; and hence the four anubandhas or interconnection elements – viz. adhikārī, the person competent for study, sambandha, connection, e.g., that between the book and the subject matter, viṣaya (abhidheya), subject matter of the book, viz. unity of the Self and Brahman, and prayojana, utility, viz. liberation – are the same in both cases.•]
Still they ought to be briefly stated by one who wants to explain a treatise.
तत्र प्रयोजनवत्साधनाभिव्यञ्जकत्वेनाभिधेयसम्बद्धं शास्त्रं पारम्पर्येण विशिष्टसम्बन्धाभिधेयप्रयोजनवद्भवति। In this connection it is to be noted that by the very fact that a scripture (whether it be Vedānta or a treatise on it) reveals the spiritual disciplines conductive to the goal, it becomes endowed with a subject matter; and from this fact it becomes indirectly possessed of a distinct relationship, a subject matter, and utility.
[•We are concerned primarily with knowledge and its result, and not with books. The result aimed at is liberation which follows from the realization of the non-difference of the Self and Brahman, and not from mere scriptures. Still the scriptures express that non-difference, and knowledge does not dawn without the help of scriptural deliberation. Thus, as the indirect means to knowledge, the scriptures become connected with the subject matter.•]
किं पुनस्तत्प्रयोजनमिति, उच्यते – रोगार्तस्येव रोगनिवृत्तौ स्वस्थता, तथा दुःखात्मकस्यात्मनो द्वैतप्रपञ्चोपशमे स्वस्थता; अद्वैतभावः प्रयोजनम्। What again is the objective in view? That is being explained: Just as the normal state of a man, afflicted by disease, consists in his getting cured of the disease, similarly the normalcy of the Self, stricken with identification with misery, is regained through the cessation of the phenomenal universe of duality. The end in view is the realization of non-duality.
द्वैतप्रपञ्चस्य चाविद्याकृतत्वाद्विद्यया तदुपशमः स्यादिति ब्रह्मविद्याप्रकाशनाय अस्यारम्भः क्रियते। Since the phenomenal world of duality is a creation of ignorance, it can be eradicated through knowledge; and hence this book is begun in order to reveal the knowledge of Brahman.
“यत्र हि द्वैतमिव भवति” (BrhU.2.4.14, 4.5.15) “यत्र वान्यदिव स्यात्तत्रान्योऽन्यत्पश्येदन्योऽन्यद्विजानीयात्” (BrhU.4.3.31) “यत्र त्वस्य सर्वम् आत्मैवाभूत्तत्केन कं पश्येत्तत्केन कं विजानीयात्” (BrhU.4.5.15) इत्यादिश्रुतिभ्योऽस्यार्थस्य सिद्धिः। This fact is established by such Veda texts as: ‘Because when there is duality, as it were, (then one smells something, one sees something,)’ and so on (BrhUEng.2.4.14, 4.5.15); ‘When there is something else, as it were, then one can see something, one can know something’ (4.3.31); ‘But when to the knower of Brahman everything has become the Self, then what should one see and through what? What should one know and though what?’ (BrhUEng.4.5.15).
तत्र तावदोङ्कारनिर्णयाय प्रथमं प्रकरणम् आगमप्रधानम् आत्मतत्त्वप्रतिपत्त्युपायभूतम्। That being so, the first chapter, devoted to a determination of the meaning of Om, is based on (Veda traditional knowledge and is an aid to the ascertainment of the reality of the Self.
यस्य द्वैतप्रपञ्चस्योपशमे अद्वैतप्रतिपत्तिः रज्ज्वामिव सर्पादिविकल्पोपशमे रज्जुतत्त्वप्रतिपत्तिः, तस्य द्वैतस्य हेतुतो वैतथ्यप्रतिपादनाय द्वितीयं प्रकरणम्। The second chapter is concerned with rationally proving the unreality of that phenomenal world of duality, on the cessation of which is attained non-duality, just as the reality of the rope is known on the elimination of the illusion of a snake etc. imagined on it.
तथा अद्वैतस्यापि वैतथ्यप्रसङ्गप्राप्तौ, युक्तितस्तथात्वप्रतिपादनाय तृतीयं प्रकरणम्। The third chapter is there to establish rationally the truth of non-duality, lest it, too, should be negated by a similar process of argument.
अद्वैतस्य तथात्वप्रतिपत्तिविपक्षभूतानि यानि वादान्तराण्यवैदिकानि सन्ति, तेषामन्योन्यविरोधित्वादतथार्थत्वेन तदुपपत्तिभिरेव निराकरणाय चतुर्थं प्रकरणम्॥ The fourth chapter seeks to refute through their own arguments all the un-Veda points of view which are antagonistic to the ascertainment of the truth of non-duality and which remain involved in this unreal duality by the very fact of their mutual antagonism.
This very syllable “Om” is all this. Here is an exposition of that Om. All this past, present and future is only Oṃ-kara. Anything else that is beyond time is also only Oṃ-kara.
♬
⏹
All this is indeed brahman. This self (ātman, yourself) is Brahman. This self (ātman) which is that brahman is endowed with four quarters (catuṣ-pād).
♬
⏹
The first quarter (pāda) is called “vaiśvā-nara” (the one who dwells in the common world). Its realm is the waking state. It is consciousness identified with the external. It has seven limbs and nineteen openings, and is the experiencer of gross (sense) objects.
♬
⏹
The second quarter is called “taijasa” (the one who dwells in the light of the mind). Its realm is the dream state. It is consciousness identified with the internal. It has seven (dream projected) limbs and nineteen (dream projected) openings, and is the experiencer of the other (subtle) objects.
♬
⏹
The third quarter is called “prājña” (prakarṣeṇa jānāti, the potential to know without any object to know) – where, being asleep (to waking or dream), one desires no desirable object, and sees no dream object, that is deep sleep. Its realm is the deep sleep state. It is merged into one. It is an impenetrable mass of consciousness alone, a saturated state of bliss, hence it is the experiencer of this bliss state. And it is ceto-mukha (the opening into the other two states of experience).
♬
⏹
(From the cosmic perspective relating to all three states) This third quarter of Om is the Lord (Īśvara) of all. This one is omniscient. This one is the inner ruler. This one is the source (material cause) of all, as well as (the efficient cause of) its manifestation and its dissolution of all beings.
♬
⏹
They consider the fourth (caturtha, “quarter,” so to speak) to be consciousness not identified with the internal (dream), nor identified with the external (waking), nor identified with the in-between (deep sleep). It is not an impenetrable mass of consciousness, because it is neither a consciousness of something or nothing, nor a non-consciousness of anything. It is neither an object of the organs of sensing, nor transactionable, nor an object of action, nor an object of inference, nor an object of the mind, nor an object of a name (describable in words). Yet it is the continuing essence of the one and only I-notion. It is the calm of the five-fold universe, and thus the calm (of the mind). Therefore, it is auspicious. It is non-dual, but is the very self which is to be known.
♬
⏹
This was the self related to the syllable “Om”. Now Om-kāra with reference to each component sound. The quarters are the component sounds, and the component sounds are the quarters. These component sounds are indicated by the letters ‘a’, ‘u’, and ‘m’.
♬
⏹
The letter ‘a’ is the first sound. It stands for (the first quarter) the waking world and the waking person (the one who dwells in the common world). Because (‘a’, phonetically the basic sound of all other sounds is) āpti (it “pervades” language and the entire physical world). Moreover because ādimat (it is “first,” the “first” sound in “Om,” and vaiśvā-nara as Virāṭ is the “first” form of the person at creation). The meditator who knows in this way obtains all he or she desires, and becomes first among others.
♬
⏹
The letter ‘u’ is the second sound. It stands for (the second quarter) the dream world and the dreamer (the one who dwells in the light of the mind). Because (‘u’ is) utkarṣa (it “raises over” and swallows ‘a’ into ‘o’, and as Hiraṇya-garbha swallows Virāṭ). Moreover because it is ubhaya (it is “in-between” the sound “Om,” and as Hiraṇya-garbha is between Virāṭ and Īśvara). The meditator who knows in this way raises up the continuity of knowledge, becomes moderate (getting along between others), as well as none in his lineage would not raise enough to be knowers of brahman.
♬
⏹
The letter ‘m’ is the third sound. It stands for (the third quarter) the deep sleep and the deep sleeper (the potential to know without any object to know). Because ‘m’ is miti (it “measures,” by having all the preceding sounds flow into the closed mouth “m” then reopens with a following “Om,” and all flows into Īśvara and re-emerges upon the next manifestation or individually the next dream or waking experience). Moreover because all this is apīti (the “dissolution,” the silence of the closed mouth “m” into which the sounds “dissolve,” as well as Īśvara into which the entire universe “dissolves”). The meditator who knows in this way properly measures (minoti) the value and reality of all this, and will go into dissolution.
♬
⏹
The fourth (caturtha, “so called” quarter) has no letter (a-mātra, and has no measure). It is not transactionable. It is the calm of the five-fold universe (and thus the calm of the mind). Therefore, it is auspicious. It is non-dual. Thus it is the very self (ātman) which is Om. The one who knows in this way “enters” (so to speak) ātman as ātman.
This very syllable “Om” is all this. Here is an exposition of that Om. All this past, present and future is only Oṃ-kara. Anything else that is beyond time is also only Oṃ-kara.✅
This very syllable “Om” is all this (ओम् इति एतद् अ-क्षरम् इदम् सर्वम्). Here is an exposition of that Om (तस्य उपव्याख्यानम्). All this past, present and future is only Oṃ-kara (भूतं भवत् भविष्यत् इति सर्वम् ओं-कारः एव). Anything else that is beyond time is also only Oṃ-kara (यद् च अन्यद् त्रि-काल-अतीतं तद् अपि ओं-कारः एव).
कथं पुनरोंकारनिर्णय आत्मतत्त्वप्रतिपत्त्युपायत्वं प्रतिपद्यत इति, उच्यते – “ओमित्येतत्” (KathU.1.2.15) “एतदालम्बनम्” (KathU.1.2.17) “एतद्वै सत्यकाम परं चापरं च ब्रह्म यदोङ्कारः। तस्माद्विद्वानेतेनैवायतनेनैकतरमन्वेति” (PrasU.5.2) “ओमित्यात्मानं युञ्जीत” (ना. ७९) “ओमिति ब्रह्म” (TaitU.1.8.1) “ओङ्कार एवेदं सर्वम्” (ChanU.2.23.3) इत्यादिश्रुतिभ्यः। How again does the ascertainment of the meaning on Om become an aid to the realization of the reality of the Self? The answer is: From such Veda texts as, ‘(That goal which all the Vedas with one voice propound, which all the austerities speak of, and wishing for which people practise Brahma-carya) – It is this, viz. Om’ (KathU.1.2.15), ‘This medium is the best’ (KathU.1.2.17), ‘O Satya-kāma, this (Om) is verily Brahman, (superior and inferior)’ (PrasU.5.2), ‘Meditate on the Self as Om’ (Mai. VI.3), ‘Om is Brahman’ (TaitU.1.8.1), ‘Om indeed is all these’ (ChanU.2.23.3),
रज्ज्वादिरिव सर्पादिविकल्पस्यास्पदमद्वय आत्मा परमार्थतः सन्प्राणादिविकल्पस्यास्पदं यथा, तथा सर्वोऽपि वाक्प्रपञ्चः प्राणाद्यात्मविकल्पविषय ओङ्कार एव। It follows that just as the non-dual Self, notwithstanding the fact that It is the supreme Reality, can still be the substratum of all such illusions as the vital force, like the rope etc. becoming the substrata of the illusory snake etc., similarly it is but Om that appears as all the ramifications of speech which have for their contents such illusory manifestations of the Self as the vital force etc.
स चात्मस्वरूपमेव, तदभिधायकत्वात्। And Om is essentially the same as the Self, since it denotes the latter.
ओङ्कारविकारशब्दाभिधेयश्च सर्वः प्राणादिरात्मविकल्पः अभिधानव्यतिरेकेण नास्ति; And all the illusory manifestations of the Self, such as the vital force etc., that are denoted by the modifications of Om, do not exist apart from their names,
“वाचारम्भणं विकारो नामधेयम्” (ChanU.6.1.4) “तदस्येदं वाचा तन्त्या नामभिर्दामभिः सर्वं सितम्, सर्वं हीदं नामनि” (ऐ. आ. २-१-६) इत्यादिश्रुतिभ्यः। In accordance with the Veda texts: ‘All transformation has speech as its basis, and it is name only’ (ChanU.6.1.4), ‘All this phenomenal creation of that Brahman is strung together by the thread of speech and by the strands of names’, ‘All these are but dependent on names’,
[•Names make empirical dealings possible for objects.•]
and so on.
अत आह – ओम् इति एतद् अक्षरम् इदं सर्वम् इति। Hence the Upaniṣad says, ‘Om iti etat a-kṣaram idam sarvam – the letter Om is all this.’
यदिदम् अर्थजातमभिधेयभूतम्, तस्य अभिधानाव्यतिरेकात्, अभिधानभेदस्य च ओङ्काराव्यतिरेकात् ओङ्कार एवेदं सर्वम्। परं च ब्रह्म अभिधानाभिधेयोपायपूर्वकमवगम्यत इत्योङ्कार एव। As all these objects that are indicated by names are non-different from the names, and as names are non-different from Om, so Om is verily all this. And as the supreme Brahman is known through the relationship subsisting between name and its object. It, too, is but Om.तस्य एतस्य परापरब्रह्मरूपस्याक्षरस्य ओमित्येतस्य उपव्याख्यानम्, ब्रह्मप्रतिपत्त्युपायत्वाद्ब्रह्मसमीपतया विस्पष्टं प्रकथनमुपव्याख्यानम्; प्रस्तुतं वेदितव्यमिति वाक्यशेषः। Tasya, of that, of this letter, viz. Om, that is the same as the supreme as well as the inferior Brahman; upavyākhyānam, a clear exposition, showing its proximity to Brahman by virtue of its being a means for the attainment of Brahman; the expression, ‘is to be understood as started with’, has to be supplied after ‘clear exposition’ to complete the sentence.भूतं भवत् भविष्यत् इति कालत्रयपरिच्छेद्यं यत्, तदपि ओङ्कार एव, उक्तन्यायतः। Bhūtam, the past; bhavat, the present; bhaviṣyat, the future; iti, these, that is to say, whatever is circumscribed by the three periods of time; (sarvam) oṅkāraḥ eva, (all this) is but Om, in accordance with the reasons already advanced.यच् च अन्यत् त्रि-कालातीतं कार्याधिगम्यं कालापरिच्छेद्यमव्याकृतादि, तद् अपि ओङ्कार एव॥ Ca yat tri-kāla-atītam, and whatever else there is that is beyond the three periods of time, that is inferable from its effects but is not circumscribed by time, e.g. the Unmanifested and the rest; tat api, that, too; is oṅkāraḥ eva, verily Om.
All this is indeed brahman (total reality). This self (ātman, yourself) is Brahman. This self (ātman) which is that brahman is endowed with four quarters (catuṣ-pād).✅
All this is indeed brahman (सर्वं हि एतद् ब्रह्म). This self (ātman, yourself) is Brahman (अयम् आत्मा ब्रह्म). This self (ātman) which is that brahman is endowed with four quarters (सः अयम् आत्मा चतुष्-पाद्).
अभिधानाभिधेययोरेकत्वेऽपि अभिधानप्राधान्येन निर्देशः कृतः “ओमित्येतदक्षरमिदं सर्वम्” इत्यादि। अभिधानप्राधान्येन निर्दिष्टस्य पुनरभिधेयप्राधान्येन निर्देशः अभिधानाभिधेययोरेकत्वप्रतिपत्त्यर्थः। Though a word (abhidhāna) and the thing signified (abhidheya) are the same, still the presentation in the text, ‘This letter that is Om is all this’ etc. was made by giving greater prominence to the word. The very same thing that was presented through an emphasis on the word is being indicated over again with a stress on the thing signified, so that the unity of the name and the nameable may be comprehended.
इतरथा हि अभिधानतन्त्राभिधेयप्रतिपत्तिरिति अभिधेयस्याभिधानत्वं गौणमित्याशङ्का स्यात्। For otherwise, the nameable having been grasped as dependent on the name, the doubt may crop up that the identity of the nameable with the name is to be taken is a secondary sense.
एकत्वप्रतिपत्तेश्च प्रयोजनमभिधानाभिधेययोः – एकेनैव प्रयत्नेन युगपत्प्रविलापयंस्तद्विलक्षणं ब्रह्म प्रतिपद्येतेति। तथा च वक्ष्यति – “पादा मात्रा मात्राश्च पादाः” (ManU.8) इति। तदाह – And the necessity of understanding their identity arises from the fact that (Once this identity is established), one can by a single effort eliminate both the name and the nameable to realize Brahman that is different from both. And this is what the Upaniṣad will say in, ‘The quarters are the letters of Om, and the letters are the quarters’ (ManU.8). Therefore it says: – सर्वं हि एतद् ब्रह्म इति। सर्वं यदुक्तमोंकारमात्रमिति, तदेतत् ब्रह्म। तच्च ब्रह्म परोक्षाभिहितं प्रत्यक्षतो विशेषेण निर्दिशति – अयम् आत्मा ब्रह्म इति। The Upaniṣad adverts to the topic in, ‘All this is surely Brahman’ etc. Sarvam etat, all this, all this that was spoken of as but Om; is brahma, Brahman. And that Brahman that was indirectly spoken of is being directly and specifically pointed out as, ‘Ayam ātmā brahma, this Self is Brahman.’
अयम् इति चतुष्पात्त्वेन प्रविभज्यमानं प्रत्यगात्मतयाभिनयेन निर्दिशति अयमात्मेति। In the text, ‘This Self is Brahman’, the very Self that will be presented as divided into four parts is being pointed out as one’s innermost Self by the word ‘ayam, this’, (accompanied) with a gesture of hand (abhinaya).सोऽयम् आत्मा ओङ्काराभिधेयः परापरत्वेन व्यवस्थितः चतुष्पात् कार्षापणवत्, न गौरिव। Saḥ ayam ātmā, that Self that is such, that is signified by Om and exists as the higher and lower Brahman; is catuṣ-pāt, possessed of four quarters, like a (kārṣa-āpaṇa) coin (of the weight of a Karṣa), but not like a cow.
[•The word pāda (the ‘-pāt’ of ‘catuṣ-pāt’) may mean either foot or quarter. The second meaning applies here. A kārṣa-āpaṇa is divisible into sixteen smaller units (māṣas). Four of these form a quarter. The smaller units lose their individuality in the bigger ones, as it were. So Viśva merges in Taijasa, Taijasa in Prājña, and Prājña in Turīya. The word ‘quarter’ is not used in any physical sense.•]
त्रयाणां विश्वादीनां पूर्वपूर्वप्रविलापनेन तुरीयस्य प्रतिपत्तिरिति करणसाधनः पादशब्दः; तुरीयस्य तु पद्यत इति कर्मसाधनः पादशब्दः॥ As the Fourth (Turīya) is realized by successively merging the earlier three, starting from Viśva, the word pāda (in the cases of Viśva, Taijasa and Prājña) is derived in the instrumental sense of that by which something is attained, whereas in the case of the Turīya the word pāda is derived in the objective sense of that which is achieved.
(Now starts the exposition of the four quarters of ātman) The first quarter (pāda) is called “vaiśvā-nara” (the one who dwells in the common world), its realm is the waking state (jāgarita, yet asleep to one’s real nature), it is consciousness identified with the external (bahis, in relation to the senses), it has seven limbs (Aṅgas, from the individual perspective, viśva, and from cosmic perspective, Virāṭ, consisting of the head, the eyes, mouth, prāṇa, body, bladder and feet, representing the heavens, sun, fire, air, space, water and earth, respectively, ChanU.5.18.2 Bhāṣyam, ManU.3 Bhāṣyam) And nineteen openings (Mukhas, 5+5+5+4 openings to the external, consisting of the five organs each of sensing and of action, the five prāṇas, plus the four forms of thinking, namely, mind, intellect, I-notion and memory, PrasU.4.8), And is the experiencer of sense objects (sthūla).✅
The first quarter (pāda) is called “vaiśvā-nara” (the one who dwells in the common world) (वैश्वा-नरः प्रथमः पादः). Its realm is the waking state (जागरित-स्थानः). It is consciousness identified with the external (बहिः-प्रज्ञः). It has seven limbs (सप्त-अङ्गः) and nineteen openings (एक-उन-विंशति-मुखः), and is the experiencer of gross (sense) objects (स्थूल-भुज्).
कथं चतुष्पात्त्वमित्याह – The Upaniṣad shows how the Self can be possessed of four quarters:जागरित-स्थान इति। जागरितं स्थानमस्येति जागरितस्थानः, बहिः-प्रज्ञः स्वात्मव्यतिरिक्ते विषये प्रज्ञा यस्य, सः बहिःप्रज्ञः; बहिर्विषयेव प्रज्ञा यस्याविद्याकृतावभासत इत्यर्थः। He (Vaiśvā-nara) who has the jāgarita, waking state, as His sthāna, sphere of activity, is jāgarita-sthānaḥ. He who has His prajñā, awareness, bahis, outside, directed to things other than Himself, is bahiḥ-prajñaḥ. The idea is that Consciousness appears as though related to outer objects, owing to ignorance.
तथा सप्ताङ्ग अन्यस्य; “तस्य ह वा एतस्यात्मनो वैश्वानरस्य मूर्धैव सुतेजाश्चक्षुर्विश्वरूपः प्राणः पृथग्वर्त्मात्मा सन्देहो बहुलो वस्तिरेव रयिः पृथिव्येव पादौ” (ChanU.5.18.2) इत्यग्निहोत्राहुतिकल्पनाशेषत्वेनाग्निर्मुखत्वेनाहवनीय उक्त इत्येवं सप्ताङ्गानि यस्य, सः सप्ताङ्गः। Similarly, He has sapta-aṅgaḥ seven limbs. For completing the imagery of Agni-hotra sacrifice contained in, ‘Heaven is verily the head of that Vaiśvā-nara-Self who is such; the sun is the eye, air is the vital force, space is the middle part, water, is the bladder, and the earth indeed in the two feet’ (ChanU.5.18.2), the Āhavanīya fire has been imagined as His mouth (ibid). He that is possessed of these seven limbs is sapta-aṅgaḥ.
तथा एकोन-विंशतिर्मुख अन्यस्य; बुद्धीन्द्रियाणि कर्मेन्द्रियाणि च दश, वायवश्च प्राणादयः पञ्च, मनो बुद्धिरहङ्कारश्चित्तमिति, मुखानीव मुखानि तानि; उपलब्धिद्वाराणीत्यर्थः। स एवंविशिष्टो वैश्वानरः यथोक्तैर्द्वारैः शब्दादीन्स्थूलान्विषयान्भुङ्क्त इति स्थूलभुक्। Similarly, He is eka-ūna-viṃśati-mukhaḥ, possessed of nineteen mouths – the (five) senses of perception and the (five) organs of action make up ten, the vital forces – Prāṇa and the rest – make up five, and (there are) mind (the thinking faculty), intellect, ego, and mind-stuff. These are mouths, since they are comparable to mouths; that is to say, they are the gates of experiences. Since through these aforesaid entrances Vaiśvā-nara, thus constituted, enjoys gross objects – viz. sound and the rest – therefore He is sthūla-bhuk, an enjoyer of the gross.
विश्वेषां नराणामनेकधा सुखादिनयनाद्विश्वानरः, यद्वा विश्वश्चासौ नरश्चेति विश्वानरः, विश्वानर एव वैश्वा-नरः, सर्वपिण्डात्मानन्यत्वात्; He is called vaiśvā-naraḥ because He leads in diverse ways all (viśva) beings (nara) (to their enjoyment). Or Vaiśvā-nara is the same as Viśvā-nara; He is called Vaiśvā-nara (all beings) since He encompasses all beings by virtue of His being non-different (in reality) from the Self (i.e. Virāṭ) comprising all the gross bodies.
स प्रथमः पादः। एतत्पूर्वकत्वादुत्तरपादाधिगमस्य प्राथम्यमस्य। He is the prathamaḥ pādaḥ, the first quarter.
[•The first step to the knowledge of Brahman.•]
He gets this precedence, because the knowledge of the succeeding quarters is contingent on His knowledge.
कथम् “अयम् आत्मा ब्रह्म” इति प्रत्यगात्मनोऽस्य चतुष्पात्त्वे प्रकृते द्युलोकादीनां मूर्धाद्यङ्गत्वमिति? Objection: The topic under discussion being the possession of four quarters by the indwelling Self referred to in the text, ‘This Self is Brahman’ etc., how is it that heaven and the rest are presented as the head etc.?
नैष दोषः, सर्वस्य प्रपञ्चस्य साधिदैविकस्य अनेनात्मना चतुष्पात्त्वस्य विवक्षितत्वात्। Answer: That is nothing incongruous, inasmuch as the intention is to show that the entire phenomenal universe and the world of gods, in the form of this (gross cosmic) Self, contribute to the constitution of the four parts.
[•The gross cosmic world, as constituting Virāṭ, is the first quarter. The subtle cosmic world, as constituting Hiraṇya-garbha, is the second quarter. The cosmic world in its causal, state (of ignorance) as constituting the Unmanifested, is the third quarter. That, again, when it is freed from all states of cause and effect and exists merely as the substratum of all, as Existence-Knowledge-Bliss, is the fourth quarter.•]
एवं च सति सर्वप्रपञ्चोपशमे अद्वैतसिद्धिः। सर्वभूतस्थश्च आत्मा एको दृष्टः स्यात्; सर्वभूतानि चात्मनि। If the presentation is made in this way, non-duality stands established on the removal of the entire phenomenal world, and the Self existing in all beings is realized as one, and all beings are seen as existing in the Self.
“यस्तु सर्वाणि भूतानि” (IsU.6) इत्यादिश्रुत्यर्थश्चैवमुपसंहृतः स्यात्; अन्यथा हि स्वदेहपरिच्छिन्न एव प्रत्यगात्मा साङ्ख्यादिभिरिव दृष्टः स्यात्; तथा च सति अद्वैतमिति श्रुतिकृतो विशेषो न स्यात्, साङ्ख्यादिदर्शनेनाविशेषात्। And thus alone will stand affirmed the meaning of the Veda text: ‘He who sees all beings in the Self Itself, and the Self in all beings…’ (IsU.6). Otherwise, the indwelling Self, as circumscribed by one’s own body, will alone be perceived, as It is by the Sāṅkhyas and others; and in that case the specific statement made by the Upaniṣads that It is non-dual (ManU.7; ChanU.6.2.1) will remain unestablished for there will be no difference from the (dualist) philosophies of the Sāṅkhyas and others.
इष्यते च सर्वोपनिषदां सर्वात्मैक्यप्रतिपादकत्वम्; ततो युक्तमेवास्य आध्यात्मिकस्य पिण्डात्मनो द्युलोकाद्यङ्गत्वेन विराडात्मनाधिदैविकेनैकत्वमित्यभिप्रेत्य सप्ताङ्गत्ववचनम्। But as a matter of fact, it is desirable to find all the Upaniṣads propounding the unity of all the selves. Therefore it is but reasonable that, having in view the identity of this embodied Self (as Viśva) in the individual physical context with the Self as Virāṭ (i.e. Vaiśvā-nara) in the divine context, the former should be mentioned as possessed of seven limbs comprising such physical constituents as heaven etc.
“मूर्धा ते व्यपतिष्यत्” (ChanU.5.12.2) इत्यादिलिङ्गदर्शनाच्च। And this is confirmed by the logical grounds (for inferring unity) that is implied in, ‘Your head would have dropped off if you had not come to me’ (ChanU.5.12.2).
[•Six Brāhmaṇas, who approached Aśva-pati, used to worship particular limbs of Vaiśvā-nara as Vaiśvā-nara Himself. Aśva-pati pointed out their mistakes and said that unless they had come to him for rectification, their head, eye, life, etc. would have been destroyed. But if the individual and Virāṭ are not the same, it is unreasonable to say, for instance, that from the mistaken worship of heaven (that is only the head of Virāṭ) as Virāṭ Himself, one’s own head should drop off. The statement becomes reasonable only if the individual and Virāṭ are the same, so that the head of the one can be the head of the other.•]
विराजैकत्वमुपलक्षणार्थं हिरण्यगर्भाव्याकृतात्मनोः। उक्तं चैतन्मधुब्राह्मणे – “यश्चायमस्यां पृथिव्यां तेजोमयोऽमृतमयः पुरुषो यश्चायमध्यात्मम्” (BrhU.2.5.1) इत्यादि। This identity (of Viśva) with Virāṭ is suggestive of the unity (of Taijasa and Prājña) with Hiraṇya-garbha and the Unmanifested (respectively) as well. And this has been stated in the Madhu-brāhmaṇa (of the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad): ‘(The same with) the shinning immortal being who is in this earth, and the (shining immortal) corporeal being (in the body). (These four are but this Self)’ etc. (BrhUEng.2.5.1).
सुषुप्ताव्याकृतयोस्त्वेकत्वं सिद्धमेव, निर्विशेषत्वात्। As for the unity of the Self in sleep (Prājña) and the Unmanifested, it is a patent fact because of the absence of distinctions.
[•The individual sleeps by withdrawing all distinctions into himself, and in dissolution the Unmanifested, too, withdraws everything into itself. The ‘Unmanifested’ means here the ‘inner Director’ (ManU.6) conditioned by Māyā, ruling from inside all.•]
एवं च सत्येतत्सिद्धं भविष्यति – सर्वद्वैतोपशमे चाद्वैतमिति॥ Such being the case, it will become proved that non-duality follows on the dissipation of all duality.
The second quarter (pāda) is called “taijasa” (the one who dwells in the light of the mind), its realm is the dream state (svapna, asleep [supta] to the waking world), it is consciousness identified with the internal (antar, in relation to the waking senses), it has seven (dream projected) limbs (Aṅgas, from the individual perspective, tejas in PrasU.5.8 or taijasa here, and from the cosmic perspective, Hiraṇya-garbha, consisting of the dreamer’s head, etc., ManU.3 mula) And nineteen (dream projected) openings (Mukhas, 5+5+5+4 openings to the dream, consisting of the five organs each of sensing and of action of the dreamer’s body, etc., ManU.3 mula), and is the experiencer of the other objects (Other than the sthūla, i.e., the subtle objects, sūkṣma, which in the dream are only the vāsanas, the memories and what one makes out of those).✅
The second quarter is called “taijasa” (the one who dwells in the light of the mind) (तैजसः द्वितीयः पादः). Its realm is the dream state (स्वप्न-स्थानः). It is consciousness identified with the internal (अन्तः-प्रज्ञः). It has seven (dream projected) limbs (सप्त-अङ्गः) and nineteen (dream projected) openings (एक-उन-विंशति-मुखः), and is the experiencer of the other (subtle) objects (प्रतिविक्त-भुज्).
स्वप्नः स्थानमस्य तैजसस्येति स्वप्न-स्थानः। जाग्रत्प्रज्ञा अनेकसाधना बहिर्विषयेवावभासमाना मनःस्पन्दनमात्रा सती तथाभूतं संस्कारं मनस्याधत्ते; तन्मनः तथा संस्कृतं चित्रित इव पटो बाह्यसाधनानपेक्षमविद्याकामकर्मभिः प्रेर्यमाणं जाग्रद्वदवभासते। Taijasa that has the dream state as his sphere of activity is svapna-sthānaḥ. The consciousness (prajñā) of the waking state, though it is only a state of mental vibration, is associated with many means, and it appears to be engrossed in external objects, and thus it leaves in the mind the corresponding impressions. Under the impulsion of ignorance, desire, and (past) action, that mind, thus possessed of the impressions like a piece of painted canvas, makes its appearance (in the dream state) just as in the waking state, but without any external means.
तथा चोक्तम् – “अस्य लोकस्य सर्वावतो मात्रामपादाय” (BrhU.4.3.9) इत्यादि। In line with this is the statement, ‘(When he dreams), he takes away a little of (the impressions of) this all-embracing world (the waking state)’ (BrhUEng.4.3.9).
तथा “परे देवे मनस्येकीभवति” (PrasU.4.2) इति प्रस्तुत्य “अत्रैष देवः स्वप्ने महिमानमनुभवति” (PrasU.4.5) इत्याथर्वणे। Similarly, in the Upaniṣad of the Atharva-Veda, after introducing (the subject) with ‘(All the senses) become one in the highest deity, the mind’ (PrasU.4.2), it is said, ‘In this dream state, this deity, (the mind) experiences greatness’ (PrasU.4.5).
इन्द्रियापेक्षया अन्तःस्थत्वान्मनसः तद्वासनारूपा च स्वप्ने प्रज्ञा यस्येति अन्तः-प्रज्ञः, The mind is antaḥ, internal in relation to the senses. And he whose prajñā, awareness in dream, takes the forms of the impressions in that (antaḥ, internal) mind, is antaḥ-prajñaḥ, aware of internal objects.
विषयशून्यायां प्रज्ञायां केवलप्रकाशस्वरूपायां विषयित्वेन भवतीति तैजसः। विश्वस्य सविषयत्वेन प्रज्ञायाः स्थूलाया भोज्यत्वम्; इह पुनः केवला वासनामात्रा प्रज्ञा भोज्येति प्रविविक्तो भोग इति। समानमन्यत्। He is called Taijasa (luminous), since he becomes the witness of the (modes of) cognition that is bereft of objects and appears only as a luminous thing. As Viśva is dependent on objects, he experiences the (modes of) gross cognition, whereas the awareness that is experienced here consists of mere impressions; and hence the enjoyment is subtle. The rest is common (with the earlier paragraph).द्वितीयः पादः तैजसः॥ Taijasa is the dvitīyaḥ pādaḥ, second quarter.
The third quarter is called “prājña” (Prakarṣeṇa jānāti, the potential to know without any object to know, SG.6.12 Irregular prefixing; it is unhelpful to take this as pra-a-jñā “ignorant” as this may work for the individual, but fails to denote the matching cosmic form, Īśvara, the Lord, ManU.6). Where, being asleep (supta, to waking or dream), one desires no desirable object, and sees no dream object, that is suṣupti (deep sleep). Its realm is the deep sleep state (suṣupta, suṣupti). It is merged into one (ekī-bhūta, though others may see that the sleeper’s brain and body are relatively active*). It is an impenetrable mass of consciousness alone (Prajñāna-ghana, not śūnya, a void, per Buddhist teaching or a contemporary materialist after-death nothingness belief), A saturated state of bliss (due simply to a lack of any reason to be sad, thank God). Hence it is the experiencer of this bliss state (Ānanda-bhuk, a subtle experience, saṃskāra, that we only recollect upon waking, as in, “That sleep felt good”). And it is ceto-mukha (The opening into the other two states of experience, the experienced or assumed forgetting of identification with the previous waker or dreamer perspective to allow entry as a dreamer into the dream or as a waker into the waking experience, respectively; in other words, we often dream several different times at night, so the sequence may be, awake - deep sleep - dream - deep sleep - dream - deep sleep - awake). (* The mind is subtle so it is not the same as the physical brain. Nor is the mind considered in this teaching to be just an effect of the brain, but they are clearly linked. The mind will cause the brain to change and sometimes the brain may cause the mind to react. Science can speculate about a subtle world which is not available to the senses, though, based on instrumentation readings of the brain. But the data can only be seen by the senses, and the researcher’s mind will then speculate thereupon. Your mind only is what you yourself can directly experience. For the most part, researchers are only reporting what is going on in their mind about whatever they are experiencing, however knowledgeable. The discussion in this Upaniṣad is for a different purpose and is only for you yourself to verify or not. It is not at all trying to propose a theory of the mind or brain.)✅
The third quarter is called “prājña” (prakarṣeṇa jānāti, the potential to know without any object to know) (प्राज्ञः तृतीयः पादः) – where, being asleep (to waking or dream) (यत्र सुप्तः), one desires no desirable object (न कञ्चन कामं कामयते), and sees no dream object (न कञ्चन स्वप्नं पश्यति), that is deep sleep (तद् सुषुतम्). Its realm is the deep sleep state (सुषुप्त-स्थानः). It is merged into one (एकी-भूतः). It is an impenetrable mass of consciousness alone (प्रज्ञान-घनः एव), a saturated state of bliss, hence it is the experiencer of this bliss state (आनन्दमयः हि आनन्द-भुज्). And it is ceto-mukha (the opening into the other two states of experience) (चेतो-मुखः).
दर्शनादर्शनवृत्त्योः स्वापस्य तुल्यत्वात्सुषुप्तग्रहणार्थं यत्र सुप्त इत्यादिविशेषणम्। Since sleep, consisting in the unawareness of Reality, is a common feature of the two states (of waking and dream) where there are the presence and absence (respectively, of perceptible gross objects), therefore the adverbial clause, ‘Where the sleeper’ etc.,
[•That is to say, the portion ‘does not desire any enjoyable thing’ etc. occurring in the clause, ‘Where the sleeper’ etc.; for the portion ‘does not’ etc. distinguishes deep sleep from the other two states which have the common feature of unawareness.•]
is used in order to keep in view the state of deep sleep.
अथवा, त्रिष्वपि स्थानेषु तत्त्वाप्रतिबोधलक्षणः स्वापोऽविशिष्ट इति पूर्वाभ्यां सुषुप्तं विभजते – Or since sleep, consisting in the unawareness of Reality, is equal present in all the three states, deep sleep is being distinguished (by that clause) from the earlier two states.
[•Since by the use of the portion, ‘does not see any dream’, that is to say, ‘does not have any false perception of Reality’, the other two states of dream and waking can be eliminated, the addition of the portion, ‘does not desire any enjoyable thing’, may seem to be redundant if we follow the first interpretation. To obviate this difficulty the second explanation is introduced. Non-perception of Reality being a common factor of the three states, deep sleep can be distinguished by the absence of desire.•]
यत्र यस्मिन्स्थाने काले वा सुप्तो न कञ्चन कामं कामयते न कञ्चन स्वप्नं पश्यति। न हि सुषुप्ते पूर्वयोरिवान्यथाग्रहणलक्षणं स्वप्नदर्शनं कामो वा कश्चन विद्यते। Yatra, is which place, or at which time; suptaḥ, the sleeping man; na paśyati, does not see; kañcana svapnam, any dream; na kāmayate, does not desire. kañcana kāmam, any enjoyable thing – for in deep sleep there does not exist, as in the two earlier states, either dream, consisting in the perception of things otherwise than what they are, or any desire.
[•Thus either of the adverbial portions – viz. absence of false perception, and freedom from desire – can be used for excluding the earlier two states•]
तद् एतत् सुषुप्तं स्थानमस्येति सुषुप्त-स्थानः। – This is tat suṣuptam, that state of deep sleep. He who has got this state of deep sleep as his sphere is suṣupta-sthānaḥ.
स्थानद्वयप्रविभक्तं मनःस्पन्दितं द्वैतजातं तथा रूपापरित्यागेनाविवेकापन्नं नैशतमोग्रस्तमिवाहः सप्रपञ्चम् एकी-भूतम् इत्युच्यते। He is said to be ekī-bhūtaḥ, undifferentiated, since the whole host of duality, that are diversified as the two states (of waking and dream) and are but modifications of the mind, become non-discernible (in that state) without losing their aforesaid characteristics, just as the day together with the phenomenal world becomes non-discernible under the cover of nocturnal darkness.
अत एव स्वप्नजाग्रन्मनःस्पन्दनानि प्रज्ञानानि घनीभूतानीव; As such, conscious experiences (prajñās), that are but vibrations (spanditam, movement) of the mind in the waking and dream states, become solidified, as it were.
सेयमवस्था अविवेकरूपत्वात्प्रज्ञानघन उच्यते। यथा रात्रौ नैशेन तमसा अविभज्यमानं सर्वं घनमिव, तद्वत् प्रज्ञानघन एव। एवशब्दान्न जात्यन्तरं प्रज्ञानव्यतिरेकेणास्तीत्यर्थः। This state is called prajñāna-ghanaḥ, a mass of consciousness, since it is characterized by the absence of discrimination. It is a mass of mere consciousness like everything appearing as a mass by becoming indistinguishable under nocturnal darkness. From the use of the word eva, merely, it follows that there is nothing of a separate class other than consciousness.
मनसो विषयविषय्याकारस्पन्दनायासदुःखाभावात् आनन्दमयः आनन्दप्रायः; नानन्द एव, अनात्यन्तिकत्वात्। यथा लोके निरायासः स्थितः सुख्यानन्दभुग् उच्यते। अत्यन्तानायासरूपा हि इयं स्थितिरनेनात्मनानुभूयत इति आनन्दभुक्, “एषोऽस्य परम आनन्दः” (BrhU.4.3.32) इति श्रुतेः। And he is ānandamayaḥ, full of joy, his abundance of joy being caused by the absence of the misery involved in the effort of the mind vibrating as the objects and their experiencer; but he is not Bliss itself, since the joy is not absolute. Just as in common parlance, one remaining free from effort is said to be happy or ānanda-bhuk, an experiencer of joy, so this one, too, is called ānanda-bhuk, for by him is enjoyed this state that consists in extreme freedom from effort, in accordance with the Veda text, ‘this is its supreme bliss’ (BrhUEng.4.3.32).
स्वप्नादिप्रतिबोधं चेतः प्रति द्वारीभूतत्वात् चेतो-मुखः; बोधलक्षणं वा चेतो द्वारं मुखमस्य स्वप्नाद्यागमनं प्रतीति चेतोमुखः। He is ceto-mukhaḥ, since he is the doorway to the consciousness of the experiences in the dream and waking states. Or he is called ceto-mukhaḥ, because consciousness, appearing as empirical experience, is his doorway or entrance leading to the states of dream and waking.
भूतभविष्यज्ज्ञातृत्वं सर्वविषयज्ञातृत्वमस्यैवेति प्राज्ञः। सुषुप्तोऽपि हि भूतपूर्वगत्या प्राज्ञ उच्यते। अथवा, प्रज्ञप्तिमात्रमस्यैव असाधारणं रूपमिति प्राज्ञः; इतरयोर्विशिष्टमपि विज्ञानमस्तीति। He is called prājñaḥ, Prājña, conscious par excellence, since in him alone is there the knowledge of the past and the future and of all things. Even though lying in deep sleep he is called Prājña (conscious) because of his having been so earlier (in the two former states of dream and waking); or he is called conscious, since he alone is possessed of the peculiar characteristics of mere (undiversified) consciousness, whereas the other two have diversified knowledge as well.
सोऽयं प्राज्ञः तृतीयः पादः॥ This Prājña, as described, is tṛtīyaḥ pādaḥ, the third quarter.
(From the cosmic perspective relating to all three states) This third quarter of Om is the Lord (Īśvara) of all. This one is omniscient. This one is the inner ruler. This one is the source (yoni, material cause) of all, as well as (the efficient cause of) its manifestation (prabhāva) and its dissolution (apyaya) of all beings (like for a pot, clay is the material cause and the intelligent pot-maker is its efficient cause in the role of its manifestation and its destruction).✅
(From the cosmic perspective relating to all three states) This third quarter of Om is the Lord (Īśvara) of all (एषः सर्व-ईश्वरः). This one is omniscient (एषः सर्व-ज्ञः). This one is the inner ruler (एषः अन्तर्-यामी). This one is the source (material cause) of all (एषः योनिः), as well as (the efficient cause of) its manifestation and its dissolution of all beings (सर्वस्य प्रभव-अप्ययौ हि भूतानाम्).
एषः हि स्वरूपावस्थः सर्वेश्वरः साधिदैविकस्य भेदजातस्य सर्वस्य ईश्वरः ईशिता; नैतस्माज्जात्यन्तरभूतोऽन्येषामिव, “प्राणबन्धनं हि सोम्य मनः” (ChanU.6.8.2) इति श्रुतेः। Eṣaḥ, this one (this Prājña), when in his natural state; is surely sarva-īśvaraḥ, the Lord of all, of all diversity inclusive of the heavenly world; and contrary to what others believe in, He (the Lord of all) is not something intrinsically different from this one (that is Prājña), as is borne out by the Veda text, ‘O good-looking one, (the individual soul conditioned by) the mind is tethered to (that is to say, has for its goal) the Vital Force (which is Brahman)’ (ChanU.6.8.2).
अयमेव हि सर्वस्य सर्वभेदावस्थो ज्ञातेति एषः सर्वज्ञः। This one, again, in his (state of) immanence in all diversity, is the knower of all; hence eṣaḥ sarva-jñaḥ, this one is Omniscient.
अत एव एषः अन्तर-यामी, अन्तरनुप्रविश्य सर्वेषां भूतानां यमयिता नियन्ताप्येष एव। Eṣaḥ, this one, is; antar-yāmī, the inner Controller; this one, indeed, becomes also the Director of all beings by entering inside (antar).
अत एव यथोक्तं सभेदं जगत्प्रसूयत इति एषः योनिः सर्वस्य। For the same reason
[•Since Prājña is the Lord, Omniscient, and inner Director (in his identity with Brahman).•]
he gives birth to the universe together with its diversities, as described before; and hence eṣaḥ yoniḥ, this one is the Source; sarvasya, of all.
यत एवम्, प्रभवश्चाप्ययश्च प्रभवाप्ययौ हि भूतानाम् एष एव॥ And since this is so, therefore this very one, is hi, certainly; prabhava-apyayau, the place of origin and dissolution; bhūtānām, of all beings.
Here there are these verses (Gauḍapāda’s Kārikā): Viśva is all-pervading, the experiencer of external objects. Taijasa is the cognizer of internal objects. Prājña is a mass of consciousness. It is one alone that is thus known in the three states.✅
Here are these verses: (अत्र एते श्लोकाः भवन्ति – ) ● Viśva is all-pervading, the experiencer of external objects (बहिः-प्रज्ञः विभुः विश्वः). ○ Taijasa is the cognizer of internal objects (हि अन्तः-प्रज्ञः तु तैजसः). ● Prājña is a mass of consciousness (घन-प्रज्ञः तथा प्राज्ञः). ○ It is one alone (एकः एव) (that is thus known) in the three states (त्रिधा स्थितः).
अत्र एतस्मिन्यथोक्तेऽर्थे एते श्लोका भवन्ति – बहिः-प्रज्ञ-इति। पर्यायेण त्रिस्थानत्वात् सोऽहमिति स्मृत्या प्रतिसन्धानाच्च स्थानत्रयव्यतिरिक्तत्वमेकत्वं शुद्धत्वमसङ्गत्वं च सिद्धमित्यभिप्रायः, महामत्स्यादिदृष्टान्तश्रुतेः॥ Regarding this there are these Ślokas. In explanation of the foregoing (texts) there are these Ślokas. The implication of the passage is this: – That Ātman is (as witness) distinct from the three states (witnessed) and that he is pure and unrelated, is established by his moving in three states, in succession, and also on account of the knowledge, “I am that,” resulting from the experience which through memory. The Śruti also corroborates it by the illustration of the ‘great fish’, etc.
Viśva is the cognizer through the right eye; Taijasa is the cognizer through the mind within; Prājña is the ākāśa in the heart. Therefore the one Ātman is perceived threefold in the same body.✅
● Viśva is the cognizer through the right eye (दक्षिण-अक्षि-मुखे विश्वः). ○ Taijasa is the cognizer through the mind within (मनसि अन्तः तु तैजसः). ● Prājña is the ākāśa in the heart (आकाशे च हृदि प्राज्ञः). ○ (Therefore the one Ātman) is perceived threefold in the same body (त्रिधा देहे व्यवस्थितः).
जागरितावस्थायामेव विश्वादीनां त्रयाणामनुभवप्रदर्शनार्थोऽयं श्लोकः – दक्षिणाक्षि-इति। दक्षिणम् अक्षि एव मुखम्, तस्मिन् प्राधान्येन द्रष्टा स्थूलानां विश्वः अनुभूयते, “इन्धो ह वै नामैष योऽयं दक्षिणेऽक्षन्पुरुषः” (BrhU.4.2.2) इति श्रुतेः। इन्धो दीप्तिगुणो वैश्वानर आदीत्यान्तर्गतो वैराज आत्मा चक्षुषि च द्रष्टैकः। This verse is intended to show that the threefold experience of Viśva, etc. (Taijasa and Prājña) is realised in the waking state alone. Dakṣinākṣi: the means of perception (of gross objects) is the right eye. The presence of Viśva, the cognizer of gross objects, is chiefly felt there. The Śruti also says, “The person that is in the right eye is known as Indha – the Luminous One” (Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad). Indha, which means the effulgent one, who is the Vaiśvānara and also known as the Virāt Ātman (the totality of gross bodies), the perceiver in the sun, is the same as the perceiver in the eye.नन्वन्यो हिरण्यगर्भः, क्षेत्रज्ञो दक्षिणेऽक्षिण्यक्ष्णोर्नियन्ता द्रष्टा चान्यो देहस्वामी; (Objection) – The Hiraṇya-garbha is distinct from the knower of the body (Kṣetra) who is the cognizer, the controller of the right eye, who is also the general experiencer and who is the Lord of the body.न, स्वतो भेदानभ्युपगमात्; “एको देवः सर्वभूतेषु गूढः” (SvetU.6.11) इति श्रुतेः, “क्षेत्रज्ञं चापि मां विद्धि सर्वक्षेत्रेषु भारत” (BhG.13.2) “अविभक्तं च भूतेषु विभक्तमिव च स्थितम्” (BhG.13.16) इति स्मृतेश्च; (Reply) – No, for, in reality, such a distinction is not admitted. The Śrutí says, “One effulgent being alone is hidden in all beings.” The Smṛti also says: “Me do thou also know, O Arjuna, to be the Kṣetrajña (the knower of the body) in all Kṣetras (bodies)” (Gītā, 13.2). “indivisible, yet it exists as if divided in beings” (Gītā, 13.16).सर्वेषु करणेष्वविशेषेष्वपि दक्षिणाक्षिण्युपलब्धिपाटवदर्शनात्तत्र विशेषेण निर्देशोऽस्य विश्वस्य। दक्षिणाक्षिगतो दृष्ट्वा रूपं निमीलिताक्षस्तदेव स्मरन्मनस्यन्तः स्वप्न इव तदेव वासनारूपाभिव्यक्तं पश्यति। यथा तत्र तथा स्वप्ने; अतः मनसि अन्तः तु तैजसोऽपि विश्व एव। आकाशे च हृदि स्मरणाख्यव्यापारोपरमे प्राज्ञ एकीभूतो घनप्रज्ञ एव भवति, मनोव्यापाराभावात्। दर्शनस्मरणे एव हि मनःस्पन्दितम्; तदभावे हृद्येवाविशेषेण प्राणात्मनावस्थानम्, “प्राणो ह्येवैतान्सर्वान्संवृङ्क्ते” (ChanU.4.3.3) इति श्रुतेः। तैजसः हिरण्यगर्भः, मनःस्थत्वात्; “लिङ्गं मनः” (BrhU.4.4.6) “मनोमयोऽयं पुरुषः” (BrhU.5.6.1) इत्यादिश्रुतिभ्यः। Though the presence of Viśva is equally felt in all sense-organs without distinction yet the right eye is particularly singled out (as the chief instrument for its perception), because he (Viśva) makes a greater use of the right eye in perceiving objects. (The right eye is made here to represent all the sense-organs). The one, who has his abode in the right eye, having perceived (external) forms, closes the eye; and then recollecting them within the mind sees the very same (external objects) as in a dream, as the manifestation of the (subtle) impressions (of memory). As is the case here (waking), so also is the case with dream. Therefore, Taijasa, the perceiver in the mind within, is verily the same as Viśva. With the cessation of the activity known as memory, the perceiver (in the waking and dream states) is unified with Prājña in the Ākāśa of the heart and becomes verily a mass of consciousness, because there is, then, a cessation of mental activities. Both perception and memory are forms of thought, in the absence of which the seer remains indistinguishably in the form of Prāṇa in the heart alone. For, the Śruti also says, “Prāṇa alone withdraws all these within.” Taijasa is identical with Hiraṇya-garbha on account of its existence being realised in mind. Mind is the characteristic indication (of both). This is supported by such scriptural passages as “This Puruṣa (Hiraṇya-garbha) is all mind,” etc.ननु, व्याकृतः प्राणः सुषुप्ते; तदात्मकानि करणानि भवन्ति; कथमव्याकृतता? (Objection) – The Prāṇa (vital breath) of a deep sleeper is manifested. The sense-organs (at the time of deep sleep) are merged in it. How, then, can it (Prāṇa) be said to be unmanifested?नैष दोषः, अव्याकृतस्य देशकालविशेषाभावात्। यद्यपि प्राणाभिमाने सति व्याकृततैव प्राणस्य; तथापि पिण्डपरिच्छिन्नविशेषाभिमाननिरोधः प्राणे भवतीत्यव्याकृत एव प्राणः सुषुप्ते परिच्छिन्नाभिमानवताम्। यथा प्राणलये परिच्छिन्नाभिमानिनां प्राणोऽव्याकृतः, तथा प्राणाभिमानिनोऽप्यविशेषापत्तावव्याकृतता समाना, प्रसवबीजात्मकत्वं च। तदध्यक्षश्चैकोऽव्याकृतावस्थः। परिच्छिन्नाभिमानिनामध्यक्षाणां च तेनैकत्वमिति पूर्वोक्तं विशेषणमेकीभूतः प्रज्ञानघन इत्याद्युपपन्नम्। तस्मिन्नेतस्मिन्नुक्तहेतुसत्त्वाच्च। कथं प्राणशब्दत्वमव्याकृतस्य? “प्राणबन्धनं हि सोम्य मनः” (ChanU.6.8.2) इति श्रुतेः। (Reply) – This is no mistake, for the unmanifested (Avyākṛta) is characterised by the absence (of the knowledge) of time and space. Though Prāṇa, in the case of a person who identifies himself with (particular) Prāṇa, appears to be manifested (during the time of waking and dream), yet even in the case of those who (thus) identify themselves with individualized Prāṇa, the Prāṇa, during deep sleep, loses (such) particular identification, which is due to its limitation by the body, and is verily the same as the unmanifested. As in the case of those who identify themselves with individualized Prāṇas, the Prāṇa, at the time of death, ceases to be the manifested, so also in the case of those who think of themselves as identified with the individualized Prāṇas, the Prāṇa attains to the condition like the unmanifested, in the state of deep sleep. This Prāṇa (of deep sleep) further contains the seed (cause) of (future) creation (as is the case with the Avyākṛta). The cognizer of the two states – deep sleep and Avyākṛta – is also one (viz., the Pure Consciousness). It (one in deep sleep) is identical with the (apparently) different cognisers identifying themselves with the conditioned (in the states of waking and dream), and therefore such attributes as “unified,” “mass of all consciousness,” etc., as described above, are reasonably applicable to it (one in deep sleep). Other reason, already stated, supports it. How does, indeed, the word Prāṇa apply to the Avyākṛta (unmanifested)? It is supported by the Śruti passage, “Oh, good one, the mind is tied to the Prāṇa.”ननु, तत्र “सदेव सोम्य” (ChanU.6.2.1) इति प्रकृतं सद्ब्रह्म प्राणशब्दवाच्यम्; (Objection) – In that Śruti passage, the word Prāṇa indicates Sat (Existence,) i.e., the Brahman, (not the Avyākṛta) which is the subject-matter under discussion, as the text commences with the passage, “All this was Sat in the beginning.”नैष दोषः, बीजात्मकत्वाभ्युपगमात्सतः। यद्यपि सद्ब्रह्म प्राणशब्दवाच्यं तत्र, तथापि जीवप्रसवबीजात्मकत्वमपरित्यज्यैव प्राणशब्दत्वं सतः सच्छब्दवाच्यता च। यदि हि निर्बीजरूपं विवक्षितं ब्रह्माभविष्यत्, “नेति नेति” (BrhU.4.5.3) “यतो वाचो निवर्तन्ते” (TaitU.2.9.1) “अन्यदेव तद्विदितादथो अविदितादधि” (KenU.1.4) इत्यवक्ष्यत्; “न सत्तन्नासदुच्यते” (BhG.13.12) इति स्मृतेः। निर्बीजतयैव चेत्, सति प्रलीनानां सम्पन्नानां सुषुप्तिप्रलययोः पुनरुत्थानानुपपत्तिः स्यात्; मुक्तानां च पुनरुत्पत्तिप्रसङ्गः, बीजाभावाविशेषात्, (Reply) – This is no mistake, for (in that passage) the Sat is admitted to be that which contains within it the seed or cause (of creation). Though Sat, i.e., Brahman, is indicated in that passage by the word ‘Prāṇa’, yet the Brahman that is indicated by the words Sat and Prāṇa (in that connection) is not the one who is free from its attribute of being the seed or cause that creates all beings. For if in that Śruti passage, Brahman, devoid of the causal relation (i.e., the Absolute) were sought to be described, then the Śruti would have used such expressions as “Not this, Not this,” “Wherefrom speech turns back”, “That is something other than both the known and the unknown”, etc. The Smṛti also declares, “It is neither Sat (existence) nor Asat (non-existence)” (Gītā). If by the text were meant the (Absolute) devoid of causal relation then the coming back, to the relative plane of consciousness, of those who were in deep sleep and unified with Sat at the time of Pralaya (cosmic dissolution), could not happen. Further, (in that case) the liberated souls would again come back to the relative plane of consciousness; for the absence of seed or cause (capable of giving birth to the world of names and forms) would be the common feature of both.ज्ञानदाह्यबीजाभावे च ज्ञानानर्थक्यप्रसङ्गः; तस्मात्सबीजत्वाभ्युपगमेनैव सतः प्राणत्वव्यपदेशः, सर्वश्रुतिषु च कारणत्वव्यपदेशः। अत एव “अक्षरात्परतः परः” (MunU.2.1.2) “सबाह्याभ्यन्तरो ह्यजः” (MunU.2.1.2) “यतो वाचो निवर्तन्ते” (TaitU.2.9.1) “नेति नेति” (BrhU.2.3.6) इत्यादिना बीजत्वापनयनेन व्यपदेशः। तामबीजावस्थां तस्यैव प्राज्ञशब्दवाच्यस्य तुरीयत्वेन देहादिसम्बन्धजाग्रदादिरहितां पारमार्थिकीं पृथग्वक्ष्यति। बीजावस्थापि “न किञ्चिदवेदिषम्” इत्युत्थितस्य प्रत्ययदर्शनाद्देहेऽनुभूयत एवेति त्रिधा देहे व्यवस्थित इत्युच्यते॥ Further, in the absence of the seed (cause, i.e., at the time of Suṣupti and Pralaya) which can be destroyed by Knowledge (alone), Knowledge itself becomes futile. Therefore the word Sat (the text of the Chāndogya Upaniṣad, the passage under discussion) in that aspect in which causality is attributed to it, is indicated by Prāṇa and accordingly has been described in all the Śrutis as the cause. It is for this reason also that the Absolute Brahman, dissociated from its causal attribute, has been indicated in such Śruti passages as “It is beyond the unmanifested which is higher than the manifested”, “He is causeless and is the substratum of the external (effect) and the internal (cause),” “Wherefrom words come back…”, “Not this, not this”, etc. That which is designated as Prājña (when it is viewed as the cause of the phenomenal world) will be described as Turīya separately when it is not viewed as the cause, and when it is free from all phenomenal relationship (such as that of the body, etc.), i.e., in its absolutely Real aspect. The causal condition is also verily experienced in this body from such cognition of the man who is awakened from the deep sleep, as “I did not know anything (at the time of deep sleep).” Therefore it is said that (one) Ātman is perceived as threefold in the (one) body.
Always, Viśva experiences the gross; Taijasa, the subtle; and Prājña, the blissful. Know these to be the threefold experience. The gross object satisfies Viśva; the subtle, Taijasa; and the blissful, Prājña. Know these to be the threefold satisfaction.✅
● 1.3 Always (nityam), Viśva experiences the gross (विश्वः हि स्थूल-भुज् नित्यम्); ○ Taijasa, the subtle (तैजसः प्रविविक्त-भुज्); ● and Prājña, the blissful (आनन्द-भुज् तथा प्राज्ञः). ○ Know these to be the threefold experience (त्रिधा भोगं निबोधत). ● 1.4 The gross object (स्थूलम्) satisfies Viśva (तर्पयते विश्वम्); ○ the subtle, Taijasa (प्रविविक्तं तु तैजसम्); ● and the blissful, Prājña (आनन्दः च तथा प्राज्ञम्). ○ Know these to be the threefold satisfaction (त्रिधा तृप्तिं निबोधत).
उक्तार्थौ हि श्लोकौ॥ Verses 3 and 4 have already been explained.
The experiencer and the objects of experience associated with the three states have been described. He who knows these both does not become attached to objects though enjoying them.✅
● The objects of experience associated with the three states (त्रिषु धामसु यद् भोज्यम्) ○ and the experiencer (भोक्ता यः च) have been described (प्रकीर्तितः). ● He who knows these both (वेद एतद् उभयं यः तु) ○ does not become attached to objects though enjoying them (सः भुञ्जानः न लिप्यते).
त्रिषु धामसु जाग्रदादिषु स्थूलप्रविविक्तानन्दाख्यं यद् भोज्यम् एकं त्रिधाभूतम्; यः च विश्वतैजसप्राज्ञाख्यो भोक्ता एकः “सोऽहम्” इत्येकत्वेन प्रतिसन्धानात् द्रष्टृत्वाविशेषाच्च प्रकीर्तितः; यो वेद एतद् उभयं भोज्यभोक्तृतया अनेकधा भिन्नम्, सः भुञ्जानः न लिप्यते, भोज्यस्य सर्वस्यैकभोक्तृभोज्यत्वात्। न हि यस्य यो विषयः, स तेन हीयते वर्धते वा। न ह्यग्निः स्वविषयं दग्ध्वा काष्ठादि, तद्वत्॥ In the three states, namely, waking, etc., the one, and the same object of experience appears in threefold forms as the gross, the subtle and the blissful. Further, the experiencer (of the three states) known (differently) as Viśva, Taijasa and Prājña has been described as one on account of the unity of consciousness implied in such cognition as ‘I am that’ (common to all conditions), as well as from the absence of any distinction in respect of the perceiver. He who knows the two (experiencer and the objects of experience), appearing as many in the form of subject and objects of experience, though enjoying them, is not affected thereby; because all objects (of experience) are experienced by one subject alone. As (the heat of the) fire does not increase or decrease by consuming wood, etc., so also nothing is added to or taken away (from the knowingness or awareness of the Ātman) by its experience of that which, is its object.
Surely a coming into existence must be predicated of all positive entities that exist. Prāṇa manifests all objects. The Puruṣa manifests the conscious beings in their manifold forms. ✅
● A coming into existence (प्रभवः) of all positive entities (सर्व-भावानाम्) ○ that exist (सताम्) surely must be predicated (इति विनिश्चयः). ● Prāṇa manifests all objects (सर्वं जनयति प्राणः). ○ The Puruṣa (manifests) the conscious beings (चेतस्-अंशून् पुरुषः) in their manifold forms (पृथक्).
सतां विद्यमानानां स्वेन अविद्याकृतनामरूपमायास्वरूपेण सर्व-भावानां विश्वतैजसप्राज्ञभेदानां प्रभवः उत्पत्तिः। वक्ष्यति च – “वन्ध्यापुत्रो न तत्त्वेन मायया वापि जायते” (ManKa.3.28) इति। यदि ह्यसतामेव जन्म स्यात्, ब्रह्मणोऽव्यवहार्यस्य ग्रहणद्वाराभावादसत्त्वप्रसङ्गः। दृष्टं च रज्जुसर्पादीनामविद्याकृतमायाबीजोत्पन्नानां रज्ज्वाद्यात्मना सत्त्वम्। न हि निरास्पदा रज्जुसर्पमृगतृष्णिकादयः क्वचिदुपलभ्यन्ते केनचित्। यथा रज्ज्वां प्राक्सर्पोत्पत्तेः रज्ज्वात्मना सर्पः सन्नेवासीत्, एवं सर्वभावानामुत्पत्तेः प्राक्प्राणबीजात्मनैव सत्त्वमिति। श्रुतिरपि वक्ति “ब्रह्मैवेदम्” (MunU.2.2.11) “आत्मैवेदमग्र आसीत्” (BrhU.1.4.1) इति। The manifestation can be predicated of positive entities comprehended as the different forms of Viśva, Taijasa and Prājña – whose existence, of the nature of illusory names and forms caused by an innate Avidyā (ignorance), cannot be denied. This is thus explained later on: “Neither in reality nor in illusion can the son of a barren woman be said to be born.” For, if things could come out of non-entity, Brahman whose existence is inferred from experience will itself be rendered a non-entity because of the absence of means of comprehension. That the snake (in the rope) appearing as such on account of an illusory cause (Māya) which itself is the effect of ignorance (Avidyā), pre-exists in the form of the rope is a matter of common experience. For by no one is the illusion of the rope-snake or the mirage, etc., ever perceived without a substratum. As before the illusory appearance of the snake, its existence was certainly there in the rope, so also all positive entities before their manifestation certainly exist in the form of a cause, i.e., Prāṇa. The Śruti also declares this in such passages as: “All this (the phenomenal universe) was verily Brahman at the beginning” and “All this existed, at the beginning as Ātman.”अतः सर्वं जनयति प्राणः चेतोंशून् अंशव इव रवेश्चिदात्मकस्य पुरुषस्य चेतोरूपा जलार्कसमाः प्राज्ञतैजसविश्वभेदेन देवमनुष्यतिर्यगादिदेहभेदेषु विभाव्यमानाश्चेतोंशवो ये, तान् पुरुषः पृथक् सृजति विषयभावविलक्षणानग्निविस्फुलिङ्गवत्सलक्षणान् जलार्कवच्च जीवलक्षणांस्त्वितरान्सर्वभावान् प्राणो बीजात्मा जनयति, “यथोर्णनाभिः … यथाग्नेः क्षुद्रा विस्फुलिङ्गाः” (BrhU.2.1.20) इत्यादिश्रुतेः॥ Prāṇa manifests all. As the rays proceed from the sun, so also all different centres of consciousness (i.e., the Jīvas) which are like the (many) reflections of the same sun in the water and which are manifested differently as Viśva, Taijasa and Prājña, comprising various physical forms of gods, animals, etc., proceed from the Puruṣa. The Puruṣa manifests all these entities called as living beings, which are different from inanimate objects, but of the same nature as itself (Puruṣa), like fire and its sparks and like the sun with its reflections in water. Prāṇa, the causal self, manifests all other entities like the spider producing the web. There are such scriptural pass-ages in its support as, “The sparks from the fire, etc.”
Some of those who contemplate the process of creation regard it as the manifestation of God’s powers; others imagine creation to be like dreams and illusions.✅
● Whereas some – as the manifestation of God’s powers (विभूतिं प्रसवं तु अन्ये) ○ – regard it (मन्यन्ते), who contemplate the process of creation (सृष्टि-चिन्तकाः); ● like dreams and illusions (स्वप्न-माया-स-रूपा इति) ○ – others imagine creation to be (सृष्टिः अन्यैः विकल्पिता).
विभूतिः विस्तार ईश्वरस्य सृष्टिः इति सृष्टि-चिन्तका मन्यन्ते; न तु परमार्थचिन्तकानां सृष्टावादर इत्यर्थः, “इन्द्रो मायाभिः पुरुरूप ईयते” (BrhU.2.5.19) इति श्रुतेः। न हि मायाविनं सूत्रम् आकाशे निःक्षिप्य तेन सायुधम् आरुह्य चक्षुर्गोचरतामतीत्य युद्धेन खण्डशश्छिन्नं पतितं पुनरुत्थितं च पश्यतां तत्कृतमायादिसतत्त्वचिन्तायाम् आदरो भवति। Creation is the manifestation of the superhuman power of God; thus think those who reflect on (the process of) creation. But those who intently think of the Ultimate Reality find no interest in (the theory of) creation. It (that no interest should be attached to the act of creation) is also supported by such Śruti passages as, “Indra (the great god) assumed diverse forms through Māyā”. The juggler throws the thread up in the sky, climbs by it with his arms, disappears from the sight (of the spectators), engages himself in a fight (in the sky) in which his limbs, having been severed, fall to the ground and he rises up again. The on-looker, though witnessing the performance, does not evince any interest in the thought in regard to the reality of the jugglery performed by the juggler.तथैवायं मायाविनः सूत्रप्रसारणसमः सुषुप्तस्वप्नादिविकासः; तदारूढमायाविसमश्च तत्स्थप्राज्ञतैजसादिः; सूत्रतदारूढाभ्यामन्यः परमार्थमायावी। स एव भूमिष्ठो मायाच्छन्नः अदृश्यमान एव स्थितो यथा, तथा तुरीयाख्यं परमार्थतत्त्वम्। अतस्तच्चिन्तायामेवादरो मुमुक्षूणाम् आर्याणाम्, न निष्प्रयोजनायां सृष्टावादर इत्यतः सृष्टिचिन्तकानाम् एवैते विकल्पा इत्याह – स्वप्न-माया-स-रूपा इति। स्वप्नसरूपा मायासरूपा चेति॥ Similarly there is a real juggler who is other than the rope and the one that climbs up the rope. The manifestation of deep sleep, dream and waking is analogous to the throwing up of the rope by the juggler (in the above illustration) and the (empirical selves known as) Prājña, Viśva and Taijasa, related to the three states, are similar to the juggler, who appears to have climbed up the rope. As he, the juggler, remains on the ground unseen (by the on-lookers) having veiled himself, as it were, by his illusion, so also is the truth about the Highest Reality known as Turīya. Therefore those noble souls seeking Mokṣa evince interest in the contemplation of this (the Turīya) but not in the creation which is futile. The word, ‘Svapnamāyāsarūpa’ – meaning, alike dream and illusion – is intended to show that all these (false) notions (regarding manifestation) belong only to those who imagine the process of creation or manifestation.
Those who are convinced about the reality of manifested objects ascribe the manifestation solely to God’s will, while those who speculate about time regard time as the creator of things.✅
● A manifestation solely to God’s will (इच्छा-मात्रं प्रभोः सृष्टिः) ○ – ascribe those who are convinced about the reality of manifested objects (इति सृष्टौ विनिश्चिताः); ● time as the creator of things (कालात् प्रसूतिं भूतानाम्) ○ – regard those (मन्यन्ते) who speculate about time (काल-चिन्तकाः).
इच्छामात्रं प्रभोः सत्यसङ्कल्पत्वात् सृष्टिः घटादीनां सङ्कल्पनामात्रम्, न सङ्कल्पनातिरिक्तम्। कालाद् एव सृष्टिरिति केचित्॥ The manifestation (creation) proceeds from the mere will of God because His will in reality cannot but achieve its purpose. Such objects as pot, etc., are but the (manifestation of the) will (of the potter). They can never be anything external or unrelated to such will. Some say manifestation proceeds from time.
Some say that the manifestation is for the purpose of God’s enjoyment, while others attribute it to His diversion. But it is the very nature of the effulgent Being. What desire is possible for Him who is the fulfilment of all desires?✅
● Some say that the manifestation is for the purpose of God’s enjoyment (भोग-अर्थं सृष्टिः इति अन्ये), ○ while others attribute it to His diversion (क्रीडा-अर्थम् इति च अपरे). ● But it is the very nature of the effulgent Being (देवस्य एषः स्व-भावः अयम्). ○ What desire is possible for Him who is the fulfilment of all desires (आप्त-कामस्य का स्पृहा)?.
भोगार्थम्, क्रीडार्थम् इति च अन्ये सृष्टिं मन्यन्ते। अनयोः पक्षयोर्दूषणं देवस्य एष स्वभावोऽयम् इति देवस्य स्वभावपक्षम् आश्रित्य, सर्वेषां वा पक्षाणाम् – आप्तकामस्य का स्पृहा इति। न हि रज्ज्वादीनामविद्यास्वभावव्यतिरेकेण सर्पाद्याभासत्वे कारणं शक्यं वक्तुम्॥ इति। Others think that the purpose of manifestation is only the enjoyment (by God of the objects so created), that creation is merely a diversion of God. These two theories are refuted (by the author) by the single assertion that it is the very nature of the Effulgent (Brahman). Thus taking this standpoint (the nature of the Effulgent Being) all the theories (of creation) herein (stated) are refuted for the reason indicated by: “What could be the desire for manifestation on the part of Brahman whose desires are ever in a state of fulfilment?” For the rope, etc., to appear as snake, no other reason can be assigned than Avidyā.
They consider the fourth (caturtha, “quarter,” so to speak) to be consciousness not identified with the internal (na antar, dream), nor identified with the external (na bahis, waking), nor identified with the in-between (na ubhayatas, deep sleep). It is not an impenetrable mass of consciousness (na prajñāna-ghana), because it is na prajña (neither a consciousness of something or nothing), na a-prajña (nor a non-consciousness of anything). It is neither an object of the organs of sensing (a-dṛśya, not perceivable), nor transactionable (a-vyavahārya), nor an object of action (a-grāhya), nor an object of inference (a-lakṣaṇa), nor an object of the mind (a-cintya), nor an object of a name (a-vyapadeśya, describable in words, so it is not an object of “Om,” though “Om” may be considered a name for the cosmic, samaṣṭi, Lord, as the third quarter). Yet it is the continuing essence (sāra) of the one and only (eka) I-notion (ātma-pratyaya). It is the calm of the five-fold universe (prapañca-upaśama, the peaceful basis of the world of sense objects), and thus the calm (śānta, of the mind). Therefore, it is auspicious (śiva). It is non-dual (a-dvaita, hence it is not a quarter fraction of ātman), but is the very (whole) self (ātman) which is to be known (vijñeya).✅
They consider the fourth (caturtha, “quarter,” so to speak) (चतुर्थं मन्यन्ते) to be consciousness not identified with the internal (dream), nor identified with the external (waking) (न अन्तः-प्रज्ञं न बहिः-प्रज्ञम्), nor identified with the in-between (deep sleep) (न उभयतः-प्रज्ञम्). It is not an impenetrable mass of consciousness (न प्रज्ञान-घनम्), because it is neither a consciousness of something or nothing, nor a non-consciousness of anything (न प्रज्ञं न अ-प्रज्ञम्). It is neither an object of the organs of sensing (अ-दृश्यम्), nor transactionable (अ-व्यवहार्यम्), nor an object of action (अ-ग्राह्यम्), nor an object of inference (अ-लक्षणम्), nor an object of the mind (अ-चिन्त्यम्), nor an object of a name (describable in words) (अ-व्यपदेश्यम्). Yet it is the continuing essence of the one and only I-notion (एक-आत्म-प्रत्यय-सारम्). It is the calm of the five-fold universe (प्रपञ्च-उपशमम्), and thus the calm (of the mind) (शान्तम्). Therefore, it is auspicious (शिवम्). It is non-dual (अ-द्वैतम्), but is the very self (सः आत्मा) which is to be known (सः विज्ञेयः).
चतुर्थः पादः क्रमप्राप्तो वक्तव्य इत्याह – न अन्तः-प्रज्ञम् इत्यादिना। सर्वशब्दप्रवृत्तिनिमित्तशून्यत्वात्तस्य शब्दानभिधेयत्वमिति विशेषप्रतिषेधेनैव तुरीयं निर्दिदिक्षति। The fourth quarter which follows in order has to be stated; hence this is presented (by the Upaniṣad) in ‘na antaḥ-prajñam, not conscious of internal world’ etc. Since It (i.e. Turīya) is devoid of every characteristic that can make the use of words possible. It is not describable through words; and hence the (Upaniṣad) seeks to indicate Turīya merely through the negation of attributes.
शून्यमेव तर्हि; Objection: It that case is It a mere avoid?
तन्न, मिथ्याविकल्पस्य निर्निमित्तत्वानुपपत्तेः; न हि रजतसर्पपुरुषमृगतृष्णिकादिविकल्पाः शुक्तिकारज्जुस्थाणूषरादिव्यतिरेकेण अवस्त्वास्पदाः शक्याः कल्पयितुम्। Answer: No, for an unreal illusion cannot exist without a substratum (nir-nimittatva, without a proximate cause, or an existing basis); for the illusion of silver, snake, human being, mirage, etc. cannot be imagined to exist apart from the (corresponding) substrata of the mother of pearl, rope, stump of a tree, desert, etc.
[•Since an illusion is perceived as soaked in the idea of existence, it cannot have non-existence as its basis.•]
एवं तर्हि प्राणादिसर्वविकल्पास्पदत्वात्तुरीयस्य शब्दवाच्यत्वमिति न प्रतिषेधैः प्रत्याय्यत्वमुदकाधारादेरिव घटादेः; Objection: In that case, just as a pot etc. that hold water etc. are denoted by words, so also Turīya should be specified by (positive) words, and not by negations, for It is the substratum of all such illusion as Prāṇa etc.
न, प्राणादिविकल्पस्यावस्तुत्वाच्छुक्तिकादिष्विव रजतादेः; न हि सदसतोः सम्बन्धः शब्दप्रवृत्तिनिमित्तभाक्, अवस्तुत्वात्; नापि प्रमाणान्तरविषयत्वं स्वरूपेण गवादिवत्, आत्मनो निरुपाधिकत्वात्; गवादिवन्नापि जातिमत्त्वम्, अद्वितीयत्वेन सामान्यविशेषाभावात्; नापि क्रियावत्त्वं पाचकादिवत्, अविक्रियत्वात्; नापि गुणवत्त्वं नीलादिवत्, निर्गुणत्वात्; अतो नाभिधानेन निर्देशमर्हति। Answer: Not so, because the illusion of Prāṇa and the rest is unreal just as silver and the rest are on the mother of pearl etc. For a relation between the real and the unreal does not lend itself to verbal representation, since the relation itself is unsubstantial. Unlike a cow, for instance, the Self, in Its own reality, is not an object of any other means of knowledge; for the Self is free from all adventitious attributes. Nor like a cow etc. does It belong to any class (jāti); because, by virtue of Its being one without a second. It is free from generic and specific attributes. Nor is It possessed of activity (kriyā) like a cook for instance, since It is devoid of all action. Nor is It possessed of qualities (guṇas) like blueness etc. It being free from qualities. Therefore It baffles all verbal description.
शशविषाणादिसमत्वान्निरर्थकत्वं तर्हि; Objection: It will, in that case, serve no useful purpose, like the horn of a hare and such other things.
न, आत्मत्वावगमे तुरीयस्यानात्मतृष्णाव्यावृत्तिहेतुत्वात् शुक्तिकावगम इव रजततृष्णायाः; न हि तुरीयस्यात्मत्वावगमे सति अविद्यातृष्णादिदोषाणां सम्भवोऽस्ति; Answer: Not so; for when Turīya is realized as the Self, it leads to the cessation of craving for the non-Self, just as the hankering for silver cease on recognizing the nacre. Indeed, there can be no possibility of such defects as ignorance, desire, and the like, after the realization of Turīya as one’s Self.
न च तुरीयस्यात्मत्वानवगमे कारणमस्ति, सर्वोपनिषदां तादर्थ्येनोपक्षयात् – “तत्त्वमसि” (ChanU.6.8.7) “अयम् आत्मा ब्रह्म” (BrhU.2.5.19) “तत्सत्यं स आत्मा” (ChanU.6.8.7) “यत्साक्षादपरोक्षाद्ब्रह्म” (BrhU.3.4.1) “सबाह्याभ्यन्तरो ह्यजः” (MunU.2.1.2) “आत्मैवेदं सर्वम्” (ChanU.7.25.2) इत्यादीनाम्। Nor is there any reason why Turīya should not be realized as identical with one’s Self, inasmuch as all the Upaniṣad aim at this conclusion, as is evidence by the texts, ‘Thou art That’ (ChanU.6.8.7 – 16.3), ‘This Self is Brahman’ (BrhUEng.2.5.19), ‘That which is the Self is Truth’ (ChanU.6.8.7, etc.), ‘The Brahman that is immediate and direct’ (BrhUEng.3.4.1), ‘Since He is coextensive with all that is external and internal and since He is birthless…’ (MunU.2.1.2), ‘The Self indeed is all this’ (ChanU.7.25.2), and so on.
सोऽयम् आत्मा परमार्थापरमार्थरूपश्चतुष्पादित्युक्तः। तस्यापरमार्थरूपमविद्याकृतं रज्जुसर्पादिसममुक्तं पादत्रयलक्षणं बीजाङ्कुरस्थानीयम्। This very Self, that is the supreme Reality but has false appearances, has been spoken of as possessed of four quarters. Its unreal form has been dealt with, which is a creation of ignorance and which is analogous to a snake superimposed on a rope, and consists of the three quarters that are related (mutually) like the seed and its sprout.
[•By way of cause and effect.•]
अथेदानीमबीजात्मकं परमार्थस्वरूपं रज्जुस्थानीयं सर्पादिस्थानीयोक्तस्थानत्रयनिराकरणेनाह – नान्तःप्रज्ञमित्यादिना। Now, in the text beginning with, ‘na antaḥ-prajñam, not conscious of the internal world’, the Upaniṣad speaks of the non-causal, supremely real state, comparable to a rope etc., by way of eliminating the aforesaid three states, comparable to the snake etc. (superimposed on the rope etc.).
नन्वात्मनश्चतुष्पात्त्वं प्रतिज्ञाय पादत्रयकथनेनैव चतुर्थस्यान्तःप्रज्ञादिभ्योऽन्यत्वे सिद्धे “नान्तःप्रज्ञम्” इत्यादिप्रतिषेधोऽनर्थकः; Objection: The start was made with the premise that the Self is possessed of four quarters. Then, after the presentation of the three quarters, it has become evident that the fourth is different from those three that are conscious of the internal world, and so on; and hence the negation through ‘not conscious of the internal world’ etc. becomes futile.
न, सर्पादिविकल्पप्रतिषेधेनैव रज्जुस्वरूपप्रतिपत्तिवत्त्र्यवस्थस्यैवात्मनस्तुरीयत्वेन प्रतिपिपादयिषितत्वात्, “तत्त्वमसि” इतिवत्। Answer: Not so; for as the true nature of the rope is realized through the negation of the illusions of a snake etc., so the very Self, subsisting usually in the three states, is sought to be established as Turīya in the same way as is done in the case of the text, ‘That thou art’ (ChanU.6.8.7, etc.).
[•This positive statement is interpreted not literally, but figuratively to mean that ‘Thou’, which is the individual soul, is identical with ‘That’, which is God, when both are bereft of conditioning factors.•]
यदि हि त्र्यवस्थात्मविलक्षणं तुरीयमन्यत्, तत्प्रतिपत्तिद्वाराभावात् शास्त्रोपदेशानर्थक्यं शून्यतापत्तिर्वा। For if Turīya, whose characteristics are dissimilar to those of the Self in the three states, be really different (from the Self), then owing to the absence of any means for realizing Turīya the scriptural instruction would be useless or Turīya will be reduced to a non-entity.
रज्जुरिव सर्पादिभिर्विकल्प्यमाना स्थानत्रयेऽप्यात्मैक एव अन्तःप्रज्ञादित्वेन विकल्प्यते यदा, तदा अन्तःप्रज्ञादित्वप्रतिषेधविज्ञानप्रमाणसमकालमेव आत्मन्यनर्थप्रपञ्चनिवृत्तिलक्षणं फलं परिसमाप्तमिति तुरीयाधिगमे प्रमाणान्तरं साधनान्तरं वा न मृग्यम्; On the view, however, that like the rope, imagined variously as a snake etc., the Self, too, though one, is imagined in the three states to be possessed of such attributes as consciousness of the internal world etc., there follows in the Self the cessation of the phenomenal world of misery simultaneously with the valid knowledge arising from the negation of such attributes as being conscious of the internal world; and therefore there remains no need to search for any other means of knowledge or any other discipline (like constant thinking) for the realization of Turīya.
रज्जुसर्पविवेकसमकाल इव रज्ज्वां सर्पनिवृत्तिफले सति रज्ज्वधिगमस्य। This is similar to what happens in the case of the knowledge of the rope where the elimination of the snake from the rope occurs simultaneously with the discrimination between the rope and the snake.
[•Since along with the discriminating knowledge in the form, ‘This is a rope and not a snake‘, the cessation of the snake comes simultaneously, one need not search for a separate result to issue out of the direct perception of the rope, or for any other means of its knowledge, or any other aid to it.•]
येषां पुनस्तमोपनयनव्यतिरेकेण घटाधिगमे प्रमाणं व्याप्रियते, तेषां छेद्यावयवसम्बन्धवियोगव्यतिरेकेण अन्यतरावयवेऽपि च्छिदिर्व्याप्रियत इत्युक्तं स्यात्। On the contrary, by those who hold the view that in the act of knowing a pot, for instance, an instrument of knowledge engages is some other activity in addition to the removal of darkness (from the pot etc.), it may as well be held that in the matter of splitting wood, the act of splitting engages in doing something to one of the two parts in addition to removing the adhesion of the two members.
[•The objection was: ‘The result of applying an instrument of knowledge to any object is the revelation of the object and not the mere removal of any illusion created by darkness or "ignorance"’. The answer is: ‘An instrument of knowledge fulfils its purpose by removing the darkness of ignorance from its object. The revelation comes pari passu, as a matter of course. If the instrument of knowledge is supposed to server the additional purpose of adding a fresh feature, like revelation, to its object, then one may as well argue that the cutting of wood aims not only at removing the adhesion of the two parts, but also at adding something to either of the two parts.’•]
यदा पुनर्घटतमसोर्विवेककरणे प्रवृत्तं प्रमाणमनुपादित्सिततमोनिवृत्तिफलावसानं छिदिरिव च्छेद्यावयवसम्बन्धविवेककरणे प्रवृत्ता तदवयवद्वैधीभावफलावसाना, तदा नान्तरीयकं घटविज्ञानं न प्रमाणफलम्। On the other hand, if it is true that the means of knowledge, engaged in distinguishing a jar from the darkness (covering it), fulfils its goal by merely removing the unwanted darkness, just as the act of cutting, aimed at tearing apart the adhesion of the parts of the wood to be split, fully serves its purpose by separating the parts, then the knowledge of the jar emerges immediately; and it is not achieved by any instrument of knowledge.
न च तद्वदप्यात्मन्यध्यारोपितान्तःप्रज्ञत्वादिविवेककरणे प्रवृत्तस्य प्रतिषेधविज्ञानप्रमाणस्य अनुपादित्सितान्तःप्रज्ञत्वादिनिवृत्तिव्यतिरेकेण तुरीये व्यापारोपपत्तिः, अन्तःप्रज्ञत्वादि निवृत्तिसमकालमेव प्रमातृत्वादिभेदनिवृत्तेः। Just as it is here, so in the case of Turīya the instrument of knowledge – which is nothing but a valid knowledge arising from negation and intended to separate such ideas as being ‘conscious of the internal world’ that are superimposed on the Self – has no other action on Turīya, apart from eliminating the unwanted attributes like being ‘conscious of the internal world’;
[•Turīya is self-effulgent and does not require to be illumined by any instrument of knowledge.•]
for simultaneously with the cessation of such attributes as being ‘conscious of the internal world.’, there comes about the eradication of such distinctions as the knower, (the known, and the knowledge).
तथा च वक्ष्यति – “ज्ञाते द्वैतं न विद्यते” (ManKa.1.18) इति। ज्ञानस्य द्वैतनिवृत्तिक्षणव्यतिरेकेण क्षणान्तरानवस्थानात्, अवस्थाने वा अनवस्थाप्रसङ्गाद्द्वैतानिवृत्तिः; So also, it will be said, ‘Duality ceases to exist after realization’ (ManKa.1.18), for knowledge (as a mental state) does not continue for a second moment following that of the cessation of duality. Should it, however, continue, it will lead to infinite regress resulting in non-cessation of duality.
[•If the knowledge calculated to eliminate duality persists after serving its purpose, some other knowledge will be needed to eliminate it. That other knowledge will again require a third for a similar purpose, and so on. To avoid this contingency, the final knowledge must be assumed to be self-immolating.•]
तस्मात्प्रतिषेधविज्ञानप्रमाणव्यापारसमकालैव आत्मन्यध्यारोपितान्तःप्रज्ञत्वाद्यनर्थनिवृत्तिरिति सिद्धम्। Therefore the conclusion arrived at is that all evils, such as being ‘conscious of the internal world’, superimposed on the Self, cease simultaneously with the application (i.e. birth) of the instrument (of illumination) which is nothing but a valid knowledge arising from negation (of duality).
नान्तःप्रज्ञमिति तैजसप्रतिषेधः; By the phrase, ‘na antaḥ-prajñam, not conscious of the internal world’, is eliminated Taijasa.न बहिः-प्रज्ञम् इति विश्वप्रतिषेधः; By ‘na bahiḥ-prajñam, not conscious of the outside world’, is eliminated Viśva.न उभयतः-प्रज्ञम् इति जागरितस्वप्नयोरन्तरालावस्थाप्रतिषेधः; By ‘na ubhayataḥ-prajñam, not conscious of either’ is ruled out the intermediate state between dream and waking.न प्रज्ञानघनम् इति सुषुप्तावस्थाप्रतिषेधः, बीजभावाविवेकस्वरूपत्वात्; By ‘na prajñāna-ghanam, not a mass of consciousness’ is denied the state of deep sleep, for this consists in a state of latency where everything becomes indistinguishable.न प्रज्ञम् इति युगपत्सर्वविषयज्ञातृत्वप्रतिषेधः; By ‘na prajñam, nor conscious’ is denied being aware of all objects simultaneously (by a single act of consciousness).न अप्रज्ञम् इत्यचैतन्यप्रतिषेधः। By ‘na a-prajñam, nor unconscious’ is negated insentience.
कथं पुनरन्तःप्रज्ञत्वादीनाम् आत्मनि गम्यमानानां रज्ज्वादौ सर्पादिवत्प्रतिषेधादसत्त्वं गम्यत इति, Objection: Since attributes like being ‘conscious of the internal world’ are perceived as inhering in the Self, how, again, can they be understood to become non-existent, like the snake etc. in the rope etc., by a mere negation?
उच्यते; ज्ञस्वरूपाविशेषेऽपि इतरेतरव्यभिचारादसत्यत्वं रज्ज्वादाविव सर्पधारादिविकल्पभेदवत्; सर्वत्राव्यभिचाराज्ज्ञस्वरूपस्य सत्यत्वम्। The answer is: Since like the imaginary diversities – such as a snake, a line of water, etc. superimposed on the rope – the above states (appearing on the Self) mutually rule out each other, though they are in essence one with the witnessing Consciousness, and since the witnessing Consciousness in Its essence is unchanging in all the states, it follows that the witness (jña-svarūpa) is true.
सुषुप्ते व्यभिचरतीति चेत्; Objection: It changes (i.e. disappears) in deep sleep.
न, सुषुप्तस्यानुभूयमानत्वात्, “न हि विज्ञातुर्विज्ञातेर्विपरिलोपो विद्यते” (BrhU.4.3.30) इति श्रुतेः; अत एव अदृश्यम्। Answer: Not so, for one in deep sleep is cognized (as soaked in Consciousness);
[•One rising from deep sleep says, ‘I slept soundly, and I was not aware of anything’. This memory would not have been possible unless the state was witnessed with the help of Consciousness so as to produce the necessary impressions.•]
and this is borne out by the Veda text, ‘for the knower’s function of knowing can never be lost’ (BrhUEng.4.3.30). Hence, It is a-dṛśyam, unseen.
[•Not the object of any sense of knowledge.•]
यस्माददृश्यम्, तस्माद् अव्यवहार्यम्। अग्राह्यं कर्मेन्द्रियैः। अलक्षणम् अलिङ्गमित्येतत्, अननुमेयमित्यर्थः। अत एव अचिन्त्यम्। अत एव अव्यपदेश्यं शब्दैः। Since It is unseen (i.e. unperceived), therefore It is a-vyavahāryam, beyond empirical dealings; a-grāhyam, beyond the grasp, of the organs of action; a-lakṣaṇam, without any logical ground of inference, that is to say, uninferable. Therefore It is a-cintyam, _unthinkable. Hence It is a-vyapadeśyam, indescribable, by words.एकात्म-प्रत्यय-सारं जाग्रदादिस्थानेषु एक एवायम् आत्मा इत्यव्यभिचारी यः प्रत्ययः, तेनानुसरणीयम्; अथवा, एक आत्मप्रत्ययः सारः प्रमाणं यस्य तुरीयस्याधिगमे, तत्तुरीयमेकात्मप्रत्ययसारम्, “आत्मेत्येवोपासीत” (BrhU.1.4.7) इति श्रुतेः। अन्तःप्रज्ञत्वादिस्थानिधर्मप्रतिषेधः कृतः। It is eka-ātma-pratyaya-sāram, to be spotted by the unchanging belief that It is the same Self that subsists in the states of waking and so on. Or, the Turīya that has for Its sāra, valid proof, eka-ātma-pratyaya, the single belief in the Self, is the eka-ātma-pratyaya-sāra. And this is in accord with the Veda text: ‘The Self alone is to be meditated upon’ (BrhUEng.1.4.7). The attributes, such as being ‘conscious of the internal world’, belonging to the possessors of the states (viz. Viśva, Taijasa, and Prājña), Taijasa, and Prājña), have been negated.प्रपञ्चोपशमम् इति जाग्रदादिस्थानधर्माभाव उच्यते। अत एव शान्तम् अविक्रियम्, शिवं यतः अद्वैतं भेदविकल्परहितं चतुर्थं तुरीयं मन्यन्ते, प्रतीयमानपादत्रयरूपवैलक्षण्यात्। In ‘prapañca-upaśamam, the one in whom all phenomena have ceased’, etc. are being denied the attributes of the states of waking etc. Hence It is śāntam, unchanging;
[•free from love, hatred, etc.•]
Śivam, auspicious.
[•Absolutely pure; supreme Bliss and Consciousness in essence.•]
Since It is a-dvaitam, non-dual, free from illusory ideas of difference; therefore, manyante, (they) consider It to be; the Turīya, caturtham, the Fourth, being distinct from the three quarters that are mere appearances.स आत्मा स विज्ञेयः इति। ‘Saḥ ātmā, that is the Self; saḥ vijñeyaḥ, that is to be known’.
प्रतीयमानसर्पदण्डभूच्छिद्रादिव्यतिरिक्ता यथा रज्जुः, तथा “तत्त्वमसि” इत्यादिवाक्यार्थः आत्मा “अदृष्टो द्रष्टा” (BrhU.3.7.23) “न हि द्रष्टुदृष्टेर्विपरिलोपो विद्यते” (BrhU.4.3.23) इत्यादिभिरुक्तो यः, स विज्ञेय इति भूतपूर्वगत्या। ज्ञाते द्वैताभावः॥ – This is said to imply that just as the rope is known to be different from the snake, the crack on the ground, or the stick, superimposed on it, similarly, that Self is to be known (as different from the superimposed states) – the Self that is presented in the sentence ‘That thou art’ (ChanU.6.8.7, etc.), and that has been spoken of by such texts as ‘He is never seen, but is the witness’ (BrhUEng.3.7.23), ‘for the vision of the witness can never be lost’ (BrhUEng.4.3.23), etc. ‘That is to be known’ – this is spoken of from the standpoint of the previous state of ignorance,
[•The Self, defying all description, cannot be known objectively. But since in the state of ignorance one understands knowledge as having objective reference, the text follows that trend of thought here as well.•]
Here are these verses: Turīya, the changeless Ruler, is capable of destroying all miseries. All other entities being unreal, the non-dual Turīya alone is known as effulgent and all-pervading.✅
Here are these verses: (अत्र एते श्लोकाः भवन्ति – ) ● Of destroying all miseries (निवृत्तेः सर्व-दुःखानाम्) ○ the changeless Ruler is capable (prabhu) (ईशानः प्रभुः अ-व्ययः). ● All other entities (being unreal), the non-dual (अ-द्वैतः सर्व-भावानाम्) ○ Turīya alone is known as effulgent and all-pervading (देवः तुर्यः विभुः स्मृतः).
अत्र एते श्लोका भवन्ति। प्राज्ञतैजसविश्वलक्षणानां सर्व-दुःखानां निवृत्तेः ईशानः तुरीय आत्मा। ईशान इत्यस्य पदस्य व्याख्यानं प्रभुः इति; दुःखनिवृत्तिं प्रति प्रभुर्भवतीत्यर्थः, तद्विज्ञाननिमित्तत्वाद्दुःखनिवृत्तेः। अव्ययः न व्येति, स्वरूपान्न व्यभिचरति न च्यवत इत्येतत्। कुतः? यस्मात् अद्वैतः, सर्व-भावानाम् – सर्पादीनां रज्जुरद्वया सत्या च; एवं तुरीयः, “न हि द्रष्टुर्दृष्टेर्विपरिलोपो विद्यते” (BrhU.4.3.23) इति श्रुतेः – अतो रज्जुसर्पवन्मृषात्वात्। स एष देवः द्योतनात् तुर्यः चतुर्थः विभुः व्यापी स्मृतः॥ In (the Knowledge of) Īśāna, meaning the Turīya Ātman there is a cessation of all miseries characterised by the three states, viz., Prājña, Taijasa and Viśva. The word ‘Īśāna’ is explained as ‘Prahhu’, i.e., the one who brings about the cessation of miseries. It is because misery is destroyed by one’s own Knowledge of it (Turīya). ‘Avyaya’ means that which is not subject to any change, i.e., which does not deviate from its own nature. How? It is so because Turīya is non-dual, all other entities being illusory (unreal) like the idea of the snake, etc., imagined in the rope. It is he who is recognised as the Deva (on account of his effulgent nature), the Turīya, the fourth, the Vibhu, that is the all-pervading one.
Viśva and Taijasa are conditioned by cause and effect. Prājña is conditioned by cause alone. Neither cause nor effect exists in Turīya.✅
● Conditioned by cause and effect (कार्य-कारण-बद्धौ तौ) ○ are Viśva and Taijasa (इष्येते विश्व-तैजसौ). ● But Prājña is conditioned by cause alone (प्राज्ञः कारण-बद्धः तु) ○ Neither (cause nor effect) exists in Turīya (द्वौ तौ तुर्ये न सिध्यतः).
विश्वादीनां सामान्यविशेषभावो निरूप्यते तुर्ययाथात्म्यावधारणार्थम् – कार्यं क्रियत इति फलभावः, कारणं करोतीति बीजभावः। तत्त्वाग्रहणान्यथाग्रहणाभ्यां बीजफलभावाभ्यां तौ यथोक्तौ विश्व-तैजसौ बद्धौ संगृहीतौ इष्येते। प्राज्ञः तु बीजभावेनैव बद्धः। तत्त्वाप्रतिबोधमात्रमेव हि बीजं प्राज्ञत्वे निमित्तम्। ततः द्वौ तौ बीजफलभावौ तत्त्वाग्रहणान्यथाग्रहणे तुरीये न सिध्यतः न विद्येते, न सम्भवत इत्यर्थः॥ The generic and specific characters of Viśva, etc., are described with a view to determining the real nature of Turīya. ‘Kārya’ or effect is that which is done, i.e., which has the characteristic of result. ‘Kāraṇa’ or the cause is that which acts, i.e., it is the state in which the effect remains latent. Both Viśva and Taijasa, described above, are known as being conditioned by cause and effect, characterised by both non-apprehension and mis-apprehension of Reality. But Prājña is conditioned by cause alone. Cause, characterised by the non-apprehension of Reality, is the condition of Prājña. Therefore these two, cause and effect, i.e., non-apprehension and mis-apprehension of Reality, do not exist, i.e., are not possible in Turīya.
Prājña does not know anything of self or non-self, of truth or untruth. But Turīya is ever existent and all-seeing (of the Prājña and all else).✅
● Nothing of self (न आत्मानम्) or non-self (न परं च एव), ○ nor of truth (न सत्यम्) or untruth (न अपि च अन्-ऋतम्) ● does Prājña know (प्राज्ञः किञ्चन संवेत्ति). ○ But Turīya is ever existent (sadā) and all-seeing (तुर्यं तत्-सर्व-दृक् सदा).
कथं पुनः कारणबद्धत्वं प्राज्ञस्य तुरीये वा तत्त्वाग्रहणान्यथाग्रहणलक्षणौ बन्धौ न सिध्यत इति? यस्मात् – आत्मानम्, विलक्षणम्, अविद्याबीजप्रसूतं वेद्यं बाह्यं द्वैतम् – प्राज्ञो न किञ्चन संवेत्ति, यथा विश्वतैजसौ; ततश्चासौ तत्त्वाग्रहणेन तमसा अन्यथाग्रहणबीजभूतेन बद्धो भवति। यस्मात् तुर्यं तत्सर्व-दृक् सदा तुरीयादन्यस्याभावात् सर्वदा सदैव भवति, सर्वं च तद्दृक्चेति सर्वदृक्; तस्मान्न तत्त्वाग्रहणलक्षणं बीजम्। How is it that Prājña is conditioned by cause? And how is it, again, that the two conditions of non-apprehension and mis-apprehension of Reality do not exist in Turīya? It is because Prājña does not, like Viśva and Taijasa, perceive anything of the duality, external to and other than itself and born of the cause known as Avidyā. Therefore it is conditioned by darkness characterised by non-apprehension of Reality which is the cause of mis-apprehension. As Turīya exists always, ever all-seeing, on account of the absence of anything other than Turīya, it is never associated with the causal condition characterised by non-apprehension of Reality.तत्र तत्प्रसूतस्यान्यथाग्रहणस्याप्यत एवाभावः। न हि सवितरि सदा प्रकाशात्मके तद्विरुद्धमप्रकाशनमन्यथाप्रकाशनं वा सम्भवति, “न हि द्रष्टुर्दृष्टेर्विपरिलोपो विद्यते” (BrhU.4.3.23) इति श्रुतेः। अथवा, जाग्रत्स्वप्नयोः सर्वभूतावस्थः सर्ववस्तुदृगाभासस्तुरीय एवेति सर्वदृक्सदा, “नान्यदतोऽस्ति द्रष्टृ” (BrhU.3.8.11) इत्यादिश्रुतेः॥ Consequently mis-apprehension of Reality which is the result of non-apprehension is not found in Turīya. For, it is not possible to find in the sun, whose nature is to be ever-luminous, anything contrary to light, viz., darkness, or any other light different from itself. The Śruti also says: “The Knowledge of the seer is never absent.” Or the phrase may be explained thus: Turīya may be designated as ever all-seeing because it subsists in all, in dream and waking states and all the seers that cognize them (in those states) are Turīya alone. This is also borne out by the following Śruti passage, “There is no seer other than this.”
Non-cognition of duality is common to both Prājña and Turīya. But Prājña is associated with sleep in the form of cause and this sleep does not exist in Turīya.✅
● Non-cognition of duality (द्वैतस्य अ-ग्रहणम्) is common (तुल्यम्) ○ to both Prājña and Turīya (उभयोः प्राज्ञ-तुर्ययोः). ● But Prājña is associated with sleep in the form of cause (बीज-निद्रा-युतः प्राज्ञः), ○ and this (sleep) does not exist in Turīya (सा च तुर्ये न विद्यते).
निमित्तान्तरप्राप्ताशङ्कानिवृत्त्यर्थोऽयं श्लोकः – कथं द्वैत-अग्रहणस्य तुल्यत्वे कारणबद्धत्वं प्राज्ञस्य एव, न तुरीयस्य इति प्राप्ता आशङ्का निवर्त्यते; यस्मात् बीज-निद्रा-युतः, तत्त्वाप्रतिबोधो निद्रा; सा एव च विशेषप्रतिबोधप्रसवस्य बीजम्; सा बीजनिद्रा; तया युतः प्राज्ञः। सदासर्वदृक्स्वभावत्वात्तत्त्वाप्रतिबोधलक्षणा बीजनिद्रा तुर्ये न विद्यते; अतो न कारणबन्धस्तस्मिन्नित्यभिप्रायः॥ This śloka is meant to remove a doubt that has arisen incidentally. The doubt is this: How is it that it is Prājña alone and not Turīya that is bound by the condition of cause, since the non-cognition of duality is the common feature of both? This doubt is thus removed: The meaning of the phrase Bījanidrāyuta is: Nidrā or sleep is characterised by the absence of the Knowledge of Reality. This is the cause which gives rise to the cognition of varieties. Prājña is associated with this sleep which is the cause. It is because Turīya is ever all-seeing, therefore the sleep characterised by the absence of the Knowledge of Reality does not exist in Turīya. Therefore the bondage in the form of causal condition does not exist in Turīya.
The first two, Viśva and Taijasa, are associated with dreaming (wrong cognition) and sleep respectively; Prājña, with Sleep bereft of dreams. Knowers of Brahman see neither sleep nor dreams in Turīya.✅
● The first two (Viśva and Taijasa) are associated with dreaming and sleep respectively (स्वप्न-निद्रा-युतौ आद्यौ) ○ Prājña, with Sleep bereft of dreams (प्राज्ञः तु अ-स्वप्न-निद्रया). ● Neither sleeps (न निद्राम्) nor dreams (न एव च स्वप्नम्) ○ in Turīya (तुर्ये) do knowers of Brahman see (पश्यन्ति निश्चिताः).
स्वप्नः अन्यथाग्रहणं सर्प इव रज्ज्वाम्, निद्रा उक्ता तत्त्वाप्रतिबोधलक्षणं तम इति; ताभ्यां स्वप्न-निद्राभ्यां युतौ विश्वतैजसौ; अतस्तौ कार्यकारणबद्धावित्युक्तौ। प्राज्ञः तु स्वप्नवर्जितया केवलयैव निद्रया युत इति कारणबद्ध इत्युक्तम्। न उभयं पश्यन्ति तुरीये निश्चिताः ब्रह्मविद इत्यर्थः, विरुद्धत्वात्सवितरीव तमः। अतो न कार्यकारणबद्ध इत्युक्तस्तुरीयः॥ Svapna or dream is the mis-apprehension of Reality like that of the snake in the rope. Nidrā or sleep has already been defined as darkness characterised by the absence of the Knowledge of Reality. Viśva and Taijasa are associated with these, viz., the conditions of dream and sleep. Therefore they have been described as conditioned by the characteristics of cause and effect. But Prājña is associated with sleep alone without dream; therefore it is described as conditioned by cause only. The knower of Brahman does not see them (dream and sleep) in Turīya, as it would be inconsistent like seeing darkness in the Sun. Therefore Turīya has been described as not associated with the conditions of cause and effect.
Dreaming is the wrong cognition and sleep the non-cognition, of Reality. When the erroneous knowledge in these two is destroyed, Turīya (Reality) is realized (is rightly understood).✅
● Dreaming is the wrong cognition (अन्यथा गृह्णतः स्वप्नः), ○ and sleep the non-cognition, of Reality (निद्रा तत्त्वम् अ-जानतः). ● When the erroneous knowledge (विपर्यासे) in these two is destroyed (तयोः क्षीणे), ○ Turīya (तुरीयम्) is realized (पदम् अश्नुते).
कदा तुरीये निश्चितो भवतीत्युच्यते – स्वप्नजागरितयोः अन्यथा रज्ज्वां सर्पवत् गृह्णतः तत्त्वं स्वप्नो भवति; निद्रा तत्त्वम् अजानतः तिसृष्ववस्थासु तुल्या। स्वप्ननिद्रयोस्तुल्यत्वाद्विश्वतैजसयोरेकराशित्वम्। अन्यथाग्रहणप्राधान्याच्च गुणभूता निद्रेति तस्मिन्विपर्यासः स्वप्नः। तृतीये तु स्थाने तत्त्वाग्रहणलक्षणा निद्रैव केवला विपर्यासः। When is one established in Turīya? It is thus replied: During the states of dream and waking when one wrongly cognizes Reality like the perception of the snake in the place of the rope, he is said to be experiencing dream. Nidrā or sleep, characterised by the ignorance of Reality, is the common feature of the three states. Viśva and Taijasa, on account of their having the common features of Svapna (dream) and Nidrā (sleep), form a single class. That Nidrā (sleep) which is characterised by the predominance of wrong apprehension (of Reality) constitutes the state of inversion which is Svapna (dream). But in the third state, Nidrā (sleep), alone, characterised by the non-apprehension of Reality is the only inversion. (This forms the second or the other class implied in the text which speaks only of dream and sleep as covering the three states.)अतः तयोः कार्यकारणस्थानयोः अन्यथाग्रहणतत्त्वाग्रहणलक्षण-विपर्यासे कार्यकारणबन्धरूपे परमार्थतत्त्वप्रतिबोधतः क्षीणे तुरीयं पदम् अश्नुते; तदा उभयलक्षणं बन्धनं तत्रापश्यंस्तुरीये निश्चितो भवतीत्यर्थः॥ Therefore when these two classes of the nature of effect and cause, characterised by the mis-apprehension and non-apprehension respectively (of Reality), disappear by the destruction of the inversion characterised by effect and cause, by the knowledge of the nature of the Highest Reality, then one realises Turīya which is the goal. Then one does not find in Turīya this condition, the characteristics of which are these two (effect and cause), and one thus becomes firm in the Highest Reality which is Turīya.
When the jīva, asleep under the influence of beginningless māyā, is awakened, it then realizes birthless, sleepless and dreamless Non-duality.✅
● Asleep under the influence of beginningless māyā (अन्-आदि-मायया सुप्तः), ○ when (यदा) the jīva is awakened (जीवः प्रबुध्यते), ● birthless, sleepless and dreamless (अ-जम् अ-निद्रम् अ-स्वप्नम्) ○ non-duality (अ-द्वैतम्) is then realized (बुध्यते तदा).
योऽयं संसारी जीवः, सः उभयलक्षणेन तत्त्वाप्रतिबोधरूपेण बीजात्मना, अन्यथाग्रहणलक्षणेन च अनादि-कालप्रवृत्तेन माया-लक्षणेन स्वापेन, ममायं पिता पुत्रोऽयं नप्ता क्षेत्रं गृहं पशवः, अहमेषां स्वामी सुखी दुःखी क्षयितोऽहमनेन वर्धितश्चानेन इत्येवंप्रकारान्स्वप्नान् स्थानद्वयेऽपि पश्यन् सुप्तः, यदा वेदान्तार्थतत्त्वाभिज्ञेन परमकारुणिकेन गुरुणा “नास्येवं त्वं हेतुफलात्मकः, किंतु तत्त्वमसि” इति प्रतिबोध्यमानः, तदैवं प्रतिबुध्यते। One who is called the Jīva, the individual soul, (whose characteristic is to be) subject to the law of transmigration, sleeping under the influence of Māyā which is active from time without beginning and which has the double characteristics of non-apprehending (on account of its being of the nature of the cause) and mis-apprehending Reality, experiences such dreams as, “This is my father, this is my son, this is my grandson, this is my property and these are my animals, I am their master, I am happy, I am miserable, I have suffered loss on account of this, I have gained on this account”… When the Jīva remains asleep experiencing these dreams in the two states he is then thus, awakened by the gracious teacher who has himself realised the Reality, indicated by Vedānta: “Thou art not this, of the nature of cause and effect, but That thou art.” When the Jīva is thus awakened from sleep, he, then, realises his real nature.कथम्? नास्मिन्बाह्यम् आभ्यन्तरं वा जन्मादिभावविकारोऽस्ति, अतः अजम् “सबाह्याभ्यन्तरो ह्यजः” (MunU.2.1.2) इति श्रुतेः, सर्वभावविकारवर्जितमित्यर्थः। यस्माज्जन्मादिकारणभूतम्, नास्मिन्नविद्यातमोबीजं निद्रा विद्यत इति अनिद्रम्; अनिद्रं हि तत्तुरीयम्; अत एव अस्वप्नम्, तन्निमित्तत्वादन्यथाग्रहणस्य। यस्माच्च अनिद्रमस्वप्नम्, तस्मादजम् अद्वैतं तुरीयम् आत्मानं बुध्यते तदा॥ What is his nature? It (Self) is birthless, because it is beyond cause and effect and because it has none of the characteristics such as birth, etc., which are (inevitably) associated with all (relative) existence. It is birthless, i.e., it is devoid of all changes associated with the object of relative existence including the conditions of cause and effect. It is Anidram (sleepless) because there does not exist in it Nidrā (sleep), the cause, of the nature of the darkness of Avidyā, which produces the changes called birth, etc. Turīya is free from Svapna (dream) because it is free from Nidrā (sleep) which is the cause of mis-apprehension of Reality (dream). It is because the Self is free from sleep and dream therefore the Jīva, then realises himself as the Turīya Ātman, birthless and non-dual.
If the phenomenal universe were (separately) real, then certainly it could disappear. The universe of duality which is cognized is mere illusion (māyā, is unreal); Non-duality alone is (and always was) the Supreme Reality.✅
● If the phenomenal universe (प्रपञ्चः यदि) were real (विद्येत), ○ then certainly it could disappear (निवर्तेत न संशयः). ● The universe of duality which is cognized is mere illusion (māyā) (माया-मात्रम् इदं द्वैतम्); ○ Non-duality alone (अ-द्वैतं) is the Supreme Reality (परम-अर्थतः).
प्रपञ्चनिवृत्त्या चेत्प्रतिबुध्यते, अनिवृत्ते प्रपञ्चे कथमद्वैतमिति, उच्यते। सत्यमेवं स्यात् प्रपञ्चो यदि विद्येत; रज्ज्वां सर्प इव कल्पितत्वान्न तु स विद्यते। विद्यमानश्चेत् निवर्तेत, न संशयः। न हि रज्ज्वां भ्रान्तिबुद्ध्या कल्पितः सर्पो विद्यमानः सन्विवेकतो निवृत्तः; न च माया मायाविना प्रयुक्ता तद्दर्शिनां चक्षुर्बन्धापगमे विद्यमाना सती निवृत्ता; तथेदं प्रपञ्चाख्यं मायामात्रं द्वैतम्; रज्जुवन्मायाविवच्च अद्वैतं परमार्थतः; तस्मान्न कश्चित्प्रपञ्चः प्रवृत्तो निवृत्तो वास्तीत्यभिप्रायः॥ If the knowledge of non-duality (Turīya) be possible after the disappearance of the perceived manifold, how could non-duality be said to exist (always) while the perceptual manifold remains? This is explained thus: This would have been true if the manifold really existed. This manifold being only a false imagination, like the snake in the rope, does not really exist. There is no-doubt that it would (certainly) disappear if it really existed. The snake imagined in the rope, through false conception, does not really exist and therefore does not disappear through correct understanding. Nor, similarly, does the illusion of the vision conjured up by the magician exist and then disappear as though a veil thrown over the eyes of the spectators (by the magician) were removed. Similar is this duality of the cognized universe called the Phenomenal or manifold, (māyāmātraṃ dvaitaṃ) a mere illusion. Non-duality Turīya like the rope and the magician (in the illustrations) is alone the Supreme Reality. Therefore the fact is that there is no such thing as the manifold about which appearance or disappearance can be predicated. Comment.
If anyone imagines illusory ideas such as the teacher, the taught and the scriptures, then they will disappear. These ideas (vikalpaḥ vādaḥ) are only for the purpose of instruction (upadeśa). Duality ceases to exist when Reality is known.✅
● Illusory ideas (विकल्पः) would disappear (विनिवर्तेत) ○ if anyone imagines them (कल्पितः यदि केनचित्). ● (Such as) the teacher, the taught and the scriptures (vāda) are only for the purpose of instruction (उपदेशात् अयं वादः). ○ Duality ceases to exist when Reality is known (ज्ञाते द्वैतं न विद्यते).
ननु शास्ता शास्त्रं शिष्य इत्ययं विकल्पः कथं निवृत्त इति, (Objection) – How could (duality implied in) ideas such as the teacher, the taught and the scripture disappear?उच्यते – विकल्पो विनिवर्तेत यदि केनचित् कल्पितः स्यात्। यथा अयं प्रपञ्चो मायारज्जुसर्पवत्, तथा अयं शिष्यादिभेदविकल्पोऽपि प्राक्प्रतिबोधादेवोपदेशनिमित्तः; अत उपदेशाद् अयं वादः – शिष्यः शास्ता शास्त्रमिति। उपदेशकार्ये तु ज्ञाने निर्वृत्ते ज्ञाते परमार्थतत्त्वे, द्वैतं न विद्यते॥ (Reply) – This is thus explained. If such ideas had ever been imagined by someone then they might be supposed to disappear. As the manifold is like the illusion (conjured up by the magician or) of the snake in the rope, so also are the ideas of the teacher, etc. These ideas, namely, the ideas of teacher, taught, and scripture are for the purpose of teaching which are (therefore appear) true till one realises the Highest Truth. But duality does not exist when one, as a result of the teaching, attains knowledge, i.e., realises the Highest Reality. Comment.
This was the self (ātman) related to the syllable “Om” (adhyakṣara). Now Om-kāra with reference to each component sound (adhi-mātra). The quarters are the component sounds, and the component sounds are the quarters. These component sounds are indicated by the letters ‘a’ (a-kāra), ‘u’, and ‘m.’ (* It is phonetically incorrect to pronounce the Sanskrit vowel ‘o’ as “a-u,” i.e., it is not a non-Sanskrit phonetic “glide” of “a” morphing into “u.” So in pronouncing ‘Om’ there are only two phonetic sounds “o-m.” The ‘a-u-m’ is only broken into three sounds conceptually by those who know Sanskrit phonetics and grammar, and who wish here to connect it to the three states of experience. The pronunciation length of Om is two and one-half mātras, SG.1.19, though it could be lengthened, called pluta, further when one is, instead, singing or it is so marked with the Veda indicator of lengthening x-times, e.g., ओ ३ म्, ओ ४ म्, i.e., o(3)m, o(4)m, etc.)✅
This was the self related to the syllable “Om” (सः अयम् आत्मा अधि-अक्षरम्). Now Om-kāra with reference to each component sound (ओं-कारः अधि-मात्रम्). The quarters are the component sounds, and the component sounds are the quarters (पादाः मात्राः मात्राः च पादाः). These component sounds are indicated by the letters ‘a’, ‘u’, and ‘m’ (अ-कारः उ-कारः म-कारः इति).
अभिधेयप्राधान्येन ओङ्कारश्चतुष्पादात्मेति व्याख्यातो यः, सोऽयम् आत्मा अध्यक्षरम् अक्षरमधिकृत्य अभिधानप्राधान्येन वर्ण्यमानोऽध्यक्षरम्। किं पुनस्तदक्षरमित्याह – ओङ्कारः। सोऽयमोंकारः पादशः प्रविभज्यमानः, अधिमात्रं मात्रामधिकृत्य वर्तत इत्यधिमात्रम्। कथम्? आत्मनो ये पादाः, ते ओङ्कारस्य मात्राः। कास्ताः? अ-कार उ-कारो म-कार इति॥ Saḥ ayam ātmā, that very Self, which was equated with Om in, ‘This Self is possessed of four quarters’ (ManU.2), by giving predominance to the object denoted (by Om) – that very Self; adhyakṣaram, from the standpoint of the syllable (a-kṣaram), (is Om) when explained with emphasis on the syllable. Which again is that syllable? That is being stated: Oṅkāraḥ, it is the syllable Om. That syllable Om, while being divided into quarters, is adhimātram, exists on letters (mātras) as its basis. How? Those which constitute the pādāḥ, the quarters of the Self are the letters of Om. Which are they? They are the letters, a, u, and m-kāraḥ iti.
The letter ‘a’ is the first sound. It stands for (the first quarter) the waking world (jāgarita) and the waking person (vaiśvā-nara, the one who dwells in the common world). (Note: The letter ‘a’ starts the two words: ‘āpti’ and ‘ādimat’). Because ‘a’ (said to be phonetically the basic sound of all other sounds) is āpti (It “pervades” language, and vaiśvā-nara as Virāṭ “pervades” the entire physical world), Moreover because ādimat (It is “first,” the “first” sound in “Om,” and vaiśvā-nara as Virāṭ is the “first” form of the person at creation). The meditator who knows in this way obtains (āpnoti) all he or she desires, and becomes first (ādi) among others (cf. PrasU.5.3).✅
The letter ‘a’ is the first sound (अ-कारः प्रथमा मात्रा). It stands for (the first quarter) the waking world (जागरित-स्थानः) and the waking person (the one who dwells in the common world) (वैश्वा-नरः). Because (‘a’, phonetically the basic sound of all other sounds is) āpti (it “pervades” language and the entire physical world) (आप्तेः). Moreover because ādimat (it is “first,” the “first” sound in “Om,” and vaiśvā-nara as Virāṭ is the “first” form of the person at creation) (आदिमत्वात् वा). The meditator who knows in this way (यः एवं वेद) obtains all he or she desires (आप्नोति ह वै सर्वान् कामान्), and becomes first among others (आदिः च भवति).
तत्र विशेषनियमः क्रियते – जागरित-स्थानः वैश्वा-नरः यः, स ओङ्कारस्य अ-कारः प्रथमा मात्रा। With regard to these, specific relations are being established. He who is vaiśvā-naraḥ, Vaiśvā-nara (Virāṭ); jāgarita-sthānaḥ, with his sphere (of activity) as the waking state;
[•The Self in the gross individual context (viz. Viśva) is identical with the Self in the gross cosmic context (viz. Vaiśvā-nara or Virāṭ). Similarly, it is to be understood that Taijasa is identical with Hiraṇya-garbha, and Prājña with the Unmanifested, the difference lying only in the sphere of manifestation. This identity is suggested by the indiscriminate use of these terms in the present and following texts.•]
is a-kāraḥ, a; prathamā matrā, the first letter, of Om.
केन सामान्येनेत्याह – आप्तेः; आप्तिर्व्याप्तिः; अकारेण सर्वा वाग्व्याप्ता, “अकारो वै सर्वा वाक्” (ऐ. आ. २-३-१९) इति श्रुतेः। तथा वैश्वानरेण जगत्, “तस्य ह वा एतस्यात्मनो वैश्वानरस्य मूर्धैव सुतेजाः” (ChanU.5.18.2) इत्यादिश्रुतेः। अभिधानाभिधेययोरेकत्वं चावोचाम। Because of what similarity? That is being said: Āpteḥ, because of pervasiveness. Āpti means pervasiveness. By the sound a is pervaded all speech, according to the Veda text, ‘The sound a is indeed all speech’ (Ai. A. II.iii.7: 13). Similarly, by Vaiśvā-nara is pervaded the whole universe, according to the Veda text, ‘Of that very Vaiśvā-nara-Self who is such, heaven indeed is the head’ (ChanU.5.18.2). And we said that the word and the thing denoted by the word are the same.
आदिरस्य विद्यत इति आदिमत्; यथैव आदिमद् अकाराख्यम् अक्षरम्, तथा वैश्वानरः; तस्माद् वा सामान्यादकारत्वं वैश्वानरस्य। That which has ādi, precedence, is said to be ādimat, first. Just as the letter called a is the first, so also is Vaiśvā-nara. Because of this very similarity Vaiśvā-nara is identified with a.
तदेकत्वविदः फलम् आह – आप्नोति ह वै सर्वान् कामान्, आदिः प्रथमः च भवति महताम्, य एवं वेद, यथोक्तमेकत्वं वेदेत्यर्थः॥ The fruit attained by a knower of this identity is stated: Āpnoti ha vai sarvān kāmān, he surely attains all desirable things; ca bhavati ādiḥ, and he becomes the foremost, among the great; yaḥ evam veda, who knows thus, i.e. knows the identity as stated.
The letter ‘u’ is the second sound. It stands for (the second quarter) the dream world (svapna) and the dreamer (taijasa, the one who dwells in the light, of the mind). (Note: The letter ‘u’ starts the words: ‘utkarṣa’ and ‘ubhaya’). Because ‘u’ is utkarṣa (It “raises over” and swallows the initial ‘a’ into the diphthong ‘o,’ and Hiraṇya-garbha, the total subtle, “raises over” and swallows Virāṭ, the total physical world), Moreover because it is ubhaya (It is “in-between,” the “in-between” sound in “Om,” and Hiraṇya-garbha is “in-between” Virāṭ and Īśvara). The meditator who knows in this way raises up (utkarṣati) the continuity of knowledge, becomes moderate (samāna, getting along between others), as well as none in his lineage would not raise enough to be knowers of brahman (cf. PrasU.5.4).✅
The letter ‘u’ is the second sound (उ-कारः द्वितीया मात्रा). It stands for (the second quarter) the dream world (स्वप्न-स्थानः) and the dreamer (the one who dwells in the light of the mind) (तैजसः). Because (‘u’ is) utkarṣa (it “raises over” and swallows ‘a’ into ‘o’, and as Hiraṇya-garbha swallows Virāṭ) (उत्कर्षात्). Moreover because it is ubhaya (it is “in-between” the sound “Om,” and as Hiraṇya-garbha is between Virāṭ and Īśvara) (उभयत्वात् वा). The meditator who knows in this way (यः एवं वेद) raises up the continuity of knowledge (उत्कर्षति ह वै ज्ञान-सन्ततिम्), becomes moderate (getting along between others) (समानः च भवति), as well as none in his lineage would not raise enough to be knowers of brahman (न अस्य अ-ब्रह्म-विद् कुले भवति).
स्वप्न-स्थानः तैजसः यः, स ओङ्कारस्य उ-कारः द्वितीया मात्रा। He who is taijasaḥ; svapna-sthānaḥ, with the state of dream as his sphere; is the dvītyā matrā, second letter; u-kāraḥ, u, of Om.
केन सामान्येनेत्याह – उत्कर्षात्; अकारादुत्कृष्ट इव ह्युकारः; तथा तैजसो विश्वात्। उभयत्वाद् वा; अकारमकारयोर्मध्यस्थ उकारः; तथा विश्वप्राज्ञयोर्मध्ये तैजसः; अत उभयभाक्त्वसामान्यात्। Because of what similarity? That is being said: Utkarṣāt, because of excellence. The letter u is, as it were, better than the letter a; so also is Taijasa better than Viśva. Ubhayatvāt vā, or (this is so) because of intermediate position. The letter u occurs between the letters a and m; and so also is Taijasa intermediate between Viśva and Prājña. (Taijasa is u) because of this similarity of being related to both.
विद्वत्फलमुच्यते – उत्कर्षति ह वै ज्ञान-सन्ततिं विज्ञानसन्ततिं वर्धयतीत्यर्थः; समानः तुल्यः च, मित्रपक्षस्येव शत्रुपक्षाणामप्यप्रद्वेष्यो भवति; अब्रह्मविद् च अस्य कुले न भवति, य एवं वेद॥ The result attained by the knower is being stated: Utkarṣati ha vai jñāna-santatim, he heightens, that is to say, increases, the current of knowledge; ca bhavati samānaḥ, and he becomes equal – he does not become an object of envy to his enemies, as he is not to his friends.
Asya kule, in the line of this one; yaḥ evam veda, who knows thus; na bhavati a-brahma-vit, none is born who is not a knower of Brahman.
The letter ‘m’ is the third sound. It stands for (the third quarter) the deep sleep (suṣupta) and the deep sleeper (Prājña, the potential to know without any object to know). (Note: The letter ‘m’ starts the word ‘miti’). Because ‘m’ is miti (It “measures,” by having all the preceding sounds flow, like grain into a measuring cup, into the closed mouth “m” then comes back out when it reopens with a following “Om,” and all this flows into Īśvara and reemerges, like the measured grain, upon the next manifestation of the universe or individually of the next dream or waking experience), Moreover because all this is apīti (The “dissolution,” the silence of the closed mouth “m” into which the sounds “dissolve,” as well as Īśvara into which the entire universe “dissolves.”) The meditator who knows in this way properly measures (minoti) the value and reality of all this, and will go into dissolution (apīti, not to be reborn until the next manifestation cycle, cf. PrasU.5.5).✅
The letter ‘m’ is the third sound (म-कारः तृतीया मात्रा). It stands for (the third quarter) the deep sleep (सुषुप्त-स्थानः) and the deep sleeper (the potential to know without any object to know) (प्राज्ञः). Because ‘m’ is miti (it “measures,” by having all the preceding sounds flow into the closed mouth “m” then reopens with a following “Om,” and all flows into Īśvara and re-emerges upon the next manifestation or individually the next dream or waking experience) (मितेः). Moreover because all this is apīti (the “dissolution,” the silence of the closed mouth “m” into which the sounds “dissolve,” as well as Īśvara into which the entire universe “dissolves”) (अपीतेः वा). The meditator who knows in this way (यः एवं वेद) properly measures (minoti) the value and reality of all this (मिनोति ह वै इदं सर्वम्), and will go into dissolution (अपीतिः च भवति).
सुषुप्त-स्थानः प्राज्ञः यः, स ओङ्कारस्य म-कारः तृतीया मात्रा। He that is prājñaḥ, Prājña; suṣupta-sthānaḥ, with the state of sleep as his sphere; is ma-kāraḥ, the letter m; which is tṛtīyā mātrā, the third letter, of the syllable Om.
केन सामान्येनेत्याह – सामान्यमिदमत्र – मितेः; मितिर्मानम्; मीयेते इव हि विश्वतैजसौ प्राज्ञेन प्रलयोत्पत्त्योः प्रवेशनिर्गमाभ्यां प्रस्थेनेव यवाः; By that analogy? That is being said: This is the analogy here – miteḥ, because of measuring. Miti means to measure. As barely is measured by the vessel called Prastha, so are Viśva and Taijasa measured, as it were, because of their entry into and coming out of Prājña during dissolution and origination (like grains).
तथा ओङ्कारसमाप्तौ पुनः प्रयोगे च प्रविश्य निर्गच्छत इव अकारोकारौ मकारे। Similarly, too, at the end of the pronunciation of the syllable Om and at the time of its fresh pronunciation, the letters a and u seem to enter into the last letter m, to come out again from it.अपीतेरः वा; अपीतिरप्यय एकीभावः; ओङ्कारोच्चारणे हि अन्त्येऽक्षरे एकीभूताविव अकारोकारौ; तथा विश्वतैजसौ सुषुप्तकाले प्राज्ञे। अतो वा सामान्यादेकत्वं प्राज्ञमकारयोः। Va apīteḥ, or because of absorption. Apīti means getting merged or united in. At the time of the pronunciation of Om, a and u verily seem to get merged into the last letter m. Similarly, Viśva and Taijasa merge into Prājña at the time of sleep. Because of this analogy also there is the identity of Prājña and the letter m.
विद्वत्फलम् आह – मिनोति ह वै इदं सर्वम्, जगद्याथात्म्यं जानातीत्यर्थः; अपीतिः च जगत्कारणात्मा च भवति इत्यर्थः। The result attained by the man of knowledge is stated: Minoti ha vai idam sarvam, he measures all this, that is to say, he knows the reality of the Universe; ca bhavati apītiḥ, and he becomes the place of absorption, that is to say, the Self in Its state as the cause of the world.
अत्रावान्तरफलवचनं प्रधानसाधनस्तुत्यर्थम्॥ The mention of subsidiary result here is by way of praising the primary means.
Here are these verses: When it is desired to describe Viśva as of the same nature as the letter A, evident is their commonality of being the first (ādi), the identity with the letter A being admitted. And also is the commonality of being all-pervasive (āpti).✅
Here are these verses: (अत्र एते श्लोकाः भवन्ति – ) ● When it is desired to describe Viśva as of the same nature as the letter A (विश्वस्य अ-त्व-विवक्षायाम्), ○ evident their commonality of being the first (ādi) (आदि-सामान्यम् उत्कटम्). ● the identity with the letter A being admitted (मात्रा-सम्प्रतिपत्तौ स्यात्). ○ And also is the commonality of being all-pervasive (āpti) (आप्ति-सामान्यम् एव च).
अत्र एते श्लोका भवन्ति। विश्वस्य अत्वम् अकारमात्रत्वं यदा विवक्ष्यते, तदा आदित्व-सामान्यम् उक्तन्यायेन उत्कटम् उद्भूतं दृश्यत इत्यर्थः। अत्व-विवक्षायाम् इत्यस्य व्याख्यानम् – मात्रा-सम्प्रतिपत्तौ इति। विश्वस्य अकारमात्रत्वं यदा सम्प्रतिपद्यते इत्यर्थः। आप्ति-सामान्यम् एव च, उत्कटमित्यनुवर्तते, च – शब्दात्॥ When the Śruti intends to describe Viśva as of the same nature as A (अ), then the most prominent ground is seen to be the fact of each being the first, as described in the Upaniṣad discussed above. “Mātrā sampratipatti” in the text means the identity of Viśva and A. Another prominent reason for such identity is their all-pervasiveness.
When understanding Taijasa as of the same nature as the letter U, evident is seen it being superior (utkarṣa), the identity with the letter U being admitted. In the same way is it being in the middle (ubhayatva).✅
● When understanding Taijasa as of the same nature as the letter U (तैजसस्य उ-त्व-विज्ञानः), ○ evident is seen it being superior (utkarṣa) (उत्कर्षो दृश्यते स्फुटम्) ● the identity with the letter U being admitted (मात्रा-सम्प्रतिपत्तौ स्यात्). ○ In the same way is it being in the middle (ubhayatva) (उभयत्वं तथा-विधम्).
तैजसस्य उत्व-विज्ञाने उकारत्वविवक्षायाम् उत्कर्षो दृश्यते स्फुटं स्पष्टमित्यर्थः। उभयत्वं च स्फुटमेवेति। पूर्ववत्सर्वम्॥ When Taijasa is intended to be described as ‘U’, the reason of their being ‘Superior’ (in respective cases) is seen to be quite clear. Their being in ‘the middle’ is also another plain ground. All these explanations are as before.
When understanding Prājña as of the same nature as the letter M, evident is its commonality of being a measure (māna), the identity with the letter M being admitted. And also is the commonality of being a mergence (laya).✅
● When understanding Prājña as of the same nature as the letter M (म-कार-भावे प्राज्ञस्य), ○ evident is its commonality of being a measure (“māna”) (मान-सामान्यम् उत्कटम्), ● the identity with the letter M being admitted (मात्रा-सम्प्रतिपत्तौ तु). ○ And also is the commonality of being a mergence (“laya”) (लय-सामान्यम् एव च).
म-कारत्वे प्राज्ञस्य मितिलयावुत्कृष्टे सामान्ये इत्यर्थः॥ Regarding the identity of Prājña, and M the plain common features are that both of them are the ‘measure’ as well as that wherein all merge.
He who knows for certain the same common features among the three states and the three letters of Om, is worshipped and adored by all beings, and also is a great sage.✅
● The same among the three states and the three letters of Om (त्रिषु धामसु यः तुल्यम्) ○ – the one who knows for certain the common features (सामान्यं वेत्ति निश्चितः), ● he is worshipped by all beings (सः पूज्यः सर्व-भूतानाम्) ○ and is adored (वन्द्यः च एव), and also is a great sage (महा-मुनिः).
यथोक्तस्थानत्रये यः तुल्यम् उक्तं सामान्यं वेत्ति, एवमेवैतदिति निश्चितः सन् सः पूज्यः वन्द्यः च ब्रह्मवित् लोके भवति॥ One who knows positively, i.e., without a shadow of doubt, the common features that are found in the three states, is worshipped and adored in the world. He is a knower of Brahman.
(Meditation) on A leads one to Viśva, on U to Taijasa, and on M to Prājña. On the soundless (a-mātra of Om, being Turīya) there is no reaching.✅
● (Meditation on) A leads one to Viśva (अ-कारः नयते विश्वम्), ○ and on U to Taijasa (उ-कारः च अपि तैजसम्), ● and on M to Prājña (म-कारः च पुनः प्राज्ञम्). ○ On the soundless (a-mātra of Om) there is no reaching (gati) (न अ-मात्रे विद्यते गतिः).
यथोक्तैः सामान्यैः आत्मपादानां मात्राभिः सह एकत्वं कृत्वा यथोक्तोंकारं प्रतिपद्यते यो ध्यायी, तम् अ-कारः नयते विश्वं प्रापयति। अकारालम्बनमोंकारं विद्वान्वैश्वानरो भवतीत्यर्थः। तथा उ-कारः तैजसम्; म-कारः च अपि पुनः प्राज्ञम्, च – शब्दान्नयत इत्यनुवर्तते। क्षीणे तु मकारे बीजभावक्षयात् अमात्रे ओङ्कारे गतिः न विद्यते क्वचिदित्यर्थः॥ Having identified the quarters of Ātman with the sounds (letters) of Om, on account of the common features stated above, he who realises the nature of the sound Om, described above, and meditates upon it, attains to Viśva through the help of A. The meaning is that he who meditates on Om having for his support A becomes Vaiśvā-nara. Similarly the meditator of U becomes Taijasa. Again the sound M leads its meditator to Prājña. But when M too disappears, causality itself is negated. Therefore about such Om, which thus becomes soundless, no attainment can be predicated.
The fourth (caturtha, “so called” quarter) has no letter (a-mātra, and has no measure). It is a-vyavahārya (Not transactionable, this and the following words are a purposeful repetition of ManU.7 for showing their importance, as well as a conclusion of this Upaniṣad). It is prapañca-upaśama (the calm of the five-fold universe and thus the calm of the mind). Therefore, it is auspicious (śiva). It is non-dual (a-dvaita, hence it is not a quarter fraction of ātman), but is the very (whole) self (ātman) which is Om. The one who knows in this way “enters” (saṃviśati, so to speak) ātman as ātman (as one’s very nature, as a-mātra awareness itself).✅
The fourth (caturtha, “so called” quarter) has no letter (a-mātra, and has no measure) (अ-मात्रः चतुर्थः). It is not transactionable (अ-व्यवहार्यः). It is the calm of the five-fold universe (and thus the calm of the mind) (प्रपञ्च-उपशमः). Therefore, it is auspicious (शिवः). It is non-dual (अ-द्वैतः). Thus it is the very self (ātman) which is Om (एवम् ओं-कारः आत्मा एव). The one who knows in this way (यः एवं वेद) “enters” (so to speak) ātman as ātman (संविशति आत्मना आत्मानम्).
अमात्रः मात्रा यस्य न सन्ति, सः अमात्रः ओङ्कारः चतुर्थः तुरीयः आत्मैव केवलः अभिधानाभिधेयरूपयोर्वाङ्मनसयोः क्षीणत्वात् अव्यवहार्यः; प्रपञ्चोपशमः शिवः अद्वैतः संवृत्तः एवं यथोक्तविज्ञानवता प्रयुक्त ओङ्कारः त्रिमात्रस्त्रिपाद आत्मा एव; A-mātraḥ, that which has no mātrā, part – the (entire) partless Om; becomes but the caturthaḥ, Fourth, Turīya, merely the absolute Self; which is a-vyavahāryaḥ, beyond empirical relations, because of the disappearance of names (abhidhāna) and nameables (abhidheya), that are but forms of speech and mind; prapañca-upaśamaḥ, the culmination of phenomenal existence;
[•The ultimate limit of the negation of the world.•]
śivaḥ, the auspicious; and a-dvaitaḥ, non-dual. Evam, thus; oṅkāraḥ, Om, as possessed of the three letters and as applied by a man with the above knowledge, is ātmā eva, verily identical with the Self possessed of three quarters.संविशति आत्मना स्वेनैव स्वं पारमार्थिकम् आत्मानम्, य एवं वेद; परमार्थदर्शनात् ब्रह्मवित् तृतीयं बीजभावं दग्ध्वा आत्मानं प्रविष्ट इति न पुनर्जायते, तुरीयस्याबीजत्वात्। Yaḥ evam veda, he who knows thus; saṃviśati, enters; ātmānam, into (his own supreme) Self; ātmanā, through (his own) self. The knower of Brahman, who has realized the highest Truth, has entered into the Self by burning away the third state of latency (bīja-bhāvam); and hence he is not born again, since Turīya has no latency (of creation).
न हि रज्जुसर्पयोर्विवेके रज्ज्वां प्रविष्टः सर्पः बुद्धिसंस्कारात्पुनः पूर्ववत्तद्विवेकिनामुत्थास्यति। For when a snake superimposed on a rope has merged in the rope on the discrimination of the rope and the snake, it does not appear again to those discriminating people, just as before, from the impressions (of the past persisting) in the intellect.
मन्दमध्यमधियां तु प्रतिपन्नसाधकभावानां सन्मार्गगामिनां संन्यासिनां मात्राणां पादानां च क्लृप्तसामान्यविदां यथावदुपास्यमान ओङ्कारो ब्रह्मप्रतिपत्तये आलम्बनीभवति। तथा च वक्ष्यति – “आश्रमास्त्रिविधाः” (ManKa.3.16) इत्यादि॥ To those men of renunciation, however, who are possessed of dull or average intellect, who still consider themselves aspirants, who tread the virtuous path, and who know the common features of the letters and the quarters (of Om and the Self) as presented before, (to them) the syllable Om, when meditated on in the proper way, becomes helpful for the realization of Brahman. In support of this it will be said, ‘There are three stages of life – inferior,’ etc. (ManKa.3.16).
Gauḍapāda-Kārikā
Om should be known quarter by quarter. There is no doubt that the quarters are the same as the letters. Having understood Om quarter by quarter, one should not think of (not pursue) anything else.✅
Here are these verses: (अत्र एते श्लोकाः भवन्ति – ) ● Om should be known quarter by quarter (ओङ्कारं पादशः विद्यात्). ○ There is no doubt that the quarters are the same as the letters (पादाः मात्राः न संशयः). ● Having understood Om quarter by quarter (ओङ्कारं पादशः ज्ञात्वा), ○ one should not think of anything else (न किञ्चिद् अपि चिन्तयेत्).
पूर्ववद् अत्र एते श्लोका भवन्ति। यथोक्तैः सामान्यैः पादा एव मात्राः, मात्राश्च पादाः; तस्मात् ओङ्कारं पादशः विद्यात् इत्यर्थः। एवमोंकारे ज्ञाते दृष्टार्थमदृष्टार्थं वा न किञ्चिदपि प्रयोजनं चिन्तयेत्, कृतार्थत्वादित्यर्थः॥ Here are, as before, the following verses: – Omkāra should be known along with the quarters; for the quarters are identical with sounds (letters) because of their common features described before. Having thus understood Omkāra, no other object, seen or unseen, should be thought of; for, the knower of Omkāra has all his desires fulfilled.
The mind should be concentrated on Om. Om is the fearless Brahman. He who is always absorbed in Om knows no fear whatever.✅
● The mind should be concentrated on Om (युञ्जीत प्रणवे चेतः). ○ Om is the fearless Brahman (प्रणवः ब्रह्म निर्-भयम्). ● He who is always absorbed in Om (प्रणवे नित्य-युक्तस्य) ○ knows no fear whatever (न भयं विद्यते क्वचित्).
युञ्जीत समादध्यात् यथाव्याख्याते परमार्थरूपे प्रणवे चेतः मनः; यस्मात् प्रणवः ब्रह्म निर्भयम्; न हि तत्र सदा-युक्तस्य भयं विद्यते क्वचित्, “विद्वान्न बिभेति कुतश्चन” (TaitU.2.9.1) इति श्रुतेः॥ The word Yuñjīta means to unify, i.e., to absorb. The mind should be absorbed in Om, which is of the nature of the Supreme Reality, as explained before. The Om is Brahman, the ever-fearless. He who is always unified with Om knows no fear whatever; for the Śruti says, “The knower of Brahman is not afraid of anything”. Comment.
Om is verily the Lower Brahman. It is also stated to be the Higher Brahman. Om is beginningless and unique. There is nothing outside it. It is unrelated to any (Lower) effect and is immutable.✅
● Om is verily (प्रणवः हि) the Lower Brahman (अ-परं ब्रह्म). ○ It is also stated to be the Higher Brahman (प्रणवः च परं स्मृतः). ● Om is beginningless and unique (no other) (अ-पूर्वः अन्-अन्तरः ). There is nothing outside it (अ-बाह्यः). ○ It is unrelated to any (Lower) effect (अन्-अ-परः प्रणवः) and is immutable (अ-व्ययः).
परापरे ब्रह्मणी प्रणवः; परमार्थतः क्षीणेषु मात्रापादेषु पर एवात्मा ब्रह्म इति; न पूर्वं कारणमस्य विद्यत इति अपूर्वः; न अस्य अन्तरं भिन्नजातीयं किञ्चिद्विद्यत इति अनन्तरः, तथा बाह्यमन्यत् न विद्यत इति अबाह्यः; अपरं कार्यमस्य न विद्यत इति अनपरः, सबाह्याभ्यन्तरो ह्यजः सैन्धवघनवत्प्रज्ञानघन इत्यर्थः॥ Om is both the Lower Brahman and the Supreme Turīya. When from the highest standpoint, the sounds and quarters disappear (in the soundless Om) it is verily the same as the Supreme Brahman. It is without cause because no cause can be predicated of it. It is unique because nothing else, belonging to any other species-separate from it, exists. Similarly nothing else exists outside it. It is further not related to any effect (because it is not the cause of anything). It is without cause and exists everywhere, both inside and outside, like salt in the water of the ocean.
Om is, indeed, the beginning, middle and end of all things. He who has realized Om as such immediately attains the Supreme Reality.✅
● Of all things (सर्वस्य) Om is, indeed, the beginning (प्रणवः हि आदिः), ○ middle and end (मध्यम् अन्तः तथा एव च). ● He who has realized Om as such (एवं हि प्रणवं ज्ञात्वा) ○ immediately (without an interval) attains that (Supreme Reality) (व्यश्नुते तद् अन्-अन्तरम्).
आदि-मध्यान्ता उत्पत्तिस्थितिप्रलयाः सर्वस्य प्रणव एव। मायाहस्तिरज्जुसर्पमृगतृष्णिकास्वप्नादिवदुत्पद्यमानस्य वियदादिप्रपञ्चस्य यथा मायाव्यादयः, एवं हि प्रणवम् आत्मानं मायाव्यादिस्थानीयं ज्ञात्वा तत्क्षणादेव तद् आत्मभावं व्यश्नुते इत्यर्थः॥ Om is the beginning, middle and end of all; that is, everything originates from Om, is sustained by it and ultimately merges in it. As the magician, etc. (without undergoing any change in themselves) stand in relation to the illusory elephant, (the illusion of) snake-rope, the mirage and the dream, etc., so also is the sacred syllable Om to the manifested manifold such as Ākāśa (ether), etc. The meaning is that he who knows thus, the Om, Ātman, which, like the magician, etc., does not undergo any change, at once becomes unified with it.
Know Om to be Īśvara, ever present in the hearts of all. The wise one, contemplating Om as all-pervading, does not grieve.✅
● Know Om to be Īśvara (प्रणवं हि ईश्वरं विद्यात्), ○ ever present in the hearts of all (सर्वस्य हृदये स्थितम्). ● Om is the all-pervading (सर्व-व्यापिनम् ओं-कारम्) ○ by understanding this (मत्वा), the wise one does not grieve (धीरः न शोचति).
सर्वस्य प्राणिजातस्य स्मृतिप्रत्ययास्पदे हृदये स्थितम् ईश्वरं प्रणवं विद्यात् सर्वव्यापिनं व्योमवत् ओङ्कारम् आत्मानम् असंसारिणं धीरः धीमान्बुद्धिमान् आत्मतत्त्वं मत्वा ज्ञात्वा न शोचति, शोकनिमित्तानुपपत्तेः, “तरति शोकम् आत्मवित्” (ChanU.7.1.3) इत्यादिश्रुतिभ्यः॥ Know Om as the Īśvara present in the mind, which is the seat of memory and perception, of all things. The man of discrimination realising Omkāra as all-pervading like the sky, i.e., knowing it as the Ātman, not bound by the law of transmigration, does not grieve; for, there is no cause of misery for him. The Scriptures also abound in such passages as, “The knower of Ātman goes beyond grief.”
One who knows Om, which is soundless and also endowed with infinite sounds, which is all good and the negation of duality, is a real sage and anyone else is not.✅
● As soundless (अ-मात्रः) and also endowed with infinite sounds (अन्-अन्त-मात्रः च), ○ which is the negation of duality (द्वैतस्य उपशमः) and all good (शिवः), ● – the one who knows Om in this way (ओङ्-कारः विदितः येन) ○ is a real sage (सः मुनिः) and anyone else is not (न इतरः जनः).
अमात्रः तुरीय ओङ्कारः, मीयते अनयेति मात्रा परिच्छित्तिः, सा अनन्ता यस्य सः अनन्तमात्रः; नैतावत्त्वमस्य परिच्छेत्तुं शक्यत इत्यर्थः। सर्व-द्वैतोपशमत्वाद् एव शिवः। ओङ्कारो यथाव्याख्यातो विदितो येन, स एव परमार्थतत्त्वस्य मननात् मुनिः; न इतरो जनः शास्त्रविदपीत्यर्थः॥ A-mātra or soundless Om signifies Turīya. Mātrā means “measure”; that which has infinite measure or magnitude is called Ananta-mātra. That is to say, it is not possible to determine its extension or measure by pointing to this or that. It is ever-peaceful on account of its being the negation of all duality. He who knows Om, as explained above, is the (real) sage because he has realised the nature of the Supreme Reality. No one else, though he may be an expert in the knowledge of the Scriptures, is a sage.
The wise declare the unreality of all entities seen in dreams, because they are located within the body and the space therein is confined.✅
“ज्ञाते द्वैतं न विद्यते” इत्युक्तम् “एकमेवाद्वितीयम्” (ChanU.6.2.1) इत्यादिश्रुतिभ्यः। आगममात्रं तत्। तत्र उपपत्त्यापि द्वैतस्य वैतथ्यं शक्यतेऽवधारयितुमिति द्वितीयं प्रकरणम् आरभ्यते – वैतथ्यमित्यादिना। वितथस्य भावो वैतथ्यम्; असत्यत्वमित्यर्थः। Om. It has been already said, “Duality does not exist when (true) knowledge arises,” and this is borne out by such Śruti passages as, “It (Ātman) is verily one and without a second,” etc. This is all based merely on the authority of the Śruti. It is also equally possible to determine the unreality (illusoriness) of duality through pure reasoning; and for this purpose is begun the second chapter which commences with the words Vaitathyam (unreality) etc. The word, Vaitathyam signifies the fact of its being unreal or false.कस्य? सर्वेषां बाह्याध्यात्मिकानां भावानां पदार्थानां स्वप्ने उपलभ्यमानानाम्, आहुः कथयन्ति मनीषिणः प्रमाणकुशलाः। वैतथ्ये हेतुम् आह – अन्तः-स्थानात्, अन्तः शरीरस्य मध्ये स्थानं येषाम्; तत्र हि भावा उपलभ्यन्ते पर्वतहस्त्यादयः, न बहिः शरीरात्; तस्मात् ते वितथा भवितुमर्हन्ति। Of what is this (unreality) predicated? Of all objects, both internal and external, perceived in the dream. It is thus declared by the wise, i.e., those who are experts in the use of the means (Pramāṇas) of arriving at true knowledge. The reason of this unreality is stated thus; For, the objects perceived are found to be located within the body. All these entities such as a mountain, an elephant, etc., perceived in the dream are cognized there (i.e., within) and not outside the body. Therefore they must be regarded as unreal.ननु अपवरकाद्यन्तरुपलभ्यमानैः घटादिभिरनैकान्तिको हेतुरित्याशङ्क्याह – (Objection) – This (“being within”) is no valid reason. A jar and other things on account of their being perceived within a cover, such as a cloth, etc. (cannot be called unreal).संवृतत्वेन हेतुना इति। अन्तः संवृतस्थानादित्यर्थः। न ह्यन्तः संवृते देहान्तर्नाडीषु पर्वतहस्त्यादीनां सम्भवोऽस्ति; न हि देहे पर्वतोऽस्ति॥ (Reply) – On account of their being confined in a limited space, that is, within the body (where dream objects are cognized). It is not possible for the mountain, the elephant, etc., to exist in the limited space (within the nerves of the body) which are within the body. A mountain does not or cannot exist inside a body.
The dreamer, on account of the shortness of the time involved, cannot go out of the body and see the dream objects. Nor does he, when awakened, find himself in the places seen in the dream.✅
स्वप्नदृश्यानां भावानामन्तः संवृतस्थानमित्येतदसिद्धम्, यस्मात्प्राच्येषु सुप्त उदक्षु स्वप्नान्पश्यन्निव दृश्यत इत्येतदाशङ्क्याह – न देहाद् बहिर्देशान्तरं गत्वा स्वप्नान् पश्यति; यस्मात्सुप्तमात्र एव देहदेशाद्योजनशतान्तरिते मासमात्रप्राप्ये देशे स्वप्नान्पश्यन्निव दृश्यते; न च तद्देशप्राप्तेरागमनस्य च दीर्घः कालोऽस्ति; अतः अदीर्घत्वात् च कालस्य न स्वप्नदृग्देशान्तरं गच्छति। That all that is perceived to exist in dreams is located in a limited space, is not a fact. For a man sleeping in the east, often finds himself, as it were, experiencing dreams in the north. Anticipating this objection (of the opponent) it is said: – The dreamer does not go to another region outside his body where he experiences dream. For, it is found that as soon as a man falls asleep he experiences dream objects, as it were, at a place which is hundreds of Yojanas away from his body and which can be reached only in the course of a month. The long period of time which is necessary to go to that region (where dream objects are perceived) and again to come back (to the place where the sleeper lies) is not found to be an actual fact. Hence on account of the shortness of time the experiencer of the dream does not go to another region.किञ्च, प्रतिबुद्धः च वै सर्वः स्वप्नदृक् स्वप्नदर्शन-देशे न विद्यते। यदि च स्वप्ने देशान्तरं गच्छेत्, यस्मिन्देशे स्वप्नान्पश्येत्, तत्रैव प्रतिबुध्येत। न चैतदस्ति। रात्रौ सुप्तः अहनीव भावान्पश्यति; बहुभिः सङ्गतो भवति; यैश्च सङ्गतः स तैर्गृह्येत, न च गृह्यते; गृहीतश्चेत्त्वामद्य तत्रोपलब्धवन्तो वयमिति ब्रूयुः; न चैतदस्ति। तस्मान्न देशान्तरं गच्छति स्वप्ने॥ Moreover, the dreamer when he wakes up, does not find himself in the place where he experiences the dream. Had the man (really) gone to another place while dreaming and cognized (or perceived) the dream-objects there, then he would have certainly woke up there alone. But this does not happen. Though a man goes to sleep at night he feels as though he were seeing objects in the day-time and meeting many persons. (If that meeting were real) he ought to have been met by those persons (whom he himself met during the dream). But this does not happen; for if it did, they would have said, “We met you there to-day.” But this does not happen. Therefore one does not (really) go to another region in dream.
Scripture, on rational grounds, declares the non-existence of the chariots etc. perceived in dreams. Therefore the wise say that the unreality established by reason is proclaimed by scripture.✅
इतश्च स्वप्नदृश्या भावा वितथाः, यतः अभावः च रथादीनां स्वप्नदृश्यानां श्रूयते, न्याय-पूर्वकं युक्तितः श्रुतौ “न तत्र रथाः” (BrhU.4.3.10) इत्यत्र। तेन अन्तःस्थानसंवृतत्वादिहेतुना प्राप्तं वैतथ्यं तदनुवादिन्या श्रुत्या स्वप्ने स्वयंज्योतिष्ट्वप्रतिपादनपरया प्रकाशितम् आहुः ब्रह्मविदः॥ For this reason also the objects perceived to exist in dream are illusory. For, the absence of the chariots, etc. (perceived in dream) is stated by Śruti, in such passages as “There exists neither chariot, etc.” its assertion being based on reason. In the opinion of the wise, i.e., the knowers of Brahman, the illusoriness (of the dream objects) has been established on the ground of their being perceived within the contracted space in the body. The Śruti only reiterates it in order to establish the self-luminosity (of Ātman) in dream.
The different objects seen in the confined space of dreams are unreal on account of their being perceived. For the same reason i.e. on account of their being perceived, the objects seen in the waking state are also unreal. The same condition i.e. the state of being perceived exists in both waking and dreaming. The only difference is the limitation of space associated with dream objects.✅
जाग्रद्दृश्यानां भावानां वैतथ्यमिति प्रतिज्ञा। दृश्यत्वादिति हेतुः। स्वप्नदृश्यभाववदिति दृष्टान्तः। यथा तत्र स्वप्ने दृश्यानां भावानां वैतथ्यम्, तथा जागरितेऽपि दृश्यत्वमविशिष्टमिति हेतूपनयः। तस्मात् जागरितेऽपि वैतथ्यं स्मृतम् इति निगमनम्। अन्तःस्थानात् संवृतत्वेन च स्वप्नदृश्यानां भावानां जाग्रद्दृश्येभ्यो भेदः। दृश्यत्वमसत्यत्वं चाविशिष्टमुभयत्र॥ The proposition to be established (Pratijñā) is the illusoriness of objects that are perceived in the waking state. “Being perceived” is the “ground” (hetu) for the inference. They are like the objects that are perceived in dream, is the illustration (dṛṣṭāntaḥ). As the objects perceived to exist in dream are illusory so also are the objects perceived in the waking state. The common feature of “being perceived” is the relation (Upanaya) between the illustration given and the proposition taken for consideration. Therefore the illusoriness is admitted of objects that are perceived to exist in the waking state. This is what is known as the reiteration (Nigamanam) of the proposition or the conclusion. The objects perceived to exist in the dream are different from those perceived in the waking state in respect of their being perceived in a limited space within the body. The fact of being seen and the (consequent) illusoriness are common to both.
Thoughtful persons speak of the sameness of the waking and dream states on account of the similarity of the objects perceived in both states on the grounds already mentioned.✅
प्रसिद्धेन एव भेदानां ग्राह्यत्वेन हेतुना समत्वेन स्वप्न-जागरित-स्थानयोः एकत्वम् आहुः विवेकिन इति पूर्वप्रमाणसिद्धस्यैव फलम्॥ The identity (of the experiences) of the dream and waking states is declared by the wise on account of the reason, already stated, i.e., the experience of objects (in both the states) is associated with subject-object relationship. This Kārikā enunciates the conclusion that has already been arrived at in the previous inference by the wise.
If a thing is non-existent both in the beginning and in the end, it is necessarily non-existent in the present. The objects that we see are really like illusions; still they are regarded as real.✅
इतश्च वैतथ्यं जाग्रद्दृश्यानां भेदानाम् आद्यन्तयोरभावात्, यद् आदावन्ते च न अस्ति वस्तु मृगतृष्णिकादि, तद् मध्येऽपि नास्तीति निश्चितं लोके; तथा इमे जाग्रद्दृश्या भेदाः आद्यन्तयोरभावात् वितथैः एव मृगतृष्णिकादिभिः सदृशत्वाद्वितथा एव; तथापि अवितथा इव लक्षिता मूढैरनात्मविद्भिः॥ The objects perceived to exist in the waking state are unreal for this reason also, that they do not really exist either at the beginning or at the end. Such objects (of experience) as mirage, etc., do not really exist either at the beginning or at the end. Therefore they do not (really) exist in the middle either. This is the decided opinion of the world. The several objects perceived to exist really in the waking state are also of the same nature. Though they (the objects of experience) are of the same nature as illusory objects, such as mirage, etc., on account of their non-existence at the beginning and at the end, still they are regarded as real by the ignorant, that is, the persons that do not know Ātman. Comment
The utility of the objects of waking experience is contradicted in dreams; therefore they are certainly unreal. Thus both experiences, having a beginning and an end, are unreal.✅
स्वप्नदृश्यवज्जागरितदृश्यानाम् अपि असत्त्वमिति यदुक्तम् तदयुक्तम्; यस्माज्जाग्रद्दृश्या अन्नपानवाहनादयः क्षुत्पिपासादिनिवृत्तिं कुर्वन्तो गमनागमनादि कार्यं च सप्रयोजना दृष्टाः। न तु स्वप्नदृश्यानां तदस्ति। तस्मात्स्वप्नदृश्यवज्जाग्रद्दृश्यानम् असत्त्वं मनोरथमात्रमिति। (Objection) – The assertion that the objects perceived to exist in the waking state are illusory like those of the dream state is illogical. It is so because the objects of the waking experience, such as food, drink or vehicles, etc., are seen to serve some purpose, that is, they appease hunger and thirst as well as do the work of carrying a man to and fro. But this is not the case with the objects perceived in dream. Therefore the conclusion that the objects perceived in the waking state are unreal like those seen in dream is mere fancy.तन्न। (Reply) – It is not so.कस्मात्? (Objection) – Why?यस्माद्या सप्रयोजनता दृष्टा अन्नपानादीनाम्, सा स्वप्ने विप्रतिपद्यते। जागरिते हि भुक्त्वा पीत्वा च तृप्तो विनिवर्तिततृट् सुप्तमात्र एव क्षुत्पिपासाद्यार्तमहोरात्रोपोषितमभुक्तवन्तम् आत्मानं मन्यते, यथा स्वप्ने भुक्त्वा पीत्वा च अतृप्तोत्थितः, तथा। तस्मात् जाग्रद्दृश्यानां स्वप्ने विप्रतिपत्तिर्दृष्टा। अतो मन्यामहे तेषामप्यसत्त्वं स्वप्नदृश्यवदनाशङ्कनीयमिति। तस्माद् आद्यन्तवत्त्वम् उभयत्र समानमिति मिथ्या एव खलु ते स्मृताः॥ (Reply) – It is because the serving as means to some end or purpose which is found in respect of food, drink, etc. (in the waking state) is contradicted in dream. A man, in the waking state, eats and drinks and feels appeased and free from thirst. But as soon as he goes into sleep, he finds himself (in dream) afflicted with hunger and thirst as if he were without food and drink for days and nights. And the contrary also happens to be equally true. A man satiated with food and drink in dream finds himself, when awakened, quite hungry and thirsty. Therefore the objects perceived in the waking state are contradicted in dream. Hence, we think that the illusoriness of the objects perceived in the waking state like those of dream need not be doubted. Therefore both these objects are undoubtedly admitted to be illusory on account of their common feature of having a beginning and an end. Comment.
The objects perceived by the dreamer, not usually seen in the waking state, owe their existence to the peculiar conditions under which the cognizer i.e. the mind functions for the time being, as with those residing in heaven. The dreamer, associating himself with the dream conditions, perceives those objects, even as a man, well instructed here, goes from one place to another and sees the peculiar objects belonging to those places.✅
स्वप्नजाग्रद्भेदयोः समत्वाज्जाग्रद्भेदानामसत्त्वमिति यदुक्तम्, तदसत्। (Objection) – The assertion about the illusoriness of objects perceived in the waking state on account of their similarity to those perceived in the dream state is not correct.कस्मात्? (Reply) – Why?दृष्टान्तस्यासिद्धत्वात्। (Objection) – The illustration does not agree with the thing to be illustrated.कथम्? (Reply) – How?न हि जाग्रद्दृश्या ये, ते भेदाः स्वप्ने दृश्यन्ते। (Objection) – Those objects that are cognized in the waking state are not seen in dream.किं तर्हि? (Reply) – What then are they (dream experiences)?अपूर्वं स्वप्ने पश्यति चतुर्दन्तं गजम् आरूढोऽष्टभुजम् आत्मानम्। अन्यदप्येवंप्रकारमपूर्वं पश्यति स्वप्ने। तन्नान्येनासता सममिति सदेव। अतो दृष्टान्तोऽसिद्धः। तस्मात्स्वप्नवज्जागरितस्यासत्त्वमित्ययुक्तम्। (Objection) – A man perceives in dream objects which are never usually seen in the waking state. He finds himself (in dream) to be with eight hands and seated on an elephant with four tusks. Similarly various other unusual (abnormal) objects are seen in the dream. These (dream objects) are not like other illusory objects. They are, without doubt, real (in themselves). Therefore the illustration does not agree. Hence, the statement that the waking experiences are unreal like those of dream is not correct.तन्न। स्वप्ने दृष्टमपूर्वं यन्मन्यसे, न तत्स्वतः सिद्धम्। किं तर्हि? अपूर्वं स्थानि-धर्मो हि, स्थानिनो द्रष्टुरेव हि स्वप्नस्थानवतो धर्मः; यथा स्वर्ग-निवासिनाम् इन्द्रादीनां सहस्राक्षत्वादि, तथा स्वप्नदृशोऽपूर्वोऽयं धर्मः, न स्वतःसिद्धो द्रष्टुः स्वरूपवत्। (Reply) – No, your conclusion is not correct. You think that the objects perceived in dream are extraordinary (not like those usually seen in the waking state), but these are not absolutely real in themselves. What, then, is their nature? They are only peculiar to the circumstances of the perceiver associated with those (dream) conditions, i.e., of the dreamer associated with the dream-conditions. As the denizens of heaven, such as Indra, etc., have the characteristics of being endowed with a thousand eyes, etc. (on account of the very condition of their existence in heaven), so also there are the (peculiar) unusual (abnormal) features of the dreamer (on account of the peculiar condition of the dream state). These (dream experiences) are not absolutely real like the absolute reality of the perceiver.तान् एवंप्रकारान् अपूर्वान् स्वचित्तविकल्पान् अयं स्थानी यः स्वप्नदृक्स्वप्नस्थानं गत्वा प्रेक्षते। यथा एव इह लोके सुशिक्षित-देशान्तरमार्गस्तेन मार्गेण देशान्तरं गत्वा पदार्थान्पश्यति, तद्वत्। तस्माद्यथा स्थानिधर्माणां रज्जुसर्पमृगतृष्णिकादीनामसत्त्वम्, तथा स्वप्नदृश्यानामप्यपूर्वाणां स्थानिधर्मत्वमेवेत्यसत्त्वम्; अतो न स्वप्नदृष्टान्तस्यासिद्धत्वम्॥ The dreamer associated with the (dream) conditions, while in the dream state, sees all these abnormal or peculiar objects which are but the imaginations of his own mind. It is like the case of a man, in the waking experience, who is well instructed regarding the route to be taken to reach another country, and who while going to that country sees on the way objects belonging to that locality. Hence as perception of snake in the rope and the mirage in the desert which are due to the (mental) conditions of the perceiver are unreal, so also the objects transcending the limits of the waking experience, perceived in dream, are unreal on account of their being due to the (peculiar) condition of the dream state itself. Therefore the illustration of dream is not incorrect. Comment.
In dreams, what is imagined within the mind is illusory and what is cognized outside by the mind, real; but truly, both are known to be unreal.✅
अपूर्वत्वाशङ्कां निराकृत्य स्वप्नदृष्टान्तस्य पुनः स्वप्नतुल्यतां जाग्रद्भेदानां प्रपञ्चयन्नाह – स्वप्नवृत्तौ अपि स्वप्नस्थानेऽपि अन्तश्-चेतसा मनोरथसङ्कल्पितम् असत्; सङ्कल्पानन्तर-सम-कालम् एव अदर्शनात्। तत्रैव स्वप्ने बहिश्-चेतसा गृहीतं चक्षुरादिद्वारेणोपलब्धं घटादि सद् इत्येवमसत्यमिति निश्चितेऽपि सदसद्विभागो दृष्टः। उभयोरप्यन्तर्बहिश्चेतः कल्पितयोः वैतथ्यम् एव दृष्टम्॥ Having refuted the contention of the opponent that there exists no similarity between objects of the waking state and the abnormal (unusual) objects seen in dream, (the text proceeds to point out) the truth of the objects of waking state being (unreal) like those of dream. In the dream state also those which are mere modifications of the mind, cognized within, are illusory. For, such internal objects vanish the moment after they are cognized. In that very dream such objects as pot, etc., cognized by the mind and perceived by the sense-organs, eyes, etc., as existing outside, are held to be real. Thus, though all the dream experiences are, without doubt, known to be unreal, yet they arrange themselves as real and unreal. Both kinds of objects (in dream), imagined by the mind internally and externally, are found to be unreal.
Similarly, in the waking state, what is imagined within by the mind is illusory and what is cognized outside by the mind, real; but both should be held, on rational grounds, to be unreal.✅
सदसतोः वैतथ्यं युक्तम्, अन्तर्-बहिश्-चेतः-कल्पितत्वाविशेषाद् इति। व्याख्यातम् अन्यत्॥ Similarly in the waking experience objects known as real and imaginary (mental) should be rationally held to be unreal. Objects, internal and external, are creations of the mind (whether they be – in the dream or in the waking state). Other matters have already been explained. Comment.
If the objects perceived in both waking and dreaming are illusory, who perceives all these objects and who, again, imagines them?✅
चोदक आह – स्वप्न-जाग्रत्-स्थानयोःभेदानां यदि वैतथ्यम्, क एतान् अन्तर्बहिश्चेतःकल्पितान् बुध्यते। को वै तेषां विकल्पकः; स्मृतिज्ञानयोः क आलम्बनमित्यभिप्रायः; न चेन्निरात्मवाद इष्टः॥ The opponent asks, “If the objects, cognized in the-waking and dream states, be devoid of reality, who is the cognizer of these, – objects imagined by the mind, both inside (subjective), and outside (objective)? Who is, again, their imaginer?” In short, what is the support (substratum) of memory and knowledge? If you say none, then we shall be led to the conclusion that there is nothing like Ātman or Self.
It is the self-luminous Ātman who, through the power of Its own māyā, imagines in Itself by Itself all the objects that the subject experiences within and without. It alone is the cognizer of objects. This is the decision of Vedānta.✅
स्वयं स्व-मायया स्वम् आत्मानम् आत्मा देवः आत्मन्येव वक्ष्यमाणं भेदाकारं कल्पयति रज्ज्वादाविव सर्पादीन्, स्वयमेव च तान् बुध्यते भेदान्, तद्वद् एव इति एवं वेदान्त-निश्चयः। नान्योऽस्ति ज्ञानस्मृत्याश्रयः। न च निरास्पदे एव ज्ञानस्मृती वैनाशिकानामिवेत्यभिप्रायः॥ The self-luminous Ātman himself, by his own Māyā, imagines in himself the different objects, to be described hereafter. It is like the imagining of the snake, etc., in the rope, etc. He himself cognizes them, as he has imagined them. There is no other substratum of knowledge and memory. The aim of Vedānta is to declare that knowledge and memory are not without support as the Buddhist nihilists maintain. Comment.
The Lord (Ātman), with His mind turned outward, imagines in diverse forms various objects either permanent, such as the earth, or impermanent, such as lightning, which are already in His mind in the form of vāsanas, or desires. Again, He turns His mind within and imagines various ideas.✅
सङ्कल्पयन्केन प्रकारेण कल्पयतीत्युच्यते – विकरोति नाना करोति अपरान् लौकिकान् भावान् पदार्थाञ्शब्दादीनन्यांश्च अन्तश्-चित्ते वासनारूपेण व्यवस्थितान् अव्याकृतान् नियतान् च पृथिव्यादीननियतांश्च कल्पनाकालान् बहिश्-चित्तः सन्, तथा अन्तश्चित्तो मनोरथादिलक्षणान् इति एवं कल्पयति, प्रभुः ईश्वरः, आत्मेत्यर्थः॥ How does he imagine the ideas? It is described thus: – The word “Vikaroti” means creates or imagines, i.e., manifests in multiple forms. Lord, i.e., Ātman, with his mind turned outward, imagines in diverse forms various objects, perceived in the (outside) world, such as sound, etc., as well as other objects, and also various objects permanent (such as earth, etc.), and impermanent, i.e., which exist only for the moment, i.e., as long as that imagination lasts – all being of the nature of subtle ideas (Vāsanas) in his mind and not yet fully manifested. Similarly, turning his mind within, the Lord imagines various ideas which are subjective. “Prabhu” in the text means the Lord (Īśvara), i.e., the Ātman. Comment (cf. YS commentary: YS. “mind going out”).
Those that are cognized internally only as long as the thought of them lasts and those that are perceived outside and relate to two points in time, are all mere objects of the imagination. There is no ground for differentiating the one from the other.✅
स्वप्नवच्चित्तपरिकल्पितं सर्वमित्येतदाशङ्क्यते – यस्माच्चित्तपरिकल्पितैर्मनोरथादिलक्षणैश्चित्तपरिच्छेद्यैर्वैलक्षण्यं बाह्यानामन्योन्यपरिच्छेद्यत्वमिति, सा न युक्ताशङ्का। चित्तकाला हि येऽन्तः तु चित्तपरिच्छेद्याः, नान्यश्चित्तकालव्यतिरेकेण परिच्छेदकः कालो येषाम्, ते चित्तकालाः; कल्पनाकाल एवोपलभ्यन्त इत्यर्थः। A doubt is raised as to the statement that everything is mere imagination of mind like the dream. For, the imagination of mind, such as desire, etc., determined by mind, is different from objects perceived to exist outside, on account of the latter being determined by two points in time. This objection is not valid. Objects perceived to exist within, only as long as the thought about them lasts, signify those (subjective) ideas which are only determined by mind; i.e., such objects have no other time to determine them except that wherein the idea in the mind exists (when imagining such ideas). The meaning is that such (subjective) ideas are experienced at the time when they are imagined. Objects related to two points of time signify those external objects which are cognizable by others at some other point of time and which cognize the latter in their turn.द्वय-कालाः च भेदकाला अन्योन्यपरिच्छेद्याः, यथा आगोदोहनमास्ते; यावदास्ते तावद्गां दोग्धि; यावद्गां दोग्धि तावदास्ते, तावानयमेतावान्स इति परस्परपरिच्छेद्यपरिच्छेदकत्वं बाह्यानां भेदानाम्, ते द्वयकालाः। अन्तश्चित्तकाला बाह्याश्च द्वयकालाः कल्पिता एव ते सर्वे। न बाह्यो द्वयकालत्वविशेषः कल्पितत्वव्यतिरेकेण अन्य-हेतुकः। अत्रापि हि स्वप्नदृष्टान्तो भवत्येव॥ Therefore such objects are said to be mutually limited by one another. As for example, when it is said that he remains till the cow is milked, the statement means, “The cow is milked as long as he remains and he remains as long as the cow is milked.” A similar instance is the following: “It is like that, that is like this.” In this way, the objects perceived to exist outside mutually determine one another. Therefore they are known as “Dvaya-kālāh” that is, related to two points in time. Ideas perceived within and existing as long as the mind that cognizes them lasts, as well as the external objects related to two points in time, are all mere imaginations. The peculiar characteristic of being related to two points in time of the objects that are perceived to exist outside is not due to any other cause except their being imagined by the mind. Therefore the illustration of dream well applies here.
Those that exist within the mind as subjective ideas and are known as unmanifested and those that are perceived to exist outside in a manifested form, both are mere objects of the imagination. Their difference lies only in the difference of the organs by means of which they are perceived.✅
यदपि अन्तर्-अव्यक्तत्वं भावानां मनोवासनामात्राभिव्यक्तानां स्फुटत्वं वा बहिः चक्षुरादीन्द्रियान्तरे विशेषः, नासौ भेदानामस्तित्वकृतः, स्वप्नेऽपि तथा दर्शनात्। किं तर्हि? इन्द्रियान्तर-कृत एव। अतः कल्पिता एव जाग्रद्भावा अपि स्वप्नभाववदिति सिद्धम्॥ Though the objects perceived within, as mere mental impressions, are unmanifested, and though the objects perceived outside through the sense-organs such as eyes, etc., are known as manifested (gross entities), yet the distinction is not due to anything substantial in the nature of the (two kinds of) objects. For, such distinction is seen in dreams as well. What is, then, the cause of this distinction? It is only due to the difference in the use of sense-organs (by means of which these objects are perceived). Hence, it is established that the objects perceived in the waking state are as much imagination of the mind as those seen in the dream.
First of all is imagined the jīva, the embodied individual and then are imagined the various entities, both external such as sounds, forms, etc. and internal such as the prāṇas, sense-organs, etc., that are perceived to exist. As is one’s knowledge so is one’s memory.✅
बाह्याध्यात्मिकानां भावानाम् इतरेतर-निमित्त-नैमित्तिकतया कल्पनायाः किं मूलमित्युच्यते – जीवं हेतुफलात्मकम् “अहं करोमि, मम सुखदुःखे” इत्येवंलक्षणम्। अनेवंलक्षण एव शुद्ध आत्मनि रज्ज्वामिव सर्पं कल्पयते पूर्वम्। ततः तादर्थ्येन क्रियाकारकफलभेदेन प्राणादीन् नाना-विधान् भावान् बाह्यान् आध्यात्मिकान् च एव कल्पयते। What is the source of the imagination of various objects, subjective and objective that are perceived and appear to be related to one another as cause and effect? It is thus explained: – The Jīva is of the nature of cause and effect and is further characterised by such ideas as “I do this, I am happy and miserable.” Such Jīva is, at first, imagined in the Ātman which is pure and devoid of any such characteristics, like the imagination of a snake in a rope. Then for the knowledge of the Jīva are imagined various existent entities, both subjective and objective, such as Prāṇa, etc., constituting different ideas such as the agent, action and the result (of action).तत्र कल्पनायां को हेतुरित्युच्यते – योऽसौ स्वयं कल्पितो जीवः सर्वकल्पनायामधिकृतः, सः यथा-विद्यः यादृशी विद्या विज्ञानमस्येति यथाविद्यः, तथा-विधा एव स्मृतिः तस्येति तथास्मृतिर्भवति स इति। अतो हेतुकल्पनाविज्ञानात्फलविज्ञानम्, ततो हेतुफलस्मृतिः, ततस्तद्विज्ञानम्, ततः तदर्थक्रियाकारकतत्फलभेदविज्ञानानि, तेभ्यस्तत्स्मृतिः, तत्स्मृतेश्च पुनस्तद्विज्ञानानि इत्येवं बाह्यानाध्यात्मिकांश्च इतरेतरनिमित्तनैमित्तिकभावेनानेकधा कल्पयते॥ What is the cause of this imagination? It is thus explained: – It, the Jīva, who is the product of imagination and competent to effect further imagination, has its memory determined by its own inherent knowledge. That is to say, its knowledge is always followed by a memory, similar to that knowledge. Hence, from the knowledge of the idea of cause results the knowledge of the idea of the effect. Then follows the memory of both cause and effect. This memory is followed by its knowledge which results in the various states of knowledge characterised by action, actor and the effect. These are followed by their memory, which, in its turn, is followed by the states of knowledge. In this way are imagined various objects, subjective and objective, which are perceived and seen to be related to one another as cause and effect.
As a rope lying in darkness, about whose nature one remains uncertain, is imagined to be a snake or a line of water, so Ātman is imagined in various ways.✅
तत्र जीवकल्पना सर्वकल्पनामूलमित्युक्तम्; सैव जीवकल्पना किंनिमित्तेति दृष्टान्तेन प्रतिपादयति – यथा लोके स्वेन रूपेण अनिश्चिता अनवधारिता एवमेवेति रज्जुः मन्द-अन्धकारे किं सर्प उदकधारा दण्ड इति वा अनेकधा विकल्पिता भवति पूर्वं स्वरूपानिश्चयनिमित्तम्। यदि हि पूर्वमेव रज्जुः स्वरूपेण निश्चिता स्यात्, न सर्प-आदि-विकल्पोऽभविष्यत्, यथा स्वहस्ताङ्गुल्यादिषु; एष दृष्टान्तः। It has been said that the imagination of Jīva (the Jīva-idea) is the source of all (other) imaginations (ideas). What is the cause of this Jīva-idea? It is thus explained by an illustration: – It is found in common experience that a rope, not known as such, is imagined, in hazy darkness, as snake, water-line, stick or any one of the many similar things. All this is due to the previous absence of knowledge regarding the real nature of the rope. If previously the rope had been known in its real nature, then the imagination of snake, etc., would not have been possible, as in the case of one’s own fingers.तद्वद् धेतुफलादि-संसारधर्मानर्थविलक्षणतया स्वेन विशुद्ध-विज्ञप्तिमात्र-सत्ता-द्वय-रूपेण अनिश्चितत्वात् जीवप्राणाद्यनन्तभावभेदैः आत्मा विकल्पित इत्येष सर्वोपनिषदां सिद्धान्तः॥ Similarly, Ātman has been variously imagined as, Jīva, Prāṇa and so forth because It is not known in Its own nature, i.e., pure essence of knowledge itself, the non-dual Ātman, quite distinct from such phenomenal characteristics indicated by the relation of cause and effect, etc., which are productive of misery. This is the unmistakable verdict of all the Upaniṣads.
When the real nature of the rope is ascertained, all misconceptions about it disappear and there arises the conviction that it is nothing but a rope. Even so is the true nature of Ātman determined.✅
रज्जुः एव इति निश्चये सर्पादि-विकल्प-निवृत्तौ रज्जुरेवेति च अद्वैतं यथा, तथा नेति नेतीति सर्व-संसार-धर्म-शून्य-प्रतिपादक-शास्त्र-जनित-विज्ञान-सूर्यालोक-कृत-आत्म-विनिश्चयः “आत्मैवेदं सर्वमपूर्वोऽनपरोऽनन्तरोऽबाह्यः सबाह्याभ्यन्तरो ह्यजोऽजरोऽमृतोऽभय एक एवाद्वयः” इति॥ When it is determined that it is nothing but the rope alone, then all illusions regarding the rope disappear and the (non-dual) knowledge that there exists nothing else but the rope, becomes firmly established. Similar is the knowledge, – like the light of the sun – produced by the negative Scriptural statements which deny all phenomenal attributes (in Ātman), – statements like “Not this”, “Not this”, etc., leading to the knowledge of the real nature of Ātman, as: “All this is verily Ātman”, “(It is) without cause and effect, without internality and externality”, “(It is) ever without and within and beginningless”, “(It is) without decay and death, immortal, fearless, one and without a second.”
Ātman is imagined as prāṇa and other numberless ideas. All this is due to māyā, belonging to the effulgent Ātman, by which It appears, Itself, to be deluded.✅
यदि आत्मैक एवेति निश्चयः, कथं प्राणादिभिः अनन्तैः भावैः एतैः संसारलक्षणैः विकल्पित इति? उच्यते शृणु – माया एषा तस्य आत्मनो देवस्य। यथा मायाविना विहिता माया गगनमतिविमलं कुसुमितैः सपलाशैस्तरुभिराकीर्णमिव करोति, तथा इयमपि देवस्य माया, यया अयं स्वयम् अपि मोहित इव मोहितो भवति। “मम माया दुरत्यया” (BhG.7.14) इत्युक्तम्॥ If it be definitely ascertained that Ātman is verily one, how could it be imagined as the endless objects like Prāṇa, etc., having the characteristics of the phenomenal experience? It is thus explained: – This is due to the Māyā (ignorance) inhering in the luminous Ātman. As the illusion conjured up by the juggler makes the very clear sky appear covered with trees blooming with flowers and leaves, so does this luminous Ātman become deluded, as it were, by his own Māyā. “My Māyā cannot be easily got over” declares the Gītā.
20. Those conversant with prāṇa describe Ātman as prāṇa; those conversant with the elements, as the elements; those conversant with the guṇas, as the guṇas; and those conversant with the tattvas, as the tattvas. 21. Those acquainted with the pādas call It the pādas; those acquainted with objects, the objects; those acquainted with the lokas, the lokas; thosethose acquainted with the gods, the gods. 22. Those conversant with the Vedas describe Ātman as the Vedas; those conversant with the sacrifices, as the sacrifices; those conversant with the enjoyer, as the enjoyer; and those conversant with the objects of enjoyment call It the objects of enjoyment. 23. The knowers of the subtle call It the subtle and the knowers of the gross, the gross. Those that are familiar with the Personal Deity call It the Personal Deity and those that are familiar with the void, the void. 24. Those that know time call Ātman time and those that know space call It space. Those versed in the art of disputation call It the object of dispute; and those knowing the worlds call It the worlds. 25. The knowers of the mind call Ātman the mind; the knowers of the buddhi, the buddhi. The knowers of the citta call It the citta; and the knowers of righteousness and unrighteousness call It righteousness and unrighteousness. 26. Some say that Ātman consists of twenty-five cosmic principles; some, of twenty-six principles; some, again, of thirty-one principles; while there are yet others who describe It as consisting of an infinite number of principles. Comment. 27. Those who know how to gratify others call Ātman gratification; those who are conversant with the āśramas call It the āśramas. The grammarians call It the masculine, feminine and neuter genders; and still others, the Higher Brahman and the Lower Brahman. 28. The knowers of creation call It creation; the knowers of dissolution, dissolution; and the knowers of preservation, preservation. In truth, all such ideas are always imagined in Ātman.✅
प्राणः प्राज्ञो बीजात्मा, तत्कार्यभेदा हीतरे स्थिति-अन्ताः। अन्ये च सर्वे लौकिकाः सर्वप्राणिपरिकल्पिता भेदा रज्ज्वामिव सर्पादयः। तच्छून्ये आत्मन्यात्मस्वरूपानिश्चयहेतोरविद्यया कल्पिता इति पिण्डितोऽर्थः। प्राणादिश्लोकानां प्रत्येकं पदार्थव्याख्याने फल्गुप्रयोजनत्वात्सिद्धपदार्थत्वाच्च यत्नो न कृतः॥ Prāṇa means Prājña (the Jīva associated with deep sleep) and Bījātmā (the causal self). All the entities from Prāṇa to the Sthiti (subsistence) are only various effects of Prāṇa. These and other popular ideas of their kind, imagined by all beings, are like the imaginations of the snake, etc., in the rope, etc. These are through ignorance imagined in Ātman which is free from all these distinctions. These fancies are due to the lack of determination of the real nature of the Self. This is the purport of these Ślokas. No attempt is made to explain the meaning of each word in the texts beginning with Prāṇa, etc., on account of the futility of such effort and also on account of the clearness of the meaning of the terms.
The disciple grasps only that idea which is presented to him by his teacher. Ātman assumes the form of what is taught and thus protects the disciple. Absorbed in that idea, he realizes it as Ātman.✅
किं बहुना? प्राणादीनामन्यतममुक्तमनुक्तं वा अन्यं यं भावं पदार्थं दर्शयेद् यस्य आचार्योऽन्यो वा आप्तः इदमेव तत्त्वमिति, स तं भावम् आत्मभूतं पश्यति अयमहमिति वा ममेति वा, तं च द्रष्टारं स भावोऽवति, यो दर्शितो भावः, असौ स भूत्वा रक्षति; स्वेनात्मना सर्वतो निरुणद्धि। तस्मिन् ग्रहः तद्-ग्रहः तद्-अभिनिवेशः इदमेव तत्त्वमिति स तं ग्रहीतारम् उपैति, तस्यात्मभावं निगच्छतीत्यर्थः॥ What more is to be gained (by this kind of endless discussion)? Whatever idea or interpretation of such things as Prāṇa, etc., narrated above or omitted, is shown to the inquirer by the teacher or other trustworthy person. He realises that as the sole essence (Ātman), i.e., he understands that as “I am that or that is mine”. Such conception about Ātman as is revealed to the inquirer, appears to him as the sole essence and protects him, i.e., keeps him away from all other ideas (because it appears to him as the highest ideal). On account of his devotion (attachment) to that ideal, he realises it as the sole essence in due course, i.e., attains his identity with it.
Ātman, though non-separate from all these ideas, appears to he separate. He who truly knows this interprets, without any fear, the meaning of the Vedas.✅
एतैः प्राणादिभिः आत्मनोऽपृथग्भूतैः अपृथग्-भावैः एषः आत्मा रज्जुरिव सर्पादिविकल्पनारूपैः पृथग् एव इति लक्षितः अभिलक्षितः निश्चितः मूढैरित्यर्थः। विवेकिनां तु रज्ज्वामिव कल्पिताः सर्पादयो नात्मव्यतिरेकेण प्राणादयः सन्तीत्यभिप्रायः; “इदं सर्वं यदयम् आत्मा” (BrhU.2.4.6) इति श्रुतेः। एवम् आत्मव्यतिरेकेणासत्त्वं रज्जुसर्पवदात्मनि कल्पितानाम् आत्मानं च केवलं निर्विकल्पं यो वेद तत्त्वेन श्रुतितो युक्तितश्च, सः अविशङ्कितो वेदार्थं विभागतः कल्पयेत् कल्पयतीत्यर्थः – इदमेवंपरं वाक्यम् अदोऽन्यपरम् इति। न ह्यनध्यात्मविद्वेदान्ज्ञातुं शक्नोति तत्त्वतः, “न ह्यनध्यात्मवित्कश्चित्क्रियाफलमुपाश्नुते” (मनु. ६-८२) इति हि मानवं वचनम॥ Though this Ātman is verily non-separate from these, the Prāṇa, etc., – like the rope from such imaginary ideas as the snake, etc., – it appears as separate to the ignorant persons. But to the Knower (of truth), the Prāṇa, etc., do not exist apart from Ātman, just as the snake, etc., falsely imagined in the rope, do not exist apart from the rope. For, the Śruti also says, “All that exists is verily Ātman” One who thus knows truly, that is, from Scriptures as well as by reasoning that Prāṇa, etc., imagined in Ātman, do not exist separately from Ātman (as in the illustration) of the (illusory) snake and the rope, and further knows that Ātman is ever pure and free from all imaginations, – construes, without hesitation, the text of the Vedas according to its division. That is to say, he knows that the meaning of this passage is this and of that passage is that. None but the Knower of Ātman is able to know truly the (meaning of the) Vedas. “None but the Knower of Ātman is able to derive any benefit from his actions,” says Manu.
As dreams, illusions and castles in the air are viewed, so is the tangible universe viewed by the wise, well versed in Vedānta.✅
यदेतद्द्वैतस्यासत्त्वमुक्तं युक्तितः, तदेतद्वेदान्तप्रमाणावगतमित्याह – स्वप्नश्च माया च स्वप्न-माये असद्वस्त्वात्मिके सत्यौ सद्वस्त्वात्मिके इव लक्ष्येते अविवेकिभिः। यथा च प्रसारित-पण्य-आपण-गृह-प्रासाद-स्त्री-पुं-जन-पद-व्यवहार-आकीर्णम् इव गन्धर्व-नगरं दृश्यमानमेव सत् अकस्मादभावतां गतं दृष्टम्, यथा च स्वप्नमाये दृष्टे असद्रूपे, तथा विश्वम् इदं द्वैतं समस्तम् असद् दृष्टम्। क्वेत्याह – वेदान्तेषु, “नेह नानास्ति किञ्चन” (KathU.2.1.11) “इन्द्रो मायाभिः” (BrhU.2.5.19) “आत्मैवेदमग्र आसीत्” (BrhU.1.4.1) “ब्रह्मैवेदमग्र आसीत्” (BrhU.1.4.10) “द्वितीयाद्वै भयं भवति” (BrhU.1.4.2) “न तु तद्द्वितीयमस्ति” (BrhU.4.3.23) “यत्र त्वस्य सर्वम् आत्मैवाभूत्” (BrhU.4.5.15) इत्यादिषु विचक्षणैः निपुणतरवस्तुदर्शिभिः पण्डितैरित्यर्थः; “तमः श्वभ्रनिभं दृष्टं वर्षबुद्बुदसंनिभम्। नाशप्रायं सुखाद्धीनं नाशोत्तरमभावगम्” (मो. ध. ३०१-६०) इति व्यासस्मृतेः॥ The unreality of duality has been demonstrated by of Vedānta Scriptures. Therefore it is stated: – Dream objects and illusion, though unreal when their true nature is considered, are thought, in spite of their unreality, as real by the ignorant. As an imaginary city in the sky, filled with shops full of vendable articles, houses, palaces and villages frequented by men and women, though appearing real to us, is seen to vanish suddenly as dream and illusion, which are known to be unreal (though they appear to be real), – so also is perceived this entire duality of the universe to be unreal. Where is this taught? This is thus taught in the Vedānta Scriptures. “There is no multiplicity here.” “Indra (assumed diverse forms) through the powers of Māyā.” “In the beginning all this existed as Brahman.” “Fear rises verily from duality,” “That duality does never exist.” “When all this has become Ātman then who can see whom and by what?” In these and other passages, the wise men, i.e., those who see the real nature of things, declare (the unreal nature of the universe). The Smṛti of Vyāsa also supports this view in these words: – “This duality of the universe, perceived by the wise like a hole seen in darkness in the ground, is unstable like the bubbles that appear in rain-water, always undergoing destruction, ever devoid of bliss, and ceasing to exist, after dissolution.” Comment.
There is neither dissolution nor creation, none in bondage and none practicing disciplines. There is none seeking Liberation and none liberated. This is the absolute truth.✅
प्रकरणार्थोपसंहारार्थोऽयं श्लोकः – यदा वितथं द्वैतम् आत्मैवैकः परमार्थतः सन्, तदा इदं निष्पन्नं भवति – सर्वोऽयं लौकिको वैदिकश्च व्यवहारोऽविद्याविषय एवेति। तदा न निरोधः, निरोधनं निरोधः प्रलयः, उत्पत्तिः जननम्, बद्धः संसारी जीवः, साधकः साधनवान्मोक्षस्य, मुमुक्षुः मोचनार्थी, मुक्तः विमुक्तबन्धः। उत्पत्तिप्रलययोरभावाद्बद्धादयो न सन्ति इति एषा परमार्थता। This verse sums up the meaning of the chapter. When duality is perceived to be illusory and Ātman alone is known as the sole Reality, then it is clearly established that all our experiences, ordinary or religious (Veda), verily pertain to the domain of ignorance. Then one perceives that there is no dissolution, i.e., destruction (from the standpoint of Reality); no birth or creation, i.e., coming into existence; no one in bondage, i.e., no worldly being; no pupilage, i.e., no one adopting means for the attainment of liberation; no seeker after liberation, and no one free from bondage (as bondage does not exist). The Ultimate Truth is that the stage of bondage, etc., cannot exist in the absence of creation and destruction.कथमुत्पत्तिप्रलययोरभाव इति, उच्यते – द्वैतस्यासत्त्वात्। “यत्र हि द्वैतमिव भवति” (BrhU.2.4.14) “य इह नानेव पश्यति” (KathU.2.1.10) “आत्मैवेदं सर्वम्” (ChanU.7.25.2) “ब्रह्मैवेदं सर्वम्” (नृ. उ. ७) “एकमेवाद्वितीयम्” (ChanU.6.2.1) “इदं सर्वं यदयम् आत्मा” (BrhU.2.4.6) इत्यादिनानाश्रुतिभ्यो द्वैतस्यासत्त्वं सिद्धम्। सतो ह्युत्पत्तिः प्रलयो वा स्यात्, नासतः शशविषाणादेः। नाप्यद्वैतमुत्पद्यते प्रलीयते वा। अद्वैतं च, उत्पत्तिप्रलयवच्चेति विप्रतिषिद्धम्। यस्तु पुनर्द्वैतसंव्यवहारः, How can it be said that there is neither creation nor destruction? It is thus replied: – There is no duality (at any time). The absence of duality is indicated by such Scriptural passages as, “When duality appears to exist…” “One who appears to see multiplicity…” “All this is verily Ātman.” “Ātman is one and without a second.” “All that exists is verily the Ātman,” etc. Birth or death can be predicated only of that which exists and never of what does not exist, such as the horns of a hare, etc. That which is non-dual (Advaita) can never be said to be born or destroyed. That it should be non-dual and at the same time subject to birth and death, is a contradiction in terms.स रज्जुसर्पवदात्मनि प्राणादिलक्षणः कल्पित इत्युक्तम्; न हि मनोविकल्पनाया रज्जुसर्पादिलक्षणाया रज्ज्वां प्रलय उत्पत्तिर्वा; न च मनसि रज्जुसर्पस्योत्पत्तिः प्रलयो वा, न चोभयतो वा। तथा मानसत्वाविशेषाद्द्वैतस्य। न हि नियते मनसि सुषुप्ते वा द्वैतं गृह्यते; अतो मनोविकल्पनामात्रं द्वैतमिति सिद्धम्। तस्मात्सूक्तम् – द्वैतस्यासत्त्वान्निरोधाद्यभावः परमार्थतेति। It has already been said that our dual experience characterised by (the activities of) Prāṇa, etc., is a mere illusion having Ātman for its substratum, like the snake imagined in the rope which is its substratum. The imagination characterised by the appearance of the snake in the rope cannot be produced from nor dissolved in the rope (i.e., in any external object), nor is produced from the imaginary snake or dissolved in the mind, nor even in both (i.e., the rope and the mind). Thus duality being non-different from mental (subjective) imagination (cannot have a beginning or an end). For, duality is not perceived when one’s mental activities are controlled (as in Samādhi) or in deep sleep. Therefore it is established that duality is a mere illusion of the mind. Hence it is well said that the Ultimate Reality is the absence of destruction, etc., on account of the non-existence of duality (which exists only in the imagination of the mind).यद्येवं द्वैताभावे शास्त्रव्यापारः, नाद्वैते, विरोधात्; तथा च सत्यद्वैतस्य वस्तुत्वे प्रमाणाभावाच्छून्यवादप्रसङ्गः, द्वैतस्य चाभावात्; (Objection) – If this be the case, the object of the teachings should be directed to prove the negation of duality and not to establish as a positive fact non-duality, inasmuch as there is a contradiction (in employing the same means for the refutation of one and the establishment of another). If this were admitted, then the conclusion will tend to become Nihilist in the absence of evidence for the existence of non-duality as Reality; for, duality has already been said to be non-existent.न, रज्जुवत्सर्पादिकल्पनाया निरास्पदत्वेऽनुपपत्तिरिति प्रत्युक्तमेतत्कथमुज्जीवयसीति, आह – (Reply) – This contention is not consistent with reason. Why do you revive a point already established, viz., that it is unreasonable to conceive of such illusions as the snake in the rope, etc., without a substratum?रज्जुरपि सर्पविकल्पस्यास्पदभूता कल्पितैवेति दृष्टान्तानुपपत्ति (Objection) – This analogy is not relevant as even the rope, which is the substratum of the imaginary snake, is also an imaginary entity.न, विकल्पनाक्षये अविकल्पितस्याविकल्पितत्वादेव सत्त्वोपपत्तेः; (Reply) – It is not so. For, upon the disappearance of the imagination, the unimagined substratum can be reasonably said to exist on account of its unimagined character.रज्जुसर्पवदसत्त्वमिति चेत्, (Objection) – It may be contended that like the imagination of the snake in the rope, it (the unimaginary substratum) is also unreal.न एकान्तेनाविकल्पितत्वात् अविकल्पितरज्ज्वंशवत्प्राक्सर्पाभावविज्ञानात्, विकल्पयितुश्च प्राग्विकल्पनोत्पत्तेः सिद्धत्वाभ्युपगमादेवासत्त्वानुपपत्तिः। (Reply) – It cannot be so. For, it (Brahman) is ever unimagined, because it is like the rope that is never the object of our imagination and is real even before the knowledge of the unreality of the snake. Further, the existence of the subject (knower or witness) of imagination must be admitted to be antecedent to the imagination. Therefore it is unreasonable to say that such subject is non-existent.कथं पुनः स्वरूपे व्यापाराभावे शास्त्रस्य द्वैतविज्ञाननिवर्तकत्वम्? (Objection) – How can the Scripture, if it cannot make us understand the true nature of the Self (which is non-duality), free our mind from the idea of duality?नैष दोषः, रज्ज्वां सर्पादिवदात्मनि द्वैतस्याविद्याध्यस्तत्वात् कथं सुख्यहं दुःखी मूढो जातो मृतो जीर्णो देहवान् पश्यामि व्यक्ताव्यक्तः कर्ता फली संयुक्तो वियुक्तः क्षीणो वृद्धोऽहं ममैते इत्येवम् आदयः सर्वे आत्मन्यध्यारोप्यन्ते। आत्मा एतेष्वनुगतः, सर्वत्राव्यभिचारात्, यथा सर्पधारादिभेदेषु रज्जुः। यदा चैवं विशेष्यस्वरूपप्रत्ययस्य सिद्धत्वान्न कर्तव्यत्वं शास्त्रेण। अकृतकर्तृ च शास्त्रं कृतानुकारित्वे अप्रमाणम्। (Reply) – There is no difficulty. Duality is superimposed upon Ātman through ignorance, like the snake, etc., upon the rope. How is it so? I am happy, I am miserable, ignorant, born, dead, worn out, endowed with body, I see, I am manifested and unmanifested, the agent, the enjoyer, related and unrelated, decayed and old, this is mine, – these and such other ideas are superimposed upon Ātman. The notion of Ātman (Self) persists in all these, because no such idea can ever be conceived of without the notion of Ātman. It is like the notion of the rope which persists in (all superimposed ideas, such as) the snake, the water-line, etc. Such being the case, the Scripture has no function with regard to the Ātman which, being of the nature of the substantive, is ever self-evident. The function of the Scripture is to accomplish that which is not accomplished yet. It does not serve the purpose of evidence if it is to establish what has been already established.यतः अविद्याध्यारोपितसुखित्वादिविशेषप्रतिबन्धादेवात्मनः स्वरूपेणानवस्थानम्, स्वरूपावस्थानं च श्रेयः इति सुखित्वादिनिवर्तकं शास्त्रम् आत्मन्यसुखित्वादिप्रत्ययकरणेन नेति नेत्यस्थूलादिवाक्यैः; आत्मस्वरूपवदसुखित्वादिरपि सुखित्वादिभेदेषु नानुवृत्तोऽस्ति धर्मः। The Ātman does not realise its own natural condition on account of such obstacles as the notion of happiness, etc., superimposed by ignorance; and the true nature is realised only when one knows it as such. It is therefore the Scripture, whose purpose is to remove the idea of happiness, etc. (associated with Ātman) that produces the consciousness of the not-happy (i.e., attributeless) nature of Ātman by such statements as “Not this” “Not this”, “(It is) not gross,” etc. Like the persistence of Ātman (in all states of consciousness) the not-happy (attributeless) characteristic of Ātman does not inhere in all ideas such as of being happy and the like.यद्यनुवृत्तः स्यात्, नाध्यारोप्येत सुखित्वादिलक्षणो विशेषः, यथोष्णत्वगुणविशेषवत्यग्नौ शीतता; तस्मान्निर्विशेष एवात्मनि सुखित्वादयो विशेषाः कल्पिताः। यत्त्वसुखित्वादिशास्त्रम् आत्मनः, तत्सुखित्वादिविशेषनिवृत्त्यर्थमेवेति सिद्धम्। “सिद्धं तु निवर्तकत्वात्” इत्यागमविदां सूत्रम्॥ If it were so, then one would not have such specific experience as that of being happy, etc., superimposed upon Ātman, in the same manner as coldness cannot be associated with fire whose specific characteristic is that of heat. It is, therefore, that such specific characteristics as that of being happy, etc., are imagined in Ātman which is, undoubtedly, without any attributes. The Scriptural teachings which speak of Ātman as being not-happy, etc., are meant for the purpose of removing the notion that Ātman is associated with such specific attributes as happiness, etc. There is the following aphoristic statement by the knowers of the Āgama. “The validity of Scripture is established by its negating all positive characteristics of Ātman (which otherwise cannot be indicated by Scriptures).”
Ātman is imagined as the unreal objects that are perceived to exist and as Non-duality as well. The objects, too, are imagined in the non-dual Ātman. Therefore Non-duality is Bliss.✅
पूर्वश्लोकार्थस्य हेतुम् आह – यथा रज्ज्वामसद्भिः सर्पधारादिभिः अद्वयेन च रज्जुद्रव्येण सता अयं सर्प इति धारेयं दण्डोऽयमिति वा रज्जुद्रव्यमेव कल्प्यते, एवं प्राणादिभिरनन्तैः असद्भिः एव अविद्यमानैः, न परमार्थतः। न ह्यप्रचलिते मनसि कश्चिद्भाव उपलक्षयितुं शक्यते केनचित्; न चात्मनः प्रचलनमस्ति। The reason for the interpretation of the previous verse is thus stated: Just as in a rope, an unreal snake, streak of water or the like is imagined, which are non-separate (non-dual) from the existing rope, – the same (rope) being spoken of as this snake, this streak of water, this stick, or the like, – even so this Ātman is imagined to be the innumerable objects such as Prāṇa, etc., which are unreal and perceived only through ignorance, but not from the standpoint of the Ultimate Reality. For, unless the mind is active, nobody is ever able to perceive any object. But no action is possible for Ātman.प्रचलितस्यैवोपलभ्यमाना भावा न परमार्थतः सन्तः कल्पयितुं शक्याः। अतः असद्भिरेव प्राणादिभिः भावैः अद्वयेन च परमार्थसता आत्मना रज्जुवत्सर्वविकल्पास्पदभूतेन अयं स्वयमेवात्मा कल्पितः सदैकस्वभावोऽपि सन्। Therefore the objects that are perceived to exist by the active mind can never be imagined to have existence from the standpoint of the Ultimate Reality. It is therefore this (non-dual) Ātman which alone is imagined as such illusory objects as Prāṇa, etc., which are perceived, as well as the non-dual and ultimately real Ātman (which is the substratum of illusory ideas, such as Prāṇa, etc.) in the same manner as the rope is imagined as the substratum of the illusion of the snake.ते चापि प्राणादि-भावाः अद्वयेन एव सता आत्मना विकल्पिताः; न हि निरास्पदा काचित्कल्पना उपपद्यते; अतः सर्वकल्पनास्पदत्वात्स्वेनात्मना अद्वयस्य अव्यभिचारात् कल्पनावस्थायामपि अद्वयता शिवा; कल्पना एव त्वशिवाः, रज्जुसर्पादिवत्त्रासादिकारिण्यो हि ताः। अद्वयता अभया; अतः सैव शिवा॥ Though always one and unique (i.e., of the nature of the Ātman), the Prāṇa, etc., the entities that are perceived, are imagined (from the standpoint of ignorance) as having the non-dual and ultimately real Ātman as their substratum. For, no illusion is ever perceived without a substratum. As “non-duality” is the substratum of all illusions (from the standpoint of ignorance) and also as it is, in its real nature, ever unchangeable, non-duality alone is (the highest) bliss even in the state of imagination, i.e., the empirical experiences. Imaginations alone (which make Prāṇa, etc., appear as separate from Ātman) are the cause of misery. These imaginations cause fear, etc., like the imaginations of the snake, etc., in the rope. Non-duality is free from fear and therefore it is the (highest) bliss. Comment.
The diversity in the universe does not exist as an entity identical With Ātman, nor does it exist by itself. Neither is it separate from Brahman nor is it non-separate. This is the statement of the wise.✅
कुतश्चाद्वयता शिवा? नानाभूतं प्रथक्त्वम् अन्यस्य अन्यस्मात् यत्र दृष्टम्, तत्राशिवं भवेत्। न ह्यत्राद्वये परमार्थसत्यात्मनि प्राणादिसंसारजातम् इदं जगत् आत्मभावेन परमार्थस्वरूपेण निरूप्यमाणं नाना वस्त्वन्तरभूतं भवति; यथा रज्जुस्वरूपेण प्रकाशेन निरूप्यमाणो न नानाभूतः कल्पितः सर्पोऽस्ति, तद्वत्। Why is non-duality called the highest bliss? One suffers from misery when one finds differences in the form of multiplicity, i.e., when one finds an object separate from another. For when this manifold of the universe with the entire relative phenomena consisting of Prāṇa, etc., imagined in the non-dual Ātman, the Ultimate Reality is realised to be identical with the Ātman, the Supreme Reality, then alone multiplicity ceases to exist, i.e., Prāṇa, etc., do not appear to be separate from Ātman. It is just like the snake that is imagined (to be separate from the rope) but that does no longer remain as such when its true nature is known with the help of a light to be nothing but the rope.न अपि स्वेन प्राणाद्यात्मना इदं विद्यते कदाचिदपि, रज्जुसर्पवत्कल्पितत्वादेव। तथा अन्योन्यं न पृथक् प्राणादि वस्तु, यथा अश्वान्महिषः पृथग्विद्यते, एवम्। अतः असत्त्वात् न अपि अपृथक् विद्यतेऽन्योन्यं परेण वा किञ्चिद् इति। एवं परमार्थ-तत्त्वविदो ब्राह्मणा विदुः। अतः अशिवहेतुत्वाभावादद्वयतैव शिवेत्यभिप्रायः॥ This manifold (Idam) does never really exist as it appears to be, that is to say, in the forms of Prāṇa, etc., because it is imaginary just like the snake seen in the place of the rope. Therefore different objects, such as Prāṇa, etc., do not exist as separate from one other as a buffalo appears to be separate from a horse. The idea of separation being unreal, there is nothing which exists as separate from an object of the same nature or from other objects (of different nature). The Brāhmaṇas, i.e., the Knowers of Self, know this to be the essence of the Ultimate Reality. Therefore the implication of the verse is that non-duality alone, on account of the absence of any cause that may bring about misery, is verily the (highest) bliss.
The wise, who are free from attachment, fear and anger and are well versed in the Vedas, have realized Ātman as devoid of all phantasms and free from the illusion of the manifold and as non-dual.✅
तदेतत्सम्यग्दर्शनं स्तूयते – विगत-राग-भय-क्रोध-आदि-सर्व-दोषैः सर्वदा मुनिभिः मननशीलैर्विवेकिभिः वेद-पारगैः अवगतवेदान्तार्थतत्त्वैर्ज्ञानिभिः निर्विकल्पः सर्वविकल्पशून्यः अयम् आत्मा दृष्टः उपलब्धो वेदान्तार्थतत्परैः, प्रपञ्चोपशमः, प्रपञ्चो द्वैतभेदविस्तारः, तस्योपशमोऽभावो यस्मिन्, स आत्मा प्रपञ्चोपशमः, अत एव अद्वयः विगतदोषैरेव पण्डितैर्वेदान्तार्थतत्परैः संन्यासिभिः अयम् आत्मा द्रष्टुं शक्यः, नान्यैः रागादिकलुषितचेतोभिः स्वपक्षपातिदर्शनैस्तार्किकादिभिरित्यभिप्रायः॥ The perfect knowledge as described above, is thus extolled. The sages who are always free from all blemishes such as attachment, fear, spite, anger, etc., who are given to contemplation, who can discriminate between the real and the unreal and who can grasp the essence of the meaning of the Vedas, i.e., who are well versed in the Vedānta (i.e., the Upaniṣads) do realise the real nature of this Ātman which is free from all imaginations and also free from this the illusion of the manifold. This Ātman is the total negation of the phenomena of duality and therefore it is non-dual. The intention of the Śruti passage is this: The Supreme Self can be realised only by the Sannyāsins (men of renunciation) who are free from all blemishes and who are enlightened regarding the essence of the Upaniṣads and never by others, i.e., those vain logicians whose mind is clouded by passion, etc., and who find truth only in their own creeds and opinions.
Therefore, knowing Ātman as such, fix your attention on Non-duality. Having realized Non-duality, behave in the world like an inert object.✅
यस्मात्सर्वानर्थोपशमरूपत्वादद्वयं शिवमभयम्, अतः एवं विदित्वा एनम् अद्वैते स्मृतिं योजयेत्; अद्वैतावगमायैव स्मृतिं कुर्यादित्यर्थः। तच्च अद्वैतम् अवगम्य “अहमस्मि परं ब्रह्म” इति विदित्वा अशनायाद्यतीतं साक्षादपरोक्षादजम् आत्मानं सर्वलोकव्यवहारातीतं जडवत् लोकम् आचरेत्; अप्रख्यापयन्नात्मानमहमेवंविध इत्यभिप्रायः॥ As non-duality, on account of its being the negation of all evils, is bliss and fearlessness, therefore knowing it to be such, direct your mind to the realisation of the non-dual Ātman. In other words, concentrate your memory on the realisation of non-duality alone. Having known this non-dual Brahman which is free from hunger, etc., unborn and directly perceptible as the Self and which transcends all codes of human conduct, i.e., by attaining to the consciousness that ‘I am the Supreme Brahman,’ behave with others as one not knowing the Truth; that is to say, let not others know what you are and what you have become.
The illumined sannyāsin does not praise any deity, does not salute any superior and does not perform rites to propitiate departed ancestors. Regarding both body and Ātman as his abode, he remains satisfied with what comes by chance.✅
कया चर्यया लोकम् आचरेदिति, आह – स्तुति-नमस्कार-आदि-सर्व-कर्म-विवर्जितः त्यक्तसर्वबाह्यैषणः प्रतिपन्नपरमहंसपारिव्राज्य इत्यभिप्रायः, “एतं वै तम् आत्मानं विदित्वा” (BrhU.3.5.1) इत्यादिश्रुतेः, “तद्बुद्धयस्तदात्मानस्तन्निष्ठास्तत्परायणाः” (BhG.5.17) इत्यादिस्मृतेश्च। What should be his code of conduct in the world? It is thus stated: – He should give up all such formalities as praise, salutation, etc., and be free from all desires for external objects. In other words, he should take up the life of a Parama-haṃsa Sannyāsin. The Śruti also supports this view in such passages as “knowing this Ātman”, etc. This is further approved in such Smṛti passages as, “With their consciousness in That (Brahman), their self being That, intent on That, with That for their Supreme Goal” (Gītā), etc.चलं शरीरम्, प्रतिक्षणमन्यथाभावात्; अचलम् आत्मतत्त्वम्। यदा कदाचिद्भोजनादि-संव्यवहार-निमित्तम् आकाशवद् अचलं स्वरूपम् आत्मतत्त्वम् आत्मनो निकेतम् आश्रयम् आत्मस्थितिं विस्मृत्य अहमिति मन्यते यदा, तदा चलो देहो निकेतो यस्य सोऽयमेवं चलाचल-निकेतो विद्वान्न पुनर्बाह्यविषयाश्रयः। स च यादृच्छिको भवेत्, यदृच्छा-प्राप्त-कौपीन-आच्छादन-ग्रासमात्र-देह-स्थितिः इत्यर्थः॥ The word “calam” in the text signifying “changing” indicates the “body” because it changes every moment. The word “Acalam” signifying “unchanging” indicates the “Knowledge of Self”. He has the (changing) body for his support when he, for the purpose of such activities as eating, etc., forgets the Knowledge of the Self, the (real) support of Ātman, unchanging like the Ākāśa, (ether) and relates himself to egoism. Such a wise man never takes shelter under external objects. He entirely depends upon circumstances, that is to say, he maintains his body with whatever food or strips of cloth, etc., are brought to him by mere chance.
Having known the truth regarding what exists internally as also the truth regarding what exists externally, he becomes one with Reality, he exults in Reality and never deviates from Reality.✅
बाह्यं पृथिव्यादि तत्त्वम् आध्यात्मिकं च देहादिलक्षणं रज्जुसर्पादिवत्स्वप्नमायादिवच्च असत्, “वाचारम्भणं विकारो नामधेयम्” (ChanU.6.1.4) इत्यादिश्रुतेः। आत्मा च सबाह्याभ्यन्तरो ह्यजोऽपूर्वोऽनपरोऽनन्तरोऽबाह्यः कृत्स्नः तथा आकाशवत्सर्वगतः सूक्ष्मोऽचलो निर्गुणो निष्कलो निष्क्रियः “तत्सत्यं स आत्मा तत्त्वमसि” (ChanU.6.8.16) इति श्रुतेः, इत्येवं तत्त्वं दृष्ट्वा तत्त्वीभूतः तद्-आरामो न बाह्य-रमणः; The truth regarding external objects such as the earth, etc., and the truth regarding internal objects characterised by body, etc., is that these are as unreal as a snake seen in the rope, or objects seen in dream or magic. For, there are such Śruti passages as, “modification being only a name, arising from speech, etc.” The Śruti further declares, “Ātman is both within and without, birthless, causeless, having no within or without, entire, all-pervading like the Ākāśa (ether), subtle, unchanging, without attributes and parts, and without action. That is Truth, That is Ātman and That thou art.” Knowing it to be such from the point of view of Truth, he becomes one with Truth and derives his enjoyment from Truth and not from any external object.यथा अतत्त्वदर्शी कश्चित्तम् आत्मत्वेन प्रतिपन्नश्चित्तचलनमनु चलितम् आत्मानं मन्यमानः तत्त्वाच्चलितं देहादिभूतम् आत्मानं कदाचिन्मन्यते प्रच्युतोऽहम् आत्मतत्त्वादिदानीमिति, समाहिते तु मनसि कदाचित्तत्त्वभूतं प्रसन्नम् आत्मानं मन्यते इदानीमस्मि तत्त्वीभूत इति; न तथा आत्मविद्भवेत्, आत्मन एकरूपत्वात्, स्वरूपप्रच्यवनासम्भवाच्च। सदैव ब्रह्म अस्मि इति अप्रच्युतो भवेत् तत्त्वात्, सदा अप्रच्युतात्मतत्त्वदर्शनो भवेद् इत्यभिप्रायः; “शुनि चैव श्वपाके च” (BhG.5.18) “समं सर्वेषु भूतेषु” (BhG.13.27) इत्यादिस्मृतेः॥ But a person ignorant of Truth, takes the mind to be the Self and believes the Ātman to be active like the mind, and becomes active. He thus thinks his self to be identified with the body, etc., and deviated from Ātman saying, “Oh, I am now fallen from the Knowledge of Self.” When his mind is concentrated he sometimes thinks that he is happy and one with the Self. He declares “Oh, I am now one with the essence of Truth.” But, the knower of Self never makes any such statement, as Ātman is ever one and changeless and as it is impossible for Ātman to deviate from its own nature. The consciousness that “I am Brahman” never leaves him. In other words, he never loses the consciousness regarding the essence of the Self. The Smṛti supports this view in such passages as “The wise man views equally a dog or an out-caste.” “He sees who sees the Supreme Lord remaining the same, in all beings” (Gītā).
The jīva, betaking himself to devotional worship, abides in the manifest Brahman. He thinks that before the creation all was of the same nature as the birthless Reality. Therefore he is said to possess a narrow intellect.✅
ओङ्कारनिर्णये उक्तः प्रपञ्चोपशमः शिवोऽद्वैत आत्मेति प्रतिज्ञामात्रेण, “ज्ञाते द्वैतं न विद्यते” (ManKa.1.18) इति च। तत्र द्वैताभावस्तु वैतथ्यप्रकरणेन स्वप्नमायागन्धर्वनगरादिदृष्टान्तैर्दृश्यत्वाद्यन्तवत्त्वादिहेतुभिस्तर्केण च प्रतिपादितः। अद्वैतं किम् आगममात्रेण प्रतिपत्तव्यम्, आहोस्वित्तर्केणापीत्यत आह – शक्यते तर्केणापि ज्ञातुम्; तत्कथमित्यद्वैतप्रकरणम् आरभ्यते। उपास्योपासनादिभेदजातं सर्वं वितथम्, केवलश्चात्मा अद्वयः परमार्थ इति स्थितमतीते प्रकरणे; यतः उपासनाश्रितः उपासनाम् आत्मनो मोक्षसाधनत्वेन गतः उपासकोऽहं ममोपास्यं ब्रह्म। While determining the meaning of Om, it has been stated in the form of a proposition that “Ātman is the negation of phenomena, blissful and non-dual.” It has been further stated that “Duality does not exist when the reality is known.” Further, in the chapter on Illusion, that duality does not exist really has been established by the illustrations of dream, magic, castle-in-the-air, etc., and also by reasoning on the grounds of “the capability of being seen” and “the being finite,” etc. Now it is asked whether non-duality can be established only by scriptural evidence or whether it can be proved by reasoning as well. It is said in reply that it is possible to establish non-duality by reasoning as well. How is it possible? This is shown in this chapter on Advaita. It has been demonstrated in the last chapter that the entire realm of dualism including the object and the act of devotion is illusory, and the attributeless, non-dual Ātman alone is the Reality. The word “upāsanāśrīta” in the text, meaning the one betaking himself to devotion, signifies him who has recourse to devotional exercises as means to the attainment of liberation and who further thinks that he is the devotee and Brahman is his object of worship.तदुपासनं कृत्वा जाते ब्रह्मणि इदानीं वर्तमानः अजं ब्रह्म शरीरपातादूर्ध्वं प्रतिपत्स्ये प्रागुत्पत्तेश्चाजमिदं सर्वम् अहं च। यदात्मकोऽहं प्राग् उत्पत्तेः इदानीं जातो जाते ब्रह्मणि च वर्तमान उपासनया पुनस्तदेव प्रतिपत्स्ये इत्येवमुपासनाश्रितो धर्मः साधकः येनैवं क्षुद्रब्रह्मवित्, तेन असौ कारणेन कृपणो दीनोऽल्पकः स्मृतो नित्याजब्रह्मदर्शिभिर्महात्मभिरित्यभिप्रायः, “यद्वाचानभ्युदितं येन वागभ्युद्यते। तदेव ब्रह्म त्वं विद्धि नेदं यदिदमुपासते” (KenU.1.4) इत्यादिश्रुतेस्तलवकाराणाम्॥ This Jīva or the embodied being further thinks that through devotional practices he, at present related to the evolved Brahman (Personal God), would attain to the ultimate Brahman after the dissolution of the body. Prior to the manifestation, according to this Jīva, everything including itself, was unborn. In other words he thinks, “I shall, through devotional practices, regain that which was my real nature before manifestation, though at present I subsist in the Brahman that appears in the form of the manifold.” Such a Jīva, that is, the aspirant, betaking itself to devotion, inasmuch as it knows only a partial aspect of Brahman, is called of narrow or poor intellect by those who regard Brahman as eternal and unchanging. The Upaniṣad of the Talavakāra (Kena) supports this view in such statements as, “That which is not expressed (indicated) by speech and by which speech is expressed, That alone know as Brahman and not that which people here adore,” etc.
Therefore I shall now describe Brahman, which is unborn, the same throughout and free from narrowness. From this one can understand that Brahman does not in reality pass into birth even in the slightest degree, though It appears to be manifest everywhere.✅
सबाह्याभ्यन्तरमजम् आत्मानं प्रतिपत्तुमशक्नुवन् अविद्यया दीनम् आत्मानं मन्यमानः जातोऽहं जाते ब्रह्मणि वर्ते तदुपासनाश्रितः सन्ब्रह्म प्रतिपत्स्ये इत्येवं प्रतिपन्नः कृपणो भवति यस्मात्, अतो वक्ष्यामि अकार्पण्यम् अकृपणभावमजं ब्रह्म। तद्धि कार्पण्यास्पदम्, “यत्रान्योऽन्यत्पश्यत्यन्यच्छृणोत्यन्यद्विजानाति तदल्पम्” (ChanU.7.24.1) “मर्त्यं तत्” “वाचारम्भणं विकारो नामधेयम्” (ChanU.6.1.4) इत्यादिश्रुतिभ्यः। तद्विपरीतं सबाह्याभ्यन्तरमजमकार्पण्यं भूमाख्यं ब्रह्म; यत्प्राप्याविद्याकृतसर्वकार्पण्यनिवृत्तिः, तदकार्पण्यं वक्ष्यामीत्यर्थः। One unable to realise Ātman, which is both within and without and birthless, and therefore believing oneself to be helpless through Avidyā, thinks, “I am born, I subsist in the Brahman with attributes (sa-guṇa) and through devotion to It I shall become Brahman,” and thus becomes Kṛpaṇa (narrow-minded). Therefore, I shall describe Brahman which has never been subject to any limitation and which is birthless (changeless). The narrowness of mind has been described in such Śruti passages as, “When one sees another, hears another, knows another, then there is limitedness (littleness), mortality and unreality,” “Modification is only a name arising from speech, but the truth is that all is clay,” etc. But contrary to it is Brahman known as Bhumā (great) which is both within and without and which is free from all limitations. I shall now describe that Brahman, free from all limitations, by realising which one gets rid of all narrowness superimposed by ignorance.तत् अजाति अविद्यमाना जातिरस्य। समतां गतं सर्वसाम्यं गतम्; कस्मात्? अवयववैषम्याभावात्। यद्धि सावयवं वस्तु, तदवयववैषम्यं गच्छज्जायत इत्युच्यते; इदं तु निरवयवत्वात्समतां गतमिति न कैश्चिदवयवैः स्फुटति; अतः अजाति अकार्पण्यं समन्ततः समन्तात्, यथा न जायते किञ्चित् अल्पमपि न स्फुटति रज्जुसर्पवदविद्याकृतदृष्ट्या जायमानं येन प्रकारेण न जायते सर्वतः अजमेव ब्रह्म भवति, तथा तं प्रकारं शृण्वित्यर्थः॥ It (Brahman) is called Ajāti, birthless, inasmuch as none knows its birth or cause. It is the same always and everywhere. How is it so? It is so because there does not exist in it (Brahman) any inequality caused by the presence of parts or limbs. For, only that which is with parts may be said to be born (or to have taken new form) by a change of its parts. But as Ātman is without parts, it is always the same and even, that is to say, it does not manifest itself in any new form through a change of the parts. Therefore it is without birth and free from limitation. Now listen as to how Brahman is not born, how it does not undergo change by so much as a jot, but ever remains unborn, though it appears, through ignorance, to be born and to give birth to others, like the rope and the snake.
Ātman, which is like ākāśa (infinite space), is said to be manifested in the form of jīvas, which may be likened to the ākāśas enclosed in pots. The bodies, also, are said to be manifested from Ātman, just as a pot and the like are created out of ākāśa. As regards the manifestation of Ātman this is the illustration.✅
अजाति ब्रह्माकार्पण्यं वक्ष्यामीति प्रतिज्ञातम्; तत्सिद्ध्यर्थं हेतुं दृष्टान्तं च वक्ष्यामीत्याह – आत्मा परः हि यस्मात् आकाशवत् सूक्ष्मो निरवयवः सर्वगत आकाशवदुक्तः जीवैः क्षेत्रज्ञैः घटाकाशैः इव घटाकाशतुल्यैः उदितः उक्तः; स एव आकाशसमः पर आत्मा। अथवा घटाकाशैर्यथा आकाश उदितः उत्पन्नः, तथा परो जीवात्मभिरुत्पन्नः; जीवात्मनां परस्मादात्मन उत्पत्तिर्या श्रूयते वेदान्तेषु, सा महाकाशाद्घटाकाशोत्पत्तिसमा, न परमार्थत इत्यभिप्रायः। It has been said in the previous text, “I shall now describe Brahman, birthless and free from all narrowness.” Now I shall give an illustration and a reason to substantiate the proposition. As the Supreme Ātman is like the Ākāśa, subtle, without parts and all-pervasive, it is compared to the Ākāśa. The Supreme Self again, who is likened to the Ākāśa, is said to be manifested as the embodied beings (Jīvas) or Kṣetra-jñas (Knowers of bodies), and are likened to the Ghaṭākāśas or the Ākāśa enclosed in jars. This is the Supreme Self which is like the Ākāśa. Or the sentence may be explained thus: – As the totality of the Ākāśa enclosed within the pots is said to constitute what is known as the Mahākāśa or the great expanse of ether, similarly the totality of the embodied beings (Jīvas) constitutes the Supreme Being. The creation or manifestation of the Jīvas (embodied beings) from the Supreme Self, as stated in the Vedānta, is like the creation or manifestation of the Ghaṭākāśa (i.e., the ether enclosed in a jar) from the Mahākāśa (or the great and undifferentiated ether). That is to say, creation or manifestation is not real.तस्मादेवाकाशाद्घटादयः सङ्घाता यथा उत्पद्यन्ते, एवम् आकाशस्थानीयात्परमात्मनः पृथिव्यादिभूतसङ्घाता आध्यात्मिकाश्च कार्यकरणलक्षणा रज्जुसर्पवद्विकल्पिता जायन्ते; अत उच्यते – घटादिवत् च सङ्घातैः उदित इति। यदा मन्दबुद्धिप्रतिपिपादयिषया श्रुत्या आत्मनो जातिरुच्यते जीवादीनाम्, तदा जातौ उपगम्यमानायाम् एतत् निदर्शनं दृष्टान्तः यथोदिताकाशवदित्यादिः॥ As from that Ākāśa are produced such physical objects as the pot, etc., similarly from the Supreme Self which is like the Ākāśa, are produced the entire aggregate of material entities, such as the earth, etc., as well as the individual bodies, all characterised by causality, the entire production being nothing but mere imagination like that of the snake in the rope. Therefore it is said, “The aggregates (of the gross bodies) are produced like the pot, etc.” When the Śruti, with a view to the enlightenment of the ignorant, speaks of the creation or manifestation (of the Jīvas) from the Ātman, then such manifestation, being admitted as a fact, is explained with the help of the illustration of the creation of the pot, etc., from the Ākāśa.
As, on the destruction of the pot etc., the ākāśa enclosed in them merge in the great ākāśa, so the jīvas merge in Ātman.✅
यथा घट-आदि-उत्पत्त्या घट-आकाशादि-उत्पत्तिः, यथा च घटादि-प्रलयेन घट-आकाश-आदि-प्रलयः, तद्वद्देहादिसङ्घातोत्पत्त्या जीवोत्पत्तिः तत्प्रलयेन च जीवानाम् इह आत्मनि प्रलयः, न स्वत इत्यर्थः॥ As the creation of ether enclosed within the pot, etc., follows the creation of the pot, etc., and as the merging of the same ether (in the Mahākāśa) is consequent on the destruction of the pot, etc.; in the same manner the creation or manifestation of the Jīva follows that of the aggregate of the body, etc., and the merging of the Jīva in the Supreme Self follows in the wake of the destruction of the aggregate of the body, etc. The meaning is that neither the creation nor destruction is in itself real (from the standpoint of the Absolute). Comment.
As the dust, smoke, etc. soiling the ākāśa enclosed in a particular pot do not soil the other ākāśas enclosed in other pots, so also the happiness, miseries, etc. of one jīva do not affect other jīvas.✅
सर्वदेहेष्वात्मैकत्वे एकस्मिन् जननमरणसुखदुःखादिमत्यात्मनि सर्वात्मनां तत्संबन्धः क्रियाफलसांकर्यं च स्यादिति ये त्वाहुर्द्वैतिनः, तान्प्रतीदमुच्यते – यथा एकस्मिन् घट-आकाशे रजो-धूमादिभिः युते संयुक्ते, न सर्वे घटाकाशादयः तद्रजोधूमादिभिः संयुज्यन्ते, तद्वत् जीवाः सुखादिभिः। The dualists contend that if one Ātman exists in all bodies then the birth, death, happiness, etc., of one Ātman (as Jīva) must affect all and, further, there must follow a confusion regarding the results of the action (done by individuals). This contention is,thus refuted: – As the Ākāśa enclosed within one jar being soiled by dust, smoke, etc., does not make the Ākāśa enclosed in other jars soiled with the dust and the smoke, so all created beings are not affected by the happiness, etc. (of one Jīva).ननु, एक एवात्मा; (Objection) – Is it not your contention that there is only one Ātman?बाढम्; ननु न श्रुतं त्वया आकाशवत्सर्वसङ्घातेष्वेक एवात्मेति? (Reply) – Yes, we admit it. Have you not heard that there is only one Ātman like the all-pervading space, in all bodies?यद्येक एवात्मा, तर्हि सर्वत्र सुखी दुःखी च स्यात्; (Objection) – If there be only one Ātman then it must always and everywhere feel misery and happiness.न चेदं सांख्यस्य चोद्यं सम्भवति; न हि सांख्य आत्मनः सुखदुःखादिमत्त्वमिच्छति, बुद्धिसमवायाभ्युपगमात्सुखदुःखादीनाम्; न चोपलब्धिस्वरूपस्यात्मनो भेदकल्पनायां प्रमाणमस्ति। (Reply) – This objection cannot be raised by the Sāṅkhyas. For, the Sāṅkhyas do not admit that misery, happiness, etc., ever cling to the Ātman; for they assert that happiness, misery, etc., belong inseparably to Buddhi. Further, there is no evidence for imagining multiplicity of Ātman which is of the very nature of knowledge.भेदाभावे प्रधानस्य पारार्थ्यानुपपत्तिरिति चेत्, (Objection) – In the absence of the multiplicity of Ātman the theory that the Pradhāna or Prakṛti acts for the sake of others does not hold good.न; प्रधानकृतस्यार्थस्यात्मन्यसमवायात्; यदि हि प्रधानकृतो बन्धो मोक्षो वा अर्थः पुरुषेषु भेदेन समवैति, ततः प्रधानस्य पारार्थ्यम् आत्मैकत्वे नोपपद्यत इति युक्ता पुरुषभेदकल्पना; न च सांख्यैर्बन्धो मोक्षो वार्थः पुरुषसमवेतोऽभ्युपगम्यते, निर्विशेषाश्च चेतनमात्रा आत्मानोऽभ्युपगम्यन्ते; अतः पुरुषसत्तामात्रप्रयुक्तमेव प्रधानस्य पारार्थ्यं सिद्धम्, न तु पुरुषभेदप्रयुक्तमिति; (Reply) – No, this argument is not valid; for whatever the Pradhāna or Prakṛti may be supposed to accomplish by itself for another cannot inseparably inhere in Ātman. If bondage and liberation accomplished by the Pradhāna inseparably inhered in the multiple Puruṣas, then the theory that the Pradhāna (Prakṛti) always acts for the sake of others would not be consistent with the unity of Ātman existing everywhere. And the theory of the Sāṅkhyas regarding the multiplicity of Ātman would be reasonable. But the Sāṅkhyas do not admit that the purpose of bondage or liberation can ever be inseparably associated with the Puruṣa. For, they admit that the Puruṣas are attributeless and are centres of Pure Consciousness. Therefore, the very existence of the Puruṣa is their support for the theory that the action of Pradhāna is directed to serve the purpose of others (the Puruṣas). But the supposition of the multiplicity of Puruṣas need not be made for this purpose.अतः पुरुषभेदकल्पनायां न प्रधानस्य पारार्थ्यं हेतुः; न चान्यत्पुरुषभेदकल्पनायां प्रमाणमस्ति साङ्ख्यानाम्। परसत्तामात्रमेव चैतन्निमित्तीकृत्य स्वयं बध्यते मुच्यते च प्रधानम्; परश्चोपलब्धिमात्रसत्तास्वरूपेण प्रधानप्रवृत्तौ हेतुः, न केनचिद्विशेषेणेति, केवलमूढतयैव पुरुषभेदकल्पना वेदार्थपरित्यागश्च। Therefore the theory of the Pradhāna seeking to serve the purpose of others cannot be an argument for the supposition of the multiplicity of Ātman. The Sāṅkhyas have no other argument in support of their supposition regarding the multiplicity of Ātman. The Pradhāna takes upon itself bondage and liberation only through the instrumentality of the existence of the other (the Puruṣa). The Puruṣa which is of the very nature of knowledge, is the cause of the activity of the Pradhāna by the fact of its very existence and not on account of its any specific qualities. So it is through ignorance alone that people imagine the Puruṣa (Ātman) to be many and also thereby give up the real import of the Vedas.ये त्वाहुर्वैशेषिकादयः इच्छादय आत्मसमवायिन इति; तदप्यसत्, स्मृतिहेतूनां संस्काराणामप्रदेशवत्यात्मन्यसमवायात्, आत्ममनःसंयोगाच्च स्मृत्युत्पत्तेः स्मृतिनियमानुपपत्तिः, युगपद्वा सर्वस्मृत्युत्पत्तिप्रसङ्गः। न च भिन्नजातीयानां स्पर्शादिहीनानाम् आत्मनां मनआदिभिः सम्बन्धो युक्तः। न च द्रव्याद्रूपादयो गुणाः कर्मसामान्यविशेषसमवाया वा भिन्नाः सन्ति। परेषां यदि ह्यत्यन्तभिन्ना एव द्रव्यात्स्युः इच्छादयश्चात्मनः, तथा सति द्रव्येण तेषां सम्बन्धानुपपत्तिः। The Vaiśeṣikas and others assert that attributes such as desire, etc., are inseparably related to Ātman. This view is also not correct. For, the Saṃskāras (the impressions) which are the cause of memory cannot have any inseparable relation with Ātman which has no parts. Further, if it be contended that the origin of memory lies in the contact of Ātman with the mind, we say that this contention is not valid; for, in that case there will be no principle regarding memory. Memory of all things will come simultaneously. Besides mind can never be related to the Ātman which is devoid of all sensations such as touch, etc., and which belongs to a class other than that of the mind. Further the Vaiśeṣikas do not admit that the attributes (Guṇa) such as forms, etc. (Rūpas), action (Karma), generality (Sāmānya), particularity (Viśeṣa) and inherence (Samavāya), can exist independently of the substance (Dravya). If these are totally independent of one another, the contact between the Ātman and desire, etc., and also between the attributes (Guṇa) and the substance (Dravya) will be an absurdity.अयुतसिद्धानां समवायलक्षणः सम्बन्धो न विरुध्यत इति चेत्, (Objection) – The contact characterised by an inseparable inherence is possible in the case of entities where such relation is proved to be innate.न; इच्छादिभ्योऽनित्येभ्य आत्मनो नित्यस्य पूर्वसिद्धत्वान्नायुतसिद्धत्वोपपत्तिः। आत्मना अयुतसिद्धत्वे च इच्छादीनामात्मगतमहत्त्ववन्नित्यत्वप्रसङ्गः। स चानिष्टः, आत्मनोऽनिर्मोक्षप्रसङ्गात्। (Reply) – This objection is not valid; for such innate relationship cannot be reasonable, as the Ātman, the ever permanent, is antecedent to the desires, etc., which are transitory. And if desires, etc., be admitted to have inseparable innate relationship with Ātman, then the former would be as permanent as such innate attributes of Ātman as greatness, etc. That is not desirable, for then there would be no room for liberation of the Ātman.समवायस्य च द्रव्यादन्यत्वे सति द्रव्येण सम्बन्धान्तरं वाच्यम्, यथा द्रव्यगुणयोः। Further, if inseparable relationship (Samavāya) were something separate from the substance, then another factor must be stated which can bring about the relationship between Samavāya and the substance, – as in the case of the substance and the attributes.समवायो नित्यसम्बन्ध एवेति न वाच्यमिति चेत्, तथा सति समवायसम्बन्धवतां नित्यसम्बन्धप्रसङ्गात्पृथक्त्वानुपपत्तिः। Nor can it be stated that Samavāya is a constant inseparable relationship with Ātman; for, in that case, the Ātman and Samavāya on account of their constant and inseparable relationship can never be different from one another. अत्यन्तपृथक्त्वे च द्रव्यादीनां स्पर्शवदस्पर्शद्रव्ययोरिव षष्ठ्यर्थानुपपत्तिः। इच्छाद्युपजनापायवद्गुणवत्त्वे च आत्मनोऽनित्यत्वप्रसङ्गः। If, on the other hand, the relationship of Samavāya be totally different from the Ātman, and the attributes also be different from the substance, then the possessive case cannot be used to indicate their mutual relation which is possible only when the two terms connected by the possessive are not totally different. If Ātman be inseparably connected with such categories as desires, etc., which have both “beginning” and “end,” then it would itself be impermanent. देहफलादिवत्सावयवत्वं विक्रियावत्त्वं च देहादिवदेवेति दोषावपरिहार्यौ। यथा त्वाकाशस्य अविद्याध्यारोपित-घटाद्युपाधि-कृत-रजो-धूम-मलवत्त्वादि-दोषवत्त्वम्, तथा आत्मनः अविद्याध्यारोपित-बुद्ध्याद्युपाधि-कृत-सुख-दुःखादि-दोषवत्त्वे बन्धमोक्षादयो व्यावहारिका न विरुध्यन्ते; सर्ववादिभिरविद्याकृतव्यवहाराभ्युपगमात् परमार्थानभ्युपगमाच्च। तस्मादात्मभेदपरिकल्पना वृथैव तार्किकैः क्रियत इति॥ If Ātman be considered to have parts and undergo changes, like the body, etc., then, these two defects always associated with the body, etc., would be inevitable in the case of the Ātman. (Therefore the conclusion is that) as the Ākāśa (ether), on account of the superimposition of ignorance (Avidyā), is regarded as soiled by dust and smoke, in like manner, the Ātman also, on account of the limiting condition of the mind caused by the erroneous attribution of Avidyā, appears to be associated with the contamination of misery, happiness, etc. And such being the case, the idea of bondage and liberation, being empirical in nature, does not contradict (the permanent nature of Ātman from the standpoint of Truth). For, all the disputants admit the relative experience to be caused by Avidyā and deny its existence from the standpoint of the Supreme Reality. Hence it follows that the supposition of the multiplicity of Ātman made by the logicians is without basis and superfluous.
Though the diversity of forms, functions and names of the ākāśas associated with different receptacles is admitted, yet this does not imply any real differentiation in ākāśa itself. The same is the conclusion regarding the jīvas.✅
कथं पुनरात्मभेदनिमित्त इव व्यवहार एकस्मिन्नात्मन्यविद्याकृत उपपद्यत इति, – (Objection) – If Ātman be one then how is it possible to justify the variety of experiences pointing to the multiplicity of Ātman (which is explained as being) due to Avidyā (ignorance)?उच्यते। यथा इहाकाशे एकस्मिन् घटकरकापवरकाद्याकाशानाम् अल्पत्वमहत्त्वादि-रूपाणि भिद्यन्ते, तथा कार्यम् उदकाहरणधारणशयनादि, समाख्याः च घटाकाशः करकाकाश इत्याद्याः तत्कृताश्च भिन्ना दृश्यन्ते, तत्र तत्र वै व्यवहारविषये इत्यर्थः। सर्वोऽयम् आकाशे रूपादिभेदकृतो व्यवहारः अपरमार्थ एव। परमार्थतः तु आकाशस्य न भेदोऽस्ति। न चाकाशभेदनिमित्तो व्यवहारोऽस्ति अन्तरेण परोपाधिकृतं द्वारम्। यथैतत्, तद्वद् देहोपाधिभेदकृतेषु जीवेषु घटाकाशस्थानीयेष्वात्मसु निरूपणात्कृतः बुद्धिमद्भिः निर्णयः निश्चय इत्यर्थः॥ (Reply) – This is thus explained: In our common experience with regard to this Ākāśa (which is really one), we find variety of forms, such as large, small, etc., in respect of the Ākāśa enclosed in a pot, a water-bowl and a cover. Similarly there are various functions (of the same Ākāśa) such as fetching water, preserving water and sleeping. Lastly there are various names as the ether enclosed in a jar (ghaṭa), the ether enclosed in a water-bowl (Karaka), etc., caused by different upādhis. All these different forms, functions and names are matters of common experience. This variety of experience caused by different forms, etc., is not true from, the standpoint of the ultimate Reality. For, in reality Ākāśa never admits of any variety. Our empirical activities based upon the difference in Ākāśa are not possible without the instrumentality of an adventitious Upādhi. As in this illustration, the Jīvas (embodied beings) which may be compared to the Ākāśa enclosed in a jar, are regarded as different, this difference being caused by the Upādhis. This is the conclusion of the wise. This text gives one of the explanations of the empirical world as stated by the wise. Comment.
As the ākāśa enclosed in a pot is neither an effect nor a part of the real ākāśa, so the jīva is neither an effect nor a part of Ātman.✅
ननु तत्र परमार्थकृत एव घटाकाशादिषु रूपकार्यादिभेदव्यवहार इति; (Objection) – Our experience of the variety of forms, functions, etc., associated with the ether enclosed in the pot, etc., is true from the standpoint of the ultimate Reality (and not illusory, as you say).नैतदस्ति, यस्मात्परमार्थ-आकाशस्य घट-आकाशो न विकारः, यथा सुवर्णस्य रुचकादिः, यथा वा अपां फेनबुद्बुदहिमादिः; न अपि अवयवः, यथा वृक्षस्य शाखादिः। न तथा आकाशस्य घटाकाशो विकार-अवयवौ यथा, तथा न एव आत्मनः परस्य परमार्थसतो महाकाशस्थानीयस्य घटाकाशस्थानीयो जीवः सदा सर्वदा यथोक्तदृष्टान्तवन्न विकारः, नाप्यवयवः। अत आत्मभेदकृतो व्यवहारो मृषैवेत्यर्थः॥ (Reply) – No, this cannot be so. For, the ether enclosed in the pot cannot be the evolved effect of the real ether in the same way as the ornament, etc., are the effect of gold or the foam, bubble, moisture, etc., are the effect of water. Nor, again is the Ghaṭākāśa (the Ākāśa in the pot) similar to the branches and other parts of a tree. As Ghaṭākāśa is neither a part (limb) nor an evolved effect of the Ākāśa, so also the Jīva (the embodied being), compared to the Ākāśa enclosed in the pot, is neither, as in the illustrations given above, an effect nor part (limb) of the Ātman, the ultimate Reality, which may be compared to the Mahākāśa (i.e., the undifferentiated expanse of ether). Therefore the relative experience based upon the multiplicity of Ātman is an illusion (from the standpoint of the ultimate Reality).
Children regard ākāśa as being soiled by dirt; likewise the ignorant regard Ātman as being similarly soiled.✅
यस्माद्यथा घटाकाशादिभेदबुद्धिनिबन्धनो रूपकार्यादिभेदव्यवहारः, तथा देहोपाधिजीवभेदकृतो जन्ममरणादिव्यवहारः, तस्मात्तत्कृतमेव क्लेशकर्मफलमलवत्त्वमात्मनः, न परमार्थत इत्येतमर्थं दृष्टान्तेन प्रतिपिपादयिषन्नाह – यथा भवति लोके बालानाम् अविवेकिनां गगनम् आकाशं घन-रजो-धूमादि-मलैः मलिनं मलवत्, न गगनयाथात्म्यविवेकवताम्, तथा भवति आत्मा परोऽपि – यो विज्ञाता प्रत्यक् – क्लेश-कर्मफल-मलैः मलिनः अबुद्धानां प्रत्यगात्मविवेकरहितानाम्, नात्मविवेकवताम्। न ह्यूषरदेशः तृड्वत्प्राण्यध्यारोपितोदकफेनतरङ्गादिमान्, तथा नात्मा अबुधारोपितक्लेशादिमलैः मलिनो भवतीत्यर्थः॥ Comment –
As the diversity of experiences such as forms, functions, etc., is caused by the admitted differences of the Ghaṭākāśa, etc., so also is the experience of birth, death, etc., consequent on the perception of the different Jīvas, due to the limitations caused by Avidyā (ignorance). Therefore the contamination of misery, action and result (of action) caused by Avidyā does not really inhere in the Ātman. In order to establish this meaning by an illustration, the text says: – As in our ordinary experience it is found that the ignorant regard the Ākāśa (ether), – which, to those who know, the real nature of a thing by discrimination, is never soiled by any contamination – as soiled with cloud, dust and smoke, so also the Supreme Ātman, the Knower, the innermost Self directly perceived within, is regarded by those who do not know the real nature of the innermost Self, as affected by the evils of misery, action and result. But this is not the case with those who can discriminate. As in the desert are never found foam, waves, etc., though thirsty creatures falsely attribute these things to it, similarly the Ātman also is never affected by the turbidity of misery, etc., falsely attributed to it by the ignorant.
Ātman, in regard to Its birth and death, Its going and coming i.e. rebirth and Its dwelling in different bodies, is not unlike ākāśa.✅
पुनरप्युक्तमेवार्थं प्रपञ्चयति – घटाकाश-जन्म-नाश-गमन-अगमन-स्थितिवत् सर्व-शरीरेषु आत्मनो जन्म-मरण-आदिः आकाशेन अविलक्षणः प्रत्येतव्य इत्यर्थः॥ The point which has been just stated is again thus developed: – Birth, death, etc., of the Ātman as seen in all bodies is like the creation, destruction, coming, going and existence of the Ghaṭākāśa (or ether enclosed within a jar). Comment.
All aggregates are produced by Ātman’s māyā, as in a dream. No rational argument can be given to establish their reality, whether they are of equal status or whether some are superior to others.✅
घटादिस्थानीयास्तु देहादि-सङ्घाताः स्वप्न-दृश्यदेहादिवत् मायाविकृतदेहादिवच्च आत्म-माया-विसर्जिताः, आत्मनो माया अविद्या, तया प्रत्युपस्थापिताः, न परमार्थतः सन्तीत्यर्थः। यदि आधिक्यम् अधिकभावः तिर्यग्देहाद्यपेक्षया देवादिकार्यकरणसङ्घातानाम्, यदि वा सर्वेषां समतैव, तेषां न हि उपपत्ति-सम्भवः, सम्भवप्रतिपादको हेतुः न विद्यते नास्ति; हि यस्मात्, तस्मादविद्याकृता एव, न परमार्थतः सन्तीत्यर्थः॥ The aggregates of body, etc., answering to the pots, etc., in the illustration, are produced, – like the body, etc., seen in dream or conjured up by the magician – by the illusion of the Ātman, i.e., the Avidyā (ignorance) which is in the perceiver. That is to say, they do not exist from the standpoint of the ultimate Reality. If it be argued, in order to establish their reality, that there is a superiority (among the created beings), – as in the case of the aggregates of cause and effect constituting gods who are superior to lower beings, such as birds and beasts – or that there is an equality (of all created beings), yet no cause can be set forth regarding their creation or reality. As there is no cause therefore all these are due to Avidyā or ignorance; they have no real existence.
The Supreme Self is the self of the five sheaths, such as the physical and the vital, which have been described in the Taittirīya Upaniṣad. That the Supreme Self is like ākāśa has already been stated.✅
उत्पत्त्यादिवर्जितस्याद्वयस्यास्यात्मतत्त्वस्य श्रुतिप्रमाणकत्वप्रदर्शनार्थं वाक्यान्युपन्यस्यन्ते – रसादयः अन्नरसमयः प्राणमय इत्येवम् आदयः कोशा इव कोशाः अस्यादेः, उत्तरोत्तरापेक्षया बहिर्भावात्पूर्वपूर्वस्य व्याख्याताः विस्पष्टम् आख्याताः तैत्तिरीयके तैत्तिरीयकशाखोपनिषद्वल्ल्याम्, तेषां कोशानाम् आत्मा येनात्मना पञ्चापि कोशा आत्मवन्तोऽन्तरतमेन। स हि सर्वेषां जीवननिमित्तत्वात् जीवः। Now statements are made in order to show that the existence of the essence of Ātman which is non-dual and without birth, etc., can as well be proved on the evidence of the Śruti. Rasa, etc., are the five sheaths such as the physical sheath (Anna-rasamaya), the vital sheath (Prāṇamaya), etc. These are called “sheaths” (Kośa) because they are like the sheath of the sword, the previous sheaths being outer than the following ones. These have been clearly explained in the Taittirīyaka, i.e., in a chapter of the Taittirīyaka-śākhā Upaniṣad. It is the Self (Ātman) of these sheaths. By It, the innermost Self, the five sheaths are regarded as alive. It is again called Jīva as it is the cause of the life of all.कोऽसावित्याह – पर एवात्मा यः पूर्वम् “सत्यं ज्ञानमनन्तं ब्रह्म” (TaitU.2.1.1) इति प्रकृतः; यस्मादात्मनः स्वप्नमायादिवदाकाशादिक्रमेण रसादयः कोशलक्षणाः सङ्घाता आत्ममायाविसर्जिता इत्युक्तम्। स आत्मा अस्माभिः यथा खं तथेति सम्प्रकाशितः, “आत्मा ह्याकाशवत्” (ManKa.3.3) इत्यादिश्लोकैः। न तार्किकपरिकल्पितात्मवत्पुरुषबुद्धिप्रमाणगम्य इत्यभिप्राय॥ What is It? It is the Supreme Self which has ' been described before as “Brahman which is Existence, Knowledge and Infinity.” It has been further stated that from this Ātman the aggregates of the body known as Rasa, etc., having the characteristics of the sheath, have been created by its (Ātman’s) power called ignorance, this creation being like the illusory creation of objects seen in a dream or in a performance of jugglery. We have described this Ātman as the ether (Ākāśa) in the text, “The Ātman is verily like the Ākāśa” (Gauḍapāda Kārikā, 3.3). This Ātman cannot be established by the reasoning of a man who follows the logician’s method of arguments as the Ātman referred to by us is different from the Ātman of the logicians.
The same ākāśa dwells within both the earth and the stomach; likewise, the same Brahman dwells within the pairs described in the Madhu-Brāhmaṇa.✅
किञ्च, अधिदैवतमध्यात्मं च तेजोमयोऽमृतमयः पुरुषः पृथिव्याद्यन्तर्गतो यो विज्ञाता पर एवात्मा ब्रह्म सर्वमिति द्वयोः द्वयोः आ द्वैतक्षयात् परं ब्रह्म प्रकाशितम्; क्वेत्याह – ब्रह्मविद्याख्यं मधु अमृतम्, अमृतत्वं मोदनहेतुत्वात्, तद्विज्ञायते यस्मिन्निति मधु-ज्ञानं मधुब्राह्मणम्, तस्मिन्नित्यर्थः। किमिवेत्याह – पृथिव्याम् उदरे च एव यथा एक आकाशः अनुमानेन प्रकाशितः लोके, तद्वदित्यर्थः॥ Moreover, in the words “All this is the Supreme Ātman, the Brahman, the bright, the immortal Person who is both the celestial (superphysical – Adhidaiva) and the corporeal (Adhyātma), who is in this earth as well as the Knower incorporated in the body,” – Brahman alone is described in order to indicate the limit at which duality vanishes. Where does this occur? It is thus replied: – It occurs in the Madhu Brāhmaṇa chapter which is known as the chapter dealing with the Knowledge of Brahman. It is because therein is described the nectar (i.e., immortality) which is known as Madhu, i.e., honey, as it gives us the highest bliss. This Brahman is like the Ākāśa which is said to be the same or identical though separately indicated as existing in the earth and in the stomach.
The identity of the jīva and Ātman is praised by pointing out their non-duality; multiplicity is condemned. Therefore non-dualism alone is free from error.✅
यद्युक्तितः श्रुतितश्च निर्धारितं जीवस्य परस्य च आत्मनोऽनन्यत्वम् अभेदेन प्रशस्यते स्तूयते शास्त्रेण व्यासादिभिश्च, यद् च सर्वप्राणिसाधारणं स्वाभाविकं शास्त्रबहिर्मुखैः कुतार्किकैर्विरचितं नानात्व-दर्शनं निन्द्यते, “न तु तद्द्वितीयमस्ति” (BrhU.4.3.23) “द्वितीयाद्वै भयं भवति” (BrhU.1.4.2) “उदरमन्तरं कुरुते, अथ तस्य भयं भवति” (TaitU.2.7.1) “इदं सर्वं यदयम् आत्मा” (BrhU.2.4.6) “मृत्योः स मृत्युम् आप्नोति य इह नानेव पश्यति” (KathU.3.1.10) इत्येवम् आदिवाक्यैरन्यैश्च ब्रह्मविद्भिः यच्चैतत्, तद् एवं हि समञ्जसम् ऋज्ववबोधं न्याय्यमित्यर्थः। यास्तु तार्किकपरिकल्पिताः कुदृष्टयः, ताः अनृज्व्यो निरूप्यमाणा न घटनां प्राञ्चन्तीत्यभिप्रायः॥ The Śāstras as well as the sages like Vyāsa, etc., extol the identity of Jīva and the Supreme Self through the negation of all differences – the conclusion arrived at by reasoning and supported by the scriptures. Further, the experiences of multiplicity which are natural (to the ignorant) and common to all beings – the view propounded by those who do not understand the real import of the Śāstras and who indulge in futile reasoning – have been condemned thus: “But there is certainly nothing corresponding to the dual existence,” “Fear arises from the consciousness of duality,” “If he sees the slightest difference (in Ātman) then he is overcome with fear,” “All this is verily Ātman, “He goes from death to death who sees here (in this Ātman) multiplicity.” Other Knowers of Brahman as well as the scriptures (quoted above) extol identity (of Jīva and Brahman) and condemn multiplicity. Thus alone this praise and condemnation can easily be comprehended; in other words, it accords with reason. But the false views (vainly) advanced by the logicians, not easy of comprehension, cannot be accepted as facts (Truth).
The separateness of the jīva and Ātman, which has been declared in the earlier section of the Upaniṣads, dealing with the creation, is figurative, because this section states only what will happen in the future. This separateness cannot be the real meaning of those passages.✅
ननु श्रुत्यापि जीव-परम-आत्मनोः पृथक्त्वं यत् प्राग् उत्पत्तेः उत्पत्त्यर्थोपनिषद्वाक्येभ्यः पूर्वं प्रकीर्तितं कर्मकाण्डे अनेकशः कामभेदतः इदंकामः अदःकाम इति, परश्च “स दाधार पृथिवीं द्याम्” (ऋ. १०-१२१-१) इत्यादिमन्त्रवर्णैः; तत्र कथं कर्मज्ञानकाण्डवाक्यविरोधे ज्ञानकाण्डवाक्यार्थस्यैवैकत्वस्य सामञ्जस्यमवधार्यत इति। (Objection) – Even the Śruti has already declared the separateness of the Jīva and the Supreme Self in that part of the Upaniṣad which describes the creation (of the universe), i.e., in the ritual portion (Karma-kāṇḍa) of the Vedas. The texts of the Karma-kāṇḍa, referred to here, describe the Supreme Puruṣa who had multiple desire, in such words as, “desirous of this,” “desirous of that,” “He, the Highest, supported the heaven and the earth,” etc. This being the case, how is it possible, when there is a conflict between the knowledge portion and the ritual portion of the Vedas, to conclude that the unity underlying the meaning of the knowledge portion (of the Vedas) is alone reasonable and accurate?अत्रोच्यते – “यतो वा इमानि भूतानि जायन्ते” (TaitU.3.1.1) “यथाग्नेः क्षुद्रा विस्फुलिङ्गाः” (BrhU.2.1.20) “तस्माद्वा एतस्मादात्मन आकाशः सम्भूतः” (TaitU.2.1.1) “तदैक्षत तत्तेजोऽसृजत” (ChanU.6.2.3) इत्याद्युत्पत्त्यर्थोपनिषद्वाक्येभ्यः प्राक्पृथक्त्वं कर्मकाण्डे प्रकीर्तितं यत्, तन्न परमार्थतः। (Reply) – Our reply is as follows: – The seperateness (of Jīva and Paramātman) described in the Karma-kāṇḍa (ritual portion of the Vedas) – anterior to such Upaniṣad statements dealing with the creation of the universe as “That from which all these beings emanate,” “As small sparks (come out) from fire,” “The Ākāśa has evolved from that which is this Ātman,” “It created heat” – is not real from the absolute standpoint.किं तर्हि? (Objection) – What is it then?गौणम्; महाकाशघटाकाशादिभेदवत्, यथा ओदनं पचतीति भविष्यद्-वृत्त्या, तद्वत्। न हि भेदवाक्यानां कदाचिदपि मुख्य-भेदार्थकत्वम् उपपद्यते, स्वाभाविकाविद्यावत्प्राणिभेददृष्ट्यनुवादित्वादात्मभेदवाक्यानाम्। इह च उपनिषत्सु उत्पत्तिप्रलयादिवाक्यैर्जीवपरात्मनोरेकत्वमेव प्रतिपिपादयिषितम् “तत्त्वमसि” (ChanU.6.8.7) “अन्योऽसावन्योऽहमस्मीति न स वेद” (BrhU.1.4.10) इत्यादिभिः; अत उपनिषत्स्वेकत्वं श्रुत्या प्रतिपिपादयिषितं भविष्यतीति भाविनीमिव वृत्तिम् आश्रित्य लोके भेददृष्ट्यनुवादो गौण एवेत्यभिप्रायः। (Reply) – It has only a secondary meaning. The separateness (between Jīva and Paramātman implied in these passages) is like that between the undifferentiated ether (Mahākāśa) and the ether enclosed in the jar (Ghaṭākāśa). This statement is made with reference to a future happening as in the case of another statement we often make, “He is cooking rice.” For, the words describing separateness (of Jīva and Paramātman) can never reasonably uphold such separateness as absolutely real, as the statements regarding the separateness of Ātman only reiterate the multiple experiences of those beings who are still under the spell of their inborn Avidyā or ignorance. Here in the Upaniṣads, the texts regarding the creation, destruction, etc., of the universe are meant only to establish the identity of Jīva and the Supreme Self, as is known from the texts, “That thou art,” “He does not know who knows I am another and he is another”. In other words, in the Upaniṣads the purpose of the Śruti is to establish the identity (of Jīva and Brahman). Keeping in view this identity which is going to be established later on, the (dualistic) texts only reiterate the common experience of multiplicity (due to ignorance). Therefore these (dualistic) texts are only metaphorical.अथवा, “तदैक्षत … तत्तेजोऽसृजत” (ChanU.6.2.3) इत्याद्युत्पत्तेः प्राक् “एकमेवाद्वितीयम्” (ChanU.6.2.2) इत्येकत्वं प्रकीर्तितम्; तदेव च “तत्सत्यं स आत्मा, तत्त्वमसि” (ChanU.6.8.7) इत्येकत्वं भविष्यतीति तां भविष्यद्वृत्तिमपेक्ष्य यज्जीवात्मनोः पृथक्त्वं यत्र क्वचिद्वाक्ये गम्यमानम्, तद्गौणम्; यथा ओदनं पचतीति, तद्वत्॥ Or, the Kārikā may be explained thus: – The scriptural text, “He is one and without a second,” declares the (complete) identity of Jīva and Brahman even before creation, denoted by such passages as, “He saw,” “He created fire,” etc. The culmination is, again, that identity as is known from such Śruti passages as, “That is the Reality; He is the Ātman. That thou art”. Now, if keeping in view this future identity, the separateness of Jīva and Ātman has been declared in some texts, it must have been used in a metaphorical way as is the case with the statement “He is cooking rice”.
The scriptural statements regarding the creation, using the examples of earth, iron and sparks, are for the purpose of clarifying the mind. Multiplicity does not really exist in any manner.✅
ननु यद्युत्पत्तेः प्रागजं सर्वमेकमेवाद्वितीयम्, तथापि उत्पत्तेरूर्ध्वं जातमिदं सर्वं जीवाश्च भिन्ना इति। (Objection) – Before creation all this might have been unborn, one and non-dual; but after creation, all this evolved world and the embodied beings (Jīvas) denote multiplicity.मैवम्, अन्यार्थत्वादुत्पत्तिश्रुतीनाम्। पूर्वमपि परिहृत एवायं दोषः – स्वप्नवदात्ममायाविसर्जिताः सङ्घाताः, घटाकाशोत्पत्तिभेदादिवज्जीवानामुत्पत्तिभेदादिरिति। इत एव उत्पत्तिभेदादिश्रुतिभ्य आकृष्य इह पुनरुत्पत्तिश्रुतीनामैदंपर्यप्रतिपिपादयिषयोपन्यासः मृल्-लोह-विस्फुलिङ्गादि-दृष्टान्तोपन्यासैः सृष्टिः या च उदिता प्रकाशिता कल्पिता अन्यथा अन्यथा च, स सर्वः सृष्टिप्रकारो जीव-परमात्मैकत्व-बुद्धि-अवताराय उपायोऽस्माकम्, यथा प्राणसंवादे वागाद्यासुरपाप्मवेधाद्याख्यायिका कल्पिता प्राणवैशिष्ट्यबोधावताराय; (Reply) – No, it cannot be so. For, the scriptural passages dealing with creation have another meaning. This difficulty raised here has already been solved by the statements that the aggregates (entities) of body, etc., like dream-objects, are produced through illusion of the subject (Ātman) and that creation and the differences of the Jīvas are like the creation and the differences of the Ghaṭākāśas, i.e., the bits of Ākāśa enclosed in different jars. The scriptural statements dealing with creation and differences (of the created beings), have again been referred to here in order to show that such statements regarding creation have the purpose of determining the unity of Jīva and Brahman. The (theory of) creation has been described in the scripture through the illustrations of earth, iron, sparks, etc., or otherwise; but all these modes of creation are meant for enlightening our intellect so that it may comprehend the identity of Jīva and Brahman. It is just like the story of the organs of speech (vāk), etc., being smitten with evil by the Asuras (demons) as described in the chapter on Prāṇa (vital breath), where the real purpose of the Śruti is to demonstrate the special importance of Prāṇa.तदप्यसिद्धमिति चेत्; (Objection) – We do not accept this meaning as indicated.न, शाखाभेदेष्वन्यथान्यथा च प्राणादिसंवादश्रवणात्। यदि हि वादः परमार्थ एवाभूत्, एकरूप एव संवादः सर्वशाखास्वश्रोष्यत, विरुद्धानेकप्रकारेण नाश्रोष्यत; श्रूयते तु; तस्मान्न तादर्थ्यं संवादश्रुतीनाम्। तथोत्पत्तिवाक्यानि प्रत्येतव्यानि। (Reply) – Your contention is not correct. For this story about Prāṇa, etc., has been differently narrated in different recensions of the Vedas. If the story of Prāṇa were literally true, there should have been one version only in all recensions. Different versions of contradictory nature would not have been narrated. But we do come across such different versions in the Vedas. Therefore the scriptural passages recording stories of Prāṇa are not meant to serve any purpose of their own, i.e., they should not be taken literally. The scriptural statements regarding creation should also be understood in a similar manner.कल्पसर्गभेदात्संवादश्रुतीनामुत्पत्तिश्रुतीनां च प्रतिसर्गमन्यथात्वमिति चेत्; (Objection) – There have been different creations in different cycles. Therefore, the scriptural statements regarding creations (of the universe) and stories (of Prāṇa) are different as they refer to the Creations in different cycles.न, निष्प्रयोजनत्वाद्यथोक्तबुद्ध्यवतारप्रयोजनव्यतिरेकेण। न ह्यन्यप्रयोजनवत्त्वं संवादोत्पत्तिश्रुतीनां शक्यं कल्पयितुम्। (Reply) – This contention is not valid. For, they (the illustrations of earth, iron, etc., as well as the stories of Prāṇa) serve no other useful purpose than clearing our intellect as stated above. No one can imagine any other utility of the scriptural statements regarding creation and Prāṇa.तथात्वप्रत्तिपत्तये ध्यानार्थमिति चेत्; (Objection) – We contend that these are for the purpose of meditation so that one may ultimately attain to that end.न, कलहोत्पत्तिप्रलयानां प्रतिपत्तेरनिष्टत्वात्। तस्मादुत्पत्त्यादिश्रुतय आत्मैकत्वबुद्ध्यवतारायैव, नान्यार्थाः कल्पयितुं युक्ताः। अतो न अस्ति उत्पत्त्यादिकृतो भेदः कथञ्चन॥ (Reply) – This is not correct either; for no one desires to attain his identity with the dispute (in the case of the Prāṇa narrative), or with the creation or destruction (in the case of the scriptural statements regarding creation, etc.). Therefore we have reasonably to conclude that the scriptural statements regarding creation, etc., are for the purpose of helping the mind to realise the oneness of Ātman, and for no other purpose whatsoever. Therefore, no multiplicity is brought about by creation, etc.
There are three stages of life, corresponding to the threefold understanding of men: inferior, mediocre and superior. Scripture, out of compassion, has taught this discipline for the benefit of the unenlightened.✅
Comment.यदि हि पर एवात्मा नित्यशुद्धबुद्धमुक्तस्वभाव एकः परमार्थतः सन् “एकमेवाद्वितीयम्” (ChanU.6.2.2) इत्यादिश्रुतिभ्यः, असदन्यत्, किमर्थेयमुपासनोपदिष्टा “आत्मा वा अरे द्रष्टव्यः” (BrhU.2.4.5) “य आत्मापहतपाप्मा” (ChanU.8.7.1) “स क्रतुं कुर्वीत” (ChanU.3.14.1) “आत्मेत्येवोपासीत” (BrhU.1.4.7) इत्यादिश्रुतिभ्यः, कर्माणि चाग्निहोत्रादीनि? (Objection) – If according to such Śruti passages as “Ātman is one and without a second”, etc., the Ātman alone, the one, the eternally pure, illumined and free, is the highest and the ultimate Reality and all else is unreal, what then is the purpose of the devotion and spiritual practices implied in such Śruti passages as “Oh dear, Ātman alone is to be seen”, “The Ātman who is free from”, “He desired”, “It should be worshipped as Ātman”, etc.? Further, what is the utility of Karma (Veda works) like Agnihotra, etc.?शृणु तत्र कारणम् – आश्रमाः आश्रमिणोऽधिकृताः, वर्णिनश्च मार्गगाः, आश्रमशब्दस्य प्रदर्शनार्थत्वात्, त्रिविधाः। कथम्? हीन-मध्यम-उत्कृष्ट-दृष्टयः हीना निकृष्टा मध्यमा उत्कृष्टा च दृष्टिः दर्शनसामर्थ्यं येषां ते, मन्दमध्यमोत्तमबुद्धिसामर्थ्योपेता इत्यर्थः। उपासना उपदिष्टा इयं तद्-अर्थं मन्दमध्यमदृष्ट्याश्रमाद्यर्थं कर्माणि च। न चात्मैक एवाद्वितीय इति निश्चितोत्तमदृष्ट्यर्थम्। दयालुना देवेन अनुकम्पया सन्मार्गगाः सन्तः कथमिमामुत्तमामेकत्वदृष्टिं प्राप्नुयुरिति, “यन्मनसा न मनुते येनाहुर्मनो मतम्। तदेव ब्रह्म त्वं विद्धि नेदं यदिदमुपासते” (KenU.1.5) “तत्त्वमसि” (ChanU.6.8.7) “आत्मैवेदं सर्वम्” (ChanU.7.25.2) इत्यादिश्रुतिभ्यः॥ (Reply) – Yes, listen to the reasons. Āśrama signifies those who are competent to follow the disciplines of life as prescribed for the different stages. The word (in the text) also includes those who belong to the (different) castes and therefore who observe the rites (prescribed for those castes). The application of the word “Āśrama” implies that these castes are also three in number. How? It is because they are endowed with three kinds of intellect, viz., low, middle and high. This discipline as well as the (various) Karmas (works) are prescribed for the Āśramīs of low and average intellect, by the Śruti, out of compassion, so that they also, following the correct disciplines, may attain to the superior knowledge. That this discipline is not for those who possess the right understanding, i.e., who are already endowed with the Knowledge of Ātman which is one and without a second, is supported by such Śruti passages as “That which cannot be known by the mind, but by which, they say, the mind is able to think, that alone know to be Brahman, and not that which people here adore”, “That thou art”, “All this is verily Ātman”, etc. Comment.
The dualists, firmly clinging to their conclusions, contradict one another. The non-dualists find no conflict with them.✅
शास्त्रोपपत्तिभ्याम् अवधारितत्वाद् अद्वयात्मदर्शनं सम्यग्दर्शनम्, तद्बाह्यत्वान्मिथ्यादर्शनमन्यत्। इतश्च मिथ्यादर्शनं द्वैतिनां रागद्वेषादिदोषास्पदत्वात्। कथम्? स्व-सिद्धान्त-व्यवस्थासु स्वसिद्धान्तरचनानियमेषु कपिल-कणाद-बुद्धार्हतादि-दृष्ट्यनुसारिणो द्वैतिनो निश्चिताः, एवमेवैष परमार्थो नान्यथेति, तत्र तत्रानुरक्ताः प्रतिपक्षं चात्मनः पश्यन्तस्तं द्विषन्त इत्येवं रागद्वेषोपेताः स्वसिद्धान्तदर्शननिमित्तमेव परस्परम् अन्योन्यं विरुध्यन्ते। The knowledge of the non-dual Self is established by both Scriptures and reasoning. Therefore, it is alone the perfect knowledge. Other views, on account of their being devoid of the bases of Scriptures and reasoning, lead to false systems. The views of the dualists are false on account of this additional reason, that they are the fruitful sources of the vices of attachment and hatred, etc. How is this? The dualists following the views of Kapila, Kaṇāda, Buddha and Jina, etc., hold firmly to the conclusions as outlined and formulated by their respective schools. They think that the view they hold is alone the ultimate Reality, whereas other views are not so. Therefore they become attached to their own views and hate others whom they consider to be opposed to them. Thus being overcome with attachment and hatred, they contradict one another, the reason being the adherence to their own convictions as the only truth.तैः अन्योन्यविरोधिभिरस्मदीयोऽयं वैदिकः सर्वानन्यत्वादात्मैकत्वदर्शनपक्षो न विरुध्यते, यथा स्वहस्तपादादिभिः। एवं रागद्वेषादिदोषानास्पदत्वादात्मैकत्वबुद्धिरेव सम्यग्दर्शनमित्यभिप्रायः॥ But our view, viz., the unity of Ātman, based upon the identity of all, supported by the Vedas, does not conflict with others who find contradictions among themselves, – as one’s limbs such as hands, feet, etc., do not conflict with one another. Hence the purport of the Śruti is that the knowledge of the oneness of Ātman, as it is free from the blemish of attachment and aversion, is the true knowledge. Comment.
Since Non-duality is Ultimate Reality, duality is said to be Its effect. The dualist sees duality in both the Absolute and the relative. Therefore the non-dualist position does not conflict with the dualist position.✅
केन हेतुना तैर्न विरुध्यत इत्युच्यते – अद्वैतं परमार्थः, हि यस्मात् द्वैतं नानात्वं तस्याद्वैतस्य भेदः तद्-भेदः, तस्य कार्यमित्यर्थः, “एकमेवाद्वितीयम्” (ChanU.6.2.1) “तत्तेजोऽसृजत” (ChanU.6.2.3) इति श्रुतेः; उपपत्तेश्च, स्वचित्तस्पन्दनाभावे समाधौ मूर्छायां सुषुप्तौ वा अभावात्। How is it that the non-dualist does not conflict with the dualist? The reason is thus stated: – As non-duality is the ultimate Reality, therefore duality or multiplicity is only its effect. The Scriptural passages such as, “He is one and without a second”, “He created fire”, etc., support this view. It is further borne out by reason as duality is not perceived in the states of swoon, deep sleep or trance (Samādhi), in the absence of the activity of the mind.अतः तद्भेद उच्यते द्वैतम्। द्वैतिनां तु तेषां परमार्थतोऽपरमार्थतश्च उभयथा अपि द्वैतमेव; यदि च तेषां भ्रान्तानां द्वैत-दृष्टिः अस्माकमद्वैतदृष्टिरभ्रान्तानाम्, तेन अयं हेतुना अस्मत्पक्षो न विरुध्यते तैः, “इन्द्रो मायाभिः” (BrhU.2.5.19) “न तु तद्द्वितीयमस्ति” (BrhU.4.3.23) इति श्रुतेः। Therefore duality is said to be the effect of non-duality. But the dualists perceive duality alone either way, that is, from both the absolute and the relative standpoints. As duality is perceived only by the deluded and non-duality by us who are enlightened, therefore our view does not clash with their views. For, the Scripture also says, “Indra (the Supreme Lord) created all these diverse forms through Māyā”, “There exists nothing like duality”.यथा मत्तगजारूढः उन्मत्तं भूमिष्ठम् “प्रतिगजारूढोऽहं गजं वाहय मां प्रति” इति ब्रुवाणमपि तं प्रति न वाहयत्यविरोधबुद्ध्या, तद्वत्। ततः परमार्थतो ब्रह्मविदात्मैव द्वैतिनाम्। तेन अयं हेतुना अस्मत्पक्षो न विरुध्यते तैः॥ It is like the case of a man on a spirited elephant, who knows that none can oppose him, but who yet does not drive his beast upon a lunatic who though standing on the ground, shouts at the former, “I am also on an elephant, drive your beast on me”. Therefore from the standpoint of Reality, the Knower of Brahman is the very self of (even) the dualists. Hence, our, viz., the non-dualistic view does not clash with other views. Comment.
The unborn Ātman becomes manifold through māyā and not otherwise. For if the manifold were real, then the immortal would become mortal.✅
द्वैतमद्वैतभेद इत्युक्ते द्वैतमप्यद्वैतवत्परमार्थसदिति स्यात्कस्यचिदाशङ्केत्यत आह – यत्परमार्थसदद्वैतम्, मायया भिद्यते हि एतत् तैमिरिकानेकचन्द्रवत् रज्जुः सर्पधारादिभिर्भेदैरिव; न परमार्थतः, निरवयवत्वादात्मनः। सावयवं ह्यवयवान्यथात्वेन भिद्यते, यथा मृत् घटादिभेदैः। तस्मान्निरवयवमजं न अन्यथा कथञ्चन, केनचिदपि प्रकारेण न भिद्यत इत्यभिप्रायः। If duality were the effect of non-duality, then it could be contended that duality also, like the Advaita, is the Supreme Reality. In order to remove this doubt which may crop up in the minds of some, it is said that non-duality which is the Supreme Reality appears manifold through Māyā, like the one moon appearing as many to one with defective eye-sight and the rope appearing (to the deluded) as the snake, the water-line, etc. This manifold is not real, for Ātman is without any part. An object endowed with parts may be said to undergo modification by a change of its parts, as clay undergoes differentiation into pots, etc. Therefore the purport is that the changeless (unborn) Ātman which is without parts cannot, in any manner, admit of distinction excepting through Māyā or the illusion of the perceiver.तत्त्वतो भिद्यमानं हि अमृतम् अजम् अद्वयं स्वभावतः सत् मर्त्यतां व्रजेत्, यथा अग्निः शीतताम्। तच्चानिष्टं स्वभाववैपरीत्यगमनम्, सर्वप्रमाणविरोधात्। अजमद्वयम् आत्मतत्त्वं माययैव भिद्यते, न परमार्थतः। तस्मान्न परमार्थसद्द्वैतम्॥ If the appearance of manifoldness were real, then the Ātman, the ever-unborn and non-dual, which is, by its very nature, immortal would become mortal as though fire would become cold (which is an absurdity). The reversal of one’s own nature is not desired by any – as it is opposed to all means of proofs. Therefore the Reality – which is Ātman – changeless and unborn, appears to undergo a modification only through Māyā. Hence it follows that duality is not the ultimate Reality.
The disputants assert that the unborn entity (Ātman) becomes born. Now can one expect that an entity that is birthless and immortal should become mortal?✅
ये तु पुनः केचिदुपनिषद्व्याख्यातारो ब्रह्म-वादिनो वावदूकाः अजातस्य एव आत्मतत्त्वस्यामृतस्य स्वभावतो जातिम् उत्पत्तिम् इच्छन्ति परमार्थत एव, तेषां जातं चेत्, तदेव मर्त्यतामेष्यत्यवश्यम्। स च अजातो हि अमृतो भावः स्वभावतः सन्नात्मा कथं मर्त्यताम् एष्यति? न कथञ्चन मर्त्यत्वं स्वभाववैपरीत्यमेष्यतीत्यर्थः॥ Some interpreters of the Upaniṣads, who are garrulous and who put on the airs of the Knowers of Brahman, admit that the Reality – the Ātman – which is by nature ever-unborn (changeless) and immortal, really passes into birth (i.e., becomes the universe). If, according to them, the Ātman really passes into birth it must undergo destruction. But, how is it possible for the Ātman which is, by its very nature, ever-unborn (changeless) and immortal to become mortal, i.e., to be subject to destruction? It can never become mortal which is contrary to its very nature.
The immortal cannot become mortal, nor can the mortal become immortal. For it is never possible for a thing to change its nature.✅
यस्मात् न भवति अमृतं मर्त्यं लोके न अपि मर्त्यम् अमृतं तथा, ततः प्रकृतेः स्वभावस्य अन्यथा-भावः स्वतः प्रच्युतिः न कथञ्चिद् भविष्यति, अग्नेरिवौष्ण्यस्य॥ As in common experience the immortal never becomes mortal, nor the mortal ever becomes immortal; therefore it is, in no way, possible for a thing to reverse its nature, i.e., to become otherwise than what it is. Fire can never change its character of being hot.
How can one who believes that an entity by nature immortal becomes mortal, maintain that the immortal, after passing through change, retains its changeless nature?✅
यस्य पुनर्वादिनः स्वभावेन अमृतो भावः मर्त्यतां गच्छति परमार्थतो जायते, तस्य प्रागुत्पत्तेः स भावः स्वभावतोऽमृत इति प्रतिज्ञा मृषैव। कथं तर्हि? कृतकेन अमृतः तस्य स्वभावः। कृतकेनामृतः स कथं स्थास्यति निश्चलः? अमृतस्वभावतया न कथञ्चित्स्थास्यति। आत्मजातिवादिनः सर्वथा अजं नाम नास्त्येव। सर्वमेतन्मर्त्यम्; अतः अनिर्मोक्षप्रसङ्ग इत्यभिप्रायः॥ Comment
The disputant who maintains that the naturally immortal entity becomes mortal, i.e., really passes into birth, makes the futile proposition that that entity before creation is by its very nature, immortal. How can he assert that the entity is of immortal nature if it be admitted that it passes into birth? That is to say, how can the immortal retain its immortal nature of changelessness if it should undergo a change? It cannot, by any means, be so. Those who hold that the Ātman passes into birth (i.e., undergoes a change), cannot speak of the Ātman as ever birthless. Everything, according to them, must be mortal. Hence there cannot be a state called liberation.
Coming into birth may be real or illusory; both views are equally supported by the scriptures. But that view which is supported by the scriptures and corroborated by reason is alone to be accepted and not the other.✅
नन्वजातिवादिनः सृष्टिप्रतिपादिका श्रुतिर्न सङ्गच्छते। (Objection) – Those who do not admit the change or the passing into birth of Brahman, cannot justify the Scriptural passages which support creation.बाढम्; विद्यते सृष्टिप्रतिपादिका श्रुतिः; सा त्वन्यपरा, “उपायः सोऽवतारय” (ManKa.3.15) इत्यवोचाम। इदानीमुक्तेऽपि परिहारे पुनश्चोद्यपरिहारौ विवक्षितार्थं प्रति सृष्टिश्रुत्यक्षराणाम् आनुलोम्यविरोधशङ्कामात्रपरिहारार्थौ। भूततः परमार्थतः सृज्यमाने वस्तुनि, अभूततः मायया वा मायाविनेव सृज्यमाने वस्तुनि समा तुल्या सृष्टि-श्रुतिः। (Reply) – Yes, we also admit the existence of Scriptural texts supporting creation as actual, but such texts serve other purposes. Though the question has already been disposed of, the contention is here again made and refuted in order to allay all doubts regarding the applicability or otherwise of the Scriptural texts to the subject-matter that is going to be dealt with. The Scriptural text regarding creation is the same, whether the creation of things is taken in the real sense or as a mere illusion produced by the juggler.ननु गौणमुख्ययोर्मुख्ये शब्दार्थप्रतिपत्तिर्युक्ता; (Objection) – If words admit of metaphorical and direct meanings, it is reasonable to understand the world according to their direct meaning.न, अन्यथासृष्टेरप्रसिद्धत्वान्निष्प्रयोजनत्वाच्च इत्यवोचाम। अविद्यासृष्टिविषयैव सर्वा गौणी मुख्या च सृष्टिः, न परमार्थतः, “सबाह्याभ्यन्तरो ह्यजः” (MunU.2.1.2) इति श्रुतेः। तस्मात् श्रुत्या निश्चितं यत् एकमेवाद्वितीयमजममृतमिति, युक्ति-युक्तं च युक्त्या च सम्पन्नम्, तदेवेत्यवोचाम पूर्वैर्ग्रन्थैः; तद् एव श्रुत्यर्थो भवति, न इतरत् कदाचिदपि क्वचिदपि॥ (Reply) – We do not admit it. For, creation, in any sense other than illusion, is unknown to us, and further, no purpose is served by admitting (the act of) creation. All creation, whether metaphorical or actual, refers to the apparent creation caused by Avidyā but not to any creation from the standpoint of Reality. For the Scripture says, “Though existing both within and without, he (the Ātman) is (really) changeless”. Therefore we have stated in the foregoing part of this work only what is supported by reason and determined by the Śruti such words as, “He is one and without a second and is free from birth and death”. That alone is the true import of the Scripture and not anything else.
From such scriptural passages as, “One does not see any multiplicity in Ātman” and “Indra (the Supreme Lord), through māyā, assumes diverse forms”, one knows that Ātman, though ever unborn, appears to have become many only through māyā.✅
कथं श्रुतिनिश्चय इत्याह – यदि हि भूतत एव सृष्टिः स्यात्, ततः सत्यमेव नानावस्त्विति तदभावप्रदर्शनार्थ आम्नायो न स्यात्; अस्ति च “न इह नाना अस्ति किञ्चन” (KathU.2.1.11) इति आम्नायो द्वैतभावप्रतिषेधार्थः; तस्मादात्मैकत्वप्रतिपत्त्यर्था कल्पिता सृष्टिरभूतैव प्राणसंवादवत्। “इन्द्रो मायाभिः” (BrhU.2.5.19) इति अभूतार्थप्रतिपादकेन मायाशब्देन व्यपदेशात्। It may be asked how the changelessness (Ajāti) of Ātman is the final conclusion of the Śruti. In reply it is said that if creation were real, then the existence of the variety of objects would be absolutely real. Consequently there ought not to be Scriptural texts implying their unreality. But there are such Scriptural texts as, “In this (Ātman) there is no multiplicity,” etc., which negate the existence of duality. Therefore creation (imaginary) has been imagined in order to help the understanding of the non-duality of Ātman. It is like the story of Prāṇa. And this is further borne out by the use of the word, “Māyā” denoting unreality (in connection with creation) in such Scriptural texts as “Indra through Māyā assumed diverse forms”.ननु प्रज्ञावचनो मायाशब्दः; (Objection) – The word denotes knowledge (Prajñā).सत्यम्, इन्द्रियप्रज्ञाया अविद्यामयत्वेन मायात्वाभ्युपगमाददोषः। मायाभिः इन्द्रियप्रज्ञाभिरविद्यारूपाभिरित्यर्थः। “अजायमानो बहुधा विजायते” (तै. आ. ३-१३) इति श्रुतेः। तस्मात् जायते मायया तु सः; तु-शब्दोऽवधारणार्थः माययैवेति। (Reply) – It is true, but sense-knowledge is illusory. The word “Māyā” is used to denote that (sense-) knowledge. Hence there is no blemish (in such use of the word). The word “Māyābhiḥ” (through Māyā) in the Scriptural text means through sense-knowledge, which is illusory. For, the Scripture again says, “Though unborn he appears to be born in many ways.” Therefore Ātman passes into birth through Māyā alone. The word “Tu” (“verily”) in the text (of the Kārikā) denotes certainty, that is to say, it indicates that creation is possible only through Māyā or illusion and not in any real sense.न ह्यजायमानत्वं बहुधाजन्म च एकत्र सम्भवति, अग्नाविव शैत्यमौष्ण्यं च। फलवत्त्वाच्चात्मैकत्वदर्शनमेव श्रुतिनिश्चितोऽर्थः, “तत्र को मोहः कः शोक एकत्वमनुपश्यतः” (IsU.7) इत्यादिमन्त्रवर्णात् “मृत्योः स मृत्युम् आप्नोति” (KathU.3.1.10) इति निन्दितत्वाच्च सृष्ट्यादिभेददृष्टेः॥ For, birthlessness and birth in various forms cannot be predicated of the same object, as fire cannot be both hot and cold. Further, from such Śruti passages as “How can there be any delusion and any grief for him who sees unity,” etc., we know that the knowledge of the unity of Ātman is alone the conclusion of Śruti on account of the (good) result it brings to the knower. Again, the perception of differentiation implied by creation has been condemned in such Śruti passages as, “He goes from death to death (who sees here many)”.
Further, by the negation of the creation, coming into birth is negated. The causality of Brahman is denied by such a statement as “Who can cause It to come into birth?”✅
“अन्धं तमः प्रविशन्ति ये सम्भूतिमुपासते” (ई. मा. ९) इति सम्भूतेः उपास्यत्व-अपवादात् संभवः प्रतिषिध्यते; न हि परमार्थसद्भूतायां सम्भूतौ तदपवाद उपपद्यते। By the condemnation of Sambhūti (i.e., Hiraṇya-garbha) as something fit to be meditated upon, in such Śruti passage as, “They enter into blind darkness who worship Sambhūti,” the whole creation (evolution) is negatived. For, if Sambhūti were absolutely real, then its condemnation, in such manner, would not be reasonable.ननु विनाशेन सम्भूतेः समुच्चयविधानार्थः सम्भूत्यपवादः, यथा “अन्धं तमः प्रविशन्ति येऽविद्यामुपासते” (ई. मा. १२) इति। (Objection) – The condemnation of Sambhūti is meant here for co-ordinating Sambhūti with Vināśa as is the case with the Śruti passage, “They enter into blind darkness who worship Avidyā”.सत्यमेव, देवतादर्शनस्य सम्भूतिविषयस्य विनाशशब्दवाच्यस्य च कर्मणः समुच्चयविधानार्थः सम्भूत्यपवादः; तथापि विनाशाख्यस्य कर्मणः स्वाभाविकाज्ञानप्रवृत्तिरूपस्य मृत्योरतितरणार्थत्ववत् देवतादर्शनकर्मसमुच्चयस्य पुरुषसंस्कारार्थस्य कर्मफलरागप्रवृत्तिरूपस्य साध्यसाधनैषणाद्वयलक्षणस्य मृत्योरतितरणार्थत्वम्। एवं ह्येषणाद्वयरूपान्मृत्योरशुद्धेर्वियुक्तः पुरुषः संस्कृतः स्यात्। (Reply) – Yes, it is indeed true that the condemnation of the exclusive worship of Sambhūti is made for the purpose of co-ordinating the meditation regarding Sambhūti with the Karma (ritual) known as Vināśa. Still it should not be forgotten that as the purpose of the Karma known as Vināśa is to transcend death, – whose nature is the desire consequent upon the inborn ignorance of man – so also the aim of the co-ordination of the meditation on Devatā (i.e., Sambhūti or Hiraṇya-garbha) with the Karma (called Vināśa) undertaken for the purpose of the purification of the mind of man, is to transcend death, – which is of the nature of the attachment to ritual and its results characterised by the dual hankering after the end and the means. For, thus alone man becomes free from death which is of the nature of impurity and is characterised by the dual impulse of end and means.अतो मृत्योरतितरणार्था देवतादर्शनकर्मसमुच्चयलक्षणा ह्यविद्या। एवमेव एषणाद्वयलक्षणाविद्याया मृत्योरतितीर्णस्य विरक्तस्योपनिषच्छास्त्रार्थालोचनपरस्य नान्तरीयिका परमात्मैकत्वविद्योत्पत्तिरिति पूर्वभाविनीमविद्यामपेक्ष्य पश्चाद्भाविनी ब्रह्मविद्या अमृतत्वसाधना एकेन पुरुषेण सम्बध्यमाना अविद्यया समुच्चीयत इत्युच्यते। Therefore the co-ordination of the meditation of Devatā and of Karma – which is Avidyā – leads to freedom from death. Thus the realisation of Vidyā (the highest knowledge), characterised by the identity of the Supreme Self and Jīva, is inevitable for one who has transcended death, – of the form of Avidyā and characterised by the dual impulses (of the means and the end), – and who is established in renunciation and also devoted to the meaning of the import of the Upaniṣad.अतः अन्यार्थत्वादमृतत्वसाधनं ब्रह्मविद्यामपेक्ष्य, निन्दार्थ एव भवति सम्भूत्यपवादः यद्यप्यशुद्धिवियोगहेतुः अतन्निष्ठत्वात्। अत एव सम्भूतेरपवादात्संभूतेरापेक्षिकमेव सत्त्वमिति परमार्थसदात्मैकत्वमपेक्ष्य अमृताख्यः सम्भवः प्रतिषिध्यते। It is therefore said thus: Brahma-vidyā (i.e., the knowledge of Brahman) – which is the means for the attainment of Immortality and which is (from the relative standpoint) subsequent to the state of the antecedent Avidyā (ignorance) being related to the same person (who is still in the state of ignorance), is said to be coordinated with Avidyā. Hence the negation of Sambhūti is for the purpose of condemnation as it serves a purpose other than the knowledge of Brahman which (alone) is the means to the attainment of Immortality. Though it serves the purpose of removing impurity yet the devotion to Sambhūti does not enable one to realise (directly) immortality. (Therefore the condemnation of Sambhūti is reasonable.) Hence, Sambhūti, being thus negatived, it can be said to have only a relative existence.एवं मायानिर्मितस्यैव जीवस्य अविद्यया प्रत्युपस्थापितस्य अविद्यानाशे स्वभावरूपत्वात्परमार्थतः को नु एनं जनयेत्? न हि रज्ज्वामविद्याध्यारोपितं सर्पं पुनर्विवेकतो नष्टं जनयेत्कश्चित्; तथा न कश्चिदेनं जनयेदिति। को न्वित्याक्षेपार्थत्वात् कारणं प्रतिषिध्यते। अविद्योद्भूतस्य नष्टस्य जनयितृ कारणं न किञ्चिदस्तीत्यभिप्रायः; “नायं कुतश्चिन्न बभूव कश्चित्” (KathU.1.2.18) इति श्रुतेः॥ Having regard to the unity of Ātman, the ultimate Reality, creation (symbolised by Hiraṇya-garbha) which is known as immortal (only from the relative standpoint) is negated. Such being the case, who can bring into being the Jīva who is seen as created only through illusion (Māyā) and who exists only while ignorance (Avidyā) lasts? This Jīva reverts to its original nature (of Brahman) with the disappearance of Avidyā, For, no one can verily bring into being the snake (falsely) superimposed upon the rope through Avidyā and which disappears when one knows (the true nature of the rope). Therefore no one can produce or create the Jīva. The words “Ko nu” (“who can?”) in the text, being in the form of interrogation refute the idea of causality. The purport of the Kārikā is that there can be no cause for a thing which is seen to be born only through ignorance and which disappears with the destruction of the said ignorance. The Śruti also says, “This Ātman is not born from any cause nor is anything born from it.”
On account of the incomprehensible nature of Ātman, the scriptural passage “Not this, not this” negates all dualistic ideas attributed to Ātman. Therefore the birthless Ātman alone exists.✅
सर्वविशेषप्रतिषेधेन “अथात आदेशो नेति नेति” (BrhU.2.3.6) इति प्रतिपादितस्यात्मनो दुर्बोधत्वं मन्यमाना श्रुतिः पुनः पुनरुपायान्तरत्वेन तस्यैव प्रतिपिपादयिषया यद्यद् व्याख्यातं तत् सर्वं निह्नुते। ग्राह्यं जनिमद्बुद्धिविषयमपलपत्यर्थात् “स एष न इति न इति” (BrhU.3.9.26, BrhU.4.2.4, BrhU.4.4.22, BrhU.4.5.15) इत्यात्मनोऽदृश्यतां दर्शयन्ती श्रुतिः। The Śruti in such passage as, “This is the final instruction. It is not this, not this,” has determined the nature of Ātman by the refutation of all specific characteristics. But knowing this Ātman to be incomprehensible the Śruti has again sought to establish the very same Ātman through other means and finally refuted what have been described (as the means for the attainment of Ātman). That is to say, the Śruti, in such passage as, “It is not this, not this,” demonstrates the incomprehensibility of Ātman or in other words, refutes the idea that Ātman can be realised or understood.उपायस्योपेयनिष्ठतामजानत उपायत्वेन व्याख्यातस्य उपेयवद्ग्राह्यता मा भूदिति अग्राह्य-भावेन हेतुना कारणेन निह्नुत इत्यर्थः। ततश्चैवमुपायस्योपेयनिष्ठतामेव जानत उपेयस्य च नित्यैकरूपत्वमिति तस्य सबाह्याभ्यन्तरम् अजम् आत्मतत्त्वं प्रकाशते स्वयमेव॥ Those who do not understand that the means (suggested for the realisation of Ātman) have only one purpose, viz., the realisation of the end (i.e., the non-dual Ātman), make a mistake by thinking that what are suggested as the means have the same reality as the end. In order to remove this error, the Śruti negates the reality of the means by pointing out the incomprehensibility of Ātman, as its reason. Subsequently, the student knows that the means serve their purpose by pointing only to the end and the end itself is always one and changeless. To such a student the knowledge of the unborn Self which is both within and without reveals itself.
What is ever existent appears to pass into birth through māyā, yet from the standpoint of Reality it does not do so. But he who thinks this passing into birth is real asserts, as a matter of fact, that what is born passes into birth again.✅
एवं हि श्रुतिवाक्यशतैः सबाह्याभ्यन्तरमजम् आत्मतत्त्वमद्वयं न ततोऽन्यदस्तीति निश्चितमेतत्। युक्त्या चाधुनैतदेव पुनर्निर्धार्यत इत्याह – Comment. Thus hundreds of Scriptural passages conclude that the essence which is the non-dual and birthless Self, existing both within and without, is the only Reality, and that nothing else, besides the Self, exists. Now, in order to determine this very Reality through reason, again it is stated: – तत्रैतत्स्यात् सदा अग्राह्यमेव चेदसदेवात्मतत्त्वमिति; (Objection) – It may also be true that if Reality be incomprehensible then the knowledge of Self would be unreal.तन्न, कार्यग्रहणात्। यथा सतो मायाविनः मायया जन्म कार्यम्, एवं जगतो जन्म कार्यं गृह्यमाणं मायाविनमिव परमार्थसन्तम् आत्मानं जगज्जन्म मायास्पदमेव गमयति। यस्मात् सतो हि विद्यमानात्कारणात् मायानिर्मितस्य हस्त्यादिकार्यस्येव जगज्जन्म युज्यते, नासतः कारणात्। न तु तत्त्वत एव आत्मनो जन्म युज्यते। (Reply) – No, this cannot be, for the effect is comprehended. As the effects, that is to say creation (of new things), come from a really existent magician through Māyā (magic), so also the comprehension of the effects, in the form of the creation of the universe, leads us to infer the existence of the Ātman, the Supreme Reality, who, like the magician, is, as it were, the substratum of the illusion which is seen in the form of the creation of the universe. For, the creation of the universe is possible only with a Reality, i.e., an existing cause, like the birth of the effects, such as the elephant, etc., conjured up through illusion (by an existing magician); and this creation is never possible with a non-existing cause. It is not, however, possible for the unborn Ātman to really pass into birth.अथवा, सतः विद्यमानस्य वस्तुनो रज्ज्वादेः सर्पादिवत् मायया जन्म युज्यते न तु तत्त्वतो यथा, तथा अग्राह्यस्यापि सत एवात्मनो रज्जुसर्पवज्जगद्रूपेण मायया जन्म युज्यते। न तु तत्त्वत एवाजस्यात्मनो जन्म। यस्य पुनः परमार्थसदजम् आत्मतत्त्वं जगद्रूपेण जायते वादिनः, न हि तस्य अजं जायत इति शक्यं वक्तुम्, विरोधात्। ततः तस्य अर्थात् जातं जायत इत्यापन्नम्। ततश्चानवस्थापाताज्जायमानत्वं न। तस्मादजमेकमेवात्मतत्त्वमिति सिद्धम्॥ Or, the first line of the text may be explained in another manner. As a really existing entity, such as the rope, etc., passes into such effects as the snake, etc., only through Māyā and not in reality, similarly, the real and the incomprehensible Ātman is seen to pass into birth, in the form of the universe, like the rope becoming the snake, only through illusion. The birthless Ātman cannot pass into birth from the standpoint of Reality. But the disputant who holds that the unborn Ātman, the Supreme Reality, is really born in the form of the universe, cannot assert that the unborn is born, as this implies a contradiction. In that case he must admit that, in fact, what is (already) born, again passes into birth. If, thus, birth is predicated of that which is already born, then the disputant is faced with what is known in logic as regressus ad infinitum. Therefore it is established that the Essence which is Ātman is ever unborn and non-dual.
The unreal cannot be born either really or through māyā. For it is not possible for the son of a barren woman to be born either really or through māyā.✅
असद्वादिनाम् असतो भावस्य मायया तत्त्वतो वा न कथञ्चन जन्म युज्यते, अदृष्टत्वात्। न हि वन्ध्या-पुत्रो मायया तत्त्वतो वा जायते। तस्मादत्रासद्वादो दूरत एवानुपपन्न इत्यर्थः॥ Comment.
There are those who hold that all entities are unreal, that the non-existent produces this world. But production, by the non-existent, of any thing either in reality or in illusion is not possible. For we know nothing like it in our experience. As the son of a barren woman is not seen to be born either really or through Māyā, the theory of the non-existence of things is in truth untenable.
As in dreams the mind acts through māyā, presenting the appearance of duality, so also in the waking state the mind acts through māyā, presenting the appearance of duality.✅
कथं पुनः सतो माययैव जन्मेत्युच्यते – यथा रज्ज्वां विकल्पितः सर्पो रज्जुरूपेणावेक्ष्यमाणः सन्, एवं मनः परमात्मविज्ञप्त्यात्मरूपेणावेक्ष्यमाणं सत् ग्राह्यग्राहकरूपेण द्वयाभासं स्पन्दते स्वप्ने मायया, रज्ज्वामिव सर्पः; तथा तद्वदेव जाग्रत् जागरिते स्पन्दते मायया मनः, स्पन्दत इवेत्यर्थः॥ How is it possible for the Reality to pass into birth through Māyā? It is thus replied; – As the snake imagined in the rope, is real when seen as the rope, so also the mind, from the standpoint of the knowledge of the ultimate Reality, is seen to be identical with Ātman. This mind, in dream, appears to us as dual in the forms of the cognizer and the cognised through Māyā, as the snake appears to be separate from the rope through ignorance. Similarly, indeed the mind acts (in a dual form) in the waking state through Māyā. That is to say, the mind appears to act.
There is no doubt that the mind, which is in reality non-dual, appears to be dual in dreams; likewise, there is no doubt that what is non-dual, i.e. Ātman, appears to be dual in the waking state.✅
रज्जुरूपेण सर्प इव परमार्थत आत्मरूपेण अद्वयं सत् द्वयाभासं मनः स्वप्ने, न संशयः। न हि स्वप्ने हस्त्यादि ग्राह्यं तद्ग्राहकं वा चक्षुरादि, द्वयं विज्ञानव्यतिरेकेणास्ति; जाग्रद् अपि तथा एवेत्यर्थः; परमार्थसद्विज्ञानमात्राविशेषात्॥ Comment.
Really speaking, the snake is identical with the rope. In like manner, the mind which is non-dual as Ātman appears undoubtedly in dual forms in dreams. Verily in dream, such objects of perception as elephants, etc., or their perceivers such as eyes, etc., have no existence independently of consciousness (mind). Similar is the case in the waking state as well. For (consciousness) mind, which is the highest Reality, is common to both.
All the multiple objects, comprising the movable and the immovable, are perceived by the mind alone. For duality is never perceived when the mind ceases to act.✅
रज्जुसर्पवद्विकल्पनारूपं द्वैतरूपेण मन एवेत्युक्तम्। तत्र किं प्रमाणमिति, अन्वयव्यतिरेकलक्षणमनुमानम् आह। कथम्? तेन हि मनसा विकल्प्यमानेन दृश्यं मनो-दृश्यम् इदं द्वैतं सर्वं मन इति प्रतिज्ञा, तद्भावे भावात् तदभावे चाभावात्। मनसो हि अमनी-भावे निरुद्धे विवेकदर्शनाभ्यासवैराग्याभ्यां रज्ज्वामिव सर्पे लयं गते वा सुषुप्ते द्वैतं न एव उपलभ्यत इति अभावात्सिद्धं द्वैतस्यासत्त्वमित्यर्थः॥ It has been said that it is the mind alone which appears as dual (objects) like the appearance of the snake in the rope. But what is its proof? Our answer is this: We make the statement on the strength of an inference following the method of agreement and difference. The proposition is that all this duality perceived as such by the imagination of the mind is, in reality, nothing but the mind. The reason for such inference is that duality is perceived when the mind acts and it vanishes when the mind ceases to act; that is to say, when the (activity, i.e., the Vṛttis of the) mind is withdrawn unto itself by the knowledge got through discrimination, repeated practice and renunciation, – like the disappearance of the snake in the rope – or during deep sleep. Hence on account of the disappearance of duality it is established that duality is unreal or illusory. That the perception of duality is due to the action of the mind is further proved in this Kārikā.
When the mind, after realizing the knowledge that Ātman alone is real, becomes free from imaginations and therefore does not cognize anything, for want of objects to he cognized, it ceases to be the mind.✅
कथं पुनरयममनीभाव इत्युच्यते – आत्मा एव सत्यम् आत्मसत्यम्, मृत्तिकावत्, “वाचारम्भणं विकारो नामधेयं मृत्तिकेत्येव सत्यम्” (ChanU.6.1.4) इति श्रुतेः। तस्य शास्त्राचार्योपदेशम् अन्ववबोध आत्म-सत्यानुबोधः। तेन सङ्कल्प्याभावात् तन् न सङ्कल्पयते दाह्याभावे ज्वलनमिवाग्नेः यदा यस्मिन्काले, तदा तस्मिन्काले अमनस्ताम् अमनोभावं याति; ग्राह्याभावे तत् मनः अग्रहं ग्रहणविकल्पनावर्जितमित्यर्थः॥ How does the mind become naught? It is thus replied: –
The Ātman alone is the Reality like the clay; as in the Śruti passage, “All modifications are mere names arising from efforts of speech. The clay alone is real.” That knowledge of the reality of Ātman comes through the Scripture and the teacher. The mind having attained to that knowledge does not imagine, as there remains nothing to be imagined. The mind then is like fire when there is no fuel to burn. When the mind thus does no longer imagine, it ceases to be mind, that is, the mind, for want of any object to be cognised, becomes free from all cognition.
Knowledge (Jñāna), which is unborn and free from imagination, is described by the wise as ever inseparable from the knowable. The immutable and birthless Brahman is the goal of knowledge. The birthless is known by the birthless.✅
यद्यसदिदं द्वैतम्, केन समञ्जसम् आत्मतत्त्वं विबुध्यत इति, उच्यते – अकल्पकं सर्वकल्पनावर्जितम्, अत एव अजं ज्ञानं ज्ञप्तिमात्रं ज्ञेयेन परमार्थसता ब्रह्मणा अभिन्नं प्रचक्षते कथयन्ति ब्रह्मविदः। “न हि विज्ञातुर्विज्ञातेर्विपरिलोपो विद्यते” (BrhU.4.3.30) अग्न्युष्णवत्, “विज्ञानम् आनन्दं ब्रह्म” (BrhU.3.9.28) “सत्यं ज्ञानमनन्तं ब्रह्म” (TaitU.2.1.1) इत्यादिश्रुतिभ्यः। If all this duality be illusory, how is the knowledge of the Self to be realised? It is thus replied: – The Knowers of Brahman describe knowledge, i.e., the mere essence of thought, which is unborn and free from all imaginations as non-different from Brahman, the ultimate Reality, which is also the object of knowledge. This is supported by such Scriptural passages as, “Like heat from fire, knowledge (Jñānam) is never absent from the knower (Ātman),” “Brahman is Knowledge and Bliss,” “Brahman is Reality, Knowledge and Infinity,” etc.तस्यैव विशेषणम् – ब्रह्म ज्ञेयं यस्य, स्वस्थं तदिदं ब्रह्म ज्ञेयम् औष्ण्यस्येवाग्निवदभिन्नम्, तेन आत्मस्वरूपेण अजेन ज्ञानेन अजं ज्ञेयम् आत्मतत्त्वं स्वयमेव विबुध्यते अवगच्छति। नित्यप्रकाशस्वरूप इव सविता नित्य-विज्ञानैकरसघनत्वान्न ज्ञानान्तरमपेक्षत इत्यर्थः॥ The knowledge of which Brahman is the object, is non-different from (the knowable) Brahman, as is the heat from the fire. The Essence of the Self, which is the object of knowledge, verily knows itself by means of unborn knowledge, which is of the very nature of Ātman. Brahman which is of the nature of one homogeneous mass of eternal consciousness, does not depend upon another instrument of knowledge (for its illumination), as is the case with the sun, which being of the nature of continuous light (does not require any instrument to illumine itself). Comment.
One should know the behaviour of the mind which, being endowed with discrimination and free from illusions is under control. The condition of the mind in deep sleep is not like that but is of a different kind.✅
आत्मसत्यानुबोधेन सङ्कल्पमकुर्वत् बाह्यविषयाभावे निरिन्धनाग्निवत्प्रशान्तं सत् निगृहीतं निरुद्धं मनो भवतीत्युक्तम्। एवं च मनसो ह्यमनीभावे द्वैताभावश्चोक्तः। तस्यैवं निगृहीतस्य निरुद्धस्य मनसः निर्विकल्पस्य सर्वकल्पनावर्जितस्य धीमतः विवेकवतः प्रचरणं प्रचारो यः, स तु प्रचारः विशेषेण ज्ञेयो विज्ञेयो योगिभिः। It has been stated before that the mind, free from imagination on account of the knowledge of Truth, which is Ātman, becomes tranquil for want of external objects, like the fire not fed by fuel. Such mind may be said to be under control, It has been further stated that duality disappears when the mind thus ceases to act. The Yogīs should particularly know the behaviour of the mind which is thus brought under discipline, which is free from all imaginations and which is possessed of discrimination.ननु सर्वप्रत्ययाभावे यादृशः सुषुप्तिस्थस्य मनसः प्रचारः, तादृश एव निरुद्धस्यापि, प्रत्ययाभावाविशेषात्; किं तत्र विज्ञेयमिति। (Objection) – In the absence of all specific consciousness the mind, in the state of deep sleep, behaves exactly in the same manner as does the mind under control. What is there to be known in the absence of all specific knowledge?अत्रोच्यते – नैवम्, यस्मात् सुषुप्ते अन्यः प्रचारोऽविद्यामोहतमोग्रस्तस्य अन्तर्लीनानेकानर्थप्रवृत्तिबीजवासनावतो मनसः आत्मसत्यानुबोधहुताशविप्लुष्टाविद्याद्यनर्थप्रवृत्तिबीजस्य निरुद्धस्य अन्य एव प्रशान्तसर्वक्लेशरजसः स्वतन्त्रः प्रचारः। अतो न तत्-समः। तस्माद्युक्तः स विज्ञातुमित्यभिप्रायः॥ (Reply) – To this objection we reply thus: – Your objection is not valid. For, the behaviour of the mind in deep sleep, overcome by the darkness of delusion caused by ignorance, and still full of many potential desires which are the seeds of numerous future undesirable activities, is quite different from the behaviour of the mind well under control and free from the ignorance which produces activities that give rise to numerous afflictions, and from which has been burnt away by the fire of self-knowledge the ignorance which contains the harmful seed of all potential tendencies to act. The behaviour of the latter kind of mind is quite different. Therefore it is not like the mind in deep sleep. Hence the behaviour of such mind should be known. This is the purport.
The mind is withdrawn in deep sleep, but it is not so when the mind is controlled. The controlled mind is verily the fearless Brahman, the light of whose omniscience is all-pervading.✅
प्रचारभेदे हेतुम् आह – लीयते सुषुप्तौ हि यस्मात्सर्वाभिरविद्यादिप्रत्ययबीजवासनाभिः सह तमोरूपम् अविशेषरूपं बीजभावम् आपद्यते तद् विवेकविज्ञानपूर्वकं निगृहीतं निरुद्धं सत् न लीयते तमोबीजभावं नापद्यते। तस्माद्युक्तः प्रचारभेदः सुषुप्तस्य समाहितस्य मनसः। यदा ग्राह्यग्राहकाविद्याकृतमलद्वयवर्जितम्, तदा परमद्वयं ब्रह्मैव तत्संवृत्तमित्यतः तद् एव निर्भयम्, द्वैतग्रहणस्य भयनिमित्तस्याभावात्। Comment.
Now is stated the reason for the distinction between the behaviour (of the mind of a sleeper and that of a Jñānī). The mind in deep sleep, with the desires which are the cause of all experiences during the state of ignorance, goes back to the seed-like condition of potentiality characterised by the undifferentiated feature of darkness; but the mind (of a Jñānī) which is disciplined by discrimination is not so withdrawn, that is to say, does not go back to the seed-like state of darkness. Therefore is made the distinction between the behaviour of the mind in deep sleep and that of a Jñānī whose mind is under control. When the mind becomes free from all ideas of the perceiver and the perceived – the dual evils caused by ignorance – it verily becomes one with the Supreme and the non-dual Brahman. Therefore the mind becomes free from all fear; for, in that state, the perception of duality, which is the cause of fear, is absent.शान्तम् अभयं ब्रह्म यद्विद्वान्न बिभेति कुतश्चन। तद् एव विशेष्यते – ज्ञप्तिर्ज्ञानम् आत्मस्वभावचैतन्यम्, तदेव ज्ञानम् आलोकः प्रकाशो यस्य, तद्ब्रह्म ज्ञानालोकं विज्ञानैकरसघनमित्यर्थः। समन्ततः समन्तात्; सर्वतो व्योमवन्नैरन्तर्येण व्यापकमित्यर्थः॥ Brahman is peace and fearlessness. Having realised Brahman, the Jñānī is not afraid of anything. This is thus further amplified: Jñānam means the essence of Knowledge, i.e., the consciousness which is the very nature of Ātman or the Self. Brahman is that whose expression is the Knowledge thus described. In other words, Brahman is the one mass of sentiency. The word, “all-round” in the text, implies that this knowledge of Brahman is without break and all-pervading like the ether.
Brahman is birthless, sleepless, dreamless, nameless and formless. It is ever effulgent and omniscient. No duty, in any sense, can ever be associated with It.✅
जन्मनिमित्ताभावात्सबाह्याभ्यन्तरम् अजम्; अविद्यानिमित्तं हि जन्म रज्जुसर्पवदित्यवोचाम। सा चाविद्या आत्मसत्यानुबोधेन निरुद्धा यतः, अतः अजम्, अत एव अनिद्रम् अविद्यालक्षणानादिर्मायानिद्रास्वापात्प्रबुद्धम् अद्वयस्वरूपेणात्मना; अतः अस्वप्नम्। Brahman is both within and without as well as unborn, as there is no cause for its passing into birth. For, we have already stated that (the phenomenon of) birth is seen on account of the ignorance (of the real nature of a thing), as is the case with the rope giving birth to the (illusion of the) snake. It is birthless because all ignorance is destroyed by the knowledge of Truth which is the Ātman. Hence it is free from sleep; for, Ātman, which is, by nature, non-dual, is always free from sleep the nature of which is that of beginningless delusion characterised by ignorance. Therefore it is free from dream.अप्रबोधकृते ह्यस्य नामरूपे; प्रबोधाच्च ते रज्जुसर्पवद्विनष्टे। न नाम्नाभिधीयते ब्रह्म, रूप्यते वा न केनचित्प्रकारेण इति अनामकम् अरूपकं च तत्, “यतो वाचो निवर्तन्ते” (TaitU.2.4.1) इत्यादिश्रुतेः। Names and forms which are ascribed to it are due to the ignorance of its real nature. These names and forms are destroyed by Knowledge. It is like the (destruction of the illusion of the) snake seen in the rope. Hence Brahman cannot be described by any name, nor can it be in any manner described to be of any form. To support this, there are such Śruti passages as, “From which words come back,” etc.किञ्च, सकृद्-विभातं सदैव विभातं सदा भारूपम्, अग्रहणान्यथाग्रहणाविर्भावतिरोभाववर्जितत्वात्। ग्रहणाग्रहणे हि रात्र्यहनी; तमश्चाविद्यालक्षणं सदा अप्रभातत्वे कारणम्; तदभावान्नित्यचैतन्यभारूपत्वाच्च युक्तं सकृद्विभातमिति। अत एव सर्वं च तत् ज्ञप्तिस्वरूपं चेति सर्वज्ञम्। Moreover, it is ever effulgent or it is of the very nature of effulgence. For, it is free from (the ideas of) manifestation and non-manifestation characterised by wrong apprehension and non-apprehension. Apprehension and non-apprehension are (as inseparable) as day and night. Darkness is the characteristic of ignorance. These are the causes of the non-manifestation (of the real nature of Ātman). These are absent in Ātman. Moreover, Ātman is always of the nature of consciousness and effulgence. Therefore it is reasonable to speak of Ātman as ever-effulgent. It is all-knowing, that is to say, Ātman is all that exists and Ātman is consciousness (awareness) itself.न इह ब्रह्मण्येवंविधे उपचरणम् उपचारः कर्तव्यः, यथा अन्येषाम् आत्मस्वरूपव्यतिरेकेण समाधानाद्युपचारः। नित्यशुद्धबुद्धमुक्तस्वभावत्वाद्ब्रह्मणः कथञ्चन न कथञ्चिदपि कर्तव्यसम्भवः अविद्यानाशे इत्यर्थः॥ As regards such Brahman (i.e., the one that knows such Brahman) no action can be enjoined, as may be in the case of others, who (on account of their ignorance of the real nature of Brahman) are asked to practise concentration, etc., on the nature of Ātman. The purport is that besides the destruction of ignorance it is not possible to prescribe any disciplinary action (for the knowledge of Brahman), as Brahman is always of the nature of purity, knowledge and freedom. The nature of Brahman, which is the subject-matter under discussion is thus described in other ways. The purport of the Kārikā is that apart from the realisation of one’s identity with the attributeless Brahman no effort is to be made by him. Comment (cf. YS.1.50 – 51 commentary).
Ātman is beyond all expression by words and beyond all acts of the mind. It is great peace, eternal effulgence and samādhi; It is unmoving and fearless.✅
अनामकत्वाद्युक्तार्थसिद्धये हेतुम् आह – अभिलप्यते अनेनेति अभिलापः वाक्करणं सर्व-प्रकारस्य अभिधानस्य, तस्माद् विगतः; वागत्रोपलक्षणार्था, सर्वबाह्यकरणवर्जित इत्येतत्। तथा, सर्व-चिन्ता-समुत्थितः, चिन्त्यते अनयेति चिन्ता बुद्धिः, तस्याः समुत्थितः, अन्तःकरणविवर्जित इत्यर्थः, “अप्राणो ह्यमनाः शुभ्रः अक्षरात्परतः परः” (MunU.2.1.2) इत्यादिश्रुतेः। Now is explained the reason for indicating Brahman as without name, etc., as stated above. The word Abhilāpa, meaning expression, denotes here the instrument of sound by which all sounds are expressed. Brahman is beyond speech. The instrument of sound is used in the sense of metonymy, i.e., it also implies other instruments of sense-knowledge. The purport is that the Ātman is beyond all external sense-organs. Similarly, it is beyond all activities of the mind. The word “Cintā” in the text stands for “mind” (or the internal organ of thought). For, the Śruti says, “It is verily without Prāṇa and without mind”, “It is higher than the imperishable Supreme.”यस्मात्सर्वविषयवर्जितः, अतः सुप्रशान्तः। सकृज्-ज्योतिः सदैव ज्योतिः आत्मचैतन्यस्वरूपेण। समाधिः समाधिनिमित्तप्रज्ञावगम्यत्वात्; समाधीयते अस्मिन्निति वा समाधिः। अचलः अविक्रियः। अत एव अभयः विक्रियाभावात्॥ It is all peace as it is free from all distinctions. The Ātman is ever-effulgent, that is to say, being of the nature of self-consciousness which is its very essence, it is eternal light. The Ātman is denoted by the word Samādhi as it can be realised only by the knowledge arising out of the deepest concentration (on its essence) or, the Ātman is denoted by Samādhi because the Jīva concentrates his mind on Ātman. It is immovable, i.e., beyond change. Hence, it is fearless as it is free from change.
Brahman is free from mental activity and hence from all ideas of acceptance or relinquishment. When knowledge is established in Ātman it attains birthlessness and sameness.✅
यस्माद्ब्रह्मैव “समाधिरचलोऽभयः” इत्युक्तम्, अतः न तत्र तस्मिन्ब्रह्मणि ग्रहः ग्रहणमुपादानम्, न उत्सर्गः उत्सर्जनं हानं वा विद्यते। यत्र हि विक्रिया तद्विषयत्वं वा, तत्र हानोपादाने स्याताम्; न तद्द्वयमिह ब्रह्मणि सम्भवति, विकारहेतोरन्यस्याभावान्निरवयवत्वाच्च; अतो न तत्र हानोपादाने सम्भवतः। चिन्ता यत्र न विद्यते, सर्वप्रकारैव चिन्ता न सम्भवति यत्र अमनस्त्वात्, कुतस्तत्र हानोपादाने इत्यर्थः। Comment.
As Brahman alone has been described in the previous text as Samādhi (i.e., the sole object of concentration) and as free from activity and fear, therefore in that Brahman there is nothing to accept nor is there anything to give up. For, acceptance or abandonment is possible only where there is change or the possibility of change. But both these are inconsistent with Brahman – as nothing else exists which can cause a change in Brahman, and further because Brahman is without parts. Therefore, the meaning is that in Brahman there is no possibility of either accepting or giving up anything. The purport of the Kārikā is this: How can there be any acceptance or abandonment (in Brahman) where, in the absence of the mind, no mentation whatsoever is possible?यदैव आत्मसत्यानुबोधो जातः, तदा एव आत्म-संस्थं विषयाभावादग्न्युष्णवदात्मन्येव स्थितं ज्ञानम्, अजाति जातिवर्जितम्, समतां गतम् परं साम्यम् आपन्नं भवति। यदादौ प्रतिज्ञातम् “अतो वक्ष्याम्यकार्पण्यमजाति समतां गतम्” (ManKa.3.2) इति, इदं तदुपपत्तितः शास्त्रतश्चोक्तमुपसंह्रियते – अजाति समतां गतमिति। एतस्मादात्मसत्यानुबोधात्कार्पण्यविषयमन्यत्, “यो वा एतदक्षरं गार्ग्यविदित्वास्माल्लोकात्प्रैति स कृपणः” (BrhU.3.8.10) इति श्रुतेः। प्राप्यैतत्सर्वः कृतकृत्यो ब्राह्मणो भवतीत्यभिप्रायः॥ When the knowledge of Reality which is the Self, ensues, then Knowledge, for want of any object to rest upon, becomes established in Ātman, like the heat of fire (in the absence of fuel). Ajāti, i.e., free from birth. It attains to the state of supreme non-duality. Thus is concluded, by means of reasoning and Scriptural authority what was stated before as a proposition in the following words: “Now I shall describe the non-dual Brahman which is free from limitation and birth and which is the same everywhere.” Everything else, other than the knowledge of Reality which is the Self, birthless and homogeneous, implies limitation. The Śruti also says, “O Gārgī, he who departs from this world without knowing that Imperishable One, is, indeed, narrow-minded.” The purport is that everyone, realising this knowledge, becomes established in Brahman and attains to the fulfilment of all desires.
This yoga, which is not in touch with anything, is hard for yogīs in general to attain. They are afraid of it, because they see fear in that which is really fearlessness.✅
यद्यपीदमित्थं परमार्थतत्त्वम्, अस्पर्श-योगो नाम अयं सर्वसम्बन्धाख्यस्पर्शवर्जितत्वात् अस्पर्शयोगो नाम वै स्मर्यते प्रसिद्ध उपनिषत्सु। दुःखेन दृश्यत इति दुर्दर्शः सर्व-योगिणाम् वेदान्तविज्ञानरहितानाम्; आत्मसत्यानुबोधायासलभ्य एवेत्यर्थः। योगिनः बिभ्यति हि अस्मात् सर्वभयवर्जितादपि आत्मनाशरूपमिमं योगं मन्यमाना भयं कुर्वन्ति, अभये अस्मिन् भय-दर्शिनः भयनिमित्तात्मनाशदर्शनशीलाः अविवेकिनः इत्यर्थः॥ Though such is the nature of the knowledge of the Supreme Reality, yet it is described in the Upaniṣads as Yoga not in touch with anything; for, it is free from all touch implying relations (with objects). It is hard to be attained by the Yogīs who are devoid of the knowledge taught in the Vedānta philosophy. In other words, this truth can be realised only by the efforts culminating in the knowledge of Ātman as the Sole Reality. The Yogīs shrink from it, which is free from all fear, for they think that this Yoga brings about the annihilation of their self. In other words, the Yogīs, being devoid of discrimination, who, through fear, apprehend the destruction of their self, are afraid of it which is, in reality, fearlessness.
Yogīs who are ignorant of Non-duality depend on the control of the mind for attaining fearlessness, the destruction of misery, Self-Knowledge and imperishable peace.✅
येषां पुनर्ब्रह्मस्वरूपव्यतिरेकेण रज्जुसर्पवत्कल्पितमेव मन इन्द्रियादि च न परमार्थतो विद्यते, तेषां ब्रह्मस्वरूपाणामभयं मोक्षाख्या च अक्षया शान्तिः स्वभावत एव सिद्धा, नान्यायत्ता, “नोपचारः कथञ्चन” (ManKa.3.36) इत्युक्तेः; Comment.
Those who regard mind and the sense-organs, when seen apart from their identity with the very nature of Brahman, as mere imagination, – like that of the snake when seen apart from its identity with the rope – and who thus deny the sole reality of the mind and the sense-organs (independent of Brahman), i.e., those who look upon themselves as of the very nature of Brahman, spontaneously enjoy, as quite natural to them, fearlessness and eternal peace known as Freedom, (perfect knowledge) for which they (the Jñānīs) do not depend upon any mechanical effort (such as the control of the mind, etc.). We have already stated that no duty (effort), whatsoever, exist for the Jñānī.ये त्वतोऽन्ये योगिनो मार्गगा हीनमध्यमदृष्टयो मनोऽन्यदात्मव्यतिरिक्तम् आत्मसम्बन्धि पश्यन्ति, तेषाम् आत्मसत्यानुबोधरहितानां मनसो निग्रह-आयत्तम् अभयं सर्वेषां योगिनाम्। किञ्च, दुःखक्षयोऽपि। न ह्यात्मसम्बन्धिनि मनसि प्रचलिते दुःखक्षयोऽस्त्यविवेकिनाम्। किञ्च, आत्म-प्रबोधोऽपि मनोनिग्रहायत्त एव। तथा, अक्षया अपि मोक्षाख्या शान्तिः तेषां मनोनिग्रहायत्ता एव॥ But those other Yogīs who are also traversing the path (leading to Truth), but who possess inferior or middling understanding and who look upon the mind as separate from but related to Ātman, and who are ignorant of the knowledge regarding the reality of Ātman – the Yogīs belonging to this class can experience fearlessness as a result of the discipline of the mind. To them the destruction of misery is also dependent upon mental control. The ignorant can never experience the cessation of misery, if the mind, (considered) related to Ātman, becomes active. Besides, their knowledge of self is dependent on their control of the mind. And similarly, eternal peace, known as Mokṣa (or liberation), in their case, depends upon the mental discipline.
The mind is to be brought under Control by undepressed effort; it is like emptying the ocean, drop by drop, with the help of a blade of kuśa grass.✅
मनोनिग्रहोऽपि तेषाम् उदधेः कुश-अग्रेण एक-बिन्दुना उत्सेचनेन शोषणव्यवसायवत् व्यवसायवतामनवसन्नान्तःकरणानामनिर्वेदात् अपरिखेदतः भवतीत्यर्थ॥ Comment.
As one may try to empty the ocean, by draining off its water drop by drop, with the help of a (blade of) Kuśa-grass, even so may one control the mind by making the same effort with a heart which becomes neither depressed nor tired.
The mind distracted by desires and enjoyments should he brought under control by proper means; so also the mind enjoying pleasure in inactivity (laya). For the state of inactivity is as harmful as the state of desires.✅
किमपरिखिन्नव्यवसायमात्रमेव मनोनिग्रहे उपायः? नेत्युच्यते; अपरिखिन्नव्यवसायवान्सन्, वक्ष्यमाणेन उपायेन काम-भोग-विषयेषु विक्षिप्तं मनो निगृह्णीयात् निरुन्ध्यादात्मन्येवेत्यर्थः। किञ्च, लीयतेऽस्मिन्निति सुषुप्तो लयः; तस्मिन् लये च सुप्रसन्नम् आयासवर्जितमपीत्येतत्, निगृह्णीयादित्यनुवर्तते। सुप्रसन्नं चेत्कस्मान्निगृह्यत इति, उच्यते; यस्मात् यथा कामः अनर्थहेतुः, तथा लयोऽपि; अतः कामविषयस्य मनसो निग्रहवल्लयादपि निरोद्धव्यत्वमित्यर्थः॥ Comment.
Is untiring effort the only way for bringing the mind under discipline? We say, in reply, no. One should, with untiring effort, follow the means, to be stated presently, in order to bring the mind under discipline, that is to say, bring it back to Ātman, when the mind turns towards objects of desires and enjoyments. The word “Laya” in the text indicates Suṣupti, i.e., deep sleep in which state one becomes oblivious of all things. The (injunction implied in the) words “should be brought under discipline”, should also be applied in the case of the mind when it feels happy, that is to say free from all worries in the state of Laya or oblivion. Why should it be further brought under discipline if it feels pleasure (in that state)? It is thus replied: Because the state of oblivion is as harmful as desire, the mind should be withdrawn from the state of oblivion as it should be withdrawn from objects of enjoyment.
Turn back the mind from the enjoyment of desires, remembering that they beget only misery. Do not see the created objects, remembering that all this is the unborn Ātman.✅
कः स उपाय इति, उच्यते – सर्वं द्वैतमविद्याविजृम्भितं दुःखम् एव इति अनुस्मृत्य काम-भोगात् कामनिमित्तो भोगः इच्छाविषयः तस्मात् विप्रसृतं मनो निवर्तयेत् वैराग्यभावनयेत्यर्थः। अजं ब्रह्म सर्वम् इत्येतच्छास्त्राचार्योपदेशतः अनुस्मृत्य तद्विपरीतं द्वैत-जातं न एव तु पश्यति अभावात्॥ Comment.
What is the way of disciplining the mind? It is thus replied: Remember that all duality is caused by Avidyā or illusion and therefore afflicted with misery. Thereby dissuade the mind from seeking enjoyments produced by desires. In other words, withdraw the mind from all dual objects by impressing upon it the idea of complete non-attachment. Realise from the teachings of the Scriptures and the Ācāryas that all this is verily the changeless Brahman. Then you will not see anything to the contrary, viz., duality; for it does not exist.
If the mind becomes inactive, arouse it from laya; if distracted, make it tranquil. Understand the nature of the mind when it contains the seed of attachment. When the mind has attained sameness, do not disturb it again.✅
एवमनेन ज्ञानाभ्यासवैराग्यद्वयोपायेन लये सुषुप्ते लीनं संबोधयेत् मनः आत्मविवेकदर्शनेन योजयेत्। चित्तं मन इत्यनर्थान्तरम्। विक्षिप्तं च कामभोगेषु शमयेत् पुनः। When the mind is immersed in oblivion, i.e., in Suṣupti, then rouse it up by means of knowledge and by detachment. That is to say, turn the mind to the exercise of discrimination which leads to the knowledge of the Self. The word “Citta” in the text bears the same meaning as “Manas” or mind. Bring the mind back to the state of tranquillity if it is distracted by the various objects of desires.एवं पुनः पुनरभ्यासतो लयात्संबोधितं विषयेभ्यश्च व्यावर्तितम्, नापि साम्यापन्नमन्तरालावस्थं स-कषायं सरागं बीजसंयुक्तं मन इति विजानीयात्। ततोऽपि यत्नतः साम्यम् आपादयेत्। यदा तु सम-प्राप्तं भवति, समप्राप्त्यभिमुखीभवतीत्यर्थः; ततः तत् न चालयेत्, विषयाभिमुखं न कुर्यादित्यर्थः॥ When the mind is thus, by constant practice, awakened from the state of inactivity and also turned back from all objects, but not yet established in equilibrium, that is to say, when the mind still dwells in an intermediary state, – then know the mind to be possessed of attachment. Then the mind contains within it the seeds of desires for enjoyment and inactivity. From that state also, bring the mind, with care, to the realisation of equilibrium. Once the mind has realised the state of equilibrium, that is, when it is on the way to realise that state, then do not disturb it again. In other words, do not turn it to (by attachment) external objects.
The yogī must not taste the happiness arising from samādhi; he should detach himself from it by the exercise of discrimination. If his mind, after attaining steadiness, again seeks external objects, he should make it one with Ātman through great effort.✅
समाधित्सतो योगिनो यत् सुखं जायते, तत् न आस्वादयेत् तत्र न रज्येतेत्यर्थः। कथं तर्हि? निःसङ्गः निःस्पृहः प्रज्ञया विवेकबुद्ध्या यदुपलभ्यते सुखम्, तदविद्यापरिकल्पितं मृषैवेति विभावयेत्; ततोऽपि सुखरागान्निगृह्णीयादित्यर्थः। यदा पुनः सुखरागान्निवृत्तं निश्चल-स्वभावं सत् निश्चरत् बहिर्निर्गच्छद्भवति चित्तम्, ततस्ततो नियम्य उक्तोपायेन आत्मन्येव एकी-कुर्यात् प्रयत्नतः। चित्स्वरूपसत्तामात्रमेवापादयेदित्यर्थ॥ Comment.
The seeker should not taste that happiness that is experienced by the Yogīs seeking after Samādhi. In other words, he is not to be attached to that happiness. What then should be done by the student? He should be unattached to such happiness, by gaining knowledge through discrimination, and think that whatever happiness is experienced is false and conjured up by ignorance. The mind should be turned back from such happiness. When, however, having been once withdrawn from happiness and fixed on the state of steadiness, the mind again manifests its outgoing propensities, then control it by adopting the above-mentioned means; and with great care, make it one with Ātman; that is, make the mind attain to the condition of pure existence and thought.
When the mind does not lapse into inactivity and is not distracted by desires, that is to say, when it remains unshakable and does not give rise to appearances, it verily becomes Brahman.✅
यथोक्तेनोपायेन निगृहीतं चित्तं यदा सुषुप्ते न लीयते, न च पुनः विषयेषु विक्षिप्यते; अनिङ्गनम् अचलं निवातप्रदीपकल्पम्, अनाभासं न केनचित्कल्पितेन विषयभावेनावभासते इति; यदा एवंलक्षणं चित्तम्, तदा निष्पन्नं ब्रह्म; ब्रह्मस्वरूपेण निष्पन्नं चित्तं भवतीत्यर्थः॥ When the mind brought under discipline by the above-mentioned methods, does not fall into the oblivion of deep sleep, nor is distracted by external objects, that is to say, when the mind becomes quiescent like the flame of a light kept in a windless place; or when the mind does not appear in the form of an object, – when the mind is endowed with these characteristics, it verily becomes one with Brahman.
This Supreme Bliss abides in the Self. It is peace; it is Liberation; it is birthless and cannot be described in words. It is called the omniscient Brahman, being one with the birthless Self, which is the true object of knowledge.✅
यथोक्तं परमार्थसुखम् आत्मसत्यानुबोधलक्षणं स्वस्थं स्वात्मनि स्थितम्; शान्तं सर्वानर्थोपशमरूपम्; स-निर्वाणम्, निर्वृतिर्निर्वाणं कैवल्यम्, सह निर्वाणेन वर्तते; तच्च अकथ्यं न शक्यते कथयितुम्, अत्यन्तासाधारणविषयत्वात्; सुखम् उत्तमं निरतिशयं हि तद्योगिप्रत्यक्षमेव; न जातमिति अजम्, यथा विषयविषयम्; अजेन अनुत्पन्नेन ज्ञेयेन अव्यतिरिक्तं सत् स्वेन सर्वज्ञरूपेण सर्वज्ञं ब्रह्मैव सुखं परिचक्षते कथयन्ति ब्रह्मविदः॥ Comment.
The above-mentioned bliss which is the highest Reality and which is characterised by the knowledge of the Ātman is centred in the Self. It is all peace, characterised by the cessation of all evils. It is the same as liberation. It is indescribable as nobody is able to describe it; for, it is totally different from all objects. This ultimate bliss is directly realized by the Yogīs. It is unborn because it is not produced like anything resulting from empirical perceptions. It is identical with the Unborn which is the object sought by Knowledge. The Knowers of Brahman describe this bliss verily as the omniscient Brahman, as it is identical with that Reality which is omniscient.
No jīva ever comes into existence. There exists no cause that can produce it. The supreme truth is that nothing ever is born.✅
सर्वोऽप्ययं मनोनिग्रहादिः मृल्लोहादिवत्सृष्टिरुपासना च उक्ता परमार्थस्वरूपप्रतिपत्त्युपायत्वेन, न परमार्थसत्येति। परमार्थसत्यं तु न कश्चिद् जायते जीवः कर्ता भोक्ता च नोत्पद्यते केनचिदपि प्रकारेण। अतः स्वभावतः अजस्य अस्य एकस्यात्मनः सम्भवः कारणं न विद्यते नास्ति। Comment.
All these ideas regarding the discipline of the mind, evolution resembling the creation of forms from iron and clay, as well as the ideas regarding devotional exercises, are given as means to the realisation of the nature of the Ultimate Reality. They have, in themselves, no meaning whatsoever. The truth regarding the Ultimate Reality is that no Jīva is ever born. The Jīva whom one knows as the agent and the enjoyer is not born in any way whatsoever. Therefore, no cause can ever exist which may produce the Ātman which is, by nature, unborn and non-dual.यस्मान्न विद्यतेऽस्य कारणम्, तस्मान्न कश्चिज्जायते जीव इत्येतत्। पूर्वेषूपायत्वेनोक्तानां सत्यानाम् एतत् उत्तमं सत्यं यस्मिन्सत्यस्वरूपे ब्रह्मणि अणुमात्रमपि किञ्चिद् न जायते इति॥ In other words, no Jīva can ever be born, as the cause which may produce it does not exist. Of all the (relative) truths described above as means (for the realisation of the Ultimate Reality), this alone is the Supreme Truth that nothing whatsoever is ever born in or of that Brahman which is of the nature of the Ultimate Reality.
I bow to the best among men, who, by means of knowledge, which is like ākāśa and which is non-different from the goal of knowledge, realized the nature of the jīvas (dharmas), which, too, are like ākāśa.✅
ओङ्कारनिर्णयद्वारेण आगमतः प्रतिज्ञातस्याद्वैतस्य बाह्यविषयभेदवैतथ्याच्च सिद्धस्य पुनरद्वैते शास्त्रयुक्तिभ्यां साक्षान्निर्धारितस्य एतदुत्तमं सत्यमित्युपसंहारः कृतोऽन्ते। तस्यैतस्यागमार्थस्य अद्वैतदर्शनस्य प्रतिपक्षभूता द्वैतिनो वैनाशिकाश्च। तेषां चान्योन्यविरोधाद्रागद्वेषादिक्लेशास्पदं दर्शनमिति मिथ्यादर्शनत्वं सूचितम्, क्लेशानास्पदत्वात्सम्यग्दर्शनमित्यद्वैतदर्शनस्तुतये। The proposition regarding Advaita (as the Supreme Truth) has been based upon scriptural evidence, by determining the nature of Om. That proposition has been established by proving the unreality of the distinction implied by the external objects (of experience). Again the third chapter dealing with Advaita has directly established the proposition on the authority of scripture and reason with the concluding statement that “This alone is the Ultimate Truth”. At the end of the previous chapter it has been hinted that the opinions of the dualists and the nihilists, who are opposed to the philosophy of Advaita which gives the true import of the scriptures, bear the name of true philosophy. But that is not true because of their mutual contradictions and also because of their being vitiated by attachment to their own opinions and aversion to those of others. The philosophy of Advaita has been extolled as the true philosophy on account of its being free from any vitiation (referred to above regarding the theories of the dualists and nihilists). तदिह विस्तरेणान्योन्यविरुद्धतया असम्यग्दर्शनत्वं प्रदर्श्य तत्प्रतिषेधेनाद्वैतदर्शनसिद्धिरुपसंहर्तव्या आवीतन्यायेनेत्यलातशान्तिप्रकरणम् आरभ्यते। तत्राद्वैतदर्शनसम्प्रदायकर्तुरद्वैतस्वरूपेणैव नमस्कारार्थोऽयम् आद्यश्लोकः। आचार्यपूजा हि अभिप्रेतार्थसिद्ध्यर्थेष्यते शास्त्रारम्भे। Now is undertaken the chapter styled Alāta-sānti (i.e., on the quenching of the fire-brand) in order to conclude the final examination for the establishment of the philosophy of Advaita, by following the process known as the method of disagreement, which is done by showing here in detail that other systems cannot be said to be true philosophy. For there are mutual contradictions implied in them. The first verse has for its purpose the salutation to the promulgator of the philosophy of Advaita, conceiving him as identical with the Advaita Truth. The salutation to the teacher is made in commencing a scripture in order to bring the undertaking to a successful end.आकाशेन ईषदसमाप्तम् आकाशकल्पम् आकाशतुल्यमित्येतत्। तेन आकाशकल्पेन ज्ञानेन। किम्? धर्मान् आत्मनः। किंविशिष्टान्? गगनोपमान् गगनमुपमा येषां ते गगन-उपमाः, तान् आत्मनो धर्मान्। The word “Ākāśa-kalpa” in the text means resembling Ākāśa, that is to say, slightly different from Ākāśa. What is the purpose of such knowledge which resembles Ākāśa? By such Knowledge is known the nature of the Dharmas (i.e., the attributes of Ātman). The attributes are the same as the substance. What is the nature of these Dharmas? They also can be known by the analogy of Ākāśa, that is to say, these Dharmas also resemble Ākāśa.ज्ञानस्यैव पुनर्विशेषणम् – ज्ञेयैर्धर्मैरात्मभिरभिन्नम् अग्न्युष्णवत् सवितृप्रकाशवच्च यत् ज्ञानम्, तेन ज्ञेय-अभिन्नेन ज्ञानेन आकाशकल्पेन ज्ञेयात्मस्वरूपाव्यतिरिक्तेन, The word “Jñeyābhinna” in the text is another attribute of ‘Jñānam’ or Knowledge and means that this knowledge is not separate from the Ātmans (Jīvas) which are the objects of knowledge. This identity of the knowledge and the knowable is like the identity of fire and heat and the sun and its light.गगनोपमान्धर्मान्यः संबुद्धः संबुद्धवान्नित्यमेव ईश्वरो यो नारायणाख्यः, तं वन्दे अभिवादये। द्वि-पदां वरं द्विपदोपलक्षितानां पुरुषाणां वरं प्रधानम्, पुरुषोत्तममित्यभिप्रायः। उपदेष्टृनमस्कारमुखेन ज्ञानज्ञेयज्ञातृभेदरहितं परमार्थतत्त्वदर्शनमिह प्रकरणे प्रतिपिपादयिषितं प्रतिपक्षप्रतिषेधद्वारेण प्रतिज्ञातं भवति॥ I bow to the God, known as Nārāyaṇa, who by knowledge, non-different from the nature of Ātman (the object of knowledge) and which resembles Ākāśa, knew the Dharmas which, again, may be compared to Ākāśa. The import of the words “Dvipadām Varam” (Supreme among the bipeds), is that Nārāyaṇa is the greatest of all men, characterised by two legs, that, is to say, He is the “Puruṣottama”, the best of all men. By the adoration of the teacher it is implied that the purpose of this chapter is to establish, by the refutation of the opposite views, Advaita which gives the philosophy of the Ultimate Reality, characterised by the identity of the knower, knowledge and the object of knowledge.
I bow to the yoga known as a-sparśa, taught in the scriptures, which promotes the happiness and well-being of all creatures and is free from strife and contradictions.✅
अधुना अद्वैतदर्शनयोगस्य नमस्कारः तत्स्तुतये – स्पर्शनं स्पर्शः सम्बन्धो न विद्यते यस्य योगस्य केनचित्कदाचिदपि, सः अस्पर्श-योगः ब्रह्मस्वभाव एव वै नाम इति; ब्रह्मविदामस्पर्शयोग इत्येवं प्रसिद्ध इत्यर्थः। स च सर्व-सत्त्व-सुखो भवति। Now salutation is made to the Yoga taught by the Advaita Philosophy, in order to extol it. The word Asparśa-yoga in the text means the Yoga which is always and in all respects free from sparśa or relationship with anything and which is of the same nature as Brahman. This Yoga is well known as the Asparśa-yoga to all Knowers of Brahman. This Yoga is conducive to the happiness of all beings.कश्चिदत्यन्तसुखसाधनविशिष्टोऽपि दुःखस्वरूपः, यथा तपः। अयं तु न तथा। किं तर्हि? There are certain forms of Yoga such as Tapas or austerity, which though conducive to the supreme happiness, are associated with misery. But this is not of that kind. Then what is its nature?सर्वसत्त्वानां सुखः। तथा इह भवति कश्चिद्विषयोपभोगः सुखो न हितः; अयं तु सुखो हितः च, नित्यमप्रचलितस्वभावत्वात्। किं च अविवादः, विरुद्धं वदनं विवादः पक्षप्रतिपक्षपरिग्रहेण यस्मिन्न विद्यते सः अविवादः। कस्मात्? यतः अविरुद्धः च; य ईदृशो योगः देशितः उपदिष्टः शास्त्रेण, तं नमामि अहं प्रणमामीत्यर्थः॥ It tends to the happiness of all beings. It may however be contended that the enjoyment of certain desires gives pleasure but certainly does not tend to one’s well-being. But this Asparśa-yoga conduces to both happiness and well-being. For, it never changes its nature. Moreover, this Yoga is free from strife, that is to say, in it there is no room for any passage-at-words, which is inevitable in all disputes consisting of two opposite sides. Why so? For, it is non-contradictory in nature. To this kind of Yoga, taught in the scripture, I bow.
Some disputants postulate that only an existing entity can again come into existence, while other disputants, proud of their intellect, postulate that only a non-existing entity can come into existence. Thus they quarrel among themselves.✅
कथं द्वैतिनः परस्परं विरुध्यन्त इति, उच्यते – भूतस्य विद्यमानस्य वस्तुनः जातिम् उत्पत्तिम् इच्छन्ति वादिनः केचिद् एव हि सांख्याः; न सर्व एव द्वैतिनः। यस्मात् अभूतस्य अविद्यमानस्य अपरे वैशेषिका नैयायिकाश्च धीराः धीमन्तः, प्राज्ञाभिमानिन इत्यर्थः। विवदन्तः विरुद्धं वदन्तो हि अन्योन्यम् इच्छन्ति जेतुमित्यभिप्रायः॥ How do the dualists quarrel with one another? It is thus replied: Some disputants, such as the followers of the Sāṅkhya system, admit production as the effect of an entity that is already existent. But this is not the view of all the dualists. For the intelligent followers of the Nyāya and the Vaiśeṣika systems, that is to say, those who believe that they possess wisdom, maintain that evolution proceeds from a non-existing cause. The meaning is that these disputants, quarrelling among themselves, claim victory over their respective opponents.
An existing entity cannot again come into existence (birth); nor can a non-existing entity come into existence. Thus disputing among themselves, they really establish the non-dualistic view of a-jāti (non-creation).✅
तैरेवं विरुद्धवदनेन अन्योन्यपक्षप्रतिषेधं कुर्वद्भिः किं ख्यापितं भवतीति, उच्यते – भूतं विद्यमानं वस्तु न जायते किञ्चिद् विद्यमानत्वादेव आत्मवत् इत्येवं वदन् असद्वादी सांख्यपक्षं प्रतिषेधति सज्जन्म। तथा अभूतम् अविद्यमानम् अविद्यमानत्वात् न एव जायते शशविषाणवत् इत्येवं वदन्सांख्योऽपि असद्वादिपक्षमसज्जन्म प्रतिषेधति। विवदन्तः विरुद्धं वदन्तः अद्वयाः अद्वैतिनो हि एते अन्योन्यस्य पक्षौ सदसतोर्जन्मनी प्रतिषेधन्तः अजातिम् अनुत्पत्तिम् अर्थात् ख्यापयन्ति प्रकाशयन्ति ते॥ What do they, by refuting each other’s conclusions and quarrelling among themselves, really establish? It is thus replied: – No entity which is already in existence can again pass into birth. The reason is that as entity, it already exists. It is just like the Ātman, which already being in existence, cannot be born again as a new entity. Thus argues the supporter of evolution from non-ens (‘non-entities’, i.e., from a non-existing cause) and refutes the Sāṅkhya theory that an existing cause is born again as an effect. Similarly, the follower of the Sāṅkhya theory refutes the supporter of the non-ens view regarding creation by a non-existing cause. He declares that a non-existing cause, on account of its very non-existence, cannot, like the horns of a hare, produce an effect. Thus quarrelling among themselves, by supporting “existent” and “non-existent” causes, they refute theirs respective opponent’s views and declare, in effect, the truth that there is no creation at all.
We approve the a-jāti (non-creation) thus established by them. We have no quarrel with them. Now hear from us about Ultimate Reality, which is free from all disputations.✅
तैः एवं ख्यप्यमानाम् अजातिम् एवमस्तु इति अनुमोदामहे केवलम्, न तैः सार्धं विवदामः पक्षप्रतिपक्षपरिग्रहेण; यथा ते अन्योन्यमित्यभिप्रायः। अतः तम् अविवादं विवादरहितं परमार्थदर्शनमनुज्ञातमस्माभिः निबोधत हे शिष्याः॥ We simply accept the view of the Ajāti or the absolute non-causation declared by them and say,“Let it be so”. We do not quarrel with them by taking either side in the disputation. In other words, like them, we do not quarrel with each other. Hence Oh ye pupils, know from us the Ultimate Reality as taught by us, which is free from dispute.
The disputants assert that the unborn entity (Ātman) becomes born. How can one expect that an entity that is birthless and immortal should become mortal?✅
सदसद्-वादिनः सर्वे। अयं तु पुरस्तात्कृतभाष्यः श्लोकः (ManKa.3.20)॥ The word “disputant” in the text includes all the dualists, viz., those who believe that evolution proceeds from an existing cause, as well as those who believe its opposite. This verse has already been commented upon. Comment.
7. The immortal cannot become mortal, nor can the mortal become immortal. For it is never possible for a thing to change its nature. 8. How can one who believes that an entity by nature immortal becomes mortal, maintain that the immortal, after passing through change, retains its changeless nature?✅
उक्तार्थानां श्लोकानाम् (ManKa.3.21 – 2) इह उपन्यासः पर-वादि-पक्षाणाम् अन्योन्य-विरोध-ख्यापित-अनुत्पत्ति-आमोदन-प्रदर्शन-अर्थः॥ These verses have already been explained. They are repeated here in order to justify our view that the disputants mentioned above only contradict each other. Comment.
By the prakṛti, or nature, of a thing is understood that which, when acquired, becomes the essential part of the thing, that which is its characteristic quality, that which is its inalienable nature from its very birth, that which is not extraneous to it and that which never ceases to be itself.✅
यस्माल्लौकिक्यपि प्रकृतिर्न विपर्येति, कासावित्याह – सम्यक्सिद्धिः संसिद्धिः, तत्र भवा सांसिद्धिकी; यथा योगिनां सिद्धानामणिमाद्यैश्वर्यप्राप्तिः प्रकृतिः, सा भूतभविष्यत्कालयोरपि योगिनां न विपर्येति। तथैव सा। स्वा-भाविकी द्रव्यस्वभावत एव सिद्धा, यथा अग्न्यादीनामुष्णप्रकाशादिलक्षणा। सापि न कालान्तरे व्यभिचरति देशान्तरे वा, तथा सहजा आत्मना सहैव जाता, यथा पक्ष्यादीनाम् आकाशगमनादिलक्षणा। Even the nature of a thing in ordinary experience does not undergo any reversal. What is meant by the nature of a thing? This is thus replied: – The word “saṃsiddhi” means “complete attainment”. The nature of a thing is formed by such complete attainment as in the case of the perfected Yogīs who attain to such superhuman powers as Aṇimā, etc. These powers thus acquired by the Yogīs never undergo any transformation in the past and future. Therefore these constitute the very nature of the Yogīs. Similarly, the characteristic quality of a thing, such as heat or light of fire and the like, never undergoes any change either in time or space. So also the nature of a thing which is part of it from its very birth, as the flying power of the bird, etc., through the sky, is called its Prakṛti.अन्यापि या काचित् अकृता केनचिन्न कृता, यथा अपां निम्नदेशगमनादिलक्षणा। अन्यापि या काचित् स्वभावं न जहाति, सा सर्वा प्रकृतिः इति विज्ञेया लोके। मिथ्याकल्पितेषु लौकिकेष्वपि वस्तुषु प्रकृतिर्नान्यथा भवति; किमुत अजस्वभावेषु परमार्थवस्तुषु? अमृतत्वलक्षणा प्रकृतिर्नान्यथा भवेदित्यभिप्रायः॥ Anything else which is not produced by any other cause (except the thing itself); such as the running downwards of water is also called Prakṛti. And lastly, anything which does not cease to be itself is known popularly to be its Prakṛti. The purport of the Kārikā is that if in the case of empirical entities, which are only imagined, their nature or Prakṛti does not undergo any change, then how should it be otherwise in the case of the immortal or unchanging nature regarding the Ultimate Reality, whose very Prakṛti is Ajāti or absolute non-manifestation.
All the jīvas are, by their very nature, free from senility and death. But they think they are subject to senility and death and by the very power of thought they appear to deviate from their true nature.✅
किंविषया पुनः सा प्रकृतिः, यस्या अन्यथाभावो वादिभिः कल्प्यते? कल्पनायां वा को दोष इत्याह जरा-मरण-निर्मुक्ताः जरामरणादिसर्वविक्रियावर्जिता इत्यर्थः। के? सर्वे धर्माः सर्वे आत्मान इत्येतत्। स्व-भावतः प्रकृतित एव। अत एवंस्वभावाः सन्तो धर्मा जरा-मरणम् इच्छन्त इव इच्छन्तः रज्ज्वामिव सर्पम् आत्मनि कल्पयन्तः च्यवन्ते, स्वभावतश्चलन्तीत्यर्थः। तन्-मनीषया जरामरणचिन्तया तद्भावभावितत्वदोषेणेत्यर्थः। What is the basis of that Prakṛti whose change is imagined by the disputants? What, again, is the defect in such imagination? This is thus replied: – The words “Free from senility and death,” in the text signify freedom from all changes characterised by senility, death, etc. Who are thus free (from all changes)? These are all the Jīvas, who are, by their very nature, free from all changes. Though the Jīvas are such by their very nature, yet they think, as it were, that they are subject to senility and death. By such imagination about their selves, like the imagination of the snake in the rope, they (appear to) deviate from their nature. This happens on account of their identification, through thinking, with senility and death. That is to say, they (appear to) fall from their real nature by this defect in their thought.
The disputant according to whom the cause itself is the effect must maintain that the cause is born as the effect. If it is born, how can it be called birthless? If it is subject to modification, how then can it be said to be eternal?✅
कथं सज्जातिवादिभिः सांख्यैरनुपपन्नमुच्यते इति, आह वैशेषिकः – कारणं मृद्वदुपादानलक्षणं यस्य वादिनः वै कार्यम्, कारणमेव कार्याकारेण परिणमते यस्य वादिन इत्यर्थः। तस्य अजमेव सत् प्रधानादि कारणं महदादिकार्यरूपेण जायत इत्यर्थः। How is it that the Sāṅkhyas, who believe in the evolution of an existing cause, maintain a view which is irrational? It is thus replied by the followers of the Vaiśeṣika system: Those who say that the cause, that is to say, such material cause as clay, is, in itself, the effect; or in other words those disputants who assert that the cause itself changes into the effect, maintain, as a matter of fact, that the ever-existent and unborn cause, namely the Pradhāna, etc., is born again as the effect, such as Mahat, etc.महदाद्याकारेण चेद् जायमानं प्रधानम्, कथम् अजम् उच्यते तैः? विप्रतिषिद्धं चेदम् – जायते अजं चेति। नित्यं च तैरुच्यते। प्रधानं भिन्नं विदीर्णम्; स्फुटितमेकदेशेन सत् कथं नित्यं भवेदित्यर्थः। न हि सावयवं घटादि एकदेशेन स्फुटनधर्मि नित्यं दृष्टं लोके इत्यर्थः। विदीर्णं च स्यादेकदेशेनाजं नित्यं चेत्येतत् विप्रतिषिद्धं तैरभिधीयत इत्यभिप्रायः॥ If Pradhāna be born in the form of Mahat, etc., then how can it be designated as birthless? To say that it is unborn, i.e., immutable and at the same time born, i.e., passing into change, involves a contradiction. Further, the Sāṅkhyas designate Pradhāna as eternal. How is it possible for Pradhāna to be eternal if even a part of it be affected by change? In other words, ordinary experience does not furnish us with the instance of a jar, composed of parts, which, if broken in any part, can still be called permanent or immutable. The purport is that a contradiction is obvious in the statement that it is affected partly by change and at the same time it is unborn and eternal.
If, as you say, the effect is non-different from the cause, then the effect too must be unborn. Further, how can the cause be eternal if it is non-different from the effect, which is born?✅
उक्तस्यैवार्थस्य स्पष्टीकरणार्थम् आह – कारणात् अजात् कार्यस्य यदि अनन्यत्वम् इष्टं त्वया, ततः कार्यम् अपि अजम् इति प्राप्तम्। इदं चान्यद्विप्रतिषिद्धं कार्यमजं चेति तव। किंचान्यत्, कार्यकारणयोरनन्यत्वे जायमानाद् हि वै कार्यात् कारणम् अनन्यन्नित्यं ध्रुवं च ते कथं भवेत्? न हि कुक्कुट्या एकदेशः पच्यते, एकदेशः प्रसवाय कल्प्यते॥ This verse is meant to make the meaning of the previous one clearer. If your object be to maintain that the unborn cause is identical with the effect, then it necessarily follows that the effect also becomes equally unborn. But it is certainly a contradiction to say that a thing is an effect and at the same time unborn. There is a further difficulty. In the case of identity of the cause and the effect, how can, according to you, the cause, which is non-different from the born effect, be permanent and immutable? It is not possible to imagine that a part of a hen is being cooked and that another part is laying eggs. Comment.
There is no illustration to support the view that the effect is born from an unborn cause. Again, if it is said that the effect is produced from a cause which itself is born, then this leads to an infinite regress.✅
किंचान्यत्, यत् अजात् अनुत्पन्नाद्वस्तुनः जायते यस्य वादिनः कार्यम्, दृष्टान्तः तस्य न अस्ति वै; दृष्टान्ताभावे अर्थादजान्न किञ्चिज्जायते इति सिद्धं भवतीत्यर्थः। यदा पुनः जातात् जायमानस्य वस्तुनः अभ्युपगमः, तदपि अन्यस्माज्जातात्तदप्यन्यस्मादिति न व्यवस्था प्रसज्यते। अनवस्था स्यादित्यर्थः॥ Moreover, the disputant who says that the effect is produced from an unborn cause, cannot furnish an illustration to support his view. In other words, it is consequently established that nothing is born from an unborn cause as there is no illustration to support this view. If, on the other hand, it be contended that the effect is born from a born cause, then that cause must be born from some other born cause and so on, which position never enables us to reach a cause which is, in itself, unborn. In other words, we are faced with an infinite regress.
How can they who assert that the effect is the cause of the cause and the cause is the cause of the effect, maintain the beginninglessness of both cause and effect?✅
“यत्र त्वस्य सर्वम् आत्मैवाभूत्” (BrhU.4.5.15) इति परमार्थतो द्वैताभावः श्रुत्योक्तः; तम् आश्रित्याह – हेतोः धर्मादेः आदिः कारणं देहादिसङ्घातः फलं येषां वादिनाम्; तथा आदिः कारणं हेतुः धर्मादिः फलस्य च देहादिसङ्घातस्य; एवं हेतुफलयोरितरेतरकार्यकारणत्वेन आदिमत्त्वं ब्रुवद्भिः एवं हेतोः फलस्य च अनादित्वं कथं तैः उपवर्ण्यते विप्रतिषिद्धमित्यर्थः। न हि नित्यस्य कूटस्थस्यात्मनो हेतुफलात्मकता सम्भवति॥ The Śruti, in the passage, “When all this has, verily, become his Ātman” declares, from the standpoint of the Ultimate Reality, the absence of duality. From this standpoint of the Scriptural text, it is said: The cause, i.e., the merit (Dharma) and the demerit (Adharma), etc., has, for its cause, the effect, viz., the aggregate of the body, etc. Similarly, the cause, viz., merit and demerit, etc., is the cause of the effect, viz., the aggregate of the body, etc. How can disputants who maintain this view, viz., that both the cause and the effect are with beginning on account of mutual interdependence of the cause and the effect, assert that both the cause and the effect are without beginning? In other words, this position implies an inherent contradiction. The Ātman, which is eternal and immutable, can never become either the cause or the effect.
Those who say that the effect is the cause of the cause and that the cause is the cause of the effect maintain, actually, that the creation takes place after the manner of the birth of father from son.✅
कथं तैर्विरुद्धमभ्युपगम्यत इति, उच्यते – हेतुजन्याद् एव फलात् हेतोः जन्म अभ्युपगच्छतां तेषाम् ईदृशो विरोध उक्तो भवति, यथा पुत्रात् जन्म पितुः॥ How does the contention of the opponent imply a contradiction? It is thus replied: – The admission that the cause is produced from an effect, which is itself born of a cause, carries with it the contradiction which may be stated to be like the birth of the father from the son.
If causality is asserted, then the order in which cause and effect succeed each other must be stated. If it is said that they appear simultaneously, then, being like the two horns of an animal, they cannot be mutually related as cause and effect.✅
यथोक्तो विरोधो न युक्तोऽभ्युपगन्तुमिति चेन्मन्यसे, सम्भवे उत्पत्तौ हेतु-फलयोः क्रमः एषितव्यः अन्वेष्टव्यः त्वया – हेतुः पूर्वं पश्चात्फलं चेति। इतश्च युगपत् संभवे यस्मात् हेतुफलयोः कार्यकारणत्वेन असम्बन्धः, यथा युगपत्संभवतोः सव्य-इतर-गो-विषाणयोः॥ If it be contended that the contradiction, pointed out above, cannot be valid, then the opponent should determine the order in which cause and effect succeed each other. The opponent has to show that the “cause” which is antecedent, produces the “effect” which is subsequent. For the following reason also, the order of “cause” and “effect” must be shown. For, if cause and effect arise simultaneously, then they cannot be related as the cause and the effect, as it is impossible to establish the causal relation between the two horns of a cow produced simultaneously. Comment.
The cause that you affirm, cannot be established as the cause if it is produced from the effect. How can the cause, which itself is not established, give birth to the effect?✅
कथमसम्बन्ध इत्याह – जन्यात्स्वतोऽलब्धात्मकात् फलात् उत्पद्यमानः सन् शशविषाणादेरिवासतो न हेतुः प्रसिध्यति जन्म न लभते। अलब्धात्मकः अप्रसिद्धः सन् शशविषाणादिकल्पः तव स कथं फलम् उत्पादयिष्यति? न हि इतरेतरापेक्षसिद्ध्योः शशविषाणकल्पयोः कार्यकारणभावेन सम्बन्धः क्वचिद्दृष्टः अन्यथा वेत्यभिप्रायः॥ Comment.
How can there be no causal relation? It is thus replied: – The cause cannot have a definite existence if it is to be born of an effect which is, itself, yet unborn, and therefore which is non-existent like the horns of a hare. How can the cause contemplated by you, which is, itself, indefinite and which is non-existent like the horns of a hare, produce an effect? Two things which are mutually dependent upon each other for their production and which are like the horns of a hare, cannot be related as cause and effect or in any other way.
If the cause is produced from the effect and if the effect is, again, produced from the cause, which of the two is born first upon which depends the birth of the other?✅
असम्बन्धतादोषेणापाकृतेऽपि हेतुफलयोः कार्यकारणभावे, यदि हेतु-फलयोः अन्योन्य-सिद्धिः अभ्युपगम्यत एव त्वया, कतरत् पूर्व-निष्पन्नं हेतुफलयोः? यस्य पश्चाद्भाविनः सिद्धिः स्यात् पूर्वसिद्ध-अपेक्षया, तद्ब्रूहीत्यर्थः॥ Though any relation between cause and effect has been found to be an impossibility, yet it may be contended by the opponent that the cause and the effect, though not causally related, yet depend upon each other for their mutual existence. As a reply to this contention we ask: Which of the two, the cause and the effect, is antecedent to the other, upon the previous existence of which, the subsequent existence of the other is dependent? Comment.
The inability to reply to the question raised above, the ignorance about the matter and the impossibility of establishing the order of succession if the causal relation is admitted clearly lead the wise to uphold, under all conditions, the doctrine of a-jāti, or non-creation.✅
अथ एतन्न शक्यते वक्तुमिति मन्यसे, सेयम् अशक्तिः अपरिज्ञानं तत्त्वाविवेकः, मूढतेत्यर्थः। अथ वा, योऽयं त्वयोक्तः क्रमः हेतोः फलस्य सिद्धिः फलाच्च हेतोः सिद्धिरिति इतरेतरानन्तर्यलक्षणः, तस्य कोपः विपर्यासोऽन्यथाभावः स्यादित्यभिप्रायः। एवं हेतुफलयोः कार्यकारणभावानुपपत्तेः अजातिः सर्वस्यानुत्पत्तिः परिदीपिता प्रकाशिता अन्योन्यपक्षदोषं ब्रुवद्भिर्वादिभिः बुद्धैः पण्डितैरित्यर्थः॥ If you think that this cannot be explained then this inability shows your ignorance, that is to say, it demonstrates that you are deluded regarding the Knowledge of Reality. Again, the order of succession, pointed out by you – that the effect comes from the cause and the cause comes from the effect – is also inconsistent. Thus is shown the impropriety of the causal relation between the cause and the effect. This leads the wise among the disputants, by showing the fallacy in each other’s arguments, to declare, in effect, the non-evolution of things (which is our opinion).
The illustration of the seed and the sprout is something which is yet to be proved. The illustration i.e. the middle term, which itself is not yet proved, cannot be used for establishing a proposition to be proved.✅
ननु हेतुफलयोः कार्यकारणभाव इत्यस्माभिरुक्तं शब्दमात्रम् आश्रित्य च्छलमिदं त्वयोक्तम् – “पुत्राज्जन्म पितुर्यथा” (ManKa.4.15) “विषाणवच्चासम्बन्धः” (ManKa.4.16) इत्यादि। न ह्यस्माभिः असिद्धाद्धेतोः फलसिद्धिः, असिद्धाद्वा फलाद्धेतुसिद्धिरभ्युपगता। (Objection) – We have asserted the causal relation between the cause and the effect. But you have raised mere verbal difficulties to show the inconsistency in our statement and made a caricature of our standpoint by pointing out its absurdity like the birth of the father from the son or a causal relation between the two horns (of a bull), etc. We do not, for a moment, admit the production of an effect from a cause not already existent or of a cause from an effect not established.किं तर्हि? (Reply) – What is, then, your contention?बीजाङ्कुरवत् कार्यकारणभावोऽभ्युपगम्यत इति। (Objection) – We admit the causal relation as in the case of the seed and the sprout.अत्रोच्यते – बीज-अङ्कुर-आख्यो दृष्टान्तो यः, स साध्येन समः तुल्यो ममेत्यभिप्रायः। (Reply) – To this we reply as follows: – The illustration of the causal relation existing between the seed and the sprout is itself the same as the major term in my syllogism, that is to say, the illustration itself is to be proved.ननु प्रत्यक्षः कार्यकारणभावो बीजाङ्कुरयोरनादिः; (Objection) – It is apparent that the causal relation of the seed and the sprout is without beginning.न, पूर्वस्य पूर्वस्य अपरभावादादिमत्त्वाभ्युपगमात्। यथा इदानीमुत्पन्नोऽपरोऽङ्कुरो बीजादादिमान् बीजं चापरमन्यस्मादङ्कुरादिति क्रमेणोत्पन्नत्वादादिमत्। एवं पूर्वः पूर्वोऽङ्कुरो बीजं च पूर्वं पूर्वम् आदिमदेवेति प्रत्येकं सर्वस्य बीजाङ्कुरजातस्य आदिमत्त्वात् कस्यचिदप्यनादित्वानुपपत्तिः। एवं हेतुफलयोः। (Reply) – It is not so. The beginning of all antecedents must be admitted, as is the case with the consequences. As a sprout just produced from a seed is with beginning, similarly the seed also, produced from another sprout (existing in the past), by the very succession implied in the act of production, is with beginning. Therefore all antecedent sprouts as well as seeds are with beginning. As every seed and every sprout, among the seeds and the sprouts, are with beginning, so it is unreasonable to say that any one of these is without beginning. This is also equally applicable to the argument of the cause and the effect.अथ बीजाङ्कुरसन्ततेः अनादिमत्त्वमिति चेत्; (Objection) – Each of the series of the seeds and the sprouts is without beginning.न, एकत्वानुपपत्तेः; न हि बीजाङ्कुरव्यतिरेकेण बीजाङ्कुरसन्ततिर्नामैका अभ्युपगम्यते हेतुफलसन्ततिर्वा तदनादित्ववादिभिः। तस्मात्सूक्तम् “हेतोः फलस्य चानादिः कथं तैरुपवर्ण्यते” इति। तथा च अन्यदप्यनुपपत्तेर्न च्छलमित्यभिप्रायः। (Reply) – No. The unity or oneness of such series cannot be justified. Even those who maintain the beginninglessness of the seed and the sprout, do not admit the existence of a thing known as the series of the seed and the sprout apart from the seed and the sprout. Nor do they admit such a series in the case of the cause and the effect. Therefore it has been rightly asked, “How do you assert the beginninglessness of the cause and the effect?” Other explanations being unreasonable, we have not raised any verbal difficulty.न च लोके साध्य-समो हेतुः साध्यस्य सिद्धौ सिद्धिनिमित्तं युज्यते प्रयुज्यते प्रमाणकुशलैरित्यर्थः। हेतुरिति दृष्टान्तोऽत्रभिप्रेतः, गमकत्वात्; प्रकृतो हि दृष्टान्तः, न हेतुरिति॥ Even in our ordinary experience expert logicians do not use anything, which is yet to be established, as the middle term or illustration in order to establish relation between the major and the minor terms of a syllogism. The word Hetu or the middle term is used here in the sense of illustration, as it is the illustration which leads to the establishment of a proposition. In the context, illustration is meant and not reason.
The ignorance regarding the antecedence and the subsequence of cause and effect clearly proves the absence of creation (a-jāti). If the jīva (dharma) has really been born, then why can you not point out its antecedent cause?✅
कथं बुद्धैरजातिः परिदीपितेति, आह – यदेतत् हेतुफलयोः पूर्व-अपर-अपरिज्ञानम्, तच्चैतत् अजातेः परिदीपकम् अवबोधकमित्यर्थः। जायमानो हि चेद् धर्मो गृह्यते, कथं तस्मात् पूर्वं कारणं न गृह्यते? अवश्यं हि जायमानस्य ग्रहीत्रा तज्जनकं ग्रहीतव्यम्, जन्यजनकयोः सम्बन्धस्यानपेतत्वात्; तस्मादजातिपरिदीपकं तदित्यर्थः॥ How do the wise assert the view of Ajāti or absolute non-evolution? It is thus replied: – The very fact that one does not know the antecedence and the subsequence of the cause and the effect is, in itself, the clearest indication of absolute non-evolution. If the effect (Dharma, i.e., the Jīva) be taken as produced (from a cause) then why cannot its antecedent cause be pointed out? It goes without saying that one who accepts birth as a fact must also know its antecedent cause. For, the relationship of the cause and the effect is inseparable and therefore cannot be given up Therefore the absence of knowledge (regarding the cause) clearly indicates the fact of absolute non-evolution.
Nothing whatsoever is born, either of itself or of another entity. Nothing is ever produced, whether it be being or non-being or both being and non-being.✅
इतश्च न जायते किञ्चित् यज्जायमानं वस्तु स्वतः परतः उभयतो वा सत् असत् सदसद्वा न जायते, न तस्य केनचिदपि प्रकारेण जन्म सम्भवति। न तावत्स्वयमेवापरिनिष्पन्नात्स्वतः स्वरूपात्स्वयमेव जायते, यथा घटस्तस्मादेव घटात्। नापि परतः अन्यस्मादन्यः, यथा घटात्पटः। तथा नोभयतः, विरोधात्, यथा घटपटाभ्यां घटः पटो वा न जायते। Comment.
For this reason, also, nothing whatsoever is born. That which is (supposed to be) born cannot be born of itself, of another or of both. Nothing, whether it be existing or non-existing, or both, is ever born. Of such an entity, birth is not possible in any manner whatsoever. Nothing is born out of itself, i.e., from its own form which in itself has not yet come into existence. A jar cannot be produced from the self-same jar. A thing cannot be born from another thing, which is other than itself, as a jar cannot be produced from another jar, or a piece of cloth from another piece of cloth. Similarly, a thing cannot be born both out of itself and another, as that involves a contradiction. A jar or a piece of cloth cannot be produced by both a jar and a piece of cloth.ननु मृदो घटो जायते पितुश्च पुत्रः; (Objection) – A jar is produced from clay, and a son is born of a father.सत्यम्, अस्ति जायत इति प्रत्ययः शब्दश्च मूढानाम्। तावेव तु शब्दप्रत्ययौ विवेकिभिः परीक्ष्येते – किं सत्यमेव तौ, उत मृषा इति; यावता परीक्ष्यमाणे शब्दप्रत्ययविषयं वस्तु घटपुत्रादिलक्षणं शब्दमात्रमेव तत्, “वाचारम्भणम्” (ChanU.6.4.4) इति श्रुतेः। (Reply) – Yes, the deluded use a word like “birth” and have a notion corresponding to the word. Both the word and the notion are examined by men of discrimination who wish to ascertain whether these are true or not. After examination they come to the conclusion that things, such as a jar or a son, etc., denoted by the words and signified by the notions, or mere verbal, expressions. The Scripture also corroborates it, saying, “All effects are mere names and figures of speech.”सच्चेत् न जायते, सत्त्वात्, मृत्पित्रादिवत्। यद्यसत्, तथापि न जायते, असत्त्वादेव, शशविषाणादिवत्। अथ सद्-असत्, तथापि न जायते विरुद्धस्यैकस्यासम्भवात्। अतो न किञ्चिद् वस्तु जायत इति सिद्धम्। येषां पुनर्जनिरेव जायत इति क्रियाकारकफलैकत्वमभ्युपगम्यते क्षणिकत्वं च वस्तुनः, ते दूरत एव न्यायापेताः। इदमित्थमित्यवधारणक्षणान्तरानवस्थानात्, अननुभूतस्य स्मृत्यनुपपत्तेश्च॥ If the thing is ever-existent, then it cannot be born again. The very existence is the reason for non-evolution. A father of clay is the illustration to support the contention. If these objects, on the other hand, be non-existent, even then they cannot be said to be produced. The very-non-existence is the reason. The horns of a hare are an illustration. If things be both existent and non-existent, then also, it cannot be born. For, such contradictory ideas cannot be associated with a thing. Therefore it is established that nothing whatsoever is born. Those who, again, assert that the very fact of birth is born again, that the cause, the effect and the act of birth form one-unity, and also that all objects have only momentary existence, maintain a view which is very far from reason. For a thing immediately after being pointed out as “It is this,” ceases to exist and consequently no memory of the thing is possible in the absence of such cognition.
The cause cannot be produced from a beginningless effect; nor can the effect be produced from a beginningless cause. That which is without beginning is necessarily free from birth.✅
किञ्च, हेतुफलयोरनादित्वमभ्युपगच्छता त्वया बलाद्धेतुफलयोरजन्मैवाभ्युपगतं स्यात्। कथम्? अनादेः आदिरहितात्फलात् हेतुः न जायते। न ह्यनुत्पन्नादनादेः फलाद्धेतोर्जन्मेष्यते त्वया, फलं च अपि आदिरहितादनादेर्हेतोरजात् स्वभावत एव निर्निमित्तं जायत इति नाभ्युपगम्यते। तस्मादनादित्वमभ्युपगच्छता त्वया हेतुफलयोरजन्मैवाभ्युपगम्यते। यस्मात् आदिः कारणं न विद्यते यस्य लोके, तस्य हि आदिः पूर्वोक्ता जातिः न विद्यते। कारणवत एव ह्यादिरभ्युपगम्यते, न अकारणवतः॥ In accepting the beginninglessness of the cause and the effect you are forced to admit the absence of birth regarding them. How is it so? The cause cannot be produced from an effect, which is without beginning. In other words, you do not certainly mean that the cause-is produced from an effect which is, itself, without beginning and free from birth. Nor do you admit that the effect, by following its own inherent nature, (i.e., without any extraneous cause) is produced from a cause which is unborn and without beginning. Therefore by admitting the beginninglessness of the cause and the effect, you, verily, accept the fact of their being never produced. It is because we know from common experience that what is without beginning is also free from birth which means a beginning. Beginning is admitted of a thing, which has birth, and not of a thing which has none.
Subjective knowledge must have an object for its cause; otherwise variety becomes non-existent. Further, from the experience of pain, the existence of external objects, accepted by the dualistic scriptures, must be admitted.✅
उक्तस्यैवार्थस्य दृढीकरणचिकीर्षया पुनराक्षिपति – प्रज्ञानं प्रज्ञप्तिः शब्दादिप्रतीतिः, तस्याः स-निमित्तत्वम्, निमित्तं कारणं विषय इत्येतत्; सनिमित्तत्वं सविषयत्वं स्वात्मव्यतिरिक्तविषयतेत्येतत्, प्रतिजानीमहे। न हि निर्विषया प्रज्ञप्तिः शब्दादिप्रतीतिः स्यात्, तस्याः सनिमित्तत्वात्। अन्यथा निर्विषयत्वे शब्दस्पर्शनीलपीतलोहितादि-प्रत्ययवैचित्र्यस्य द्वयस्य नाशतः नाशोऽभावः प्रसज्येतेत्यर्थः। न च प्रत्ययवैचित्र्यस्य द्वयस्याभावोऽस्ति, प्रत्यक्षत्वात्। अतः प्रत्ययवैचित्र्यस्य द्वयस्य दर्शनात्, परेषां तन्त्रं परतन्त्रनम् इति अन्यशास्त्रम्, तस्य परतन्त्रस्य परतन्त्राश्रयस्य बाह्यार्थस्य प्रज्ञानव्यतिरिक्तस्य अस्तिता मता अभिप्रेता। Comment.
An objection is raised in order to strengthen the meaning already stated. The word Prajñapti in the text signifies “knowledge”, i.e., the experience of such notions as that of sound, etc. This (subjective) knowledge has a cause, i.e., an (external) agent or object corresponding to it. In other words, we premise that knowledge is not merely subjective but has an object outside the perceiving subject. Cognition of sound, etc., is not possible without objects. For, such experience is always produced by a cause. In the absence of such (external) object, the variety and multiplicity of experiences such as sound, touch, colour, viz., blue, yellow, red, etc., would not have existed. But the varieties are not non-existent, for these are directly perceived by all. Hence, because: the variety of manifold experiences exist, it is necessary to admit the existence – as supported by the system of the opposite school – of external objects which are outside the ideas of the perceiving subject.न हि प्रज्ञप्तेः प्रकाशमात्रस्वरूपाया नीलपीतादि-बाह्यालम्बनवैचित्र्यमन्तरेण स्वभावभेदेनैतद्वैचित्र्यं सम्भवति। स्फटिकस्येव नीलाद्युपाध्याश्रयैर्विना वैचित्र्यं न घटत इत्यभिप्रायः। इतश्च परतन्त्राश्रयस्य बाह्यार्थस्य ज्ञानव्यतिरिक्तस्यास्तिता। संक्लेशनं संक्लेशः, दुःखम् इत्यर्थः। उपलभ्यते हि अग्निदाहादिनिमित्तं दुःखम्। यद्यग्न्यादिबाह्यं दाहादिनिमित्तं विज्ञानव्यतिरिक्तं न स्यात्, ततो दाहादिदुःखं नोपलभ्येत। उपलभ्यते तु। अतः तेन मन्यामहे अस्ति बाह्योऽर्थ इति। न हि विज्ञानमात्रे संक्लेशो युक्तः, अन्यत्रादर्शनादित्यभिप्रायः॥ The subjective knowledge has one characteristic alone, i.e., it is of the very nature of illumination. It does not admit of any variety within itself. The variety of experiences of colour, such as blueness, yellowness, etc., cannot possibly be explained, by merely imagining a variety in the subjective knowledge, without admitting variety of external objects which are the substratum of these multiple colours. In other words, no variety of colour is possible in a (white) crystal without its coming in contact with such adjuncts as the external objects which possess such colours as blueness, etc. For this additional reason also one is forced to admit the existence of external object, – supported by the Scripture of the opposite school, – an object which is external to the knowledge (of the perceiving subject): Misery caused by burns, etc., is experienced by all. Such pain as is caused by burns, etc., would not have been felt in the absence of the fire, etc., which is the cause of the burns and which exists independent of the knowledge (of the perceiving subject). But such pain is experienced by all. Hence, we think that external objects do exist. It is not reasonable to conclude that such pain is caused by mere subjective knowledge. For, such misery is not found elsewhere.
The dualists, by force of reason, assert that there is a cause of subjective knowledge. But from the standpoint of the true nature of things we assert that the so-called cause is, after all, no cause.✅
अत्रोच्यते – बाढमेवं प्रज्ञप्तेः स-निमित्तत्वं द्वयसंक्लेशोपलब्धियुक्तिदर्शनाद् इष्यते त्वया। स्थिरीभव तावत्त्वं युक्ति-दर्शनं वस्तुनस्तथात्वाभ्युपगमे कारणमित्यत्र। Comment.
To this objection, we reply as follows: – We admit that you posit a cause of the subjective experience on account of such arguments as the existence of the variety (in the objective world) and because of the experience of pain. Stick for a while to your argument that reason demands that an external object should exist to produce a subjective impression.ब्रूहि किं तत इति। (The opponent) – Please let us know what you (Advaitin) are going to say next.उच्यते – निमित्तस्य प्रज्ञप्त्यालम्बनाभिमतस्य तव घटादेरनिमित्तत्वमनालम्बनत्वं वैचित्र्य-अहेतुत्वम् इष्यतेऽस्माभिः। (Reply) – Yes, the jar, etc., posited by you as the cause, that is to say, the cause of the subjective impression, are not, according to us, the external cause, the substratum (of the impression); nor are they the cause for our experiences of variety.कथम्? (Objection) – How?भूत-दर्शनात् परमार्थदर्शनाद् इत्येतत्। न हि घटो यथाभूतमृद्रूपदर्शने सति तद्व्यतिरेकेणास्ति, यथा अश्वान्महिषः, पटो वा तन्तुव्यतिरेकेण तन्तवश्चांशुव्यतिरेकेण इत्येवमुत्तरोत्तरभूतदर्शन आ शब्दप्रत्ययनिरोधान्नैव निमित्तमुपलभामहे इत्यर्थः। अथ वा, अभूतदर्शनाद्बाह्यार्थस्य अनिमित्तत्वमिष्यते रज्ज्वादाविव सर्पादेरित्यर्थः। (Reply) – We say so from the standpoint of the true nature of Reality. When the true nature of clay is known a jar does not exist apart from the clay as exists a buffalo in entire independence of a horse. Nor does cloth exist apart from the thread in it. Similarly the threads have no existence apart from the fibres. If we thus proceed to find out the true nature of the thing, by going from one cause to another, till language or the object denoted by the language fails us, we do not still find any (final) cause. “Bhūta-darśanāt” (from the true nature of the thing) may be “A-bhūta-darśanāt” (from the unreality of the experiences). According to this interpretation, the meaning of the Kārikā is that we do not admit external objects as the cause on account of the unreality of these (external) objects, which are as unreal as the snake seen instead of the rope.भ्रान्तिदर्शनविषयत्वाच्च निमित्तस्यानिमित्तत्वं भवेत्; तदभावे अभानात्। न हि सुषुप्तसमाहितमुक्तानां भ्रान्तिदर्शनाभावे आत्मव्यतिरिक्तो बाह्योऽर्थ उपलभ्यते। न ह्युन्मत्तावगतं वस्त्वनुन्मत्तैरपि तथाभूतं गम्यते। एतेन द्वयदर्शनं संक्लेशोपलब्धिश्च प्रत्युक्ता॥ The (so-called) cause ceases to be the cause as the former is due to the illusory perception of the perceiver. For, it (the external world) disappears in the absence of such illusory knowledge. The man in dreamless sleep and trance (Samādhi) and he who has attained the highest knowledge do not experience any object outside their self as they are free from such illusory cognition. An object which is cognised by a lunatic is never known as such by a sane man. Thus is answered the contention regarding the causality based upon the arguments of the perception of variety and the existence of pain.
The mind is not related to external objects or to the ideas that appear as such objects. This is so because objects are non-existent and the ideas that appear as external objects are not distinct from the mind.✅
यस्मान्नास्ति बाह्यं निमित्तम्, अतः चित्तं न स्पृशति अर्थं बाह्यालम्बनविषयम्, न अपि अर्थ-आभासम्, चित्तत्वात्, स्वप्नचित्तवत्। अभूतो हि जागरितेऽपि स्वप्नार्थवदेव बाह्यः शब्दादि-अर्थो यतः उक्तहेतुत्वात् च। न अपि अर्थ-आभासः चित्तात् पृथक्। चित्तमेव हि घटाद्यर्थवदवभासते यथा स्वप्ने॥ Because there are no external objects as cause, the mind does not relate itself to external objects which are supposed to be the cause of the subjective impression. Nor is the mind related to the ideas which appear as external objects, as the mind, like the dream-mind, is identical with such ideas. It is because the external objects such as sound, etc., perceived in the waking state, are as unreal as dream-objects, for reasons stated already. Another reason is that the ideas appearing as external objects are not different from the mind. It is the mind alone which, as in dream, appears as external objects such as the jar, etc.
The mind does not enter into the causal relation in any of the three periods of time. How can it ever be subject to delusion, when there is no cause for such delusion?✅
ननु विपर्यासस्तर्हि असति घटादौ घटाद्याभासता चित्तस्य; तथा च सति अविपर्यासः क्वचिद्वक्तव्य इति; (Objection) – The mind appears as the jar, etc., though such objects are non-existent. Therefore there must exist false knowledge. Such being the case, there must be right knowledge somewhere (in relation to, or as distinguished from, false knowledge which we point out).अत्रोच्यते – निमित्तं विषयम् अतीतानागतवर्तमान-अध्वसु त्रिषु अपि सदा चित्तं न संस्पृशेद् एव हि। यदि हि क्वचित्संस्पृशेत्, सः अविपर्यासः परमार्थ इत्यतस्तदपेक्षया असति घटे घटाभासता विपर्यासः स्यात्; न तु तदस्ति कदाचिदपि चित्तस्यार्थसंस्पर्शनम्। तस्मात् अनिमित्तः विपर्यासः कथं तस्य चित्तस्य भविष्यति? न कथञ्चिद्विपर्यासोऽस्तीत्यभिप्रायः। अयमेव हि स्वभावश्चित्तस्य, यदुत असति निमित्ते घटादौ तद्वदवभासनम्॥ (Reply) – Our reply to this contention is as follows: – The mind certainly does not come in contact with a cause – an external object – in any of the three periods of time, past, present or future. If the mind had ever truly come in contact with such objects then such relation would give us an idea of true knowledge from the standpoint of Reality. And in relation to that knowledge the appearance of the jar, etc., in the mind, in the absence of the jar, etc., could have been termed as false knowledge. But never does the mind come in contact with an external object (which does not in reality exist). Hence how is it possible for the mind to fall into error when there is no cause for such an assumption? In other words, the mind is never subject to false knowledge. This is, indeed, the very nature of the mind that it takes the forms of the jar, etc., though in reality, such jar, etc., which may cause the mental forms, do not at all exist.
Therefore neither the mind nor the objects perceived by the mind are ever born. To see their birth is like seeing the footprints of birds in the sky.✅
“प्रज्ञप्तेः सनिमित्तत्वम्” (ManKa.4.25) इत्यादि एतदन्तं विज्ञानवादिनो बौद्धस्य वचनं बाह्यार्थवादिपक्षप्रतिषेधपरम् आचार्येणानुमोदितम्। तदेव हेतुं कृत्वा तत्पक्षप्रतिषेधाय तदिदमुच्यते – तस्मादित्यादि। यस्मादसत्येव घटादौ घटाद्याभासता चित्तस्य विज्ञानवादिना अभ्युपगता, तदनुमोदितमस्माभिरपि भूतदर्शनात्; तस्मात् तस्यापि चित्तस्य जायमानावभासता असत्येव जन्मनि युक्ता भवितुमिति अतो न जायते चित्तम्। Comment.
The verses of the Kārikā from 25 to 27 give the views of a class of Buddhist thinkers, known as the Vijñāna-vādins (the subjective idealists) who thus refute the views of those who maintain the reality of external objects. The Advaita teacher (Gauḍapāda) approves of these arguments. Now he makes use of these very arguments of the Vijñāna-vādins as the ground (middle term) for refuting the conclusions of the subjective idealists. The Kārikā has this end in view. The subjective idealist admits that the mind, even in the absence of the (external) jar, etc., takes the form of the jar, etc. We also agree with this conclusion because this is in conformity with the real nature of things. In like manner, the mind, though never produced, appears to be produced and cognised as such.यथा चित्त-दृश्यं न जायते अतः तस्य चित्तस्य ये जातिं पश्यन्ति विज्ञानवादिनः क्षणिकत्वदुःखित्वशून्यत्वानात्मत्वादि च; तेनैव चित्तेन चित्तस्वरूपं द्रष्टुमशक्यं पश्यन्तः खे वै पश्यन्ति ते पदं पक्ष्यादीनाम्। अत इतरेभ्योऽपि द्वैतिभ्योऽत्यन्तसाहसिका इत्यर्थः। येऽपि शून्यवादिनः पश्यन्त एव सर्वशून्यतां स्वदर्शनस्यापि शून्यतां प्रतिजानते, ते ततोऽपि साहसिकतराः खं मुष्टिनापि जिघृक्षन्ति॥ Therefore the mind is never produced, as is the case with the object cognised by it. The Vijñāna-vādins who affirm the production of the mind and also assert that the mind is momentary, full of pain, non-Self in nature, etc., forget that the real nature of the mind can never be understood by the mind (as described by them). Thus the Vijñāna-vādins who see the production of the mind resemble those who (profess to) see in the sky foot-prints left by birds, etc. In other words, the Vijñāna-vādins are more audacious than the others, viz., the dualists. And the Nihilists who, in spite of the perception of the visible world, assert the absolute non-existence of everything including their own experiences, ate even mote audacious than the Vijñāna-vādins. These Nihilists take the position of those who claim to compress the whole sky in the palms of their hands.
The cause, Brahman, from which the birthless mind is asserted, by the dualists, to have been born is itself unborn. Because Brahman is ever unborn, therefore it is never possible for It to be other than what It is.✅
उक्तैर्हेतुभिरजमेकं ब्रह्मेति सिद्धम्, यत्पुनरादौ प्रतिज्ञातम्, तत्फलोपसंहारार्थोऽयं श्लोकः – अजातं यच्चित्तं ब्रह्मैव जायत इति वादिभिः परिकल्प्यते, तत् अजातं जायते यस्मात् अजातिः प्रकृतिः तस्य; ततः तस्मात् अजातरूपायाः प्रकृतेः अन्यथा-भावो जन्म न कथञ्चिद् भविष्यति॥ For reasons already stated it is established that Brahman is one and unborn. This verse summarises, the conclusion of what has already been stated in the form of proposition. The unborn mind, which is verily Brahman, is imagined by the disputants to be born. Therefore (according to them) the ever-unborn is said to be born. For, it is unborn by its very nature. It is simply impossible for a thing, which is ever unborn by nature, to be anyhow born, that is to say, to be anyhow otherwise than what it is.
If, as the dualists contend, the world is beginningless, then it cannot be non-eternal. Mokṣa (Liberation) cannot have a beginning and be eternal.✅
अयं चापर आत्मनः संसारमोक्षयोः परमार्थसद्भाववादिनां दोष उच्यते – Here is another defect in the arguments of those who maintain that the Ātman is, in reality, subject to both bondage and liberation.अनादेः अतीतकोटिरहितस्य संसारस्य अन्तवत्त्वं समाप्तिः न सेत्स्यति युक्तितः सिद्धिं नोपयास्यति। न ह्यनादिः सन् अन्तवान्कश्चित्पदार्थो दृष्टो लोके। If the world (i.e., the state of bondage of the Ātman) be without beginning or a definite past, then its end cannot be established by any logical reasoning. In ordinary experience, there is no instance of an object which has no beginning but has an end.बीजाङ्कुरसम्बन्धनैरन्तर्यविच्छेदो दृष्ट इति चेत्; (Objection) – We see a break in the beginningless continuity of the relation of the seed and the sprout.न, एकवस्त्वभावेनापोदितत्वात्। तथा अनन्तता अपि विज्ञानप्राप्तिकालप्रभवस्य मोक्षस्य आदिमतो न भविष्यति, घटादिष्वदर्शनात्। (Reply) – This illustration has no validity; for, the seed and the sprout do not constitute a single entity. In like manner, liberation cannot be said to have no end if it be asserted that liberation which is attained by acquisition of knowledge has a (definite) beginning. For, the jar, etc., which have a beginning have also an end.घटादिविनाशवदवस्तुत्वाददोष इति चेत्, (Objection) – There is no defect in our argument as liberation, not being any substance, may be like the destruction of a jar, etc.तथा च मोक्षस्य परमार्थसद्भावप्रतिज्ञाहानिः; असत्त्वादेव शशविषाणस्येव आदिमत्त्वाभावश्च॥ (Reply) – In that case it will contradict your proposition that liberation has a positive existence from the standpoint of the Ultimate Reality. Further, liberation being a non-entity, like the horn of a hare cannot ever have a beginning. Comment.
31. If a thing is non-existent in the beginning and in the end, it is necessarily non-existent in the present. The objects that we see are really like illusions; still they are regarded as real. 32. The utility of the objects of waking experience is contradicted in dreams; therefore they are certainly unreal. Both experiences have a beginning and an end.✅
वैतथ्ये कृत-व्याख्यानौ श्लोकौ इह संसार-मोक्ष-अभाव-प्रसङ्गेन पठितौ॥ These two verses have been explained before in the chapter on Illusion (Chapter II.6, 7). They are quoted here again in connection with the topics which are discussed in relation to the unreality of the universe and liberation. Comment.
All entities seen in dreams are unreal, because they are perceived inside the body. How is it possible for things that are perceived to exist, really to exist in Brahman, which is indivisible and homogeneous?✅
“निमित्तस्य अनिमित्तत्वम् इष्यते भूत-दर्शनात्” (ManKa.4.25) इति अयम् अर्थः प्रपञ्च्यते एतैः श्लोकैः॥ This and the following verses are meant to explain in detail one of the previous Kārikās which states that the (so-called) cause (of the opponent) is, really speaking, no cause at all (Ref. IV.25). Comment.
It is not reasonable to think that a dreamer actually goes out in order to experience the objects seen in the dream, because of the discrepancy of the time involved in such a journey. Nor does he, when awakened, find himself in the places seen in the dream.✅
जागरिते गति-आगमन-कालौ नियतौ, देशः प्रमाणतो यः, तस्य अनियमात् नियमस्य अभावात् स्वप्ने न देश-अन्तर-गमनम् इत्यर्थः॥ The time and space involved in undertaking a journey and in coming back, have a definite and fixed standard in the waking state. These are seen to be reversed in dream. On account of this inconsistency it can be positively said that the dreamer does not actually go out to another place during his dream experiences.
The dreamer, after awaking, realizes the illusoriness of the conversations he had with friends etc. in the dream state. Further, he does not possess in the waking state anything he acquired while dreaming.✅
मित्राद्यैः सह संमन्त्र्य तदेव मन्त्रणं प्रतिबुद्धो न प्रपद्यते, गृहीतं च यत् किञ्चिद् हिरण्यादि न प्राप्नोति; ततश्च न देशान्तरं गच्छति स्वप्ने॥ A man, in dream, holds conversation with his friends, etc. But, on being awake, he finds it all as unreal. Further, he possesses in dream gold, etc., but, in the awakened state he realises all these possessions to be unreal. Though he goes to other countries in dream, he does not, in reality, make any such journey. Comment.
The dream body is unsubstantial because the other i.e. the physical body, different from it, is perceived. Like the dream body, all things cognized by the mind are unsubstantial.✅
स्वप्ने च अटन्दृश्यते यः कायः, सः अवस्तुकः ततोऽन्यस्य स्वापदेशस्थस्य पृथक् कायान्तरस्य दर्शनात्। यथा स्वप्नदृश्यः कायः असन्, तथा सर्वं चित्त-दृश्यम् अवस्तुकं जागरितेऽपि चित्तदृश्यत्वादित्यर्थः। स्वप्नसमत्वादसज्जागरितमपीति प्रकरणार्थः॥ The body, which appears to be wandering in the dream, is unreal; for, another body, quite different from it, is seen in the spot where the dreamer lies. As the body perceived in the dream is unreal, so also all that is cognised by the mind, even in the waking state, is unreal; for, all these perceived objects are mere different states of the mind. The significance of this chapter is that even the waking experiences, on account of their being similar to the dream experiences, are unreal. Comment.
Since the experience of objects in dreams is similar to the experience of objects in the waking state, waking experience is regarded as the cause of dream experience. It is only by him who admits waking experience to be the cause of dream experience that waking experience can be regarded as real.✅
इतश्च असत्त्वं जाग्रद्वस्तुनः जागरितवत् जागरितस्येव ग्रहणात् ग्राह्यग्राहकरूपेण स्वप्नस्य, तज्जागरितं हेतुः अस्य स्वप्नस्य स स्वप्नः तद्-हेतुः जागरितकार्यम् इष्यते। For this reason also, the objects experienced in the waking state are unreal. The dream experiences, like the waking ones, are characterised by the subject-object relationship. On account of this similarity of perception, the waking state is said to be the cause of the dream state. In other words, it is contended that the dream state is the effect of the waking one which is the cause.तद्-हेतुत्वात् जागरितकार्यत्वात् तस्य एव स्वप्नदृश एव सत् जागरितम्, न त्वन्येषाम्; यथा स्वप्न इत्यभिप्रायः। यथा स्वप्नः स्वप्नदृश एव सन् साधारणविद्यमानवस्तुवदवभासते, तथा तत्कारणत्वात्साधारणविद्यमानवस्तुवदवभासनम्, न तु साधारणं विद्यमानवस्तु स्वप्नवदेवेत्यभिप्रायः॥ If that be the case, i.e., if the dream be the effect of waking experiences, then the waking experiences are real to the perceiver of the dream alone (i.e., who takes the dream to be real) and to no one else. The purport of this Kārikā is that the dream appears to us real, that is to say, dream objects appear as objects of common experience and therefore real to the dreamer alone. So also the experiences of the waking state, being the cause of the dream, appear as if they were within the common experience of all and therefore real. But the objects perceived in the waking state are not the same to all. Waking experiences are verily like the dream ones.
All entities are said to be unborn, since birth cannot be established as a fact. It is utterly impossible for the unreal to be born of the real.✅
ननु स्वप्नकारणत्वेऽपि जागरितवस्तुनो न स्वप्नवदवस्तुत्वम्। अत्यन्तचलो हि स्वप्नः जागरितं तु स्थिरं लक्ष्यते। (Objection) – Though the waking experiences are the cause of the dream ones, still the former cannot be unreal like the latter. The dream is extremely evanescent whereas the waking experiences are seen to be permanent.सत्यमेवमविवेकिनां स्यात्। विवेकिनां तु न कस्यचिद्वस्तुन उत्पादः प्रसिद्धः। अतः अप्रसिद्धत्वात् उत्पादस्य आत्मैव सर्वमिति अजं सर्वम् उदाहृतं वेदान्तेषु “सबाह्याभ्यन्तरो ह्यजः” (MunU.2.1.2) इति। यदपि मन्यसे जागरितात्सतः असन्स्वप्नो जायत इति, तदसत्। न भूतात् विद्यमानात् अभूतस्य असतः सम्भवोऽस्ति लोके। न ह्यसतः शशविषाणादेः सम्भवो दृष्टः कथञ्चिदपि॥ (Reply) – This is true with regard to the people who do not possess discrimination. Men of discrimination do not see the production or the birth of anything, as creation or evolution cannot be established as a fact. Hence all this is known in the Vedānta books as unborn (i.e., non-dual Brahman). For the Śruti declares, “He (the Ātman) is both within and without and is, at the same time, unborn.” If you contend that the illusory dream is the effect of the real waking state, we say that your contention is untenable. In our common experience, we never see a non-existing thing produced from an existing one. Such non-existing thing as the horn of a hare is never seen to be produced from any other object.
A man filled with the impressions of the unreal objects seen in the waking state sees those very things in dreams as well. But he does not see in the waking state the unreal objects seen in dreams.✅
ननु उक्तं त्वयैव स्वप्नो जागरितकार्यमिति; तत्कथमुत्पादोऽप्रसिद्ध इति उच्यते?
(Objection) – It is you who stated that the dream is the effect of the waking experience. That being the case, how do you refute causality?
शृणु तत्र यथा कार्यकारणभावोऽस्माभिरभिप्रेत इति। असत् अविद्यमानं रज्जुसर्पवद्विकल्पितं वस्तु जागरिते दृष्ट्वा तद्भावभावितः तन्मयः स्वप्नेऽपि जागरितवत् ग्राह्यग्राहकरूपेण विकल्पयन् पश्यति, तथा असत् स्वप्नेऽपि दृष्ट्वा च प्रतिबुद्धो न पश्यति अविकल्पयन्, च-शब्दात्। तथा जागरितेऽपि दृष्ट्वा स्वप्ने न पश्यति कदाचिदित्यर्थः। तस्माज्जागरितं स्वप्नहेतुरित्युच्यते, न तु परमार्थसदिति कृत्वा॥ (Reply) – Listen to our explanation of the causality, referred to in that instance. One perceives in the waking state objects which are unreal like the snake imagined in the rope. Being deeply impressed by such (illusory) perception, he imagines in the dream, as in the waking state, the subject-object relationship and thereby perceives (dream) objects. But though full of the unreal seen in the dream, he does not see those (unreal) objects, over again, in the waking state. The reason is the absence of the imaginary subject-object relationship (one experiences in dream). The word “ca,” “moreover” in the text denotes that the causal relationship between the waking and the dream states is not always observed. Similarly, things seen in the waking state are not, sometimes, cognised in dream. Therefore the statement that the waking condition is the cause of the dream is not made from the standpoint of the Ultimate Reality. Comment.
The unreal cannot have another unreality for its cause, nor can the real have the unreal for its cause. The real cannot be the cause of the real. And how utterly impossible it is for the real to be the cause of the unreal!✅
परमार्थतस्तु न कस्यचित्केनचिदपि प्रकारेण कार्यकारणभाव उपपद्यते। कथम्? न अस्ति असद्-हेतुकम् असत् शशविषाणादि हेतुः कारणं यस्य असत एव खपुष्पादेः, तत् असद्धेतुकम् असत् न विद्यते। तथा सद् अपि घटादिवस्तु असद्-हेतुकम् शशविषाणादिकार्यं नास्ति। तथा सत् च विद्यमानं घटादि वस्त्वन्तरकार्यं न अस्ति। सत्-कार्यम् असत् कुत एव सम्भवति? न चान्यः कार्यकारणभावः सम्भवति शक्यो वा कल्पयितुम्। अतो विवेकिनामसिद्ध एव कार्यकारणभावः कस्यचिदित्यभिप्रायः॥ Comment.
From the standpoint of the Ultimate Reality, things can, in no way, enter into causal relation. How? An unreal cannot be the cause of another unreal. An unreal entity such as the horns of a hare, which may be said to be the cause of another unreal entity such as a castle in the air, has no existence whatsoever. Similarly, an object like a jar, which is perceived and which is the effect of an unreal object like the horns of the hare, is never existent. In like manner, a jar which is perceived and which is the effect of another jar that also is perceived to exist, is, in itself, non-existent. And lastly, how is existence possible of a real object as the cause of an unreal one? No other causal relation is possible nor can be conceived of. Hence men of knowledge find that the causal relation between any objects whatsoever is not capable of being proved. Comment.
As a person in the waking state through false knowledge appears to handle objects, whose nature is inscrutable, as if they were real, so also, in dreams, he perceives, through false knowledge, objects whose existence is possible in the dream state alone.✅
पुनरपि जाग्रत्स्वप्नयोरसतोरपि कार्यकारणभावाशङ्कामपनयन्नाह – विपर्यासात् अविवेकतः यथा जाग्रत् जागरिते अचिन्त्यान् भावान् अशक्यचिन्तनान् रज्जुसर्पादीन् भूतवत् परमार्थवत् स्पृशेत्; स्पृशन्निव विकल्पयेदित्यर्थः, कश्चिद्यथा, तथा स्वप्ने विपर्यासात् हस्त्यादीन्पश्यन्निव विकल्पयति। तत्र एव पश्यति, न तु जागरितादुत्पद्यमानानित्यर्थः॥ This verse intends to remove the slightest possibility of the causal relation between the waking and the dream States, though both are unreal. As in the waking state, one, through want of proper discrimination, imagines the snake seen in place of the rope as real – the nature of which, in fact, cannot be really determined, – so also in dream, one, through want of discrimination, imagines as if one really perceives such objects as elephant, etc. These dream objects, such as elephants, etc., are peculiar to the dream condition alone; they are not the effect of the waking experiences. Comment.
Wise men teach causality only for the sake of those who, afraid of non-creation, assert the reality of external objects because they perceive such objects and also because they cling to various social and religious duties.✅
यापि बुद्धैः अद्वैतवादिभिः जातिः देशिता उपदिष्टा, उपलम्भनम् उपलम्भः, तस्मात् उपलब्धेरित्यर्थः। समाचारात् वर्णाश्रमादिधर्मसमाचरणाच्च ताभ्यां हेतुभ्याम् अस्ति-वस्तुत्व-वादिनाम् अस्ति वस्तुभाव इत्येवंवदनशीलानां दृढाग्रहवतां श्रद्दधानां मन्दविवेकिनामर्थोपायत्वेन सा देशिता जातिः तां गृह्णन्तु तावत्। वेदान्ताभ्यासिनां तु स्वयमेव अजाद्वयात्मविषयो विवेको भविष्यतीति; न तु परमार्थबुद्ध्या। ते हि श्रोत्रियाः स्थूलबुद्धित्वात् अजातेः अजातिवस्तुनः सदा त्रस्यन्ति आत्मनाशं मन्यमाना अविवेकिन इत्यर्थः। “उपायः सोऽवताराय” (ManKa.3.15) इत्युक्तम्॥ Comment.
Wise men, i.e., the exponents of Advaita Philosophy, have, no doubt, supported causality. But they have done so only for those who have little discrimination but who are eager (to know the Truth) and who are endowed with faith. These people assert that external objects exist as real because they perceive them, and also because they cling to the observances of various duties associated with the different Varṇas and Āśramas? instructions regarding causality are only meant for them as a means to (some) end. Let them hold on to the idea of causality. But the students who practise disciplines in accordance with Vedānta philosophy will, without such belief in causality, spontaneously get the knowledge of Self, unborn and non-dual. Causality is declared not from the standpoint of the Ultimate Reality. These students, who believe in Scriptures, and who are devoid of discrimination, fear the idea of absolute non-manifestation on account of their gross intellect, as they are afraid of the annihilation of their selves. It has also been stated before that these Scriptural statement (regarding creation) are meant as a help to our higher understanding of Reality. (In Reality, there is no multiplicity.)
Those who, because of their fear of the truth of absolute non-creation and also because of their perception of external objects, deny a-jāti (non-creation) are not affected by the evil consequent on the belief in creation. This evil, if there is any, is insignificant.✅
ये च एवम् उपलम्भात् समाचाराच्च अजातेः अजातिवस्तुनः त्रसन्तः अस्ति वस्त्विति अद्वयादात्मनः, वियन्ति विरुद्धं यन्ति द्वैतं प्रतिपद्यन्त इत्यर्थः। तेषाम् अजातेः त्रसतां श्रद्दधानानां सन्मार्गावलम्बिनां जाति-दोषाः जात्युपलम्भकृता दोषाः न सेत्स्यन्ति सिद्धिं नोपयास्यन्ति, विवेकमार्गप्रवृत्तत्वात्। यद्यपि कश्चिद् दोषः स्यात्, सोऽपि अल्प एव भविष्यति, सम्यग्दर्शनाप्रतिपत्तिहेतुक इत्यर्थः॥ Comment.
Those who on account of their perception (of the phenomenal objects) and attachment to the various duties of caste and other stages of life, shrink from the non-dual and unborn Ātman, and believing in the existence of dual objects, go away from the Self, that is to say, pin their faith to duality, – these people who are thus afraid of the truth of absolute non-manifestation, but who are endowed with faith and who stick to the path of righteousness, are not much affected by the evil results consequent on such belief in causality. For, they also try to follow the path of discrimination. Even if a little blemish attaches to such persons, it is insignificant, being due to their not having realised the Supreme Truth.
As an elephant conjured up by a magician is taken to be real because it is perceived to exist and also because it answers to the behaviour of a real elephant, so also external objects are taken to be real because they are perceived to exist and because one can deal with them.✅
ननु उपलम्भसमाचारयोः प्रमाणत्वादस्त्येव द्वैतं वस्त्विति; (Objection) – Objects answering to the features of duality do exist, on account of such evidence as our (direct) perception of them and also on account of the possibility of our dealings with them.न, उपलम्भ-समाचारयोः व्यभिचारात्। (Reply) – No, this objection is not valid. For, direct perception and the possibility of dealing practically with objects do not always prove the existence of objects.कथं व्यभिचार इति, (Objection) – How do you say that our contention admits of irregularity?उच्यते – उपलभ्यते हि माया-हस्ती हस्तीव, हस्तिनमिवात्र समाचरन्ति बन्धनारोहणादिहस्तिसम्बन्धिभिर्धर्मैः, हस्तीति च उच्यते असन्नपि यथा, तथा एव उपलम्भात् समाचारात् द्वैतं भेदरूपं अस्ति वस्तु इति उच्यते। तस्मान्नोपलम्भसमाचारौ द्वैतवस्तुसद्भावे हेतू भवत इत्यभिप्रायः॥ (Reply) – It is thus stated: The elephant conjured up by a magician, is, verily, perceived as the real elephant. Though unreal, it (the magic elephant) is called the (real) elephant, on account of its being endowed with such attributes of an elephant as the possibility of its being tied up with a rope or being climbed upon, etc. Though unreal, the magic elephant is looked upon as (a real) one. In like manner, it is said that multiple objects, pointing to duality, exist on account of their being perceived and also on account of the possibility of our dealing practically with them. Hence the two grounds, adduced above, cannot prove the existence of (external) objects establishing the fact of duality.
It is Consciousness, Vijñāna, alone that appears to be born or to move or to take the form of matter. But this Consciousness is really ever unborn, immovable and free from the traits of materiality; it is all peace and non-dual.✅
किं पुनः परमार्थसद्वस्तु, यदास्पदा जात्याद्यसद्बुद्धय इत्याह – अजाति सत् जातिवदवभासत इति जाति-आभासम्, तद्यथा देवदत्तो जायत इति। चल-आभासं चलमिवाभासत इति, यथा स एव देवदत्तो गच्छतीति। वस्तु-आभासं वस्तु द्रव्यं धर्मि, तद्वदवभासत इति वस्त्वाभासम्, यथा स एव देवदत्तो गौरो दीर्घ इति। जायते देवदत्तः स्पन्दते दीर्घो गौर इत्येवमवभासते। What is that entity – the Ultimate Reality – which is the substratum of all false cognitions as causality (creation), etc.? It is thus replied: – Though unborn it appears to be born. As for example, we say that Devadatta is born. Again it appears to move (though it is free from all motion): as we say, “That Devadatta is going”. Further, it appears as an object in which inhere certain qualities. For instance, we say “That Devadatta is fair and tall”.परमार्थतस्तु अजम् अचलम् अवस्तुत्वम् अद्रव्यं च। किं तदेवंप्रकारम्? विज्ञानं विज्ञप्तिः, जात्यादिरहितत्वात् शान्तम् अत एव अद्वयं च तदित्यर्थः॥ Though from the standpoint of the Ultimate Reality, Consciousness is ever unborn, immovable, and not of the character of material objects, yet it appears as a. Devadatta who is born, who moves and who is known to be fair and tall. What is that entity which answers to these descriptions? It is Consciousness which, being free from birth, change, etc., is all peace and therefore non-dual.
Thus the mind is never subject to birth. All beings, too, are free from birth. Those who know this do not fall into false knowledge.✅
एवं यथा उक्तेभ्यो हेतुभ्यः न जायते चित्तम्। एवं धर्माः आत्मानः अजाः स्मृताः ब्रह्मविद्भिः। धर्मा इति बहुवचनं देहभेदानुविधायित्वादद्वयस्यैव उपचारतः। एवम् एव यथोक्तं विज्ञानं जात्यादिरहितमद्वयम् आत्मतत्त्वं विजानन्तः त्यक्तबाह्यैषणाः पुनः न पतन्ति अविद्याध्वान्तसागरे विपर्यये; “तत्र को मोहः कः शोक एकत्वमनुपश्यतः” (IsU.7) इत्यादिमन्त्रवर्णात्॥ Thus, that is to say, for the reasons stated above, the mind is free from birth. Similarly the Dharmas that is, the Jīvas are also unborn. This is the statement of the Knowers of Brahman. The word “Dharmāḥ” (i.e., “Selves”) is metaphorically used in the plural sense, in consequence of our perception of variety which is, in reality, the appearance of the non-dual Ātman as different, corporeal beings. Those who know the Consciousness, stated above, which is the essence of the Self, non-dual and free from birth, etc., and, accordingly, renounce the hankering after all external objects, – they do not fall any more into this ocean of the darkness of Avidyā. The Śruti also says, “Where is grief or delusion for the one that realises non-duality?”
As the line made by a moving fire-brand (Alāta, red-hot tipped poker) appears to be straight, crooked, etc., so Consciousness, when set in motion, appears as the perceiver, the perceived and the like.✅
यथोक्तं परमार्थदर्शनं प्रपञ्चयिष्यन्नाह – यथा हि लोके ऋजु-वक्रादि-प्रकार-आभासम् अलात-स्पन्दितम् उल्काचलनम्, तथा ग्रहण-ग्राहक-आभासं विषयिविषयाभासमित्यर्थः। किं तत्? विज्ञान-स्पन्दितं स्पन्दितमिव स्पन्दितमविद्यया। न ह्यचलस्य विज्ञानस्य स्पन्दनमस्ति, “अजाचलम्” (ManKa.4.45) इति ह्युक्तम्॥ In order to explain the truth regarding the Ultimate Reality already stated, it is thus said: – As in common experience it is noticed that a fire-brand when moved, appears straight, crooked, etc., so does Consciousness appear as the perceiver, the perceived, and the like. What is that which appears as the perceiver, the perceived, etc.? It is Consciousness set in motion. There is no motion in Consciousness. It only appears to be moving. This appearance is due to Avidyā or ignorance. No motion is possible in Consciousness which is ever immovable. It has already been stated that Consciousness is unborn and immovable.
As the fire-brand, when not in motion, is free from all appearances and remains changeless, so Consciousness, when not in motion, is free from all appearances and remains Changeless.✅
अस्पन्दमानं स्पन्दनवर्जितं तदेव अलातम् ऋज्वाद्याकारेणाजायमानम् अनाभासम् अजं यथा, तथा अविद्यया स्पन्दमानम् अविद्योपरमे अस्पन्दमानं जात्याद्याकारेण अनाभासम् अजम् अचलं भविष्यतीत्यर्थः॥ As that very fire-brand, when not in motion, does not take any form, straight or crooked, etc., becomes free from all appearances and remains changeless, so also the consciousness, which appears as moving through ignorance, when dissociated from the idea of motion on the disappearance of ignorance, becomes free from all appearances, as those of birth, etc., and remains unborn and motionless.
When the fire-brand is set in motion, the appearances that are seen in it do not come from elsewhere. When it is still, the appearances do not leave the motionless fire-brand and go elsewhere, nor do they enter into the fire-brand itself.✅
किं च, तस्मिन्नेव अलाते स्पन्दमाने ऋजुवक्रादि-आभासाः अलाताद् अन्यतः कुतश्चिद् आगत्यालाते नैव भवन्तीति न अन्यतो-भुवः। न च तस्मात् निःस्पन्दाद् अलाताद् अन्यत्र निर्गताः। न च निःस्पन्दम् अलातम् एव प्रविशन्ति ते॥ Moreover, when that very fire-brand is in motion, the appearances, straight or crooked, etc., do not come to it from anywhere else outside the fire-brand. Nor do the appearances go elsewhere from the fire-brand when it is motionless. Nor, again, do the appearances, enter into the fire-brand when it is motionless. Comment.
The appearances do not emerge from the fire-brand, because their nature is not that of a substance. This applies likewise to Consciousness, because of the similarity of the appearances.✅
किं च, न निर्गता अलातात् ते आभासाः गृहाद् इव, द्रव्यत्व-आभाव-योगतः, द्रव्यस्य भावो द्रव्यत्वम्, तदभावः द्रव्यत्वाभावः, द्रव्यत्वाभावयोगतः द्रव्यत्वाभावयुक्तेः वस्तुत्वाभावादित्यर्थः। वस्तुनो हि प्रवेशादि सम्भवति, नावस्तुनः। विज्ञानेऽपि जात्याद्याभासाः तथा एव स्युः, आभासस्य अविशेषतः तुल्यत्वात्॥ Moreover, those appearances do not emerge from the fire-brand as something that comes out of a house. The reason is that appearances are not of the nature of substance. The appearances have no reality. Entrance, etc., can be said of a real thing but not of anything unreal. The appearance of birth, etc., in the case of consciousness is exactly similar, for, appearances are of the same nature in both the cases.
51. When Consciousness is associated with the idea of activity, as in the waking and dream states, the appearances that seem to arise do not come from anywhere else. When Consciousness is non-active, as in deep sleep, the appearances do not leave the non-active Consciousness and go elsewhere, nor do they merge in it. 52. The appearances do not emerge from Consciousness, for their nature is not that of a substance. They are incomprehensible, because they are not subject to the relation of cause and effect.✅
कथं तुल्यत्वमित्याह – अलातेन समानं सर्वं विज्ञानस्य; सदा अचलत्वं तु विज्ञानस्य विशेषः। जात्यादि-आभासा विज्ञाने अचले किंकृता इत्याह – कार्य-कारणता-अभावात् जन्यजनकत्वानुपपत्तेरभावरूपत्वात् अचिन्त्याः ते यतः सदा एव। यथा असत्सु ऋज्वाद्याभासेषु ऋज्वादिबुद्धिर्दृष्टा अलातमात्रे, तथा असत्स्वेव जात्यादिषु विज्ञानमात्रे जात्यादिबुद्धिर्मृषैवेति समुदायार्थः॥ Comment.
How are the two appearances similar? It is thus replied: – The fire-brand and Consciousness are alike in all respects. The only special feature of Consciousness is that it always remains immutable. What is the cause of such appearances as birth, etc., in Consciousness which is ever immutable? In the absence of causality, it is not reasonable to establish the relationship of the producer and the produced (between Consciousness and appearances). The appearances, being illusory, are ever unthinkable. The purport of the whole thing is this: – As the fire-brand (which is merely a point) is associated with forms straight, crooked, etc., though, in reality, such crooked or straight forms are ever non-existent, so also, pure Consciousness is associated with the ideas of birth, etc., though such ideas as birth, etc., are ever non-existent. Hence these ideas of birth, etc., associated with Consciousness are illusory.
A substance may be the cause of another substance and a non-substance, the cause of another non-substance. But the jīvas cannot possibly be anything like a substance or a non-substance.✅
अजमेकम् आत्मतत्त्वमिति स्थितम्। तत्र यैरपि कार्यकारणभावः कल्प्यते, तेषां द्रव्यं द्रव्यस्य अन्यस्य अन्यत् हेतुः कारणं स्यात्, न तु तस्यैव तत्। नाप्यद्रव्यं कस्यचित्कारणं स्वतन्त्रं दृष्टं लोके। न च द्रव्यत्वं धर्माणाम् आत्मनाम् उपपद्यते अन्य-त्वं वा कुतश्चित्, येन अन्यस्य कारणत्वं कार्यत्वं वा प्रतिपद्येत। अतः अद्रव्यत्वादनन्यत्वाच्च न कस्यचित्कार्यं कारणं वा आत्मेत्यर्थः॥ It has already been established that the essence of Self is one and unborn. Those who imagine causal relation in Ātman must admit that substance may be the cause of another substance and that which is other than substance may be the cause of something else which is also other than substance. But a thing itself cannot be the cause of itself. Further, we do not find in common experience a non-substance which is independently the cause of something. The selves (i.e., the Jīvas or beings) can be called neither substance nor other than substance. Hence the Jīvas or selves cannot be the cause or effect of anything. Therefore Ātman, being neither substance nor other than substance, is neither the cause nor the effect of anything.
Thus external appearances (objects) are not caused by the mind, nor is the mind caused by them. Hence thoughtful people hold to the principle of absolute non-creation.✅
एवं यथोक्तेभ्यो हेतुभ्यः आत्मविज्ञानस्वरूपमेव चित्तमिति, न चित्तजाः बाह्य-धर्माः, न अपि बाह्य-धर्मजं चित्तम्, विज्ञानस्वरूपाभासमात्रत्वात् सर्वधर्माणाम्। एवं न हेतोः फलं जायते, नापि फलात् हेतुः इति हेतुफलयोः अजातिं हेतु-फल-अजातिं प्रविशन्ति अध्यवस्यन्ति। आत्मनि हेतुफलयोरभावमेव प्रतिपद्यन्ते ब्रह्मविद इत्यर्थः॥ Thus, for reasons already stated, the mind is verily of the nature of the essence of the Self. External objects are not caused by the mind nor is the mind the product of the external objects. That is because all (external) entities are mere appearances in Consciousness. Thus neither the (so-called) effect comes from the (so-called) cause nor the cause from the effect. In this way is reiterated the absolute non-evolution of causality. In other words, the knowers of Brahman declare the absence of causality with regard to Ātman.
As long as a person clings to the belief in causality, he will find cause producing effect. But when this attachment to causality wears away, cause and effect become non-existent.✅
ये पुनर्हेतुफलयोरभिनिविष्टाः, तेषां किं स्यादिति, उच्यते – What happens with regard to those who cling to the belief in cause and effect? In reply, it is said: – र्माधर्माख्यस्य हेतोः अहं कर्ता मम धर्माधर्मौ तत्फलं कालान्तरे क्वचित्प्राणिनिकाये जातो भोक्ष्ये इति यावद् हेतु-फलयोः आवेशः हेतुफलाग्रह आत्मन्यध्यारोपणम्, तच्चित्ततेत्यर्थः; तावद् हेतु-फलयोः उद्भवः धर्माधर्मयोस्तत्फलस्य चानुच्छेदेन प्रवृत्तिरित्यर्थः। यदा पुनर्मन्त्रौषधिवीर्येणेव ग्रहावेशो यथोक्ताद्वैतदर्शनेन अविद्योद्भूत-हेतु-फल-आवेश-उपनीतो भवति, तदा तस्मिन् क्षीणे न अस्ति हेतु-फल-उद्भवः॥
As long as there is faith in causality, as long as a man thinks, “I am the agent; these virtuous and vicious deeds belong to me. I shall enjoy the results of these actions, being born in course of time, as some being,” in other words, as long as a man falsely attributes causality to Ātman and devotes his mind to it, cause and effect must operate for him; that is to say, the man must without intermission be subject to birth and death, which are the result of his attachment to the belief in causality. But when attachment to causality, due to ignorance, is destroyed by the knowledge of non-duality as described above, – like the destruction of the possession of a ghost through the power of incantation, medicinal herb, etc. – then on account of the wearing away of the illusion of causality, do cause and effect cease to exist. Comment.
As long as a person clings to the belief in causality, saṃsāra will continue to expand for him. But when this attachment to causality wears away, saṃsāra becomes non-existent.✅
यदि हेतुफलोद्भवः, तदा को दोष इति, उच्यते – What is the harm if the law of cause and effect continues to operate? In reply we say: – यावत् सम्यग्दर्शनेन हेतु-फल-आवेशः न निवर्तते, अक्षीणः संसारः तावत् आयातः दीर्घो भवतीत्यर्थः। क्षीणे पुनः हेतु-फल-आवेशे संसारं न प्रपद्यते, कारणाभावात्॥ As long as faith in causality is not destroyed by right knowledge, our course (of birth and death) in this world will continue. But when that faith is destroyed (by right knowledge) the world also ceases to exist for want of any other cause for its existence.
The entire universe is created by false knowledge; therefore nothing in it is eternal. Everything, again, as one with Ultimate Reality, is unborn; therefore there is no such thing as destruction.✅
ननु अजादात्मनोऽन्यन्नास्त्येव; तत्कथं हेतुफलयोः संसारस्य च उत्पत्तिविनाशावुच्येते त्वया? (Objection) – Nothing else verily exists except the unborn Ātman. Then how can you speak of the origin and destruction of the cause and the effect as well as of (the chain of birth and death constituting) the world?शृणु; संवृत्या संवरणं संवृतिः अविद्याविषयो लौकिकव्यवहारः; तया संवृत्या जायते सर्वम्। तेन अविद्याविषये शाश्वतं नित्यं न अस्ति वै। अतः उत्पत्तिविनाशलक्षणः संसारः आयत इत्युच्यते। परमार्थ-सद्-भावेन तु अजं सर्वम् आत्मैव यस्मात्; अतो जात्यभावात् उच्छेदः तेन न अस्ति वै कस्यचिद्धेतुफलादेरित्यर्थः॥ (Reply) – Listen. The word Saṃvṛti in the text signifies the (illusory) experiences of the empirical world which are caused by ignorance. All this is born of this power of ignorance which brings into existence the illusory experiences of the world. For this reason, nothing is permanent in the realm of ignorance. Therefore it is said that the world, having the characteristics of origination and destruction, is spread before us (i.e., the ignorant persons). But as one with the Ultimate Reality, all this is nothing but the unborn Ātman. Therefore, in the absence of birth, there cannot be any destruction, viz., the destruction of cause or effect. Comment.
Birth is ascribed to the jīvas; but such birth is not possible from the standpoint of Reality. Their birth is like that of an illusory object. That illusion, again, does not exist.✅
येऽप्यात्मानोऽन्ये च धर्मा जायन्त इति कल्प्यन्ते, ते इति एवंप्रकारा यथोक्ता संवृतिर्निर्दिश्यत इति संवृत्यैव धर्मा जायन्ते। न ते तत्त्वतः परमार्थतः जायन्ते। यत्पुनस्तत्संवृत्या जन्म तेषां धर्माणां यथोक्तानां यथा मायया जन्म तथा तत् माया-उपमं प्रत्येतव्यम्। Those, again, who imagine the birth of the Jīvas and other entities, do so only through Saṃvṛti or the power of ignorance as stated in the preceding Kārikā. The Jīvas are seen to be born only through ignorance. But from the standpoint of the Supreme Reality no such birth is possible. This (supposed) birth of the Jīvas through ignorance, described above, is like the birth of objects through illusion (Māyā).माया नाम वस्तु तर्हि; (Opponent) – Then there must be something real known as Māyā or illusion?नैवम्, सा च माया न विद्यते। मायेत्यविद्यमानस्याख्येत्यभिप्रायः॥ (Reply) – It is not so. That Māyā or illusion is never existent. Māyā or illusion is the name we give to something which does not (really) exist (but which is perceived).
The illusory sprout is born of the illusory seed. This illusory sprout is neither permanent nor destructible. The same applies to the jīvas.✅
कथं मायोपमं तेषां धर्माणां जन्मेति, आह – Now, is the birth of Jīvas, that are seen to exist, illusory? To this question, our reply is as follows: – यथा मायामयात् आम्रादि-बीजात् जायते तन्मयः मायामयः अङ्कुरः, न असौ अङ्कुरो नित्यः, न च उच्छेदी विनाशी वा। अभूतत्वादेव धर्मेषु जन्मनाशादि-योजना युक्तिः, न तु परमार्थतो धर्माणां जन्म नाशो वा युज्यत इत्यर्थः॥ From an illusory mango seed is born a mango sprout which is equally illusory. This sprout is neither permanent nor destructible, simply because it does not exist. In the like manner, ideas of birth and death are applied to the Jīvas. The purport is that from the standpoint of the Ultimate Reality, neither birth nor death is applicable to Jīvas.
The term permanent or impermanent cannot be applied to the birthless jīvas. What is indescribable in words cannot be discriminated about as permanent or impermanent.✅
परमार्थतस्त्वात्मसु अजेषु नित्यैकरसविज्ञप्तिमात्रसत्ताकेषु शाश्वतः अशाश्वतः इति वा न अभिधा, नाभिधानं प्रवर्तत इत्यर्थः। यत्र येषु वर्ण्यन्ते यैरर्थाः, ते वर्णाः शब्दा न वर्तन्ते अभिधातुं प्रकाशयितुं न प्रवर्तन्त इत्यर्थः। इदमेवमिति विवेकः विविक्तता तत्र नित्योऽनित्य इति न उच्यते, “यतो वाचो निवर्तन्ते” (TaitU.2.9.1) इति श्रुतेः॥ From the standpoint of the Ultimate Reality, no epithet such as permanence or impermanence, nor any sound corresponding to such names, can be applied to Jīvas (selves or beings) which are eternal, birthless, and which are always of the nature of a homogeneous consciousness. That by which an object is designated is known as “Varṇa” or name associated with a sound. The words fail to denote the nature of Ātman. It cannot be discriminated as this or that, permanent or impermanent. The Śruti also says, “Whence words fall back,” etc.
As in dreams the mind acts through māyā, presenting the appearance of duality, so also in the waking state the mind acts through māyā, presenting the appearance of duality. There is no doubt that the mind, which is in reality non-dual, appears to be dual in dreams; likewise, there is no doubt that what is non-dual i.e. Ātman, appears to be dual in the waking state.✅
यत्पुनर्वाग्गोचरत्वं परमार्थतः अद्वयस्य विज्ञानमात्रस्य, तन्मनसः स्पन्दनमात्रम्, न परमार्थतः इत्युक्तार्थौ श्लोकौ (ManKa.3.29 – 30)॥ Comment.
That pure consciousness which is non-dual (from the standpoint of the Supreme Reality) is sought to be described by words, is due to the active condition of the mind (which is due to Avidyā). This description (of the non-dual Ātman by words) has no meaning from the standpoint of the Ultimate Truth. These verses have already been explained.
The dreamer, wandering about in all the ten directions in his dream, sees the whole variety of jīvas, born of eggs, moisture, etc.✅
इतश्च वाग्गोचरस्याभावो द्वैतस्य – स्वप्नान्पश्यतीति स्वप्नदृक् प्रचरन् पर्यटन्स्वप्ने स्वप्न-स्थाने दिक्षु वै दशसु स्थितान् वर्तमानान् जीवान् प्राणिनः अण्डजान् स्वेदजान् वायान् सदा पश्यति इति॥ Comment.
Here is another reason which also shows us that duality describable by words, does not exist. The beings or Jīvas, born of eggs or moisture, which a dreamer going about in all ten directions perceives in his dream condition as existing, (have, as a matter of fact, no existence apart from the mind of the dreamer).
These entities, which are objects of the mind of the dreamer, do not exist apart from his mind. Likewise, the mind of the dreamer is an object of perception of the dreamer alone.✅
यद्येवम्, ततः किम्? उच्यते – स्वप्नदृशः चित्तं स्वप्नदृक्-चित्तम्, तेन दृश्याः ते जीवाः; ततः तस्मात् स्वप्नदृक्चित्तात् पृथक् न विद्यन्ते न सन्तीत्यर्थः। चित्तमेव ह्यनेकजीवादिभेदाकारेण विकल्प्यते। तथा तद् अपि स्वप्नदृक्-चित्तम् इदं तद्-दृश्यम् एव, तेन स्वप्नदृशा दृश्यं तद्-दृश्यम्। अतः स्वप्नदृग्व्यतिरेकेण चित्तं नाम नास्तीत्यर्थः॥ Those beings perceived by the mind of the dreamer have no existence outside the mind of the person who dreams about them. It is the mind alone which imagines itself to have assumed the forms of many diversified beings. Similarly, that mind of the dreamer is, again, perceived by the dreamer alone. Therefore there is no separate thing called mind which is apart from the dreamer himself.
65. The waking man, wandering about in all the ten directions in his waking state, sees the whole variety of jīvas, born of eggs, moisture, etc. 66. They are the objects of the mind of the waking man and do not exist apart from it. Likewise, the mind of the waking man is an object of his perception alone.✅
जाग्रतो दृश्या जीवाः तच्-चित्त-अव्यतिरिक्ताः, चित्त-ईक्षणीयत्वात्, स्वप्नदृक्-चित्त-ईक्षणीय-जीववत्। तच्च जीव-ईक्षण-आत्मकं चित्तं द्रष्टुः अव्यतिरिक्तं द्रष्टृ-दृश्यत्वात् स्वप्न-चित्तवत्। उक्तार्थम् अन्यत्॥ The Jīvas, perceived in the waking state, do not exist anywhere except in the mind of the perceiver, for, they are not seen independent of the mind. These Jīvas are similar to the Jīvas, perceived in the dream, which are cognized by the mind of the dreaming person alone. That mind again, having the characteristic of perception of Jīvas is non-different from the perceiver of the waking condition, because it is seen by the perceiver, as is the case with the mind which perceives the dream. The rest has already been interpreted (in the previous verses).
Both the mind and the jīvas are objects of each other’s perception. Can the one exist independent of the other? The reply of the wise is in the negative. There is no evidence of the existence of the one without the other; they are cognized only through each other.✅
जीवचित्ते उभे चित्तचैत्त्ये ते अन्योन्य-दृश्ये इतरेतरगम्ये। जीवादिविषयापेक्षं हि चित्तं नाम भवति। चित्तापेक्षं हि जीवादि दृश्यम्। अतस्ते अन्योन्यदृश्ये। तस्मात् न किञ्चिद् अस्ति इति च उच्यते चित्तं वा चित्तेक्षणीयं वा। किं तद् अस्ति इति विवेकिना उच्यते? न हि स्वप्ने हस्ती हस्तिचित्तं वा विद्यते; तथा इहापि विवेकिनामित्यभिप्रायः। Comment.
Both the mind and the Jīvas, or in other words, the mind and its modifications (which are seen as external objects) are each an object of perception to the other. In other words, one is perceived only through the other. The mind exists only in relation to the Jīva, etc., and the Jīva and objects exist only in relation to the mind. Therefore they are each an object of perception to the other. Hence wise men assert that nothing whatsoever, neither the mind nor its object, can be said to have any existence (if either be considered by itself) – (from the standpoint of either the idealist or the realist). As in the dream the elephant as well as the mind that perceives the elephant, are not really existent, so also is the case with the mind and its objects of the waking condition.कथम्? लक्षणा-शून्यं लक्ष्यते अनयेति लक्षणा प्रमाणम्; प्रमाणशून्यम् उभयं चित्तं चैत्त्यं द्वयं यतः, तन्मतेन एव तच्चित्ततयैव तत् गृह्यते। न हि घटमतिं प्रत्याख्याय घटो गृह्यते, नापि घटं प्रत्याख्याय घटमतिः। न हि तत्र प्रमाणप्रमेयभेदः शक्यते कल्पयितुमित्यभिप्रायः॥ How is it so? For, both the mind and its objects have no proof of their existence (independent of each other). They are each an object of perception to the other. One cannot cognize a jar without the cognition of a jar; nor can one have a cognition of a jar without a jar. In the case of the jar and the cognition of the jar it is not possible to conceive the distinction between the instrument of knowledge and the object of knowledge. Comment.
68. As the dream jīva comes into existence and disappears, so also these jīvas perceived in the waking state appear and disappear. 69. As the jīva conjured up by the magician comes into existence and disappears, so also these jīvas perceived in the waking state appear and disappear. 70. As an artificial jīva comes into existence and disappears, so also these jīvas perceived in the waking state appear and disappear.✅
मायामयः मायाविना यः कृतो निर्मितकः मन्त्रौषध्यादिभिः निष्पादितः। स्वप्न-माया-निर्मितका अण्डजादयो जीवा यथा जायन्ते म्रियन्ते च, तथा मनुष्यादि-लक्षणा अविद्यमाना एव चित्त-विकल्पनामात्रा इत्यर्थः॥ Comment.
The “magician’s Jīva” means that which is conjured up before our vision by the feat of a magician. The “artificial Jīva” is that which is brought into existence by means of incantation, medicinal herb, etc. As the Jīvas born of egg, etc., and created in dream, are seen to come into existence and then to pass away, so also the Jīvas such as human beings, etc., seen in the waking state, though really non-existent (appear to come into existence and then pass away). These are merely the imagination of the mind.
No jīva ever comes into existence. There exists no cause that can produce it. The supreme truth is that nothing ever is born.✅
व्यवहारसत्यविषये जीवानां जन्ममरणादिः स्वप्नादिजीववदित्युक्तम्। उत्तमं तु परमार्थसत्यं न कश्चिद् जायते जीव इति। उक्तार्थम् अन्यत् (ManKa.3.48)॥ It has already been stated that the appearances of birth, death, etc., of the Jīvas are possible only in the empirical plane, as is the case with the dream-beings. But the Ultimate Truth is that no Jīva is ever born. The rest has already been stated. Comment.
The world of duality, which is perceived to exist and is characterized by the subject-object relationship, is verily a movement of the mind. The mind, again, from the standpoint of Reality has no contact with any object. Hence it is declared to be eternal and unattached.✅
सर्वं ग्राह्य-ग्राहकवत् चित्त-स्पन्दितम् एव द्वयम्। चित्तं परमार्थत आत्मैवेति निर्विषयम्। तेन निर्विषयत्वेन नित्यम् असङ्गं कीर्तितम्। “असङ्गो ह्ययं पुरुषः” (BrhU.4.3.15) इति श्रुतेः। सविषयस्य हि विषये सङ्गः। निर्विषयत्वाच्चित्तमसङ्गमित्यर्थः॥ The whole world of duality consisting of the subject and the object is, verily, an act of the mind. But from the standpoint of the Ultimate Reality, the mind, which is verily Ātman, is unrelated to any object. On account of the absence of relation (with any object), the mind is declared as eternal and unattached. The Śruti also says, “The Puruṣa is always free from relation.” That which perceives objects outside of it, is related to such objects. But the mind, having no such external object, is free from all relations. Comment.
That which exists on the strength of false knowledge based upon imagination does not really exist. Again, that which is said to exist on the strength of the views advanced by other schools of thought does not really exist.✅
ननु निर्विषयत्वेन चेदसङ्गत्वम्, चित्तस्य न निःसङ्गता भवति, यस्मात् शास्ता शास्त्रं शिष्यश्चेत्येवम् आदेर्विषयस्य विद्यमानत्वात्; (Objection) – It has been said that the mind is free from the relation with any objects, as such objects do not exist. But this non-attachment regarding the mind cannot be maintained inasmuch as objects in the forms of the teacher, the Scripture and the pupil exist.नैष दोषः। (Reply) – There is no such defect in our contention.कस्मात्? (Objection) – How?यः पदार्थः शास्त्रादिः विद्यते, स कल्पित-संवृत्या। कल्पिता च सा परमार्थप्रतिपत्त्युपायत्वेन संवृतिश्च सा तया योऽस्ति परमार्थेन, न अस्ति असौ न विद्यते। “ज्ञाते द्वैतं न विद्यते” (ManKa.1.18) इत्युक्तम्। यश्च पर-तन्त्र-अभिसंवृत्या परशास्त्रव्यवहारेण स्यात् पदार्थः, स परमार्थतो निरूप्यमाणो न अस्ति एव। तेन युक्तमुक्तम् “असङ्गं तेन कीर्तितम्” (ManKa.4.72) इति॥ (Reply) – The existence of such objects as Scripture, etc., is due to the empirical experience which is illusory. The empirical knowledge in respect of Scripture, teacher and taught is illusory and imagined only as a means to the realisation of the Ultimate Reality. Therefore Scripture, etc., which exist only on the strength of illusory empirical experiences, have no real existence. It has already been said that duality vanishes when the Ultimate Reality is known. Again, the objects (which appear to come into existence through the illusory experiences), supported by other schools of thought as existent, do not, when analysed from the standpoint of the Ultimate Reality, verily exist. Hence it has been rightly said in the previous Kārikā that the mind is unattached.
Ātman is called birthless (a-ja) from the standpoint of false knowledge based upon imagination; in reality It is not even birthless. The unborn Ātman is said to be born from the standpoint of the false knowledge cherished by other schools of thought.✅
ननु शास्त्रादीनां संवृतित्वे अज इतीयमपि कल्पना संवृतिः स्यात्। (Objection) – If Scriptural teaching, etc., were illusory, then the birthlessness of Ātman, as taught by Scripture, is also due to illusory imagination.सत्यमेवम्; शास्त्रादि-कल्पित-संवृत्या एव अज इत्युच्यते। परमार्थेन न अपि अजः, यस्मात् पर-तन्त्र-अभिनिष्पत्त्या परशास्त्रसिद्धिमपेक्ष्य यः अज इत्युक्तः, स संवृत्या जायते। अतः अज इतीयमपि कल्पना परमार्थविषये नैव क्रमत इत्यर्थः॥ (Reply) – This is, indeed, true. Ātman is said to be unborn only in relation to illusory empirical experiences which comprehend ideas of Scripture, teacher and taught. From the standpoint of the Ultimate Reality, Ātman cannot be said to be even unborn. Ātman which is said to be unborn only as against the conclusion of those schools (which maintain that Ātman comes into existence), appears to be born to the ignorant. Therefore, the notion (based upon illusion) that Ātman is unborn has no bearing on the Ultimate Reality.
People persistently hold to the idea of unreality i.e. duality. But such duality does not exist. One who has realized the absence of duality is not born again, since there remains no longer any cause for his birth.✅
यस्मादसद्विषयः, तस्मात् असति अभूते द्वैते अभिनिवेशोऽस्ति केवलम्। अभिनिवेशः आग्रहमात्रम्। द्वयं तत्र न विद्यते मिथ्याभिनिवेशमात्रं च जन्मनः कारणं यस्मात्, तस्मात् द्वय-अभावं बुद्ध्वा निर्निमित्तः निवृत्तमिथ्याद्वयाभिनिवेशः यः, सः न जायते॥ As objects are, really speaking, non-existent, therefore people who believe in their existence have, in fact, attachment for duality which is unreal. It is a mere belief in the (existence of) objects which (really speaking) do not exist. There is no duality. The cause of birth is this attachment. Therefore one who has realised the unreality of duality is never born again as he is free from the cause (of birth), viz., attachment to the illusory duality.
When the mind finds no cause – superior, inferior, or middling – it becomes free from birth. How can there be an effect without a cause?✅
जात्याश्रमविहिता आशीर्वर्जितैरनुष्ठीयमाना धर्मा देवत्वादिप्राप्ति-हेतव उत्तमाः केवलाश्च। धर्माः अधर्मव्यामिश्रामनुष्यत्वादिप्राप्त्यर्था मध्यमाः। तिर्यगादिप्राप्तिनिमित्ता अधर्मलक्षणाः प्रवृत्तिविशेषाश्चाधमाः। The superior cause consists of those Dharmas (i.e., duties of life), wholly virtuous, which are prescribed according to different castes and stages of life, and which when performed without any attachment to the result, enable one to attain to the position of gods, etc. The middling cause consists of those duties, mixed with certain irreligious practices the observance of which enables one to attain to the position of man, etc. The inferior cause consists of those particular tendencies, characterised by irreligious practices alone, which lead one to the position of lower creatures, such as beasts, birds, etc.तान् उत्तम-मध्यम-अधमान् अविद्यापरिकल्पितान् यदा एकमेवाद्वितीयम् आत्मतत्त्वं सर्वकल्पनावर्जितं जानन् न लभते न पश्यति, यथा बालैर्दृश्यमानं गगने मलं विवेकी न पश्यति, तद्वत्, तदा न जायते नोत्पद्यते चित्तं देवाद्याकारैः उत्तमाधममध्यमफलरूपेण। न ह्यसति हेतौ फलम् उत्पद्यते बीजादि-अभाव इव सस्यादि॥ When the mind realising the essence of Self which is one and without a second and which is free from all (illusory) imaginations, does not find the existence of any of the causes, superior, inferior or middling, all imagined through ignorance, – like a man of discrimination not seeing any dirt which a child sees in the sky – then it does not undergo any birth, i.e., it does not objectify itself as god, man or beast, which are the effects of their respective causes (enumerated above). No effect can be produced in the absence of a cause, as sprouts cannot come forth in the absence of the seed.
The birthlessness of the mind, which is free from manifestation and causal relationship, is absolute and constant. For duality i.e. the perceiving mind and its objects is merely an objectification of the mind.✅
हेत्वभावे चित्तं नोत्पद्यत इति हि उक्तम्। सा पुनरनुत्पत्तिश्चित्तस्य कीदृशीत्युच्यते – परमार्थदर्शनेन निरस्तधर्माधर्माख्योत्पत्तिनिमित्तस्य अनिमित्तस्य चित्तस्य इति या मोक्षाख्या अनुत्पत्तिः, सा सर्वदा सर्वावस्थासु समा निर्विशेषा अद्वया च; पूर्वमपि अजातस्य एव अनुत्पन्नस्य चित्तस्य सर्वस्य अद्वयस्येत्यर्थः। यस्मात् प्रागपि विज्ञानात् चित्तं दृश्यं तद् द्वयं जन्म च, तस्मादजातस्य सर्वस्य सर्वदा चित्तस्य समा अद्वयैव अनुत्पत्तिः न पुनः कदाचिद्भवति, कदाचिद्वा न भवति। सर्वदा एकरूपैवेत्यर्थः॥ Comment.
It has already been stated that in the absence of a cause, the mind is not subject to birth. But what is the nature of that non-evolution of the mind? It is thus replied: – The causes of birth are meritorious actions and their opposite. The state of absolute non-manifestation of the mind, – known as liberation (knowledge) and free from causality on account of the realisation of the Supreme – is always constant under all conditions and absolute, that is, ever non-dual. Even before the attainment of knowledge, the mind always remains non-manifest and non-dual. Even prior to the realisation of the highest knowledge the idea of duality (i.e., the subject and the object) and the idea of birth are merely an objectification of the mind. Hence the non-evolution of the mind which is always free from change or birth is constant and absolute. In other words, it cannot be said that this non-evolution or liberation sometimes exists and sometimes disappears. It is always the same and changeless.
Realizing the absence of causality as ultimate truth and not finding any other reason for birth, one attains that state which is free from grief, desire and fear.✅
यथोक्तेन न्यायेन जन्मनिमित्तस्य द्वयस्य अभावाद् अनिमित्ततां च सत्यां परमार्थरूपां बुद्ध्वा हेतुं धर्मादिकारणं देवादियोनिप्राप्तये पृथग् अनाप्नुवन् अनुपाददानः त्यक्तबाह्यैषणः सन् काम-शोक-आदि-वर्जितम् अविद्यादिरहितम् अभयं पदम् अश्नुते, पुनर्न जायत इत्यर्थः॥ Through the reasoning indicated above, one knows the absence of duality, which is the cause of birth and thus realises absolute non-causation as the Ultimate Truth. Further, he does not see the reality of anything else as cause, such as religious merit, etc., which may enable one to attain to the position of gods, etc. Thus freeing himself from all desires, he attains to the highest state, i.e., liberation (knowledge) which is free from desire, grief, ignorance and fear. That is to say, he no longer becomes subject to birth and death.
On account of attachment to unreal objects the mind pursues such objects. But it comes back to its pure state when it attains non-attachment, realizing their unreality.✅
यस्मात् अभूत-अभिनिवेशात् असति द्वये द्वयास्तित्वनिश्चयः अभूताभिनिवेशः, तस्मात् अविद्याव्यामोहरूपाद्धि सदृशे तदनुरूपे तत् चित्तं प्रवर्तते। तस्य द्वयस्य वस्तुनः अभावं यदा बुद्धवान्, तदा तस्मात् निःसङ्गं निरपेक्षं सत् विनिवर्तते अभूताभिनिवेशविषयात्॥ Attachment to the unreal (objects) is due to the firm belief that duality exists, though in reality such duality is ever non-existent. On account of such attachment which is of the nature of delusion caused by ignorance, the mind runs after objects corresponding to those desires. But when a man knows the unreality of all duality of objects, then he becomes indifferent to them and turns away his mind from the unreal (objects) to which he feels attached.
The mind freed from attachment to all external objects and undistracted by fresh objects attains the state of immutability. The wise realize such a mind to be Brahman; It is undifferentiated, birthless and non-dual.✅
निवृत्तस्य द्वैतविषयात्, विषयान्तरे च अप्रवृत्तस्य अभावदर्शनेन चित्तस्य निश्चला चलनवर्जिता ब्रह्मस्वरूपैव तदा स्थितिः, यैषा ब्रह्मस्वरूपा स्थितिः चित्तस्य अद्वयविज्ञानैकरसघनलक्षणा। स हि यस्मात् विषयः गोचरः परमार्थदर्शिनां बुद्धानाम्, तस्मात् तत् साम्यं परं निर्विशेषम् अजम् अद्वयं च॥ When the mind is withdrawn from all duality of objects, and when it does not attach itself to any objects, – as no objects exist – then the mind attains to the state of immutability which is of the same nature as Brahman. This realisation of the mind as Brahman is characterised by the mass of unique non-dual consciousness. As that condition of the mind is known, (only) by the wise who have known the Ultimate Reality, that state is supreme and undifferentiated, birthless and non-dual.
The birthless, dreamless and sleepless Reality reveals Itself by Itself; for this Dharma (Ātman) by Its very nature is self-luminous.✅
पुनरपि कीदृशश्चासौ बुद्धानां विषय इत्याह – स्वयम् एव तत् प्रभातं भवति न आदित्याद्यपेक्षम्; स्वयं ज्योतिःस्वभावमित्यर्थः। सकृद्-विभातः सदा एव विभात इत्येतत्। एषः एवंलक्षणः आत्माख्यो धर्मः धातु-स्वभावतः वस्तुस्वभावत इत्यर्थः॥ The nature of that which is realisable by the wise is again described: – It (Ātman) reveals itself by itself. It does not depend for its revelation upon any external light, such as the sun, etc. Self-luminosity is its very nature. It is ever-luminous. This is the inherent characteristic of the Dharma, known as Ātman. Comment.
The Lord (Ātman) becomes easily hidden because of attachment to any single object and is revealed with great difficulty.✅
एवं बहुश उच्यमानमपि परमार्थतत्त्वं कस्माल्लौकिकैर्न गृह्यत इत्युच्यते – यस्मात् यस्य कस्य-चित् द्वयवस्तुनो धर्मस्य ग्रहेण ग्रहणावेशेन मिथ्याभिनिविष्टतया सुखम् आव्रियते अनायासेन आच्छाद्यत इत्यर्थः। द्वयोपलब्धिनिमित्तं हि तत्रावरणं न यत्नान्तरमपेक्षते। How is it that the people, at large, do not realise Ātman, which is the Supreme Reality, though It is again and again thus explained? To this the following reply is given: – On account of the mind apprehending through attachment, single objects of the world of duality, the blissful nature of Ātman is easily covered. The reason for this concealment is only the perception of duality. There is no other cause for it.दुःखं च विव्रियते प्रकटीक्रियते, परमार्थज्ञानस्य दुर्लभत्वात्। भगवान् असौ आत्माद्वयो देव इत्यर्थः। अतो वेदान्तैराचार्यैश्च बहुश उच्यमानोऽपि नैव ज्ञातुं शक्य इत्यर्थः, “आश्चर्यो वक्ता कुशलोऽस्य लब्धा” (KathU.1.2.7) इति श्रुतेः॥ Moreover, misery is brought to the surface. The knowledge of the Supreme Reality is extremely hard to attain. The Lord, the non-dual Ātman, the effulgent Being, though again and again taught by the Vedānta Scriptures and the teachers, is not therefore comprehended. The Śruti also says, “One who speaks of Ātman is looked upon with wonder and he who has attained and who has realised it, is equally an object of wonder.”
The ignorant, with their childish minds, verily cover Ātman by predicating of It such attributes as existence, non-existence, existence and non-existence and total non-existence, deriving these characteristics from the notions of change, immovability, combination of change and immovability and absolute negation which they associate with Ātman.✅
अस्ति नास्ति इत्यादि सूक्ष्मविषया अपि पण्डितानां ग्रहाः भगवतः परमात्मन आवरणा एव; किमुत मूढजनानां बुद्धिलक्षणा इत्येवमर्थं प्रदर्शयन्नाह – Attachment of the learned to such predicates as existence, non-existence, etc., serves verily as a veil between them and the Supreme Reality. What wonder is there that childish persons on account of their undeveloped intellect are unable to grasp Ātman! This Kārikā brings out the aforesaid idea.अस्तीति। अस्ति आत्मा इति कश्चिद्वादी प्रतिपद्यते। न अस्ति इत्यपरो वैनाशिकः। अस्ति न अस्ति इत्यपरोऽर्धवैनाशिकः सदसद्वादी दिग्वासाः। न अस्ति न अस्ति इत्यत्यन्तशून्यवादी। तत्रास्तिभावश्चलः, घटाद्यनित्यविलक्षणत्वात्। नास्तिभावः स्थिरः, सदाविशेषत्वात्। उभयं चल-स्थिर-विषयत्वात् सदसद्भावः। अभावोऽत्यन्ताभावः। Some disputant asserts that Ātman exists. Another disputant, viz., the Buddhist, says that it is non-existent. A third disputant, the Jaina, who is a pseudo-nihilist, believing in both the existence and non-existence of Self, proclaims that Ātman both exist and does not exist. The absolute nihilist says that nothing exists at all. He who predicates existence of Ātman associates it with changeability in order to make it distinct from such impermanent objects as a jar, etc. The theory that Ātman is non-existent, i.e., inactive, is held on account of its undifferentiated nature. It is called both existent and non-existent on account of its being subject to both changeability and immutability. Non-existence is predicated of Ātman on account of everything ending in absolute negation or void.प्रकारचतुष्टयस्यापि तैः एतैः चल-स्थिर-उभय-अभावैः सदसदादिवादी सर्वोऽपि भगवन्तम् आवृणोति एव बालिशोऽविवेकी। यद्यपि पण्डितो बालिश एव परमार्थतत्त्वानवबोधात्, किमु स्वभावमूढो जन इत्यभिप्रायः॥ All the four classes of disputants, mentioned above, asserting existence, non-existence, existence and non-existence, and total non-existence (about Ātman), derived respectively from their notion of changeability, immutability, combination of both and total negation, reduce themselves to the position of the childish, devoid of all discrimination; and by associating Ātman with all these illusory ideas (Kalpanā) cover Its real nature. If these (so-called) learned men act as veritable children on account of their ignorance of Ultimate Reality, what is to be said regarding those who are, by nature, unenlightened!
These are the four theories regarding Ātman, through attachment to which It always remains hidden from one’s view. He who knows the Lord to he ever untouched by them indeed knows all.✅
कीदृक्पुनः परमार्थतत्त्वम्, यदवबोधादबालिशः पण्डितो भवतीत्याह – What is the nature of the essence, i.e., the Ultimate Reality, by knowing which people are purged of their stupidity and are really made to attain to wisdom?कोट्यः प्रावादुकशास्त्रनिर्णयान्ताः एताः उक्ता अस्ति नास्तीत्याद्याः चतस्रः, यासां कोटीनां ग्रहैः ग्रहणैः उपलब्धिनिश्चयैः सदा सर्वदा आवृतः आच्छादितः तेषामेव प्रावादुकानां यः, स भगवान् आभिः अस्ति नास्तीत्यादिकोटिभिः चतसृभिरपि अस्पृष्टः अस्त्यादिविकल्पनावर्जित इत्येतत्। येन मुनिना दृष्टो ज्ञातः वेदान्तेष्वौपनिषदः पुरुषः, स सर्वदृक् सर्वज्ञः; परमार्थपण्डित इत्यर्थः॥ It is thus replied: – There are four alternate theories regarding Ātman such as, It exists, It does not exist, etc., mentioned in the works of those who are fond of disputations. The Ātman always remains covered and hidden from these vain talkers on account of their attachment to their theories. The thoughtful person who has realised the Ātman, known only by the (correct understanding of) Upaniṣads, as ever-untouched by any of the four alternative predicates such as It exists. It does not exist, etc., is the seer of all, the omniscient and the real knower of the Ultimate Reality.
What else remains to be desired by him who has attained the state of the brahmin – a state of complete omniscience and non-duality, which is without beginning, middle, or end?✅
प्राप्य एतां यथोक्तां कृत्स्नां समस्तां सर्वज्ञतां ब्राह्मण्यं पदम् “स ब्राह्मणः” (BrhU.3.8.10) “एष नित्यो महिमा ब्राह्मणस्य” (BrhU.4.4.23) इति श्रुतेः। अनापन्न-आदि-मध्य-अन्तम् आदिमध्यान्ताः उत्पत्तिस्थितिलयाः अनापन्ना अप्राप्ता यस्य अद्वयस्य पदस्य न विद्यन्ते, तत् अनापन्नादिमध्यान्तं ब्राह्मण्यं पदम्। तदेव प्राप्य लब्ध्वा किम् अतः परम् अस्मादात्मलाभादूर्ध्वम् ईहते चेष्टते, निष्प्रयोजनमित्यर्थः। “नैव तस्य कृतेनार्थः” (BhG.3.18) इत्यादिस्मृतेः॥ Comment.
The state of the Brāhmaṇa (in Vācaspatyam Dictionary) signifies the state in which one is established in Brahman. The Śruti says, “This is the eternal glory of the Brāhmaṇa.” That state of Brāhmaṇa is free from beginning, end or middle. That is to say, that state of non-duality is free from the (illusory ideas of) creation, preservation and destruction. Having obtained the whole of omniscience, described above, i.e., the state of Brāhmaṇa, a non-dual state without beginning, end or middle, which is the same as the realisation of Self, the summum bonum of existence – what else remains for him to be desired? In other words, all other strivings become useless for him. It is thus said in Gītā, “He has nothing to gain by the activities (of the relative world).”
The humility (vinaya) of the brāhmaṇas is natural. Their tranquillity (śama) is also natural. Further, the control of the senses (dama) comes natural to them. He who has realized Brahman attains peace.✅
विप्राणां ब्राह्मणानां विनयः विनीतत्वं स्वाभाविकं यदेतदात्मस्वरूपेणावस्थानम्। एष विनयः शमोऽप्येष एव प्राकृतः स्वाभाविकः अकृतकः उच्यते। दमोऽप्येष एव प्रकृति-दान्तत्वात् स्वभावत एव चोपशान्तरूपत्वाद्ब्रह्मणः। एवं यथोक्तं स्वभावोपशान्तं ब्रह्म विद्वान् शमम् उपशान्तिं स्वाभाविकीं ब्रह्मस्वरूपां व्रजेत् ब्रह्मस्वरूपेणावतिष्ठत इत्यर्थः॥ Comment.
The humility of the Brāhmaṇas which is due to their realisation of their identity with the Self, is quite natural. This is (the real significance of) his humility. The tranquillity (of the mind which the Knowers of Brahman enjoy) is also natural and not induced by any artificial means. Brahman is all peace and tranquillity. Hence the Brāhmaṇas are said to have controlled their sense-organs (from pursuing the external objects). This is also the cause of the tranquillity of their nature. Having realised Brahman which is, by nature, all-peace the wise man attains to peace which is the characteristic of Brahman. That is to say, he becomes identical with Brahman.
Vedānta recognizes the ordinary state of waking, in which duality, consisting of objects and the idea of coming in contact with them, is admitted. It also recognizes a purer ordinary state i.e. the dream state, in which is experienced duality consisting of objects and the idea of coming in contact with them, though such objects do not exist.✅
एवमन्योन्यविरुद्धत्वात् संसारकारणरागद्वेषदोषास्पदानि प्रावादुकानां दर्शनानि। अतो मिथ्यादर्शनानि तानीति तद्युक्तिभिरेव दर्शयित्वा चतुष्कोटिवर्जितत्वात् रागादिदोषानास्पदं स्वभावशान्तमद्वैतदर्शनमेव सम्यग्दर्शनमित्युपसंहृतम्। Comment.
We have so far, come to the following conclusions: The theories of mere disputants contradicting one another, are the causes of our existence in the relative (Saṃsāra) world. Further these theories are characterised by partiality and aversion. Therefore these are merely false, as already shown by reasoning. On the other hand the philosophy of Advaita alone gives us true knowledge, as, – being free from the four alternative predicates referred to above, – it is untouched by partiality and aversion and is all-peace by its very nature.अथेदानीं स्वप्रक्रियाप्रदर्शनार्थ आरम्भः – स-वस्तु संवृतिसता वस्तुना सह वर्तत इति सवस्तु, तथा च उपलब्धिरुपलम्भः, तेन सह वर्तत इति स-उपलम्भं च शास्त्रादिसर्वव्यवहारास्पदं ग्राह्यग्रहणलक्षणं द्वयं लोकाद् अनपेतं लौकिकं जागरितमित्येतत्। एवंलक्षणं जागरितमिष्यते वेदान्तेषु। अवस्तु संवृतेरप्यभावात्। स-उपलम्भं वस्तुवदुपलम्भनमुपलम्भः असत्यपि वस्तुनि, तेन सह वर्तत इति सोपलम्भं च। शुद्धं केवलं प्रविभक्तं जागरितात्स्थूलात् लौकिकं सर्वप्राणिसाधारणत्वात् इष्यते स्वप्न इत्यर्थः॥ Now the following topic is introduced as an explanation of the Vedānta method of arriving at truth. The word “Sa-vastu” in the text implies objects that are perceived in our empirical experiences. Similarly, the word “Sopalambha” in the text implies the idea of one’s coming in contact with such objects. This constitutes the world of duality, common to all human beings and known as the waking state which is characterised by the subject-object relationship and which alone is the sphere of all our dealings including the Scriptural, etc. The waking state, thus characterised, is admitted in the Vedānta Scriptures. There is another state which lacks the experiences (of the waking state) caused by external sense-organs. But there exists in that state the idea of coming in contact with objects, though such objects are absent. This is admitted (in the Vedāntas) as the dream state, which is again common to all, and different from and subtler than the gross state of waking. Comment.
The wise recognize another state, in which there exist neither objects nor ideas regarding them. This state is beyond all empirical experiences. They describe the three: knowledge, the objects of knowledge i.e. the three states and the supremely knowable i.e. Ultimate Reality.✅
अवस्तु-अनुपलम्भं च ग्राह्यग्रहणवर्जितमित्येतत्; लोक-उत्तरम्, अत एव लोकातीतम्। ग्राह्यग्रहणविषयो हि लोकः, तदभावात् सर्वप्रवृत्तिबीजं सुषुप्तमित्येतत्। एवं स्मृतं सोपायं परमार्थतत्त्वं लौकिकं शुद्धलौकिकं लोकोत्तरं च क्रमेण येन ज्ञानेन ज्ञायते, तत् ज्ञानं ज्ञेयम् एतान्येव त्रीणि, एतद्व्यतिरेकेण ज्ञेयानुपपत्तेः। The state in which one neither perceives any object nor possesses the idea of coming in contact with such object – a state free from the relationship of subject and object – is called the highest state, which is beyond all empirical experiences. All empirical experiences consist of the subject-object relationship. This state is free from all such relationship and is the seed of future experiences. This is known as the state of deep sleep. That alone is called knowledge? which is the realisation of essence, i.e., the Supreme Reality, as well as the means to do so, viz., the analysis of the states of gross experience, subtle experience and the condition beyond all experiences. The three states, mentioned above, are the objects of knowledge; for, there cannot be anything knowable besides these three states.सर्वप्रावादुककल्पितवस्तुनोऽत्रैवान्तर्भावात्; विज्ञेयं यत्परमार्थसत्यं तुर्याख्यम् अद्वयम अजम् आत्मतत्त्वम् इत्यर्थः; सदा सर्वदैव, तल्लौकिकादि विज्ञेयान्तं बुद्धैः परमार्थदर्शिभिर्ब्रह्मविद्भिः प्रकीर्तितम्॥ All entities falsely imagined by the different schools of the disputants are included in these three states. That which is to be ultimately known is the truth regarding the Supreme Reality, known as Turīya, i.e., the knowledge of Self, non-dual and Unborn. The illumined ones, i.e., those who have seen the Supreme Reality have described these features (topics) ranging from the, objects of gross experience to the Supremely Knowable Self. Comment.
Having known knowledge and the threefold knowable, one after another, the knower, endowed with supreme intellect, attains in this very life and everywhere, the state of omniscience.✅
ज्ञाने च लौकिकादिविषये ज्ञेये च लौकिकादौ त्रि-विधे, पूर्वं लौकिकं स्थूलम्; तदभावेन पश्चाच्छुद्धं लौकिकम्, तदभावेन लोकोत्तरमित्येवं क्रमेण स्थानत्रयाभावेन परमार्थसत्ये तुर्ये अद्वये अजे अभये विदिते, स्वयम् एव आत्मस्वरूपमेव सर्वज्ञता सर्वश्चासौ ज्ञश्च सर्वज्ञः, तद्भावः सर्वज्ञता इह अस्मिन् लोके भवति महा-धियः महाबुद्धेः। सर्वलोकातिशयवस्तुविषयबुद्धित्वादेवंविदः सर्वत्र सर्वदा भवति। सकृद्विदिते स्वरूपे व्यभिचाराभावादित्यर्थः। न हि परमार्थविदो ज्ञानिनः ज्ञानोद्भवाभिभवौ स्तः, यथा अन्येषां प्रावादुकानाम्॥ Comment.
The word Jñānam signifies knowledge by which one grasps the significance of the three states. The word “Jñeya” or knowable, signifies the three states which should be known. The first (knowable) consists of the gross state of empirical experience. Then comes the state of subtle experience in which the first state loses itself, i.e., merges. And last comes deep sleep which is beyond all empirical experiences (gross or subtle) which results in the absence of the two previous states, i.e., in which the two previous states merge. By the knowledge of these three, one after the other, and consequently, by the negation of the three states the Turīya, non-dual, birthless and fearless, which alone is the Supreme Reality, is realised. Thus the knower (possessed of the highest power of discrimination) attains in this very life the state of omniscience which is identical with the knowledge of Self. He is called Mahā-dhī or the man of the highest intellect as he has understood that which transcends all human experiences. His omniscience is constant and remains undiminished. For, the knowledge of Self once realised remains as such for ever. This is because the knowledge of the knower of the Supreme Reality does not appear and disappear like that of mere vain disputants. Comment.
One should be conversant, at the very outset, with four things. These are as follows: the things to be avoided, the goal to be realized, the disciplines to be cultivated and the tendencies to be rendered ineffective. Of these four, all except the goal to be realized i.e. the Supreme Reality exist only as products of the imagination.✅
लौकिकादीनां क्रमेण ज्ञेयत्वेन निर्देशादस्तित्वाशङ्का परमार्थतो मा भूदित्याह – हेयानि च लौकिकादीनि त्रीणि जागरितस्वप्नसुषुप्तानि आत्मन्यसत्त्वेन रज्ज्वां सर्पवद्धातव्यानीत्यर्थः। ज्ञेयमिह चतुष्कोटिवर्जितं परमार्थतत्त्वम्। आप्यानि आप्तव्यानि त्यक्तबाह्यैषणात्रयेण भिक्षुणा पाण्डित्यबाल्यमौनाख्यानि साधनानि। पाक्यानि रागद्वेषमोहादयो दोषाः कषायाख्यानि पक्तव्यानि। There may arise a doubt that the three states of empirical experience may constitute the Ultimate Reality on account of their being pointed out as things to be gradually known. In order to remove this doubt it is said, the “Heyas” or things to be avoided are the three states of empirical experience, viz., the waking, the dream and the deep sleep. These do not exist in Ātman just as the snake is not present in the rope. Therefore they should be avoided. The word Jñeya, i.e., the thing to be known, in this text refers to the knowledge of the Ultimate Reality, free from the four alternative theories described before. The things to be acquired are the accessories of spiritual realisation, viz., wisdom, childlike innocence and silence. These virtues are practised by the sages after they have renounced the threefold desires. The word “Pākyāni” in the text signifies the latent impressions which in due course attain maturity, viz., such blemishes as attachment, aversion, delusion, etc. These are known as Kaṣāya or the passions that hide the real nature of the soul.सर्वाण्येतानि हेय-ज्ञेय-आप्य-पाक्यानि विज्ञेयानि भिक्षुणा उपायत्वेनेत्यर्थः। अग्र-याणतः प्रथमतः। तेषां हेयादीनाम् अन्यत्र विज्ञेयात् परमार्थसत्यं विज्ञेयं ब्रह्मैकं वर्जयित्वा। उपलम्भनम् उपलम्भः अविद्याकल्पनामात्रम्। हेयाप्यपाक्येषु त्रिषु अपि स्मृतो ब्रह्मविद्भिः न परमार्थसत्यता त्रयाणामित्यर्थः॥ As a means to their realisation of the Supreme Reality, sages should first of all be acquainted with these four things, viz., the thing to be avoided, the thing to be realised, the thing to be acquired and the thing to be rendered ineffective. These, however, with the exception of the thing to be known – that is to say, with the exception of the non-dual Brahman alone, the essence of the Ultimate Reality, that should be realised – are perceived on account of our imagination. This is the conclusion of the Knowers of Brahman with regard to the three things, viz., those to be avoided, acquired, and those that are (awaiting maturity and therefore) to be made ineffective. In other words, these three do not exist from the standpoint of the Ultimate Reality.
All Ātmans (Dharmas) are to be known, by their very nature, to be beginningless and unattached like ākāśa. There is not the slightest variety in there in any way or at any time.✅
परमार्थतस्तु प्रकृत्या स्वभावतः आकाशवत् आकाशतुल्याः सूक्ष्मनिरञ्जनसर्वगतत्वैः सर्वे धर्मा आत्मानो ज्ञेया मुमुक्षुभिः अनादयः नित्याः। बहुवचनकृतभेदाशङ्कां निराकुर्वन्नाह – क्वचन क्वचिदपि किञ्चन किञ्चित् अणुमात्रमपि तेषां न विद्यते नानात्वम् इति॥ Those who seek liberation should regard, from the standpoint of the Ultimate Reality, all Jīvas, as by their very nature without beginning, i.e., eternal, and, like Ākāśa, subtle, free from all blemish and all-pervading. The plural number used with regard to the ‘Jīvas’ may suggest multiplicity. The second line of the Kārikā is meant to remove any such apprehension. There is no multiplicity in the Jīvas even in the slightest degree and under any condition.
All jīvas are, by their very nature, illumined from the very beginning. There can never be any doubt about their nature. He who, having known this, rests without seeking further knowledge is alone capable of attaining Immortality.✅
ज्ञेयतापि धर्माणां संवृत्यैव, न परमार्थत इत्याह – यस्मात् आदौ बुद्धाः आदि-बुद्धाः प्रकृत्या एव स्वभावत एव यथा नित्यप्रकाशस्वरूपः सविता, एवं नित्यबोधस्वरूपा इत्यर्थः। सर्वे धर्माः सर्व आत्मानः। न च तेषां निश्चयः कर्तव्यः नित्य-निश्चित-स्वरूपा इत्यर्थः। न संदिह्यमानस्वरूपा एवं नैवं वेति यस्य मुमुक्षोः एवं यथोक्तप्रकारेण सर्वदा बोधनिश्चयनिरपेक्षता आत्मार्थं परार्थं वा। Even the knowableness attributed to the Jīvas is also due to the illusion of empirical experiences. It cannot be applied from the standpoint of the Supreme Reality. This idea is explained in this text. The Jīvas are illumined, by their very nature, from the very beginning. That is to say, all the Jīvas, like the sun which is of the very nature of eternal light, are ever illumined. No effort need be made to define their nature, as the nature of the Jīva is, from the very beginning, well determined. It cannot be subject to any such doubt as, “The Jīva may be like this or like that”.यथा सविता नित्यं प्रकाशान्तरनिरपेक्षः स्वार्थं परार्थं वेत्येवं भवति क्षान्तिः बोधकर्तव्यतानिरपेक्षता सर्वदा स्वात्मनि, सः अमृतत्वाय अमृतभावाय कल्पते, मोक्षाय समर्थो भवतीत्यर्थः॥ The seeker of liberation who in the manner above described, does not stand in need of anything else to make this knowledge certain to himself or others, – just as the sun, by nature ever illumined, is never in need of any light from itself or others – who thus always rests without forming ideas of duality regarding any further knowledge of his own self, becomes capable of realising the Ultimate Reality.
The jīvas, from the very beginning and by their very nature, are all peace, unborn and completely free. They are characterized by sameness and non-separateness. The unborn Ātman is always established in sameness and purity.✅
तथा नापि शान्तिकर्तव्यता आत्मनीत्याह – यस्मात् आदि-शान्ताः नित्यमेव शान्ताः अनुत्पन्ना अजाश्च प्रकृत्या एव सुनिर्वृताः सुष्ठूपरतस्वभावाः नित्यमुक्तस्वभावा इत्यर्थः। सर्वे धर्माः समाश्च अभिन्नाश्च सम-अभिन्नाः अजं साम्यं विशारदं विशुद्धम् आत्मतत्त्वं यस्मात्, तस्मात् शान्तिर्मोक्षो वा नास्ति कर्तव्य इत्यर्थः। न हि नित्यैकस्वभावस्य कृतं किञ्चिदर्थवत्स्यात्॥ Comment.
Similarly, there is no room for any effort to make Ātman peaceful, for, all Jīvas are, by their very nature, eternally peaceful, unborn and of the nature of eternal freedom. All Jīvas are further of the same nature and non-separate from one another. They being Ātman in their very essence, ever pure, unborn and established in sameness, therefore the effort of attaining to liberation is meaningless. For, if something is accomplished with regard to an entity which is always of the same nature, it does not make any change in the thing itself.
Those who always wander in the realm of separateness cannot realize the purity of Ātman. Their minds are inclined to differentiation and they assert the separateness of the Ātmans. Therefore they are called narrow-minded.✅
ये यथोक्तं परमार्थतत्त्वं प्रतिपन्नाः, ते एव अकृपणा लोके; कृपणास्त्वन्ये इत्याह – यस्मात् भेद-निम्नाः भेदानुयायिनः संसारानुगा इत्यर्थः। के? पृथग-वादाः पृथक् नाना वस्तु इत्येवं वदनं येषां ते पृथग्वादाः द्वैतिन इत्यर्थः। तस्मात् ते कृपणाः क्षुद्राः स्मृताः, यस्मात् वैशारद्यं विशुद्धिः तद् न अस्ति तेषां भेदे विचरतां द्वैतमार्गे अविद्यापरिकल्पिते सर्वदा वर्तमानानामित्यर्थः। अतो युक्तमेव तेषां कार्पण्यमित्यभिप्रायः॥ Those who have realised the truth regarding the Ultimate Reality as described above, are alone free from narrowness. Others are verily narrow-minded. This is thus described in this verse. “Drowned in the idea of separation” means those who stick to the idea of separation, that is to say, those who confine themselves to the multiplicity of phenomenal experiences. Who are they? They are those who assert that the multiplicity of objects exists, i.e., the dualists. They are called “narrow-minded” as they never realise the natural purity of Ātman on account of their ever-dwelling on the thought of multiplicity, i.e., on account of their taking as real the duality of experiences imagined through ignorance. Therefore it has been truly said that these people are narrow-minded. Comment.
They alone in this world are endowed with the highest wisdom who are firm in their conviction of the sameness and birthlessness of Ātman. The ordinary man does not understand their way.✅
यदिदं परमार्थतत्त्वम्, अमहात्मभिरपण्डितैर्वेदान्तबहिःष्ठैः क्षुद्रैरल्पप्रज्ञैरनवगाह्यमित्याह – That this knowledge of the Supreme Reality is incapable of being understood by the poor intellect, by the unwise, i.e., by persons of small intellect who are outside the knowledge of Vedānta, – is thus explained in this verse.अजे साम्ये परमार्थतत्त्वे एवमेवेति ये केचित् स्त्र्यादयोऽपि सुनिश्चिता भविष्यन्ति चेत्, त एव हि लोके महा-ज्ञानाः निरतिशयतत्त्वविषयज्ञाना इत्यर्थः। तद् च तेषां वर्त्म तेषां विदितं परमार्थतत्त्वं सामान्यबुद्धिरन्यो लोको न गाहते नावतरति न विषयीकरोतीत्यर्थः। “सर्वभूतात्मभूतस्य समैकार्थं प्रपश्यतः। देवा अपि मार्गे मुह्यन्त्यपदस्य पदैषिणः। शकुनीनामिवाकाशे गतिर्नैवोपलभ्यते” इत्यादिस्मरणात्॥ Those few, even though they may be women or others, who are firm in their conviction of the nature of Ultimate Reality, unborn and undivided, are alone possessors of the highest wisdom. They alone know the essence of Reality. Others, i.e., persons of ordinary, intellect, cannot understand their ways, that is to say, the Supreme Reality realised by the wise. It is said in the Smṛti: – “Even the gods feel puzzled while trying to follow in the footsteps of those who leave no track behind, of those who realise themselves in all beings and who are always devoted to the welfare of all. They leave no track behind like the birds flying through the sky.”
Knowledge, which is the very essence of the unborn jīvas, is itself called unborn and unrelated. This Knowledge is proclaimed to be unattached, since it is unrelated to any other object.✅
कथं महाज्ञानत्वमित्याह – अजेषु अनुत्पन्नेषु अचलेषु धर्मेषु आत्मसु अजम् अचलं च ज्ञानम् इष्यते सवितरीव औष्ण्यं प्रकाशश्च यतः, तस्मात् असंक्रान्तम् अर्थान्तरे ज्ञानमजमिष्यते। यस्माद् न क्रमते अर्थान्तरे ज्ञानम्, तेन कारणेन असङ्गं तत् कीर्तितम् आकाशकल्पमित्युक्तम्॥ What constitutes the highest Wisdom (i.e., the wisdom of the knower of the non-dual Ātman)? This is thus explained: Knowledge which constitutes the essence of the Dharmas (Jīvas), unborn, immutable and identical with Ātman, is also admitted to be unborn and immutable. It is just like the light and the heat belonging to the sun. Knowledge, being ever unrelated to other objects, is said to be unborn. As knowledge is, thus, unrelated to other objects, it is like the Ākāśa, called unconditioned or absolute.
To those ignorant people who believe that Ātman can deviate from Its true nature even in the slightest measure, Its eternally unrelated character is lost. In that case the destruction of the veil is out of the question.✅
इतोऽन्येषां वादिनाम् अणुमात्रे अल्पेऽपि वैधर्म्ये वस्तुनि बहिरन्तर्वा जायमाने उत्पद्यमाने अविपश्चितः अविवेकिनः असङ्गता असङ्गत्वं सदा न अस्ति; किम् उत वक्तव्यम् आवरण-च्युतिः बन्धनाशो नास्तीति॥ Comment.
If persons, through ignorance, think, – as those who differ from us assert – that an entity (i.e., Jīva or Ātman) does undergo the slightest change, either subjectively or objectively, then such ignorant persons can never realise the ever-unrelatedness (of Ātman). Therefore it goes without saying that there cannot be any destruction of bondage (that is supposed to keep the Jīva bound to the world).
All jīvas are ever free from bondage and pure by nature. They are illumined and free from the very beginning. Yet the wise speak of the jīvas as capable of knowing Ultimate Reality.✅
तेषाम् आवरणच्युतिर्नास्तीति ब्रुवतां स्वसिद्धान्ते अभ्युपगतं तर्हि धर्माणाम् आवरणम्। (Objection) – It has been stated in the previous Kārikā that (according to the view of the ignorant) the destruction of the veil covering the real nature of Ātman is not possible. This is a (tacit) admission by the Vedāntin that the (real) nature of the Jīvas is covered by a veil.नेत्युच्यते – अलब्ध-आवरणाः अलब्धमप्राप्तम् आवरणम् अविद्यादिबन्धनं येषां ते धर्माः अलब्धावरणाः बन्धनरहिता इत्यर्थः। प्रकृति-निर्मलाः स्वभावशुद्धाः आदौ बुद्धाः तथा मुक्ताः, यस्मात् नित्य-शुद्ध-बुद्ध-मुक्त-स्वभावाः। यद्येवं कथं तर्हि बुध्यन्त इति उच्यते – नायकाः स्वामिनः समर्थाः बोद्धुं बोधशक्तिमत्स्वभावा इत्यर्थः। यथा नित्यप्रकाशस्वरूपोऽपि सन् सविता प्रकाशत इत्युच्यते, यथा वा नित्यनिवृत्तगतयोऽपि नित्यमेव शैलास्तिष्ठन्तीत्युच्यते, तद्वत्॥ (Reply) – It is not so. The Jīvas are never subject to any veil or bondage imposed by ignorance. That is to say, they are ever free from any bondage (which does not at all exist). They are pure by nature; illumined and free from the very beginning as it is said that they are of the nature of eternal purity, knowledge and freedom. If so, why are Jīvas described as capable of knowing (the Ultimate Reality) by teachers who are competent to know the Truth, i.e., those who are endowed with the power of discrimination? The reply is that it is like speaking about the sun as shining though the very nature of the sun is all-light, or speaking about the hill, which is ever free from any motion, as always standing.
The Knowledge of the wise man, who is all light, is never related to any object. All the jīvas, as well as Knowledge, are ever unrelated to objects. This is not the view of Buddha.✅
यस्मात् न हि क्रमते बुद्धस्य परमार्थदर्शिनो ज्ञानं विषयान्तरेषु धर्मेषु धर्मसंस्थं सवितरीव प्रभा। तायिनः तायोऽस्यास्तीति तायी, संतानवतो निरन्तरस्य आकाशकल्पस्येत्यर्थः; पूजावतो वा प्रज्ञावतो वा सर्वे धर्मा आत्मानोऽपि तथा ज्ञानवदेव आकाशकल्पत्वान्न क्रमन्ते क्वचिदप्यर्थान्तर इत्यर्थः। The knowledge of the wise man, that is to say, of the one who has attained to the Supreme Reality, is ever unrelated to other objects or Jīvas. This knowledge is always centred in or is identical with Jīva (i.e., Ātman) like the sun and its light. The word “Tāyī”, “All-light”, in the text signifies that which is all-pervasive like Ākāśa or, it may mean that which is adorable or all-knowledge. All entities, i.e., Jīvas (beings like so many Ātmans) are as unattached as the Ākāśa, and ever-unrelated to anything else.यदादावुपन्यस्तम् “ज्ञानेनाकाशकल्पेन” (ManKa.4.1) इत्यादि, तदिदम् आकाशकल्पस्य तायिनो बुद्धस्य तदनन्यत्वादाकाशकल्पं ज्ञानं न क्रमते क्वचिदप्यर्थान्तरे। तथा धर्मा इति आकाशमिव अचलमविक्रियं निरवयवं नित्यम् अद्वितीयम् असङ्गम् अदृश्यम् अग्राह्यम् अशनायादि-अतीतं ब्रह्मात्मतत्त्वम्, “न हि द्रष्टुर्दृष्टेर्विपरिलोपो विद्यते” (BrhU.4.3.23) इति श्रुतेः। ज्ञानज्ञेयज्ञातृभेदरहितं परमार्थतत्त्वमद्वयम् एतद् न बुद्धेन भाषितम्। यद्यपि बाह्यार्थनिराकरणं ज्ञानमात्रकल्पना च अद्वयवस्तुसामीप्यमुक्तम्। इदं तु परमार्थतत्त्वमद्वैतं वेदान्तेष्वेव विज्ञेयमित्यर्थः॥ Knowledge (Jñāna) which has been compared to Ākāśa in the beginning of this chapter is non-different from the knowledge of the wise one who is all-light. Therefore the Ākāśa-like knowledge of the wise does not relate itself to any other object. This is also the essence of the Dharmas or all entities. The essence of all the entities is the essence of Brahman, and is, like Ākāśa, immutable, changeless, free from parts, permanent, one and without a second, unattached, non-cognizable, unthinkable and beyond hunger and thirst. The Śruti also says, “The knowledge (characteristic) of the seer is never absent.” This knowledge regarding the Ultimate Reality, non-dual and characterised by the absence of perceiver, perception and the perceived, is not the same as that declared by the Buddha. The view of the Buddha, which rejects the existence of external objects and asserts the existence of ideas alone, is said to be similar to or very near the truth of non-dual Ātman. But this knowledge of non-duality which is the Ultimate Reality can be attained through Vedānta alone.
Having realized the Knowledge of the Supreme Reality, which is hard to grasp, profound, birthless, the same throughout, all light and free from multiplicity, we salute It as best we can.✅
शास्त्रसमाप्तौ परमार्थतत्त्वस्तुत्यर्थं नमस्कार उच्यते – दुर्दर्शं दुःखेन दर्शनमस्येति दुर्दर्शम्। अस्ति नास्तीति चतुष्कोटिवर्जितत्वाद् दुर्विज्ञेयमित्यर्थः। अत एव अति-गम्भीरं दुष्प्रवेशं महासमुद्रवदकृतप्रज्ञैः। अजं साम्यं विशारदम्। ईदृक् पदम् अनानात्वं नानात्ववर्जितं बुद्ध्वा अवगम्य तद्भूताः सन्तः नमस्-कुर्मः तस्मै पदाय। अव्यवहार्यमपि व्यवहारगोचरताम् आपाद्य यथा-बलं यथाशक्तीत्यर्थः॥ The treatise is now completed. This Salutation is made with a view to extol the knowledge of the Supreme Reality. It is extremely difficult to understand it. In other words, it is difficult of comprehension as it is not related to any of the four possible predicates, such as existence, non-existence, etc. It is profound, that is, very deep like a great ocean. People devoid of discrimination cannot fathom it. This knowledge (Jñāna) is, further, birthless, always the same and all-light. Having attained this knowledge which is free from multiplicity, having become one with it, we salute it. Though this absolute knowledge cannot be subjected to any relative treatment (such as, Salutation, etc.) yet we view it from the relative standpoint and adore it to the best of our ability.अजमपि जनियोगं प्रापदैश्वर्ययोगाद्
अगति च गतिमत्तां प्रापदेकं ह्यनेकम्।
विविधविषयधर्मग्राहि मुग्धेक्षणानां
प्रणतभयविहन्तृ ब्रह्म यत्तन्नतोऽस्मि॥१॥ I salute Brahman, the destroyer of the fear of those who take refuge in It – which, though unborn, appears to be associated with birth through Its own majestic powers; which, though motionless, appears to be moving; and which, though non-dual, appears to have assumed many forms to those whose vision is deluded by the perception of diverse objects and their attributes.प्रज्ञावैशाखवेधक्षुभितजलनिधेर्वेदनाम्नोऽन्तरस्थं
भूतान्यालोक्य मग्नान्यविरतजननग्राहघोरे समुद्रे।
कारुण्यादुद्दधारामृतमिदममरैर्दुर्लभं भूतहेतोर्
यस्तं पूज्याभिपूज्यं परमगुरुममुं पादपातैर्नतोऽस्मि॥२॥ I prostrate myself at the feet of the teacher of my teacher, the most adored among the adorable, who – out of sheer compassion for the beings drowned in the deep ocean of the world, infested by the terrible sharks of incessant births and deaths – rescued, for the benefit of all, this nectar, hardly attainable even by the immortals, from the inmost depths of the ocean of the Vedas by churning it with the rod of his illumined wisdom.यत्प्रज्ञालोकभासा प्रतिहतिमगमत्स्वान्तमोहान्धकारो
मज्जोन्मज्जच्च घोरे ह्यसकृदुपजनोदन्वति त्रासने मे।
यत्पादावाश्रितानां श्रुतिशमविनयप्राप्तिरग्न्या ह्यमोघा
तत्पादौ पावनीयौ भवभयविनुदौ सर्वभावैर्नमस्ये॥३॥ I make obeisance with my whole being to those holy feet – the dispellers of the fear of the chain of births and deaths – of my own great teacher, who, through the light of his illumined wisdom, destroyed the darkness of delusion enveloping my mind; who put an end, for ever, to my appearance and disappearance in this terrible ocean of innumerable births and deaths; and who enables all others, too, that take shelter at his feet, to attain unfailing knowledge of the scriptures, peace and the state of perfect non-differentiation.
