UpasanaYoga.org माण्डुक्य-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 is adopted from Swami Nikhilananda
Format by A.K. Aruna, 2022 ver.5.0: 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). Māṇḍukya 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. 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 manifestion 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। 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).
तदाह – 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). [•By placing the hand on the heart.•]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, etcetera, 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, etcetera, 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 manifestion (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 manifestion 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 manifestion 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).
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).
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॥
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॥
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).
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। 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॥
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).
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।
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.•] for on the dawn of knowledge, no duality is left.
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॥
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).
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। 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॥
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॥
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).
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).
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).
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 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, 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॥
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, etcetera.)
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).
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).
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).
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॥
(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॥
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).
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).
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, 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॥
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).
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).
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। 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। ननु अपवरकाद्यन्तरुपलभ्यमानैः घटादिभिरनैकान्तिको हेतुरित्याशङ्क्याह – संवृतत्वेन हेतुना इति। अन्तः संवृतस्थानादित्यर्थः। न ह्यन्तः संवृते देहान्तर्नाडीषु पर्वतहस्त्यादीनां सम्भवोऽस्ति; न हि देहे पर्वतोऽस्ति॥
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। 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॥
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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। कस्मात्? दृष्टान्तस्यासिद्धत्वात्। कथम्? न हि जाग्रद्दृश्या ये, ते भेदाः स्वप्ने दृश्यन्ते। किं तर्हि? अपूर्वं स्वप्ने पश्यति चतुर्दन्तं गजम् आरूढोऽष्टभुजम् आत्मानम्। अन्यदप्येवंप्रकारमपूर्वं पश्यति स्वप्ने। तन्नान्येनासता सममिति सदेव। अतो दृष्टान्तोऽसिद्धः। तस्मात्स्वप्नवज्जागरितस्यासत्त्वमित्ययुक्तम्। 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। 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॥
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.
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.
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॥
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 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॥
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। 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॥
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.
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.
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.
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॥
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॥
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; those 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. 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.
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॥
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.
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.
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। प्रचलितस्यैवोपलभ्यमाना भावा न परमार्थतः सन्तः कल्पयितुं शक्याः। अतः असद्भिरेव प्राणादिभिः भावैः अद्वयेन च परमार्थसता आत्मना रज्जुवत्सर्वविकल्पास्पदभूतेन अयं स्वयमेवात्मा कल्पितः सदैकस्वभावोऽपि सन्। 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॥
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। 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॥
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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। ननु, एक एवात्मा; बाढम्; ननु न श्रुतं त्वया आकाशवत्सर्वसङ्घातेष्वेक एवात्मेति? यद्येक एवात्मा, तर्हि सर्वत्र सुखी दुःखी च स्यात्; न चेदं सांख्यस्य चोद्यं सम्भवति; न हि सांख्य आत्मनः सुखदुःखादिमत्त्वमिच्छति, बुद्धिसमवायाभ्युपगमात्सुखदुःखादीनाम्; न चोपलब्धिस्वरूपस्यात्मनो भेदकल्पनायां प्रमाणमस्ति। भेदाभावे प्रधानस्य पारार्थ्यानुपपत्तिरिति चेत्, 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; 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। 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। अयुतसिद्धानां समवायलक्षणः सम्बन्धो न विरुध्यत इति चेत्, न; इच्छादिभ्योऽनित्येभ्य आत्मनो नित्यस्य पूर्वसिद्धत्वान्नायुतसिद्धत्वोपपत्तिः। आत्मना अयुतसिद्धत्वे च इच्छादीनामात्मगतमहत्त्ववन्नित्यत्वप्रसङ्गः। स चानिष्टः, आत्मनोऽनिर्मोक्षप्रसङ्गात्। समवायस्य च द्रव्यादन्यत्वे सति द्रव्येण सम्बन्धान्तरं वाच्यम्, यथा द्रव्यगुणयोः। समवायो नित्यसम्बन्ध एवेति न वाच्यमिति चेत्, तथा सति समवायसम्बन्धवतां नित्यसम्बन्धप्रसङ्गात्पृथक्त्वानुपपत्तिः। अत्यन्तपृथक्त्वे च द्रव्यादीनां स्पर्शवदस्पर्शद्रव्ययोरिव षष्ठ्यर्थानुपपत्तिः। इच्छाद्युपजनापायवद्गुणवत्त्वे च आत्मनोऽनित्यत्वप्रसङ्गः। 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॥
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, 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॥
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; 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॥
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॥
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.
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 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.
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॥
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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। तत्त्वतो भिद्यमानं हि अमृतम् अजम् अद्वयं स्वभावतः सत् मर्त्यतां व्रजेत्, यथा अग्निः शीतताम्। तच्चानिष्टं स्वभाववैपरीत्यगमनम्, सर्वप्रमाणविरोधात्। अजमद्वयम् आत्मतत्त्वं माययैव भिद्यते, न परमार्थतः। तस्मान्न परमार्थसद्द्वैतम्॥
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॥
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॥
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॥
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.
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। ननु प्रज्ञावचनो मायाशब्दः; सत्यम्, इन्द्रियप्रज्ञाया अविद्यामयत्वेन मायात्वाभ्युपगमाददोषः। मायाभिः इन्द्रियप्रज्ञाभिरविद्यारूपाभिरित्यर्थः। “अजायमानो बहुधा विजायते” (तै. आ. ३-१३) इति श्रुतेः। तस्मात् जायते मायया तु सः; तु-शब्दोऽवधारणार्थः माययैवेति। 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॥
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?”
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.
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 – तत्रैतत्स्यात् सदा अग्राह्यमेव चेदसदेवात्मतत्त्वमिति; 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। 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॥
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॥
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॥
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॥
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॥
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.
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.
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.
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.
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। 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। 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। न इह ब्रह्मण्येवंविधे उपचरणम् उपचारः कर्तव्यः, यथा अन्येषाम् आत्मस्वरूपव्यतिरेकेण समाधानाद्युपचारः। नित्यशुद्धबुद्धमुक्तस्वभावत्वाद्ब्रह्मणः कथञ्चन न कथञ्चिदपि कर्तव्यसम्भवः अविद्यानाशे इत्यर्थः॥
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.
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। 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॥
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॥
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; 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॥
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.
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.
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.
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। 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॥
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॥
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॥
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.
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 likeākāśa.
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। कश्चिदत्यन्तसुखसाधनविशिष्टोऽपि दुःखस्वरूपः, यथा तपः। अयं तु न तथा। किं तर्हि? 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॥
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॥
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॥
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॥
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?
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?
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.
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.
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?
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॥
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॥
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॥
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॥
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.
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॥
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?
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.
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। किं तर्हि? बीजाङ्कुरवत् कार्यकारणभावोऽभ्युपगम्यत इति। अत्रोच्यते – बीज-अङ्कुर-आख्यो दृष्टान्तो यः, स साध्येन समः तुल्यो ममेत्यभिप्रायः। ननु प्रत्यक्षः कार्यकारणभावो बीजाङ्कुरयोरनादिः; 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। अथ बीजाङ्कुरसन्ततेः अनादिमत्त्वमिति चेत्; न, एकत्वानुपपत्तेः; न हि बीजाङ्कुरव्यतिरेकेण बीजाङ्कुरसन्ततिर्नामैका अभ्युपगम्यते हेतुफलसन्ततिर्वा तदनादित्ववादिभिः। तस्मात्सूक्तम् “हेतोः फलस्य चानादिः कथं तैरुपवर्ण्यते” इति। तथा च अन्यदप्यनुपपत्तेर्न च्छलमित्यभिप्रायः। न च लोके साध्य-समो हेतुः साध्यस्य सिद्धौ सिद्धिनिमित्तं युज्यते प्रयुज्यते प्रमाणकुशलैरित्यर्थः। हेतुरिति दृष्टान्तोऽत्रभिप्रेतः, गमकत्वात्; प्रकृतो हि दृष्टान्तः, न हेतुरिति॥
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॥
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। ननु मृदो घटो जायते पितुश्च पुत्रः; 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। 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॥
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॥
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। 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 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.
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॥
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; 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॥
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.
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.
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 – अनादेः अतीतकोटिरहितस्य संसारस्य अन्तवत्त्वं समाप्तिः न सेत्स्यति युक्तितः सिद्धिं नोपयास्यति। न ह्यनादिः सन् अन्तवान्कश्चित्पदार्थो दृष्टो लोके। बीजाङ्कुरसम्बन्धनैरन्तर्यविच्छेदो दृष्ट इति चेत्; न, एकवस्त्वभावेनापोदितत्वात्। तथा अनन्तता अपि विज्ञानप्राप्तिकालप्रभवस्य मोक्षस्य आदिमतो न भविष्यति, घटादिष्वदर्शनात्। घटादिविनाशवदवस्तुत्वाददोष इति चेत्, तथा च मोक्षस्य परमार्थसद्भावप्रतिज्ञाहानिः; असत्त्वादेव शशविषाणस्येव आदिमत्त्वाभावश्च॥
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.
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?
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.
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॥
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.
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। 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॥
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.
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? 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॥
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॥
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.
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.
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॥
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; न, उपलम्भ-समाचारयोः व्यभिचारात्। कथं व्यभिचार इति, 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॥
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.
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॥
As the line made by a moving fire-brand 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॥
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.
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॥
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॥
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॥
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॥
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॥
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.
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 – यावत् सम्यग्दर्शनेन हेतु-फल-आवेशः न निवर्तते, अक्षीणः संसारः तावत् आयातः दीर्घो भवतीत्यर्थः। क्षीणे पुनः हेतु-फल-आवेशे संसारं न प्रपद्यते, कारणाभावात्॥
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.
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। माया नाम वस्तु तर्हि; नैवम्, सा च माया न विद्यते। मायेत्यविद्यमानस्याख्येत्यभिप्रायः॥
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 – 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॥
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॥
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.
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॥
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.
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। 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॥
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.
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)॥
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.
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; नैष दोषः। कस्मात्? 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॥
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। 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॥
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॥
>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। 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॥
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॥
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.
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.
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.
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 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। 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॥
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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। सर्वप्रावादुककल्पितवस्तुनोऽत्रैवान्तर्भावात्; विज्ञेयं यत्परमार्थसत्यं तुर्याख्यम् अद्वयम अजम् आत्मतत्त्वम् इत्यर्थः; सदा सर्वदैव, तल्लौकिकादि विज्ञेयान्तं बुद्धैः परमार्थदर्शिभिर्ब्रह्मविद्भिः प्रकीर्तितम्॥
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.
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.
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.
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। यथा सविता नित्यं प्रकाशान्तरनिरपेक्षः स्वार्थं परार्थं वेत्येवं भवति क्षान्तिः बोधकर्तव्यतानिरपेक्षता सर्वदा स्वात्मनि, सः अमृतत्वाय अमृतभावाय कल्पते, मोक्षाय समर्थो भवतीत्यर्थः॥
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॥
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॥
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 – 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॥
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.
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.
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.
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। 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॥
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॥
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.
