MANDUKYA KARIKAS

NOTES FROM SWAMI PARAMARTHANANDA’S RECORDED LECTURES

Author: Professor H. K. Kesavan

Copyright (2014) Estate of Professor H. K. Kesavan

1

Mandukya Karikas

Gaudapada

Swami Paramarthananda’s 80 one-hour lectures on this important Vedantic text have been recorded and made available at Sastraprakasika Trust, Chennai, with email address: [email protected]. Their phone number is 2847 5009 or 2847 0311. The Swamiji is undoubtedly an eminent of the Advaita tradition and the quality of the lectures is superb. This text represents the notes I have made after listening to the lectures and they are meant for my own benefit.

H.K.Kesavan

2

DRIG-DRISHYA-

Agama Prakaranam

Swamiji’s introduction

This introduction is for assuming the background of Swamiji’s commentaries on six other .

Vedas, also called sruti, are our original scriptures. They contain a body of knowledge dwelling on the means and ends of human life. Sruti means that which was heard by the rishis; they are not born of human intellect but attributed to a supra human origin. They are not written down and instead passed on orally; it is called parampara in . The four can be broadly classified under Veda purva and Veda antha, meaning the early and later portions.

Veda purva has three goals: a) self improvement of body, mind etc.; b) improvement of possessions; and c) improvement of the circumstances in which we live. In order to accomplish these goals, three types of disciplines are specified: 1) physical disciplines—kayika sadhanani; 2) verbal disciplines— vachika sadhanani; and 3) mental disciplines. But these disciplines have some intrinsic deficiencies which are natural to them. First, they are always mixed with pain; secondly, they never give total satisfaction—the illustrative example is that of a gambler who, even when he wins, proceeds to gamble further, not satisfied with his earnings. Thirdly, the disciplines have a tendency to cause dependency. In other words, the deficiencies lead to more and more enslavement causing weakness in the individual. However, with all the inadequacies caused by the inherent deficiencies, the majority of people are satisfied with the pursuit of these means and ends. It is only a minority of people who look for goals unencumbered by such deficiencies. is the pathway for such people.

3 Vedanta declares is the goal that is completely free from all deficiencies. Strange as it may seem, it informs the seeker not to go after that goal by bringing home the supreme truth that the defect-free Brahman is none other than oneself. You are that Brahman is the declarative statement. As a result, the seeker confronts a serious problem; he had all along looked upon himself as full of imperfections, a riddled with defects. But Vedanta advises that the very opposite is true. Consequently, there is a conflict between the validity of truth based on experience and that based on the scriptures—between and sastra pramana. Self-inquiry is necessary for separating the fact from misconception.

There are six , out of which five of them are applicable for deciphering truths of the external world. None of these, in particular, is meant for Self-inquiry since all five are bahirmukha pramanas. It is only the sixth pramana, namely, Vedanta that is applicable for the study of one’s own nature. It serves like a mirror—Vedanta darpana. We will, of course, need eyes also in addition to the mirror.

How do we employ Vedanta pramana? The method of operation should be made explicit. It involves a 3-fold exercise: a) Sravanam; b) Mananam; and c) Nidhidhyasanam. Sastric study turns vision towards oneself in order to extract the central teaching. There are six indicators for the progress of this teaching which are not enumerated here. Sravanam is the systematic and consistent study of the scriptures for a length of time under the guidance of a competent teacher. Mananam is meant to remove all doubts with regard to the teaching since doubtful knowledge is useless. Internalization of knowledge can be accomplished in several ways: reading, writing, repeated listening, etc.

The arrival and departure of the three sadhyas that were mentioned earlier are of no consequence. Their presence should not be a burden and their absence should not give a feeling of emptiness.

Scriptures also point out that Brahman cannot be revealed by words. Words can reveal an object provided the object fulfills certain conditions. Five conditions are mentioned.

1. Rudihi: This refers to an object that is available for perception— prathyaksha vishayam. One example is the Sun that can be seen by everyone. 2. Jatihi: This refers to a species. If one has seen a tree, he can understand another tree without actually perceiving it. For instance, one can visualize a parijatha tree in the heaven. 3. Property: An object is revealed through its property. 4. Kriya: An object that is revealed through its function. Example: even without seeing the person who drives a car, one can call the driver.

4 5. : An object revealed through relationship—father, mother etc.

Brahman does not have any of the above five properties. In which case, the question arises how Brahman can be revealed at all through the words of the scriptures. The answer to this puzzle is that Brahman can be revealed through words by employing some indirect and ingenious methods. This is why a teacher is required. Some of the important techniques used are enumerated below.

1. Upanishads can reveal Brahman by using apparent or unreal attributes— mithya attributes. Example: Revealing the sky by the blue colour of the sky which is not its real attribute. Another example is the reference to the rising or setting sun; here, rising and setting are unreal attributes. The witness attribute of Brahman is also in the same category. 2. Incidental attribute used to reveal an object. Such an attribute is not an intrinsic attribute. For example, consider the classic example of identifying a house in a colony of similar houses. One can identify it by pointing out a crow sitting on the roof-top of the house. Another example is that of the human body which is used to reveal permanent consciousness although body is not an intrinsic part of consciousness. 3. Absence of attributes is used as a method of revelation. Example: Consider several glasses containing different types of liquids but one is empty. We refer to an empty glass. Here, emptiness connotes absence of things; emptiness is a negative attribute. 4. Indirect reference to Brahman: Even in ordinary conversations, we do employ this technique though not deliberately. If a mother having two sons says that her elder son is intelligent, she would also have said something about her younger son’s intelligence without uttering a word about him. This is communication without communication. It is non-verbal communication. The Neti method of Upanishads belongs to this category.

Upanishadic words successfully reveal Brahman.

Next, we move on to another interesting question. It is generally believed that knowledge is complete when it is associated with direct experience. One can talk about the beauty of Gangotri and Badrinath in the Himalayas but this knowledge is incomplete unless one directly experiences it. Words are capable of giving jnanam but not experience. The question naturally arises: Vedanta is in the form of words and can at best give knowledge only and it would be incomplete without conversion into experience. Varieties of are talked about for converting jnanam into Brahma anubhavam. Meditation ranks high as a for this purpose. It is believed that while sravanam is meant for acquiring jnanam, meditation is meant for experience. But this conclusion is fallacious.

5 Vedanta does not give anubhava. It does not want to give anubhava. We do not require any new experience at all. The problem is not lack of experience; the problem, on the other hand, is the lack of knowledge.

All our Self experiences belong to two types: a) dvaita anubhava and b) advaita anubhava. According to Vedanta, we have actually gone through both types of experiences. The waking and dream state experiences are dvaita experiences where there is the subject-object duality. We experience localization, divisions, space and time, finite I etc. But if we consider the experience of the sleep state, there is no duality of subject and object in it. In fact, it is advaita anubhava. There is no feeling of limited I, no feeling of space and time etc. One cannot talk about varieties of advaita anubhava. Since a) and b) are inclusive of all types of experiences, Vedanta does not want to give a new experience.

The problem is, in dvaita experience, we talk of limited I and in advaita experience, we talk of limitless I. Which one is our real nature is the question. One must be real and another unreal. Before studying Vedanta, we had concluded that limited I is our real nature. Vedanta sets right this conclusion by pointing out that limitless I is our real nature.

Mandukya Upanishad analyzes the three states of experience and arrives at the proper knowledge. This knowledge is enough for liberation.

Upanishadic inquiry concentrates only on the aspect of knowledge. That is why Upanishads are also called jnana khanda. The earlier portions of the Vedas are called khanda. Jnana khanda’s focus is exclusively on one’s nature— one’s svarupam. That is why it is also called atma . Atma which is limitless is also called Brahma and therefore Upanishads are also known as Brahma vidya. The word Upanishad consists of three syllables: upa, ni, and shad. Upa means knowledge which has to be gathered from a guru. Specifically, this knowledge is not gathered by meditation, intuition etc. Rather it is gained by tuition! Ni stands for knowledge free from all doubts—nishchaya jnanam. And finally, the syllable sad (not the English sad!) has two meanings. One meaning is destroyer of ignorance; a second meaning that is relevant to this text is a carrier—that which carries the jivatma up to paramatma. The word carrier is not used to connote a distance between jivatma and paramatma. In fact, it removes the notion of difference between the two by showing their identity.

Each Upanishad consists of a group of dialogs between the teacher and the student—between the guru and shishya. Many Upanishads are believed to be lost over the passage of time. There are 108 Upanishads that are available. Out of them 10 are popular because the prominent of the Vedanta, including Shankara, have written commentaries on them. Mandukya Upanishad which is the text under study is one of them. It is the smallest of the Upanishads consisting of only 12 and it is classified under Atharva Veda. The author’s name is Manduka rishi. It is a comprehensive Upanishad. In Muktikopa

6 Upanishad, which is not one of the ten Upanishads, there is a dialog between and Anjaneya. This Upanishad gives plenty of information about all Upanishads in general, but singles out Mandukya for its breadth and depth of its scope. It says that the study of Mandukya enables one to attain liberation.

The principal commentary on Mandukya is by Gauda Pada who occupies an exalted position in the guru parampara. From his name, it is inferred that he must have come from North Bengal. In this parampara, both mythological and historical teachers are included. Another feature of the teacher and student involved in the dialogs is that it is very often a dialog between father and son. But later in the parampara, there is a definite transformation from grihasta parampara to a sanyasi parampara.

Gauda Pada’s karika consists of 215 verses. It is customary to do a combined study of the Upanishad and the karika which totals to 227 verses. The text is divided into 4 chapters. Each chapter is known as a prakaranam. The four prakaranams are: 1) Agama Prakaranam; 2) Vaithathya Prakaranam; 3) Advaita Prakaranam; and 4) Alata Shanti Prakaranam. We start with Agama prakaranam. It consists of the entire Upanishad and, in addition, some karikas; the prominence here is for the Upanishadic verses. Later prakaranams consists of verses from the kariaka only.

Invocation

The shantipatha is the one that is common to all the Upanishads of Atharva Veda. In essence, the prayer consists of asking for 3 boons: 1) ayushyam— prayer to live long enough to complete the study of the scriptures; 2) arogyam— health of sthula shariram, sense organs, mind, and intellect; and 3) nirvighna— freedom from obstacles to the study of Vedanta.

The first six mantras of Agama prakaranam are Upanishadic mantras. They introduce two types of inquiry: a) -kara —analysis of OM which leads to the ultimate truth and b) Atma vichara—analysis of the Self. From verses 3 to 7, the text deals with the elaboration of atma vichara and from verses 8 to 12, they are devoted to OM-kara vichara. By studying OM-kara, the whole gamut of the inquiry into creation is dealt with. It deals with the past, present, and future aspects of creation. It also deals with aspects transcending time and space. Both empirical and absolute aspects are gone into in the study of OM-kara. Thus the study of everything in creation is reduced to the study of OM.

The second method which is equally valid for the study of everything is through atma vicharaha. Everything is Brahman and so inquire into Brahman. But Brahman is nothing but . Therefore, the inquiry into everything reduces to the inquiry of the Self. The maha vakya of Mandukya is Ayamatma Brahma.

7 Atma vichara

Having delineated two methods of inquiry, we will take up atma vichara first. Atma has four padas, meaning facets. Before going into details of the four facets, we will, at the outset, present a bird’s eye-view of the inquiry. This presentation of Mandukya is considered to be unique.

Some basic ideas are discussed first. If anything in creation has to be proved to be existent, a particular condition has to be satisfied. It should be possible for that entity to become an object of knowledge. It is called prameyatvam. To prove the object to be existent, it should become an object of any one of the pramanas. Next, we further enlarge the scope of prameyatvam by stating that the entity should have been an object of knowledge in the past, or it should be possible for it to become an object of knowledge in the future for one pramanam or another. We can extend the scope of the concept of prameyatvam even further by saying that the entity should become an object of knowledge, not necessarily by one- self, but also by some one or the other; this some-one should be a living being including animals and plants. The concept of Prameyatvam is wide in scope because it includes all the three conditions discussed above. We can now conclude that a thing is existent only if it satisfies prameyatvam.

Prameyatvam is possible only if there is a knower principle, called pramata. Consequently, the object of knowledge has dependence on the knower principle.

Next, pramata is possible only if I the consciousness principle chooses to know something by employing a pramana. In the waking state, various instruments are used. Similarly, in the dream state, sapna pramanas are employed to know a sapna object. In susupti, no pramanams are employed since there is no more a knower in that state.

Knower is not an independent entity either. It comes into existence only when I choose to know. Consequently, knower is also a dependent entity like prameya, but with a small difference. The dependence of prameya is indirect whereas the dependence of pramata is direct. Both knower and knowable depends on atma, the consciousness principle.

From the study of previous Upanishads, we know that whatever has dependent status is mithya. There is no substantiality to them. Whatever is mithya is only nama rupa—has names and forms only.

I the vastu alone appear as pramata and prameya. There are three categories of mithya nama rupa. These are: a) mithya nama rupas in waking state; these are sthula names and forms; similarly, we have in sapna avastha, sukshma nama rupa; and in susupti, all potential names and forms are called karana nama rupa. Corresponding to the three states of consciousness, we can talk of the three pairs: jagrat pramata and jagrat prameya, sapna pramata and

8 sapna prameya, and susupti pramata and susupti prameya. These are the three veshams—costumes to play three different roles.

But who am I, looking at myself from my own standpoint? I am atma, not playing the role of knower and known.

We have outlined four facets of atma. Of these the first three corresponding to jagrat, sapna, and susupti are mithyam, and only the turiya atma is real. By mithyam, we mean that they are associated with only names and forms. We will take up the study of the four facets of consciousness in the same order proceeding from jagrat to turiya.

Sthula atma is the consciousness principle obtaining in the waking state. This I applies to both the known principle and to the knowable principle—to both pramata and prameya. Knower I is associated with individual body as a waker. Consciousness is turned outwards—it is extroverted consciousness. There are nineteen counters to interact with the external world: 5 sense organs + 5 organs of action + 5 types of vital airs + 4 internal organs—mind, intellect, memory, and ego principles. In the waking state, we experience the external world; gross elements (bhautika prapancha) are experienced. VISWAHA is the technical name for jagrat. I the one consciousness is all pervading with varieties of nama rupa prevailing in our external universe. The samashti aspect (or the macro aspect) of consciousness in the waking state is called VIRAT ISWARAHA. It is also known by other names such as VISWARUPA ISWARAHA. In , Viswarupa Iswaraha or Virat is called Saptanga Iswaraha because seven limbs are delineated to describe this cosmic person. The limbs are 1) heaven; 2) Sun (I of the Virat); 3) describing the breathing of Virat; 4) representing the mouth of the Virat; 5) Entire Space representing the body of Virat; 6) Water to represent the bladder of Virat—it consists of the entire ocean; and 7) Prithvi to represent the feet of the Virat. In sum, jagrat Prameya along with jagrat pramata is the first pada.

The second pada is the svapna pada. It is the I obtaining in the dream state that is associated with dream names and forms. Dream states are merely mental projections. Sukshma atma also has the micro and macro aspects. The discussion runs on the same lines as of sthula atma. The sukshma pramata is called TAIJASAHA and the sukshma prameya is called HIRANYAGARBHA. In sapna, one experiences only the internal world. During the waking state, impressions are recorded in the minds and these impressions are played back in the dream state; there is no new recording in this state. Because of the latter, sense organs are not required. However, one needs dream ears to hear dream sound. One can talk of 19 dream organs as part of the equipment of the dream state. Dream sense objects are made out of vasanas, not out of the 5 gross elements.

9 The I as obtaining in the sleep state is called susupti pada. The susupti state is made clear by properly defining it unlike jagrat and sapna which are considered obvious and hence are not explicitly defined. In susupti, there is no desire for an external object. This is not because the individual has attained liberation but it is because of the lack of experience of external objects. Similarly, there is no experience of the internal universe. Dreamless sleep is also called deep sleep. Name of consciousness in susupti state is karanatma. This is the state where all the differences have merged. Sense organs are resolved; this does not mean non-existence but merely that they have gone into a potential condition. Whenever an object is experienced, there is also a corresponding cognition of it. If more than one object is experienced, there is also a differentiation in cognition of the multiple objects. In the sleep state, since differentiations in cognition are also resolved, there is no differential knowledge either.

Karanatma is also discussed from both the micro and macro angles—from both vyasti and samashti angles. The I obtaining in micro state is called PRAJNANAM. It is a state where all the knowledge of specific disciplines are merged into an undifferentiated form. In susupti, this state is saturated with ananda, a blissful happiness. Two reasons are stated to explain this ananda. First, the individual names and forms are resolved in this state. For instance, there is no feeling that I am a human being. I am no longer a localized individual. This feeling of limitation has vanished. There is an experience of anantatvam— limitlessness. It is called anandamaya to indicate that the feeling of limitlessness is temporary. The second reason is that there is no feeling of division either of dvaita or triputi; dvaita refers to the subject-object duality whereas triputi is the division caused by three factors: subject, object, and instrumentality. Savikalpa avastha is the name for a state with division and nirvikalpa avastha which obtains in susupti is the state without divisions. There is no experience of raga and dvesa—of likes and dislikes and consequently, no experience of samsara. The more general comment is that nirvikalpa avastha is temporary whether experienced in susupti or in . That is why Vedanta points out that one has to work for nirvikalpika jnanam which ensures bliss all the time. Nirvikalpaka avastha is what comes under yogic disciplines whereas nirvikalpaka jnanam is what Vedanta ensures. There is a world of difference between the two objectives.

In susupti, experience is through karana sariram. Only registration of experience takes place whereas there is no awareness of ananda at the time of registering. It is unlike what happens in the waking and dream states where there is both experience and awareness of it at the same time. How does one know that difference which is special to susupti? After waking up from sleep, one says that ` I slept well’ in the past tense. In the waking and dream states, the use of present tense is possible since registration is through sukshma sariram.

Prajnaha can take on two meanings: 1) One who is totally ignorant of everything from the micro standpoint, and 2) sarvagnyaha, all-knowing, from the macro standpoint of total names and forms.

10

A waker cannot directly become a dreamer. He has to pass through the sleep state to become a dreamer. Similarly, dreamer cannot become a waker without going through the intermediate state of sleeper. The link between dreamer and waker is only through sleep. In the waking state, the identification is with the given physical body whereas in the dream state, the identification is with the dream body. Physical bodies are different and so one cannot simultaneously use two physical bodies. The intermediate gap between the two bodies has to be recognized however small it is which pertains to the susupti state. The intermediate gap is figuratively described as the gateway between Viswa and Teijasa.

Next, we discuss the Karana atma of the whole universe which consists of all the names and forms. Iswara is the name of consciousness with total names and forms. It is similar to our reference to an ocean which really refers to a body of water. There is no substance called Iswara.

Potential names and forms alone will differentiate. Worship of linga is because its spherical form contains all conceivable forms. The first and second padas are karyam—products that exist within time.

The fourth pada refers to the absolute, that which lies beyond time. I am that absolute consciousness.

The third pada is not only the material cause—upadana karanam, but it is also the intelligent cause—nimitta karanam.

The pairs corresponding to vyashti and samashti of each of the padas, namely, viswa and virat, Tejasa and Hiranyagarbha, Pragya and Iswara, are nothing but six veshas (costumes) of the absolute consciousness.

I in my third vesha is antaryami. In my absolute nature, I am divested of all the six veshas. Having a vesha means playing a role with its attendant problems. Even in his role as srishtikarta has to confront the problem of deciding when to take a new . Absolute consciousness does not have to play any roles and so is free from problems.

Summary of the three padas

The three padas can now be summarized. Each pada is assigned a location for the sake of . The three types of experiences corresponding to the three padas are called bhoga thrayam. Tripti trayam is what each pleases the pada; we offer tarpanam to each pada.

First pada is the waker I, sthulatma. It is turned externally. Virat is the total macro nama-rupa. Second pada refers to the dreamer I, sukshmatma. Every object is a

11 thought in mind turned inwards. It performs the function of a replay of vasanas. The third pada refers to the sleeper I, pragyaha. All knowledge has merged into a mass of consciousness.

All the above padas are one and the same with different roles for I the absolute consciousness.

There are three types of . In one, we meditate upon the oneness of the veshas. The focus is on the identity of micro and macro aspects and so it is called vyashti-samashti upasana. Individual does not exist apart from the society. Vedanta can work when the ego is thinned out. We consider the twin aspects of the vesham. We need a locus for this prayer. The location is within ourselves.

Viswaha: Invoke waker I upon your right eye. Eyes are powerful organs to interact with the external world. Right eye is considered to be more powerful. Tejasaha: The subconscious mind is the locus. Pragyaha: The hridayam is considered to be the locus because during sleep, all faculties are considered to be withdrawn into hridayam. The sleeper enjoys ananda.

Bhoga thrayam refers to the three-fold experiences. In the experience of ananda, there is no experience of divisions. We love to enter the sleep state which is an universal experience. Advaitam alone is ananda. No one lacks advaita anubhava. All that we do not know is that it is our real nature and not incidental to it. The advaitic knowledge is that we are spiritual beings temporarily having a human experience.

Tripti trayam is one what satisfies the three states of experience.

The assurance is that when a person knows the three padas clearly, he is free from karma phalas. What does one mean by clear knowledge in this context? It is the understanding that the consciousness principle is the bhokta in all the three padas, and only the medium of transaction is different in each pada. Also, the objective universe is one and the same but with different names and forms. The seeker knows that I am the consciousness principle and consequently, is not affected by the experiences in the three padas.

In karana atma, everything is in potential state, called laya. We can extend the same observation to the cosmic level which is pralaya. Laya and pralaya refer to the micro and macro aspects of the same principle. Other synonymous words are nidra and nidra, respectively. Consciousness in addition to potential matter is called Iswara.

Creation

12 The topic of creation, srishti, is of interest both in philosophy and science. There are several cosmological theories but none in a conclusive way. Vedanta offers its own theory of creation and the karika makes comments on some other theories. According to Vedanta, it is a misnomer to call it creation since no creation is logically possible. It is called ajati vada which negates the very idea of creation. We know matter cannot be either created or destroyed. Only reshaping and naming alone have been done. Any law true to a human being is also true to God. Also, consciousness cannot be created. Consequently, questions of where, when, how and why pertaining to creation by God are ill-posed. All that has happened is that we go from an unmanifest form to a manifest form and we call it figuratively as creation. All the things of creation are already existent in potential form; only they are brought to manifestation. When a thing is in its potential form it is as good as non-existent because of its lack of utility. All reflecting media and reflecting consciousnesses are products of manifestation—all achetana and chetana prapancha are products of manifestation.

Is manifested creation real? The analogy for this type of creation in the macro world is the dream creation which is mithya. Comments on some theories of creation will follow next along with the rebuttals.

Creation is a glory of the Lord. It is as real as God himself. But Vedanta compares creation to a dream and magic. Another theory holds that creation is a of the Lord. In that case why should I suffer is the rebuttal. Another theory states that creation is a leela; it is for the enjoyment of the Lord. But Bhagavan is every fulfilled. Why should he look for fun?

Why did Bhagavan create this world? World has always been there as Bhagavan’s non-separable feature. Then, in that case, why do we have to put up with all the sufferings? The significant answer to this question is that creation is an inseparable feature but belongs to a lower order of reality and so the Lord is not affected by it.

Turiyam

Next, the karika takes up the seventh of the Upanishad which is on turiyam. Before getting into a detailed discussion, Swamiji was eager to clear a popular misconception regarding turiya. In the discussion of the three padas of jagrat, sapna, and susupti, a common feature is association with a state. Is the fourth pada concerning turiya also associated with a state like the earlier three? The answer is definitely in the negative. There is no fourth state of experience. Turiya state is a mistaken conception. A discussion of turiya pada does not necessitate a knowledge of turiya avastha. A mistaken connection between the two exacerbates the situation by borrowing many words from yoga sastra. The strong advice at the very outset is to drop the misconception of a state associated with turiya. Mandukya Upanishad does not talk about turiya avastha because there is no fourth state.

13

Turiyam is different from the first three padas but it does not distance from them. It is in and through Virat, , and Pragya. Turiyam is available in all the three. It exists with Virat, Teijasa, and Pragya. The cycle of the latter three states does not affect turiyam. ` I am the waker’, ` I am the dreamer’, and `I am the sleeper’; ` I am’ is common to all the three. It is called shudda chaitanya tatvam and not intrinsic features of the three states. Turiyam is different from the three pramatas and also different from the three corresponding prameyas also. Turiyam is both transcendental and immanent.

Turiyam is further described by some choice words. It is called adrishtam, meaning that it is not an object that can be perceived by the eyes; the more general meaning is that it cannot be perceived by any sense organs. It is also called agocharam, meaning it is not accessible. The third description is that turiyam is agrahyam, meaning that it cannot be grasped by the organs of action. It is also called alakshanam, meaning that it does not give an inferential clue which anumana pramana inapplicable. Further, it is called achintyam, meaning that it is inconceivable; as a result, we conclude that whatever can be conceived is not turiyam. Turiyam is also avyapadesa meaning that one cannot give verbal expression to what it is. In which case, one can raise the question about the appropriateness of the teaching of Vedanta. The guru-shishya parampara employs special techniques for giving indirect expression to the teaching of turiya. Turiya is also avyaharam meaning that it is beyond all transactions. It is non-empirical. It is absolute and is beyond all space and time.

So far, we have given some negative definitions of turiyam. There is also a positive definition. Turiyam is defined as the pure consciousness that can be traced through the I experience, or I cognition. It is one continuous principle prevailing throughout one’s life time. In life’s experiences, there is a juxtaposition of a changeless I with changing experiences. It is eka atma pratyaha. The continuous experience indicates that I am a conscious entity. Along with I, I had some attributes such as: I am happy, I am not happy etc. These attributes, however, are not continuously present. The changing feature cannot be my real nature. Attribute arrive and depart while consciousness alone is continuous. (I am something)- (something) = turiya. We remove the continuous attribute through an intellectual operation.

Turiyam is free from the three universes pertaining to the three padas of jagrat, sapna and susupti. Consequently, it is not associated with the material world. The significance of world negation can be brought to a focus by stating two laws. First, anything that is existent cannot be negated. Second, what is non-existent need not be negated. The corollary that follows from these two laws is: whatever is negated cannot come under either existent or non-existent category. Dreams are illustrative of this phenomenon.

14 If the world is negated, it is not either sat or asat. It is mithya described as sat- asat vilakshanam. The world is seemingly existent is the conclusion. Consciousness is real and matter is unreal. Consciousness is advaitam.

The I of the triad of states is impure; it is adulterated. We can talk of incidental nature of a substance as also of its intrinsic nature. The former is of a temporary aspect of it characterized by arrival and departure whereas the latter is permanent. Heat in fire is intrinsic; in hot water, the heat is an incidental aspect.

In the triad of states, when we remove their incidental aspects, what remains is their intrinsic nature which is turiyam. Consciousness is the essential nature of the three states. It is the svabhavika . Wakerhood is not my intrinsic nature. If that were so, I would stay awake throughout which is an absurd proposition. A similar conclusion holds for the dream state and the susupti state where the mind is resolved. The conclusion is that waking, dreaming, and sleeping are attributes of the mind which are essential for purposes of transaction. But when these are filtered only pure consciousness remains. The separation is an intellectual process, not a physical one. Claiming I is turiya jnanam. This is eka atma prathyaha saraha.

We now proceed to the karika which elaborates on the teaching of the Upanishadic mantra.

Real I is powerful. I the turiyam is free from all the pain of the world. It is not affected by the sorrow of jagrat and sapna states, and the sorrow in potential form in the susupti state. We have an important lesson that can be stated as follows: `Illuminator of an object is not affected by the properties of the illumined object.’ I the turiyam will not go through a decline. It is the indivisible principle among all the divisible things of the world. I am self-evident, self-effulgent. I am self-evident during the triad of states. Where is this I located? Consciousness is all-pervasive. It is in the body also.

Common and Uncommon features of the padas

Next, we enter into a compare- and- contrast study of the padas. We account for their common features and also delve into their uncommon features. This study is based on a particular methodology for which the rope and snake example serves the explanatory purpose.

Consider a rope lying on the ground and the place is not well-lit. When one comes across this dimly lit object, one has the partial knowledge of the rope combined with a partial ignorance of the rope. This is the ideal condition for committing a mistake. The ignorance about the rope leads us to committing a mistake of taking the rope to be a snake. This error is possible because of the ignorance. Ignorance is the cause and error is the effect.

15 Likewise, the entire life of a human being comprises of ignorance plus error. The essential nature is turiyam which is all pervasive. But right from birth, I do not know this limitlessness. We all have the problem of Self ignorance comparable to rope ignorance. The error in this case is I mistake myself as the limited I. When I am the waker, I look upon myself as a limited I which is an error. A similar statement holds for the dreamer. For a sleeper I, we don’t say I am a limited I. Instead, we say that in sleep there is an ignorance of limitless I. Knowledge is not there.

There are 4 different expressions: agrahanam which means non-comprehension caused by ignorance; anyatha grahanam is the error. Karanam which is ignorance and karyam which is an error. Ignorance is seed and error is tree. Ignorance is sleep or nidra and error is sapna. Some of these synonymous expressions are introduced because the karika uses them in different contexts.

Viswa, the waker, is associated with both ignorance and error. The waker does not know I am the paramatma’ and instead believes that ` I am the jivatma’. The dreamer also suffers from ignorance and consequently, commits the error; during the dream also, he does not know that he is the limitless paramatma and identifies with the status of a limited jivatma. In pragyaha, the sleeper is associated with karanam; it is total ignorance or pure ignorance. However, he does not commit an error of assuming a wrong identity. In this state, I am free from errors because my mind is resolved. Total ignorance is always a bliss. A rope found in pitch darkness is identified with rope ignorance, but there is no erroneous perception of snake. In total ignorance, there is no samsara and also in total knowledge there is no samsara, because in both cases there is no error.

In turiyam, there is neither ignorance nor error. It is pure consciousness which is the illuminator of both ignorance and error. The reason for this is because pure consciousness is asangaha. It is relationless like space; it is not connected with anything. Consciousness is of a higher order of reality—it is paramarthika whereas ignorance and error belong to a lower order of reality. A third reason is also given. Illuminator of a thing is not affected by what it illumines; ignorance and error cannot touch the illuminator.

In sum, in the waker state there is both ignorance and error; in the dream state also there is both ignorance and error; in the sleeping state, there is only ignorance and no error; and in turiya, there is neither ignorance nor error.

It is freedom from ignorance and error that ensures turiyam. This can be stated as a corollary to the analysis of the four padas from the standpoint of the presence and or absence of error.

Corollary: A seeker can attain the status of turiyam when error-backed ignorance is eliminated from him.

16 The question arises as to how one can remove ignorance and error? Any attempt to directly remove ignorance is as futile as an attempt to directly remove darkness. Instead, the indirect method to achieve the objective is to bring light to remove the darkness. Similarly, ignorance of the Self is removed by jnanam. With the removal of ajnanam, error also will disappear. How does one gain jnanam? For this, is prescribed for gaining chitta (purification of the mind), upasana yoga or meditative disciplines are prescribed to gain chitta (one-pointedness of the mind), and is prescribed for gaining spiritual knowledge. The latter is achieved through the disciplines of sravana, , and nidhidhyasana.

The logical question that can be raised is `how did ignorance come about at all’? The answer to this troubling question is that ignorance has always been there without a beginning. Jiva has been in a state of philosophical delusion without a beginning. The silver lining is that a few are awakened to their real nature; the awakening is due to spiritual knowledge. An awakened jiva understands he is the turiya of the 4 padas. In the wake of knowledge, duality is negated. But can any knowledge of duality negate the world of plurality? Can such a knowledge eliminate anything? But what is eliminated is the delusion that there is a dvaita prapanca. Really speaking, advaitam always exists; there can only be the delusion of dvaitam in between.

There is one more technical point that needs to be brought to the fore. Jnanam eliminates all dvaitam including the dvaitam that forms the basis for jnanam itself. It is believed that a knower—known duality is necessary for the acquisition of knowledge. What goes away is only the notion of division. The scriptures temporarily accepts the division of subject and object for the sake of imparting the teaching. Once successful, there is no duality. I don’t claim to be a jnani because it involves division. The assertion is I am the turiyam.

Whenever the negation of dvaitam or negation of the notion of dvaitam is emphasized, it is important to note that the experience of dvaitam can never be negated. If that were to be true there could not be even a guru-shishya dialogue. Perceptual dvaitam will have to continue without any suggestion of negation. Sense organs are not designed to know reality. They can only have working knowledge or vyavaharika satyam, or empirical facts.

The four matras of OM-karaha

Now we move to the 8th upanishadic mantra of the karika. It starts with a discussion of Omkara. Just as atma has four padas, OM also has four padas. It is a mono-syllabled word with 4 parts. Each part is called a matra. The first matra is the first letter of the alphabet. Although there is not an equivalent for it in the English language, the closest that we can accept is the letter A. Next, is the letter U; again, it does not exactly conform to the Sanskrit letter. The third letter is

17 M. The fourth matra is the silence that follows the pronunciation of the three letters: AUM.

Next, we equate atma and OM in all respects. Both have 4 parts. Equate each part of the atma with the corresponding part of OM. The advantage of this equation is that it can be used for meditation. OM-kara analysis leads to total silence which is our innermost nature. To repeat, total atma is equated to total OM. Each pada equated to each matra.

Why is the first letter A equated to the first pada, the waker principle? Why this association? Symbol and object must have some common feature. For example, the colour green is equated with prosperity. Because lush-green nature is associated with prosperity. Similarly, the macro aspect of the waker principle, Virat, is all pervasive. And so is the letter A. Phonetics will confirm that the pronunciation of the first letter of the Sanskrit alphabet starts with the basic sound and is capable of producing all other sounds. This letter which we have called A is the material cause for all the letters of the alphabet. Each letter of the alphabet has a devata associated with it. For A, it is Brahma. The second common feature in the equation is that the virat is born first and individuals follow. Similarly, A is born first. We meditate on virat by using the symbol A.

The second matra, U of the English alphabet, symbolizes Hiranyagarbha of the dream state. There are two common features. Hiranyagarbha, which is the macro state of this pada, is considered to be superior to Virat; the subtle universe is superior to the gross universe because the former is the cause and the latter is the effect. Virat is born out of Hiranyagarbha. Likewise, U of OM (AUM) is considered superior to A because of phonetic considerations. The second common feature is the middle status; hiranyagarbha comes in between virat and antaryami. This is described by the word ubhayatvam. We are advised to do Upasana because the second matra symbolizes this goddess. The advantages accruing from this upasana are also stated. One will become learned. Even rival groups will accept him because he is liked by all.

The third matra is M which symbolizes Antaryami pertaining to the sleeping state. It is the ground of resolution. It is comparable to a measure. When a person measures a produce, the unit of the produce goes from the invisible state to the visible state and the cycle repeats. The benefit promised is that the meditator will acquire the capacity for assigning proportions properly and develop the ability for making the right judgment.

Next, the author comments on a different topic though connected with the main theme. Word is called padam in Sanskrit, and a substance is called padartha. Our normal understanding is that a word reveals a substance. Consider the 4 padams: bangle, chain, ring, and gold. Each padam reveals a padartha. On inquiry, bangle, chain, and ring do not represent padarthas at all. It is gold that is the common to all the three and is a substance. On inquiry, the 3 padarthas are

18 dismissed. Along with them, their corresponding padas are also dismissed. Similarly, inquiry into the four padas reveals turiyam is the only substance. The other three, namely, sthula, sukshma, and karana padarthas and padas are dismissed. It is called pada-padartha vilakshanam. In the correspondence between OM and the four padas, turiyam corresponds to silence following the three matras: A, U, and M. Amatra is the only substance; it is the silence which follows OM. Silence is not merely absence of sound. It is the consciousness principle which illumines the absence of sound. Silence is the presence of chaitanyam. It will coexist with sound also. Having equated the padas with the letters of OM, indulge in nidhidhyasanam, the process of assimilation.

Summary

This is a brief summary of the first chapter called agama prakaranam. It consists of 12 Upanishadic mantras and 29 karikas, commentaries in verse form. Mandukya Upanishad belongs to atharvana veda. The prominence is given to the 12 Upanishadic mantras.

The first 2 mantras consist of the introduction. It introduces 2 types of inquiry into Self. First is the Chatushpada atma vichara and the second is Chaturmatra OM- karaha: the four padas of the Self and the four aspects of OM. The purpose of the inquiry is to arrive at the absolute reality. Mantras 3 to 7 are on the first inquiry and mantras 8-12 are on the second.

In the first inquiry, I the atma, in its first facet, is the one obtaining in the waking state. The waker I is endowed with attributes such as individuality etc. It is in this state, jagrat avastha, one contacts the external world. There is a feeling of limitedness as described by finite I. At the micro-level, waker I is called Viswa and at the macro-level waker I is called Virat.

The second I is the one obtaining in the dream state. The dreamer I does not function through the physical body, but through the . Attributed I is finite and localized. Dreamer I has 2 names: Teijasa and Hiranyagarbha.

The third I refers to the sleep state of experience. The mind is in a resolved condition. The medium is the , the karana sariram which is in a dormant form. Attributes are in a potential form and they resurface when one wakes up. The sleeper I is also a limited I only. It has two names corresponding to the micro and macro states: Pragya and Iswara.

Then, the Upanishad inquires into the essential nature, the turiyam I, also called the witness I. This I is free from attributes. It is called nirguna I. It is the limitless I. To have a particular attribute, all other attributes have to be kept out. One assertion means the negation of many others and hence the limitedness. Turiyam, which is attributeless, is shantam and shivam.

19 How can one know I the turiyam? In which state is the nirguna I available? Such a question arises because of what we have found in our discussion of the saguna states, namely, the waker, dreamer and sleeper states. But to talk of a state in connection with turiya is a misconception. This is what makes us believe in the wrong idea that turiya is available in samadhi state. If this is the conclusion, where is nirguna available? The answer is unequivocal: turiya has to be discovered in the 3 saguna states.

The next question is: how can I arrive at nirguna I from saguna I? The first step in the discovery is to realize the distinguishing features of nirguna I from saguna I; the form is attributeless and the latter is with attributes. Consequently, negation of all the attributes of saguna I should land us in turiya I. For instance, waker I without attributes is turiya I.

The question then arises: How to remove the attributes? Interestingly, we need not remove the attributes per se. One has to understand that turiya I can never take any attributes. For example, light falling on dirt will not absorb the attribute of dirt; a movie screen remains untouched by the scenes of the movie. Turiya is described as asangaha.

It is knowledge that helps one to disown the attributes. The journey from viswam to turiyam is through knowledge. The same is true of dreamer I and sleeper I.

With this the first inquiry into Self through a discussion of the four padas is over. Next, the second inquiry into Self, based on OM, is taken up.

The main thrust of this inquiry is to establish a correspondence with the three matras A, U, M, and the amatra corresponding to the silence that follows the three matras with the four padas discussed earlier. The seeker has to begin with upasana on these correspondences: A with virat, U with Hiranyagarbha, and M with Iswara. The deep silence following the three matras corresponds to turiya.

In the karika section, there is a discussion of the differences and similarities of the 4 padas. This takes us to a discussion of ignorance and error which have discussed earlier. Turiya is free from both ignorance and error; sleeping state is replete with ignorance but free from error; and in the waking and dream states, there is both ignorance and error. There is also a comment on how idea the word OM is for upasana. It is an ideal name for Brahman. All other names pertain to either the saguna aspect or the nirguna aspect but OM combines both. The sound part of OM corresponds to the saguna aspect and the silence that follows to the nirguna aspect. Shift from sound to intermediary silence and dwell on silence. Reflect on the teaching.

Chapter 2: Vaithathya Prakaranam

20 Swamiji’s introduction:

Veda is called agama that is handed down through guru-shishya parampara. Agama has also a second meaning in agama sastra and that has to do with the manner of construction of a temple and worship of the deity. There are shiva agama sastra, agama sastra etc., with their own special mantras and . We only accept their methods of but not the philosophies associated with them.

The second chapter has 38 verses of the karikas. It is devoted to an important word of the Upanishad that has appeared earlier, namely, prapanca upasamam or prapancopasamam. The focus is on this latter word that is used in the definition of turiyam. Prapanca means the universe, the 3-fold universe spanned by the 3-padas, namely, sthula, sukshma, and karana prapancas. Upasamaha means free from. And therefore the compound word prapancopasamam means free from 3 prapancas.

Upanishad is negating the entire universe—prapanca nisheda phalam. Significance of world negation is a technical topic that needs proper justification. What can one negate? Do we negate an existent or a non-existent thing? Vedanta says that both are not possible: an existent thing cannot be negated because of the sheer fact that it is existent and the question of a non-existent thing does not arise at all. Whatever is negated should be different from either an existent or a non-existent thing. A negated thing is therefore sat-asat vilakshanam. It is asserted that the world comes under this category because the upanishad negates the world. What is negated is a seemingly existent thing which is called mithya. Some of the examples given are mirage water, rope- snake, and a dream. Prapanca mithyartham is roughly translated as `unreality of the world’ but the word mithya should be retained to convey the precise meaning. The implicit idea of jagan mithya is commented on. It refers to the unreality of the 3 padas. The conclusion we arrive at is that since the world is mithya, it should not be counted along with turiyam. Turiyam is advaitam which is another word that is the subject matter of the next chapter.

How do we account for the word turiyam itself? How can we say it is non-dual? Turiyam is considered to be fourth state only by the ignorant people. Wise people consider it as advaitam. Prapancopasamam and advaitam are considered to be complementary ideas.

Veda has revealed the unreality of the world. However, Gauda Pada (GP) proceeds to establish it from logical considerations. sastra and tarka sastra deal with methods of reasoning. The methodology consists of gathering data or general knowledge through our perception. For example, we have the a priori knowledge that smoke and fire coexist. Wherever there is smoke, there is fire. This is called jnanam, general knowledge that is gathered by observation. When we see a distant mountain and see smoke, we can recall our

21 knowledge of coexistence of smoke and fire, and we can infer there is fire although we don’t actually see it. The method of inference consists of four components: 1) mountain is the locus; 2) sadhyam is the conclusion; 3) indicator (presence of smoke)—is called hetu; 4) drishtantara—an example—in the yogashala, we have gathered vyapti jnanam.

Mithyartham of dream

We use this method to arrive at the unreality of the world. The world we experience is the locus. The conclusion to arrive at is the unreality of the world. The hetu, the indicator, is given later. The fourth component, the example, is the dream experience. There is general acceptance that dream experience is unreal. The condition for using it as an example is that there should be no dissent at all in its tacit acceptance. However, there are some philosophers who question its acceptance. Therefore, the author establishes the unreality of dream experience before proceeding with the inference. The first topic of this chapter is the mithyartham of dream. He then proceeds to establish the unreality of jagrat prapanca. The sapna unreality is established by making use of sruti pramana, yukti pramana, and anubhava pramana. He uses yukti first and then sruti and anubhava.

Mithyartha is not directly revealed in the Upanishad but only through implication. Negation of the world—prapanca upasamam—implies mithya. It means a world that is experienceable but which cannot come under reality. Dream is intimately experienced and taken as real at the time of dreaming. In spite of all the dream experiences, they are not taken as real.

Generally speaking, we take an object of the waking state as real. That object requires some specified space to qualify for its existence. This is called uchita desaha. Also, every object has a particular duration for its existence. This is called uchita kalaha. Conversely, if we find an event without space and time specifications, then we conclude it is not real. The reflection of an elephant in a mirror is a mithya reflection. The dream world is mithya because of inappropriate specifications of space and time for the objects for the dream. Logically, dream is unreal. Entire dream world is within the mind. Others cannot see one’s dream. Wise people declare mithyartham of all the objects and beings. Events happen within a few fleeting moments. While we accept them as real while in dreams, we consider them as unreal when we are in our waking state.

We proceed to establish the mithyartham of dreams by appealing to our own experiences. Suppose, in a dream, one has gone to Benares and is roaming in the streets when a cow pushes him down. When he wakes up, he does not wake up in Benares, the place of his dream but where he has gone to bed. It is easy to see that our experience of dream confirms the unreality of the dreams arrived at on the basis of logic.

22 There is also sruti pramana in addition to yukti and anubhava pramanas. , in the svayam jyoti , declares the unreality of dreams even though dreams are experienced. It states that experience does not vouch for reality. Gauda Pada goes further and states that whatever one experiences is not real. There is only one reality. The subject alone is real.

Mithyartham of jagrat

From verses 4 to 18, the karikas reveal a startling truth. Normally, we believe that the waking state is real and the dream state is unreal. We are jolted by the revelation that jagrat is also mithya. This conclusion has to be carefully understood. After waking up, we can say dream world is unreal whereas while in dream it is very much real. The differing conclusions depend on the appropriate standpoint. Is there a difference between mithya of sapna and the mithya of jagrat? The difference is the former is inside the body whereas the latter is outside the body. One has insufficient space and time whereas the second has sufficient space and time. What is common to both is mithyartham.

We proceed to give Shankara’s argument to establish the mithyartha of the jagrat state. The mind-boggling reason given to establish the mithyartha of the conscious state is based on the fact is that whatever is experienced is mithya. In that case, what is satya? Whatever is not seen is satya. Whatever is existent but not experienced is satyam. Drik, the consciousness principle alone is satyam; drisya is unreal.

Existence of an object depends on a subject. But existence of a subject does not depend on the object. Existence depends on knowability and knowability depends on the knower. Dependent existence is mithya whereas independent existence is satya.

We now give Gauda Pada’s argument for establishing the mithyartha of the waking state. He says that whatever is finite is mithya, and whatever that exists in all the three periods of time is satyam.

Any finite object enjoys existence for a finite duration. It has a beginning and an end. Existence is not its intrinsic nature; it is only an incidental property. Heat associated with fire is intrinsic whereas heat associated with hot water is merely an incidental property. This borrowed existence is mithya. This argument can be extended to the universe also since it exists between the finite interval of its creation and dissolution. Atma or Brahman exists in all three periods of time. World, therefore, is similar to any other unreal object. It only appears to be satyam.

Next, the mithyartham of the jagat is further established by clearing doubts raised by some philosophers. There is one philosophical view that the dream world is

23 also real. Visishtadvaitins believe in this view. In dreams, we experience unique things which are quite distinct from what we experience in the waking state. And so they cannot be considered merely as projections. This question is answered by first assuming the assertion to be true and then refuting it. The refutation is based on the earlier argument that the extraordinary experiences of the dream state are also dependent on the observer.

The next questioner is willing to accept dream as unreal but, try as he may, he cannot visualize jagrat to be unreal. He says utility does not enter as a criterion for dream experiences whereas it is definitely a criterion for the waking state. In view of this, he argues that the definition of reality has to be changed to accommodate the criterion of utility. This objection is answered as follows: the criterion of utility for reality is useful only in the waking state but, admittedly, not in the dream state. If utility is the criterion, sapna is real in sapna avastha and jagrat is real in jagrat avastha. In which case, the concept of reality based on utility becomes relative, not absolute. Consequently, the argument based on utility is dismissed.

Next objection. Because a dream is a mental projection, it exists in the form of thoughts and entirely within oneself. This internality makes dream experiences unreal. In contrast to this, jagrat prapanca is very much outside oneself because it is not a mental projection. The assertion is that whatever is external is real. This argument for asserting sapna to be unreal and jagrat to be real is based on the criterion of externality. Refutation is based on the consideration of a reference for judging ideas of inside and outside. For instance, from the coordinates of the dream body, the dream world is outside, not inside. A dream becomes a dream only when one wakes up. When this happens, the reference also changes. The objection based on ideas of internality of a dream experience is only raised when one wakes up. The same argument holds for the jagrat prapanca also; when consciousness is the reference, jagrat prapanca is also internal. In conclusion, the definition of reality underlying this objection is only about relative reality.

Consider a dream #2 within dream #1. Dream #1 is real and dream #2 is unreal. When woken up both are falsified. It is real when the dream lasts and unreal when woken up. All objects are relatively real for that particular subject. When woken up to the ultimate reality, it is an objectless subject. Externality as the criterion for reality is incorrect.

We proceed to the third argument. It is based on the idea that whatever has objective existence is real and whatever has subjective experience is unreal. Subjective existence is existence depending on oneself; objective existence exists whether one perceives the object or not. For example, the vehicle that is parked outside exists whether one experiences it or not. Consider a dream where you are in the process of rescuing a person who is drowning. I wake up. Am I worried about that drowning person in the dream? Dream world has subjective

24 experience. Sapna is subjective only after waking up. Dream world has objective existence from the dreamer’s point of view. This is also a definition of relative reality.

We now come to the fourth definition. It says whatever is clearly experienced is real. The criterion advanced is clarity of experience. The assertion is there is clarity in jagrat experience and consequently it is real, while in sapna clarity is lacking. This is also a definition of relative reality because the ideas of clarity very much depend on organs of perception and instruments used. If we consider different species, we find differing abilities of perception. One can never define the world as is. This is also a definition of relative reality.

Having established the unacceptability of the four definitions discussed so far, Gauda Pada proceeds to establish the mithyartham of the waking world, and the unambiguous assertion that I the turiyam is the only absolute reality. Anything experienced by me in time and space is only an empirical reality. It is real only from a particular standpoint. This jagat prapanca is real from one’s own reference point. The common reference for this is one’s own physical body. Relative reality becomes absolute reality when all people have the same standpoint, their respective gross bodies. If the reference is shifted to dream physical body, this world would become unreal while the dream world remains real. The ideas of reality change when we change the reference point from jagrat to sapna or from one body to another in general. This world is also a virtual reality when the reference is moved from this body. In that case, what is absolute reality? What is changing or passing cannot be real. Eternity is the definition of absolute reality.

Reality, defined on the basis of criteria of utility, externality, objectivity, and clarity, was classified as relative reality. The criterion of eternity defines absolute reality.

Scientific investigation into reality, and reality associated with mystic experiences are both relative because they are non-eternal. In that case, is there anything eternal at all? A changing reality needs a changeless substratum. Vedanta declares that absolute reality is only you, the observer, that is properly understood; it is divested of the three bodies, and it is the conscious principle. It alone is present in all the three states of consciousness. The definition of consciousness is given by the swamiji in his lectures on Tatva Bodha and is not repeated here. I the turiyam is the absolute principle. From my own standpoint, there is no time or space unlike in the three states. There is no known-knower duality. My association with the three states is only veshams. I have the power of . When I associate with maya, I become Pragyaha, the karana Iswara.

Turiyam

How do you know the turiyam? You have to use Vedanta pramana; in particular, I cannot be known through the instruments of knowledge that are used for the

25 study of the world. I am the illuminator of the absence of all particular experiences. I am free from any particular knowledge. I am turiyam all the time and my status cannot be displaced at any time. The relative roles that I take on the three states cannot disturb my absolute status.

Gauda Pada’s first principal lesson from the above discussion is that the world will always be interpreted by differing instruments of knowledge. Eyes reveal colour, ears reveal sound, and X-rays reveal the micro world. In the final analysis, we only experience interpreted truth. Consequently, for experiencing a world without interpretations, a prerequisite is that no instruments of knowledge should be used. But the uninterpreted world cannot be experienced.

The second lesson is that the existence of the world depends on the perceiver. For instance, when the dream perceiver wakes up, the existence of dream world disappears. The general conclusion is that the existence of prameyams depends on the pramata. The world cannot be taken to be absolute. Even meditative experience does not lead to absolute reality. Then, what is absolute reality?

If all of the observed world consists of relative realities, then absolute reality should be different from the perceived world. Perceiver is the only one that is different. Absolute reality is not prameya, but pramata. If pramata is related to prameyam, then that particular pramata is a relative reality. I as a waker is not an absolute reality and the same holds for the dreamer. Consciousness without any relations is alone absolute reality. Such an objectless consciousness is turiya. I with relations is an empirical I and is called , and I without relations is absolute and is called .

Mind is required to create the external world of jagrat and the internal world of sapna. When mind is introvert, the sense organs do not come into play. The internal vasanas (impressions) are activated; it becomes a vasana dominated mind. The extrovert mind is functioning through sense organs. The common observer is chaitanyam. Maya sakti is located in turiyam.

Experience requires both jiva and jagat. Which one came first is a question for which there are differing answers that are mired in logical entanglements. It is the kind of paradoxical problem posed by fate and freewill. But Gauda Pada, as a matter of convenience, starts with jiva first which conforms to common experience. First jivas are created and then the external world. The individual mind looks at the world in different ways; different people like different things of the world. As you look at the world, so you interact.

Both dream and waking worlds are mithya because they depend on the observer. For instance, when the waker is the observer, the dream existence is stripped of its reality. The question of reality is associated with the plane of reality of the observer. Any objective world, that is, an observed world, is a relative reality. No prameyam can be absolute reality. If every prameyam in any plane is relative,

26 then what is absolute reality? Absolute reality should be aprameyam; it is an objectless reality. Then, what is the absolute reality which exists and which is not an object? I the subject atma alone is the absolute reality. I lend existence to relative reality.

Creation

Next, the discussion is on the order of creation. The word creation becomes a misnomer viewed from the vedantic perspective. It holds that the universe was not created at a particular moment of time; instead it is a cyclic process without beginning or end. It is not a linear process at all. The cyclic process has karma theory as its basis. The type of body that a jiva would take up depends on the accumulated karma of jiva. It is also provided with an appropriate environment conducive for its evolution. Knowledge of the environment is through the use of the sense organs. The subjective feelings of pain and pleasure are registered in memory. Whatever is the source of happiness, the jiva wants to repeat the experience. There are two types of : and papa phalam. There are visible and invisible results. There are agami karmas for future fructification on account of which rebirth becomes necessary. Death is only a temporary respite. The jiva keeps pedalling the cycle.

Rope-Snake example: Samsara

Mithya is the relative reality borrowed from I the observer absolute reality. The famous rope-snake example is not Shankara’s invention. Gauda Pada who comes earlier than Shankara has used that example and it also appears in the Tamil Kambha Ramayanam.

A rope lying on the ground is not clearly seen when there is partial light. It is not totally recognized beyond the perception that there is something lying there. The specific knowledge of the rope is not there. Partial ignorance has two powers: 1) avarana sakti; and 2) viksepasakti. The first is the concealing power and the second is projecting power. Partial knowledge combined with avarana sakti will give rise to the feeling: I don’t know it is a rope but something is there; ropeness of the rope is covered. Then the projecting power becomes active. There is no real snake, only a projection of ignorance. The non-existent snake is capable of creating havoc. The projected snake is classified as a relative reality. In the wake of knowledge, the snake disappears.

Likewise, the world also comes under the category of mithya. You can never drive away samsara. For the samsara rope-snake, sastram is the flash light that dispels the spiritual ignorance. Cosmic ignorance is called maya. Turiyam is mistaken as Viswa, Teijasa, and Pragya.

There is only one way to get . Freedom from rope-snake is by recognizing the cause of rope-snake. The cause is rope ignorance. Remove it by

27 rope knowledge. Lender of reality is called adhisthanam. All misconceptions will go away in one stroke. One rope alone remains. All the three states go away.

Once satyam is lost sight of, then mithyam is raised to the status of absolute reality. Dream becomes a reality when waker is lost sight of. This false elevation is the cause of samsara. The seeker searches for the truth in the objective world. He will never succeed in this search because it cannot be reality.

Advaita

The author examines the non-advaitic positions taken by various philosophers and refutes them one by one. Since this is not germane to the main theme of advaita, Shankara does not comment on these verses. However, the refutations serve the purpose of adding further clarity to the main theme of advaita. Furthermore, the long discourse cautions us against the misconceptions.

We again summarize the advaitic position instead of dwelling in detail about the rival positions.

Whatever object that is perceived can only be a relative reality. It has a dependent existence. Any object is perceived through instruments of perception and they are not uniform. Any event that takes place is perceived differently. Can perception take place without instruments? No. Uncoloured perception is a myth. Perceiver status is also a relative reality. I the perceiver, perceiverhood, is turiya chaitanyam.

Gauda Pada’s commentary: If a person misses the truth, I am under the spell of maya. Relative reality is mistaken for absolute reality. Vyavaharika satyam is mistaken as absolute reality. Truth is one, fact is one, but confusions are many. All systems of philosophy are well-thought out confusions. Each philosopher commits a mistake. And the list of people is enumerated in detail which I have skipped.

Summary:

Mandukya Karika is an elaborate analysis of Mandukya Upanishad. GP does not present his personal ideas. His commentary elaborates on many of the implied ideas of the scriptural text. The most important mantra of the Upanishad is mantra #7 which defines turiyam. Two words that appear in the mantra are singled out for their importance: first is the word prapancopasamanam; and second is the word advaitam. The present chapter dwells on the first word and the second word is the subject matter of the third chapter. Prapancopasamanam means free from the world; equivalently, it is turiyam that is free from the world. From the standpoint of turiyam, prapancopasamanam negates the world. The negation does not mean that the experience of the world is negated; experiential availability is very much there. Negation can only convey the idea that, in reality,

28 the world is not as good as being there. Alternately, the world is seemingly existent. Prapancopasamanam implies the unreality of the world. There are other words that are used instead of unreality: asatyam, mithya, and the unique word vythathyam.

This chapter analyzes the unreality of the world as suggested by the title. It sets out to negate the three padas corresponding to the waking, dreaming, and sleeping states. The summary is given under five headings: 1) verses 1-3 deals with sapna prapanca vythathyam (unreality of the dream world); 2) v4-v18 deals with jagrat prapanca vythathyam; 3) v19-v29 deals with the various misconceptions regarding the reality— prapanca; 4) v30-v34 presents a summary of the main discussion; and 5) v35-v38 deals with sadhana phalam— spiritual disciplines and benefits.

The unreality of the dream world is the first topic. While this conclusion appears self-evident to a majority of people, it has to be properly established to allay the doubts raised by the skeptics. Three pramanas are invoked to establish this truth: sruti, yukti, and anubhava. The scriptural validity is provided by a statement that appears in Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, Svayamjyoti Brahmana. It states that dreams are merely mental projections; non-tangible thoughts are taken as tangible objects. Next, we take up yukti pramana—logical reasoning. Dream objects cannot exist because of space and time considerations; they do not have the required space and time. The body cannot accommodate an elephant, for instance! Then, the pramana based on experience: on waking up, all dream experiences disappear. Consequently, the unreality of the dream world is firmly established.

The jagrat universe is also unreal, and the proof for it runs on the same lines as the one we employed to establish the unreality of the dream world. This is a mind-boggling revelation since it is difficult to believe in the conclusion when one is actually perceiving the universe. From the standpoint of logic, there are two reasons stated: 1) implied reason—whatever that is objectified is mithya. Any object can reveal its existence only to the observer. Every object depends on the subject to prove its existence, meaning it is dependent. Therefore, jagrat prapanca is also mithya. Even if one goes to a different state, one experiences a different world and it needs an extraordinary observer to prove its existence. 2) A second reason: Whatever is impermanent is mithyam since it enjoys only temporary existence or borrowed existence which is also dependent existence. The eternally existent should be independent.

Gauda Pada refutes other definitions of reality based on utility, clarity, externality, and objectivity. The only correct criterion for reality is eternality.

If both the dreamer and waker’s world are unreal, then what is real? Reality is that which exists but which is never observed. Observer consciousness alone is reality. The world, body, and mind are all unreal. Turiyam, the awareness

29 principle alone is satyam. The three worlds are based on the substratum of turiyam. Anything unreal is born because of ignorance of reality. Rope ignorance is the cause of snake appearance. Ignorance of waker is responsible for dreams.

Misconceptions arise because of ignorance. Although ignorance is one, misconceptions are many. One object or the other is mistaken for reality and in the process the observer is missed. Looking for ultimate reality through scientific investigations is also due to a misconception. Searcher of reality is the reality. The seeker is the sought. Great philosophers also make thoughtful mistakes in this regard.

Having pointed out the mistaken search for truth by scientists and many philosophers, the author ends with an optimistic note. He says that behind every unreality of the serious searches based on misconceptions, there is reality which will save them ultimately. For instance, God as the ultimate reality is presented as an object, but an objective God is a misconception. But, in the final analysis, it does not matter. Worship itself will refine one’s mind. Exposure to Vedanta will take such worshippers to the correct conclusion. A guru will guide. With this live and let live attitude, Hinduism will accommodate all religions.

The conclusion is that I the observer turiyam alone is satyam. Whatever I observe is mithya. Mithya cannot affect satyam. Observed universe cannot touch me. Therefore, I am ever free from so-called problems created by the universe. From the standpoints of the waker, the world is real; and a similar statement also applies to the dreamer. It is only from turiyam, world is unreal. I am ever free from samsara.

Even the word advaitam is unreal. Turiyam consciousness alone is real.

The sadhanas prescribed are: 1) scs (sadhana chatushtaya sampathi); 2) Vedanta sravanam; 3) mananam; 4) nidhidhyasanam; and 5) the option of taking sanyasa. The benefit that the seeker gets is the knowledge of turiyam in and through all the worldly transactions.

Chapter 3

Advaita Prakaranam

Swamiji’s introduction

This chapter, which is considered to be one of the best in Vedantic literature, consists of 48 verses. For a proper understanding, the background of the first chapter is essential. In chapter 2, the word prapancopasamam that appears in the seventh mantra of the Upanishad is commented on; this is the mantra that dwells on the unreality of the three padas. In this chapter, the word advaita that appears in the same mantra is elaborately discussed. It is a commentary on the

30 fourth pada dwelling on the reality of the nature of turiyam. The first and second padas together are called karya pada which is effect or product. The third pada is called the karana pada: the cause of all the effect. The fourth pada is called karya-karana vilakshana pada or karya-karana Brahma. Both karya and karana, the subject matter of the first three padas, are subject to modification. They fall within time; they fall within the realm of duality and therefore there is the subject- object division. Any cause that produces reality contains duality in potential form. In sleep, one does not experience duality but it is very much present in potential form; it becomes manifest when one wakes up. Even in samadhi, we don’t give much credence to non-duality. It is unmanifest dvaitam, mistaken as advaitam. After waking up, one says that `I was in samadhi’.

We introduce four words that appear very often: karya-karana rupam; savikaram; dvaitam; and karya-karana vilakshanam. Turiyam is nirvikaram, meaning not subject to modification because it is not subject to time.

GP states that the first three padas fall within samsara. The reason is duality is samsara because wherever there is a second thing, there is fear, likes and dislikes etc. The arrival and departure of the duality of feelings is the basis for sorrow. Even the thought of their departure gives sorrow. Whatever is savikaram is samsara. Whatever is subject to modification is sorrowful. Karya-karana rupa, field of cause and effect, is samsara. I look at myself as a product of previous karmas. I become the effect of the onslaught of prarabdha—a victim of karma. How about freewill, the cause of my future? There is samsara because I will be constantly thinking about how I would discharge my responsibilities.

If you want moksha, you have to go to turiyam by transcending the first three padas. There is no source of fear in advaitam. I the turiyam cannot be touched by time. This is the direction of the journey.

Duality: Samsara

Any type of duality is samsara whether it be secular or religious. Even a great upasaka is within the realm of duality. Karma and upasana are duality only. Upasaka is a religious samsari. This comment is not meant to suggest that one has to drop puja and upasana. What is meant is that when Upasana becomes an end in itself, it is samsara, but it is sacred when it is kept as a stepping stone for turiyam. By karya-karana rupam is meant that one looks upon himself as a product. Before origination of the world, everything exalted existed in karana rupam. Upasaka is within time, which is savikaram only. He thinks he is going back to God. His concept is wrong; his concept of moksha itself is based on the notion of arrival and departure. Merger in God is not moksha. Moksha is not an event in the future. People glorify a upasaka. From turiya angle, he is an unfortunate samsari.

31 The first three padas are equated to dvaitam. Because of its implications which we have discussed earlier, there is karpanyam (helplessness) that sets in.

Turiyam

Turiyam has five features which are the opposite of dvaitam: 1) advaitam; 2) karya-karana vilakshanam; 3) nirvikaram; 4) akarpanyam; and 5) moksha. One has to make a choice whether one wants to remain in samsara or want moksha. Since prapancopasamam falls within samsara, the teaching proceeds to elaborate on turiya padam. Turiyam will ensure akarpanyam, no misery due to modification, no tyranny of time, karya-karana vilakshanam, ajativadam meaning teaching of that Brahma that is beyond karya and karana. Nothing is born out of turiyam. It is not a karanam. Even though there is an appearance of creation, it is not real; it is a myth and not a fact.

Negation of Jiva and Jagat

We first concentrate on karana vilakshanam. Turiyam is not the cause of anything. No creation is born out of turiyam. Creation can be considered under two headings: 1) jiva-chetana and 2) jagat which is insentient. These two are not born of turiyam. The teaching is given in four stages: 1) Logical negation of creation of jiva; 2) logical negation of jagat srishti; 3) scriptural negation of jiva srishti; and 4) scriptural negation of jagat srishti.

First stage: Jivatma and Paramatma do not have karya-karana sambandha. The latter relationship of creator and created is a popular mistake. In order to reveal this fact, we consider the popular example of space. There are two types of space: 1) ghata —pot space, and 2) total all-pervading space. Ghata akasha is comparable to jivatma and total space to paramatma. Pot space is born out of total space. In truth, it is never born. Instead, what is born is the pot. The enclosed space is already there. But we give a new name to it after the pot is born. Birth belonging to the pot is wrongly transferred to pot space. Pot space is only an expression. When pot is broken, the destruction of space is transferred to the total space. Although various things are polluted in space, we make the mistake of transferring them to space. Every pot space is associated with an individuality—big, small space. The attributes of the space are transferred to space. We create a relationship between pot space and total space. Pot space is a product and total space is the producer. The truth is pot space is never created.

The above illustrative example is extended to the discussion of jivatma and paramatma. Jivatma is never born. It is the name of consciousness enclosed in the body-mind complex. That the jiva dies is a misconception. I am the enclosed consciousness. To say that jivatma has several impurities is also a false statement because it remains ever pure. The statement that I have no individuality is applicable only to the body-mind complex and not to the enclosed

32 consciousness. Lastly, to say that jivatma is born of paramatma is also a misstatement. Both refer to the same consciousness. There is no other relationship between the two except an identity relationship.

It is common to associate different attributes to jivatmas, such as calling them as mahatmas, duratmas etc. This is a misconception since an attribute refers only to an anatma and not atma. Atmananda is not born of the three gunas. Worldly pleasures are temporary; enjoy them through dharmic methods.

Just as one can talk of pot space, room space etc., the names and forms are different. The shapes and volumes may be different. But all these subspaces are within one indivisible space. A similar statement holds for the various jivatmas. One paramatma is conceived as different jivatmas.

What is the relationship between jivatma and paramatma? One talks of jivatma as the creature and paramatma as the creator, bringing in a cause and effect relationship. There is also another view prominent in visishtadvaita: jivatma is not a product but it is a part of paramatma. This is seemingly correct but flawed because paramatma does not have parts; it is not made out of an assembly of individual parts. Therefore, we can conclude that jivatma is not born out of paramatma. The latter is not a cause, karanam. Paramatma is karya-karana vilakshnam.

It is also common to talk of pollution of pot space but this statement is incorrect. What is true is the pollution of the pot, the container, and not the space enveloped by it. Pollution of pot space indicates a false transference called superimposition-- adhyasa. Purification is the removal of adhyasa. Shankara’s commentary on Brahmasutra starts with a discussion of adhyasa.

Some of the false features of jivatma are now summarized: 1) associating birth or janma with jiva; in fact, jiva was never conceived or died; 2) talking of departure of jiva from one body to another is incorrect since, in fact, jiva can never travel; 3) arrival of jiva meaning that a departed person is reborn; this is the biggest joke; 4) jiva occupying different bodies; truth is all bodies are occupying one undivided consciousness. The list of misconceptions is endless. All these features are illusions. Jivatma is not born out of paramatma. The division of space into inner space occupied by the pot and outer space of the total is a false division. Likewise, the division of all-pervading consciousness into inner and outer is also equally invalid. There is only one atma characterized by karya-karana vilakshanam.

Next, we proceed to the logical negation of jagat. Earlier, we had said that the birth of the pot is falsely transferred to pot space. Chaitanyam is never born. What is born is the body-mind complex which is falsely transferred to chaitanyam. With this description, a question may arise because of the notion of body enclosure. But we know body is born of elements only. Paramatma has to

33 be the cause of the birth of the world. In which case, how can we visualize Paramatma as something beyond cause and effect—karya karana vilakshanam. The answer to this legitimate question is of importance. The container body and its elements arising from Paramatma do not constitute a real birth. They are born of Paramatma’s maya . The birth of the world from Paramatma is apparent, not real. The follow-up question is: how can Brahman create an unreal world? The answer to this appeals to the example of the dream world which is based on nidra shakti which can be considered maya on a micro scale. For dream transaction, we create a dream body; likewise, why can’t atma create the world that we deem it as real? Paramatma is not a real cause but only an apparent cause.

The entire inert creation with its innumerable bodies created by Paramatma is apparent. Maya shakti belongs to atma. In which case, can we associate duality with this process of apparent creation: atma and maya? The answer to this is that for creating an unreal world, maya is also unreal; it is mithya. There are three words that come up for discussion: 1) turiyam which is real; 2) vyavaharika which is the transactional reality; and 3) pratibhasika, which is the dream reality. The last two are less real and cannot be counted with real. Tangible experiences do not constitute a proof of reality.

Now, we take up scriptural proofs for the negation of jivatma. These are based on citing the mahavakyams, which are statements appearing in the scriptures revealing the oneness of jivatma and paramatma. All of these accept that Paramatma is not born—God is eternal. Therefore, it follows jivatma is also eternal. Jivatma is not a product and Paramatma is not a karanam.

A doubt may arise if we exclusively focus attention on the import of the mahavakyams by setting aside Vedic pronouncements on the differences between jivatma and paramatma. These latter statements say that jivatma is born out of Paramatma. Is there a contradiction? Which one is a fact—is it identity or difference? The answer to this is clearly stated by GP. He says that dvaitam has to be ultimately rejected, with the emphasis on the word `ultimately’. In the early stages, both karma and upasana serve as important stepping stones. The duality that is inherent to these stages which also has Vedic sanction is used as a means to go beyond duality at the appropriate time. Dvaitam is criticized only when it is taken as the final destination while there is no criticism when it is taken as the means. Advaitam is consistently glorified in the scriptures. So the seeker is advised, and even encouraged, to enter dvaitam (karma and upasana) wholeheartedly in the initial stages; in fact, there is no escape from this. However, the final message is the identity relationship between jivatma and paramatma. Dvaitam is incomplete without reaching advaitam while advaitam is impossible without going through dvaitam. (One other passing comment: there cannot be a uniform teaching to a group of students with differing degrees of preparation).

34 Next, we proceed to the topic of scriptural negation of jagat srishti. Even though there are many statements in the scriptures supporting this assertion, there are doubts raised about selective choice because scriptures also contain mantras holding the contrary position. GP answers these doubts on the same lines as he did previously; he says creation has temporary validity but it is not the primary teaching. Once advaitam is known, these doubts rooted in duality are negated. Even though Vedas talk about creation, it is only as a stepping stone to nonduality.

We now talk about the logic of adhyaropa apavada. We consider how a change in vision could be brought about a pot: 1) pot is a product is the initial vision; 2) if pot is a product, then we look for the cause and find that clay is the cause; 3) the change in vision of this cause-effect relation between pot and clay will start by recognizing that there is no pot other than clay—in fact, there is no substance other than clay which brings us to negation of the pot; and finally, 4) clay cannot be the cause when pot is negated. The pot vision is replaced by clay vision. Points 1) and 2) refer to the adhyaropa stages, and 3) and 4) refer to the apavada stage, negating the cause-effect relationship.

The pot and clay example helps us to apply the logic to the universe at large. Pot is replaced by universe. The universe is a product of God or Brahman. There is no universe other than God in which case the universe is negated. Consequently, God is not the cause of the universe. Once advaitam is understood, the statements about dvaitam fall within the proper perspective.

The scriptures also talk about meditation of jivatma on Paramatma in the sense of created and creator. Again, the answer is upasana which implies duality is important but only as a means to the final end of advaitam. Moreover, the scriptures do recognize the existence of seekers with different abilities and categorizes them into three groups: a) manda; b) madhyama; and c) utkrishta. These seekers have to take recourse to dvaitam. To cater to such diverse needs, we talk of God as a person, all the forms existing in the universe as God (aneka rupa), and arupa akasha.

In a slight digression, GP points out that it is only when students cooperate with the teacher, they would be able to use dvaitam as the means. The goal is to go beyond it. Otherwise, the students get attached to dvaitam. If that happens, the loss is to the prejudiced student. GP criticizes fanatic dualists.

When GP negates the reality of creation, he is only talking about absolute reality. He readily concedes that apparent creation does take place. Creation is unreal only from the standpoint of turiya. But from the standpoint of the body-mind complex, world has to be accepted as real. The plane from which we make the statement is important as we have discussed earlier in connection with the dream example.

35 The question may be raised as to why the Upanishad talks so elaborately about the world which is unreal. The answer is that the unreal world serves as a stepping stone to reality. He cites the example of 18 elephants. There were 17 elephants to be divided between three sons in the ratio of ½, 1/3, and 1/9 with the constraint that no elephant should be injured in the partition. The problem was solved by introducing one more elephant, the 18th elephant and when they were partitioned as 9, 6, and 2, it was withdrawn. Likewise, dvaitam is introduced for the understanding of advaitam and then withdrawn. Dvaitam is acceptable for gaining scs through karma and upasana, but scs is only a prerequisite for advaitam.

Misconceptions arising from duality

If one accepts duality as reality, there will be several problems. To begin with, there will be the problem of likes and dislikes, raga and dvesa. Even religion can turn one into a fanatic. For instance, each religion claims it is talking about God. In Christianity: Jesus says followed by Jesus alone says. In Islam: Mohamed is the prophet; he is the only saviour. The problem of religious conversion is born out of fanaticism. Even within Hinduism, a fanatic vaishnava will dissuade a devotee from going to a Shiva temple and the same is true in the reverse with reference to a Shaivite. Ignorance and confusion are the hall marks of a fanatic.

In duality, one is in triputi—a pramata, pramana, and prameya. He looks upon himself as a pramata. He uses a set of pramanas. What he sees depends on the pramana that is used. The truth arrived at by different pramatas will be different because of the different interpretations of the instruments of knowledge including the individual body-mind complex and the vasanas. These interpretations are, of course, different from the standpoints of different species: a man’s interpretation is bound to be different from that of an animal. Even male and female beings of the same species will interpret differently. We never arrive at the absolute truth this way. Even the systems of philosophy like for example Sankhya and Nyaya interpret truth differently. In the former, creation is going from one to many, a process of multiplication. In Nyaya, it is from many to one; a system is an assembly of components. But both are correct in the relative sense although Sankhya never tries to understand Nyaya and conversely. All religious differences arise from dvaita drishti. GP says that advaitam has no problem in accepting the relative realities. It is only from the dualistic angle, that each religion is a threat to all other religions.

Do all religions lead to the same goal? The question is ill-posed since each religion has a different goal. Hare devotees look upon Brindavan as their destination. For Vaishnavas it is vaikuntha. For a Christian, it is the Father in Heaven. Christianity and Islam, though belonging to the same family, quarrel violently. Inquisition and jihad are manifestations of this conflict. But advaitam accepts all relative realities. In its conception of ultimate truth, even triputi is not there.

36

Some comments on dvaitam and advaitam

Brahman which is the infinite principle cannot undergo a change. It can never serve as a cause of creation. The following are some interesting comments on dvaitam and advaitam.

• Infinity and karanatva status cannot go together. • All-pervading God in Heaven is an illogical concept. If moksha is going to another loka, we would only be exchanging earthly dvaitam to heavenly dvaitam. The journey from bondage to liberation is a journey from dvaitam to advaitam. This can never be a physical journey. Advaitam is not a distant place; it is not a destination in time and place. It is a journey from ignorance to knowledge. • A finite thing cannot become infinite, and conversely. Mortal cannot become immortal; neither can immortal become immortal because it need not become immortal. • Moksha is dropping the struggle for moksha in the full knowledge that you are already immortal. Moksha is not an event in time. Sadhana is to own up the fact that I am immortal. Remind oneself that one is already what I want to be. • Journey from bondage to moksha cannot be a journey from one dvaita to another. Wherever there is subject-object division, time and space enter into the picture. This brings in the idea of mortality which, in turn, results in fear and insecurity. • Dvaitam is crystallized ignorance of advaitam.

Scriptural negation of jagat

After a brief digression dealing with the above points, the author returns to the main theme which is scriptural negation of creation of jagat.

The question that can be raised is: if creation has not come from Brahman, how is it the scriptures make reference to it so frequently? The answer to this is quite detailed and elaborate. The gist of the answer is that the scriptural statements do not specifically say whether creation is apparent or real. Advaita holds that it is apparent based on a comprehensive study of the scriptures. It is possible to pick statements piecemeal which support the idea of reality but the true import can be established only when the entire Upanishads are studied in their totality. For this serious study of the scriptures, there are prescribed methods that are stipulated: mimamsa or tatparya nirnaya, yukti or reasoning etc. Having affirmed creation as unreal by citing several references from the various Upanishads, the same truth is established on the basis of logical arguments.

The assertion is that the origination from Brahman is possible only if it is an unreal creation. For the sake of argument, if we assume that the world is a real

37 creation, then Brahman will become a real karanam. A cause would mean vulnerability for modification and so Brahman will assume a savikaram status. As discussed in Tatva Bodha, modification is of six types spanning all the way from birth to death. This mortal status would make Brahman a samsari.

From a non-existent cause, neither real or unreal creation can emanate. This point is made in order to refute sunya vada of . The example given to describe origination from asat, the example given is a rather crude one for modern sensibilities: it is the son of a woman who is incapable of giving birth to a child—a barren woman.

The question will naturally arise as to how one could accept this world as unreal. The world is so visible, tangible and useful. Unreality of the world is intellectually incredible. GP answers by saying that just because of the above considerations; we cannot conclude it is real. This is because an unreal world also can also have all these properties. An unreal world is also visible, tangible etc. A dream would be unreal for the waker and vice-versa. But both the waker’s world and dreamer’s world are unreal from the vantage point of susupti.

The mind perceives seeming duality because of its maya shakti. The story is not different in jagrat. Sapna and jagrat can be viewed as two channels one can switch from one to another. Suppose there is another state of experience; in that state also, duality is perceived with its own definition of space and time. All dvaita experiences are mithya, be they of vaikuntha, kailasa. Satyam is advaita only.

How does one experience advaitam? Advaitam is not a matter for objectification. One is not recommended to go for another state of experience. Non-dual mind alone appears as dual in a dream, a seeming division. Similarly, nondual Brahman alone seemingly appears as duality in the waking state. If I refers to turiyam, then I alone appears as dual. The final conclusion of this logical analysis is that there is no srishti; there is no karyam at all. And therefore Brahman is not a karyam. It is karya-karana vilakshanam.

Samsara

All problems of samsara are traced to dvaitam by ignoring advaitam. Dream perception of duality makes me forget the advaitam. Advaitam is the basis of moksha. Both in jagrat and sapna avasthas, there are problems of samsara whereas there is no samsara in susupti because dvaitam is not there. The problem lies in dvaita darsanam. Mind is the real culprit. It is not the world that is the culprit because it is very much there even in sleep where only the mind is resolved. For moksha, you have to tackle your mind. We are not asking for mastery of the world; instead, what is required is mastery of the mind. This is called amanibhava or manonashaha. It is also called manojayaha.

38

Amanibhava or destruction of the mind should not be taken in the literal sense. Only, its philosophical meaning should be taken. It amounts to understanding mind as mithya, falsification of the mind. There is no substance called mind separate from atma. The destruction of the mind is achieved through sheer knowledge. It is tantamount to understanding there is no substance called mind. Removal of substantiality results in non-substantial names and forms. A jnani will continue to use the mind and the world at large. Mind should not be destroyed; it cannot be destroyed; and it need not be destroyed. It is impossible to imagine liberated people without a mind; should have mind; preservation of virtues is not possible without a mind. Understanding of mithyartha is manonashaha.

In order to destroy a dream, all that needs to be done is recognizing the waker adhishtanam. Dream world would automatically collapse when one wakes up. There is no struggle of the mind involved. Satya atma is the adhisthanam of the mithya mind. Knowing through guru sastra upadesa is the only way. Atma jnanam does not happen of its own accord; one has to expose himself to the teaching in order to convert an ignorant mind into an enlightened mind. Wise mind does not perceive a real duality, but only a mithya duality which is as good as no duality. Such a wise mind is as good as no mind—no samsara causing mind.

Uniqueness of atma jnanam

Next, we discuss the uniqueness of atma jnanam. It is different from all worldly knowledge where triputi is there. In atma jnanam, turiyam is not an object. I myself is turiyam. The subject itself is the object of knowledge. The instrument of knowledge is atma itself. Nothing else is required to illumine atma. I am Self- evident; I am the consciousness principle. I know myself by myself. If that is so, then what is the role of a guru and sastra? Atma jnanam consists of removing all the misconceptions regarding atma. The latter is definitely an event for which a guru is required. Swamiji gives the example of Karna who was under the misconception he was not a till Kunti removes that misconception by revealing his correct identity.

A jnani is free from dvaita darsanam but so is a sleeper and a in samadhi. But there is a big difference. A sleeper does not perceive duality only as long as he is asleep. Duality continues in potential form. Temporary advaitam is potential dvaitam. When he wakes up, dvaitam returns. Similar comments are applicable to a yogi in samadhi. Jnani is one who has understood. It is a clean cognitive process. Dvaitam is mithya. Jnani’s advaitam is in spite of dvaitam experience. He is free from dvaitam all the time. For a jnani mind has become Brahman, not through a gradual change. The whole world is Brahman+ names and forms; mind is also Brahman + names and forms. Mind is not a substance. The advantage of gaining this unique status is that a jnani is free from fear—abhayam.

39 Atma jnana solves the problem of samsara in two different ways: first, it converts an ingnorant mind into a wise mind; it perceives duality as mithya and satyam as advaita. Secondly, atma jnana not only makes world mithya, it also converts mind into mithya. The world includes the subtle body also. Mithya mind will not become satyam. It looks upon mind as Brahman + nama rupa.

Consciousness

Consciousness appears as viswa and virat in the first pada, Tijasa and Hiranyagarbha in the second pada, Pragya and Iswara in the third pada, and, finally, as turiyam in the fourth pada. It is the 4th pada that appears as 1, 2, and 3. But from its own standpoint, it is ajam—birthless, viswa vilakshna; it is asapna, different from Teijasa—Teijasa vilakshana; anidram which is Pragya vilakshana. I am the satya adhisthanam. Turiyam is anamakam and arupakam; without names and attributes.

It is the nature of consciousness that is ever evident. Consciousness with name and form is matter; consciousness without name and form is consciousness. Vedanta does not accept matter. Solid matter is nothing but intangible consciousness with names and forms. How can this be so? How do scientists say that intangible energy appears as tangible matter? We go one step further. Consciousness is instrumental for both energy and matter. Transactions are absent because there is no duality, whether secular or sacred. There is no worshipper and worshipped relationship between devotee and the deity.

Turiyam is absolutely tranquil. It is eternally evident in the form of consciousness. It is achala, freedom from movement; it is abhaya—it is the source of security.

The word samadhi has two meanings. Adhisthanam is one meaning; The jargrat, sapna and karana prapanca is based on turiyam. The second meaning is mind which has the faculty of absorption; this is the more popular meaning—ekagrata or one-pointedness of the mind.

Turiyam is knowable through a mind which has one-pointedness. In Tatva-Bodha it is called samadhanam which is an alternate word for Samadhi.

GP talks about asparsa yogaha or asangha, meaning turiya atma without relations. It is called asanga atma jnanam. Relationships are possible only in duality. The discovery of relationaless I is called asparasa yogaha. It is not accessible to every one. Turiyam is difficult for comprehension. Most of the seekers are afraid of this knowledge because of their conditioning. The mental conditioning makes one insecure and to find security, I need support from people and therefore, one strikes relationships. The fear of sanyasa is also traced to this

40 insecurity. Advaitam frightens people. Vedanta says that one should remain in dvaitam until one is prepared to proceed further.

Benefits of Atma Jnanam

If a sincere seeker listens to Vedanta sravanam properly, he would be capable of getting atma jnanam. If this arises in the mind, the benefits will follow. Benefits of atma-jnanam are two-fold: 1) I am the turiyam that is the reality which is ever free from bondage caused by sharira thrayam. This primary result is instantaneous. 2) There is also the secondary benefit of atma-jnanam. This knowledge is capable of bringing about transformations in the mind: a) abhayam—security; b) samatvam: peace of mind. But improving the mind is not the primary aim of Vedanta. On the contrary, it is to tell you that you are not the mind. But the majority of people are interested in the secondary benefits only with the result improvement of the mind becomes the goal.

But we notice a peculiarity. Even though seekers crave for jivan mukti, this is not attained in equal measure. There is a mental gradation in mental transformation although they are exposed to the teaching in equal measure. This is not due to a mistake on the part of the guru. The problem lies in different levels of preparation of scs—the four-fold qualifications on the part of the student. The content of scs determines the quality of jivan mukti. Based on this observation, we make a 3- way classification of students: 1) manda; 2) madhyama; and 3) uttama. For those in group 3, atma-jnana produces the benefits also; for them sravana is enough. For 1), the preparation of scs is grossly inadequate and they receive the teaching improperly and so they conclude Vedanta is irrelevant. For group 2), atma-jnana will come but not the phalam. For such seekers, nidhidhyasanam is recommended. With the aid of this discipline, a madhyama student will be able to get converted into uttama student.

Attainment of Jnana phalam is dependent on mano nigraha which is the shamaha of scs. In Vedanta classes, no concession is given based on classifications of students. Guru used to watch the prior preparations of students. These days, the students have to be true to themselves.

How does one take care of the quality of mind? It is determined by the quality of thoughts which are the constituents of the mind. Monitor the quality of thoughts. Others do not know what goes on in my mind and so one has to be true to oneself. Thoughts can be known both directly or indirectly. The words I speak are indicative of the quality of thoughts. Actions at the physical level are also crystallized versions of thoughts. Words and deeds will help me indirectly. Also, one can be directly aware of one’s thoughts. The process of refinement of the mind is essential. Nourish healthy patterns of thoughts by weeding out unhealthy thoughts. This process is called mano nigraha. Time and perseverance are needed to succeed in the process. When there is perseverance, there will be external help.

41

Nidhidhyasana consists of dwelling upon the teaching with intensity. It can be accomplished in several ways: 1) repeated listening; 2) repeated reading of one’s own notes; 3) repeated writing; 4) discussion or exchange of teaching; and 5) teaching. It is mind pradhanam. Another form of nidhidhyasanam is through Samadhi abhyasaha via yoga. The purpose of the latter, it has to be emphasized because of the misconception surrounding it, is not meant for moksha. Moksha, after all, is one’s own svarupa, and so is not attained by any sadhana.

Nidhidhyasana is not meant for jnana also. Knowledge can be attained by pramanas. Meditation is not one of them. Sravanam is the means.

Samadhi does not give confirmation for vedantic teaching. Mystic experience does not give confirmation. Sage Patanjali must have practiced meditation for long years. But he says dvaitam is the reality. Samadhi abhyasa has some inherent obstacles. GP discusses four of them. 1) Layaha-sleep; dullness of the mind—tamasic state. 2) Vikshepaha—restless or a wandering mind due rajasic tendencies. Both 1 and 2 works against satvic mind. 3) Kashayaha—stagnation of the mind; mind is neither sleeping nor wandering; not available for meditation. It is an immobilized mind due to deep internal disturbances. 4) asvadhaha—rasa anandaha (relaxed mind)—a joy available during relaxation—a temporary pleasure. It depends on a mental state and so falls within samsara.

Meditation pleasure is also temporary and so we are advised not to get overly attached to it. External disturbances become a threat. There are remedies suggested for overcoming the obstacles. 1) GP does not suggest a remedy for sleep as an obstacle. But the obvious remedy is to remove the causes for sleep; 2) vikshepa parihara—causes attachment to the external world: a) develop vairagyam by repeatedly reminding attachment will result in sorrow; b) abhyasaha—attachment is towards anatma. Dwell on the teaching that anatma is mithya. 3) For overcoming kashayaha—be aware mind is a hostage; remain in sakshibhava. 4) For overcoming rasa asvadhaha—Tell your intellect that any temporary pleasure is samsara.

Finally, the concluding sloka of chapter 3: It says that no jiva is born and likewise, no jagat is born. Talks of 4 ways of refuting jiva and jagat. There is only one absolute reality that is Paramarthika satyam. You are that turiyam.

Summary

• The seventh mantra has two important words: prapancopasamam and advaitam. The first word is discussed in detail in chapter 2 leading to the conclusion of prapanca mithyartham or prapanca vaithithyam. That is why the chapter itself is titled vyithithya prakaranam—unreality of cosmos.

42 Prapanca can be presented in four ways: the first one is through the pairs of the three states of consciousness: viswa, virat of jagrat; teijasa, hiranyagarbha of sapna; and pragya, Iswara of karana sariram. All six are mithya. In another language, prapanca can be described in a second way—gross body, subtle body, and causal body. The third method of describing prapanca is by means of the padas—pada trayam; the first three padas are mithyam. The fourth method: the first two padas are karyam and the third pada is karanam; this highlights prapanca consisting of both karyam and karanam. Karyam is mithyam and consequently, karanam is also mithya. • Chapter 3 is called advaita prakaranam, which is an elaborate commentary on the second word of the 7th mantra. Advaitam is the name given to the fourth pada. It is karya-karana vilakshanam; it refers to turiyam. • I am the atma, the satya turiyam—karya, karana prapanca does not affect me. I am ever free. • The third chapter can be discussed under five portions: 1) v1-v2; Introduction—2) v3 to v30—srishti nisheda (ajati vada) dwelling on negation of creation. Jati refers to origination of creation. 3) v31-v39: Atma jnanam—Self-knowledge; atma satyana bodhaha—asparsha yogaha. 4) v40-v47—nidhidyasana; assimilation of wisdom—mano nigraha meaning reorientation of thinking in keeping with the teaching. 5) v48; Conclusion.

Introduction: All forms of duality will cause samsara whether it is sacred or secular duality. It includes karma, loukika or religious. Even upasanas involve duality—this includes daily meditation. There is also the devotee-deity duality. In dvaitam, there is time and space. Time is responsible for the six-fold modifications: birth, growth, decay, disease, death, separation of near and dear ones. Both karanam and karyam come under dvaitam. In the product alone, there is duality. Cause is also dvaitam because it is karyam in potential form. For example, susupti appears like advaitam but it is only potential dvaitam. The same comment applies to nirvikalpaka Samadhi. Real advaitam is beyond karana- karya relations.

The second topic is to establish turiyam that is beyond karya and karana. The focus is on product first. No product has come out of turiyam. Nothing is born of Brhahman—ajati vada. The negation is in four stages: 1) Logical negation of jiva srishti; 2) logical negation of jagat srishti; 3) scriptural negation of jiva srishti; and 4) scriptural negation of jagat srishti. Final conclusion: there is no srishti at all.

For 1), GP takes the example of pot space; it is seemingly born—not born at all. All dualistic attributes belong to pot only and not to pot space. Similarly, body alone has the attributes. But consciousness in the body, jiva chaitanya, does not have birth, death, and plurality. Consciousness is never born.

43 For establishing the proof of 2), he takes the example of sapna. In dream, it appears as though a world is created; time and space duality are seemingly born. Really, no time and space and no transactions. Events are tangible only in dream; on waking, it is not there. A similar statement can be made on the waking state by analogical reasoning. When one wakes up to turiyam, world appears to be unreal.

For 3), scriptural negation of srishti—the mahavakyas clearly reveal jivatma, paramatma aikyam. Paramatma is never born and therefore, jivatma also is never born.

For 4), negation of jagat srishti—scriptures repeatedly negate the universe. Several upanishadic statements are cited in support of this conclusion.

Having negated jiva and jagat, the question is: who am I seeing the prapanca? It is an erroneous perception from the standpoint of turiyam. Since there is no karya prapanca, Brahman cannot be called karana. Brahman is karya-karana vilakshana.

The third topic is on atma jnanam. Mind alone, by creating duality is responsible for samsara. Therefore, moksha requires tackling the mind. Amanibhava (mano nasha) is the solution. Mano nasha means destruction of the ignorant mind. One has to replace it by a wise mind, a non-problematic mind. Another way of looking at it—it is to understand mind as mithya. It is as good as destroyed. Satya atma jnanam is the way to do it. By knowing adhisthanam, atma jnanam as the only means of amanibhava—of moksha. Asparasha yoga is the knowledge of myself which is free from all relations. Asagna atma jnanam—relationship requires duality. Nidhidhyasanam is the assimilation of atma jnanam.

The fourth topic is jivan mukta and the fifth topic is on the mithya of vyavaharika and pratibhasika in turiyam.

Alata Shanti Prakaranam

Swamiji’s introduction:

The first three chapters are sravana chapters focusing on the central message of Brahma satyam and Jagan mithya. Towards the end of the third chapter, the topic of nidhidhyasanam was discussed.

Intellect may not be totally convinced of the teaching because of incomplete knowledge. Doubtful knowledge is as good as ignorance. Guru should give unobstructed knowledge which is the mananam phase in order to remove the doubts. This chapter is manana pradhana.

44 There are several systems of philosophy which criticize advaitam. Some of them do not accept the pramana of Vedas. We try to answer these darsanas and some more. The rival philosophies can be grouped under two headings: 1) logic-based philosophy which are the nastika philosophies—that is, they do not recognize the authority of the Vedas. There are 6 such darsanas: a) ; b) ; c) 4 branches of Buddhism. In the second group, logic is given precedence over Vedic pramana and there are four of them: 1) Sankhya philosophy due to muni; 2) Yoga due to Sage Patanjali; 3) Nyaya due to Gautama; and 4) due to . The second group is called astikas since they do recognize the authority of the Vedas though not to the same extent as the Vedantins.

Knowledge proved by one sense organ cannot be either proved or disproved with the help of another sense organ. Vedanta is a pramana which operates in another field altogether. It cannot be proved or disproved through logic; it is translogical.

The rival philosophers go on attacking on the basis of logic and if the vedantin takes the position that it is not applicable to its field of interest, the charge that is leveled against him is that he is weak in logic. The fact remains that vedantin does not use tarka because he knows its limitation in the field of the absolute.

GP negates the prominent darsanas and reaffirms Vedanta after the refutation.

Introduction

The chapter begins with mangala slokas.

In apara vidya, the subject, object, and the instrument of knowledge are different, whereas in , these three are one and the same. There is an uniqueness in aikya jnanam. One chaitanyam plays the role of all three. The nearest analogy to consciousness is the all-pervading space. GP offers namaskarams to atma jnanam and extols its glories. Self-knowledge is asparashaha; it is the non-dual reality beyond time and space. Atma jnanam gives fulfillment to all living beings—ananda. When there are so many things which give ananda, why single out Self-knowledge? Objects of the world give ananda but not ananda only; they don’t give kevala sukha. The sources of sorrow and ananda are the same. The third glory of atma jnana is that it contributes to our well-being. In most worldly pleasures, sukham and hitam do not go together but Vedanta offers both.

Vedanta is beyond all arguments and it does not venture to contradict any philosophy. Every philosophy has a theory of creation. One contradicts the other. But Vedanta does not have a theory of creation. Vedanta is ajati vada. The knowledge of Vedanta can only be gained from a guru.

45 More often than not, the various philosophers try to destroy each other’s thesis. It is a self-destructive process. This makes it possible for the vedantin to be very selective about choosing the rival philosophies for discussion. Two theories of astikas are powerful and popular. They are the Sat-karya-vada of Sankhya and asat-karya-vada of Nyaya. The main ideas of their theories of causation are discussed on the example of pot and clay.

Create a pot out of clay. Before creation of pot, does the pot exist in clay or not? Does the karyam (effect) exist in karanam (cause) or not? The puzzle is: does an existent pot originate or does a non-existent pot originate. Sankhya holds that it is an existent pot alone that originates; it is called sat-karya-vada. The Nyaya philosopher, on the other hand, takes the opposite position; it is called asat- karya-vada. Vedanta subscribes to neither of these two positions and upholds ajati vada—no theory of creation. `Arrival of a pot’ is the biggest confusion. There is no substance called pot. Substance is only clay. Only a new word called pot has been invented. World is not born. Jivatma is not born.

Some comments on the dualist philosophies. They postulate Paramatma, the God, and conclude that the universe is created from Paramatma, the karanam. The universe gives rise to jagat and jiva. In Christianity, they talk of the fall of Jiva—separation of the from the Lord. This jiva is caught up in samsara. The hope is that the jivatma goes back and merges into Paramatma. According to vision, the expectation that I have to join God is a misconception. GP says that the dualist views are entertained without taking the nature of Paramatma. They accept Paramatma as eternal. In that case, how can the eternal God be the cause of Jivatma? There is an inherent contradiction. By eternal, we mean something beyond time and space, and something that is free from modifications. The conclusion should be that eternal God has not produced Jagat and Jiva. Jivatma is none other than Paramatma. The dualist philosophies are talking about a change of changeless Paramatma. Giving a causal status to Bhagavan is tantamount to bringing down Bhagavan to the realm of time and space.

Through such a misconception, the dualist converts moksha into a future event. He expects Jivatma to become Paramatma one day. The truth is Jivatma need not become Paramatma because Paramatma, when misunderstood, is Jivatma. There is no question of becoming. What is needed is right understanding.

To say that Jivatma was with Paramatma, and it has now become separated is a big mistake. In the dualist view, Jivatma has to gradually go towards Paramatma. But Paramatma is an all-pervading principle and there is no question of anything going away from it. Separation and union are concepts that are valid in the field of two finite things. Separation cannot be a physical event; it is a misconception. The imaginary distance between Paramatma and Jivatma is caused by ignorance. What is needed to remove this ignorance is correct understanding. Mortal Jivatma can never become immortal Paramatma. There is no connection

46 between the finite and the infinite. The essential nature of a thing will never undergo a change. What does not change is essential.

And there is the next argument. Let us assume Paramatma has become Jivatma. If you one day become Paramatma, it will not solve your problem. If Paramatma can become Jivatma once, the process can repeat again. It will never be moksha. Then, what is moksha? It is not becoming, not joining, but knowledge of the identity of Paramatma and Jivatma. Loss of this knowledge is the error and it has to be corrected.

Parmatma’s essential nature is immortality and that is never eroded. Four examples are given to illustrate the idea of essential nature: 1) Compared to extraordinary powers accomplished by a yogi; siddhis are his intrinsic power—2) intrinsic powers of certain elements like heat of fire—3) the inborn faculties of certain living beings; birds fly at a certain stage—an owl can see in darkness—4) natural traits of objects of creation; water flowing downwards. Essential nature is never lost.

Jivatma is another name for Paramatma. Jivatma is ever free by virtue of its essential nature. But I have conditioned myself that I am mortal. Why did such ignorance set in? It never came at some point in time. In fact, it has no beginning, only an end. Ignorance is anadi. I take janma after janma in order to be rid of samsara. But the fact is that there is no samsara to be removed.

Negation of dualistic philosophies

GP refutes other systems of philosophy for the sake of clarification. As stated earlier, he takes on the two astika philosophies of Sankhya and Nyaya. They have theories of creation unique to them. Sankhya and Nyaya refute each other. According to Vedanta, creation is a delusion. GP feels Sankhya is a powerful philosophy. It is close to Vedanta in many respects though with substantive differences. Refutation of this philosophy is deemed important. In fact, the first chapter of Brahma is devoted to it. The fundamental flaw of Nyaya is that it states that a non-existent thing originates. Apart from the grammatical defect because of the absence of a subject, the conservation of matter and energy, a scientific principle, does not support the proposition that a non-existent thing originates.

Return to the refutation of Sankhya. Some basic principles of Sankhya that are germane to our discussion are recalled. The first such principle is that a nonexistent thing cannot be produced. No new matter is created when pot is produced. Before the production of the pot, pot was not in the pot configuration. It was in some other form. Every product does exist before its production in some other form. Therefore, karanam is karyam itself in some other form. That some other form is called karana avastha; it is in a different state. Karanam itself is modified to karya avastha. Production or srishti in general, is karanam changing

47 its state to kavya avastha, a conversion. The features that are in dormant form in karana manifest in karya avastha. Every production is a transformation, parinamaha. Sat-karya-vada is also called parinama vada. Karanam and karyam are essentially one and the same substance. The difference is only in configuration. Matter and energy are the same; the difference is only in states in which they exist. So, the first principle is karanam= karyam.

Vedanta agrees with the principle with some stipulations. The principle cannot be applied to the cosmos as a whole. It is inapplicable to the theory of origination.

Next, we proceed to discuss the second principle of Sankhya. According to this philosophy, the cause of the universe is called prakriti or pradhanam. It is postulated that Prakriti is nityam.

The universe is born of prakriti. Prapanca is a product called karyam. The third principle states that prapanca is anityam—impermanent.

GP talks about 4 fallacies of Sankhya darsanam by pointing out inconsistencies inherent in the principles just stated. Principle 2 states that Karanam is nityam. Consequently, karyam also should be nityam which would go against the third principle. Another fallacy: if principles 1 and 3 are taken together, karanam should be anityam. Likewise, a third fallacy can also be pointed by looking at the conclusion of a combined consideration of principles 1 and 3.

Sankhya arrives at the concept of Prakriti by means of anumana pramanam. It is not by direct perception. Anumana pramana would presuppose a general observation that is true for making the proper inference. The vedantin drives a hole in the Sankhya thesis that prakriti which is a karanam is nityam. According to him, since prakriti is karanam, it should be anityam. The assertion that karanam and nityam is fallacious without supporting data for a general observation. Even God will become non-eternal if he is the cause.

Finally, there is the refutation of Sankhya on the basis of infinite regress—non- finality in the cause-effect relations. Suppose the Sankhya philosopher accepts prakriti as a product, then, what is the cause of prakriti? It cannot explain the root cause.

Next, GP refutes all forms of dvaita philosophy. All of them base their theses of creation on the law of karma. Although vedantin talks about this law, he does so only provisionally since his ultimate position is that there is no creation at all. The logical method GP employs for refutation is known as the vikalpa method. He provides six options for the dualist philosophies and knocks them one after another. Karma as the cause of creation can be expanded to mean punya-papa- karma.

48 Option #1. Assume karma is the primary cause of the universe. In that case, wherefrom did punya and papa come? Bhagavan does not produce them. Generated by karma?

Option #2. Sariram is mula karanam. It gives bodies to all jives. If Bhagavan has to give bodies to all jivas, what type of bodies will he give? According to what norms? Can He deliberately good bodies to some in preference to others?

Option #3 Karma and sariram—mutual cause and effect. It is illogical. For example, father has produced son and son has produced father. Time separation?

Option # 4 Karma and sarira are simultaneous products. They cannot have cause and effect relationships.

Option #5 It is in the form of cause-effect chain: K1-S1-K2-S2-K3…. Which one is the mula karanam? Should one begin with karma or sarira?

Option #6 Cause-effect chain is anadi. The question of which one is first does not arise in this case. This one also has a logical fallacy. In the karma-sarira-chain, does anadi qualify karma or sarira or chain? (Other than guru, shishya, the phenomenon of parampara does not exist.)

Conclusion based on the above six options: No legitimate theory of creation is possible based on the law of karma.

Let us assume that karma chain is anadi, that is, it is beginingless but it has an end. In that case, the end of the chain should be the beginning of moksha. If liberation begins at this time, it will have an end. Consequently, moksha will be temporary. Again, this suppositional argument also leads to the conclusion that the law of karma cannot explain creation. But there was, is, and will be Brahman.

The question might arise why we talk about creation in so many places. GP answers this question as follows: In the beginning it is difficult to absorb the teaching of no creation. A compromise is made about the tentative acceptance of creation. It is called adhyaropa, a stepping stone. is the final teaching. Reject the provisional hypothesis when the mind is prepared to accept the truth.

Next, GP takes up the refutation of the nastika darsanas which rely only on logic for their validation and, specifically, without an appeal for the Vedas. These nastika darsanas include materialistic philosophy, Jainism due to Vrishabha and Vardhamana, and four branches of Buddhism. GP comments on Buddhistic philosophies of which there are four branches. These are: 1) Soutrantrika matam; 2) Vaibhashika matam; 3) matam; and 4) Madhyamika matam. The first one says that there is an external world different from the observer and that world is real which is proved by prathyaksha pramanam. It is

49 called as bahya--prathyaksha-pramanam; the second one has the same premise as the first but depends on inference for its validation and it is called bahya-anumana-vadinaha. The third philosophy states that there is no independent external world at all separate from the subject—the observer is the conscious principle. The fourth philosophy, the madhyamika, says that there is no external world and no subject observer is possible. This philosophy is called sunya vadinaha.

The first and second philosophies are called Hinayana Buddhism and the remaining two are called Buddhism.

The Yogachara philosophy is close to advaita since both subscribe to the idea that the external world is mithya. Also, Yogachara says that the subject is the conscious principle. But there is a significant difference in the description of this observer principle. Yogachara holds that consciousness consists of a stream comprising of momentary consciousnesses—kshanika vijnana pravaha. But in advaita, it is considered as one eternal consciousness. This makes a world of difference and will be discussed later.

GP does not talk of the Hinayana Buddhism because the Yogachara philosophers themselves have refuted them.

Hinayana thesis: Every experience or knowledge should have a corresponding external object. In its absence, one cannot have varieties of knowledge. In sleep, there is no cognition. Every internal knowledge presupposes external object; variety in knowledge is because of variety of objects. If one does not accept plurality of external objects, one cannot explain plurality of experiences. There is also a second reason that is advanced. We have varieties of emotions— pleasure, pain etc. Every emotion is caused by an external object.

Superficially looking, the above thesis has a semblance of reality. But, on close examination, the details of the external object disappears. Consider the example of a bangle, chain, ring etc. There is a plurality of words and plurality of thoughts. But the three objects are non-existent. There are no different substances called bangle, chain, ring etc. The only substance is gold. Words are irrelevant if the corresponding substances are not there. Padam and padartha are both mithya. If this argument is taken to its extreme, only the adhisthana will remain the observer consciousness. Consciousness does not experience any object at all because there is no real external object.

Next, the refutation of Yogachara Buddhism, based on kshanika vignyana vada, is taken up. Advaita agrees with its thesis that there is no object separate from consciousness. But the disagreement is on the nature of consciousness. It says that consciousness is a flickering entity. That is, the observer consciousness comprises of a fleet of momentary consciousness, one momentary consciousness followed by another. The analogy is with a river characterized by

50 constant flow. There is no permanent consciousness at all. This thesis is refuted by advaita. In a fleeting consciousness, the second momentary consciousness C2 appears after the preceding C1 disappears. They can be described as the footprints of a flying bird in the sky. In which case, who is talking about the flow of consciousness? Who is the witness of C1, C2 etc.? No single member can talk about kshanika vijnana. The principle is that the one who talks about arrival and departure must not arrive and depart. He must be nitya chaitanyam. The mistake made by the Yogachara Buddhist is he mistakes the momentary thought to consciousness.

Reinforcement of advaita

• Having refuted some of the major philosophies, GP returns to a restatement of Vedanta siddantha: Brahma satyam, Jagat mithya. Brahman is karana-karya vilakshanam. Since this is a repetition, only some major points are noted in the following text. • Moksha cannot be an event in time. Dropping the notion that I am bound which is an intellectual event is moksha. It is the dropping of a misconception... • Any product with a temporary duration does not have a real existence at all. It has only a verbal existence. In the clay and pot example, isness belongs to clay and not to the pot. • Utility is not a proof of reality. Vedantin uses the world and never negates its utility. But he does not accept utility as a proof of reality. Dream food alone is useful in dreams. Jagrat prapanca is useful for the waker only and therefore even utility is a relative concept. • Experience is the proof of unreality. Whatever is experienced is mithya because satya is never an object of experience. Unreality of the world is not easily convincing. Tangibility, perceptibility, and orderliness of the world makes the seeker believe that the world is real. Emotionally also, one seems to want dvaitam because of the fondness of relationships. Advaitam is difficult to teach beginners. So some compromises have to be made in the initial stages to progress towards the real teaching. Brahman is temporarily accepted as karanam. The pancha bhutas, the sariram, the theories of creation, various types of devotion, the notion of personal God etc., are all accepted to satisfy human emotional needs. But one has to finally transcend all forms of duality. The temporary acceptance of duality is called adhyaropa, and later negation is called apavada. • Any compromise of Vedic teaching will have doshas. The student will get attached to what the teaching deemed as the initial phase of teaching. But the hope is certainly there that he will overcome the doshas and proceed towards getting advaita jnanam. Dvaitam as a means is acceptable but it is not acceptable as an end. • Teaching of advaita on the basis of the alata (a flaming fire with a wooden handle) example is the basis of the title of this chapter. The moving alatam is the karanam for the various pluralistic patterns. Glowing fire is self-

51 effulgent and the firebrand can exist independently—swatantra, unlike the patterns which are compared to objects of the world. Ekam, svayam prakasham, karanam, swatantram are some of the words used to describe the alata. Chaitanyam alone creates an appearance of dvaita prapanca. In the case of consciousness, motion is seeming due to maya. There is no matter separate from consciousness. • Initially, accept the karya-karana sambandha between alata and patterns, and reject the relationship later. Alata and abhasa cannot be counted as two separate things. Patterns have no separate existence. Alata and patterns are one and the same substance with two names. • Patterns do not emerge from the firebrand. Patterns do not come from outside the firebrand. When firebrand is not in motion, patterns disappear—they don’t go outside the firebrand. They do not enter the firebrand also. These points can be extended to chaitanya also. When the world appears and disappears, you cannot say the world goes outside or inside of Brahman. You can never talk logically about the world. In fact, arrival and departure of the world is not a valid statement. • Patterns do not have names and forms. They do not have isness of their own. They are mithya. Similarly, dvaita prapanca is an appearance like the patterns. • If I do not know that I belong to the fourth pada, I will slip down to the other three padas. False identification is because of ignorance of turiya nature. • The entire tragedy of life is that one constantly prepares for living, but one dies without living. A jnani lives every moment of his life. Today’s karta is not satisfied and postpones his fulfillment to tomorrow for becoming a better bhokta. No future bhokta will be ever comfortable. The advice is to learn to discover comfort here and now. Owning up to turiyam is the only answer. Vedanta sravanam is the key. • Universe is discussed under three headings: 1) Consciousness principle; 2) mind; and 3) world. World is always an object, never the subject. The mind functions the intermediary role as an object as well as a subject. It is neither an absolute object nor an absolute subject. With respect to the conscious principle, mind is an object; mind is illumined by consciousness only. When the pair 1) and 2) is considered, 2) is an object. Mind gets the capacity to know or experience the world. But when the pair 2) and 3) is considered, 2) becomes a subject. The standpoint from which the mind is viewed is important. • Any object cannot have existence independent of the subject. The subject does not depend on the object for its existence. Object has a dependent existence—mithya. Subject is satya. The object of experience is mithya because existence can be proved only by the subject, the observer. World is an object of the mind and, in turn, mind is the object from the standpoint of sakshi. So both world and mind are mithya. Consciousness alone is satya. Since mind and the world mithya, they are mutually dependent. One cannot prove mind without the world and, conversely. Consciousness reveals the existence of mind and the world.

52 • Really speaking, Brahman should not be called nirvikaram. It is an appropriate name when viewed from vyavahara drishti. Similar remarks apply to the use of the word nirgunam to Brahman. Every definition of Brahman is given by vyavaharika drishti only—from the empirical angle only. From Paramarthika drishti, Brahman is total silence. Even the word advaitam will not be retained after negation of dvaitam. • Why did the spiritual ignorance befall me? It is a wrong question since ignorance is anadi. I have fallen without falling. The remedy for the problem of samsara is only through knowledge. • Moksha is not a future event. It is a misconception. Beginning of moksha is only a figurative expression for dropping the notion that I am ignorant. I have been a mukta all the time. We don’t solve the problem but dissolve it. Mukti is my svarupam. • Are there many paths to remove spiritual ignorance? There are only many paths for chitta shuddhi—refinement of the mind. But there is only path, the path of knowledge to remove the ignorance. • Moksha is often equated to Brahman. The equality holds only when moksha is properly interpreted. Moksha is a state of mind characterized by lasting peace after the dawn of knowledge. In contrast, the worldly peace of mind is available only temporarily. • Even after getting knowledge, the experience of the world will continue. Not only that, the prarabdha momentum will also continue. Every transaction will invoke the viswa personality. The invoked ego may become prominent if one is not careful. The jnani should not allow turiya to go to the background. Otherwise, he will resemble a person who is not exposed to Vedanta. Keeping the knowledge alive is of paramount importance.

Spiritual Disciplines

GP has so far established the glory of Brahma Vidya by refuting rival philosophies both of the nastika and astika varieties. He has presented the example of alata in order to establish dvaita mithya and advaita satyam and followed it by a discussion of Vedanta sara. He has now entered into a discussion of the cause of samsara and its remedy. • Our fundamental problem is spiritual ignorance of turiyam. Turiya atma is advaitam. • Ignorance by itself does not cause any problems like in deep sleep. It causes problems only when it is associated with its product, namely, adhyasa or erroneous perception which is mithya dvaitam. Strong attachment to dvaitam (raga and dvesa) is the cause of the problem. (So many die every day and we are not concerned about it; only when an object becomes an object of attachment, we get disturbed.) If the attachment is for turiyam, one is lucky; but, invariably, the attachment is for dvaitam which is the cause of samsara. The solution for samsara

53 is jnanam. Mithya dvaitam is understood as mithya—no raga and dvesa is possible for a mithya product. • Some people give happiness wherever they go; and there are others who give happiness whenever they go away! • Jnanam is not enough. It should be converted into jnana nishta. This transformation requires sravanam, mananam, and nidhidhyasanam for long periods of time. It cannot be a crash program. A jnana nishta continues to live in the world and he has to expend his prarabdha karma. Consequently, he will have to face both sukham and dhukham. This experience is not possible without contact with the world. The moment I perceive the world, there is a stepping down from turiya to viswa or to ahamkara in general. The samsari I is invoked. Jnana nishta is one who seeks his permanent anchor without drifting away. All this requires long practice. • Turiyam is called Bhagavan. Forgetting turiyam is an effortless process; it is remembered with difficulty. A casual approach to Vedanta will not work. It needs commitment. • What covers turiyam differs from the lay people to philosophers. For the former, worldly thoughts cover turiyam. For scientists and philosophers, varieties of conceptual frameworks based on misconceptions cover the turiyam. Four types of the latter group are quoted: 1) Nyaya-Vaisheshika philosophy; 2) Yogachara philosophy; 3) Jainism; and 4) Madhyamika Buddhism. There are four different notions regarding atma: 1) Asti—There is an atma other than the body and that atma is ever changing; 2) Nasti—There is no atma other than momentary consciousness and it does not change; 3) Jain—Asti Nasti—atma exists in living beings and not in other places and it assumes the size of the body. For an ant, the size of the atma will be the size of the ant. There is also another notion. Atma is changing during samsara and in moksha, it is unchanging. 4) Madhyamika— Nasti-Nasti—Atma is absolutely non-existent. It is sunya vada— nihlism.

Every concept of atma is anatma. Concept is something that I objectify. There is no concept regarding atma.

Vedanta is not a system of philosophy. It is not an empirical reality. Vedanta negates all systems of philosophy in order to transcend them. Whoever has understood this truth, he alone has the total vision.

Turiya jnanam makes one all-knowing in the sense that it gives a comprehensive knowledge of everything in creation. It is unlike expertise of a specific discipline which is confined to it. A real Brahmana is one who has knowledge of Brahman. All others are pseudo-. A jnani becomes free from a desire to become some one else.

54 The prerequisites for jnana are from the practice of scs. After jnanam, all these will be an integral part of his personality as his very nature— svabhava. Sadhana for a seeker will become natural to a jnani. The indication of presence of values is a balanced mind, a mind free of stress etc. A jnani will be calmly effective. Before jnanam, sadhanam and after jnanam, lakshanam.

A new topic

The karikas are not an independent work of GP. The author reminds us of this fact and proceeds to summarize the teaching.

• Avasthathraya sakshi: jagrat, sapna, and susupti. The corresponding subjects-objects are: Viswa—Sthula; Teijasa— Sukshma; and Pragya-karana; they are all savikara—subject to modifications. I am the nirvikalpa Sakshi, the eternal witness, not subject to modifications. • There are some alternative words used for jagrat (loukikam), sapna (suddha loukikam) and susupti (lokottaram). In jagrat, there are experiences or cognitions within. Corresponding to an internal experience, there is an outside object correspondingly. Experience is internal whereas object is external. In sapna, experiences are due to recollections of our vasanas; no external objects—they are objectless thoughts. In susupti, there is neither an experience nor an external object. The subject-object relations are called jnanam- jneyam. Jnanam is subject to modifications due to changing experiences. Jneyam is subject to modification of changing objects. The consciousness principle is called vijneyam and it is the changeless principle. • All Upanishads discuss three topics: 1) jnanam; 2) jneyam; and 3) vijneyam—turiyam. Jnanam is due to the three avasthas and so also is jneyam. In susupti, jnanam and jneyam are not recognized but they are recognized upon waking up. In Mandukya Upanishad, the three three pairs due to the three avasthas are called padas. After the three pairs, turiyam is discussed. The seeker attains oneness with turiyam—Brahma aikya. I alone appear as creation. • Sadhanas to be followed: there are four factors. 1) Heyam—those which have to be rejected—entire anatma prapanca; the first three padas are mithya. They are subject to change and destruction. You have to interact with anatma, but don’t expect lasting happiness from it. One has to transcend the anitya vastu. One is encouraged to lean on Iswara in the initial stages, but later urged to rely on guru, sastra, and sravana, manana and nidhidhyasana. 2) Neyam; it refers to the ultimately reliable thing, namely, turiyam. 3) Apyam—these refer to the qualifications to be deliberately acquired—scs and varieties of virtues mentioned in the Gita. 4)

55 Pahyam; this refers to what has to be rendered ineffective. There are certain tendencies that cannot be removed, but can be roasted and made ineffective. Such natural tendencies are the natural likes and dislikes carried from birth, cultural traits, upbringing, environment etc. Convert inappropriate raga- dvesas into non-binding ones.

Of the above four sadhanas, three are vyavaharika satyam and they are useful at the time of sadhana. These three are heyam, apyam and pahyam.

Conclusion

In conclusion, GP reiterates is that Vedanta’s thesis is that all our basic needs like security, feeling of completeness (purnatvam) etc., are already satisfied within ourselves. What is required is understanding. Action in life with this feeling of purnatvam is leela whereas action for purnatvam is struggle. The seeker is urged to claim his birthright and have fun. Turiya svarupam is there all the time. Atma anubhava is never lacking. Unfortunately, we have attributed limitations to the ever- experienced consciousness. We are urged to remove the limitations of the body that are superimposed on consciousness; just drop the attributes. We don’t need a new experience. Quietude is my very nature. The aim should not be elimination of thoughts. Presence or absence of thoughts is not connected to inner peace.

I am what I want to be. Constant self-rejection is samsara while self- acceptance is moksha. I am neither pure consciousness nor ahamkara (one word used for all the three padas combined). It is the mixture of the two that is saying I. Pure ahamkara does not exist because it requires sakshi to lend. Pure sakshi cannot say I. In the initial stages of life, what is prominent is ahamkara. What we lead is ahamkara pradhana jiva. Refinement of ahamkara is what one aspires in the beginning. When I claim I am jnana yogyaha, it from the angle of ahamkara. Jnanam belongs to buddhi only. The journey is from ahamkara only. The ripened ahamkara loses its prominence and becomes feeble. At that stage, when I look at myself, the is predominantly influenced by sakshi. I don’t get away from ahamkara. We don’t speak of a spiritual journey from the angle of the sakshi. In fact, I have not traveled at all. Only, I have acquired a new dimension—sakshi pradhana drishti. I am ever evident turiyam; I do not become jnana nishta. From ahamkara drishti, shanti is only mental peace. But from turiya drishti, shanti is my very svarupam; it does not depend on the conditions of the mind. I am ever from samsara—this is the drishti bheda.

56 All the jivas are turiya chaitanyam. The differences arise from ahamkara drishti. The bodies are many, minds are many, but chaitanyam is only one. For the mind to know that I am ever pure, mind should become pure. Sadhana is necessary to know that sadhana is not necessary.

Even though a jnani knows turiyam, perceptual experience of duality will continue. Only the false notion of duality will discontinue. In order to appreciate a maha jnani, one has to be a jnani. But I don’t seek other’s appreciation.

The status of being a sakshi has provisional meaning from the ahamkara drishti. There can be a relationship between two things belonging to the same order of reality. Consequently, consciousness and matter have not direct relationship, only an apparent one.

This is the last commentary by GP in his Mandukya karikas.

A seeker starts his spiritual journey as a pramata—a jnana ayogya. He becomes a knower with qualifications through the practice of karma, upasana, and scs—a jnana-yogya pramata. He then exposes himself to the vedantic teaching: sravana, manana from a qualified teacher for a sustained period of time to become a jnani pramata. He then becomes a jnani nishtaha after nidhidhyasana. He then recognizes that he has to give up identification with the mind. This is a natural process like a ripe fruit falling from the tree of its own accord. The knowledge dawns that I am a sakshi. As sakshi, I never become liberated, but get restored to my real status. I am not even sakshi and I have no relationship with mithya. Consciousness does not illumine a mithya object. I the turiyam is asangam—the relationless consciousness.

GP concludes by offering namaskarams to Brahman which is not available for objectification. He offers namaskarams to turiyam which is birthless, uncontaminated like space, free from plurality etc. Knowing turiyam is tantamount to claiming the fact that I am turiyam. It is claiming without objectification.

Summary

What follows is Swamiji’s summary of the present chapter.

The first three chapters presented the teaching of the Upanishads. Upanishads was given prominence in chapter 1. In chapters 2 and 3, GP focused on two main aspects of Vedantic teaching—Aham Satyam, Jagan Mithya. Turiya chaitanyam is absolute. Jagat belongs to a lower order of reality. Observer I is real whereas objective

57 universe is less real which is as good as unreal. The unreality of the observed universe is highlighted in chapter 2. In chapter 3, the absolute nature of observer I is highlighted. I is not the physical body or mind but the pure consciousness. What about God? The answer to that question is somewhat disturbing in this context. Advaita does not answer it directly. Instead, it asks for our definition of God. The answer depends on whether he is the observer or the observed. If latter, observable God is mithya because He is subject to arrival and departure. On the other hand, if He is the observer, the Lord, the chaitanyam, He is the ultimate reality. I, the God, is highlighted in chapter 3.

There are two main corollaries: 1) Don’t count mithya along with satyam. I the observer is counted; it is nondual without a second. 2) Satyam cannot be affected by mithya. Movie event cannot affect the screen; observed cannot affect the observer.

Can the world affect me? Ask the counter question: what is me? If me is the physical body, world will affect the body. If me is understood as the pure consciousness, world cannot touch me. This is the discovery of asangatvam, my unaffected nature. It is the knowledge that liberates. I am not obsessed by events of the universe. I can’t control them either. There are choiceless situations in the universe. I am unaffected. This is jivan mukti. I keep doing what I can do. I have the sakshi bhava.

This chapter is not required for the main teaching. The primary purpose of alata shanti prakaranam is to negate other systems of philosophy and highlight the unique teaching of advaitam.

The fourth chapter can be divided into five topics: 1) Introduction (v1- v10); 2) Pramata Nirakaraha of dvaitam (v11-27); 3) Reinforcement of advaita (v28- v54); 4) Spiritual disciplines—Vedanta sadhanani (v 55- 90); and 5) Conclusion (v91-v100).

Introduction: Prostrations to the Lord and His teaching of advaita darsanam. Lord is adi guruhu. The teaching is not a human invention, but it is a traditional teaching beginning from the Lord, the adi guru. Namaskara to advaitic teaching—asparsha yogaha. It is unaffected by the events of the world—asanga atma jnanam.

Glory of this teaching—highlights one beyond all argumentation and debates. Reason: all the systems argue about the origination of the world. If God is omnipotent and omniscient, why should He create so much suffering in the world? Because we are in the world, we talk about samsara, liberation etc. We are gripped by the theory of

58 creation. The various systems of philosophy quarrel amongst themselves. Advaita does not propound its theory of creation. Consequently, it is not antagonistic to any of the existing dualistic theories. The question arises: how does one explain creation? The answer, according to advaita, is that there is no creation at all. Creation is ignorance, confusion. Advaita is beyond all arguments—avivada darsanam.

Paramata nirakaraha: Advaita negates all other dualistic darsanas. All theories of creation will have logical problems. For purposes of explanation, he takes up Sankhya, dvaita, and Boudha darsanas. Sankhya holds that beginingless Prakriti, Basic matter, is the cause of creation. This premise poses problems from all the three angles of sruti, yukti, and anubhava. Sruti says that Brahman is the karanam, not Prakriti. So it is sruti viruddha. From the anubhava angle, one has to observe that any cause is itself an effect as a matter of experience. Beginingless cause is never experienced. And so it is anubhava viruddha. As for reasoning, one notes that any cause is subject to modification. Six modifications are talked about. Prakriti is illogical.

As for dvaita, it is based on karma theory. The chain of punya and papa and sariram has loopholes; when karma and sariram are juxtaposed as cause and effect, which one is first is an unanswerable question. We can’t explain first sarira or first karma. Or what is the beginning of the chain of samsara?

Reiteration of the advaitic teaching: This refers to the main teaching based on the three padas. I the nitya chaitanyam is satyam. The alata example serves to explain in detail the mithya world and the oneness of turiyam.

Sadhanas: Discovery of the higher nature is the only solution. Otherwise, one is faced with insecurity. The prerequisites for knowledge are mainly centered around scs.

59