Discourse by Swami Paramananda Bharati On MaandookyOpanishat with Sankara Bhaashyam
About Swami Paramaananda Bharati
Swaami Paramaananda Bhaarati, in his poorvaasrama was a Professor of Physics at IIT Madras. Being the author of many books on Vedaanta, Swami feels that scientists should have an exposure to Vedaanta and similarly traditional scholars of saastras should have an exposure to Science. Swaami has taken active part in organizing and participating in various seminars and conferences that bring together scientists and traditionalists. Swaami has also established a gurukula in Kolar to preserve to propagate the Maadhyandina Saakha of the Sukla-Yajurveda. He attained mOksha on July 29, 2019
Introduction
MaandookyOpanishat is the shortest upanishat with only 12 slokas. Yet, it wields enormous importance among all the 108+ Upanishads. Adi Sankara's bhaashyam was written based on these slokas and the kaarika's of his guru's guru Sri. Gowdapaada. So it has enormous significance among the scholars.
The Swami Paramananda Bharati had delivered 55 lectures spanning over 75 hours on MaandookyOpanishat. This is my attempt to capture the essence of his discourse. So I may be forgiven for omissions and mistakes as they are all mine.
A note about examples or drushtaanta. When sarpa-rajju (snake-rope) drushtaanta is used it means one mistakes a rope (rajju) as snake (sarpa) in darkness and is afraid of it. When the clay-pot (mrittika-ghata) drushtaanta is used, it refers to the ancient method of making pots (ghata) out of clay (mrittika) by a smithie. Also, a pot can hold emptiness or aakaasa. Then it is called a ghataakaasa. Space within a room is called mathaakaasa. Another drushtaanta often used is gold-ornaments. Ornaments can be made out of gold (suwarna). The assumption is there is no other metal or embellishment like gems in the ornament other than pure gold. The shape of the ornament is not coming because of gold.
As for the etymology, the upanishat derives its name from mandooka which means a frog. The analogy is, the rishis meditated for a long time, like a frog hibernates, and pronounced the slokas (compared to the sounds frogs make in rainy season when they come out of their hibernation).
Part 1
Top
Definition of Brahman
Brahman is that by which this world is getting created and dissolved (srishti, sthithi, laya)
Brahman is nimitta and upaadaana kaarana of universe
Brahman is indescribable
Brahman taken in relation with universe can be described; through the world it can be described
universe=jagat + jeeva
Mandookya is concerned with jeeva and Brahman not jagat
Brahman expresses itself through the jeeva
Brahman is spread all over the universe; nothing outside it and sthira/chara/nikara (plants, jeeva, etc.)
Brahman=satyam + gnaanam + anantam
Satya=unchanging
First jeeva = Hiranyagarbha (apara brahma or kaarya Brahman) -- creator
Ishwara is not apara brahma
Karana = budhi + manas
Samashti budhi-Hiranyagarbha
Ishwara or Brahman is potential energy, Hiranyagarbha is kinetic energy
Hiranyagarbha has visEsha gnaana.
Gnaana about surya, chandra, nakshtara, etc. are changing; one thing that is not changing is gnaana itself. Only the adjectives are changing; unqualified/known gnaana doesn't change
Part 2
Top
Hiranyagarbha receives rays (directions)from Brahman
Everything that is happening in mind/budhi is happening because of Brahman
From jaagrat we go to swapna
In Jaagrat we have gross body and mind to enjoy bhOga
In swapna there is no connection with gross body; subtle body exists and we continue to have bhOga; only budhi is acting
In sushupti there is only aananda; not coming from an object; not coming through budhi; we enjoy this; Brahman is nurturing us through maaya
Maaya - the sakti of Brahman with which all activities happen
Maaya--something like magic
we enjoy gross things in jaagrat
we enjoy subtle things in swapna
we enjoy bliss in sushupti
we experience maaya in tureeya
All is done through Brahman's influence
Enjoyment starts with gnaana
Even though Brahman sustains us we claim "I did it", "I thought of it", etc.
vishwaatma or universal soul
- is the one enjoying in jaagrat
- has to take the help of outside light (Brahman) to enjoy
Universal dream aatma
Taijasa -- in dreams--doesn't take outside light --takes light within
Tureeya -- from the point of view of causing happiness by Brahman; tureeya aatma is Brahman
Adhyaasa -- thinking I am doing all things; Brahman is responsible for all things
Part 3
Top
Even though in sushupti there is no mind or body awareness, in Jaagrat we claim "I am doing it". This is adhyaasa
- in jaagrat - gross non-understanding
- in swapna - subtle non-understanding
- in sushupti - no understanding
Statements like "I enjoyed it", etc. are because of adhyaasa
The statement that Brahman does everything is adhyaarOpa
In jaagrat/swapna/sushupti there is adhyaasa
To remove adhyaasa we have to see Brahman's action
Brahman's actions are ultimately responsible for our happiness
Brahman is acting at 3 levels: Vaiswaanara, Taijasa, Praagna
Gowdapaada karikeya's
1. Aagama Prakarana == about omkaara upaasana to attain mukti; nirguna upaasana or saguna upaasana
2. Vaitathya Prakarana == illusion or mithya; there is nothing to see but mistakes for seeing it; there is duality in mithya with respect to cause; duality is because of ignorance; the claims that "I am eating", "I am running", should go away
3. Advaita Prakarana...when we see illusion there is a base for it which is not illusion; when we see rope as snake there is rope which is real but the snake is an illusion
Dwaita prapancha is illusion... there is a base called tureeya aatma (Brahman) which is not illusion
4.Alatasanti Prakarana: when we rotate agarbathi (fragrance stick) in the air we see a wheel but there is no wheel really; everything we are seeing (including I) is one; there is no dwaita
see https://www.inner-quest.org/Mandukya_Karika.htm
In every grantha anubhanda chatushtaya
- vishaya : what is it about
- prayojana: its uses
- sambandha :relation to other
- adhikari: who is competent to get it
The duality is: "I am this, you are that" The duality can go away in two ways
- nothing is like you --don't exist
- you are like me
Suppose a brick falls on a pot breaking it; if pot regrets then it is not aware that it is still clay and brick is also clay
We can do one of the following:
- denying the existence of universe
- realizing that the universe is like us; not different from us
Which one to choose?
Veda will never make a statement against universal experience
Part 4
Top
In sushupti all kinds of jeeva are the same; but different in jaagrat and swapna
In sushupti there is no adhyaasa
avidya = gnaanaabhaava = agrahaN = don't know
in jaagrat = budhi + sareera + avidya
in swapna = budhi + avidya
in sushupti = avidya or agrahaN
In jaagrat there is budhi
In swapna budhi spreads in all directions
In sushupti there is no budhi
According to saastra :
- Vaiswaanara is one who handles jaagrat of everyone
- Taijasa is one who handles swapna
- Praagna is one who handles sushupti
In sushupti we lose connection with body and mind effortlessly; mind is stopped without adequate supply of oxygen
Pancha (5) praanaas
- paana: breathing out
- apaana: breathing in
- vyaana: holding breath
- samaana: digestion
- udaana: at the time of death
If we are responsible for dreams, then we should have control over them
As per saastra, if we are not responsible for our actions, then who are we?
Jeeva is a mere shadow of Brahman
Brahman's rays are scattered by Vaiswaanara, Taijasa, Praagna
Adhyaasa is wrong understanding; "I am acting, sleeping, eating", etc.; it is embedded in foolishness
Adyaa rOpa: when we say Vaiswaanara/Taijasa/Praagna are controlling us; it is imposed; the statement is wrong with respect to Vaiswaanara who is doing it with the power of Brahman; Vaiswaanara is not a real actor; saastra created Vaiswaanara in order to remove our own adhyaasa (that we are the karta)
In adhyaarOpa there is wisdom; tells a small lie to convince us; Brahman is pointed out through Vaiswaanara, Taijasa, Praagna
Ishwara - maaya = Brahman
Ishwara without maaya is Brahman; he is the maayaavi
Beyond sushipti tureeya is like in samaadhi
Sushupti is unqualified happiness
I am enjoying -- adhyaasa
Vaiswaanara is enjoying -- adhyaarOpa--not a correct statement
As long as dwaita prapancha exists there is activity that produces grief; there are no two, but actually one; both seer and seen are one actually; for example ice, snow, steam, water etc. are different forms of H2O molecules; from the view point of H2O molecule, there are no multiple forms
Body is eating...is correct...I am eating..is wrong; mutual activity of kshEtra (body)
Because of Brahman all the universal stuff and activity are taking place; but they are not there in Brahman; it is free from them; it is the upaadaana kaarana
Karma as prescribed by the saastra is the one that purifies the mind which has the wrong ideas (kaama, krOdha, etc.)
A man is husband/son/employee in relation to something/someone else; intrinsically one is a man (swaroopa)
tatva = as it is , per se
Omkaara
All the words are connected by omkaara; nothing but Omkaara
Pots, jugs, etc. are connected to clay; clay connects all of those objects; similarly all the names are converging into Omkaara (abhidEya means objects; abhidaana is the name)
All action is contained in praana
Both action and avyakta are contained in avyaakruta (seed form)
aakaasha = space + sound
At the beginning there was no space or time. After creation they got differentiated
Avyaakruta contains Omkaara
Everything is Omkaara including Brahman
aatman is one in sushupti (swaroopa)
aatma = sushuptaatma
One knows it exists but doesn't know the answer to the question "Who am I?"
aatman is Brahman; ayamaatma Brahman (I am Brahman)
tatvamasi === tat = Brahman; tvam=I; asi = exists
pratyagaatma = pratyak (inside) + aatma
kshEtragna = gnaata of kshEtra (sareera or body); same as pratyagaatma; same as gnaata; same as aatma; gnaata + karta + bhOkta
aparOksha neither pratyaksha nor parOksha; that which is experienced
Part 5
Top
aatman = is called chatushpaat = Vaiswaanara + Taijasa + Praagna + tureeya
sat = existence
sushuptaatma or pratyagaatma - is sat
Creation--Brahman's sakti, that is latent, expresses itself; this is avyaakruta = not differentiated into parts = stuff + action
avyaakruta splits into avyakta + praana (all types of action)
avyakta expresses itself into mahat and ahamkaara
tanmaatra= sabda/sparsa/roopa/rasa/gandha
Prakriti came from Brahman and is not different from Brahman
Brahman -> avyaakruta->avyakta + praana (gives raise to budhi) ->ahamkaara (gives raise to manas) -> mahat -> tanmaatra
The above is called upaadhi Brahman and Ishwara
Potter has an idea in budhi and moulds clay according to an idea; requires manas + budhi for creation
Nimitta kaarana is contained in avyaakruta-> one who creates world is Hiranyagarbha who needs budhi + manas; budhi comes from mahat/praana; manas comes from ahamkaara
A golden bangle is full of gold; why not call it pure gold? There is a transaction with bangle -- it has a shape, etc. There is no such thing for gold which is its swaroopa
Similarly in the above equation Ishwara is like a bangle and its swaroopa is Brahman
manas + Brahman is called Hiranyagarbha
Whatever Ishwara wants to do (creation, sustenance, dissolution) is done by Hiranyagarbha who follows Ishwara's wish
From tanmaatraas Hiranyagarbha creates pancha bhootas The process is called pancheekarana
from sound -> aakasha/space
from sabda + sparsa -> air
sabdha + sparsa + roopa ->fire
sabda + sparsa + roopa + rasa -> water
sabdha + sparsa + roopa + rasa + gandha -> earth
With this Hiranyagarbha's role is finished
Vaiswaanara or prajaapati creates different objects called jagat
Jagat is a manifestation of pancha bootas
Ishwara -> Hiranyagarbha -> Vaiswaanara
During jaagrat gross body is handled by Vaiswaanara; budhi is handled by Hiranyagarbha
Vaiswaanara gives karma phala in jaagrat
In swapna mental activity is handled by Hiranyagarbha or taijas
Sushupti (no mental activity) is handled by Ishwara /Praagna
vyashti - jeeva
samishti: Vaiswaanara /Taijas/Praagna
Hiranyagarbha is also called taijasaatma
Saankhya, Yoga, etc. don't say there is one aatma in jeeva that is pratyagaatma unlike advaita
paaramaartha drishti -- advaitam -- H2O molecule
vyavahaara drishti -- dwaitam-- ice, water, steam, etc.
sruti wants Ekatva in the middle of naanaatva
Vaiswaanara -- same as viraat
Impurities of jaagrat appear as swapna (e.g. fear, greed, etc. experienced in jaagrat)
All names and forms converging on Omkaara are called abhidaana; the objects are called abhidEya
Brahman transcends names and forms
pravilaapanam: in clay the various pots, jugs, etc. made of clay merge
pratyagaatma: knower(gnaata), doer (kartha), enjoyer (bhOkta)
aatma means pratyagaatma;the only exception is paramaatma
pratyagaatma, kshEtragna, sushuptaatma, etc. refer to the same thing
Mind is seeing itself; they are inseparable it seems but not true; the skin when touched will be known; but in paralysis it is not known; so we are not the skin; in sushupti we recognize the absence of manas; therefore we are different from manas
In wakeful state we are all different; same with swapna (we don't get the same dreams); in sushupti we are all the same; sushupti is the only avastha where one can know about another without further probing
In wakeful state we know that we are there in sushupti; sushupti is the true form; totally different from body and mind; not connected to them.
We have to understand ourselves using budhi. In jaagrat Vaiswaanara is responsible for all of our actions.
We don't know about how we cognize until science explains it; similarly saastra works
Knowing is result of tapas; constant tapas will reward us what we are seeking; god makes us remember and forget (per Gita) things
Vaiswaanara guides/rewards us as per our karma;
Vaiswaanara is getting knowledge from outside through 19 doors (5 karma indriyas + 5 gnaana indriyas + 5 pranaas + manas + budhi + chitta+ ahankaara); he has 7 limbs --surya is his eyes; bhoomi is his two feet; water is something, etc.; Vaiswaanara is whole world
Vaiswaanara performs all activities; it is adhyaasa to think that we are doing this and that
Nature is inanimate; Vaiswaanara is animated; One can say one is bahish-pragna, sthoola-bhuk, etc. but the activity is performed by Vaiswaanara
Viswaanara is one who leads all naras (humans); we should not limit ourself to our body; extend it to everyone like Vaiswaanara
Pratyagaatma is the same for all; we are all one;
Part 6
Top
Saastra says we are same as Vaiswaanara; so we are neither bahish-pragna nor sthoola-bhuk
Vaiswaanara is not bahish-pragna because there is nothing outside him
We are making distinction between outside and inside because of body due to adhyaasa; when we think of ourselves as Vaiswaanara this distinction is not there; in sushupti there is no distinction
Does each individual have separate aatma? No, we all are one aatma; we are limitless
Inside every physical structure like sun, moon, etc. there is aatman; aatman has no connection with body; but it is knowing body; its implement is budhi; budhi is an implement to understand;
Is budhi always connected to brain? Body needs budhi, manas, etc. and is very complex; so is there budhi and manas before we came?
Mind is different from body; with budhi we understand pain in the body; so budhi is different from brain.
Creation needs planning,etc. so manas and budhi precede creation
Vaiswaanara is a conscious entity in order to give bodies to jeevas based on karma; he is digesting our food, making us do karma, etc.
Gita sloka:
aham vaisvanaro bhutva
praninam deham asritah
pranapana-samayuktah
I am the fire of digestion in every living body, and I am the air of life, outgoing and incoming, by which I digest the four kinds of foodstuff.
Taapatraya:
aadhi bhoutika
aadhyaatmika
aadi daivika
So many things happen in cognition from image in eye to recognition by brain. We don't need to understand all of these to understand an object that is seen
Similarly all of the digestion takes place in the body which we don't understand in all detail
Every part is dependent on other;it acts as an integral whole including body and the universe
Samishti (physical universe)/vyashti (body) are working in unison
There is an aatman in samishti; same with vyashti;both are instances of Brahman
In sleep indriyas take rest; but mind doesn't go to rest quickly; sleep occurs when one is tired; manas doesn't take rest
In swapna whole body is resting; only manas is awake; manas carries impressions of wakeful activity
manas + budhi + chitta + ahamkara are called antah karaNa
gnaana indriyas - baahya karaNa
manas has sankalpa and vikalpa
budhi is that which decides
chitta is memory
ahmakaara is ego
Chitta stores all of the impressions in wakeful activity; those impressions are acting in swapna.
Seer inside our bodies; uses eyes to see; the seer is different from the indriya eye; eye is only an instrument to see. So who is the seer?
Poorva janma vaasana -- deep memory; there is also superficial memory
Swapna is called sandhi between jaagrat and sushupti; also between lOkaas
What is the light in swapna where there is no external light? Saastra says jyoti/prakaasa. Using eyes roopa, color, etc. can be seen; light is necessary to recognize roopa. Through sabda/sparsa/roopa/rasa/gandha we understand objects we cognize; What is required to know objects without which they can't be recognized is called jyoti by saastra
What is jyoti in swapna? One answer: jyoti is already contained in memory; doesn't need outside light; similarly sabda/sparsa, etc. but this is incorrect; For example a photograph might have been taken in light. But for seeing the photograph (impressions) light is necessary.
Second answer: light/jyoti comes from manas; this too is incorrect; if manas is self-luminous we don't see it in sushupti; so manas is not self-luminous.
To whom then prakaasa belongs? Manas + body + indriyas operate in jaagrat; so it is difficult to decide to whom jyoti belongs. In swapna there are only 2 = me + mind; so the prakaasa is pratyagaatma
Without sun/light we can't see objects; without eyes we can't even see the source of light (sun). The prakaasa of manas/budhi is illuminating our eyes. To see manas we need light as well; the light of pratyagaatma is the light of all lights
Pratyagaatma illuminates manas, which illuminates indriyas; which in turn illuminate sun, etc.; to see the sun the jyoti of eyes is necessary
The source of all lights is pratyagaatma; it is Brahman; Brahman created the sun; so what is unmanifested is manifesting
Knowing is distinguishing; for which we need implements; these are indriyas; in swapna objects and indriyas are smriti (memory); every thing in swapna is memory except manas; others exist as vaasana; manas is not vaasana
In swapna there is no kaarsnya; no causal relationship between events; there is no space/time/causal connection; there is no reality unlike in jaagrat; so swapna world is mithya; a pot that has no clay and an ornament that does not have gold, etc. are mithya; in swapna it is mithya because of lack of upaadaana kaarana;
What we see in swapna==no reality, mithya, no upaadaana
eetatha, vaitatya == mithya
In swapna jeeva is antah (inside ; not bahir) pragna; in jaagrat one can describe swapna where out of 19 organs only 4 are active; rest 15 exist in smriti/memory only or vaasanaatmaka
Part 7
Top
swapna has smriti (memory of individual incident) and samskaara (tendency; samskaara for music, vEda, etc)
jaagrat generates avidya, kaama, karma; instigates action
In swapna indriyas rest; manas is free to move; manas is both observer and observed; manas is knower and known; it can't take objects; it takes samskaara only
manas is different from body; but it is also physical to some extent; food after digestion goes into 3 parts; mala, maamsa (body) and the subtle part goes to mind; in another theory crude part of food goes to bones; madhya goes to marrow (majja); subtlest part goes to karma indriyas; based on allopathy: gross to mootra, middle goes to blood, subtlest part goes to praana
In jaagrat sthoola bhuk (what we eat)
pravivikta bhuk: subtlest part is separated for manas
In swapna uncontrolled manas exists
raasa leela: Sage Suka is asked by King Pareekshit in Bhagavata how come Krishna gets away with flaws; gopikas leave everything in midnight to see Krishna; Krishna says they are meeting a para purusha; gopikas then dance ... this is raasa leela; it's all happening in swapna at midnight
In swapna only Praagna is working; he is tEjaya as the light is from inside not external; jeeva is responsible for swapna; how can we say jeeva is the maker? kathopanishat says it is parameswara who is handling swapna; how can jeeva and parameswara both be responsible? What dream we see is decided by Ishwara. That is, what movie we see is decided by Ishwara. In jaagrat we have to do good things so that nightmares don't happen;
dama is controlling the mind; don't go near bad things; with tenacity even nightmares will stop; nightmares are like punishment for bad things done in jaagrat;
saastra says one should not sit on brother's bed; brahmachaari should not look into mirror; always focus on vidya; all saadhakaas should only do proper saadhana
brihadaaranyaka upanishat says jeeva is responsible for swapna; katha upanishat says Ishwara is responsible; mandookya says manas is responsible; unifying, all of them is necessary for swapna
manas is the karaNa (implement) for jeeva in swapna for dreams.
Creator of swapna (like film producer)is jeeva, Ishwara is the manager who shows the movie; decides which movie to see; manas is the film/movie itself
swapna is shown to improve ourselves in jaagrat so that bad dreams don't occur. Thus, Ishwara is showing compassion
When we do acts with intention Ishwara gives phala; when we do without intention (accident) Ishwara shows compassion such as not giving pain; he wakes us up in the middle of a nightmare so as not to feel the pain
Ishwara gives feedback of jaagrat acts in swapna; we have to purify ourselves in jaagrat
Why do we sweat in swapna? There is still mind-body connection in swapna; not total connection
We forget/don't remember bad things; we suppress them
In swapna manas is handled by Taijasa/Hiranyagarbha
In birth: praana is given by Ishwara; manas comes next; then budhi comes; the process of creation is same as birth
praana/manas/budhi are dormant/not expressed/unmanifest in child birth
Brahman->Ishwara->manas/budhi created->Hiranyagarbha created- ->gross Vaiswaanara is created (has manas/budhi/chitta, etc. and pancha bhootas)
jaagrat is gross->swapna is subtle ->sushupti is much more subtle
Original cause: where did I originate?
jaagrat ->swapna -> body is disconnected
swapna -> sushupti -> manas is disconnected
jeeva is an amsa (incarnation) of Ishwara
We are like sparks of fire (Ishwara/Vaiswaanara/Hiranyagarbha); sparks can't affect fire
When going from gross(jaagrat) to subtle (swapna) we are giving up transactions/activities with jaagrat; the cause for gross is subtle form; this is effect(jaagrat) to cause (swapna); this is called upasama (action/form/effect subdued) or prapancha vilaya
clay (subtle) is cause -> pot (gross) is effect with shape; shape is a thought in mind only
clay + shape=pot; keep clay remove form/shape; think about clay; give up sabda-budhi of pot
Part 8
Top
Physical parts of indriyas are called gOlaka
There are no consequences for acts in swapna in jaagrat
Samskaara makes one commit mistakes
Kaama, krOdha in samskaaara make us commit mistakes
Scientists (like Ramaanujam) receive knowledge to observe and come up with proof of things
Manas can probe past and future in swapna
A woman should not cross mind in upaasana; after upaasana a sumangali woman can appear in dream
For doing acts: saamarthya (ability) + pravrutti (inclination/initiative to do) are necessary
Saamarthya is given by Ishwara which is prakriti or maaya according to karma
Pravrutti is coming from us due to avidya/agnaana
Activity happens due to swabhaava=avidya + prakriti
Avidya is ours; prakriti is Ishwara
According to Gita there is no kartrutva (god is doing), karmani (acts by us); karma phala comes from swabhaava=avidya + prakriti
Due to pravrutti/ahamkaara we think we are doing acts; actually Ishwara/prakriti is doing the acts; pravrutti is a catalyst to initiate acts
We lose pravrutti when we understand Ishwara/Vaiswaanara are doing karma; we accept the outcome over time; this becomes samskaara
According to Vaiswaanara Hiranyagarbha is doing everything (saamarthya); the latter is samasta (all) manas and budhi
Vaiswaanara is passing responsibility to Hiranyagarbha
Vaiswaanara is not permanent within a srishti. AanjanEya will be next Vaiswaanara based on tapas
Hiranyagarbha is equivalent to Taijasa
When manas is tired one slips into sushupti
In sushupti there is no karma, no initiative/ pravrutti
In swapna there is no initiative
In sushupti there is no swapna
One doesn't directly go into sushupti
jaagrat -> swapna ->sushupti->swapna->jaagrat
Sushupti is a sandhi
In swapna there is no initiative from us; Ishwara compassionately blesses us; like waking us up during a nightmare
Sushupti is sandhi between paralOka and ihalOka
Nidra is common between swapna and sushupti
Darsana in swapna; adarsana in sushupti (not seeing anything)
Another commonality between swapna and sushupti: they both are nidra; we don't know our tatva/swaroopa
In all states we see something that is different from us; we are understanding ourselves wrongly;
Adhyaasa is present in jaagrat and swapna but not in sushupti
jaagrat + swapna + sushupti are analyzed in jaagrat
Praagna is in sushupti
Ekee bhoota - everything is one in different states;
Even if adhyaasa is gone the cause for it: avidya is there
With respect to swaroopa there is no avidya; when we recognize sushupti it is avidya
All avasthas have avidya
When one thinks of the 3 states-there is avidya; when we dissociate from them, there is no avidya
It is more easy to talk about Brahman in sushupti than swapna/jaagrat. There is dwaita darsana in swapna/jaagrat. It is difficult to say Ekee bhoota
When we think Ishwara is doing everything, then pravrutti (initiative) will be gone
In sushupti we all have pragna (visEsha gnaana); they are the vibrations of manas;they are dormant; they are subdued/frozen; thus we are pragnaana ghana; in memory all gnaanas are frozen; the moment we getup they will unfreeze
The 3 avasthas are of budhi
gnaana->thought->sets in a chain of actions
anima, garima, mahima, etc. ashta sidhis in yoga that enable one to do anything
Brahman is described as pragnaana ghana which is also applied to sushupti; what is the difference? In sushupti all pragnaana is frozen/inactive; in the case of Brahman they are all liquid; in that sense one is pragnaana ghana;there is no visEsha gnaana in Brahman (like knowledge of door, physics, etc.);
For all visEsha gnaana Brahman's gnaana is upaadaana; like gold to ornaments. visEsha (knower) visEshya(known); remove vishEshana (adjective) and take it away; that is Brahma gnaana
Frozen gnaana of jeeva is pragnaana ghana. there is no unity; but in Brahman such knowledge is unified
Aananda in jaagrat is because of outside objects;swapna is same but it is an impression; manas is vibrating; in sushupti manas gets tired and takes rest; there is no spandana; because manas stops functioning there is no dukha ; only aananda in spite of absence of another thing; aananda is within us; jyoti belongs to us (aatma);
Where does the aananda in jaagrat come from? In sushupti there are no objects but aananda exists. so aananda belongs to us (aatma)
Like a dog that eats its own blood by gnawing at a dry bone
Dukha about body parts is visible; whereas aananda can be pointed out; dukha comes from outside; it is not within us; our natural state is aananda
aanandamaya is vikaara (ghata is clay-maya; ornament is swarna maya) praachurya (predominantly aananda); yagna is anna maya or full of food (satiated)
Some say, sushupti is aananda maya kOsa; it is wrong; because there are priya, mOda, pramOda (superlatives) that are limbs of aatma; priya is like looking at an object and enjoying it (see a house); interaction with objects is mOda (rent a house); pramOda is within me (ownership of house);
In sushupti aananda has no gradations. The moment we wake up from sushupti the aananda will disappear/come to an end
Part 9
Top
sushupti=> Praagna
Ekee bhoota => objects Pragnaana Ghana => knowledge
Aananda maya ==> full of happiness
When pragnaana ghana is Brahman there is no end to aananda
In sushupti aananda will end
To experience aananda in jaagrat effort is needed; not in the case of sushupti
From jeeva's point of view sushupti is a state of mind; it has a start and an ending; no action is needed to experience aananda;
In jaagrat = avidya ( I don't know) + adhyaasa (I understand wrongly)
In swapna same
In sushupti there is no adhyaasa but only avidya
Brahman = satyam (unchanging) + anantam (limitless) + aananda (bliss) + Ekam (one and only one)
In sushupti a jeeva has the same properties (satyam+anantam + aananda + Ekam)
Iswara is giving a sample of his swaroopa as sushupti;
sushupti is a darsana of Brahman; without adhyaasa such a state is possible for longer durations
sushupti is daily marana/death
dhyaana = manas + budhi
nidhidhyaasana is done in budhi
nirupaadhika (in sushupti there is no body feeling)
sushuptaatma:
sruti says that is Brahman
When denied all life's pleasures (sex, food, sleep, etc.) for a long time and reinstated one prefers sleep over everything else to enjoy sushupti
On what basis do we say avidya is there in sushupti?
The qualities before sushupti and after sushupti are the same; (one won't become smart or dullard because of sushupti); so the avidya should be carried over through sushupti
Not knowing is avidya (I don't know how to multiply two numbers); not being correct is adhyaasa (8x3=34... I know but not well enough)
adhyaarOpa is done by saastra to remove ignorance
adhyaasa + avidya are there in budhi
In sushupti there is no budhi
Adhyaasa is because of avidya which can be removed by budhi
In sushuptaatma there is neither budhi nor avidya
knowledge about an object has these steps
- object should have existence
- indriyas are applied on the object
- budhi is used to recognize it (this is exact knowledge)
The above is called chEtana which is a kshEtra dharma (body/mind functional activity triggered by sushuptaatma)
Who is this Praagna?
- he was knowing yesterday and today; whatever the vishaya may be it is he who is knowing it
- he is in sushupti where there is no activity of knowing
- though there is no activity of knowing, he is the knower
When we say "I understood" who is the "I"? It is the sushuptaatma
Adhyaasa in every step below:
- I saw (indriya)
- I thought over (manas)
- I consulted memory (chitta)
- I decided (budhi)
So "I" is different from indriya, manas, chitta, budhi, etc. One can't think and talk at the same time. That is sushuptaatma.
I am a knower even without budhi/manas/chit, etc. He is Praagna
When Ishwara is everything, how can he be known? The ability to know is Ishwara's. The sushuptaatma is a fraction of the Ishwara. Each body gets a piece.
samishti vs. vyashti. There is no contact of aatma with body; there is no difference between sushuptaatma and Ishwara except for avidya
Part 10
Top
Vaiswaanara is not: bahish-pragna -observing outside as in jaagrat sthoola-bhuk or sthoola bhOg
because there is nothing outside/inside for him; he is everything
similarly "I"
To remove our adhyaasa saastra is making adhyaarOpa on Vaiswaanara, Hiranyagarbha and Ishwara
Sushupti's attributes made as adhyaarOpa on Ishwara; Ekeebhoota, vignaana ghana, aanandamaya, chEtOmukha (gate for all knowledge)
sushuptaatma is the knower (gnaata)
kshEtra vs body
We till land to get crop; similarly we perform karma with body and receive phala
kshEtragna -- the knower of kshEtra
aparaa prakriti or ashtaa prakriti:
brahma->avyaakruta->avyakta + praana ->mahat-> ahamkaara -> tanmaatraani (manas from ahamkaara, budhi from mahat)
For doing anything we need saamarthya (due to Ishwara ) + pravrutti (within me)
(Hiranyagarbha) ahamkaara has avidya, responsible for pravrutti
(Ishwara's)ahamkaara is defined as aham pratyaya lakshana; besides "I" there is no other description; there is no pravrutti in Ishwara's ahamkaara
There is not even "I" in Brahman
Both ahamkaara and Ishwara are required for srishti; a jeeva with great tapas becomes Hiranyagarbha; there is ahamkaara to begin with ("I want to do this", "I did this", "I did that") but eventually realizes he is Brahman and loses ahamkaara
In the case of Ishwara there is no ahamkaara
visEshagnaana (qualified knowledge) is there only in jaagrat + swapna but not in sushupti
All we can say about sushupti is "I exist" (or I slept well)
Ishwara has no pravrutti because of avyaakruta but he allows Hiranyagarbha to do sthoola srishti
pravrutti is required to do srishti
Part 11
Top
bahish pragna - in jaagrat; antah pragna - in swapna
Ishwara/Praagna is not gnaata;
bahish pragna = I am bahish pragna in jaagrat; antah pragna = I am antah pragna in swapna
Even a gnaani has praarabda karma that is ahamkaara vaasana (looks like ahamkaara but not ahamkaara)
prajaapati = vaiswaaanara = viraat purusha
Even the smallest life form like an ant has mind
I am responsible for action/karma but not its result/karma phala
Ishwara is controlling our budhi because it is missing in sleep
Gnaatrutva is imposed on Ishwara by adhyaarOpa; Ishwara is pragyampti maatra which is ahamkaara
Don't understand through body; understand through Ishwara;
In jaagrat there is knowing and not knowing; in sushupti there is neither knowing nor not knowing; there is no awareness in sushupti; so how can we say "I did not know anything" (we can't make any statement about sushupti because there is no budhi)
Not knowing and knowing are aspects of budhi
Ishwara is the root of all karma, creation, destruction/dissolution, etc.
In sushupti there is no difference among people; only in jaagrat/swapna there are differences
adhi daivika - samishti vs. vyashti , Vaiswaanara, Hiranyagarbha , etc.
aadhyaatmika - reference to body and mind
In Vaiswaanara and Hiranyagarbha there is Praagna
Ishwara is enveloping the whole universe and is the ruler though universe appears to be different in parts; he is moving the universe effortlessly; there is perfect coordination among the various parts of the universe;
Dams we construct are filled with silt over time by the rivers, but not an ocean; such is the majesty of His creation
The same Praagna is everywhere; he is sarvagna
Jeeva is manas; praana is Ishwara; praana is controlling manas; Ishwara is controlling jeeva; Ishwara remembers everything; Ishwara is looking at the karma of each creature because he is dwelling in our bodies;
Two birds on a tree branch: one is eating fruit (karma phala) and the other is just observing without eating (saakshi)
The 1st bird is jeeva; and the 2nd bird is the Praagna/Ishwara
Ishwara's upaadhi is prakriti/avyaakruti; so samishti budhi is there; all the actions we do are being recorded in our own budhi; according to karma Ishwara gives phala
At end of our lives, Ishwara picks up karma and applies to next life after rebirth
Ishwara's karuna (compassion) is such that he would like to release us from karma or cycles of births or samsaara
Praana vrutti, mano vrutti, etc. describe the process of death/birth
The path to mOksha is different for different people; but the end result is the same
Ishwara is antaryaami; he controls from within everything eg. vaayu, prithvi, etc.;
The world will be happy as long as dharma is there; dharma is prescribed by Ishwara; only saastra gives the criteria to decide right and wrong
Dharma can't be decided by humans; Ishwara gives it; saastra is Ishwara's word; Ishwara doesn't speak to us directly.
jagat has mass/stuff (avyakta) and action; creatures manifest, go unmanifest, etc. action is para prakriti and praana;
Creation has jada/kshEtra and kshEtragna; how is kshEtragna produced? How is he living in avyakta (seed)? When creation takes place manas and budhi are created; pancheekarana happens; prajaapati is born; and so on.
prithvi dEvata's life cycle is dependent on manvantara.
kshEtragna has neither birth nor death, but been given the body to act; sareera is the adhishthana for kshEtragna (like sushuptaatma); because of avidya we don't recognize him;
Body comes and goes but the sookshma sareera is always there until pralaya or mOksha
Part 12
Top
Where is Ishwara located in our bodies? in jaagrat he is located in the eyes; in sleep he is in the heart
Mind vibrates (spandana) in jaagrat and gets tired; then goes inward; where does it go? Upanishads provide different answers; one says it lies in the heart (dahara aakaasa);another says it goes to sleep
Though dahara aakaasa is small, it is no different from outer space; like a pin-hole camera it sees everything
What is naadi? like the nerves of peepal leaf, naadis are spread all over the body; there are 101 nadis; one of them called sushumna goes from head to toes; the rest 100 bifurcate into 36 branches to the right and 36 branches to the left. Each of them splits into 1000 parts. So the total number of naadis becomes 72000
The budhi rests in naadis; jeeva with adhyaasa says budhi is sleeping there (jeeva is not sure because of adhyaasa);
The third explanation is budhi rests in praana
In sleep there is no visEsha gnaana; but gnaana is there; which is swaroopa; we are only accustomed to seeing unqualified (visEsha) gnaana; so we don't see swaroopa.
Because of adhyaasa we are unable to visualize swaroopa as gnaana
In jaagrat we have visEsha gnaana and visEsha aananda (visEsha means qualified)
In sushupti both visEsha gnaana and visEsha aananda are not there
But we are able to say "Slept well" which means nirvisEsha aananda in sushupti is recognized; but nirvisEsha gnaana is not recognized
We are able to extrapolate from jaagrat about aananda but not gnaana
Difference between gnaana and aananda:
Because of gnaana, aananda is experienced we apply logic to prove that there is no gnaana; we apply *no logic* to prove that there is aananda; it is like experiencing in love-making or conjugal embrace;
In jaagrat and sushupti the same aananda is experienced without the involvement of karanaas (manas, budhi, etc.); because of adhyaasa we think karanaas are involved
visEsha aananda is not experienced through budhi; visEsha gnaana is experienced through budhi
sushupta aananda is experienced in jaagrat only; it is not coming from outside; it is inherent
The root problem: standing in samsaara we search for aananda; but aananda is inherent in our swaroopa
To express sushupti aananda one has to come into jaagrat and explain it with karaNaas (budhi, manas, etc.)
We think aananda is experienced from outside because of ignorance due to innumerable past births; saastra says aananda is our swaroopa and does not come because of budhi
[End of 6 mantraas]
[Beginning of Gowdapaada's Kaarikas]
- Vaiswaanara - bahish pragna
- Taijasa - antah pragna
- Praagna - pragnaana ghana/ avyaakruta
We are different from the 3 states and observe them from outside
Pratya bhigna: recognizing the object that has been seen once; if remembered (in memory) it is called smriti
So we recognize ourselves in 3 ways: jaagrat, swapna, sushupti
The 3 avasthas are different avasthaas in the case of pratya bhigna
Kaarika says: we can experience the different avasthas in jaagrat itself
Vaiswaanara is in right eye; we reflect inside mind (day dreaming) because of Taijasa; when we stop thinking it is because of Praagna
chandOgya upanishat refers to Vaiswaanara as "akshi purusha" (akshi means eyes)
According to science: left brain is responsible for actions and right brain is responsible for higher thinking
In paralysis when one half of the brain is affected, the other half takes over its functions
The right brain is more powerful in men left brain is more powerful in women
saastra says Indra and Indraani sit in the right and left eyes; they both handle Taijasa inside manas
So far, the avasthaa traya has been converged into a single observer by saying in jaagrat we are experiencing Vaiswaanara, Taijasa and Praagna
There is a dEva Indha who was called Indra. dEvas prefer to be called by a title not by their names. Vaiswaanara controls jaagrat even though we think we do. so the two are the same "I". It is only for transactional or vyavahaara purpose that we differentiate them.
We give different names such as Ishwara and Praagna when they are actually avyaakruta
Part 13
Top
praaNa is avyaakruta in the beginning of srishti. Why is it avyaakruta (unmanifest) in sushupti? From the personal point of view praaNa is avyaakruta. It is not split into paana, apaana, vyaana, etc. But from another person's point of view our praaNa is distinguished
The two descriptions of Brahman
-by neti, neti (can't describe)
-as the creator/destroyer of srishti
These two are opposites; how to reconcile the two?
Just as sun light is described as white light despite being made of seven colors, Brahman is both the creator and the one arrived at by neti, neti (can't describe).
Cause is white light->effect is 7 colors
With respect to effect, the sun light has 7 colors With respect to itself, the sun light is white
Similarly with respect to effect, Brahman is the creator/destroyer, etc. With respect to itself, Brahman is arrived at by neti, neti.
What is the tatva (as it is) of Brahman between the two?
A stick appears bent in water due to refraction of light and appears straight in air. When seen as it is -- without association with water--the tatva of stick is straight.
Brahman in association with forms is not its tatva. Inherent swaroopa of Brahman is neti-neti
One has to see himself as separate from the 3 avasthaas
One experiences aananda in the 3 avasthaas; its description changes but actually is one only
All the three Vaiswaanara, Taijasa, Praagna are the same self. So the bhOjya (enjoyment) and bhOkta (enjoyer) are the same. There is only one bhOjya in three forms. The same with bhOkta; so forms have no value; just as the various forms of gold as bangle, ring, necklace, etc. have no intrinsic value but allow transactions (vyavahaara); the knowledge is like gold which has no vyavahaara
From where did bhOkta come from? All the jeevas are born from praaNa.
When seen from cause, there is no difference. For example: all the ornaments are made of gold. When seen from the point of view of shape, form, etc. there are umpteen differences
When one sees differences without cause as independent, he is called avidyaakrita
If there is no cause, then it is called asat.
There is always Brahman. But because of avidyaakrita, from our point of view, there is avidya in describing it.
If we think all that is existing is asat, then there is no vyavahaara (transaction) with Brahman. We can never understand Brahman. Even Brahman becomes asat.
Only because of sat there is cause-effect that enables one to understand Brahman.
When one (cause) is appearing as many, then all the names/ forms are asat.
In imagination all the forms/names are asat. Every imagination is supported by an object (sat). In rajju-sarpa confusion, there is rope (sat) that is perceived wrongly as sarpa/snake. Mithya is rope as snake; mirage as water, etc.
Viewed independently of all forms/names, it is avidyaakrita or illusory. Once the realization comes that they are the forms/names of one and only one Brahman, then it is wisdom
The statement :"It is appearing independent" is wisdom, whereas the statement "It is independent" is ignorance.
Part 14
Top
Seeing rope as snake is avidyaakrita
Seeing oneself as Brahman is maaya
Seeing oneself as different from Brahman is like seeing pot without clay; this is avidya
Mithya is when one views an object as different from Brahman; anything different from Brahman cannot exist
The cause-effect doesn't apply to Rajju-Sarpa; rope did not cause snake; snake is in one's mind
From the point of view of clay (the cause) all pots don't appear different; advaita says everything is Brahman
Like H2O molecule that appears as solid,liquid and gas, Brahman is appearing in different forms
Spider's web is not different from spider; Sparks are not different from the fire they come from
Some people say "Brahman created srishti out of his free will"; others say "It is time"; all the srishti and karma by jeevas are a game or leela for Brahman. Brahman is bored; so he did srishti; and so on people give various opinions.
How did jagat (jada) come from Brahman (gnaana)?
In Saankhya pradhaanaa, how can srishti come from atoms?
There is no one correct answer
vEda itself says "I don't know how the srishti manifested"
Through pratyaksha pramaaNa or anumaana pramaaNa or arthapatti pramaaNa or sruti pramaaNa we can't answer.
By upamaana pramaaNa we can say just as we are creating a world by ourselves in swapna, srishti exists in Brahman's imagination. Srishti is mithya; jagat is real
Objects are caused by molecules. The cause of a molecule is atom; an atom's cause is neutrons, protons, electrons, etc. We drill down ad nauseum without a firm answer. These are all intermediate causes.
Saastra says don't use the method of division to understand jagat; take jagat as a whole and come to these conclusions:
- everything in the world is changing (asatya)
- everything in the world is jada (inert)
- everything in the world is limited (parichinna)
We don't gain knowledge from these conclusions about their cause except as asatya. So the world has to be satya-gnaana-ananta which are the feature of Brahman. So Brahman is the cause.
Can Brahman be many?
We say Brahman is gnaana. What is gnaana? Gnaana comes in Budhi. It must have a cause that is satya and ananta (unlimited). From gnaana all visEsha gnaanas came (eg. physics, chemistry, etc.) Such gnaana has to be one and only gnaana. If it can be two then there will be an observer and observed. So one becomes the visEsha of the other.
Brahman is satyam-gnaanam-anantam. There is no activity/action/karma in Brahman.
In Brahman the knower, known and knowledge are merged. So pramaaNa is not applicable to Brahman. When going toward Brahman all of the logic/saastra are helpful. Once reaching Brahman the logic/saastra won't help. The cause-effect are also not there
Kaarya-kaaraNa (cause effect) is a logical construct/method to prove the statement by smriti that Brahman is the ultimate cause.
pratyaya maatra is when we say "I was dreaming yesterday"; pragnapti maatra is when we have nothing to say about sushupti ; both are rooted in upaadhi; when upaadhi is eliminated what remains is gnaana
Part 15
Top
Brahman is not affected by jeevas just as nothing happens to clay when the pot breaks
Different descriptions are given by the upanishats about srishti; chaandOgya says it started from fire; brihadaaranyaka says it started with water
Like a maayaavi (magician) performing a rope trick yet not part of it, he stays outside his maaya; such is also the case with Ishwara.
Aparaa prakriti:
Brahman -> avyaakruta -> praana -> avyakta -> mahat -> ahamkaara-> pancha tanmaatra
In all action,first we think and decide with budhi; then we plan to do with manas
From praana -> budhi emerges
From ahamkaara -> manas emerges
Our budhi is a spark of Hiranyagarbha's budhi
Jeeva has freewill; the srishti of jeevas is tied up with karma; it requires planning; so budhi and manas are created; budhi is subtle matter
Hiranyagarbha's budhi is abhoutika (non physical); he creates the physical universe; in budhi he thinks (smriti) of some object to create (budhi parikalpita); to create soorya, budhi parikalpita soorya is precursor to the actual soorya; his thought is not different from the object but the object is different from his thought
nimitta kaaraNa (sentient cause)-> Hiranyagarbha upaadaana kaaraNa (material cause)->prakriti
soorya is not different from prakriti; prakriti is not different from Brahman; so soorya is not different from Brahman
Similarly nimitta kaaraNa is not different from Brahman
There is a kaarya-kaaraNa bhaava between soorya and Brahman; but this is not the case for Hiranyagarbha; Hiranyagarbha is not kaarya; it is the budhi that is kaarya; this is called ananyatva (non-difference between cause-effect)
There is kaarya-kaaraNa bhaava between jeeva's body and Brahman but not between sushuptaatma and Brahman
Like there are many forms appearing from clay (with kaarya-kaaraNa bhaava) and imaginations are happening; with rajju-sarpa (not just snake; could be a crack, garland, etc.) where there is no kaarya-kaaraNa bhaava; these are the examples for the statement that Brahman is manifesting as many
mithya gnaana is with real object and wrong impression in mind; rope is the real object and snake is imagination
samyak gnaana: real object + correct impression
In the case of rajju-sarpa there is similarity in shape; in the case of Brahman and jagat there is diversity; to describe Brahman all of the objects in the jagat are used as examples
How to illustrate when there is no kaarya-kaaraNa bhaava and there is no ananyatva (non-difference between cause-effect)? In this case, what needs to be seen is adhishtaana. Starting the sentence (vaachyaarambhana),"This snake" is wrong when there is only rope but no snake. The adhishtaana is the rope.
There is little or no similarity between jagat and Brahman. What about commonalities? Aananda.
Brahman is manifesting as different things to satisfy our samskaara. Each person has different samskaara and pragna. So Brahman is appearing in different ways to different persons.
Part 16
Top
Pot is a shape of clay; shape is only a name; it is not mithya as it contains clay
A sculptor removes rock that doesn't correspond to a shape he has in his budhi
Srishti starts with Hiranyagarbha's sabda-budhi and ends with sabda-budhi
mithya -- when we see something that is not there; something that doesn't contain Brahman doesn't exist; it is in our imagination but not external
Whatever we say to describe Brahman is sabda-budhi; using neti-neti Brahman is shown as indescribable
In the statement "I saw a bird", the "I" is identified with the eyes (the verb see); otherwise there is no connection between I and the seen; because of adhyaasa we are in mithya by claiming a connection with the object.
Without a basis there can't be mithya; just as rope is the basis for snake; mirage is the basis for water;after removing the vikalpas what remains is adhishtaana
"I am bahish pragna" is vikalpa because the connection between "I" and pragna doesn't exist
saastra doesn't deny existence of objects; it only removes wrong understanding
"I don't know who I am" is correct. But action is being enacted. Who is responsible? Gita says we are responsible for our actions but not its phala/result.
Initially Vaiswaanara is responsible for action; then Taijasa; then Praagna/Ishwara. Ultimately Brahman is responsible for action.
When we call "I" as different from all of the avasthas, then is "I" in soonya?
tatvamasi is not unbelievable; sushuptaatma is referred to here
ayamaatma brahma: sushuptaatma is referred to here again
All of the mahaa vaakyas referring to aatma actually mean sushuptaatma
gnaatrutva (from indriyas),kartrutva (karmEndriyas),bhOktutva (manas) are claimed in pratyagaatma because of adhyaasa
"I" is not gnaata, karta or bhOkta
In sushupti "I" is completely disconnected from body. How is the connection reestablished with body after waking up? If sushuptaatma is same for everybody, can different bodies wake up with different sushuptaatma? Is such swapping possible?
The budhi is very subtle matter because it sustains on food. When it gets tired it stays in hridaya. After resting enough, it wakes up. Also when someone shakes the body when budhi is resting it starts functioning. But we claim "I slept" when it is actually the budhi that sleeps.
Sushuptaatma never sleeps
sushuptaatma is same as pratyagaatma-brahma based on aparOksha (experience) of the bhaashyakaara
tureeyaatma is there in all avasthaas. It is mixed with adhyaasa and budhi. This is paaramaartha.
One has to understand tureeyaatma through all 3 avasthaas. It is arrived at by rejecting bahish pragna,antah pragna, pragnaana ghana etc. All these are kalpita by tureeyaatma
Part 17
Top
antah pragna, various avasthaas, etc. are vikalpa. A real thing won't have any connection with vikalpa. The rope doesn't have connection with snake which exists in mind only.
Using grammar/words one can't connect sat(rope) with asat(snake);
vignaana vaadis (budhists) say object is in imagination only; but not outside
vEdaanta will not make any statement that we can't believe
We can recognize the jati of a cow; jati is saamaanya and in a particular cow will have visEsha (strong, white, etc.); similar argument won't apply to tureeya
Tureeyaa is not pramEya (not amenable with pramaaNa).
jagat is anirvachaneeya (not describable); for example: pot is clay (its tatva); we can store water in it; can we store water in clay? for the sake of vyavahaara pot should exist; any object can be seen as 2 things at the same time: kaarya (effect) and kaaraNa (cause); so kaarya with respect to kaaraNa can't be described.
Viewed from paaramaartha the kaaraNa is Brahman
Sakti can't be seen; but when we act it is because of sakti
Maaya and sakti can be seen simultaneously; but anirvachaneeya (indescribable)
There is no mithya gnaana when we say the clay appears as pot; to think clay is pot is wrong;
When we mistake rope for snake then fear will be there;
When we remove bahish pragna, antah pragna, pragnaana ghana, etc. all kaama will be removed
satya-gnaana-ananta-Eka, etc. are used to describe Brahman; but Brahman is actually indescribable
Tureeya aatma is present in all avasthaas; it is mixed with other features such as activity (praatibhaasa satya). The activity is not connected with aatma.
Action takes place in the presence of aatma; but aatma itself is not acting; for example, an iron nail is attracted to a magnet and the magnet is not doing any karma.
Aatma has no connectivity with karma/ activity; but karma/activity has connection with aatma
Ananyatva(non-difference between cause-effect): the serpent is not different from rope; but rope is not serpent
In pratibhaasa satya the truth is appearing as different;
In the case of sushuptaatma we know we are not the body, manas, budhi, etc. by neti-neti but still we don't know who we are;but in tureeya, the difference is, we know who we are
Suppose a theft has been committed and by pratyaksha pramaaNa (open window, foot prints, etc.); it has been decided that the thief came from outside; a discussion about whether the thief used a ladder, rope, etc. is intended to clear any doubts. The discussion about the theft does not produce any additional knowledge
When tatvamasi is proclaimed by vEda, there is no doubt about its meaning; but doubts linger; one has to accept sruti pramaaNa; to experience it is very hard
When we sleep there is a transition period between jaagrat and swapna which we can recognize; but the transition from swapna to sushupti is not recognizable
Jaagrat = bahish pragna
Swapna = antah pragna
Sushupti = pragnaana ghana
There is no stuff/matter associated with them.
Action is taking place when we follow the line of reasoning:
- bahish pragna is Vaiswaanara;
- antah pragna is Taijasa;
- sushupti is Praagna.
Action is associated with samishti
Tureeya can only be understood from samishti but not vyashti
There is a lot of commonality between sushupti and tureeya. The difference is when we ask who we are. In jaagrat and swapna there are avidya and adhyaasa; in sushupti there is avidya;
We don't know who we are in all 3 avasthaas; the action in jaagrat is performed by Vaiswaanara
On what basis can we say bahish pragna, antah pragna and pragnaana ghana are asat? "I am" is common in all things; the experiences are going and coming; anything that goes and comes is not stuff; for example, the shape of an object that comes and goes; the shape of ornaments is not stuff; it is mithya as gold is the support for it; when we melt the ornaments the shape will go away and only gold remains.
When we are Vaiswaanara there is no outside (bahish pragna); same with antah pragna; in all these avasthas the ability to know is there; there is no absence of chaitanya;
Part 18
Top
A horned hare can't be seen in jaagrat; it is possible to see it in swapna; it is asat as there is no stuff
Is the shape of a pot sat or asat? With respect to clay it is asat. Form is called sabda-budhi. The budhi keeps changing as we look at other objects. An unchanging budhi is sat.
In sushupti there is nothing that exists. Why do we say we didn't experience anything in sushupti? Only our swaroopa/aatman is there in sushupti.
Objective knowledge is because of adhyaasa. It is kshEtra dharma. Not swaroopa/aatma.
What is the connection between aatma and form? No one knows.
Brahman is kaarya-kaaraNa nirmukta. That is, Brahman is beyond cause-effect
When a muslim invader burnt a Hindu library at Nalanda, he asked "Do the books contain what is in koran?" When answered yes, then he concluded it was unnecessary. When answered no,then he concluded it was blasphemous.
The same reason applies to sat. When viewed from the point of view of clay, the shape of pot doesn't exist. Even when viewed independently, a form is asat as when the pot breaks, there is no shape.
Sat never changes. But saastra says vyaavahaarika satya changes from transaction to transaction
Is body sat or asat? Body is changing from childhood to adulthood. But the "I" is always there unchanged.
asat has many gradations:
- a horned hare doesn't exist
- in swapna
- in jaagrat
tureeya aatma is Brahman
Body is not different from Brahman. But Brahman is different from body.
In sushupti there is neither knowing nor not knowing. Only Brahman fits the description. So in sushupti the aatman merges with Brahman.
In the presence of Brahman all things get life. Like bulb lights up, fan rotates, etc. in the presence of electricity. But Brahman does not do anything.
Brahman is in pristine purity in sushupti. It is there in every avastha but only pure in sushupti
In samaadhi, one merges with nirupaadhika Brahman
Without the experience of sushupti, no matter how many times upanishat says "tatvamasi", there is no experience of it. We have sushupti as a sample of mOksha
In aanandamaya kOsa enjoyment is obtained from objects. In sushupti there is no object to be enjoyed.
Budhi is quietened in sushupti, epilepsy, under anesthesia, etc.
Part 19
Top
Bahish/antah pragna, pragnaanam ghana (in jaagrat/swapna/sushupti) are asat.
When kaarana-kaaraNatva is there, there is usually ananyatva (non-difference between cause-effect)
Ananyatva (non-difference between cause-effect) can exist without kaarya-kaaraNatva. Example: rajju-sarpa (there is no cause-effect between them)
praatibhaasa satya : rope is appearing as snake
bahish pragna: there is no outside with respect to Vaiswaanara; so it is asat; claiming "I did it" is not a valid claim because it is Vaiswaanara who does everything in jaagrat
chaitanya is there in sushupti because we are getting up and saying "I slept well"
We are different from all 3 avasthas as we are aware of them in jaagrat
sthaana dharma - kshEtra dharma (body/jagat)
sthaani dharma - kshEtragna dharma (aatman)
aatma = sushuptaatma
anaatma = jagat (exists)
Body is real. "I" doesn't have any connection with body. How do we know? In sushupti there is no connection.
"I" is different from jagat. But jagat is not different from "I" because of "Ayamaatma Brahma"; "I" is Brahman
jaagrat/swapna/sushupti are kshEtra dharma or sthaana dharma; no matter how much gnaana we obtain the 3 states happen
The statement "I am bahish/antah pragna , pragnaana ghana" are kshEtra or sthaana dharma
We can melt all ornaments into gold; but we can't do the same with jagat; only in pralaya the srishti undergoes laya (devolution)
If we see multiple moons, where there is only one, the dOsha is in us. Similarly there is only one aatma; if we see multiple, then it is our dOsha
Mistaking aatma to be many is same as mistaking moon as many when there is only one
sarvaatma bhaava : all we see with indriyas is aatma; there is only one aatman
In swaroopa bhaava: budhi is not functioning; in sarvaatma bhaava budhi is functioning because of upaadhi
budhi derecognizes sarvaatma bhaava just as a scientist derecognizes various forms of H2O molecule as water/steam/ice, etc.
aatma has no avidya; is nitya sudha, budha, etc.; for a jeeva it is not the case; the indriyas cannot grasp an object correctly
Part 20
Top
tureeya is not a state of mind
For jaagrat/swapna upaadhi is necessary; not for sushupti
There is no wearing out in tureeya; wearing out happens for example when a tap's handle is constantly used; this doesn't apply to tureeya (avyaya)
tureeya will remove all sorrows (dukha)
From infinite past sushuptaatma is interacting with jagat; but there is no avyaya (wear). Whereas, kshEtra (body) falls from time to time
For kaarya-kaaraNa (cause-effect), Brahman is upaadaana kaaraNa; since "I" = Brahman, "I" is the upaadaana kaaraNa
Just as sarpa is non-existent the world is mithya; what appears as jagat is tureeya aatma
there is kaarya-kaaraNa between Brahman and jagat; when it comes to tureeya there is no kaarya- kaaraNa bhaava (ananyatva); there is no dvaita in tureeyaatma
jaagrat/swapna/sushupti (visEsha) are the same jaati as tureeya (saamaanya); they appear different due to upaadhi
kaarya --> adhyaasa (understanding wrongly)
kaaraNa --> avidya
Vaiswaanara and Taijasa both have adhyaasa + avidya; Praagna has avidya; in tureeya there is neither adhyaasa nor avidya
Because of avidya tureeya is appearing like jaagrat/swapna/sushupti
tureeya is sarva dhruk; to know anything there has to be a difference; but there is nothing different from tureeya/Brahman; so where is the question of understanding or not understanding? But the ability to understand is there. Brahman == aatman == sarvagna
avyakta beeja == seed of creation
Part 21
Top
tureeya is nirupaadhika (devoid of body); whereas the jaagrat/swapna/sushupti are soupaadhika (embodied)
avidya + adhyaasa in jaagrat/swapna; avidya in sushupti
avidya: thinking bahish pragna in jaagrat, antah pragna in swapna and pragnaana ghana in sushupti are abilities of "I"; in reality, Vaiswaanara is ruling in jaagrat, Taijasa in swapna and Praagna in sushupti
The difference between tureeya and sushupti is that in sushupti there is avidya and in tureeya there is no avidya. Pragnaana ghana of sushupti is because of avidya
In tureeya there is neither sleep nor dreams.
Agnaana is there in all 4 states including tureeya.
Since eternal past avidya is coming with us.
At the time of death sookshma sareera attains vaag vrutti (speech), manO vrutti (manas), praaNa vrutti; karma is attached to each of them; sookshma sareera then leaves the body. Rebirth takes places after enjoying punya in swarga lOka or whatever lOka the sookshma sareera enters. After getting embodied, the jeeva enters the earth via rain drops. If the karma phala ordains human birth:the jeeva enters the grain; when a person eats the grain, the jeeva enters his body; enters his veerya; then into mother's body...etc.
Part 22
Top
Sareera and Karma alternate; which came first? It is like the seed-tree dilemma. Which comes first: seed or tree? We don't know. It is the agnaana. This is the vicious circle.
In sushupti we are connected to neither sareera nor karma. But because of adhyaasa we think we are doing karma and we are same as the sareera. The vicious circle applies when we accept adhyaasa.
Three types of karma:
- praarabda
- sanchita
- karshyamaani/aagaami
When a person loses his avidya and becomes a gnaani: sanchita karma is lost; karma done in the current life is wiped out; but the praarabda will continue; it is like an arrow that has been released; it will continue to move;
Other people attribute kartrutva to a gnaani. In reality he has no connection with karma.
Where does a gnaani's sanchita karma go? One theory is Sanchita karma = punya + paapa. The punya goes to his well-wishers. The paapa goes to those who hated him or his enemies.
The other theory is, sanchita karma is burnt; When a gnaani is burnt (post death), his budhi will remain; his vrutti (vaak, manas, praana) will merge into pancha bhootas from where they came;
The two theories are artha vaada (meant as examples without literal meaning)
Budhi originates with srishti and will survive till pralaya; prajaapati knows everything and creates new life for the agnaani based on karma; but for gnaani everything goes into pancha bhootas;
For gnaani avidya is destroyed without trace; so avidya is not bhaava (adhyaasa); a bhaava cannot be destroyed without trace just as a candle is burning producing light (and smoke).
avidya -- I don't know
adhyaasa - I am the body
abhaava -- absence
Every bhaava has to stay somewhere; where can abhaava(absence) stay?
In tureeya there is neither gnaana nor agnaana
The agnaana and gnaana reside in budhi
gnaana is about something (pratyaya) which has to be in budhi
Some experiences through budhi may be forgotten; others are not; for example the experience of sushupti will never be forgotten;
Suppose a person attains aatma gnaana, will he forget it? He can't because it won't come from budhi
When we remove visEsha by neti-neti and retain saamaanya, we reach tureeya
In jaagrat, swapna and sushupti we are overpowered by visEsha
Part 23
Top
Budhi is a subtle part of pancha bhootas; indriyas/karaNas are of same jaati as budhi and bhootas
visEsha comes and goes; saamaanya stays the same forever; every visEsha at the time of laya goes into saamaanya; for example a grain of salt from the sea when dropped into a river goes back into the sea
Mind is in the control of praana
indriyaas are not tanmaatra; manas is annamaya; praaNa is a vikaara of aapa (water); karmEndriyas are vikaara of tEjas; solid food is sustaining the indriyas; kaarya can't sustain kaaraNa; kaaraNa sustains kaarya
- 1st tiruvirti karaNa = all objects (sun, earth, water, planets, etc.)
- 2nd tiruvirti karaNa = plants are produced from 1st tiruvirti karaNa =anna (kaaraNa) =oil=agni, anna=prithvi, liquid food =water
- 3rd tiruvirti karaNa = animals are produced from 2nd tiruvirti karaNa ==indriyas (kaarya) are generated
From tanmaatraas pancha bhootaas are created by the process of pancheekaraNa
- Hiranyagarbha creates pancha bhootas
- Prajaapati creates world with 1st tiruvirti karaNa
- 1st tiruvirti karaNa produces 2nd tiruvirti karaNa
- 2nd tiruvirti karaNa produces 3rd tiruvirti karaNa
indriyas recognize objects (with differences); budhi decides what they are by consulting with chitta
In the entire creation there is one underlying thing; that is (tureeya) aatma
Thought is a vikaara of manas; manas is stuff that takes many shapes based on understanding
manas = sankalpa (understood correctly) + vikalpa (wrongly understood)
One has to consult guru/saastra to decide if a sankalpa is based on dharma
In sushupti there is no jagat; when we wake up the samskaara of jagat (dwaita) is there because of avidya.
When we wake up from tureeya, there is no dwaita jagat because there is no avidya; one has to embrace advaita; come to the realization that jagat is illusory; it is all maaya
kalpana is based on object; that object is ourself; the adhishtaana for all kalpanas is aatman
boudha believes in soonya/nihilism; for him everything came from soonya; they also say there is nothing like gnaata or gnEya; advaita says at the beginning there is creation; reject dwaita
Part 24
Top
jaagrat/swapna/sushupti will continue to be there after tureeya. So how can a gnaani handle dwaita in jaagrat?
Gnaani thinks:
- jagat doesn't exist or
- jagat is myself;
jagat is not different from us; so the pot(shape) and clay are ourself; the form is seen by budhi not the indriya (eye) because indriya has no capacity to discern the form; budhi says to indriya "I have believed whatever you have shown. Not anymore"
There is no kaarya-kaaraNa bhaava (cause-effect) of jagat in a gnaani. There is ananyatva (non-difference between cause-effect)
Such gnaani realizes he is Brahman and jagat is maaya
abhidaana (name), abhidEya (object): we don't treat them as different;in Brahman there is neither abhidaana nor abhidEya; the names are necessary to differentiate objects; when there is only one or non-dual object there is no need for abhidaana and abhidEya;
jeeva has:
- karta
- bhOkta
- gnaata
drug-drusya is meant for removing kartrutva; to remove bhOktrutva pancha kOsa are introduced which are aspects of manas; there are priya, mOda, pramOda which are not there in sushupti; to remove gnaatrutva avastha traya are used; ultimately we reach sushuptaatma
gnaatrutva is coming from Vaiswaanara, Taijasa, Praagna; this bEdha needs to be removed; Omkaara is used to unify the three: akaara is Vaiswaanara, ukaara is Taijasa, makaara is Praagna; the silence that follows is tureeya; the a-u-m are maatraas; Omkaara is amaatra; abhidaana = Omkaara, abhidEya = tureeya; Omkaara is not a different jaati from a-u-m; similarly tureeya is not different from jaagrat/swapna/sushupti
There is only an upaadhi difference among the Vaiswaanara/Taijasa/Praagna/tureeya. Otherwise they are all the same.
jaagrat/Vaiswaanara are referred to by akaara just as Omkaara refers to tureeya
Through upaasana mind can be seasoned;
Without karma we can never progress. The first part of vEda teaches karma and provides the base for vEdaanta.
Meditate on Vaiswaanara represented by akaara. When done without kaama, Vaiswaanara will take us to Taijasa. When done with kaama, one can get sidhis/benefits.
To concentrate during meditation one needs an object. akaara is present in all letters and words. Similarly Vaiswaanara is pervasive in all pancha bhootas. Thus, upaasana needs to be done.
upaasana phala is received at the moment of death as vritti;
The concentration during upaasana needs to be in line with the objective of upaasana without the scattering of the mind on non-saastra thoughts
From the point of creation first comes Ishwara, then Taijasa followed by Vaiswaanara
What is the similarity between ukaara and Taijasa?
u--means ubhaya--Taijasa is between Vaiswaanara and Praagna
Phala: grasps knowledge quickly
The person doing upaasana on ukaara is friendly with all parties and not an enemy to anyone.
Phala: good progeny who are aware of Brahman, etc.
What is the similarly between makaara and Praagna?
Phala: makaara represents measurement; a and u merge in makaara; a and u become laya; Vaiswaanara and Taijasa merge with Praagna
Part 25
Top
Sometimes there is no difference between abhidaana (name) and abhidEya (object). For example the word "fire"
5 pramaanaas:
- pratyaksha
- anumaana
- upamaana
- arthaapatti
- aagama
gnaani can lose kaarya-kaaraNa bhaava and ananyatva (non-difference between cause-effect). Example: pots are kaarya of kaaraNa clay. For a gnaani the difference goes away (ananyatva). Jagat is not different from us (ananyatva).
Omkaara (abhidaana) == Brahman (abhidEya); Omkaara can be used for upaasana (everything is Omkaara);
aalamba: keeping Brahman in mind, worship a prateeka (linga for Ishwara, saala grama for Vishnu), etc.
Omkaara represents brahma and apara brahma
apara brahma == Hiranyagarbha/kaarya brahma
upaasana with kaama may take one to brahma lOka; after some time he will be reborn on earth; if upaasana is done without kaama, Hiranyagarbha makes upadEsa. Then one becomes mukta. This is called krama mukti
sadyOmukti -- is attaining mukti on earth itself
tureeya is manifesting in a upaadhi as Vaiswaanara, Taijasa and Praagna
Part 26
Top
Omkaara is amaatra because all the maatraas (a-u-m) are absorbed into it. Omkaara is the tureeya; there is no abhidaana/abhidEya; vaak and manas won't understand it;
Budhi is a problem; because it identifies with jaagrat/swapna.
When budhi associates with tureeya for longer intervals, its samskaara changes to aatman
The meditator meditating on omkaara merges in his swaroopa (aatma); won't have rebirth because in tureeya there is no agnaana
With OmkaaraapOsana gnaata ("I am the knower") will be removed
tureeya is Vaiswaanara + upaadhi, Taijasa + upaadhi and Praagna + upaadhi
apara brahma = kaarya brahma = Hiranyagarbha
Omkaara upaasana takes us to para or apara Brahman depending on our kaama/desire.
Omkaara is avyaya (never diminishes)
praNava (Omkaara) is Brahman; all creation, sustenance and destruction are because of it
H2O is the cause of water/ice/vapor. But H2O can be split into hydrogen and oxygen; which can be further split into electrons, protons, etc. So no matter how much splitting is done Brahman cannot be found, because they all are forms.
Saastra does not divide. It seeks classification. saastra says
- everything is changing (asatya)
- everything is insert (jada)
- everything is limited (parichchinna)
These are controlled by satya-gnaana-ananta the opposites of asatya-jada-parichchinna
vEdaanta and science are similar; but science does not know where to search.
advaita denies forms but not stuff they are made of
in Lalita Sahasranaama "pancha prEta sanaa seena" refers to srushti-sthithi-laya-tirOdhaana-anugraha
Part 27
Top
Brahman is paaramaarthika (pure) satya; Jagat is vyaavahaarika (transactional) satya; it is Brahman's appearance (contradiction as Jagat is different from Brahman or its upaadhi)
Jagat is a form of Brahman(aabhaasa?)
When we say everything is ourself (aatma) there is no triputi: gnaata, gnEya, gnaana
bahish pragna/antah pragna/pragnaana ghana are all asat. But Vaiswaanara, Taijasa and Praagna are not asat; they are different forms of aatman
vyavahaara (kinetic energy) is the manifestation of maaya/praana/Brahman (potential energy)
abhaava -- not from Brahman; it doesn't exist
ananya - no difference
dwaita comes as pratyaksha, anumaana, etc. pramaanaas; Sruti deals with things beyond pramaanaas;
vaitata -- independent of aatma; ex: appearance
There can't be illusion without support/adhishtaana
Part 28
Top
Naanaatva: multiplicity
There are 3 ways of looking into naanaatva
- there are no objects/forms (abhaava)
- jagat/object is mithya
- all the objects/forms are aatma (like all pots are not different from clay) (pratibhaasa satya)
When we enter into tureeya there is aatma only; there are no objects/forms in tureeya
In swapna whatever we see is vitata (illusory); jagat is inside the body; so it has to be illusory
Being inside is not sufficient to be illusory
In swapna, jagat is in naadis which cannot hold mountains and elephants (large objects); so the jagat has to be illusory
If one dreams about kaasi, he did not go to kaasi and come back; he is creating kaasi for himself
The light in swapna/sushupti is because of Taijasa/Praagna where the illumination of objects is done by them (aatma). Just as a film has to be illuminated by projector even if the film is produced in light
Dream is happening in a constricted place (within one's body); jaagrat is not taking place in constricted space; just as everything is mithya in dreams, jaagrat is illusory
From the point of view of kaaraNa everything is Brahman; just as "pot is different from clay" is a wrong sentence. An object can't exist without Brahman as its ultimate cause; it can exist in one's imagination but not in reality
There is kaarsnya (dEsa, kaala, nimitta; everything is connected causally) in jaagrat but not in swapna (one can dream about things that are not causally connected)
How can changing jagat come from unchanging Brahman?
- no one has the answer
- even sruti can't tell
- jagat exists in Brahman's dreams
Anumaana pramaana: the assertion "where there is fire there is smoke, where there is no fire there is no smoke" is called vyaapti; fire is called vyaapaka; smoke is called vyaapya; a drishtaanta (example) is fire and smoke in the kitchen. This inference is called swaartha (meant for oneself). When we want to narrate to someone it is called paraartha. What one wants to prove is called pratigna ("I want to prove") such as "I want to prove there is fire on the hill"). The reason is "smoke is seen" (called hEtu). Drishtaanta: just as the fire and smoke in the kitchen. This information is applied to hill. This is called Upanaya: "smoke is seen in the hill". Repeating pratigna is called Nigamana (QED: "therefore there is fire in the hill"); There is no difference between pratigna and nigamana. Just repetition of pratigna.
Application
vyaapya: swapna
Pratigna: jaagrat/jagat is vaitatyam(illusion)
hEtu: drushyatva in jaagrat
Drishtaanta: as in swapna
Upanaya:drushyatva is also seen in swapna as in jaagrat
Nigamana: therefore, jaagrat vaitatyam
Jaagrat is vitata as in swapna; based on similarity jagat is mithya.
Since we can hold external objects and experience objects, it is not abhaava (objects do exist)
We cannot deny the existence of objects in the jagat
There is similarity between objects in swapna and in jagat which is they are mithya; but they are not identical.
To prove swapna is satya (not vitata):
Pragna: swapna is avitata as in jaagrat
hEtu: drushyatva in both swapna/jaagrat
Drushtaanta: as in jaagrat
Upanaya: drushtanyam saamaanyam (they are alike)
Nigamana: swapna is real (avitata; not mithya)
This leads to contradiction as we could prove and disprove the opposites: swapna is satya and swapna is asatya (mithya). Our experience is swapna is mithya
So there is something wrong with the logic. What is it?
Based on the understanding of agnaanis there is no difference between jaagrat and swapna. In swapna only smriti is working; they experience forms only; there is no stuff in swapna
Knowledge of kaaraNa is present in jaagrat which is ultimately Brahman; but not in swapna.
In other upanishat it says there are three positions: nEtra, manas, hridaya; accordingly there are 3 dream states jaagrat, swapna, etc.
In jaagrat everything is a swapna
Part 29
Top
agnaanis see the world in jaagrat as without cause; they don't see much difference between swapna and jaagrat
In jaagrat the world continues to exist day after day because it has a cause; in swapna the dream ceases to exist after waking up; that's why it is mithya
Why the difference between jaagrat and swapna? There is cause in jaagrat. Cause is absent in swapna. In swapna the smriti plays a greater part.
There is no jagat without Brahman; what agnaani sees in the jaagrat is asat like in swapna.
Don't look at forms/shapes and draw conclusions; they only exist in the mind/imagination
Budhi is stuff and thought is a shape it takes
In jaagrat there is a prayOjana (benefit) but not in swapna; Example: when we eat food we are satisfied; in swapna we can eat but it doesn't satisfy us.
Water can contain ice cubes. Even though they look different they both are H2O molecules. Similarly Brahman splits into many for the sake of creation.
In swapna we see unnatural things.
sthaani dharma is specific to a place (kshEtra) and time; it is not swaroopa; Example: Indra has 2 eyes on earth but may have thousands in swarga
Brahma maanasa putra--Brahman's thoughts are manifest as persons
It is not possible to record our dreams
On earth we experience through the body; in other lOkas we experience through mind
If everything is illusory in jaagrat and swapna who is doing the kalpana?
[vignaana vaadis of Buddhism see only shapes; they believe nothing exists; no thoughts; and everything is from soonya]
If the kalpana is being done by tureeyaatma, then it is doing vyavahaara which it can't do by definition (avyavahaari).
No one really knows how the jagat came from Brahman including vEda.
There is no kaarya-kaaraNa bhaava by tureeya. It is doing kalpana. But doesn't it need budhi? Does Brahman have hands and feet to create the jagat?
That the tureeyaatma is doing kalpana is adhyaarOpa. Jaagrat/swapna/sushupti aatma aren't much different from tureeya.
aatman is aparOksha. It can be experienced in sushupti. There never is a doubt about its existence. Even vEda says it doesn't know about aatman but won't deny its existence
Even though it is kalpana, there is an adhishtaana (just as rope is to the snake). That is tureeyaatman. It is the basis for all kalpana.
Hiranyagarbha creates with budhi; he is a jeeva in previous birth; did a lot of tapas; so he has vaasanaas of previous birth; they are in his chitta; he makes them manifest outside with karaNa using tanmaatraas, etc. ; just as a pot maker who uses budhi/chitta to give forms to clay
Part 30
Top
Mithya: seeing objects/jagat as different from aatma/tureeya aatma; a person looking into objects as mithya is agnaani who gets caught in samsaara
We should not look at jagat as different from us
There are 2 types of kaala/time: mental kaala and outside kaala.
In mental (inner/chitta) kaala there is no causality; example: when we say, "When I was child..."; such kaala is mithya
Dvaya kaala is a kaala we understand in relation to the objects outside
Space and time are not recognized with our indriyaas; but recognized directly through the mind; it is not imaginary as objects are real;
Without an object space can't be perceived
Since space/time are entities they must have a cause; it should be the same as the cause for the object because space/time are about objects (like motion); the cause of all objects is avyakta and cause of all action is praaNa. Both are effects of Brahman. So Brahman is the cause of space/time as well.
The time is flowing forward like a river.
The relative time (seconds, hours, days, etc.) is based on a scale. Absolute time is the ruler.
mithya means seeing different from aatman
Time is the kalpana of jeeva; from kalpanaas jeeva gets knowledge/smriti/samskaara
Viewed from cause, effect is real; otherwise it is mithya;naama/roopa give a means to communicate about the kaarya (effect)
An agnaani who says Brahman is asat also is asat because saastra says "aham brahmOsmi"
Through sushupti we realize that jeeva is same as Brahman
Whatever we learn is vidya (good/bad/useless); whatever we do is karma; with them we attain samskaara (poorva pragna); these are carried from janma (birth) to janma
Prakriti is doing everything, but we claim we are doing which is a kalpana.
Jeeva's creation: Hiranyagarbha creates body; praana enters body; some samskaara is in budhi
Among all kalpanas, the first kalpana is jeeva; then the rest follow
In total darkness or bright light, there is no sarpa kalpana; in between there is kalpana of snake; similarly we know we exist but we don't know who we are; in between there is kalpana
avidya is the kaaraNa for kaaraNa sareera; there is no stuff in it
Just as with the help of light, when rajju is confirmed, all the kalpana will go away, with the realization that aatman is Brahman.
Part 31
Top
gnaatrutva = bahish pragna + antah pragna + praghnaana ghana
gnaatrutva is illusory. We are not gnaata. Jeeva is illusory. We are Brahman only.
Based on neti-neti one can arrive at the conclusion that one is tureeyaatma
To remove attachment from external objects it is very difficult; one has to practice shat sampaththi sama, dama, uprati, titeeksha, sradha, samaadhaana, etc. to overcome it.
swaroopa gnaana -- when turned inwards
sarvaatma bhaava -- when budhi turns outwards
In either case there is oneness
Buddhists say there is nothing inside or outside; but there has to be a witness to say that; so they are not correct
Vitata (illusion) makes jagat appear different from us. But it is not different;
One who says jagat is illusion is a moodha (fool); vivEka is when one realizes jagat is not different from him--it is aatman itself.
When we call jagat anaatma then it is asat; because there is nothing other than aatman
An agnaani sees bEdha, vyavahaara, etc.; he thinks he is the seer; enlightenment takes one to unity (advaita)
vEda says A to agnaani and B to gnaani; based on the context one has to understand (samanvaya) vEda
Earth is round but we draw rectangular blocks on the surface as boundaries of our land; the two can be reconciled by saying it depends on the context
In the context of aatman there is no naanaatva (multiplicity)
One is given a body by Brahman based on previous karma
One who is confused is not different from Brahman; but Brahman is not confused; Brahman before creation couldn't find anyone around and was afraid. Then he realized there was no one beside him.
There is srishti, laya, badda, mukta, mumukshu, etc. when one sees dwaita. Just as water, steam, ice, etc. are not there from the point of view of H2O molecule.
Did saastra deny dwaita without propounding advaita? No. One can say sarpa is mithya and go backwards arriving at soonya (emptiness) in the end. This is wrong. Because there can't be mithya without support/base/adhishtaana
adhyaarOpa is done by saastra in order to remove adhyaasa; it is a method of proof
Part 32
Top
When manas is not moving such as in sushupti, there is no kalpana (illusion). Once we wake up, the manas moves and multiplicity starts.
If we see from the paaramaartha point of view all objects are the same as aatman. Viewed independently they don't exist.
All forms/names have sabda-budhi (sound only). There is no stuff.
The aatman is completely devoid of bEdha
pragnAna ghana: when knowledge is frozen/latent such as in sushupti
dwaita could be there in sushupti but is completely absent in tureeya
All the samskaara/pragnaana ghana is latent in sushupti; but they are not even latent in tureeya; there is avidya in sushupti but not in tureeya
"I" (ahankaara) is associated with start of an act and end of an act ("I" did it). In between there is no "I" (ahankaara); ahankaara has to be avoided throughout karma.
After detaching from external transactions and staying in tureeya, one stays as jada (there is no want or desire). He acts mechanically. He won't show himself off (I know this, I am rich, etc.) lest it should create jealousy in others.
In Manu smriti, Manu forbade people from showing off (this is my car, my aeroplane, etc.) Even owning objects exclusively is not permitted. Non-capitalistic. One should employ as many people as possible without using machines.
For a sanyaasi, the more one thinks about aatma the less one thinks about japa, tapa, karma, etc. This is called vairaagya. For example: Yagnavaalkya left his wife and house.
Even a gnaani has to feed himself. When he goes out to gather food or for biksha he has to forget about aatma tatva. Something directly necessitated by the body can be acted on but not otherwise.
A sanyaasi should not wear new clothes; only used ones (kaupeena). He has to live such austere life.
aatman is everywhere; it is subtle; it is inside it is outside; it is everywhere
It is not always possible to concentrate on aatman. There could be distractions; samskaaraas; hunger, etc. A complete gnaani is above all distractions.
Ishwara can put a gnaani's mOksha in abeyance until he fulfills certain obligations Ishwara wants fulfilled.
All dwaita is shown to be mithya (vitata).
Vaitatya can't be there without adhishtaana (aatma tatva);
adhishtaana stays even after neti-neti (indispensable)
Aagama prakaraNa doesn't use tarka; uses drishtaanta
(examples);
pratyagaatma is experienced; not given as prescription
or by coercion; aagama is for common people
The statement "I will become Brahman" is wrong. The
aatma tatva is not something to be attained by going
somewhere. Nor is it something that is
obtained through upaasana. After death the most
one can get is "aparaa Brahman", stay in Brahma lOka
for sometime, and then be reborn. On the other hand
in Gita Lord Krishna
says when someone reaches Him after death,
there is no rebirth to him.
There is no need for upaasana in regard to mOksha.
If one performs upaasana in Brahma lOka there will
be "krama mukti". For someone with kaama/desire the most
he will get is "aparaa Brahman".
Brahman is not born; always in equilibrium; homogeneous;
immortal; omnipresent; has no parts/limbs/avayavas;
there is nothing else to be learnt;
also called "Bhooma"
Jeeva appears to be born; just as aakaasa is found in
ghata/pot, aatman is present in upaadhi; what is born is upaadhi;
in this sense Brahman is born
Aatman is same as Brahman; has no parts like aakaasa;
is present everywhere;
Brahman's manifestation is like ice/steam/water which
are different forms of H2O
When jeeva dies, it is the ghata/body that is dead; not
aatman
If there is one aatman, how can some people be in sorrow
and others happy? Different people have different upaadhis;
different budhi/indriyaas, etc.; Example: the electric
current is the same for fans,
lights, etc. which are like
upaadhi. ichcha/sukha/dukha are kshEtra dharma (apply to
body)
For a gnaani/sanyaasi there is no antya samskaara (rites
after death)
Saankhyas say aatman in different bodies is different;
aatma is bhOkta and asanga (detached); it is contradiction;
vaishEshikas associate aatma with body; how are iccha/sukha/dukha
experienced? They say there is a connection between
aatman and body through budhi. Because of this
budhi/manas/smriti/experience are different for different people.
If this were true, all should experience iccha/sukha/dukha
at the same time which is not the case; so vaishEshikas
are wrong
sukha/dukha are experienced because of adhyaasa
Conclusion: there is only one aatman
Sanchita/praarabda karma are not in aatma; they are in
karaNa (budhi, chitta, etc.)
Why do sukha/dukha happen? Though aakaasa is one, it
takes the shape of pot, room, etc. (size difference)
with different functions (pot holds water; we can
sleep in a room). So roopa/kaarya varies in upaadhi
(pot, room, etc.). Roopa-kaarya-naama are different.
But there is no bEdha in aakaasa. Similarly jeevas
are different. Whereas in aatman there are no
differences
Don't search for aatman in sareera; there is no
connection between aatman and sareera; sareera
is only an indicator for aatman
Without upaadhi, we don't experience emotions
(anger, jealousy, etc.)
When we break the pot, the ghataakaasa merges
with mahaakaasa; so there is no connection
between ghataakaasa and ghata
About a dream one can describe many details;
being dependent on budhi it is a negative
statement to say:"I did not
know anything"; one can say "I slept well"
[in sushupti] which is comparatively
a positive statement
Pain is a reflexive action Brahman has
created to stay away from danger
Gold has taken the vikaara of ornament;
not in the case of aakaasa; it hasn't
taken a shape (of pot); Example: if we
put water in a pot and freeze it, water
will take the pot shape; we can't do
the same for aakaasa
bahish pragna/antah pragna/pragnaana ghana
are all mithya
aakaasa appears blue because of dust
and smoke; it is ignorance that makes
us say "The sky is blue."
All the upaadhis are anaatma; only
pratyagaatma / sushuptaatma
can be called aatman
nirupaadhika aatma is experienced in
sushupti. It is same as Brahman. Not
identical.
The relationship between aatman and
upaadhi is same as ghataakaasa
If there is one single aatman how can
some people experience sukha and
the others dukha? Imagine sun shining
on different windows. Depending on
the color of the window glass, the
sun shine looks different. Aaatman
is like the sun shine and jeevas'
upaadhi is like the window glass.
In taitrEya upanishat 5 kosaas are explained.
The aatman was called parOjeeva.
The 5 kosaas are like sheaths one
inside the other: Annamaya,
praaNamaya, manOmaya, vignaanamaya,
and aanandamaya. The body is standing
on them. What are priya/mOda/pramOda
standing on? Brahman who is
satyam-gnaananm-anantam. In this
sense Brahman is called parOjeeva
(jeeva's jeeva).
Brahman is there everywhere from
highest beings to lowest beings.
Pratyagaatma/sushuptaatma is Brahman.
How Brahman projects itself as
jagat is inexplicable.
The only explanation is, just as Praagna projects swapna in sushupti.
Whatever is projected as jagat is not different from Brahman
The jagat is not different from aatman
Maaya is not the same as avidya
Avidya is in budhi; maaya is projected from outside
Mahaakaasa is Brahman; ghataakaasa is jeeva
Don't look at mahaakaasa/Brahman to find aatman; look inward
The various parts of the universe are working coherently;
working together for a common purpose;
just as various organs of the body coordinate;
Example: various parts of the car work coherently for the
sake of one who is seated in it; similarly all the
parts of the body work coherently for the sake of aatman
All of saastra and gnaanis like Vyaasa are saying
Brahman and aatman are the same;
but not taarkikaas (logicians).
If aatman is not everything
and there is a second, then there is a ground
for fear. One who sees the difference dies multiple
times out of fear.
Karma kaanda prescribes yagaas to obtain
things or fulfill kaama. Most of vEdas
is about this. So bEdha is told in vEda.
AbEdha is told in vEda as well. How to
reconcile the two? Because people with
avidya are more than mumukshus in numbers.
bEdha vaakyaas are there for vyavahaara
(eg. pot is big, pot is thin, etc.).
While cooking rice, one thinks it is
annam keeping the future in mind. Similarly
upanishat describes karma kaanda to
explicate the upanishats where the bEdhas
are unified.
We are in bondage with dEvataas by performing
yagna, offering havis, reading naamaas, etc.
Upanishads decry such bondage.
[My Note: Adi Sankara composed several
stotras in praise of Lord Vishnu, Lord Siva,
Lakshmi Devi, etc., thus covering all bases]
Ultimately Ekatva or unity should be conveyed
to all.
The saastra prepares an individual to preach
unity and offer solace to us.
Upanishats
begin with unity and end with unity
and bEdha in between. This is their way of
teaching. Otherwise people lose interest????Or
they will believe in multiplicity and follow
adharma???
All the explanation about srushti/creation is
only upaaya. It wants to highlight unity and
the uniqueness of praaNa. The story about
different indriyas leaving the body and not
making a difference; when praaNa left every
thing stopped functioning; thus praaNa is shown
as superior; this is only a story to convince
us about the uniqueness of praaNa.
itihaasa -- happened this way; more or less
historically accurate (eg. Ramaayana)
puraanaa--weaves stories around vEdic concepts
to convey a lesson
How can we say something is kalpana? The same concept
is explained in different ways in different
places. Hence the concept is kalpana.
Some mantraas are there in vEda for upaasana; they are
not meant for gnaana; when stories are told in
upanishats (like the praaNa leaving body and
indriyaas shutting down), they
are not meant for upaasana
The srishti stories (how the srishti happened)
are different between chaandOgya upanishat
and brihadaaranyaka upanishat and seem to be
contradicting with each other. These are for
illustration purpose only.
The purpose of vEdaanta is not to explain
kaarya-kaaraNa (cause-effect). Its purpose is
to explain aatman (even Brahman is secondary).
Brahman is the ultimate cause for jagat. Since kaarya
should not be contained in kaaraNa, in the
ultimate cause kaarya should not be contained. Hence
Brahman is satyam-gnaanam-anantam
It is said pratyagaatma is same as Brahman. So nothing
is different from us.
Karma and upaasana are described in vEda. They have
bEdha. So how to reconcile the differences?
The different things are meant for people of different
gnaana. For common people with bEdha budhi (dwaitam)
karma is told.
For people at a higher level upaasanas are told.
For people in advanced level upanishats are told.
Very few people can understand the concepts
in upanishats with actual experience.
In science conclusions drawn have to be verified.
But in the case of aatman everyone has an opinion.
There is no theory that won't contradict itself
while explaining everything. [Godel's theory??]
Appearance can be dwaita (multiplicity).
But in understanding/gnaana there can be advaita
(non duality)
Advaitam is paaramaartha fact. Every sruti accepts it.
There is only one source (ultimate cause)
There is something in our bodies that neither is born
nor can die. It is called aatman/Brahman etc.
Naama-roopa are born and will die. They are not born
without cause.
Brahman with maaya creates upaadhis based on karma.
There is so much diversity that no two upaadhis are alike.
Because of "mithya abhimaana" Brahman appears as dwaita.
As karma increases, mithya abhimaana (illusion) decreases.
The minimum karma one can do is japa.
How can a jeeva with parts be born from Brahman who has
no parts? It is maaya
Some vEdaantins/Brahma vaadees claim aatman is born and can die.
This is like the birth of ghataakaasa that has occupied
the inside of the pot.
Antah karaNa (manas, budhi, chitta, ahankaara) are stuff
because if we don't eat, they will not work.
Advaita is valid in another sense. When indriyas bring in
information (sabda, sparsa, roopa, rasa, gandha, etc.)
to manas/budhi, they all are processed to
result in cognition which is one thought at a time.
If we identify with pot we are martya (mortal); if we identify
with clay we are amrita (immortal).
It is not important to dwell on srishti krama. But
it is important to not have ananyatva because it is
necessary to be in sarvaatma bhaava. Duality
needs to be removed to avoid samsaara.
Not everything in sruti is important (like srishti krama)
but grasping its content is important.
Form is there for transaction. Hence it is gouNa.
The literal meaning of a word is mukhya vritti.
gouNa is a secondary meaning.
The creation could be maaya or projection. Brahman
produces forms based on karma. Nothing happens to aatman.
Kaarya-kaarana bhaavaa means everything,
including forms, is real which is not true.
vidya is upaasana; avidya is karma; when done individually
it leads to darkness; doing both
leads us to light; it's
called gnaana-karma samuchchaaya. Only aatma gnaana can
exist without karma. dEvata gnaana must go with karma for
best results.
Sambhooti is born. avyakta is not born. Hiranyagarbha
is born. One has to do upaasana of both for best results.
Upaasana of Hiranyagarbha blesses one with siddhis
(aNimaa, mahima, garimaa, etc.). It is said that
one merges with avyakta and remains there for one
kalpa.
If we do both upaasana (vidya) and karma (avidya), mind will
be purified. Such upaasana without kaama will lead
to Brahma vidya.
Kaarya-kaaraNa bhaava is not required for
Brahma vidya because the srushti/jagat are not the
focus there; sambhooti is not there;
Example: From the point of view of H2O
ice molecules don't exist.
In rajju-sarpa, the rajju exists but the sarpa
is only imagination. It is born and dead in
imagination.
Aatman is not something that is seen and can't
be arrived at by neti-neti. It can't be seen
outside. The purpose of neti-neti is to stop
us from seeking aatman outside.
Agni + prithvi + jala = moortha
aakaasa + vaayu = amoortha
There is kaarya-kaaraNa bhaava between jagat
and Brahman but not so in the case of aatman.
Brahman is like maayaavi. We tend to see
his maayaa but not the maayaavi. Once we
understand the maayaavi this jagat is unreal.
In the case of rajju-sarpa, there is no maayaavi,
but we ourselves project the mistake. By ignorance,
we think sarpa is created. Sarpa is only in
imagination.
There is a 3rd category of maaya in the form of
vandhyaa putra (son of a barren woman). One can
think of someone as vandhyaa putra where there
is no such relationship. The someone is real but
not the conclusion drawn as vandhyaa putra.
Manas is paaramaartha (it is made of stuff because
it functions with food intake). It is doing
spandana seeing objects in swapna
that are not there outside.
The world of agnaani in swapna is not much
different from the world in jaagrat. In both cases,
the agnaani is looking at forms.
Manas is kaarya of aatman. Manas takes the forms
of both objects and subjects in swapna. One
realizes this after waking up from swapna.
Anvaya vyatirEka is a kind of anumaana pramaaNa.
Based on smoke, it can be concluded that there
is fire. Where there is fire there is smoke
(anvaya). Where there is no fire there is no
smoke (vyatirEka).
Manas is responsible for bEdha/dwaita.
The first occurrence of duality happened with the
birth of Hiranyagarbha. He adopted dwaita in
his budhi in order to create tanmaatraas
(sabda, sparsa, roopa, rasa, gandha, etc.) that
appear different.
Manas grasps differences/variety.
All tastes are merging in saliva. They are
giving up their specificity (sweet, sour, etc.)
while merging. This is the same in all
indriyas/tanmaatraas. All of them are ending up
in manas (it is not different from Hiranyagarbha's
manas). So all the differences are imagined.
If manas is trained with upaasana/karma (shat
sampatti sama-dama, etc.) it will
attain aatma tatva.
Listening to aatma tatva is not enough. One
should practice it with saadhana,
shat sampatti, etc.
One has to do upaasana. Similarly one has
to do karma to tame manas.
One eventually gets vairaagya in life. All
of the modern/western education is realized
as fake.
With manas one sees multiplicity (where there
is fire, there is smoke).
In Gita it was told that karma has to be
performed to tame manas. One who follows
this will eventually attain dhyaana yOga.
Karma is of 2 types: daily karma and saastra
karma (pooja, japa, annaa daana, etc.)
Test of faith is action
Mother is worshiped/respected when she makes
sacrifices to bring up the children.
Manas becomes blank (no dwaita) in sushupti
and yOga samaadhi.
manO drusya: seeing variety with manas; without
manas there is nothing to see
It is not objects that are asat; the differences
we see among them are asat.
When manas becomes amanas there is no dwaitam.
Aatman is satya like clay is satya
A thought is an interaction of gnaata with gnEya;
with aatma gnaana there is no thought process;
when fuel runs out there is nothing to burn;
similarly for thoughts and sankalpa.
If manas/budhi is asat and has dwaitam how to
understand aatman that is not dwaitam?
Brahma gnEya is eternal and not born.
When manas is without kalpana (visEsha
gnaana of something)
what remains is only gnaana.
Ahankara is cause and manas is effect.
Only the effect -- manas -- changes when it
interacts with pot/object outside;
When mind/manas is trained to look
towards Brahman,
its own cause,
then it will dissolve like a salt
crystal in water/sea
(loses its own existence)
For visEha gnaana avisEsha/saamaanya
gnaana
is the support that is always there.
That's why we are able to say
"I slept well" after sushupti
There can't be two gnaanas. Hence
they (visEsha and saamaanya) are
identical
In Gita Lord Krishna says Brahman
is both sat and asat. It is neither
kaarya nor kaaraNa. As an object
we can't understand Brahman. When
seeking Brahman as satyam-gnaanam-anantam
then it is called gnEya Brahman
When mind experiences an object, it
becomes same as the object. Similarly
in the case of Brahman, manas becomes
the same as Brahman which is called
gnEya Brahman.
There is no difference between
pratyagaatma/sushuptaatma
and Brahman because Brahman
has entered the body.
So thinking about Brahman, aatman
becomes Brahman.
Because of adhyaasa manas can't be
identical with Brahman unless the
manas constantly associates with Brahman
through nididhyaasana.
Budhi is a product of aatman. But it
is covered with ignorance. Aatman
is subtle/pure and budhi is impure.
To make budhi pure, one has to do
karma and dhyaana. Karma is
both sakaama and nishkaama. Budhi/manas
has to adopt nishkaama karma to
become pure.
One has to take saastra as it is to
attain purity of budhi. But ahamkaara
"I" is an obstacle. Hence one has
to do dhyaana to overcome ahamkaara.
This makes budhi nirmala/swachcha
and makes it as pure as aatman.
Budhi/manas becomes identical as
aatman
Once manas/budhi experiences aatman,
it will stop seeking pleasure from
jagat. Dwaita will vanish from manas/budhi.
There are no thoughts in sushupti
and nidhidhyaasana. But they are not
identical.
Saadhana that has been said thus far and sushupti
seem to be the same. What's the difference?
In sushupti all the dwaita and vaasanaas/samskaara
are suppressed. Once we wake up the budhi/manas
assumes dwaita. But through saadhana, all the
dwaita and vaasanaas/samskaaraas are completely removed.
As long as there is graahya/graahaka bhaava there is
always fear. One loses fear by the saadhana. In sushupti
manas is actionless and rests in naadis. Because
of adhyaasa once it wakes up it assumes
dwaita and vaasana. With saadhana this does not happen.
In Gita Lord Krishna says neither kartrutva nor
bhOktrutva (of worldly things) applies for aatman.
But jeeva has both
because of avidya/dwaita budhi. To get worldly
things one needs pravrutti (motivation) and
saamarthya (capability). pravrutti is because
of avidya and saamarthya is because of maaya.
Ishwara enters our bodies to get things done with
pravrutti and saamarthya. The moral is: we should
not say "I" am doing it. It is actually being
done by Ishwara.
saastra doesn't say do yoga for aatma gnaana
Advaita is the realization that nothing is
different from us. Jagat is not different
from Brahman. But Brahman is different from
jagat.
How to understand gnEya Brahman? Budhi
should represent Brahman by being kEvala
gnaana swaroopa.
The experience of Brahman in sushupti
is momentary and we know it in wakeful state.
But with saadhana knowing Brahman is
different because of the wakeful state
Staying in aatman, one realizes that one
is not born and there is no avidya about
nidra going through the stages/avasthaas of
swapna/sushupti.
In tureeya one thinks the srishti is
done by oneself because the gnaana
swaroopa Brahman is same as one's aatman.
The realization by gnaani is that everything
is being done by Brahman.
So he doesn't
think he is the doer as in the case of
agnaani. A gnaani does not think he is
karta, bhOkta, etc. He doesn't have
raaga, dvEsha, kaama, krOdha, etc.
Ishwara is getting activities done by him
and he is only a nimitta.
In sushupti the budhi is dissociated from
body. Without budhi there is no experience
of pain.
Hiranyagarbha is connected to jeevaas like
a tree with respect to its leaves. Jeevaas
are like leaves. When jeeva's suffer, as
in the case of leaves, the tree/Hiranyagarbha
is not affected. What about Brahman who has
no connection with anything?
Sarvaatma bhaava: Gnani is like electricity that
moves fans, lights bulbs, etc. Activity is in
upaadhi. But chaitanya is required to carry out
the activities.
So one has to do activities without passion.
Gnaani has no bad swapna; if at all, his
swapnaas project him in an exalted status such
as a ruler or a king.
A vEdaanti need not do the upachaaraas (activities)
like yOga and samaadhi.
saastraa doesn't prescribe any duty to gnaani because
avidya is not present
There are no karaNaas (speech, etc.) for a gnaani.
KarmEndriyas, gnaanEndriyaas and antah karaNaas are
overcome.
A gnaani is completely at peace because he has no
visEshaas.
In order to realize aatman,
samaadhi is adopted.
Budhi is controlled. Budhi attains equilibrium.
Samaadhaana (equilibrium) is same as samaadhi
For gnaani, there is no vikaara ("I will do it",
"I will ask", etc.)
or visEsha or chinta.
There is no manas to trigger activities.
There is no kaarpanya (deenata, decripitness)
for a gnaani
What is the support for aakaasa? Brahman.
Stages of gnaani: sakaama karma, karma for dharma,
nishkaama karma, vairaagya, dhyaana , vichaara
The people following yOga (hatha yOga, etc.)
can never attain the status of a vEdaanti
Aatma satya anubhOda is very difficult
to attain
A yOgi cannot overcome ahankaara unlike a gnaani
For a gnaani indriyaas, manas, etc. are all
Brahman. So there is no fear and attains
permanent peace.
There is no duty as well.
In the case of yOgis, depending on their
abilities, they have to be trained to be gnaanis.
They want to attain samaadhi with effort and
control manas. This process is very difficult
and causes dukha. But it is not impossible.
A yOgi has to act and do karma, but not for a vEdaanti.
People doing yOga desire sidhis, etc. For aatma
gnaana there is no such desire.
Manas has to be controlled with vivEka and vairaagya.
Then vichaara.
Agnaanis think silencing the chitta is the goal.
Saadhana is very tedious like emptying an ocean
one drop at a time. One should not get bored. One
should be patient.
Is manO nigraha the only way? Mind goes after
kaama, bhOga, etc. because of anaadhi vaasanaas.
One has to control it and pull it back into aatman.
The nature of manas is to interact with jagat.
A priya (pleasure) is anartha in the long run.
Same with kaama/bhOga. So one has to constantly
think of Brahman. There is bEdha in pleasure
seeking. Becoming introverted is one way to
avoid it.
Upaasana done with kaama leads to fulfillment;
without kaama leads to vairaagya
Dukha is caused by dwaita. Pulling back
manas leads to vairaagya.
One has to ruminate over the saastra acquired
from guru, etc. to achieve full control of
manas despite vairaagya
Vairaagya is the total surrender to Brahman/Ishwara.
It is same as nishkaama karma
To meditate one has to take small steps and sama, dama, etc.
When manas is pulled back from outside and turned
inward it results in tamas. One has to be alert
to keep awake by taming the manas. Even by practicing
like this if one can't control manas, then the
vaasanas are strong. One has to be highly alert. Saamya
(equilibrium) must be practiced by which manas neither
sleeps nor goes outside. When manas acquires equilibrium
(samam) one should stay there and meditate.
Yogis control manas with praanayaama.
vEdaantins consider manas as due to avidya.
In equilibrium/sama there is sukha but one should not
be satisfied with it because manas is still granted
independence. One's aim should be to achieve
samaadhi by going beyond manas.
At the prospective samaadhi there is sukha but
one should not stop there. We should educate
our budhi to not claim attachment with sukha
(nissanga, nispruha, etc.) because such
a state will lead to dwaitam as aanandi
(one who enjoys) and aananda (happiness).
Samaadhi is not death of one self but of manas
(amanaska).
Rathi is one, ratha is his body, budhi is
saarathi, indriyas are horses; one should
control the ratha with budhi by harnessing
the indriyas. It is soorya dEva who controls the
budhi. One should pray to soorya at junction
times of sun-rise and day, day and night, etc.
It was said, in aatma gnaana there is no
prayatna (compared to yOga)--self evident.
In reality there is a lot of effort. Aatma
gnaana is calling oneself same as the Brahman and
is present everywhere. But it is same as one that
was heard from saastra (aham BrahmOsmi, etc.).
So one has to ruminate
over saastra and restrain manas which should be
put to rest in aatman.
One has to train manas to be same as aatman.
Without aatman manas has no independent status.
The longer the manas stays in aatman the more
it can be controlled.
Saadhana is taming the manas to sit in aatman.
With success one realizes oneself, including manas,
as Brahman
With saadhana manas is like a candle light that
doesn't flicker in the breeze. Thus manas
becomes Brahma swaroopa; it always was but
for our ignorance. We made manas abrahman meaning
we gave manas freedom and independence.
Manas after saadhana remains peaceful and in
sukha (without aanandi/aananda difference). This
is uttama sukha. Yogis experience the same.
It is indescribable. This is not produced anew.
It was always there.
All the saadhana (manO nigraha, upaasana, etc.)
is a method to
land one in sama (equilibrium). This is still
in dwaita. So it is mithya. Behind all activity
is praaNa. We use all antahkaraNas thinking of them
as different when in actuality they are aatman.
Uttama satya is the realization that jeevatva
itself is not there as different from Brahman.
Advaita is not mithya because every mithya
is based on adhishtaana. Moola kaaraNa
is indescribable. Omkaara is abhidEya
and Brahman is abhidaana. There is no vikaara,
vaachyaarambhana, etc.
In adhishtaana there is no gnaata or gnEya.
We are the first illusion.
There are several theories about Brahman that
contradict each other. They are only concerned
about vaachyaarambha, vikaara and naama-dhEya
(they are about forms which are not real)
They are not advaita.
Don't argue with fool because we all will
be foolish.
All dwaita is vitata (illusory). Advaita
is established
with saastra pramaaNa and logic.
Buddhists, etc. follow dwaita. Since they are
mutually contradicting, raaga, dvEsha, etc.
are applicable to them.
For the dwaitis and vainaasikaara logic is
the only basis. But logic is not complete.
As advaitins we have to argue with others
by a common pramaana. That is anumaana pramaana.
Where there is smoke, there is fire. One has
to apply anvaya vyatireka.
Where there is fire there is smoke
(anvaya). Where there is no fire there is no
smoke (vyatirEka)
Gnaanta-GnEya-Gnaana... there is misconception
with gnaata. Because he identifies with budhi
and the action is by himself
("I have decided", "I am thinking", etc.).
In sushupti he is totally disconnected from budhi,
body, etc. So where is kartrutva?
Once waking up from sushupti in wakeful state
he remembers. Gnaata is same as ghataakaasa which
is not different from mahaakaasa. Gnaata is gnEya
from SrimannaaraayaNa. naaraayaNa's intention is to help
us and uplift us. In sushupti we are one with
naaraayaNa. One has to pay obeisance
to such naaraayaNa.
Advaita is called asparsa yOga. It is everywhere
but untouched. Like sushuptaatma it is untouched
even if one is a thief, king, sinner, saint, etc.
NaaraayaNa is like that.
Doing tapas with sama, dama, etc. is extremely tedious.
But it results in sukha in the end. All good things
are attained with hard work.
Sukha is transitory. It will do hita in the long run.
There is a big difference between saastra and visEsha
(like science, politics, etc.). Saastra gives sukha.
The sukha of sushupti is universal. There is no
disagreement there
Saankhyaas say pot exists even before being made in the
form of clay. VaisEshikas say there is no pot before but
created now (born). So they are in conflict. Advaita says
not born is common to both arguments. So both are right.
Based on that we can say creation is not there. It is only an
appearance. Advaita is like a cat on a wall that can jump
either way.
Mandookya is doing a great service because it explains sushupti
and various avasthaas that gradually take one from jaagrat/swapna
to (temporary) bliss.
Without the experience of sushupti will anyone study vEdaanta?
There is no srishti, sthithi, laya with respect to aatman.
Elsewhere they are true.
Another difference with Saankhya:
Suppose kaaraNa has become amrita (immortal). When it produces
kaarya that can be dead, how can it happen? Whatever that has
become svabhaava (quintessential nature) will not change. Agni
is always hot and lights up. That is agni's svabhaava. Yogis
acquire their svabhaava.
svabhaava won't change and is of 4 types:
In loukika itself svabhaava won't change, so
how can it change in paaramaartha? Not possible
Saankhyaas says water flows without motivation.
So pradhaana/prakriti works by itself without
prompting. How does the water flow? Because of
the laws of prithvi.
For dharma there is no birth/old age/death.
With adhyaasa they seem otherwise. Aaakaasa
has no birth/death/old age. With adhyaasa
it seems otherwise even in the case of our
upaadhi. But aatma is immortal.
Saankhyaas talk about kaarya-kaaraNa
ananyatva. Upaadaana/Kaarana is clay
and pot is the kaarya. KaaranA is not born
They also say kaarya is born. Clay is not born.
Ghata is not different from clay. So there
is a contradiction that an unborn thing is
giving raise to born. They say kaaraNa
transforms itself into kaarya.
Pradhaana = avyakta -> mahat -> ahamkaara->tanmaatra
They are saying pradhaana is not born. How can
others be born (ananyatva)?
They say pradhaana is mithya. And pradhaana is
manifesting into mahat, etc. Anything that splits
itself is not mithya. So there is another
contradiction.
Main objection to Saankhya is kaaraNa is same as
kaarya. Based on these reasons saankyaa
is untenable.
KaaraNa is not born as per saankya. So kaarya also becomes
not born.
kukkuti nyaaya: split an egg into two. Eat one half and
save the other for hatching. It cannot happen.
kaarya is not different from kaaraNa
KaaraNa is different from kaarya. jeeva is different
from Brahman and Brahman is not jeeva. There is no
identity between kaarya and kaaraNa (ananya).
which can be seen in 2 ways:
One can imagine Brahman has upaadhi made from maaya.
Necklace is different from gold by having a shape.
Gold is different
from necklace. Necklace is born and dead but not gold.
We can say gold is Brahman and necklace is Ishwara.
Shape is not different from gold with which we can do
vyavahaara. But shape is a name only. Gold is appearing
like it. The value of shape is zero when people only pay
for the gold.
In reality both clay and gold have shape. It is not considered
when illustrating by saastra.
The vyavahaara with necklace is assigned a value but not the form
of necklace.
Does Brahman have naanaatva? Naanaatva is counting with respect
to shapes/ornaments and every shape's value is zero. Gold is appearing
like ornaments. Don't say gold is becoming ornaments.
zinc + hcl => zinc chloride + hydrogen
The entities in left hand side
have gone/died but not zinc, hydrogen
and chlorine as per the physical laws of
conservation. So is the ananyatva with respect to Brahman.
The upaadaana kaaraNa of ice/steam/water is H2O molecule which can't
be seen with naked eye (ice/steam/water can be seen).
The multiple forms are recognized with indriyas. But
indriyaas cannot witness Brahman. So saastra is
pramaaNa for Brahman.
Gold is also born if one goes by big bang theory. Helium
atoms fused to form hydrogen. The hydrogen fused further
to give raise to various elements or so the theory goes.
In saastra gold and ornaments example is used only for
an illustration or draashtaanta
For an unborn cause there is no effect. There is no drishtaanta
for that. Without drishtaanta there is no sidhaanta.
The kaarya/kaaraNa analysis applied to molecules goes into atoms
that are caused by nucleus, that are caused by sub-atomic
particles, ad nauseum. This is called anavastha dOsha. Infinite
progression.
Every kaarya in the case of atoms is only a form. There is no law
to find. One can only find a law when the form contains stuff.
Without stuff there is no law to make. So all these kaaryaas are
intermediate causes. Without moola kaarana any number of intermediate
causes won't help.
Why not unify atomic theory with advaita? It is possible but not
acceptable to the scientists.
[
My Note: this Part (42) like in Part 41 continues by refuting
Saankhya. The Saankhya and Sankara's advaita are contrasted.
So confusion is possible. Tried my best to keep them apart.
]
Saankhyaas say kaaraNa transforms itself into kaarya.
VaisEshikas say kaarya doesn't exist; it is produced.
There is no srishti apart from Brahman/aatman.
Aatman is getting sareera based on dharma/adharma.
Sareera is hEtu for phala.
Similarly dharma/adharma is hEtu
for sareera. For sareera/dharma/adharma
there is aadi (beginning).
How can we say they are anaadi?
For phala hEtu is the aadi. For hEtu phala is the aadi.
Take father as phala. hEtu will be begotten by phala.
So it is the child. How can the child beget the father?
hEtu -> Phala -> hEtu
hEtu is father. Phala is son. How can son beget father?
hEtu - dharma/adharma
Phala - sareera
hEtu(1) -> Phala(1) -> hEtu(2) -> phala(2)->hEtu(3)
The above series is valid because the hEtu
and phala are different at each step.
hEtu and phala can't happen simultaneously like
the two horns of a cow. hEtu has to come earlier and phala
will happen next. So one has to assume a krama (order).
If they happen together then kaarya-kaaraNa relationship
is not there. This is like the horns of a cow.
We have to see sareera (phala) and infer about the hEtu.
Suppose sareera is not there. How to infer hEtu? It is
not known at all.
We can infer kaarya by knowing kaaraNa. vice-versa. If
one of them is absent/invisible, then we can't talk about
the other. So a sequence (krama) is necessary.
Which is first? Egg or chicken.
Poorvapakshi had no answer
Another way of looking into it is: phala is hEtu for hEtu.
Which one is phala and which one is hEtu?
Because there is no kaarya-kaaraNa bhaava.
This is called anyOnnaashraya dOsha.
Example: Where is Rama's house? Beside Bheema's house?
Where is Beehma's house? Next to Rama's house?
There is no knowledge in them.
In the frame of reference of tureeyaatma there is no
jagat/creation, etc.
Poorvapakshi becomes angry and says: "What you are
doing is "chala" ( a type of argument where one is
cornered in a long conversation and the other claims
victory based on winning one argument)". Then he says
beejaankura nyaaya (which one first: seed
or tree?) has to be used.
We take phala as tree and hEtu as beeja. There is
krama as well (tree(1)->seed(1)->tree(2)->seed(2)....)
sareera -> dharma/adharma(1)->sareera(2)->dharma/adharma->(2)
and so on.
So once again we come to the earlier retort that beejaankura
nyaaya is not going to salvage Saankhya.
You (poorvapakshi) are saying anaadi by beejaankura nyaaya.
Everything has a beginning. How can you say the elements
are anaadi?
After the earth was formed, when seeds/plants came, one
can answer the question: seed or tree? They must have happened
after the formation of earth. Based on sruti trees are
first to come. Then seeds came.
Poorvapakshi asks how could tree come first? The answer
is sruti pramaaNa. There are a large number of plants
without seeds. Similarly first came chick and then egg.
Hence
beejaankura nyaaya has a beginning. It is not anaadi.
Can we take the sequence as anaadi? No
Aatman is not born. We say janma is according to karma. How did one
do karma? Because of body. How did the body come? Because of karma. It
is a vicious circle that can't solve the problem.
Suppose hEtu (sareera) , phala (dharma/adharma). Both hEtu and phala
have no connection with aatman. In sushupti there is no sareera
or dharma/adharma. Taking adhyaasa as basis (as in jaagrat) there
are sareera and dharma/adharma.
The laws of the universe won't change regardless of an agnaani
turning into gnaani. In aatman there is neither hEtu nor phala.
So we don't
apply beejaankura nyaaya to aatman (which has no cause-effect).
We can still apply it to kshEtra (body).
In H2O molecule there is no ice/water/steam. Without the 3 we can't
understand/infer H2O molecule. Then we come to the conclusion in H2O
there are no ice/water/steam. First we try to understand
jagat through aatman. In the end, we conclude, in
aatman there is no jagat/srishti.
It is not correct to say:
hEtu (dharma/adharma) -> phala (sareera)
happens from infinite past.
Beejaankura nyaya is not applicable because
there is beginning to hEtu/phala; so it can't
be anaadi (has birth).
There is saadrusya between jaagrat and swapna.
There is no outside object in swapna. It is
faulty to say there are no objects in jaagrat.
For an agnaani there is no difference between
jaagrat and swapna as he is only seeing forms
in both states. There is no stuff to support
forms (naama-roopa).
Beejankura nyaya only applies in a state of
adhyaasa. sushuptaatma is connected neither
with dharma/adharma nor with sareera. Because
of adhyaasa we think it is connected.
ajaati vaada--nothing is born--is implicit.
Between hEtu and phala we are unable to decide
the cause or effect, which comes first
and which comes later. We are accepting
ajaati (nothing is born).
One who understands something is born, should also
understand from where its father/progenitor is born.
If we can't identify father then we can't say
dharma/adharma or sareera are born. There is no
birth of anything in tureeya. Nothing is born
and nothing is dead in tureeya.
One can say about an object as:
There is no birth of anything (in tureeya).
A ghata by itself can't produce another ghata.
A cloth (patta) can't be born from ghata. vice-versa.
Everyone understands these simple truths.
Only moodhas get thoughts from naama-roopa.
VivEkis analyze how pot is born from clay.
If ghata is clay, then what is born?
It is because of shape. Then is shape born?
It is only vaachyaarambha (name sake). Clay
comes and goes.
sat/asat/sadasat
sat is not born (eg. clay).
pita (father) is evolved.
So between sat/pita nothing is born.
From asat nothing can be born. Like
the horns of a hare.
There is no sadasat because there is
nothing that is both sat and asat.
It is absolutely wrong to say
mithya is sadasat. sat and asat
are mutually exclusive.
[My Note: some mantras could not be translated.
Very humble Swami!!!
]
For a phala that has no aadi, hEtu can't be
born.
anaadi = no birth
In aatman nothing is born. Aatman is anaadi.
aadi means there is kaaraNa. That which has
no aadi, has no birth either.
For some people aatman is something to be
inferred. But it is pratyagaatma all along.
If they recognize pratyagaatma, all confusion
will be gone. How can
Sankhyaas say he is not karta, not a sanga (asanga) but a bhOkta?
[My Note: swamiji is biased by saying
aatman = sushuptaatma or pratyagaatma
NOTHING ELSE!
]
[now all the arguments raised by Saankhyas and
VaisEshikaas (all dwaita people) have been put to rest]
[now he turns to Boudhaas]
Gowdapaada does not take sides when sankyaas
and vaisEshikas argue/fight.
Boudhas are of several types:
soonya vaadins -- nothing exists
sarvaasthitva vaadins -- all this dwaita is there
vignaana vaadins- there is nothing outside, but we are
only having thoughts in mind.
There is only vignaana; mental thoughts are there
that don't prove objects are there. Without thoughts
there is no object. It is samskaara.
vignaana vaadins say everything is kshanika (momentary).
There is no object. Only mental process that are fleeting.
So they deny aatman. But there has to be one who certifies
something is not there!! Similar to swapna, there are no
objects in jaagrat for vignaana vaadin.
Can one prove by analogy (between swapna and jaagrat) there
are no objects?
Mental thought can come only when there is an object. If
not, we will conclude external objects don't exist.
SanklEsha: suppose we burnt a finger, then a thought comes;
can't say there is no finger that has burnt.
There must be a kaaraNa. Without vishaya there is no
thought. In swapna the kaaraNa is chitta/memory. We
assert thoughts will come only when there are external
objects.
If we say there is no visEsha; we can't deny sabda, sparsa, black color,
yellow color, etc. that exist with a variety.
Are we seeing because it is there? Or is it existing
because we are seeing?
The mind without indriyas, etc. can't get different
thoughts. Suppose there is a pure spatika. When we
see different colors in it, it is because
of light from adjacent
objects with color that the spatika absorbs.
We want to prove nothing is born IN aatman.
Another reason why outside objects exist. Pain
is there when finger is burnt. If there is no agni different
from viganani then there should be no pain. But
pain is experienced. So we must agree outside
objects exist. In sushupti there is no pain.
sarvaasthitva argues:
Objects are not support for thoughts. Those
are not hEtu. Here is a ghata. It is not
different from clay.
Take another example cloth. It is not
different from threads which in turn are
not different from cotton fibers. Thus
we go from gross to subtle as we analyze.
The most subtle thing is space/soonya. So
everything came from soonya. Even clay can
be shown to be from soonya/aakaasa (abhaava).
[My Note: Quantum physics posits
pairs of opposite charge spontaneously
appear and disappear in space.]
Another way to illustrate this: don't we
have a thought of sarpa when seeing rajju?
Because it is a bhranti there is no visEsha
there. So all things are bhranti.
Those who are in sushupti/samaadhi don't
have bhraanti. They don't even have thoughts.
How can we say there are things outside?
People having bhoota darsana are not perturbed.
A mad man imagines things. The sane people
don't understand what they say. Similarly
you (Sankara) are also mad.
Chitta does not touch the objects.
Support for thought
is not touched by the mind. In swapna, there
is nothing to touch. Either in jaagrat
or swapna chitta is not touching anything.
It is simply getting thoughts. Swapna is
seeing without external objects. In sushupti
there are no external objects either.
In chitta, just as in swapna,
thoughts are occurring without external world.
Thus sarvaasthitva vaadin was defeated by
vignaana vaadin. There is no object outside
with respect to tureeya. In the cause
there is no effect. In tureeya there is no
effect. There is no object outside to see
in tureeya.
Vignaana vaadi says manas is getting impressions.
Chitta never comes out to contact with an object
because object is not there. Chitta/manas
don't go out. Then how are we getting to know
the object? Using 5 indriyas one can know.
Indriyas, manas, chitta, etc. are aatman only.
Aatman flows through all these things thereby
causing understanding.
Manas does not touch any object. In the case
when one thinks rajju is sarpa, there is no
contact. In swapna indriyas, body will be
disconnected. But the mind is active. All
sights in swapna are due to vaasanas. Except
manas -- karmEndriya, gnaanEndriya and praaNa--
all are based on vaasanaas. Vignaana vaadin says:
Just as in swapna
where there is no object, there is no object
in jaagrat.
For an agnaani swapna and jaagrat are the same.
For him there are no external objects. In
sushupti there is no external world. When we
have manas we will see otherwise don't. Using
anumaana
pramaana [where there is fire there is smoke],
by anvaya vyatirEka we can say where there is manas there
is sight.
In bhraanti when there is no pot we see one.
There has to be a basis for bhraanti like in the
case of mithya.
The 3 kaalas bhoota-bhavishyat-vartamaana ...
in all these
cases chitta never touches anything. So there
is bhraanti all the time
Why in sushupti no one gets visEsha gnaana?
In sushupti jeeva merges with Brahman.
From the point of view of H2O molecule ice/water/steam don't exist.
Same from the point of view of aatman there is nothing
out there.
It is the swabhaava of chitta to imagine things
even when they are not there in the external world.
Manas belongs to kshEtra. They function the same
for gnaani as well as agnaani. It sees forms
that don't have stuff. An agnaani sees the shape
of a pot and misses the clay in it. A gnaani
realizes the stuff (clay) along with form and
considers it the same as his aatman.
[until now it is vignaana vaadin's argument
which sarvaasthitva vaadin refutes and
Gowdapaada acquiesces]
Vignaana vadin has accepted chitta.
But chitta is also not born. Why? Chitta
is a form/vikaaraa/produced. Aatman
does not contain even chitta
Though ghata is not existing, we get
its thoughts in chitta. So vignaana
vaadin is correct.
Chitta has no birth. It appears to have
been
born. All objects also don't exist
in reality. They are also appearances.
Chitta is not produced.
[
My Note: born does not
include the case when one thing transforms
to another or parivartana ]
We can't see chitta by chitta itself.
The eye can't see itself. Chitta
is fleeting, anatma, full of grief, etc.
So chitta comes under the same classification
as forms. But you (vignaana vaadin)
are accepting chitta?
How? Who is to certify that chitta is existing
or non existing? So there is no chitta also.
[My Note: vignaana vaadin accepts chitta. Sankara
is dismantling vignaana vaadin]
Sankara concludes the logic of vignaana vaadin
as wrong.
Without adhishtaana there is no aabhaasa.
All the forms are projected from aatman? How?
We don't know
Manas/budhi/chitta/ahamkaara are anaatma
You (vignaana vaadin) are a dwaiti.
But soonya vaadins are bolder than vignaana vaadin.
If we want to certify soonyata, there has to be
some one! That is aatman.
What is the biggest difference between Gowdapaada
and boudhas?
sarvaasthitva vaadin accepted objects. The fact that
we see forms there has to be stuff. That stuff is
aatman. For vignaana vaadin all are projection of
aatman. The substratum for all is aatman.
The boudhas self-study vEdaas without sampradaaya
and draw conclusions which are not true. Finally
they refute vEdaas.
There is only one Brahman which is not born. No
boudha says/accepts that. Though he (Brahman) is not born
he appears to be born.
Not being born is prakriti swabhaava (natural trait).
It is its nature that aatman is not born. There is no
birth at all for aatman. It only appears to have been born.
Forms are not there in it. It appears with forms.
It is a mystery! We can't explain it. We can ask
what is the reason? To make us know our own
swaroopa. If the projection is not there, there is
no way for us to realize aatman. To uplift us
it has assumed various forms.
Some people say there is no samsaara from aatman's
point of view.
World is a projection of aatman. Samsaara is created
by us. Based on forms we have created our own
samsaara (my house, my child, etc.) They are our own
imaginations because of avidya.
Since infinite past (anaadi), there is samsaara. Now we have
to attain mOksha. If it is anaadi how can it be dead?
Because we already are mukta. Bandha and mOksha are our
imaginations due to avidya. Saastra says there is never
a bandha.
If the samsaara is anaadi, we can never say it has
ended.
We have never seen an example of something that is
anaadi that ends. Counter example: avidya is anaadi. It ends
when one attains gnaana. What is avidya? I don't know.
Is "I don't know" an object? It is still anaadi.
What is the capital of Chile? I don't know. Since when
we don't know. We don't know it since anaadi. It is
gnaanaabhaava. "I didn't know first but then I have come
to know."
Sarpa is not object (in imagination). Mithya gnaana
is anaadi. The thought exists. But the thought is not
object.
Is Beejaankura nyaaya anaadi? It was already shown that
there is no object that is anaadi. Either tree or beeja
have birth.
We can't say bandha (samsaara) and mOksha
are existing. It is mithya gnaana. In mithya
gnaana there is bhaava roopa (I feel happy,
I feel sad, etc.). All of these belong to
kshEtra dharma (srishti, sthithi, laya)
not in aatman.
That which is
connected with aatman is bhaava. Otherwise
abhaava.
For dwaitis bandha and mOksha are existing
positively.
Are bandha and mOksha simultaneous? Not so,
as they
can't be together. They are in a
sequence. First bandha and then mOksha.
Bandha is anaadi. Since infinite past we
are in bandha.
Is the bandha natural or nimitta? If we
say nimitta then it is not paaramartha.
If we say nir-nimitta (in itself without
a reason), then it can never be removed.
So both are wrong (nimitta/nir-nimitta).
[if a mirror is covered by dust, then
dust is nimitta for us not being able
to see our face]
If mOksha is aadi, then it is bound to have
anta (end). So bandha and mOksha are not
paaramaartha.
kshEtra dharma: pain is only experienced in
jaagrat; because of adhyaasa we feel pain;
it is a mechanism to protect our body from
danger; pain in body is kshEtra dharma; pain
with respect to ourselves is imagination.
One has to pray god/Ishwara to rid the body
of pain.
There is no bandha and mOksha in sushuptaatma.
Bandha means adhyaasa. Because of adhyaasa we
imagine bandha and mOksha.
Saastra accepts our adhyaasa and talks about
removing bandha and attaining mOksha.
That which is not there in the beginning and not
going to be there in the end, is not
existing. Though they
are vitata (illusory) we recognize them because of
adhyaasa.
We can't say bandha and mOksha have a
beginning and an ending. Avidya is anaadi.
There is a prayOjana (benefit) in jaagrat.
For example: eating. One can in swapna
eat and drink, but they don't satisfy him.
Even though there is a practical use, it is
not true that jaagrat is not vitata (it is still
illusory).
All the dharmas in swapna are vitata (illusory).
They are only seen within the body.
We go somewhere in swapna and wake up in bed.
There is no transportation. So all that
happens in swapna is mithya.
In swapna we can meet friends and talk amongst us.
The moment we wake up, we know it is only a dream.
One can't demand in jaagrat for money loaned in
swapna.
By comparing swapna and jaagrat, Gowdapaada wants
to convey that both are mithya.
We can dream about our body flying. But it is
avastu. Because there are no two bodies of the
same person. Why do we say swapna body is avastu?
Because it is only a mental picture (chitta drusya).
Example: daydreaming. In both jaagrat
and swapna we see forms that are based on aatman.
We only see forms but not aatman. In swapna
jagat there is no aatman. In jaagrat there is
only chitta drusya. So one has to cross
chitta drusya to see aatman.
[My Note: Ramaanuja claimed that he received
directions about math from a dEvata in dreams]
Tureeya is not 4th state. It is an experience
that does not fall in the 3 avasthaas.
Sarvaatma bhaava: we see ourselves in all.
When we talk about Brahman: we mean nothing else
exists; NOT nothing exists.
Chitta drusyam is mithya only
When budhi understands Brahman, it loses
its existence just as a salt crystal dissolves
in ocean. When budhi is dissolved then we
say we realized Brahman.
Budhi/manas/chitta etc are a means to
realize Brahman. After realizing Brahman
they dissolve and are no longer necessary.
Swapna is sandhi (meeting place) between
nether world and self.
Samskaara --- liking for something. Eg.
food, tobacco, etc.
Brahman is the stuff in jagat. After that
we understand Brahman is self.
Swapna is because of vaasanaa in jaagrat. So
jaagrat is the hEtu (cause) and swapna is the
phala (effect). In jaagrat there are graahaka (knower)
and graahya (known). Similarly in swapna.
Jaagrat is the kaaraNa,
swapna is the kaarya. He who gets the dream
in swapna is waking up. No one else is
feeling the same
swapna and waking up on his behalf.
The dream is only for the seer. When he
wakes up, he is the one recalling. There
is nothing common between the two.
Like in jaagrat where there is knowing and known
in swapna as well it is there. jaagrat is the kaaraNa/hEtu
and swapna is the kaarya. Question: who wakes up?
Only dreamer. None other. Dreamer imagines
dream world is common for those in his dream.
Similarly the waker imagines jaagrat world is common
for those who are in his jaagrat.
Conclusion: a common world for everyone is only
an imagination in dream. Don't bring commonness
of the world between jaagrat and swapna
into an argument claiming more
reality of one over the other. The statement
that there is a common world for everyone
can't be proved. So don't bring commonness
into an argument. There is nothing like
jaagrat world for the agnaani. Jaagrat world
is mithya for agnaani. When we deny the world,
the commonness of the world is also denied.
There is a part which is common and there is
a part which is not common. Each person
gets dreams from his own raaga/dvEsha...his
friends, relations, etc. The common entities
like soorya, chandra, etc are mithya. There
is nothing like a common world. There is nothing
like a world at all for an agnaani.
One should not bring commonness to argue that
jaagrat is more real than swapna.
Dream world and jagat: We attach more reality
to jagat than dream world. There is no common
world between the two. Commonness is drusya
in jaagrat; the same in swapna.
Jaagrat world is the cause for swapna. There is
more reality there. Swapna is our imagination.
Jagat is not so. One is avastu. How can we say
jagat is avastu? There is so much of regularity
like the planetary motion and it is more sthira. If
we think the whole world as mithya, we are
not correct. One can calculate precisely
the timing of planets (distance, angle, etc.)
If one thinks the cosmos is unreal, then one
is absolutely wrong. The cosmos can come and
go, but it obeys laws. There is no law in dream.
It is nonsense to say dreams are based on laws.
Why there is no law in dream world? For as long as
we watch forms, it is mithya. Because there is
Brahman the cosmos obeys laws. Jagat is NOT
without laws. Whereas swapna has NO laws.
But saastra is saying cosmos is mental imagination.
We know we are not responsible for the cosmos.
By only seeing shapes we are in mithya. Because
there are laws. There must be Brahman/aatman that
we are not seeing. Without Brahman
there are no
laws. So saastra is referring to our understanding
of the world.
Desa kaala nimitta sambandha = kaarsnya . There
is no kaarsnya in dreams. Ultimately, in aatman
there are no laws. There is no world in aatman.
There is no jagat in aatman.
Jaagrat experience is the hEtu (reason/kaaraNa) for
swapna (kaarya). KaaraNa is more permanent than
kaarya. Jaagrat is common to all. Swapna world is
specific to the dreamer.
There is no proof that cosmos/world is produced or
permanent. Whatever we are seeing is unborn (aja).
All that is aatman. Because aatman is not born.
World is not different from aatman. It is sat.
Pot is satya from clay point of view.
Frequently we hear cosmos is kalpita or is aatman.
Both of them are valid. From the point of view of indriyas
it is not non-existent; not different from Brahman
or aatman.
kaarya is not different from kaaraNa. But kaaraNa
(clay) is different from kaarya (pot). Clay
is the upaadaana kaaraNa for pot. Without clay
pot can't exist. A biological
father is not upaadaana kaaraNa for son.
upaadana kaaraNa: stuff without which the pot
can't exist (i.e. clay). Son can exist without
a biological father. So father is not upaadaana
kaaraNa.
All the world is aatman. Hence aatman is not born.
Ganesha is always existing in rock
(that is sculpted into Ganesha by removing the pieces
that are NOT Ganesha). Saastra can't say how the
world is created.
That from which jaagrat (sat) and swapna (asat) are born is an
imagination. There is
no stuff in swapna. Hence swapna is not born at all.
From sat , asat can't be born.
In IterEya upanishat bhaashya Sankara said all we
are seeing in jaagrat,
swapna, sushupti are a dream. In jaagrat
we see with indriyas, but not in swapna.
When we don't have aatma gnaana, what
we see is asat. It is wrong to say
jaagrat and swapna are both
asat without aatma gnaana. For an aatma
gnaani the whole world is oneself.
Jaagrat world is aatman. So there is no
question of creation.
Agnaanis see sat in jaagrat and in swapna.
But the objects in swapna are destroyed.
Whereas in jaagrat the objects persist.
So the world is nothing but aatman.
The gnaana we get in budhi is a little
more than indriyas. Budhi knows
kaaraNa but indriyas bring forms.
In aatman there are no forms. The forms
we see are aatman.
There is activity in kshEtra. The agency
responsible for activity is sookshma. It
is chEtana.
The agnaani sees anaatman which is imagined
and not sat.
We see from paaramaartha there is no
kaarya-kaaraNa bhaava in aatman. There
is no srishti in aatman.
There are 4 combinations of sat-asat.
None of them is true.
From one asat another asat can't come.
From ghata, pata (cloth) can't come.
From sat asat can't come.
There is only one sat vastu. Aatman.
Others are created from aatman. In
other words, all of jagat is aatman.
There is no creation.
In swapna one creates objects from
samskaara, not necessarily from jaagrat.
One should not say kaarya-kaaraNa
bhaava. From aatman point of view there is no
kaarya-kaaraNa.
Aachaaras are good. People believing in god, following
varnaasram
dharma, worshiping agni, etc. are good.
But they are agnaanis because they
don't have aatma gnaana. They think object
world is existing different from them. They are
serious about performing karma. So kaarya-kaaraNa
bhaava is taught.
As they perform karma, they
gradually turn to aatma gnaana.
Karmis are afraid of aatma gnaana. All the
story of creation is meant for them. For
the gnaani the creation never took place.
There is no kaarya/kaaraNa bhaava in
aatman. The kaarya-kaaraNa bhaava is
told for the agnaanis who fear aatman
and of birthlessness.
Certainly people doing karma receive
karma phala.
Avitatha -- not mithya.
Vitata == imaginary
In kaaraNa there is no kaarya. From the
point of view of aatman it is abhaava.
Till now Gowdapaada told many mantras
for the sake of those who are not gnaanis
to educate them.
Can't people doing karma get dOsha?
Ordinary people believe in dwaita. There is
a dOsha (eg. continue in samsaara), but they
won't be subject to grief for as long as they
lead their lives by adhering to dharma. And they have
faith in god and vEdas.
Why are they called good people? Because, if
dwaita exists for them, then dwaita must be real.
Gowdapaada says just because they are seeing it,
we can't say dwaita really exists.
They are seeing and dealing with sadaachaara
(varNaasrama dharma). In the case of maaya,
it is not sufficient proof that something exists
really. One can see an elephant because of
maaya. When one comes out of maaya, one realizes
the reality.
There has to be adhishtaana for one to mistake.
What is that? Though it is not born, it appears
to be born with respect to body. This is jaatyaa bhaasa.
Ghataakaasa is not born. Chalaabhaasa: the activities
one does. It is only appearance. Vastvaabhaasa:
pratyagaatma is not a vastu or dravya. Despite that we
describe a person as short, brown, etc.
Adhishtaana is Brahman.
From the point of view of paaramaartha the aabhaasa
(jaatyaabhaasa, chalaabhaasa, vastvaabhaasa)
are not there.
What are ajaatya (not born), achalam (not moving),
avastu (not stuff)? Vignaana
is kEvala gnaana. It is not about an object.
The root of all these is mind. In mind
all these ideas are there. If mind is
upaadhi, then we have all these ideas.
Manas moves and aatman is appearing to move.
We attribute all the activity in aatman to
manas/mind. Manas itself is imaginary/illusory.
There is no praaNa/manas in aatman. All these
things are born. When we want to establish
ananyatva with respect to Brahman, praaNa/manas
are stayed in aatma swaroopa. They are potentially
there. One can't see them separately.
praaNa is like electricity that acts differently
in different bodies. In planets it is
gravity. In men, it is pancha praaNa. PraaNa
is sarvaadhikaari in body.
Chitta is not born. Jeevas also are not born.
Those who understood aatmatatva, there is one Brahman;
jaati/vastu/chalana are not there; all desires
are given up; one doesn't fall into the dark pit
of samsaara.
For one who sees the one aatman, there is no mOha
or Soka. Chitta is also aatman. The stuff of all
objects is Brahman. Though it has shape, aakaasa
is Brahman who is the upaadaana kaaraNa.
From the point of view of Brahman the kaarya (jeeva) and kaaraNa
are not separate entities (Remember aham brahmOsmi).
Alaata: oil burning flame
One can produce illusory circles, straight lines by moving
alaata rapidly. Are the circles and straight lines there really?
One can say they are there because one is seeing them.
When the motion is stopped, where will they go? So they are
really not there. But one can say, "I am actually seeing
them." It is only the alaata. What exactly is the relationship
between alaata and circle? It is only an appearance. In aatman
there is no motion at all. It is because of the persistence of
the vision (22 frames/second in the case of movies) we see
circles/lines when alaata is rapidly moved.
Same aatman is appearing like vishayaa and vishayee. Vishayee
is understood with manas. Manas is also created. It is aatman
itself. Everything including motion is
aatman. What is the difference? It is only appearance from the
point of view of indriyas. In paaramaartha it is aatman.
From the point of view of understanding everything is aatman. From the
point of view of vyavahaara all manas/chittam/ etc. are different
from aatman.
Kaarya is not going to vanish if we say kaarya-kaaraNa are
not different. It is really aatman. But it is appearing as
different from aatman.
Who is gnaani? Aatman with sareera/mind/indriyas. He understood
that kaarya is not different from kaaraNa. But his body is
different. He is conducting vyavahaara.
These two extremes need to be reconciled.
In aatman there is no activity. But in vyavahaara there is
activity/vikaara. How to resolve this?
The alaata stands for aatman. When it is stationary there are
no appearances. Due to avidya we see
activity like circles/straight lines. They are really not there.
When the alaata is stationary, we can't say circles and straight
lines vanished by merging into the alaata. They are not dravya. They
are non existent.
The circle is not a vastu. It is only an appearance.
achintya: inexplicable
Because of manas, that moves, aatman appears
to move. There is neither vikaara nor
vyavahaara in aatman. When a lamp (such
as aarati) is rotated one sees circles.
The lamp appears to be going in circles. The
jyOti stays the same.
Similarly aatman appears to be in motion.
Vikaara is a shape. The stuff is aatman.
Vyavahaara is a shape.
The stuff is praana.
Praana is like potential energy.
Anirvachaneeya: pot is clay only. We can't
fill clay with water. From vyavahaara
pot is different from clay. One can
hold water in it.
We can't describe a pot is clay or not
unambiguously.
If there were no clay, there never would
be the shape of pot. So shape is also
Brahman/aatman
achintya: totally confused.
Form is also
aatman.
ice/water/steam have H2O molecules. If H2O molecule is animate,
it can think it is
either H2O or ice. Then there is mithya. If
it thinks of itself as ice, then it has bhaya
as it can be converted to water. When it
thinks of itself as H2O, then there is no
bhaya. When it gives up mithya gnaana, then
there will be no fear. This knowledge has to
come
in budhi.
We have to have compassion because there is
nothing different from self.
Samsaara is the root of fear.
There is no pot shape in aatman. We don't know
why. Even saastra can't explain.
aatma tatva is not there. What about those
who think there is kaarya-kaaraNa bhaava?
There is no kaarya-kaaraNa bhaava. Only
ananyatva is there.
Shape/guna/etc. is not dravya (substance).
They can't be kaaraNa by themselves. The
color of the cloth depends on the color of
the thread. This is not independently
kaaraNa. Thread is dravya. The guna --the
color of the thread --is responsible for the
color of the cloth. The color of cloth
is through the color of the thread.
Adravya can't be direct cause of anything.
It is only through another guna it will
be the cause.
aatman is not dravya. aatman is not the
cause of world. Nor there is something
intermediary through which aatman
is manifest as world. So there can never
be kaarya-kaaraNa sambandha for aatman.
aatman is the common thing between 2
objects. There is no another thing as
aatman is the only thing everywhere.
Thought can't be there without an object.
Thought is not dravya. There is no
kaarya-kaaraNa between thought and object.
For advaita one needs to do karma. It gives
bala to budhi.
are essential for advaita. One can give
up karma after attaining the 3 qualities.
Chitta is also aatman. The swaroopa of
chitta is not different from aatman.
Manas/chitta is a product of Brahman.
The baahya vishaya is form.
Chitta is also form. Everything is aatman
only including shapes. Shapes are recognized
by budhi. How about aatman?
The forms are achintya.
There is nothing like hEtu/phala. Neither
of them is born. Because everything is
aatman.
Aatman itself appeared as kshEtra/kshEtragna with kshEtra dharma so that we can see aatma tatva.
All forms dissolve in eyes. All sounds
dissolve in ears. The connecting thing is
aatman.
[Swami's digression: The brain plays a crucial role that is
unknown so far from science. ]
Indriyas take us outside. One has to look inside
by controlling them.
As long as hEtu/phala bhaava (if I do this, I will
get this phala) is there, samsaara continues.
The moment we give up hEtu/phala samsaara goes away.
Samsaara is mithya.
Till now what was said is everything is aatman.
As long as we are attached to samsaara there is no
relief. Believe everything is aatman.
As long as we have adhyaasa we see kaarya-kaaraNa
in samsaara, avidya, Brahman, etc. Nothing is
permanent as long as we have avidya.
In paaramaartha there is no hEtu/phala, samsaara,etc.
Gowdapaada starts by describing them for our
understanding
and ultimately
comes to the realization that there is only
aatman and nothing else.
Zero by itself has no value. When it is
prefixed with a non-zero number then it gets value.
Thus aatman becomes multiplicity.
Brahman has entered us in the form of
kshEtragna. Know ourself to be Brahman.
In the tureeya there is neither
vikaara nor vyavahaara. Because of
manas aatman appears to do them.
Manas and indriyaas are not different
from aatman. If we consider manas
as Brahman then we need not fear
about vyavahaara and vikaara.
Due to avidya we are firmly holding
on to hEtu/phala. As long as we
have this fixed idea there is
kaarya-kaaraNa bhaava and samsaara.
Once hEtu/phala
is gone samsaara is also gone.
When we get vidya we realize everything
is Brahman. Everything will be
permanent.
Those dharmaas which are born, they
are not born from tatva (aatman
seen itself; aatman with upaadhi is atatva).
Antah pragna/bahish pragna are there
because of avidya. They are not there
in aatman.
Jaagrat/swapna/sushupti are
not different from aatman. They are
dharmas of kshEtragna. In tureeya
aatman there is abhaava (absence) of the 3
avasthaas.
Jaagrat/swapna/sushupti are relative
to upaadhi. In avidya we experience them.
They appear to be born. They are really not
born. It happens due to maaya. In
aatman there are unimaginable powers. It
can project itself in different ways.
Because of maaya seed sprouts into plant.
Whatever grows is also maayaamaya. It is
not mithya. One can't say seed has died.
Similarly the birth of jeevas and dharmas
needs to be understood.
Dharmaas are not born at all. From paaramaartha
point of view they can't be described as
saasvata/asaasvata. They are kEvala chaitanya.
Speech doesn't enter at all. There are no names.
All the speech retreats when one has to
describe them (dharmaas). (abhidaana is name; the object
who is named is abhidEya)
In dream the mind is in motion projecting
dwaita. We are seeing objects when they
are not there. If chitta is also in motion,
that is being witnessed by us. The motion
is its dharma/swabhaava for our own
good. It is better to control manas.
From paaramaartha point of view there is no motion.
Only aatman is there. Manas/mind seems to
be in motion in appearance only.
How can one be achala and have a manas
in motion? One can't answer. Even vEdaas
can't say.
In swapna everything is happening because of chitta.
It has the same state as rest of the world.
There is aatman alone. And it appears to
be in motion. We can't explain it.
What is the profit of knowing this?
There won't be dwaita budhi, raaga-dvEsha,
samsaara. Jeeva is like H2O. When associated
with ice/water/steam there is fear. The
moment we realize we are H2O, there is no
fear.
In the case of agnaani, after he dies, he
gets another body. There is no body for
gnaani after death because he attains
mOksha. This can be compared with the
snake shedding its skin.
In swapna even though there is no motion
of aatman it appears to be in motion. The same
is true about jaagrat.
One is seeing in swapna (antah pragna) all
objects that are created by chitta. Swapna
drashta (seer) is aatman.
One sees in swapna a variety of things.
He also sees other aatmans. The chitta
in swapna is called swapnadhruk chitta.
Whatever one sees is not different from
aatman. Chitta is doing kalpana. In
swapna there is no other padaartha
than chitta which is imagination.
Suppose we are alone in a desert, very thirsty and see a mirage. We run
after it for water. Someone says it is only an illusion based on
the laws of nature and gives us water. Because it is praatibhaasa
satya (right knowledge) we don't run after the mirage. There is no
dwaita there. This example shows the importance of
saastra vaakya. And gnaani's experience.
How can we understand appearance as ourselves
(aatman)? For someone just starting to learn
vEdaanta various kaarya-kaaraNa are
given in sruti. Eventually the seeker is led
to the Brahman. The seeker is taught the
jagat is asatya-jada (inert)-parichchinna (limited).
Brahman is introduced as satyam-gnaanam-anantam.
Then he is convinced he is
none other than the Brahman; nothing is different
from him. If he disagrees then he is not seeing
the same as self. He is told seeing is done
by eyes. They are appearances of self. This is
the sookshmata (subtlety) of advaita.
One who is in swapna sees many jeevas. They are not
different from his chitta.
In jaagrat and swapna chitta acts the same way.
With regard to chitta, we only see forms. The gnaana
in swapna is not different from jaagrat. We
see avastu (non stuff) in jaagrat also. In dwaita
bhaava jagat is non-existent. Seeing in aatma
bhaava is gnaana. The jagat is a projection of
aatman. Chittam is not different from aatman. Its
appearance is different.
[
In the following parts Swami explains how
Saastra calls itself as kalpita. The journey until
now has been about understanding kaarya-kaaraNa
bhaava in the creation. From now on, the kaarya-kaaraNa
bhaava has been set aside to show that aatman
is everything and there is nothing else beside it
]
In swapna it is the projection of chitta
which in turn is a projection of aatman.
From paaramaartha point of view chitta and world
are aatman only.
Chitta is dependent on objects in swapna and vice-versa
They depend on one another for their existence.
It is anyOnnaashraya dOsha [Rama's house is next
to Bhima's and Bhima's house is next to Rama's.] where
no new knowledge/information is gained.
The chitta and objects in swapna have wrong knowledge.
In jaagrat there is vyaavahaarika satya. As long as
we see forms in jaagrat it is the same thing like
swapna.
In swapna only body and indriyas are detached. Rest
manas/budhi/chitta, etc. are not detached.
Our knowledge in swapna and in jaagrat are not
different as long as we don't have gnaana.
There is no cause-effect in swapna. There is
no pramaana to fix which is existing or non-existing
between chittam and objects in swapna. How?
We recognize a pot after knowing about it (
ghata budhi). So recognition (ghata budhi)
depends on knowledge. Which one is the cause
and which one is the effect? We are pramaata.
Between pramaana and pramEya we have to decide.
Hiranyagarbha gets the idea of the creation in his
budhi. When we see, we recognize the jaati
before the object and its name. The form and
name are asat because one needs the other
for its existence.
Knowing forms only won't help. For ghata
chitta is the pramaana. For chitta
ghata is the pramaana.
In swapna animals appear and die. Similarly
in jaagrat bodies appear and die. There is
no pramaana for the jeevas being born
and dying (pratyaksha pramaana???????).
In vyavahaara satya jeevas' birth and death is like
swapna
when compared to aatman. When one
follows dharma one gets good things. Grief
comes for one following adharma. This is still not
uttama (best). Uttama satya is one that never dies
and never has rebirth.
All lOkas attained after death are temporary
abodes. Mukti is the best. Ordinary people
think the path to mukti is not entertaining.
In sushupti we experience mukti every day.
But we still are afraid of the path to mukti.
It is like one in grief despite walking on
a gold mine.
In order to attain uttama satya, one has to recognize
the moola kaaraNa (chitta), and feed good
knowledge and train it. Chitta is not form
and not a thing but actually aatman. Chitta is ourself.
There is no form in us (sushuptaatma).
It is not possible for an outside/external
object to merge with aatman. But chitta is
not so. It can merge in aatman. So chitta
has to be properly trained using sama, dama,
dhyaana, meditation, etc.
All that is graahya/graahaka, vishaya/vishayee
(dwaita) is chitta spandana. For outside
things to merge with aatman, they have to
wait until pralaya. Not so in the case of
chitta. Spandana: takes and gives information.
Without training it goes only to gnaata. With
training it can attain paaramaartha.
In swapna chitta is there. When it is interacting
with outside world in jaagrat,
paapa/punya are sticking to it.
In swapna there can be dharma/adharma. But
punya/paapa won't stick to chitta.
When chitta doesn't recognize forms in jaagrat,
punya/paapa won't accumulate.
In jaagrat chitta has vikaara with Brahman as the
kaaraNa. In
swapna it has vikaara without Brahman. It is
asanga in swapna.
When chitta identifies with aatman, without
associating with vishaya, then there
are no punya/paapa.
Saastra says chitta can't get nir-vishaya (free from
guru, Ishwara, etc.). It is not so because:
saastra has done the kalpana for the sake of
attaining aatma tatva. In order to take us to
the paaramaartha tatva, saastra has done the kalpana.
If we accept saastra, we will attain the goal.
vEdas and upanishats are mainly meant for
people with avidya. For the sake of vyavahaara,
and order, there is saastra.
There are several descriptions about chitta.
It is kshanika, etc. In reality, chitta is
the one that differentiates kshEtra and
kshEtragna. It is actually aatma tatva.
From the point of view of paratantra
(Buddhism, etc.) it won't exist at all.
That's not correct.
Saastra while leading us to paaramaartha does
a lot of kalpana. Manas, chitta, etc.
are really not present in aatman. External
objects do exist. Paratantra (other faiths
like Budhists, vaisEshika, etc) doesn't believe in
tureeya aatman or Brahman. The jagat they
are talking about is totally absent. Anything
that is not Brahman can't exist because Brahman
is upaadaana kaaraNa that gives stuff to it.
Per saastra "that which is not born such as
aatman" is also kalpita. This statement was
repeat of Brihadaaranyaka upanishat and Sootra baashya.
Brahman is being described as aatman, vignaana
ghana, etc. Those descriptions are based on
adhyaarOpa (all names and forms are attributed
to Brahman). Brahman is
their upaadaana
kaaraNa. Forms are there because of Brahman.
Chitta when viewed from paaramaartha is aatman
itself.
Brahman has to be described to lay people.
This is done through kaarya-kaaraNa bhaava.
After describing Brahman, thus, there is
even no kaarya-kaaraNa bhaava.
Gowdapaada says taken independently objects
don't exist.
Why do we say aja (not born)? That's because
paratantra says aatman is born. Taking
that into account it was said aatman is not
born. We say it is born through the relationship
with body. They say aatman is born per se.
Dwaita is hard to give up. AbhinivEsha.
Looking at the point of view of swaroopa, we will
agree aatman is not born. Dwaita is
nimitta for birth.
AbhinivEsha is a subjective opinion, not an
objective truth. Dwaitam is not really there.
It is mithya. That's why rebirth is there.
From paaramaartha point of view there is Ekatva and
rebirth is not there. Because we are asserting
dwaita we are getting rebirth.
Saastra says karma accumulation leads to janma.
The 3 kinds of adhikaaris are:
Uttama (follows dharma), madhyama (performs good and bad),
athama (performs bad). They all are saved by Brahman.
According to varna, aashramakarma is prescribed
by saastra. Taking that into account the phala
is discussed. Karma means those actions prescribed
by saastra for each varna and aashrama. Varna
itself is a result of karma. One will go forward
by following the varna-aashrama dharma. Otherwise
one goes backward. Four aashramas: brahma charya,
gruhasthu, vaana prastha, sannyaasa . They imply
shrama or hard effort.
[Swami defends manu smriti and varna system as
based on karma and in-depth analysis ]
Every one is eligible for mOksha.
Aatma gnaana can be acquired through saastra or
itihaasa. According to sootra, a soodra is
eligible for mOksha but not through saastra.
There is no vaidika karma for soodra.
Brahma sootra (apasoodradrikaraNa),
quotes Gautama sootras:
These are not even quoted in Gautama smriti.
To the contrary it praises soodras. Rice offered
for dEva can be cooked by soodra after
taking bath, wearing new clothes, etc.
When he is cooking he will be listening
to vEda mantraas.
Budhists would have started the negative
propaganda. Gautama (not Buddha)
sootra is 3000 yrs old.
Budhists have hatred for vEdaas. It is very
likely they interpolated the mantraas in
Gautama sootras. There is no single
statement in sruti that hurts someone.
Sruti would not have survived this long
if there is hatred in it.
In 1901 AD the caste system was
started. The British were interested in
sabotaging the smooth system that
existed back then. How to control
India? By infiltration.
They made all
professions like gold smith, iron smith, etc.
as communities. These
are not varnas. The common thing
in all villages is brahmanas who
are poor anywhere. They started
the propaganda that the brahmanaas
are the problem. They closed the
gurukulas. They started their own
schools and colleges.
Three types of karmas:
nitya: every day karma (sandhya worship,
pooja, etc.)
naimittika:to be done on specific occasion
(e.g. saardha, grahana kaala, etc.)
kaamya: doing with desire
Karma not to be done: nishidha/pratishidha
There is phala associated with karma.
Karma done without desire gets the highest
reward. Most of us do a mixture of good
and bad karma.
Nishkaama karma, poorta karma
(digging wells, planting trees, etc.)
are other types of karma.
All these are not there in aatman. Chitta
is the root: with chitta we do the karma.
Chitta has to be trained to stabilize in
aatman. This will lead to a state of no
rebirth.
When chitta attains a state when it no
longer will be reborn, how to recognize it?
From paaramaartha point of view
chitta is not born and part of aatman.
One has to overcome dwaita in chitta.
Drusya is part of chitta. If chitta can't
see drusya, it is non-existent. Chitta
is not different from drusya. One's
self appears like the drusya.
Realize there is no nimitta (reason)
for it to be born.
Karma is done by sthoola/sookshma
sareera. Aaatman is not associated with it.
When we say "I am karta", then we should also say
"I am also bhOkta". We should be able
to say "I am only gnaata". Then we
are neither karta nor bhOkta.
Though praarabda has to be experienced,
nothing will stick to us.
Giving up eeshanaas, kaama, krOdha, etc.
we will be freed from karma/phala.
Abhoota AbhinivEsha: strong attachment to
karma and the associated phala. Strongly
believes in dwaita. Chitta is responsible
for imagining the world as dwaita. So
chitta should be trained to overcome the
abhoota abhinivEsha. So saastra advises
sama, dama, etc.
[Swami quotes Gita
krodhad bhavati sammohah
sammohat smrti-vibhramah
smrti-bhramsad buddhi-naso
buddhi-nasat pranasyati
From anger, delusion arises, and from delusion
bewilderment of memory. When memory is
bewildered, intelligence is lost, and when intelligence is
lost, one falls down again into the material pool.
]
With determination we have to train chitta
to give up abhinivEsha. Saadhana sampatti
have to be followed. Daana, sEva, karma,
satsanga, etc. have to be practiced. With
sakaama karma, after karma is spent, we
have to start all over. If paapa is done,
punya from sakaama karma is spent. With
nishkaama karma the difference is it will
never be spent.
chitta can be controlled by:
upavaasa is recommended because it is the
anti-dote for kaama. In order to temper
lObha, daana is prescribed. For krOdha
the anti-dote is japa.
Guru drOha is done when we turn against
a guru who teaches sruti and saastras
(not Buddhism or paratantra).
By withdrawing from dwaita, realizing
nothing is different from us, chitta
will be in its own swaroopa which is Brahman.
Finally we come to the conclusion nothing
is different from us.
When budhi is properly purified it will
concentrate on Brahman.
When everything is ourselves and we are
everything, we merge with aatman. It
doesn't mean jagat is mithya, but all
is ourselves.
One can reject bahutva or
accept all as oneself. The former is wrong.
The latter is the correct knowledge.
"Everything is myself". It is the budhi
not aatman that should learn.
One attains equilibrium, nirvisEsha,
ajam, advayam, etc. by accepting advaitam.
Chitta is nothing but aatman. Chitta will
know by itself that it is self-illuminating.
Its illumination is not dependent on external
sources like sun light, etc.
Chitta
is always shining. That is its nature.
The frame of reference has changed from
kaarya to kaaraNa. It is the appearance of
kaarya that was described. One has to disassociate
oneself from kaarya and associate with kaaraNa. Then
it is advaya.
Why can't common people understand this?
When one gets attached to something, they
hold on to it like a leach. That is the
human nature. They obtain sukha which
covers the supreme aatman. It will
imprison them.
sadhakaas are asked to be dispassionate
while receiving tatva.
Because we are seeing dwaita, we are imprisoned
in it. With great difficulty, the aatman has
to be revealed. The lesson that the saastra is
telling: when studying vEdaanta don't
be passionate. Don't take sides. If at all, take
the side of sruti. But not in a fanatical way.
If 100 srutis tell fire has no light or form,
it doesn't become pramaana.
One has to look for meaning that doesn't conflict
with the concept. One has to be critical of
saastra. But seek the good out of it at the
same time.
During saadhana there is dwaita and dispassion
is hard.
paaramaartha gnaana is difficult to get.
Once obtained
one expresses himself lucidly. Advaya aatma
will get prakatita (revealed)
with great difficulty. The impediment is
our own abhinivEsha.
That's why vEdaanta, without a guru, cannot
be understood easily.
Generally catching hold of duality,
that grips one so firmly, he won't look
inside.
There are discussions about the existence
of god. We don't look inside for god. We
tend to look outside. There is something
about aatman which can be described. So
adhyaarOpa is used to learn about aatman.
In the end apavaada is used to clarify.
An aasthika argues "God is there" and may even
prove it.
Vainaasikas (Budhists, etc.) deny it and
say both asthi/naasthi (present/absent).
Vainaasika totally denies existence of god.
The various arguments are:
All these people don't look inside
themselves. One has to look inside.
Aatma means sushuptaatma
or pratyagaatma which itself is Brahman.
Paramaartha tatva is within ourselves.
Brahman can't be said to be sat or asat.
How to explain it? In one frame of
reference god is sat. And asat in
another. How? Sat is taken by common
people as something that exists using
a pramaaNa (pratyaksha, anumaana, etc.)
Proving this way leads to sat either way.
But tureeyaatma is not amenable to
pratyaksha or anumaana pramaaNa. So
we can't say it is sat. Saastra says aatman
is there. It is aparOksha (neither
pratyaksha nor parOksha). We can't
prove it except based on experience
Thus people are proving sat by yukti or pramaaNa.
Sometimes
they say an object exists and at other times
it doesn't. When it doesn't exist it is called asat.
By any pramaaNa it can't
be called sat. Based
on experience we know aatman is sat. We can't say
Brahman is asat.
What is the paramaartha tatva that can transform
a moodha (ignorant one) to pandita? If we accept
4 groups (asthi, naasthi, asthi+naasthi, naasti + naasti),
tureeyaatma is concealed. One who goes
beyond the groups, he will see aatman.
We can't describe Brahman under any of the 4
categories. The Brahman is described only
in upanishat. Not in karma kaanda or somewhere
else. He is beyond comprehension. He can't
be categorized under the 4 groups.
Tarkikas accept aatma. But not meemaamsakas.
The Brahman is sarvagna and sarvadhruk.
One who believes in Aadi (srishti) + madhya (sthithi) +
anta (laya) , has the correct knowledge.
He is krutsna == complete, samastam, sarvagnata (everything
is himself), sarvancha, nyascha, etc.
The person who understands this is called a Brahmana.
Tureeyaatma is beyond utpatti + sthithi + laya. It
is the real brahmana after some training.
Real vinaya / sama /dama is aatma gnaana.
This is required for saadhana. Eventually
it becomes one's nature.
For a brahmana vinaya becomes swabhaavika
when one stays in aatma swaroopa. There is
nothing like "I". Sama comes naturally.
Dama the same way. When they become swabhaava
everything is upashaanti. He stays in Brahma
swaroopa.
In Jaagrat there is a vastu to be understood.
This is called loukika.
In swapna there is no vastu but understanding is there
(graahya-graahaka). It is called sudha loukika.
Due to avidya we are thinking it is savastu. It is
vyaavahaarika satyam. But the vastu is aatman only.
Knower has to be there.
One can't say we understand aatma tatva in swapna.
From the point of view of agnaani both swapna and jaagrat are
the same because he sees only forms. There is dwaita
or avidya in agnaani. Where there is vastu, vyavahaara, etc.
it is called jaagrat.
In jaagrat we see vastu apart from us because of
avidya. But graahya-graahaka relationship exists in
swapna.
In swapna there is no vastu. After waking up,
all that I see is myself. So wake up from
jaagrat the same way. The purpose is not to
deny its existence but make us understand it is
not different from us.
When we get up from a nightmare, we understand
it is only a swapna. Similarly in jaagrat one
should not be afraid and give up raaga, dvEsha, etc.
In sushupti there is no vastu or knowing (graahya). In
swapna there is no vastu but there is knowing (graahya).
Sushupti is lOkOttamam. There is no visEsha there.
But there is pravrutti beeja (avidya) in sushupti.
In order to understand paramaartha tatva a scheme
is given with krama (from jaagrat to swapna to sushupti,
back to swapna and then jaagrat).
Loukika, sudha loukika, uttama are also in sequence.
One must be different from the 3 avasthaas. With that
gnaana we will know all 3 avasthaas.
In jaagrat and swapna there is avidya that expresses
itself of adhyaasa. In sushupti there is avidya but
there is no medium for expression. There is
no gnEya in sushupti. GnEya itself is sushupti.
We all are there in one of the 3 avasthaas. Even the
scientists who make theories of the universe are
also similarly in the 3 avasthaas. There is also
tureeya.
Tureeya is advayam, ajam, aatma tatvam.
We are asarva. We don't know that we are sarva.
One has to wake up to realize that. One who
doesn't know that he is Brahman is the jeeva.
The pratyagaatma comes to know itself as
Brahman. Then it becomes tureeyaatma.
A sarvagna is one who realizes tureeyaatma.
The 3 avasthaas are not there in aatman.
They are abhaava. Things to be given up
hEya (3 avasthaas),
gnEya (asthi, naasthi, etc.),
paakya (all raaga, dvEsha, etc.
have to be purified with
proper karma).
Things to be acquired:
aapya: paanditya (firm doubtless understanding
of saastra), baalya (like a child without
frills and with curiosity), mouna (does not go on
talking).
The 3 avasthaas don't exist in aatman. Just as
rajju is mistaken to be snake, it is mithyaa
gnaana. They are only kshEtra dharma. With bahish
pragna thinking "I am doing
karma" is wrong.
Paramaartha tatva can't be described as asthi,
naasthi, etc. (the 4 groups in part#53).
Aapya should be acquired.
Paakya are dOsha that should be purified with
samskaara.
All these things have to be acquired because
this is the only way we can get paramaartha
tatva. This is the first step.
All these are different from us and they
can be known. But Brahman can't be known.
In aatman they are not there.
In paaramaarthika satya
they are not there. They exist in
vyaavahaarika satya.
For all the jeevas by swabhaava there is no
aadi like aakaasa; there is no naanaatva.
They are just like aakaasa: sookshma, niranjana
(doesn't stick to anything), sarvagatatva, etc.
but subtler. One can be extraordinarily
stupid but he still experiences sushupti by
god's grace.
There is no naanaatva in aatman. In antah/bahish
pragna there is naanaatva. In sushupti everybody
is one. We know how another person feels during
sushupti. Hence there is one-ness despite many
claiming duality. With respect to body there
can be naanaatva. It is because of upaadhi. In experience
there is advaita.
Based on adhyaasa of a person, karma is prescribed.
Loukika (jaagrat), sudha loukika (swapna)
and lokOttara (sushupti) are like
3 avasthaas. Aatman is one despite the
differences in its expressions in various
bodies.
All the dharmaas/aatman, are
already fixed (sustitha).
How can jiva be Brahman? There is no
need to know because saastra says so.
Being Brahman one can't know if he is
Brahman. Is Brahman foolish? Some
dharmaas are made to be adhyaarOpa on
Brahman. Brahman itself is not confused.
One who is confused is not different
from Brahman. One is already Brahman but
doesn't know (pratyagaatma Brahman).
Suppose we don't know grammar. When
we say "I don't know I am Brahman".
Whose ignorance is this? The avidya
is the one who asks that question.
An agnaani doesn't know he is Brahman.
jeeva - avidya = Brahman
is correct.
But
jeeva = Brahman + avidya
is a wrong statement.
Because we can't associate avidya
with Brahman who is nitya budha,
nitya sudha, etc.
Each of us is tureeyaatma. Who
has to know? Anything but tureeya.
By their very nature, they
always have prakaasa like the Sun.
After knowing this, one should
be doubtless about oneself. Soorya
has the light and he understands himself.
In order to understand other things he
doesn't need to bring light. Similarly
aatma gnaani doesn't need to bring a
light. His own light reveals what is
to
be understood. When everything has become
aatman what is there to understand?
One who understand this, has nothing to
be known anew. When there is such a
conviction, he will be ready to attain
mOksha.
All the dharmaas are already
there. They are not born at all.
They are always in peace (saanta).
They are in sama.
saamyam,
visudham, aatma tatvam are not born. mOksha
is not kartavya (something to be
done). Just by knowing one can
get mOksha. But we don't
understand what "knowing"
means. Knowing aatman is knowing
oneself.
sushuptaatman is already Brahman.
Only we don't know.
Just by knowing this we can
attain mOksha. Someone
sitting on a gold mine not
knowing so will be rich once
he "knows" it.
Pain is pertaining to body only.
To think that "I am in pain" is wrong.
Those who are following dwaita are
caught in samsaara. They see
differences everywhere and see
forms without going to the cause.
Advaita is hidden there in the form
of cause. Hence they are alpa or
agnaanis. Alpatvam, kshudratvam, etc.
apply to them.
This paramaartha tatva can't be
grasped by those who are not
panditas, alpa, kshudra, etc.
One who gets these convictions
is mahaa gnaani. Paramaartha
tatva is in equilibrium (sama) in him.
If he becomes firm in it,
there is nothing better to be
known. It is the climax of
knowledge; it is paraavidya;
everyone is eligible for it
according to saastra provided
they follow the scripture's
recommended methods.
saamaanya people can't understand this
paramaartha tatva.
dEvaas won't be able to track
mahaa gnaani. He is in all
praanis doing good. dEvaas will
also be amazed. Just as in
aakaasa where we can't see
the foot steps of the birds, common
people can't understand his
struggles to attain the
exalted state.
Those who are firmly established
in tureeyaatman are mahaa gnaanis.
And common people, including dEvataas,
won't understand anything about them.
It's like trying to find the foot steps
of birds in aakaasa.
In them the pratyagaatma is anutpunna (not born),
achala (unwavering), etc. Their gnaana is
also like that. Just as sunlight is always there
regardless of daily sunrise or sunset. There is
no visEsha gnaana in their aatman. For kriya
there is karaNa and phala. In gnaana there is
no such thing. The gnaana is shining on budhi.
The light from budhi is shining on indriyas.
Which in turn the body. The budhi, indriyas,etc.
do gnaana karma. But not gnaana. There is no
activity as knowing.
At one time he (gnaani) thought of himself as gnaata
because of adhyaasa. Now he is like gnaana
that sees no other object. His indriyaas are
in his full control. He regards even budhi
as also aatman. He is gnaana swaroopa. So
he is asanga (nothing sticks to him)
Other people theorize
there are chitta, indriyas, etc.
and accept them as different. Because of that
they get stuck. In the case of Saankhya/Yoga there
is one aatman in every body. That aatman is saakshi.
Saakshi for what? One can practice saakshitva in samaadhi.
Just by getting detached nothing can happen because of
underlying dwaita. So they are bound to get attached.
When we know everything is aatman, then there is no
scope for attachment.
Advaita samaadhi is not sitting and meditating. In Gita
it was stated that normal activities will go on but he
is unattached and simply gnaana swaroopa. Samaadhi
is an avastha for dwaita. In advaita it is not a
state of the mind. It is the swaroopa. In advaita
individuality must be totally lost just as in sushupti.
Even in jaagrat the same (lack of individuality)
should be practiced.
For one lacking advaita gnaana, the asangatva is
never experienced. At the moment of samaadhi
one can be detached like in sleep. There is no
visEsha gnaana there. It is very difficult to
attain samaadhi. But it is not same as
advaita or path to mOksha. Yogis can only get
sidhis.
Yogis speak of nirvikalpa samaadhi. We can't question
that.
Avidya won't express itself as budhi in sushupti or
samaadhi. But avidya continues to be there in
sushupti and samaadhi.
In the case of agnaani aavarana ("I don't know")
exists. It is not so in the case of gnaani.
There is no avidya in pratyagaatma in everyone.
They are pure by their very nature. They are
always be budha and mukta. But a gnaani knows
this and agnaani doesn't know.
KshEtragna doesn't have aavarana/avidya at birth. It
is developed over a time period. One can say
avidya is there because one has dukkah based on
anumaana pramaaNa. Where there is smoke there is
fire. Vice-versa vyaapti gnaana. You say there is
fire on hill. Because you see smoke. Similarly we are seeing
dukkah within us so there must be avidya. The connection
between dukkah and avidya is known. We see dukkah
but not avidya (we guess).
kshEtragna is both sthoola/sookshma sareera both
bahish/antah pragna. It is sushuptaaatma.
In sushupti there is no dukkah. How can one
attribute to avidya when there is no dukkah?
The anumaana pramaaNa may be true in jaagrat
and swapna but not in sushupti.
The conclusion is in kshEtrgnaa there is no
avidya. Because he doesn't know aatma tatva
he thinks he has avidya. But there is no
avidya in kshEtragna except in jaagrat and swapna.
Adhyaasa is an expression of avidya.
From budhi the avidya has to be removed using
saastra and saadhana. For that we can do japa,
vinaya, tapas, etc. Basically to knock out
avidya from budhi.
Gnaanis don't have aavarana. There is no
bandhana (restraints). By nature they are
nitya sudha, budha, mukta.
We want to keep budhi in aatman after a lot
of saadhana. We want to keep it there. But
after a lot of saadhana one can find
a problem where the budhi is not at all
functioning.
Aatmagnaana is always there after giving
up "I".
There is nothing like we understand aatman.
We can verify if Sun shine is hot by
the sense of touch. But left in a dark room
we can't. The statement "Sun always shines"
is taken for granted. Similarly we say
a hill is motionless when in fact the hill
had never moved in the past.
For the enlightened Budha the gnaana remains
still (doesn't move). All dharmas are unmoving.
The advaita gnaana is not told by Budha.
Buddha's mind doesn't chase objects. There is
no gnaatrutva ("I am understanding") in him.
One who has gnaanaa that stays always without a break
is called taayi. In any dharma/pratyagaatma the
gnaana is unmoving. It doesn't see another object to go to.
The gnaana that is aakaasa, achala, avikriya, niravayam, nitya, adveeteeyam, etc.
is brahmaatva tatvam. A dhrashta with 2 dhristis: one through indriyas, budhi, etc.
which is anitya; the second one is the drishti for drishti that is gnaanam. The
2nd one is never disrupted.
There is no gnaata/gnEya/gnaana for Boudha or vignaana vaadi.
The visEsha/vishaya are also not there. So there is no gnaata.
Or there is nothing. But advaita says there is gnaana, aatman,
jagat, etc. even though some of them are kalpita. To teach
that sarpa is not there is not the purpose of sarpa-rajju
drishtaanta. It is not a lesson for sarpa's existence. But for us.
The drishtaanta is about ananyatva.
Using logic one can conclude everything is soonya. The budhist
literature is firm on soonyatva and they never talk about aatman.
They ignore the question about how can kshanika gnaana be understood
without a witness.
Gowdapaada makes a stuti at the conclusion of kaarika.
This kaarika is very difficult to understand. There is no asthi/naasthi. etc.
Those people without a correct understanding can stay outside.
After understanding, for this great tatva we make a namaskaara.
It is not available for namaskaara also. Make adhyaarOpa and make
a namaskaara.
In Jaagrat/swapna we feel one with body. In sushupti we
are separated from all external entities. We don't know
who we are. This is called sushuptaatma. It is the
karta/bhOkta, etc.
In sushupti when we are free from upaadhi, we are really
one with Brahman who is the moola kaaraNa of jagat that
is satyam-gnaanama-anantam.
Saastra tells us that we are one with Brahman. Without
upaadhi we are actually Brahman.
When we realize we are Brahman, we are called tureeya.
There is kaarya-kaaraNa bhaava between jagat and Brahman.
The kaarya jagat is not different from Brahman.
There is kaarya-kaaraNa bhaava between jagat and Brahman.
It is an upaaya (ploy) to show that
the kaarya jagat is not different from Brahman. It is
adhyaarOpa.
The jagat is certainly not in Brahman. Nor in sushupti
and tureeya. During agnaana we treated jagat as
different from us. In tureeya there
is neither aatma nor anaatma. When we realize
ourselves as Brahman and jagat is not different
from Brahman, we conclude that jagat is not different
from us. But ananyatva is there. It can never be
given up.
The awareness that everything is ourself is given by
sruti. We say there is nothing in tureeya. In jaagrat
we see jagat. In swapna we see the smriti of jagat.
In sushupti there is neither jagat nor smriti of
jagat. Just because we got gnaana we can't ignore
jagat. There is thus ananyatva.
In vaitat prakaraNa he (Gowdapaada) is standing in tureeya
and telling there is nothing in tureeya. With
everything in Brahman, nothing is born. He
reminds us that the jagat is not different from us.
And there is no trace of it in us.
What indriyas see in jaagrat is aatman's projection.
It is all the kaarya of Brahman. But Brahman
has nothing to do with it. Why? We don't know.
Whatever we see in jagat is not different from us.
The gist of upanishat is to establish ananyatva.
The rajju-sarpa example is conveying a lesson
to us: the jagat is not independent but our
own projection. That is aatman appearing
like
jagat. Or rajju appearing like sarpa. The
sarpa is mithya. After inspection we conclude
it is rajju appearing like sarpa. Mithya
gnaana is elevated to praatibhaasa satya.
The message is whatever we see is aatman.
Anything we see that is different from aatman
is mithya.
Nothing is different from aatman or Brahman.
There is a great deal of overlap between
kaarika and Bhagavad Gita.
When budhi is turned inwards (swaroopa
gnaana), we can't describe it as aja, or
anything else.
There is no difference between sarvaatma
gnaana and swaroopa gnaana. There is
aatman alone and nothing is different
from it.
Sankara's comments:
The Brahman is never born. It appears
to have been born. It appears to be moving
but there is no movement. It is one but
we see many. Common people see a
variety and they become gnaata/karta/bhOkta
and never turn their attention inwards.
I salute the Brahman.
I fall at the feet of Gowdapaada. People
get drowned in ghastly ocean full of
crocodiles (multiple births). Out of
compassion he has churned
a turbulent ocean in the name of vEda.
He brought amritam from it and handed
it over to those suffering. Thus he
found permanent solution for samsaara.
Now Sankara is paying respect to
Govinda Bhagavat Paada whose guru
is Gowdapaada. The darkness of
the passion (mOha) in my heart
-repeated births- is
destroyed. By the luster of the
light of his wisdom, by taking
refuge at his feet, one will
get most precious knowledge
and shama/vinaya of sruti.
Part 33
Top
Part 34
Top
Part 35
Top
Part 36
Top
Part 37
Top
Part 38
Top
Part 39
Top
Part 40
Top
Part 41
Top
Part 42
Top
Part 43
Top
Part 44
Top
Part 45
Top
Part 46
Top
Part 47
Top
Part 48
Top
Part
49
Top
Part 50
Top
Part 51
Top
Part 52
Top
Part 53
Top
we
can prove it as asat.
Part 54
Top
Part 55
Top
Part 56
Top
