Discourse on Adhyaasa Bhaashya By Sankara Of Swami Paramaananda Bharati

Adhyaasa Bhaashya By Swami Paramaananda Bharati (IIT Physics Professor)

INTRODUCTION

The adhyAsa-bhAshyam and the Gita 13th Chapter (excerpt from https://www.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/2010-June/024794.html)

The 13th ch. of the Gita opens with the verse:

idam sharIram kaunteya kshEtra ityabhidIyate
Etad yo vEtti tam prAhuH kshEtragna iti tad-vidaH

The body (body-mind complex) is termed as the field. He who 'knows' the field as being aware of it is termed the kshEtragna.

The adhyAsa bhashyam opens with the words:

'yuShmad-asmat-pratyaya……viShaya-viShayiNoH…..viruddha-svabhAvayoH….

[The object consciousness and the subject consciousness ....are of mutually opposed characteristics....object is akin to darkness and the observer subject is like the light; object is insentient and the subject is sentient; object is transitory, just an appearance for the time being and the subject is the eternal one; the object is the known and the subject is the knower....]

We are able to see that the Gita verse provides the scriptural support for the adhyaasa bhaashya. The word 'vEtti' is of special significance here. The kshEtragna has the kshEtra as a vedyam, knowable object. The kshEtragna is the vishayi and the kshEtra is the vishayam. And the kshEtragna is sentient, being the knower. The kshEtra is insentient, jada, being the known. Hence these two entities hold mutually opposite characteristics, viruddha-svabhAva, a term used by the adhyAsa bhashyam.

The next verse of the Gita teaches that the kshEtragna in every kshetra is to be realized to be Brahman – kshEtragnam mAm viddhi. The vishayi is the knower-chaitanyam non-different from the akhanda Brahma chaitanyam, the non-dual Truth. The vishaya, kshEtra, is the kalpita-dvaitam, that which gets negated upon realizing the Absolute Truth. That the kshEtra is to be separated from the kshEtragna is specifically taught by the Gita in the verse 13.34:

evam kshetra-kshEtragnayorantaram jnAnachakshuShaa…

The eye of wisdom is to be opened and the kshetra and the kshEtragna are to be discriminated and known as separate entities. The need for 'separating' these two arises only when it is shown that they are now mixed up and appearing as only one. This is taught in the Gita in the verse:13.21:

purushaH prakritistho hi bhunkte prakriti-jaan gunaan:

The sentient vishayi, the purusha, takes up a position in the prakriti, the vishayam, the kshEtra, the body-mind complex, owing to lack of discrimination and ends up as a karta-bhokta samsari.

That the mix up is also taught in the adhyaasa bhaashyam is quite evident. The vishayi and the vishaya are mixed up in such a way as to result in a mutual superimposition of their properties, 'dharma-dharmiNoH'. The properties of the vishayi, namely sentience, ever-lastingness, etc. are superimposed on the kshEtra resulting in taking the kshEtra to be sentient, nitya, etc. The nAnAtvam, guNavattvam, duhkhitvam, etc. pertaining to the kshEtra are superimposed on the vishayi, kshEtragna resulting in the feeling: I am happy, sorrowful, I act, enjoy, suffer, etc.

When the Gita teaches that these two are to be separated, there would arise a doubt as to whether it is meant that after separation we will have two entities separate from each other. The answer is: No. There is always the Only One Absolute Brahman. What has happened is the superimposition of the 'other' on this One Brahman. When the separation, discrimination, takes place owing to gnaana, the 'other' is known to be mithya. That which is mithya does not have an existence of its own. This is the meaning of paratantra satya. It is the prakRti and jeevatva. Therefore it cannot be counted along with the satya vastu Brahman, the Swatantra Satya. What remains is the one satya vastu that ever has been. These concepts Swatantra and Paratantra satya, used by Sankaracharya Himself, constitute the best means to comprehend the satya-mithya nature of the vishayi and vishaya, the kshEtragna and the kshEtra.

We see that the Gita 13th chapter contains the teaching of adhyAsa and its removal.

PART 1

Adhyaasa Bhaashya is a preface for sootra bhaashya that is intended to connect to the first sootra of Brahma sootra

athaha Brahma jignyaasa

After acquiring the saadhaana sampatti one is competent to listen to saastra where Brahman is discussed.

What is the connection between the listener and the topic of discussion? This preamble is necessary for the correct grasp of ensuing bhaashya

The common person is immersed in activities which frequently lead to grief than pleasure. One is not naturally happy by constantly in pursuit of happiness.

saastra promises that the pursuit of happiness by common people is not the right approach for unblemished happiness.

For unblemished happiness one needs to know his inherent nature. It implies that he doesn't know it already. A common man is utterly confused because he is accustomed to knowing things other than himself. He has no doubts about himself. It is presumed he knows himself. One says "I am a boy, I am a young man, I am a genius", etc. based on body or physical/intellectual abilities. There is nothing wrong in this.

Sankarachaarya convinces us that a common person is under illusion (that is he is so and so which is wrong). Sankara is trying to demonstrate that one doesn't know oneself.

Here is an unfamiliar "I" about which we don't know. One should be able to recognize this "I" as oneself.

Sankara says we should reject the statement "I don't know myself". Is there one aspect of oneself which one doesn't know? Sankara says yes. How?

Sankara doesn't use any saastra or logic/tarka here. He shows based on our own experience. We don't know a certain aspect of ourself. What we know about ourself is erroneous.

He proves the statement based on our own experience.

We all experience: wakefulness (jaagrat), dream (swapna), and deep sleep (sushupti)

In jaagrat we are described as bahish pragna. We are getting knowledge of all objects external to our bodies. Whenever we see an object, an image of the object falls on the retina, message is sent to mind, budhi analyzes it, response is sent to ego/ahamkaara. The cognition happens next. There is an alignment of internal faculties (budhi, manas, indriya, etc.) with the object. The shadow of the object is called pratyaya and the perceived object is called gOchara. This is the case with vision point of view. The same applies to other sense organs: ears, skin, nose, tongue, etc. They too produce pratyayas in budhi. Tanmatras (sabda, sparsa, roopa, rasa, gandha) are gocharas only.

Because of the activities of the indriyas, they get tired and go to rest. Indriyas are grosser than the mind. So they get tired earlier. But the mind continues functioning. The state where mind is active but not indriyas is swapna. All the pratyayas recorded in jaagrat are stored in the mind. The store of memories becomes the object of observation of swapna. We don't see the usual order. In the wakeful state the mind is controlled by the external world. So it doesn't run amuck. In swapna, the mind is totally free from the clutches of external world and jumps from memory to memory (sadrusya). Everything that is remotely similar becomes the next object of observation. It is chaotic. kaartsyana, a well ordering of space/time/causality is not there in swapna.

We know the objects in dream are not real; they are only impressions of the objects experienced in wakeful state. We know it after waking up. In dream we treat them as real. There is no sunlight usually at night when we sleep. So there is no light to enter the dream. The whole dream world is as illumined as the wakeful state where objects are illumined by sun light. Where is the light that illumines dreams coming from?

There is no external light. It has to be internal. How? One can say all the external objects that are perceived by budhi are illuminated. Like the photographs that contain light already. So the light in dreams is recorded in the wakeful state. This is not a correct conclusion. Mind is an inert object. It can't contain light by itself. For example, in wakeful state we see the sun. It is self-illumined. But the picture of the sun in the mind is not the same as the real sun. It is like the movies where the light from a projector is illuminating the film. So the light in dreams is another light that is necessary to illumine the impression. What is this light? I/mind/impressions are the 3 entities in swapna. So the light should come from us. So who are we? Sankara coerces us to accept that the light is ourself.

We are viewing impressions and recognizing them as objects. The light is from ourself. This is called antah pragna . All the knowledge is inward and not about the external world. It is the knowledge of the knowledges. Antah pragna is different from bahish pragna. So there has to be another "I". What is it? In wakeful state we are indulging in experiencing external objects. When getting dream experience, the eye that is bahish pragna is recognizing it after waking up.

After experiencing a dream, the eye of bahish pragna claims to be experiencing the object when awoke. In swapna the body of the wakeful state with which we identify is lying in bed. Mind is wandering elsewhere. If we are the gross body of the wakeful state and lying on bed, we can't be somewhere else. But our experience is we are going somewhere such as flying on mountains. So there is an "I" that is sleeping and another "I" that is flying. The "I" of wakeful state is sleeping and the "I" of dream state is flying. Thus there are two "I"s;

The "I" of bahish pragna is not different from antah pragna "I". But the "I" in the dream state is different.

In dream state the light has to be ourself. There are multiple "I"s. So we should not jump to the conclusion that there is no third "I". The third "I" is felt in deep sleep. In deep sleep the indriyas and manas/budhi are withdrawn and holding on to the mind. But the mind is also tired. It flip-flops between imagined object in dream and ourself. The mind ceases to work. We enter into sushupti. There are no dreams. There is no connection with mind.

According to sruti the udaana vaayu out of 5 vayus (praana, apaana vyaana, udaana, samaana) supplies oxygen to brain. It limits the supply of oxygen to brain. So mind cannot function. Mind takes rest in the naadis.

Sushupti is the most interesting state. Features of sushupti are:

• we don't know who we are(even after waking up we don't know who we are)
• we don't deny our existence (after we wake up we say we had sound sleep; don't know anything). We are recognizing ourself. We never say we are absent in sushupti.

We can describe objects (fat, slim, short , tall etc.) because we can see shapes, features, activities, etc. In sushupti there is nothing recognizable.

Knowing is an activity that can have logic. We are not seeing ourself or listening perceiving anything in sushupti. There is no scope for pratyaksha. It is aparoksha. (neither direct nor anumaana) pramaaNa. We do recognize ourself as existing. We also know we are not connected with anything including mind, indriyas, body, etc. We know we are alone.

Thus, there are 3 ourselves: bahish pragna, antah pragna and pragnaana ghana:

• in wakeful state there are different knowledges
• in dreams also variegated knowledges are there

This multiplicity of knowledges does not vanish but covered up by pragnaana ghana (frozen). We are not able to see any duality/multiplicity. In sushupti that we are there can't be denied by anyone. We are alone there disconnected from body/mind, etc.

Sankara has not used one sruti mantra, pramaaNa or vEda to demonstrate that we exist in sushupti totally disconnected from the body by analyzing our own experience.

When we wake up we become blind to analysis. We recognize ourself with our bodies and run around for happiness. In deep sleep there is no object from which to derive pleasure. No music, nothing palpable, nothing to smell/taste, etc. It is total bliss. It is a common experience. The moment we get up we run after objects for pleasure.

Sankara has convinced us that we don't know ourself. He has pointed out the foolishness in us. We are the nucleus in sushupti. We cover our bahish pragna with antah pragna and give ourself an identity. When we recognize ourself as a boy, a man, etc. the knowledge is faulty. This faulty knowledge is called adhyaasa.

According to Sankara adhyaasa is not a mystery. Just plain foolishness. We are not prepared to analyze ourselves. This sort of stubbornness is foolishness. We are analyzing ourselves wrongly. We know our true selves in sushupti. This is the crux of adhyaasa bhaashya.

Sankara says in the case of external objects we know they are external and we are different from them. He calls it gOchara, vishaya. All the external objects are different from us. They are inert. He says "yushmat pratyaya gOchara" (yushmat = you; pratyaya=image, gOchara=perceived object). The purpose of whole analysis is to show that we are different from everything else (including mind/body/ego, etc.) except ourself. He addressed it as "you". His desire is to make us understand about separation. We must differentiate ourself from other bodies including wife/husband and children. What about our body? He wants us to separate from that also. "vishaya vishyee nO"...you are the vishayee (knower) and everything else is vishaya (known).

PART 2

The purpose of analyzing the 3 avasthaas is to show that in jaagrat what one experiences is wrong knowledge. To establish wrong knowledge we can say one exists in sushupti completely free from body. Though we exist without body, we identify with body after waking up. So misunderstanding happens in wakeful state.

We identify the states in 3 avasthaas as: bahish pragna, antah pragna, pragnaana ghana

The reason for all the dualities experienced in wakeful/dream state is, we are covered by a sheath called pragnaana ghana.

One is referred to as vishayee/knower

In sushupti there is no experience of observing anything. If he is a knower how to justify in sushupti? After waking up from deep sleep we are not knowing anything. Even though we are gnaata we don't know anything about sushupti.

Before deep sleep one is a knower. After waking up he is a knower. So he has to be a knower in between, i.e. in sushupti. In maandookya bhaashya Sankara says one who is in deep sleep is the gnaata. With respect to past and in future he is the gnaata.

Suppose a great scholar of grammar is in deep sleep. We still call him the expert scholar. Same about an ignorant one. So deep sleep does not cause one to be dumb/smart.

One who is noticing external objects in wakeful state, with indriyas is the gnaata. In swapna the internal experience is experienced by the gnaata using mind. While indriyas can function, mind is required to cognize. Since praagna is associated with sense in sushupti there is cognition.

With eyes/manas/budhi/ahamkaara he is praagnaa who is the ultimate knower. He is also called pratyagaatma which means the most interior aatma.

saastra says there is a 4th aatma called tureeya. It is not experienced by a common man. It is only known through saastra. This 4th aatma is the witness of pratyagaatma.

Tureeya aatma is wrapping everything. It is both inside and outside and everywhere. It is also called sarvaatma. The sushupti aatma's jurisdiction starts with indriyas/manas/etc. ending in itself. Tureeya is actually Ishwara. Why can't we call pratyagaatma as Ishwara? Tureeya is everywhere whereas pratyagaatma is confined to our body. So Ishwara can't be treated as pratyagaatma.

pratyagaatma or sushuptaatma are the same. The same entity is called kshEtragna in Gita. For example: one is a husband with respect to a wife, a son with respect to a father, etc. Why kshEtragna? pratyagaatma is understanding everything in kshEtra (both sthoola(gross)/sookshma (subtle) sareera (body)). When he is thinking well he says "I am doing it"; otherwise he will say "My mind is not concentrating". Since he is witnessing the whole kshEtra he is known as kshEtragna.

pratyagaatma is entirely different from body and the world. The eye doesn't see itself. So the knower has to be different from known and kshEtra. He has to be vishayee to grasp vishaya. He himself is the nature of light. After waking up from sleep he continues to identify himself with his body even though in sushupti he has no awareness of the body. This is wrong understanding.

We know we are different from the body, after being pointed out by Sankara. We know we are not the body. No feature of kshEtra is belonging to aatma. There is adhyaasa between gnaata and gnEya or kshEtra and kshEtragna.

The association between kshEtra and kshEtragna is mithya. How is it possible when kshEtragna is the ultimate knower? kshEtragna is also not tureeya.

pratyagaatma = sushuptaatma, gnaata, kshEtragna but not tureeya

How is it that vishayee is not vishaya for himself? How can we call him asmat pratyaya gochara (one who is available for understanding of himself). sushuptaatma is not aware of itself.

A gnaata is not a gnEya of himself. An eye can't see itself. When we say "My eye can't see", the eye has become an object. For whom is the eye an object? For bahish pragna. The bahish pragna says about sushuptaatma "I don't know anything in sushupti". Sushupti is an object for one in wakeful state. He is knowing himself. But vishaya/vishayee are entirely different, just as kshEtra/kshEtragna are entirely different. There can't be a mix up. Sankara says when we identify with both say vishyee (knower) and vishaya (known), we are in adhyaasa. "I am this body", "I am the eye", etc. mix up of features of one with other. Hence it is called adhyaasa or wrong understanding.

dharma (feature) dharmi (one who has features): dharmi is kshEtragna/gnaata. He is inside. kshEtra is a gross object outside. Though the body is an object we are taking features and imposing on ourself and say "I am a man", "I am a woman", etc. As the body changes we say "I am old", "I am young", etc. We assert that "I (self) am not changing" but "I" remains same. This is adhyaasa.

When we say "I think very well", "I run very well", etc. we identify with our minds and bodies. It is clear that we are muddled. Sometimes we identify with body and sometimes we stay separate from it. When do we identify and when do we separate? Consider the statement "I can see very clearly" Suppose we are not seeing clearly, we say "My eyes are not seeing well". We say "I am running". Then we say "There is a sprain in my ankle". When everything is wrong we use "mine" and when everything is fine we use "myself". This is adhyaasa

Reverse adhyaasa: When we are imposing our features on the body we experience adhyaasa. When we are all alone we are dharmi. Our dharmas are:

• I am the gnaata (knower)
• I am aananda maya or blissful

In wakeful state we are happy by association with body and outside objects. Through body in deep sleep we are not experiencing an object of any sort. Nor tanmaatras (manas, budhi, chitta, ahankaara, etc.). In spite of it we are happy with ourself. So being blissful is our inherent nature. Bliss is not in association with external objects.

How do we say the features are seen in kshEtra? Though aananda is our inherent feature we are seeking happiness in outside world. We are deriving happiness in association with objects. For example without a pillow on the bed we are unhappy. It means we are thrusting our happiness on the pillow and forgetting the bliss in deep sleep. We are disowning inherent happiness and searching it outside. This is adhyaasa

We say after waking up from deep sleep "I did not understand anything". Why? There is no budhi. We are not understanding because of absence of budhi. gnaatrutva is inherent nature of ourself. But we are attributing it on budhi. So we are mixing it up. This is called paraspara adhyaasa by Sankara.

Everyone says "my body", "my eyes", etc. Why can't we take in secondary sense? Some say "My son is like myself" even though a son is different from the father/mother. It is in a secondary sense. When we say one is a lion, we know a lion is entirely different. We understand that the features of lion like courage are attributed to him. It is in secondary sense. It comes fully knowing the lion is not the man. When we feel one with the body, it is not secondary sense. It is down right misunderstanding

The moment mithya comes people get crazy notions. What is mithya? adhyaasa is in our gnaana. That gnaana is misunderstanding. Understanding our bodies as ourself is wrong. Many of us wrongly associate mithya with gnEya. We say an object is mithya. In what sense? For example: consider a shell and silver. We see a shell on the road and mistake it for silver. We pick it up and find that it is not silver. So our understanding that it is silver is wrong. But silver is not wrong. It is mithya silver. There is no silver there but we thought it is silver. Our knowledge of silver didn't coincide with the object. There is no silver at all. So our knowledge is wrong. Then we say "The silver is mithya". Mithya means something we see with respect to an object that is not there. mithya gnaana is in ourself but we transfer it to the object. We don't mean there is nothing like silver. But silver is not there where we are seeing. When we say silver is mithya it is not in general. There is an elemental silver as science says. Though it is not there we are seeing it, we can't say silver is mithya.

pratyagaatma is

• ananada
• gnaata

We are experiencing mithya because ourself is not existing in our bodies and bodies are not existing in ourself. In other words ourself and body are different.

Though they are entirely different, we go on mixing the dharmas of one with other. Why are we doing this? Because we are not able to distinguish them properly. Dharma and dharmi are entirely different. Because of adhyaasa we are mixing up satya and anruta. It is quite natural. It is not taught by anyone

gnaata gnEya, vishaya, vishayee...satya/anruta

What is satya/anruta?

Sankara says in taitreeya bhaashya satya is whenever we see a thing it is the same at all times (unchanging). Whereas sat means existing. How is it existing?

• it is existing without change
• with change

That which is unchanging is sat and changing is also sat. But the former is satya and the latter is asatya.

anruta (asatya): that which is changing

Before srishti everything is existing with Brahman. It is sat when not seeing; it is sat now. Did it become asat when we are not seeing?

We are mixing two things in adhyaasa: kshEtra/kshEtragna. kshEtra is asatya and kshEtragna is satya. kshEtragna = sushuptaatma is unchanging. kshEtra (body) is changing. Both saastra and science agree on this. Kshetra which is our body is undergoing several changes every moment. Like the skin cells are dying and getting replenished.

Anything that is wrongly understood because we don't know what it is, is mithya. A shell is mistaken for silver because we don't know it is shell. Similarly we don't know who we are. We are the same as sushuptaatma. bahish pragna in wakeful state doesn't know who he is in sushupti. So it is justified in mixing up. When one mistakes features of body for himself, he doesn't know what is kshEtra and is mixing up kshEtra/kshEtragna. The support for misunderstanding adhishtaana (shell) is adhyasta (silver). kshEtra is adhistaana , kshEtragna is adhyasta.

We have asserted that gnaata is same as sushuptaatma and is satya (unchanging). When we say kshEtragna/sushuptaatma is satya, a question arises. In time we are unchanging in wakeful-bahish prgana; in swapna we are called antah pragna; so we are anruta (changing). Both in space and time we are changing. How can we say sushupti aatma is satya? sushuptaatma is really different from the body and external objects. It is gnaata. It catches manas/indriyas and indulges in activity of knowing. But its swaroopa is not changing. Suppose a person is writing with a pen. Whether he is writing or not he is called a writer. Similarly a cook whether cooking or not cooking, is called the cook. gnaata is always gnaata only. Just because of no association with instruments he won't stop being gnaata.

In wakeful state we are the object and have different experiences. Without asking we don't know what another person is thinking. For example: a doctor is examining the eye. The doctor asks our opinion about the eye. He tries to correct the vision and applies various lenses. And when we say the vision is alright he agrees with it. So only by asking one knows what we are experiencing. That's because the doctor is different from us.

Take the experience of dreams. We can never know what one saw in dream unless we ask him. The two experiences about the same object are different. Why do we ask? Because we are different.

There is one universal experience in sushupti. There are no objects in deep sleep. We all experience deep sleep. Without asking we know what one has experienced. The praagna of sushupti in each of us is not different.

Thus, there is no difference in sushupti from one to another. This knower is not different in different bodies. It is the same in all bodies. In wakeful state it appears to be different. The images of the sun are different in different pots containing water. So there is only one knower but he appears to be different. Thus, gnaata/kshEtragna/vishayee is satya and kshEtra is asatya. Whenever understanding is same we say "my son, my father, etc." using mama in Sanskrit.

In sum: adhyaasa is wrong knowledge between gnaata and gnEya . Some people in place of gnaata have used tureeya which is not pratyagaatma. Because pratyagaatma is everywhere there is no second.

adhyaasa is misunderstanding. mithya applies to gnaanam not the gnEyam (object). Sankara wants to rectify our understanding. The vastu/object is not mithya.

satya/anruta: satya is unchanging. anruta is changing. kshEtra is anruta. praagna of shushupti is satya.

PART 3

There is adhyaasa between kshEtra and kshEtragna (observer/observed). Observer is having adhyaasa about himself.

Even after being aware of this mistake, people find it extremely difficult to get rid of it. It is an obstinate problem.

mithya gnaana and mithya vastu: there is actually mithya gnaana but not mithya vastu. The silver we see in shell is mithya. To say anything that is adhyaasa is automatically mithya is wrong.

Reverse adhyaasa: adhyaasa of kshEtragna on kshEtra. gnaana is adhyasta and gnEya is adhistaana. Observer is not mithya.

Suppose we are going on a road. In the corner we see something shining. In our memory silver pops up. Without verifying it we simply conclude it is silver. When we actually go there, we realize it is not silver but a shell. This is possible if the silver is poorva drishta (we have already seen it). Something similar to silver pops up in the memory and falsely identifies the object as silver (paratra).

Adhyasta is silver. If silver is not seen before --poorva drishta-- it never comes to memory. Then there is no superposition. The shine of silver comes to memory as paratra. When we verify it, we reject the notion that it is silver. To conclude it is not silver we need to have the knowledge of adhistaana. This is also poorva drishta. Otherwise we can't say silver is wrongly seen in shukti/shell. Because of similarity we mistook shell as silver. We don't know that we have done adhyaasa of silver on shukti (shell). We don't have adhistaana gnaana. Even shukti has to be poorva drishta.

Adhyaasa is being done in kshEtra/kshEtragna and by kshEtragna. We are superimposing it on ourself (pratyagaatma or sushuptaatma). Sushuptaatma is also poorva drishta. We also know it has no connection with kshEtra (body). Thinking ourself as a man or a woman is a wrong notion. We recognize it after overcoming adhyaasa

kshEtra=adhistaana

kshEtragna=adhyasta

Sankara makes us realize aham as kshEtragna. There is no connection with body though we are seeing connection. That is mithyaa gnaana.

Had we taken tureeya (Ishwara/Brahman) in place of kshEtragna (pratyagaatma) Ishwara/Brahman is not poorva drishta. There is no adhyaasa about Ishwara/Brahman.

Reverse adhyaasa: adhyaasa of Brahman in kshEtra is not possible.

In adhyaasa bhaashya Sankara makes us recognize aham as kshEtragna. There is no connection with body even though we are seeing the connection. That is adhyaasa and mithya gnaana

When something pops up in memory as poorva drishta, it can be correct. If we see something shining and verify it as silver, it is called pratyabhigna. Suppose there are 2 cows: kaalaakshi and swastimati. If we mistake swastimati as kaalaakshi then it is adhyaasa. If we recognize kaalakshi as kaalaakshi, it is pratyabhigna

Suppose we see swastimati for the first time and conclude it is a cow, then there is nothing wrong. The object of observation is about cow jaati. This is also pratyabhigna

kshEtra/kshetrgna adhyaasa: kshEtra is poorva drishta. The body acquired at the time of birth is not poorva drishta. How is it that we are having adhyaasa now after growing up? We have adhyaasa because it is not poorva drishta.

In the particular case of one's body is not poorva drishta, how did the strong adhyaasa come about? When did it come? We assert that there is no adhyaasa in childhood. People with adhyaasa say "I am dark", "I feel sorry", "I feel proud", etc. Children are not aware of their bodies. As they grow they change. Until then, they do not have body awareness. There is no kaama vaasana. These are all signs to show one doesn't have adhyaasa with body from birth.

A gnaani is like a child. He doesn't give importance to the body. There is no adhyaasa in a child. How does it come about as he grows? When he is hurt he starts crying. Because the connection between body and budhi is a feature of kshEtra. The moment the body is hurt, budhi comes to know of it. So there is pain in budhi. All of this is kshEtra dharma. Gita says:sukha/dukha, chetana, getting up after falling, etc. are kshEtra dharma. Budhi experiencing pain is kshEtra dharma. Pain is the voluntary mechanism to withdraw body from the source of pain. The connection with budhi has been there since infinite past. The sookshma sareera (subtle body) over many rebirths keeps the connection with budhi. So the adhyaasa in budhi is always there. With gross body adhyaasa is developed anew.

Suppose someone was bitten in the leg by a snake. Because of the poison the leg is putrefied resulting in amputation of the leg. If the person has a habit of scratching his legs he feels that sensation though the leg is removed. He frequently tries to scratch the leg. This is called phantom being. It takes a year to know the leg is not there and to stop scratching.

All the death rites prescribed by vEdas are based on this principle. Though jeevaatma left body after death, he feels pain just as the phantom leg. To soothen it, multiple rites are performed as recommended by saastra

Even though there is connection with budhi since infinite past, the connection gets snapped in sushupti. How does it get connected with body after waking up?

Suppose before we sleep we decide to get up at 5 am. The plenum of budhi in wakeful state is mind. During sleep budhi takes rest in naadis. When the alarm rings at 5 am. the budhi resting in naadis wakes up. The connection with budhi is always there (in naadis). This is kshEtra dharma

At the time of laya everything in the universe is destroyed. The whole creation is gone. There is no body/mind/budhi. How do we connect with the same budhi as before laya when a new universe is created? Hiranyagarbha/Prajaapati work for Ishwara. Prajapati knows the fate of every jeeva. Just as he creates suns, moons, stars, etc. he also creates jeevas along with indriyas/budhi. He knows the karma of each jeeva. Based on that he creates jeevas.

Some people say seeing the dharmas of one another is adhyaasa. When poorva drishta is there, before judging properly we impose it. Sometimes one imagines features that are not there. It is not necessary to know how adhyaasa arises. We should strive to get rid of it.

Sankara says: different people are describing adhyaasa in different ways. He gives two examples:

example1: the shell itself is appearing like silver

example2: one moon appearing like many

In the case of example1, it is a case of mistaken identity --qualitative. The adhyaasa is calling our bodies as ourself

In the case of example2, it is seeing one as many--quantitative

When we say the shukti appears like silver, it means, first we thought it is silver. Then we verified it and realized it is a shell. Shell is appearing like silver and continues to appear like silver. But we are convinced that it is shell. Similarly we understood "I" is different from our bodies. We are unable to get rid of identifying with the body. Why? Silver has been separated from shell. We know we appear like child, man, etc. "I" has not changed. The bodily states are changing. We can realize "I" in deep sleep. The crux is we know we are not the body, but we don't act on it

Example2: gnaata/sushuptaatma/pratyagaatma are distinct from bahish/antah pragna. bahish/antah pragna are many. One has to ask to find out bahish pragna of someone. Because there is a difference between the two. Same with antah pragna. In the case of sushupti there is only one pragnaana ghana. Everyone knows it. Our inherent feature is nirupaadhika, sushuptaatma.

Though we are different from our bodies we are one. In spite of that we go on seeing many through many other people.

After having known our inherent nature is kshEtragna the samsaara is not lost. The misery of samsaara is still there. Purpose of adhyaasa bhaashya is to make us aware of our foolishness. It is not about enlightenment. It paves the way for enlightenment.

What will remove adhyaasa? saastra says the moment we realize we are tureeya atman, then it will go away. In Gita: 7th adhyaaya it has been said every thing in jagat is by Ishwara. His sakti manifests as kshEtra. So our inherent swaroopa is Ishwara. Though Ishwara is existing everywhere in some places he can be seen clearly such as in sages. In 11th adhyaaaya of Gita it was said the whole universe is Ishwara. Kshetra is completely Ishwara himself. In 13th adhyaaya of Gita the Lord says kshEtragna is also himself. So the ultimate message: kshEtra and kshEtragna both are Ishwara himself. Ishwara is tureeya. He is everywhere. The moment we realize we are Ishwara we are everywhere. From the point of view of effect there is multiplicity. Whereas from the point of view of cause there is only one. Ice/steam/water are different. But the H2O molecule is one only. From the frame of reference of H2O there are no 3 forms which are its effects.

As long as we stay in the frame of reference of effect/jagat/kshEtra we see multiplicity. Recognizing this is also kshEtra dharma. Multiplicity appears in budhi. With this realization when we change our frame of reference to cause there is no multiplicity. Adhyasta is mithya but it is kshEtra dharma. But it doesn't exist in aatma

With the dawn of this enlightenment there is nothing else. Does it mean gnaani doesn't see anything?

A gnaani is one who has realized himself as Ishwara. He has body, budhi and realization of himself as Ishwara. kshEtra dharma will be the same as before enlightenment. budhi goes on getting many pratyayas (knowledges). It includes "I am no longer connected with body". It is awareness in budhi. Enlightenment is also kshEtra dharma.

gnaani:As far as sushupti is concerned, there is universal experience of no connection with body. For a gnaani in jaagrat/swapna also there is no connection with the body. That one is connected to the body is a fact for an agnaani. The awareness is in budhi.

For a gnaani, the kshEtra continues according to praarabda; indriyas are transacting but have nothing to do with him. Similarly gunas. This is sarvaatma bhaava; swaroopa gnana.

Some scholars raise objections about Sankara's adhyaasa. They say vEdaanta doesn't accept his proposals (three of them). The fourth one is accepted by vEdaanta. Such statements are far from true.

What is the fourth one? sadasabhyaam anirvachaneeya. This world is adhyasta in Brahman. They are not talking about pratyagaatma.

For example: poorva drishta silver comes into view shining. We say "We are seeing silver." If silver were not there can we see it? We can't. vignaana vaadis say so. When we are seeing silver it must be there. Then we want to go and take it. But silver is not there. So conclusion: this silver is a peculiar silver. we can say neither it is silver nor it is not silver. The entire world is like this.

The above example is very wrong. That we saw silver is a fact. But when we examine it, silver is not there. Where we saw silver as not there, that was mithya gnaana. Real gnaana vanquishes mithya gnaana. It is completely gone. So how can we say both gnaanas are there?

Mixing of mithya gnaana and samyak gnaana is never done in real world. It is not a correct way of understanding things. Sankara says with regard to any object, we can't get different opinions (it exists, it doesn't exist, etc.) In Sootra bhaashya 2nd sootra it was said: Imagining is fanciful. In gnaana there is no fancy. One has to understand as it is.

Suppose silver is there. We have to decide if it exists or not. The existence of anything is based on pramaaNa

5 pramaaNaas

• pratyaksha
• anumaana
• upamaana
• arthaapatti
• aagama

Anything not available for pramaaNa doesn't exist.

Some people say the 5 pramaaNaas are to be used for existence. For non-existence a 6th pramaaNa called anupalabdi must be used.

Something existing/not-existing simultaneously doesn't fall in the 6 pramaaanas

One can't invent something and go in search of a pramaaNa.

Sankara condemns that.

vignanaa vaadis say we will show in all pramaaNaas.

With one pramaaNa if a statement can be verified there is no need to apply other pramaaNaas. So using 6 pramaanaas is not necessary and shows the ignorance.

Sankara also says: anirvachaneeya

Take a pot. A pot is clay only. We can put some water and store in it. A pot can be viewed in two different angles

• kaarana
• kaarya (taking shape); can do transaction to store water. Clay can't hold water.

Sankara says you can't decide if pot is clay and something else. It is cause or different from cause. So it is anirvachaneeya

tatva = Brahman is sat

ananyatva - not Brahman is asat

kaarya is never asat. It is always there. sruti says before creation all is there as cause. sruti itself is asserting kshEtra is always existing. How can we call it asat?

Sankara says: Just as Brahman exists always (bhoota, bhavishya, vartamaana kaalas), jagat is also that way. So saying kaarya is asat is against saastra.

Sankara is asked:

adhyaasa is between 2 vishayaas/things. Shell/silver are existing in front of us. In the case of kshEtra/kshEtragna, kshEtragna is a vishayee not vishaya. How can adhyaasa take place between vishaya and someone not vishaya and also pratyaksha?

This is a valid question. vishayee is available as vishaya. When we wake up from deep sleep, sushuptaatma is recognized as ourself. It is retrospectively a vishaya to us. So adhyaasaa can take place.

asmat pratyaya gochara

Though sushuptaatma is not a vishaya we made it a vishayaa based on experience. Though they look opposite, they are the same. This is everyone's experience that can't be denied.

sushuptaatma has no connection with body. After waking up it is unknown It has become vishayaa. It is our experience

Lack of knowledge of our own inherent nature makes us confused persons. We do something and tell something else. The whole life is a contradiction because we don't know ourself.

The moment we don't know all contradictions pop up. adhyaasa is possible.

How is it possible? Can we explain how we are making one as vishayaa? sushuptaaatma is not an object to discern. How can we make it vishaya?

Consider the statements about deep sleep such as: "I did not know anything", "I had a blissful sleep". Wakeful experiences and dreams are recorded in chitta. In between in a shadow region there is nothing to record. There is a gap in budhi. We are accustomed to only activities by the budhi. When budhi is there we recognize ourself. When we say "I did not know anything", how did we know that? We are not there at all in sushupti. This is adhyaasa

Similarly in sushupti we are blissfully happy but are not happy in jaagrat. Being happy is our inherent nature. In past tense we recall sushupti. Instead of accepting it as inherent nature, we retrospect. It is adhyaasa. In jaagrat one can say: "I eat a mango and I am happy." But in sushupti there is no activity.

Because of adhyaasa we are making a vishayee (who can't become) a vishaya.

Both shell and silver are pratyaksha. Take for example aakaasa. Is it pratyaksha? Don't we say it is blue? It is actually not blue. It appears blue because of scattering of light. This is also adhyaasa

Thus, even though one is using pratyaksha pramaaNa, adhyaasa can happen.

PART 4

We heard the details of the mechanism by which adhyaasa takes place. In all adhyaasaas (for example sukti-rajata) adhyasta/adhistaana both must be vishaya; also they should be pratyaksha.

KshEtra is vishayaa (observed) and kshEtragna is vishayee (observer) and not pratyaksha. Then how is adhyaasa possible? It is because of the experience of pratyagaatman and universal experience. Though pratyagaatma is vishayee, it is made vishaya ("I don't know anything in deep sleep or sushupti")

Adhyaasa itself is avidya. Not knowing adhistaana is avidya which becomes hetu (reason) for adhyaasa. Avidya is the reason, adhyaasa is the effect. Many times we call effect by the name of cause.

The ignorance of the adhistaana is called avidya. Also the absence of correct knowledge, and doubtful or wrong cognition are avidya. When we come to know of the nature of adhistaana ignorance is gone along with doubtful/wrong cognition.

What is vidya? A clear knowledge of adhistaana. There are 2 adhyaasaas: of the kshEtra on kshEtragna; of the kshEtragna dharmas on kshEtra. Vidya is understanding on the nature of these two things. kshEtra/kshEtragna are one and the same paramaatma.

The very basis of adhyaasa is the recognition of kshEtra and kshEtragna, the gnEya and gnaata (observable/observer). The 4th aatma (after bahish, antah pragna, pragnaana ghana) has 2 forms: kshEtra/kshEtragna. The features of kshEtra are: changing nature, limited, inert, etc. These features are not illusion. Similarly kshEtragna has the features: aananada maya, gnaatrutva (knowership). They are not illusory. What is the difference? As effects they are the same, but not as the cause.

For example: ice/water/steam =kshEtra; H2O molecule is kshEtragna

Cause is pervading in both. There is no difference between them as cause. They are transactional reality (vyaavaaharika satya). Sat means existing; satya is unchanging. Brahman is both satya and sat. Jagat is sat but asatya. gnaatrutva is changing; they are not illusory;

How does this come about? paramaatma with his own volition stood in the two forms. When vidya comes the dharmas of the kshEtra continue; kshEtragna is in the process of knowing kshEtra; signal comes from indriya, cognition takes place and budhi/ahankaara are activated. We think we are the gnaata; but a gnaani doesn't think so. A gnaani is a witness who is different from kshEtra; kshEtra is not different from him; as a cause it doesn't exist; gnaani thinks he is not gnaata (observer).

Sankara says because of adhyaasa/avidya all the transactions take place; also because of aatma(kshEtragna)/anaatma(kshEtra) . All activities we do start with gnaana. We desire or dislike something. When desiring we run after it. When disliking we run away from it. At the end we think we are the bhOkta.

So kartrutava/bhoktrutva start with gnaatrutva

gnaata is knowing gnEya because of seeing something different from him. In the process he gets knowledge through indriyas/body/budhi, etc. He identifies himself with his body: "I am seeing", "I am hearing", "I decided", etc. When there is vyavahaara this identification takes place

This is the realm of an ignorant person: one who doesn't know he is aatman. We all agree that animals are ignorant. Humans are like them too at this level. The ignorant one not knowing saastra behaves like an animal. There is no difference in the activities with respect to animals even if he is highly intelligent. During the decision making he is as good as the animal. This is because of avidya.

Are gnaanis also acting in the same way? One has not seen all of their activities. For example: when faced with danger a gnaani won't be perturbed; he won't rush to something attractive. Activities like bathing, washing, etc. are common to gnaani and agnaani. gnaani has no avidya. He continues to act according to praarabda such as going for biksha, bathing, etc. There is no motivation in him to perform karma.

Does the lack of avidya mean aatman has no activity? Should one who realizes Brahman as himself, not act like Brahman? Do we expect him to die once obtaining gnaana? No. Brahma gnaana and normal activities can go together.

For any activity avidya is the material cause. gnaani has no pravrutti to act. gnaana and sustenance of body are not mutually exclusive

saastra is the pramaaNa for all these statements. In Gita Arjuna asks the Lord: in the case of gnaani how is his behavior? How does a gnaani have avidya? What is the role of avidya in activity?

For any activity two things are needed: something to be started; desire/motivation to start. We also need upaadaana kaarana (saamarthya) to carry it out.

Avidya is the only reason for motivation. When we see something we like, we want it. It starts a process because of avidya. So for triggering action avidya is necessary. At the end of the action we say "I performed the action.", "I enjoyed the action", etc.; kartrutva and bhoktrutva are based on avidya. prakruti's maaya sakti is responsible for all activity in between. maaya and avidya are necessary for an action to take place. avidya belongs to jeeva. maaya belongs exclusively to Ishwara.

When Ishwara wants to create, he doesn't activate. He enters into jeeva who has avidya but not saamarthya (capability). Ishwara has saamarthya but not avidya.

Always : upaadaana is maaya, nimitta is avidya.

Avidya and maaya are mutually exclusive but they act together.

Saastra

When we offer death rite based on saastra, we believe whatever we offer reaches the dead who are alive somewhere. Similarly going to heaven after death. So we know there is aatman. avidya and adhyaasa are there in saastra as well. saastra itself is based on adhyaasa. saastra says a kshatriya only can do aswamEdha yaaga. Some yagnaas to benefit wild animals should only be performed by the hunters; etc.

If one has vidya he doesn't think of doing any activity. He is both kshEtra and kshEtragna. karma is not there. It only applies to agnaani. nishkaama karma (without expecting fruit) is also meant for agnaani.

All karma including saastreeya is based on adhyaasa

adhyaasa means knowing something as it is not. We know our son/daughter, wife/husband are completely different from us. If someone gives a gift to our baby on its birthday we feel happy. Because of attachment there is adhyaasa.

I am fat, I am brown, etc. : adhyaasa of body

I am jumping, I am running: adhyaasa of karma

I am dumb, I am blind: indriya dharma

I desire, I remember, etc.: antahkarana adhyaasa

In all these cases, we are doing adhyaasa of ourself on pratyagaatma. We are transferring all of our feelings to pratyagaatma. It is a wrong idea in budhi. adhyaasa takes place only in the presence of budhi. budhi works only when awake. The bahish pragna is having spontaneous feelings like "I am a man", "I am a woman", etc. We say, "I am a boy", "I am a young man", "I am old", etc. "I" is not changing. That the body is changing is taken for granted. Who is the "I"? It should be there in our experience. The one in sushupti is that "I". pratyagaatma has to mean only sushuptaatma.

We are imposing our own feelings on our self. Who is that? pratyagaatma who is the saakshi for all mental activities. It is in the budhi. It is saakshi for statements like "I am confused.", "I am understanding", etc. It is not witnessing the activity. But the end result.

pratyagaatma has 3 features: understanding/not understanding/saakshi. It is saakshi for the absence of knowledge. Budhi is absent in sushupti. Understanding is the activity of budhi. pratyagaatma imposes on itself in sushupti and says "I don't understand". aananda is also in budhi

Whatever thoughts come in budhi are spontaneous feelings like "I am happy", "I am unhappy", "I am black", "I am white", etc. The "I" is referring to us; adjectives belong to bahish pragna. We are doing adhyaasa to ourself. It belongs to the body not pratyagaatma.

The main culprit is bahish pragna. pratyagaatma is happy by itself but for ignorance which is in the mind. Using bahish pragna one has to read saastra and fix the ignorance in the mind.

Everyone has adhyaasa which prompts in us kartrutva/bhoktrutva. It is wrong knowledge, and spontaneous -- no one teaches. It is anaadi, has no beginning, and also endless. Doesn't it end when vidyaa comes? Why is it endless? Individually there is an end with vidya (vyashti). But in samishti (globally) there will always be agnaanis. There are infinite jeevas many of which have avidya.

How to destroy adhyaasa tracelessly? First, we have to have faith that there is one aatma :tureeyaatman

The kshEtra/kshEtragna = anaatma / pratyagaaaatma all map to Brahman. When one understands he is supreme Brahman, all activities will vanish and there will be no samsaara.

In the case of adhyaasa there are both aatma/anaatma or tat/atat. Both are Brahman according to saastra. When tat=atat=Brahman there is no adhyaasa.

vEdaas are made of karma kaanda and gnaana kaanda. In karma kaanda adhyaasa is the base. Whereas in gnaana kaanda adhyaasa is removed.

What does Brahma sootra do?

adhyaasa bhaashya has given this realization: till now we thought we know ourself. But now we don't know who we are. To that the saastra says you are Brahman. What is Brahman? Brahman is not an object to be understood. It is the primordial cause of the universe. The jagat is born in it, stays in it and destroyed by it.

In Gita from 7th chapter kshEtra is equated with paramaatma. In 13th chapter kshEtragna is also equated with paramaatma.

Brahma sootra 2nd chapter starts with jeeva and finally shows that in his swaroopa he is actually paramaatma.

Brahma Sootra 3rd chapter: saadhana, nidhidhyaasana or upaasana are emphasized

Brahma Sootra 4th chapter: all karma can be completely dissolved and moksha can be attained

yushmat asmat pratyaya gochara

Some agnaanis equated Sankara's statement "yushmat asmat pratyaya gochara" with sudhaatma or Brahman. Saastra does not agree with them. They went on tampering with that sentence. Sankara said that asmat pratyaya gochara has to be kshEtragna/pratyagaatma. It is impossible to understand Brahman as asat. Tureeyaatman is unknown according to saastra. So we don't know Brahman either. How can then one do adhyaasa? Aatman/Brahman are not poorva drishta. That is, they are never seen before.

Reverse adhyaasa: aatman has no dharma; so sudhaatma too has no dharma; no features. What should dharma do to adhyaasa?

tureeyaatma is not an object to understand.

Very few people know about sudhaatma in comparison to pratyagaatma. In the 4th sootra Sankara says aatman should be understood through upanishat only. asmat pratyaya gochara saakshi is sudhaatma. So we can't use it for adhyaasa. Pratyagaatma is in everyone's experience during sushupti. Certainly no one feels intimacy with aatman. Sankara asks us to compare sushupti with jaagrat where the connection between aatman and body is in our imagination. Look at ourself in sushupti: we are there, we are different from body and doing adhyaasa. So we don't know ourself. saastra magnanimously says we are tureeya aatma. adhyaasa bhaashya is inspiring one to educate himself.

[end of adhyaasaa bhaashya]

Till now we saw we can't substitute Brahman/tureeya in the place of asmat pratyaya gochara. But some stick to the statement. They have to twist bhaashya frequently. They will conflict with bhaashya. pratyagaatma is ourself. We know we are free from body but also doing adhyaasa. Body is mithya when seen in us. In sudhaatma there is no jagat as per saastra. But in the universe aatman is there. In pot there is clay. In clay there is no pot. In ice/water/steam there is H2O but not vice-versa. In place of asmat the agnaanis substituted sudhaatma resulting in the conclusion that there is no jagat. They say the jagat is seen out of ignorance. It is based on faith. That there is no jagat in aatman is based on our experience. One has to believe it. They call it adhyasta. Even though it is not there we see it. For example: rajju-sarpa.

Brahman thought "I will be many" as per saastra. How can one become many? Just as rajju, a crack in the ground, etc. are mistaken for sarpa , for the taarkika the jagat is asat. Sankara says it is not so. rajju-sarpa drishtaanta is applicable when we are mistaking a rope for a snake. It is not a comment on the snake. It is a comment on our gnaana. We are seeing multiplicity because of ignorance. Ice/steam/water are different physically but not factually.

Before seeing pot we see only clay. After seeing pot will we not see clay? The stuff is sat. It will never become asat.

In rajju-sarpa drishtaanta sarpa is not there at any time. Out of ignorance one sees it. This is not so in the case of jagat. Just as Brahman exists at all times so is jagat.

Sankara is showing manyness. Doesn't it contradict with the statement that there is only one Brahman? Ice/water/steam are many but H2O is one. That it is H2O is for science to prove and to be learnt by us. Similarly saastra says in all things there is only one thing in common: that is Brahman. One has to study saastra just as one studies science.

kaarya is many but kaaraNa is one. When there are 100 pots we still say it is one single clay.

clay = from point of view of cause

many pots= from point of view of effect

There is no contradiction here.

Both pots and clay are visible. So there is no difficulty in understanding. In the case of H2O, which is invisible, science has to be believed. Similarly sruti is the pramaaNa.

One pramaaNa doesn't contradict another pramaaNa. gnaani vs. agnaani: both see multiplicity. But agnaani believes in multiplicity. Gnaani believes in oneness.

What is lost with vidya? Ignorance. the manyness --not objects--is lost. Because of faulty eye one can see 2 or 4 moons when there is only one. Fixing the eye will result in seeing one moon. Similarly one has to shed ignorance through saastra adhyayana.

upanishat says: suppose we see lokas as different from us, then we are mithyaa drishta/darsi. All lOkas are aatman. sruti says if we say lokas are mithya we don't get moksha.

The misleaders say the opposite because they already concluded jagat is mithya. In actuality jagat is Brahman. At one time Sankara says jagat didn't exist. The reason is: Ishwara said "I will become many" He sees the manyness in seed form. Is Ishwara's gnaana of manyness mithyaa gnaana? jagat is not there at all at one time.

PART 5

In "asmat pratyaya gochara" some misleaders placed Brahman instead of asmat. It stands for jeeva/kshEtragna but not Brahman or tureeya.

This fault caused lot of damage for the presentation of vEdaanta. They say wrongly jagat is an illusion/mithya; mithya means asat or in one's imagination out of ignorance. As far as the saastra is concerned jagat is brahma kaarya. Brahman is the upaadaana kaarana for jagat. Just as clay stays in the pot and pot can't be asat, Brahman stays in. There is no jagat (pot) in aatman (clay). The implication is aatman has many features besides jagat. Jagat is not the only feature of aatman. This is an asymmetric relationship. jagat is totally based on Brahman as upaadaana. Without Brahman it can't exist. Brahman exists as jagat. In aatman there is no trace of jagat. Pots contain clay but clay doesn't contain pots. So they wrongly say Brahman is free from jagat. That the jagat contains Brahman has not been taken up. So they say jagat is mithya.

How can jagat be mithya? Silver seen in the shell is certainly mithya. But jagat is not like that. We can transact with jagat. They say vyavahaara is also mithya. In fact, jagat is vyaavaahaarika satya (taIttareeya upanishat). Sruti is using satyam for both kaarana and kaarya. That satyam is paaramaarthika satyam that is Brahman. vyaavaharika satya (based on Brahman) has transaction. But praatibhaavika satya doesn't have transaction.. Example: mirage appears to be holding water. Even that is called satya because it has earth as basis.

• Vyaavaharika satya (everyday life) - this chair is seen by me and is real.
• Praatibhaasika satya (illusory) - Illusion of a serpent in a coiled rope. The appearance is real to one who thinks so. This phenomenon appears at a point of time and under certain circumstances.
• Paaramartika satya (ultimate) - Reality is that which remains the same always and without change.

  In chaandOgya it is stated that when looked at it from the point of view of cause the pot contains clay; in vyaavahaarika satya it contains Brahman. It is like potential and kinetic energies: PE and KE. KE can be seen in motion. PE can't be seen. Vyavahaara is based on aparaa prakriti.

  There is a mantra in chaandOgya that says before getting enlightenment (one is Brahman) The notion that the creation and destruction are caused by a superior god different from "us" is wrong. The gnaani believes it is happening by "me". Every activity is by aatman himself. If the one with vidya is observing vyavahaara, how can he say it is mithya?

  The upaadaana of jagat is Brahman. Through its maayaa sakti it takes the form of jagat. maayaa is its own sakti. Because of ananyatva (no second) we say Brahman is transformed like this. Maaya is the other upaadaana kaarana of jagat. In the detractors' scheme maaya is not there. According to them jagat is appearing because of mithya. The statement "Brahman doesn't contain jagat" is vacuous and in imagination because of avidya. Now they have to reconcile with sruti.

  One scholar says what sruti says as maaya is actually avidya. They are synonymous. Another one says avidya is the result of maaya. Actually avidya is the effect of maaya. A third one says maaya is avidya kalpita. Brahman is having maayaa sakti.

  They say Brahman is coupled with maayaa. Some people say at the time of laya there is only Brahman. There is no maayaa.

  gnaani even after getting gnaana continues to perform all normal actions. They say every activity by the gnaani is only avidya.

  One who realizes he is Brahman sees himself in everything---sarvaatma bhaava. He sees himself as upaadaana for jagat.

  Are maaya and avidya synonymous?

  Can the detractors substitute maaya for avidya? maaya is Brahman's sakti through which it expresses itself as jagat and aparaa prakriti; and as activities or paraa prakrti.

  Avidya is: absence of swaroopa gnaana, wrong knowledge, ignorance

  avidya and maaya are not synonymous. If not, sruti vaakya becomes superfluous. Ishwara has saamarthya (capability) but not pravrutti. jeeva has pravrutti (because of avidya). So Ishwara enters jeeva and gets things done.

  ahamkara = avidya + maaya creates pravrutti

  The detractors say: avidya is maaya kaarya. maaya = aavarana sakti (clouds the understanding, avidya) + vikshEpa sakti (projects something not present)

  Is prakriti acting independently? It is acting at the behest of Ishwara. Ishwara is responsible for prakriti. If prakriti is doing aavarana + vikshepa is Ishwara misleading us?

  Brahman is taking up so many forms because he wants the jeeva to understand his swaroopa through jagat. Suppose we have a meaning in our heads. We express through language using words that contain the meaning. When meaning is understood words are discarded. jagat = vak, words; Brahman = meaning. When Brahman is understood the jagat can be discarded.

  What sruti is telling is Brahman is expressing in various forms to enlighten us.

  Suppose had Brahman not created jagat we could never understand Brahman.

  Why is maaya functioning? To show us the way to mOksha or enjoy karma (bhOga)

  Then the detractors say maaya is avidya kalpita: maaya is Ishwara; is Ishwara avidya kalpita? Doesn't make sense

  saastra is telling: jeeva is actually Brahman but doesn't know. If we shed our avidya we will know we are Brahman.

  jeeva - avidya = Brahman

  Can we say Brahman + avidya = jeeva?

  Brahman can't have avidya. So the above equation is wrong. Brahman is different from jeeva.

  jagat is not different from Brahman; but Brahman is different from jagat. Similarly jeeva and Brahman.

  Brahman doesn't have avidya. It is nitya sudha, etc.

  jeeva not having avidya is not different from Brahman.

  In laya there is only Brahman; no maaya. So they say maaya is anitya. Why? avidya is anitya (avidya can go away). Ishwara will create stars, planets, etc. as they were before laya. So maaya is permanent.

  para prakriti + apara prakriti both are associated with maaya. So maaya is eternal.

  Some say in pralaya Ishwara is not there. In fact, Ishwara is same as Brahman . Ornament with shape is still gold. Shape is the name for transaction. So is Ishwara

  Can gnaani have remnants of avidya? In Brahman there is no vyavahaara and jagat. But both vyavahaara and jagat contain Brahman. The detractors say any vyavahaara is possible because of avidya. When avidya goes it goes tracelessly. The moment we understand aatman, our ignorance will be gone. Just as the moment sun rises, there is no darkness. One has to struggle to get rid of agnaana.

  sarvaatma bhaava-= everything is Brahman or ourself. If we see something as different from us, then we have not understood aatman.

  prakriya: different means to know Brahman. There are no alternate ways/means to understand Brahman. naanyaha panthaa ayanaaya vidyatE (Gita)

  They say in the rajju-sarpa drishtaanta snake is not there; so jagat is not there; Sankara says it is not about snake but to correct ignorance. Snake is asat.

  arthavaada: sentence is contradicted by other pramaana; one has to interpret differently in different contexts. But vEdaanta is not like that.

  First sootra: athaatO brahma jignaasa

  Sankara said: we are caught in the quagmire of samsaara. All of this unbearable misery is only because we don't know ourself. The moment we recognize in sushupti our body is different from us and firmly stay in the conviction, a major part of samsaara will be gone. When we say adhyaaasa is responsible for all misery, then the moment we realize ourself the misery will go away.

  adhyaasa = that (tat:pratyagaatman) + not-that (atat:anaatma or jagat)

  This adhyaasa is destroyed by the awareness of kshEtra/kshEtragna that is same as ourself. There is no atat or tat.

  How to arrive at one aatman? We have to know that we are Brahman.

  Just by knowing can one get rid of samsaara? saastra says yes, but knowing is not an easy thing. The moment we come to discuss Brahman there is a huge difficulty: Brahman is defined as both nimitta and upaadaana kaaraNa of jagat. prakriti is also Brahman. Everything is Brahman. In upaadaana kaarana there is no kaarya. In clay there is no pot. Brahman does not contain jagat. Brahman is nirguna. At the same time it is nimitta (one who makes pot). Then there is vyavahaara. When we say Brahman is both cause and action, we arrive at a contradiction. How to resolve it? Brahman is action less. Suppose you have an ornament of gold. It is pure gold. If there is no gold, that ornament won't come into being. The shape is also gold as the shape is used for transaction. We call it necklace, bangle, etc. By giving a name we have achieved: bangle is fit for transaction. From the point of view of cause there is no shape. When used in transaction, we have to use forms/names like necklace, bangle, etc. Identically Brahman is like gold. Ishwara is like bangle. Brahman's sakti =para + apara prakriti. Brahman with maaya sakti is Ishwara. sakti is not different. But saastra calls it : adhyaarOpa. There is no transaction in Brahman. But we want to impose it on Brahman. How did the shape come about? Once we recognize the shape is gold, then the purpose is met. Our purpose is to show jagat is Brahman. By adhyaaropa we achieve it. Once jagat is understood as Brahman, the adhyaaropa has become apavaada (imposition is removed).

  Brahman is without action. How can jagat come out? How can Brahman become many? Sankara gave 3 answers:

  • Brahman is the ultimate cause; saankhya says pradhaana, vaisEshikas say anu, etc. How kaarya comes out from upaadaana can't be shown with one's own theory.
  • Brahman is action less using sruti pramaaNa. sruti itself says it doesn't know how jagat came from Brahman
  • upamaana pramaaNa: in swapna, we are one, but how do so many things appear in swapna? If we say manas did it, that is how maaya works.

  brahma atah jignaasa

  atah=afterward

  Some people say after we study poorva meemaamsa, dharma, karma, etc we should study vEdaanta. Because vEda is an integral whole containing karma and gnaana kaandas

  1)in karma kaanda of vEdas a sequence is told to perform karma. It doesn't say one should read all about karma kaanda before going to vEdaanta

  2)there is a lot of difference between brahma jignaasa and dharma jignaasa. The phala is very different. Suppose to go to swarga jyOtishOma yaaga can be performed. There is a waiting period to receive the phala (going to swarga). In the case of brahma jignaasa, you can get phala instantaneously.

  3)karma kaanda coaxes us to do karma to obtain phala because others got it. In the case of Brahma jignaasa it tells Brahman is so and so and jeeva is the same thing. It won't entice us.

  Karma is based on a lot of faith. vEdaanta is more logical than faith oriented.

  After what? saadhana sampatti (sama, dama, etc.) If we have these qualities we can discuss Brahman before/after dharma jignaasa

  ataha=therefore

  What is ataha? karma phala is anitya (going to swarga, brahma loka, etc.) as per scripture itself. If we study Brahman, we will obtain permanent moksha. One who is interested in moksha need to discuss Brahma jignaasa

  grammatical point: BrahmanO jignaasa - brahma jignaasa=jignaasa of Brahman; it is in shashti (6th) vibhakti which comes in 2 ways:

  a)discussions directly of Brahman (karma shashti)

  b)discussions about things related to Brahman (sesh shashti)

  Sankara says choose (a) karma shashti. It has to be about direct Brahman not things related to it. In (b) Brahman becomes secondary. In (a) the things related to Brahman automatically come to understanding.

  Example: Suppose a king is going with his retinue. No one gives importance to retinue. If you understand king then the retinue is automatically understood.

  In brihaadaranya bhaashya Sankara says: all is aatman only;one has to meditate over it. We don't know aatma/anaatma (kshEtra/kshEtragna) resulting in adhyaasa. Both kshEtra/kshEtragna are unknown. Both aatma and anaatma must be known. Ultimately we have to reach aatman not jagat even though all of jagat is aatma. We have to see cause where there is no transaction. Just as when we understand clay we understand everything that is an effect of clay, if we concentrate on aatma we can attain it. Sruti also says one has to discuss about Brahman (karma shashti).

  PART 6

  In the first sentence of adhyaasa bhaashya, "asmat pratyaya gOchara" should refer to sushuptaatma. Brahman has been substituted wrongly. As a consequence there have been statements not found in bhaashya and sruti. Many of them directly oppose sruti and bhaashya.

  What is mithya? the upaadanaa kaaraNa of jagat is Brahman. Where there is pot there is clay. Only jagat is visible, not Brahman. So common people think Brahman as different from jagat who resides in kailasa, vaikuntha, etc. Anything different from Brahman is mithya. Without upaadaana of Brahman nothing can exist.

  People with avidya see jagat as different from Brahman. In their minds there is jagat that is different from Brahman. Not factually but in budhi just as one sees snake in budhi mistakenly when seeing a rope;

  athaatO Brahman jignaasa

  After saadhana sampatti, the phala of karma is anitya. Whereas the phala of brahma gnaana is permanent. For this one has to understand Brahman.

  What is Brahma jignaasa? jignaasa = desire to obtain phala. If we want to know Brahman not for the sake of itself but for phala then it is called Brahma jignaasa. The phala is complete cessation of grief. It is only possible when Brahman is ourself. Knowing Brahman is Brahma gnaana. By knowing we are Brahman, the desire is fulfilled and grief is lost. How does it happen? By removing avidya.

  We have to first understand Brahman and get its experience just as when we want to marry someone we have to understand him/her. We should know Brahman and get avagati. Knowing Brahman almost looks impossible because Brahman has features different from things we understand like shapes, forms, activities, etc. Brahman has no such features. It is impossible to grasp Brahman with budhi. saastra says it is so. The same vEda says we have to understand Brahman through budhi. How to reconcile? Brahman is inaccessible to budhi which is dirty and not transparent. When budhi is clear and sookshma (become sharp, very subtle) and free of raaga dvEsha, transparent, etc., unless we become totally prejudiced, then we will be able to understand Brahman.

  How to grasp Brahman? With a mind that is pure, subtle, transparent, etc. Brahman is not changing (satya), infinite and not inert. When we begin to concentrate on Brahman things with shape/vikaara come to mind. We should go on rejecting them. If mind is equipped with abilities, then we start seeing satyam (unchanging), gnaanam (knowledge), anantam (infinite), parichchinna (undivided or not limited), etc. with budhi corresponding to Brahman. Example: when we think about a chair, a mental impression of the chair is seen. When there is no mental impression then it is satyam/gnaanam/anantam.

  What is gnaana? We generally take it as the shape of the object. For example the picture of a pot in budhi. These pictures (pratyaya) are changing with respect to objects. ghata gnaana, patha gnaana , etc. are changing. But clay is the same. vishEsha gnaana (adjective) is changing. But gnaana is constant always. Only visEshana is changing. When budhi stops receiving adjectives this is gnaana about Brahman which is unqualified gnaana

  Thus we obtain brahma gnaana where gnEya is Brahman, and gnaata is self. Certainly there is no possibility of oneness. gnaata and gnEya are always different. Brahman is different. There is no question of finding oneness between the two. How to get the knowledge that Brahman is ourself? Our attention was outside while trying to grasp Brahman. It has to turn inward. Who is gnaata? sushuptaatma. This gnaata is self. We also don't know who we are. There is no connection with external world in sushupti. Brahman is different from world: satyam/gnaanam/anantam/aanandam, etc. There is nothing changing in praagnya. We are satyam, gnaanam, anantam, aanandam, etc. We experience infinite aananda in sushupti

  The last thing is gnaana. When we understand Brahman our mind becomes still. In the mind there is no qualification but gnaana. If we take ourself as gnaanta in shushupti our gnaana is same as Brahma gnaana. All the features like satyam, gnaanam, anantam etc. are present in us. When we shift attention inward, the sushuptaatma is ourself from our point of view. The object is same but from understanding point of view it is Brahman. According to sruti: we have to turn budhi inward and know ourself as Brahman.

  budhi has to go inward for a long time till we are firm ourself about the equivalence with Brahman.

  When we understood Brahman we try to live in Brahman. We have to live long enough with nidhidhyaasana to feel oneness with Brahman.

  Everyone has a vague idea that Brahman like entity exists. So it has to be discussed. Everyone is saying "I" in various ways like "I did it", "I am tall", etc.. That "I" refers to Brahman. We know "I" is different from an object. Despite that we have made it an object. We confess we don't know who we are.

  No one says in deep sleep he didn't exist. Though we haven't experienced in mind, we assert that we exist in deep sleep. This is an indication that Brahman exists. pratyagaatma itself is Brahman.

  When we say "aya maatma brahma", we mean pratyagaatma who is the gnaata. We still don't know we are Brahman. So one has to do saadhana with shat sampatti, nidhidhyaasana, etc. Thus we can look inward and experience Brahman.

  If Brahman is well known why is it vague? Some say it is karta, bhOkta, indriyas, mind, etc. Different opinions come about because of vague knowledge. It shows everyone knows it but incorrectly. So we have to take vEdaas as pramaana.

  [end of 1st sootra]

  Now we understand we are Brahman. What is Brahman? Brahman is that by which janma/sthithi/laya or janmaadi of jagat are taking place. When you take janmaadi, janma is an adjective for it. We can take with visEshana or without visEshana. For example: "Bring the chairman" means not to bring the chair. When you say janmaadi do we leave aside srishti/sthithi/laya ? All the three need to be taken into consideration because all are done by Brahman. Suppose we separate Brahman as srishti karta only, then for sthithi/laya we need another upaadaana (other than Brahman).

  vEda tells Brahman is upaadaana and nimitta kaaraNa for jagat; In this creation there are 2 things: nimittatva (sentient cause) and upaadaana (material cause). Both kshEtra/kshEtragna also there. So everything becomes Brahman

  Before creation nimitta/upaadaana were not different. nimitta/upaadaana has to be one. Brahman by itself has no initiative. It takes the help of jeeva who has initiative and does it. We ask why do all this? Hiranyagarbha is the first jeeva. Using prakriti he created the whole world. He is having samsaara that is jada as ourself. So why seek Brahman? To get rid of samsaara. jeeva/prakriti are coming from Brahman. Neither Hiranyagarbha nor prakriti is different from Brahman. So Brahman is nimitta and upaadaana kaaraNa for jagat.

  Hiranyagarbha is getting all the knowledge from Brahman. In a secondary sense we say Brahman is upaadaana/nimitta. This is called adhyaarOpa.

  Brahman has no connection with jagat. srishti/sthithi/laya are connected with jagat. How can we discuss it? Sankara says jagat is connected to Brahman. So through jagat it is possible to reach Brahman. Brahman is in 3 stages: srishti/sthithi/laya. jagat always exists. jagat manifests and unmanifests. srishti/sthithi/laya are upalakshanaas (distant features) of Brahman.

  What are the features of jagat? asat, jada, parichhinna. Brahman is not related to jagat. jagat is related to it. lakshana is visEshana which is an adjective. asat/jada/parichchinna are appearing in Brahman whose swaroopa lakshana is satyam/gnaanam/anantam...etc. Brahman is understood through srishti/sthithi/laya. This is the understanding through kshEtra. How about kshEtragna? jeeva is recognized through body. Through kshEtragna/jeeva also one can understand Brahman. As already stated, srishti/sthithi/laya are upalakshana of Brahman. We are bhOkta and experience priya/moda/pramoda -- the various gradations are adjectives to aananada. What remains without adjectives is aananada which is derived through kshEtragna.

  What is the jagat created by Brahman? It is complicated and has several divisions with names. Same clay is manifesting as pots, jugs, etc. We can call them by their names or clay. From the point of view of indriyas, gnaana there are many. From swaroopa point of view there is only one. There are several jeevas. They are experiencing kriya-phala. In dEsa/kaala (space/time) they are performing karmas. It is so complicated it is impossible to deduce by inference.

  When science sees something, it wants to find the cause. For example consider solids/liquids/gases. Sugar gets dissolved in water. It is there in the form of sweetness. Then molecules are postulated. When they are visible atoms are postulated. Then nucleus, electron, etc. It is endless.

  Brahman is omniscient and omnipotent.

  What is the difference between the cause determined by science and vEdas? Both are looking at the world and investigating the cause. Science is only finding intermediate causes. For all solids, liquids and gases it postulates molecules which are effects of atoms. So molecule is an intermediate cause. Atoms are from nucleus, etc. which is another intermediate cause. vEda is talking about ultimate cause.

  How does vEda go to the ultimate cause? What is the process? Consider a plant after being born grows, starts flowering, gives fruits, decays and dies. Srishti/sthithi/laya. The cause of the plant is earth. Earth is the intermediate cause. The relationship between cause-effect is called vyaapti. There has to be resemblance between cause-effect. Earth is solid, plant is also solid. Earth has water and so on. They are all intermediate causes. Even though there is no pratyaksha pramaana, we can guess sun light makes the plant grow. Intermediate cause is also an effect. So we can guess it. Ultimate cause is you take all the features of effects and classify as 3 features:

  • change
  • inert
  • limited

  Ultimate cause should not have any of the features of the effect. There are exclusive properties in plants that are not seen in the earth. Earth has exclusive feature that its cause doesn't contain. In ultimate cause no feature of kaarya should be there. So it has to be satyam/gnaanam/anantam the opposite of change/inert/limited

  If we take entire creation as a whole, including intermediate causes, it can't come from any other source than Ishwara. Ishwara is the only one different from the entire world. abhaava of soonya vaadi, pradhaana of saankhya, anu of vaisEshikas also have the equivalent. Why did Sankara bring in Ishwara? Because no action is possible in Brahman. Ishwara can have a transaction just as bangle is a form of gold for vyavahaara.

  All of the above is inference (anumaana). No one saw the actual creation. kaaraNa will not have features of kaarya. Sankara says: We have to determine the Brahman and understand that it is ourself. saastra is the ultimate pramaana. By other pramaanaas one cannot get avagati

  saastra is telling Brahman is to be discussed using logic. Then anumaana pramaaNa can be used. Why is Sankara saying vEdas will decide?

  There are two stages in enlightenment: pramaaNa and avagati. Using pramaaNa, we fix Brahman and realize we are Brahman. When we have to fix Brahman we can't do it independent of jagat. Because it is an effect of Brahman through which Brahman's satyam/gnaanam/anantam are derived. Other pramaanaas like pratyaksha, arthaapatti, upamaana, etc. are also working. While fixing Brahman we can't contradict other pramaanas. We have to struggle and finally arrive at Brahman.

  Brahman is satyam/gnaanam/anantam. How is it possible for us to be Brahman (avagati)? Brahman is totally outside jagat. So pramaanaas have no role to play. Same with sushuptaatma. saastra is telling Brahman is ourself. At this stage there is no room for other pramaanaa except vEda.

  Suppose sruti says fire is cold. Certainly it is unacceptable on the face value. Let us consider it as for argument sake. We should not give up and say another fact that won't contradict sruti. We say "Fire is cold when compared to sun". Then it is acceptable. During the process of fixing Brahman, all pramaanaas function and in the end only sruti becomes the pramaana.

  PART 7

  There are 2 steps in the realization of Brahman

  • knowing Brahman what it is i.e. gnaana pramaana
  • realizing we (pratyagaatma) are Brahman

  Fixing Brahman has to be done with jagat. Other pramaanaas are also applicable. What vEda tells should not be contradicted by any of the pramaanaas. Brahman has no connection with the world. pratyagaatma has no connection with the world. In the case of avagati, Brahman is ourself. Sruti is the only pramaana

  Brahman is an existing entity. Other pramaaanas can be used. We make use of other pramaanaas also not to fix Brahman but to answer the doubts one gets while discussing Brahman. When something is told that it is not related to other pramaanaas then it creates doubts. saastra has to convince us. Fixing Brahman has to be done by saastra.

  Brahman is not pratyaksha, but jagat is. Ice/water/steam have H2O as cause. But H2O is not visible. Its effects are visible. We should keep pratyaksha and anumaana. In the case of Brahman it is more strong. Brahman itself is not accessible to any pramaana. When we make anumaana there is no pratyaksha. Example: anumaana -- there is fire on the mountain because there is smoke--confirmed only when we verify. All the pramaaanas invariably depend on pratyaksha. Whereas in the case of Brahman, it can't be verified by pratyaksha at all. It is not visible or amenable to senses/indriyas. We arrive at separating Brahman from the world. It is a guess. How to believe? Brahman can't be verified by any pramaana except vEda which should fix Brahman. It is not indriya pratyaksha.

  It is not possible to say jagat is directly connected to Brahman. We see smoke and say there is fire. The connection between fire and smoke has to be verified by pratyaksha. In the case of Brahman it is not possible to see kaarana from kaarya. Whether the jagat is connected with Brahman or with something else we can't completely ascertain.

  We heard from saastra (chaandogya) of clay and clay articles, iron and iron articles, gold and gold articles, etc. Brahman is upaadaana kaarana for jagat. We also hear in saastra that Brahman and jagat are compared to rajju-sarpa. There is no cause-effect relationship. It is mithya gnaana. In the case of other examples, we see pot and know it is clay (kaarya-kaarana)

  Brahman is upaadaana kaarana. It should not have any feature of kaarya such as asatya, parichchinna, and jada.

  We started with multiplicity of jagat and arrived at Brahman as the cause. One is limited. The other is unlimited, one is changing and the other is unchanging, one is inert and the other is gnaanam. jagat is not different from Brahman.

  Suppose one asks: Brahman is action less, one alone, how can it become many? Sankara says this question is unaskable. We have gone from multiplicity to one. After arriving at one we should not ask how. Brahman is not connected to jagat. How can we relate to one who has no connection with jagat? When asked why we did so much gymnastics, our purpose is not to explain srushti/sthtiti/laya. Our purpose is to show everything is Brahman.

  Brahman is unrelated with jagat. What we are seeing is jagat. Ice is solid but H2O is gas. We have to look at the cause to understand. The cause can't be seen with eyes.

  How did the jagat come about? It is Brahman seen in the form of jagat. What we are actually seeing is rajju but it is misconstrued as sarpa because of samskaara.

  People are remembering only rajju-sarpa and abandoned other drishtaantas. They coined the phrase vivarta upaadaana and claim Brahman is appearing like jagat; jagat doesn't exist; it is our imagination. The base of imagination is Brahman. We are seeing snake that is actually rajju. With better light the snake will disappear from imagination. Sarpa is adhyasta, rajju is adhishtaana. Both have to be pratyaksha to understand. Brahman cannot be seen pratyaksha. The vivartOpadaana is proved wrong. For Brahman saastra is pramaana and for jagat indriya is pramaana. Without kaarya-kaarana bhaava we can never fix Brahman. Jagat exists and Brahman is its upaadaana. They want to prove jagat is asat just as sarpa that can't be accepted.

  Taking rajju-sarpa example can we say jagat is asat like sarpa? Rajju-sarpa is not a comment on sarpa. It is about our ignorance. The snake exists in imagination only. Everything is Brahman.

  Sankara says never say ghata is asat. What does Ishwara see in creation? He sees the jagat in its seed form. Suppose the jagat is asat and the seed is also asat. Then Ishwara is seeing something that is asat. Is Ishwara an agnaani?

  Our knowledge about jagat is asat. Agnaani sees jagat as different from Brahman. Gnaani sees jagat same as Brahman.

  [end of 2nd sootra]

  1)saastra is from vEda Brahman yoni (cause); saastra is sarvagna so is Brahman

  2)in order to know Brahman saastra is the pramaana

  (1) vEda itself is sarvagna as it contains every knowledge. So the cause of saastra has to be sarvagna. In the previous sootra it has been proved Brahman is sarvagna. Why another? poorva meemamsakas heavily rely on vEda. According to them Ishwara doesn't exist. In order to take care of them (1) is given

  (2) saastra is the yoni to understand Brahman.

  It is told here that Brahman is the cause for vEdas. Are vEdas born? If so does it mean it will die afterwards? Anityatva becomes a fault. vEda is permanent. It is always there. It gets expressed through humans. vEda is apourushiva. Evolution theory gave peculiar notions about languages. Languages have come into existence after lots of progress from monkeys to humans. After a long time languages emerged. Our saastraas don't accept this. Suppose languages have originated this way. When monkeys are becoming human beings, at one stage there is a threshold and they start speaking. One speaks earlier than the other. What could be the first word? Suppose they say "ma" for mother. Mother has a specific meaning: a female body that has given birth. Grammar is required. From where did he get this meaning. Every word implies several other words to fix the meaning. So how does the first word exist independently?

  Noam Chomsky claimed that knowledge of universal grammar is genetic. 40-50 yrs ago in Hawaii islands sugar factories boomed. So they needed labor from various countries. They knew they would never return to their countries. They had no common language. They had only spouses to talk to. In due course children were born. The children used a new language called Croatian that has a complete grammatical structure. If 10 yrs old children can produce a new language then it must be genetic only.

  Features of vEdas

  1)Every great work of literature has an author. No one knows when Ramayana is written. But we know its author as Sage Vaalmiki. Not in the case of vEdas.

  2)vEda has a musical structure; saama vEda has sapta swaras; every letter has a specific swara and uttered accordingly. If swara goes wrong, the meaning is lost. maatra is how much a certain letter is elongated. balam is to stress it with force; santaana: should not break letters, etc. This musical structure of vEdas has remained intact since immemorial times. Tyagaraja's music went through changes. If the structure is created by humans it will undergo change

  3)vEdas are immense. Generally people think it is a big book. There is a story in rigvEda. Bharadwaj remained a brahmaachary and learnt vEdas for 75 years. Indra was highly pleased. (Learning and teaching vEda is the ultimate tapas. As long as vEda is there there will be balance in society). So he appeared and said "I am impressed with your tapas. I want to give you a boon. I will give you another 75 years. How do you want use the extra life?" When Bharadwaj told him that he would use it for vEdas, Indra said "It is not possible to complete in a short life span". He put small piece of mud in front of him and showed him a huge mountain for comparing what Bharadwaj could learn from the vast extent of vEdas.

  Patanjali of Yoga has written maha bhaashya where he provided information about vEdas. At his time 1000+ branches of vEda existed. Today there are only 8. In each of them there are samhita, braahmana, aaranyaka, upanishat. It takes 300 hours for vEda paaraayana. For reciting the 1000+ branches it takes 50000 hours. Humans know only some parts of vEda. It is Prajaapati who learns how to create from vEda that cannot be a product of one human

  A person can raise objection: that vEda is immense is not a proof for its non-human origin. There could be several contributors. If there are several contributors then vEda must have contradictions. No two humans agree with everything. Consider science where there are different opinions and unavoidable contradictions. Any human scientific work or literary work will contain contradiction. Saastra has no contradictions. Some people say: do karma; someone says tyaaga is good; some say couple dhyaanaa with karma; size of jeeva is as big as a thumb, corn, tip of a needle or size less, etc. Those who have not studied vEdas find contradictions. Veda addressing someone says "You do karma"; addressing another person it says "You do dhyaana", etc. It is based on the context and on one's competence. Contradiction is when the same person is prescribed different methods at the same time.

  5)There are innumerable things in vEdas that have been verified by recent science. How about aeroplanes and wireless? vEda has no technological content.

  In atharvana vEda it says sapta dweepa or 7 continents which matches with modern understanding. Antarctica, the 7th and the last continent to be discovered, was unknown to us till 1911. How could the vEdas know there are 7?

  Veda says the food we consume gets digested and split into 3 parts: bone , marrow, motor organs. This was discovered in modern medicine 50 yrs ago. The food for the mind and praana is told in saastra. (Food goes for the subtle body: vak + manas + prana + karma indriyas.)

  Science says space is vacuum. Earlier it was said space is ether. Even the scientists were not aware until Einstein disproved it. He had given a long lecture that space is not empty.

  saastra also discusses whether space is vacuum or not. It comes with the statement space is world in seed form. It is not vacuum.

  50 years ago a neurologist had done brain research and came up with these results: brain is like a walnut with left and right sides that are more or less same. But their functioning is significantly different. All mechanical operations are handled by the left brain and subtle thoughts are done by the right brain. The right half is connected to left bodily parts and the left half is connected to right bodily parts. They compensate when paralysis strikes. In women left side is stronger and right side is stronger in men.

  With the efficiency of superior thinking claim, women are suppressed. There are more freedoms for women. Despite there are only 3 women Nobel laureates. So subtle thinking is monopolized by men. In chanDogya, brihadaaranyaka it was stated that akshi purusha stays in eyes and understands everything. Brihadaaranyaka says it is specifically dakshina akshi purusha. Corroborating it there is artha naareeswara where left side is Paarvati devi and right side is Lord Siva.

  The whole vEdas has nothing to do with humans. apourushEya.

  In 1996 there was a paper by a German. The author studied Pingala's chandas (meter); specifically gaayatri chandas. The first sookta of rigvEda is in gayatri chandas. There are 3 lines with 8 letters each. According to chandas, 3 lines are grouped into 2. The first 2 lines is group A, and the 3rd line is group B. Various letters are used in groups. It is in the ratio 2 to 1. The author has shown 75 such symmetries. In some places the symmetry breaks like 1.99 to 1. This break of symmetry is not a flaw. If we make restrictions on a poet he can't make perfect poems. But here they are extremely precise. It is a process of natural selection or scientific way of saying apourishEya. It is impossible for a human being to author vEda

  How did humans come to know about vEda that is already there? The first jeeva is Hiranyagarbha. He does pancheekarana of tanmaatras: sabda, sparsa, roopa, rasa, gandha, etc. With these pancha bhootas prajapati is born. Hiranyagarbha's body is created by Ishwara. Prajaapati is creating bodies for devas. He knows the details of devas based on code words. We can't know that. There are code words for manushyas. Thus vEdas create sapta rishis. Brahma was born in the lotus coming from the navel of vishnu. Kamala pushpa is like the earth. Next Brahma maanasa putraas are born who grow for 16 years and become independent. They are high tapasvis from the previous creation. The jeevas of the previous creation are reborn. They remember the vEda. They recollect whatever mantraas they recited. They are called mantra drashta. Afterwards they teach. Veda is nitya. It becomes vyakta when humans come. All the 1000+ saakaas were not dead. Someone somewhere knows. Actual srishti is done by Hiranyagarbha and Prajaapati. But they say god created the universe. For the utterance of vEdas he makes use of human beings. But they are not the authors of vEdas.

  How do so many aachaaryaas give different philosophies based on the same vEda? This is like 6 blind men touching an elephant. There are contradictions. Sankara's role is to find the unique teaching without contradictions. That is advaita. It transcends differences without contradictions. Ramanuja is not wrong; Madhva is not wrong. If we take vEda as a whole only one meaning emerges without contradictions. Sruti says there are two Brahmans: saguna and nirguna that is seemingly contradicting. Not when one understands them as: saguna brahma taking jagat into account; nirguna Brahman as the cause. "eka mEva dwiteeyam" means Brahman wants to have multiplicity. It seems contradictory but not when it is seen with indriyas. The advaita propounded by Sankara is infallible and enchanting.