| OM
Ajnanatimirintasyajnananjanasalakaya
Cakshurunmilitam yena
tasmai
srigurave namah
ADVAITA
VEDANTA
D
Krishna Ayyar
Part
IIIA
SECTIONS 9 - 14
PHILOSOPHY OF ADVAITA VEDANTA
AS EXPOUNDED IN THE UPANISHADS
...”
Section
10 – Brahman as consciousness - all pervading and immanent
in beings as atma
We
experience mind (antahkarana) as a conscious entity entertaining
one thought after another. Various Upanishad passages teach
us that, superior to the mind, we have in us an unchanging
consciousness, called Atma or Pratyagatma
or Sakshi. Apart from the four famous
mahavakyas, many of them reiterate that this is none other
than Brahman. Thus, Upanishads make it clear that there are
not many atmas but there is only
one all pervading, divisionless, non-dual consciousness; it is this consciousness
that is available for recognition
by individual beings through observation of the functioning
of the mind . Kaivalya Upanishad 10 – “Clearly
recognising Atma to be present in
all beings and clearly recognising
all beings in oneself.......”. Isavasya
Upanishad 6 – “ He who sees the all beings as
non-different from his Atma and sees the Atma of those beings
as his own Atma....”Kaivalya Upanishad 16 – “You alone are
that Infinite eternal supreme Brahman which is the Atma of
all.....” Kaivalya Upanishad 17– “ I am that Brahman which illumines the worlds of waking,
dream, sleep etc.” Kaivalya Upanishad 14 refers to Jivatma
as indivisible Bliss-Consciousness (aanandam
akhandabodham) in whom alone the three ‘cities’ go
into dissolution”. Taittiriya Upanishad II.1 and I.6, Mundaka
Upanishad III.i.7, Svetasvatara
Upanishad III.11 and Brhadaranyaka Upanishad I.iv.7
talk of Brahman as being available for recognition as Sakshi
in the Jivatma ( - interpretations based on Sankaracarya’s
commentary - ) ( “yo veda nihitam
guhayam” “ Tat srushtva
tat eva pravisat.”, “nihitam
guhayam” ”sarva bhoota
guahasaya” “sa esha pravishtah”) . Similar expressions occur in Svetasvatara Upanishad mantras
III.7, IV.15. IV.16, IV.17 ,VI.11, Mundaka Upanishad II.i.10,,
Kaivalya Upanishad 23 etc. Kena
Upanisad 1.6 – “That which man
does not comprehend with the mind, that by which, they say,
the mind is encompassed, know that to be Bahman”. Svetasvatara III.19
- “Though It is devoid of hands and legs, It grasps
everything and moves about everywhere. Though It is devoid
of eyes, It sees everything. Though It is devoid of ears ,It
hears everything. Though It is devoid of mind, It knows everything
but nobody knows It. . The rshis
call It the First, the infinite and the Supreme.” Mundaka
Upanishad II.ii.9 - “In the supreme bright sheath i.e., in
the vijnanamaya kosa,
the intellect of individual beings, is Brahman, the light
of lights (“jytotisham
jyoti”), free from taints and
divisionless (“virajam,
nishkalam)”.. Kathopanishad
II.ii. 9.10,11 and 12 talk of Atma as being the
one in all beings. Brhadaranyaka Upanishad IV.iii.23, talking
of sushupti says, “That it does not see in that state is because,
though seeing then, it does not see; for, the vision of the
witness can never be lost, because It is imperishable. But
there is not that second thing separate from it which it can
see.” “It does not see” refers to the fact that the
antahkarana and reflected consciousness are dormant and ,
therefore , there is no perception. “Though seeing then” and
“ For, the vision of the witness can never be lost”, “because
it is imperishable” refer to the continued presence of the
original consciousness as the witness of the dormant state
of the ahamkara in sushupti. Taittiriya
II.1.1 – “ Satyam Jnanam Anantam
Brahma; He who knows that Brahman as hidden in the cavity
that is the intellect...........” Mundaka Upanishad II.i.10
-“He who knows this supremely immortal Brahman as hidden in
the cavity that is the intellect....” (Brahman is Existence-Consciousness-Infinity.
As the eternal Existence forming the substratum of nama roopas
– Sat – It is recognisable everywhere but as Consciousness - cit
– It can be appreciated only as the witness of the mind.)
Mundaka Upanishad III.i.7 – “It (Brahman) is great (because
of its all pervasiveness) and self-effulgent….. It is further
away than the far off. It is near at hand in this body. Among
sentient beings, it is perceived in the cavity of the heart
(.i.e. the intellect) by the enlightened”. “Svetasvatara Upanishad II.15 – “When one knows atma
as Brahman”. Kenopanishad
I.2. - “The ear of the ear, the mind of the mind, the speech
of the speech, the breath of the breath, the eye of the eye.
Those who know this atma, after giving up identification with
the sense organs and renouncing this world become immortal.”
( “ Mind of the mind” means that atma is different from the
mind and is superior to the mind). Kenopanishad
1.6 – “ That which man does not comprehend with the mind,
that, by which, they say, the mind is comprehended, know that
to be Brahman.” A very clear support for the proposition that
the original consciousness available in Jivatmas is none other
than the consciousness that is Brahman occurs in Chandogya
Upanishad VIII.xii.3. It says, “ This tranquil one , that
is, jivatma, rising up from this body ( the reference is to
videha mukti)
becomes one with the Supreme Light (i.e., Brahman) and
is established in his own nature.” ( The words, “ becomes
one with the Supreme light” and “ is established in his own
nature” clearly mean that the consciousness constituting the
essence of the individual jivatmas called Atma is the same
as the all pervading, infinite consciousness called Brahman.)
Brhadaranyaka Upanishad IV.iv.13 (Based on Sankaracarya’s
commentary” – “He, the knower of Brahman, who has realized
and intimately known the Self – how? – as the innermost Self
– as ‘I am the supreme Brahman’ that has entered this place
(the body)……………all this is his Atma and he is the Atma of
all…..” “In Aiterya Upanishad mantra
III.1.2, enumerating various functions of the mind, it is
said that all these are the names of Consciousness and III.
2. 3 says that this atma is Brahman. (Sankaracarya’s commentary
– “The functions of the mind that have been enumerated are
the means for the recognition of the Sakshi.)
Section
11 – Reflected consciousness (cidabhasa)
While
the existence of a changing conscious entity which we
call the mind and an unchanging conscious entity which is
referred as the atma or Pratyagatma
or Sakshi is a matter of personal
experience, the fact that what there is in the mind ( antahkarana)
is the reflected consciousness is a matter of inference. Since
Brahma caitanyam is all pervading, the question arises why
is it that we experience only our antahkarana as a conscious
entity and our body and sense organs as sentient and why things
we categorise as inanimate objects
are not sentient. This disparity cannot be explained unless
we predicate a reflected consciousness and a special capacity,
on account of its subtlety, on the part of antahkarana
to reflect consciousness and to impart it to the sense organs
and the body. - which capacity grosser nama roopas
like table etc do not possess. There are various
passages in the Upanishads to show that the body mind complex
by itself is inert (being made of food – vide Chandogya Upanishad
VI.v.4) and it is the atma that lends sentience and consciousness
to the body, sense organs and the antahkarana. Cf. the
portion in Taittiriya Upanishad III.7.i which says, “ ….Because
if the space-like all pervading …..Brahman was not there,
who could inhale and exhale?......This one, this supreme atma
which resides in the heart ( i.e., in the mind , as the witness
of all thoughts) blesses everyone with consciousness and happiness.”.
Commenting on Kenopanishad
I.1. - “Directed by whom does the mind pervade
the objects? Directed by whom does prana
function?” and in the next mantra we get the answer
“…..the mind of the mind, the prana
of the prana.….” Sankaracarya
says,– “”Because the antahkarana is not able to perform its
functions – thinking, determination etc. – unless it is illumined
by the light of consciousness.”). Similarly, in his commentary
on Kena Upanishad manta 1.6 – “That which man doe snot comprehend
with the mind, hat by which, they sy,
the mind is encompassed, know that to be Brahman”,he
says, “The mind can think only when it is illumined by the
light of the Consciousness”. . Svetasvatara
Upanishad VI.11 – “Hidden in all beings is the nondual
Effulgent One ( Brahman). It is all pervading, is the real
nature of all beings, …….It resides in all beings. It is the
witness of all. It is the lender of consciousness. ( “ceta
cetayita”) It is pure and attributeless ( “kevalah, nirguna ca”.. Sankaracarya says
, in his commentary on Brhadranyaka Upanishad III.iv.2 , “ (Yajnavalkya addressing
Ushasta) ‘you asked me to present
the Atma as one would a jar etc. I do not do so, because it
is impossible. Why is it impossible? O). wing to the very
nature of the thing. What is that? Its being the witness of
vision etc,, for the atma is the witness of vision. Vision
is of two kinds – ordinary vision and real vision. Ordinary
vision is a function of the mind as connected with the eye;
It is an act and as such it has a beginning and an end. But
the vision that belongs to the Atma is like the heat of the
fire; being Its very nature, it has no beginning or end. Because
it appears to be connected with the ordinary vision, which
is produced and is but a limiting adjunct of it, it is spoken
of as the witness, and also as differentiated into witness
and vision. The ordinary vision, however, is coloured
by the objects seen through the eye, and of course has a beginning;
it appears to be connected with the eternal vision of the
Atma and is but its reflection; it originates and ends, pervaded
by the other. Because of this, the eternal vision of the Atma
is metaphorically spoken of as the witness, and although eternally
seeing, is spoken of as sometimes seeing and sometimes not
seeing. But as a matter of fact the vision of the Atma never
changes.…….You cannot know that that pervades knowledge which
is the mere function of the intellect.’”. Chandogya Upanishad
VIII.xii.15 – “Mind is the divine eye of atma".
Brhadaranyaka Upanishad III.vii.23– “........
Mundaka Upanishad II.ii.10 and Kathopanishad II.ii.15 – “There
the sun does not shine, nor the moon nor the stars, not to
speak of lightning or fire – (i.e., Brahma caitanyam
as Sakshi illumines the mind and sense organs by being the
source of cidabhasa and through
them the world. But nothing in the world or the sense organs
or the mind can illumine It, because they themselves are illumined
by It. The illumined cannot illumine the illuminator.) It
alone is the light (i.e., It alone is the independent
consciousness.) Other lights come after It. It is by
Its light alone all else shines. (i.e., Whatever else is sentient
or conscious is sentient only because it reflects this real
light, that is, the original consciousness. Mind is conscious
only because the original consciousness is reflected in it.
Kathopanishad II.ii.13 talks of atma as the conscious among
the conscious. Sankaracarya explains, in his Bhashyam that
the words, “among the conscious” refers to the manifesters
of consciousness, such as the living creatures beginning with
Hiranyagarbha and adds “just as it is owing to the fire that
water etc. that are not fire come to be possessed of the power
to burn, similarly, the power to manifest consciousness that
is seen in others is owing to the consciousness that is the
Atma”. Kathopanishad II.ii.9 and 10 and Brhadranyaka
Upanishad II.v.19 where the phrase “roopam
roopam pratiroopam babhhova” occurs are also cited as authority for reflected
consciousness. The Kathopanishad, giving the example
of the shapeless fire principle assuming the shape of the
particular log that is being burnt and getting located
in this manner and the air getting located as prana
in the body, talks of the one all pervading consciousness,
the Atma, getting associated with body mind conplexes and assuming the forms of the body mind complexes
– i.e., by its very presence , providing the source for the
formation of the reflected consciousnesses in many minds.
The division is not in the original consciousness, but the
antahkarana’s, the reflecting media,
being many, the reflections are also many. On the same
lines, in the Brhadaranyaka Upanishad , it is said that
the unlocated all pervading consciousness pervades body
mind complexes and assumes their form. That is, by reflecting
in individual minds, It becomes many reflected individual
consciousnesses. It adds that these localised
forms are for the revelation of the Atma. (i.e., only
by observing cidabhasa, are we able
to recognise Atma.) The Brhadaranyaka
mantra says “ Indro mayabhi
pururoopa iyate”,
says the nantra. “One becomes many”
How? Though Atma is nondual, being the source of cidabhasa,
manifold conscious entities emerge. In each antahkarana, there
is a separate cidabhasa. When we
mistake the cidabhasa for Atma, there appear to be many Atmas. ’Chandogya Upanishad VI.iii.2 – “That Deity (which
is the non-dual Existence – Brahman -) envisioned, “Let it
be now, by entering into these three Gods, in the form of
the jivatma of each individual being…..” Sankaracarya, in
his Bhashyam, explains that each jivatma is merely the reflection
of the Deity (Brahma caitanyam.). It arises from the ‘contact’
of the Deity with the subtle elements like the intellect etc.
It is like the reflection of a person, seeming to have entered
into a mirror and like the reflection of the sun in water,
etc. This becomes the cause of multifarious ideas, such as,
“ I am happy”, “I am sorrowful”, “ I am ignorant” etc., owing
to the non-realisation of the true
nature of the Deity. Since the Deity has entered merely as
a reflection in the form of a jivatma, It does not itself
become connected with happiness, sorrow etc. Cf. Kathopanishad
II.ii.11 - ‘Just as the sun which is the eye of the whole
world is not tainted by ocular and external defects, , so
also the atma that is but one in all beings is not tainted
by the sorrows of the world, It being transcendenta1’.” Commenting
on the words, “light within the intellect” (“hrddhyantarjyotih”),
in Brhadaranyaka IV.iii.7 Sankaracarya says, “ Because
it is of the nature of effulgence (i.e., the effulgence of
consciousness) that atma is called ‘light’. It is only because
of the effulgence of Atma that the body mind complex becomes
sentient and moves and does action. In other words, just as
the emarald dropped in milk etc
lends lustre to the milk etc., Sakshi,
being available within the mind, sheds its lustre
on the body mind complex. Intellect is transparent and
close to atma. Therefore, it is pervaded by the reflection
of the consciousness that is Atma, The reflection is transferred
from the intellect to the mind, from the mind to the sense
organs and from the sense organs to the body. Thus,
the Atma that is like the light, illumines the entire body
mind complex. That is why, depending on the degree of non-discrimination,
each one identifies himself with one or other component of
the body mind complex.” Commenting on the Kathopanishad
mantra 1.6 cited earlier Sankaracarya says, “Atma is the enlightener
of the mind. The mind can think only when it is illumined
by the light of consciousness within. The mantra ends saying
“ Know that internal illuminator to be Brahman.” Similarly,
commenting on Kenopanishad I.2,
“…mind of the mind…, Sankaracarya explains the antahkarana
is not able to perform its functions – thinking, determination
etc. – unless it is illumined by the light of Consciousness.”
Yet another important mantra which establishes clearly that
what there is in the body mind complex is the reflected consciousness
is Brhadaranyaka .Upanishad mantra II.iv.12 (clarification
in mantra 13) where the phrase “na
pretya samja asti” (“there is no longer any consciousness”)
occurs. In this mantra , in the Yajnavalkya Maitreyi dialogue,
Yajnavalkya gives the example of salt water and salt crystals
formed out of it. Atma, the original, all pervading consciousness
is compared to salt water or the ocean. Here, there is no
plurality or individuality; the original consciousness is
divisionless; being all pervading, it is also available
in the jivatmas. But parts of the salt water can become crystallised on account of heat, and thus acquire individuality.
Like that, on account of the presence of the body mind complex,
which is compared to the heat, the divisionless
consciousness gets reflected in the mind and thus, with a
separate reflected consciousness – a particular consciousness
- in each mind, having an individuality of its own, a plurality
of ahamkaras emerges, experiencing
the world in diverse ways. When the salt crystals are put
back in the water, salt again becomes homogenous (divisionless).
Like that, when the jnani’s sthooola
sarira dies and sukshma sarira and karana
sarira disintegrate at the time of videha
mukti, the particular consciousness perishes. .The
words are , ‘ there is no longer consciousness’ (“na
pretya samja
asti”).
These words cannot refer to the original consciousness, because
it is eternal; what the jnani attains
at the time of videha mukti is oneness with
Brahman, the original, all pervading consciousness. So, there
is no question of the original consciousness ceasing to be.
The cessation pf consciousness that is mentioned in the mantra
can only refer to the reflected consciousness, the cidabhasa
in the mind with which the jivan
mukta was carrying on the day to
day activities until the fall of the sthoola sarira.
SECTION
13 – HOW TO DISTINGUISH THE ORIGINAL CONSCIOUSNESS FROM THE
REFLECTED CONSCIOUSNESS - ILLUSATRATION
The
difficulty of distinguishing the original consciousness, the
Sakshi, from the reflected consciousness,
the cidabhasa is illustrated by
Vidyaranya. He gives the example of a wall on which the general
sunlight falls. On the same wall, superimposed on the general
sunlight, reflected sunlight emanating from a mirror also
falls. In this situation, one cannot perceive the general
sunlight and the reflected sunlight separately. Similarly,
in jagrat and svapna
both Sakshi and cidabhasa
are functioning simultaneously. So we are not able to distinguish
Sakshi clearly. If the mirror is taken away, then one
perceives the general sunlight separately. Like that, in Sushupti,
when the antahkarana is dormant, Sakshi
alone is ‘shining’. So. by analyzing the sushupti experience,
an intelligent man can recognize the Sakshi.
Another example to illustrate the difficulty of recognising
Sakshi, as an entity distinct from cidabhasa,
is given in Brhadaranyaka Upanishad. We hear music emanating
from musical instruments. What is brought to our ears is the
particular sounds – the tunes or rythms
superimposed on the general sound. The substance is the general
sound. The tunes or rythms are only
representing the frequencies and amplitude with which the
general sound is produced. If you ask someone to ignore the
general sound and tell you what tune or rhythm it is, he will
say, “ how can I do it? If I ignore the general sound, I won’t
hear anything.” Only by analyzing the matter intellectually,
you can understand the distinction between the general sound
and the particular sounds.
Section
14 - Significance of cidabhasa
(1).
Another question that arises is that if Brahma
caitanyam is all pervading, how is it that I do not know want
you are thinking and I do not see the movie you are seeing.
The answer is that for knowing anything as an object or idea,
two things are required. (i) there must be a second entity other than the knower
and (ii) a focussing on or exclusive
pervasion of a single object or idea at a time by the consciousness
involving modification of the consciousness from one configuration
to another, corresponding to the objects or ideas coming one
after another. Brahman, being non-dual, there is no
second entity that It can know.. Secondly, being changeless
(nirvikara) , Brahma caitanyam cannot
undergo modification from one configuration to another as
envisaged above,. That is why, when the teacher shows the
sushupti as an example for us to understand the state of mukti,
Brhadaranyaka IV.iii.30, says, “There is not that second thing
separate from it that It can know.” And, describing
videha mukti,
when the jnani’s sukshma sarira
and karana sarira themselves have
disintegrated – talking of the paramarthika
plane where there is nothing other than Brahman, Brhadaranyaka
Upanishad II.iv.14 says “What can one see through what?”
For Brahman, there is not even knowing transaction. The vyavaharika
prapanca exists only for the vyavaharika
jivas. The jnanis among them see it as mithya and the ajnanis see it as real. It is the different minds with
cidabhasa in different individuals that enable each of
us to perceive and think separately about separate things.
What happens in my mind is confined to me. If a stone is thrown
into a pool of water where sun is reflected, that reflection
alone is disturbed, not the reflection in other pools.
(2).
When we refer to Brahman as Sakshi,
we are not diluting this proposition in any way. There, we
are only reiterating the eternal presence of the all pervading
consciousness , with emphasis on Its availability in
the individual beings. The knowing of objects and ideas occurs,
not at the paramarthika level, but
at the lower order of reality, the vyavaharika
level. At the vyavaharika level,
there is a multiplicity of names and forms and there is division
of knower, known and knowing instrument. The presence of Sakshi
serves as the source for the antahkarana to obtain a reflected
consciousness. The antahkaranas with their cidabhasas
are multiple; each individual being has its own separate antahkarana
with cidabhasa in it. Each antahkarana with cidabhasa in it ( called ahamkara)
focuses on a particular object or idea, separately, and, having
the capacity to undergo modification, assumes one configuration
after another, corresponding to the objects and ideas coming
one after another. This is what is said in the first portion
of Brhadaranyaka mantra II.ii.14. Talking of mithya dwaitam,
- knower, known and knowing instrument – it says, “when there
is duality (dwaitam), as it were, (the words, ‘as it were’
is significant, because they are the authority for saying
that the division of knower, known and knowing instrument
is unreal – mithya - ) one sees another……. one knows another.”
If the knowing consciousness was not in the form of separate
individual consciousnesses, and if there was only the original
consciousness common to all, the objects of the world
would all enter the common consciousness, in one jumbled
confusion – confusion, space-wise and time-wise. For example,
you may see the garbage being dumped in the street in the
food you are about to take. You may see a grandfather who
died long ago holding the new-born grandson – and so on. One
will go mad. |