Note
No 53. Translation of “satyam” in “satyam jnaanam anantam Brahma” as Existence
In the main paper, The Taittiriya Upanishad definition
of Brahman in 2.1.1 “Satyam Jnaanam Anantam Brahma”
has been translated as “Existence-Consciousness-Infinity”.
The logic of this translation is as follows: -
Translated literally, the English word “Truth” would not convey the intended meaning. In his commentary,
In his commentary on Tattiriya 2.1.1, Sankaracarya explains
that a thing is said to be “satyam” (true) when it does not
change the nature that is ascertained to be its own (and a
thing is said to be unreal if it changes the nature ascertained
to be its own).. From this it follows that the word “truth”
implies changelessness. In his commentary on Taittiriya 2.6.1,Sankaracarya
says, “ Apropos of this, existence is first being spoken of.
It remains to be explained as to what kind of truth is meant
in the assertion that was made thus: ‘Brahman is truth, knowledge,
infinite', Hence it is being said:
Brahman's truth is affirmed by speaking of Its existence;
for it has been asserted that the existing is the true (cf.
Chandogya 6.2.1). Therefore the very affirmation of existence
amounts to an avowal of reality..” In his commentary on Tattiriya 2.1.1, he
says, “ ‘Pure existence is Truth,
according to another Vedic text.” The other Vedic text referred to is Chandogya
6.8.7. Commenting on Chandogya 6.8.7, Sankaracarya
explains that “the word ‘That' refers to what has been spoken
of as existence. The commentary on 6 8.7 goes on to say “That
which has been spoken of as Existence is the subtle essence
of the universe, the source of the whole universe. All this
has got this existence as their self…. This whole universe
has become possessed of a self through this atma, which is
called Existence……. And the atma through which this entire
universe has becomes possessed of its self (existence) that
itself is the source called Existence, the Truth, the
Supreme Reality. Hence that indeed is the self of the world,
its inmost essence, its quintessence, its very reality.”. And, in his commentary on the Chandogya Upanishad passage
6.2.1 Sankaracarya explaining the word “sadeva”
says, “The word ‘sat' means mere Existence” and goes on to describe it as a thing
that is subtle, without distinction, all pervasive, one, taintless,
partless consciousness which is known from all Upanishads.” Further, he says,“That
which is this universe which is perceived as a modification
possessed of name, form and movement that was Existence alone,” Thus, he equates “Truth” and “Pure existence.”
And we know from Brhadaranyaka 1.4.7 that “This universe was
then (before creation) undifferentiated; It differentiated
only into name and form.” From all this, we arrive at the
meaning that Brahman, as Existence, is the sub-stratum of
names and forms. There is another reason for translating “Satyam”
as “Existence”, “Satyam” is also interpreted as that which
exists in all three periods of time changelessly – vide Sankaracarya's
commentary on Brhadaranyaka 2.4.2 “Reality (bhoota) – is always a fact,
for it never deviates from Its nature. The verbal suffix ‘kta'
here denotes past, present and future”. What exists as the common sub-stratum of
the nama roopas which appear and disappear is Existence. This
is the logic of translating “Satyam” in Taittiriya 2.1.1 as
“Existence. Perhaps, it would still be better to translate
it as Pure, real Existence”.
Note
No. 54.
RECOGNISING BRAHMAN AS EXISTENCE
can we recognise the non-dual Brahman? Brahman is the unobjectifiable
Existence-Consciousness- Infinity. It is true that you can
experience only with nama roopas. But, you can, intellectually
eliminate nama roopas, i.e., the variety of objects outside
and nama roopas inside, i.e., your body and mind and then
what would be left would be pure existence outside and pure
consciousness inside. That is to say, we can adopt the negative
method. The negative method of defining Brahman is known as
“not this, not this” (“neti neti”). We start from the
axiom that Brahman is nondual, attributeless and infinite.
So, we have to negate whatever is one among many and whatever
has attributes and is limited. Plurality of objects arises
from attributes, called roopa in Sanskrit and, corresponding
to the attributes constituting an object, a name (nama) is
given to the object. What distinguishes one object or one
being from another and makes it limited are the nama roopas,
the set of attributes, whether it is shape, colour, vibration,
texture, smell etc. in things and the life instincts, the
emotional expressions and the intellectual qualities in being
In respect of these, there are variations; therefore we experience
plurality. But what is common to all is existence (isness).
You look around. You see objects and beings. All are cognised
in space and time.. Existence is
all pervading and indestructible. In between objects and beings
also, there is existence. If there were no existence, a tree
would not grow between two trees. When a tree is cut and burnt,
isness is not destroyed; it is transferred from the tree to
ashes. When a pot is broken, what is destroyed is pot shape;
isness of clay is transferred from pot shape potsherd shape.
You go deeper and deeper, deeper than space itself. The sub-stratum
of space, and even of a vacuum is Existence..
Space is a nama roopa with the attribute of sound (sabda).
Thus, when you dismiss (negate) all nama roopa at one level
after another, intellectually, you will arrive at pure existence.
This existence is to be recognized as Brahman.
Note No. 55. RECOGNISING BRAHMAN
AS CONCIOUSNESS
One may ask, “What you say is all right in
theory. But, in practice, I only experience what you call
nama roopa. If I have to see a rose, nama roopas
like colour and shape must be there. If I have to hear music,
existence, sound nama roopa must be there and so on.
So, how can I recognize Brahman, pure Existence?” The answer
is – “ You say that you experience
only Brahman associated with nama roopa and that pure
Brahman cannot be experienced. So, it follows what cannot
be experienced is Brahman. Now enquire “what is it that cannot
be experienced?” The answer would be that which does not become
an object. What is it that does not become an object.
Our body is an object to our consciousness. The mind is also
objectified. I am aware of the functioning of my changing
mind. So, you negate your body and your mind. But there is
one thing that does not become an object. That is the I that
is aware of the changes of the mind which I invoke as the
same I when I talk of my having been angry yesterday bur my
being calm today or my having slept happily, knowing nothing
yesterday and my recollecting that state today, on waking
up. This I is the consciousness, the ”Sat-cit”
(Existence –Consciousness), called Brahman. Behind what we
experience as inanimate objects, it is recognisable as existence
and behind what we experience as the knowing mind, it is recognisable
as consciousness..
Another method is to ask what is it that does
not change in the course of our daily existence. What does
not change would be my real nature. I my real nature was the
experiencer of the waking world (jagrat prapanca), I would ever be in a state of wakefulness. If my real
nature were the experiencer of the dream world (svapna
prapanca), I would be in a state of dream always. If my
real nature were the experiencer of the deep sleep, (sushupti),
I would be always sleeping. without even a dream. But what is constant and unchanging
and is there in all the three states, behind the changing
mind, and is there even when the mind itself is dormant in
sushupti is the unchanging, original consciousness,
which one recognises as the constant I. That constant, unchanging, original consciousness is
one's real nature.
Yet another way of putting this is that limitation arises
in any situation of knower and the known. Knower is limited
because he is not the known and anything that is known is
limited because it is not the knower. But there is no known
if there is no knower. So, by negating the knower, we can
eliminate the known also. When the knower and the known are
negated, what remains is consciousness. The proof is our dreamless
sleep. In the state of dreamless sleep, called sushupti in
Sanskrit, there is no known, knowing or knower. In the waking
state, called jagrat in Sanskrit, there is a knower
in us and we perceive objects or entertain thoughts. In the
dream state, called swapna in Sanskrit, also, there
is a knower in us and we perceive a dream world. But in sushupti,
there is no perception or thought. The knower himself is not
functioning. But even in that state, we continue to exist
as a conscious being. The consciousness that continues to
exist even when the knower is not functioning is to be recognised
as the atma.
NOTE NO. 57 ATMA IS THE SAME IN ALL.
In this, however, what we arrive at is the consciousness behind our
mind. In technical language, this is called the avastha
traya viveka”, the method of analysing the states of waking
dream and deep sleep. But that is not the end of the enquiry.
Once I recognise that my real nature is pure consciousness-existence,
observing other people I may arrive at the inference that
their real nature is also pure consciousness-existence. But
I have to understand that there are not many consciousnesses,
but the consciousness in me in you and the others is the same
consciousness and that there is only the non-dual Brahman-Existence-consciousness
that is infinite, in terms of space, time and entity which,
in nama roopas, we can recognise as existence in all objects
and in living beings as consciousness as well as existence.
This understanding is obtained through the study of Sastra.
For the in finitude, we cannot resort to logic.
NOTE NO. 58. MITHYA VERSUS VYAVAHARIC REALITY
Saying that everything is mithya (unreal),
we should not indulge in, improper activities. Nor scan we
afford to be idle, saying that I am the actionless Brahman.
Our anatma, the body mind complex should follow “dharma”
(the do's and dont's according to one's own scripture. If
a murderer cites Kathopanishad 1.2.19 and says I am atma and
I did not kill, the judge will say that I am not sentencing
the atma to be hanged' I am only passing sentence on the anatma
in you. If you lay yourself on the ground on the ground in
front of an advancing rogue elephant saying “I am atma; I
cannot be killed, the part that is not atma in the elephant
(the anatma), the elephant's feet, will crush the anatma in
you, your body.
As an illustration of the relation of Brahman
and the universe,, the example often given is clay and pot.
(1) Clay alone is substance. Clay is the substance. Pot shape is not a substance. It is
only name and form (“nama roopa”)..
It has no existence of its own. Pot shape does not occupy
any space other than that occupied by clay or add to is mass
or weight. If you spirit away the clay, there will be no pot.
Put in technical language, clay is the substratum (“adhishtaanam”);
pot shape is a superimposition (“adhyastam”); water
is the sub-stratum; wave is superimposition. Like that Brahman,
as existence is the sub-stratum (“the adhishtaanam”).
The nama roopas, the combinations of attributes like colour,
shape, smell, movement etc perceived as objects of the universe
are superimpositions (“adhyasta”). Thus, the clay pot
example show that the relation of Brahman and the world is
that of the sub-stratum and the superimposed (“adhishtaanam”
and “adhyastam”)..
(2) Pot is evanescent. Clay was there before pot was produced. Clay
is there when pot has been produced and clay will still be
there when pot is destroyed Clay, the substance, the sub-stratum,
remains as clay, whether a pot shape is given to it or a tile
shape is given to it. The shapes appear and disappear but
clay stays. Like that, Brahman, the Existence, is there for
ever (“nityam”). The nama roopas appear and disappear
(they are “anityam”).
(3) Pot shape has no independent existence. There is no pot other than clay Pot shape
does not have independent existence. Its being a shape depends
on clay. Clay alone has independent existence. If you withdraw
the clay, there is no pot. Clay is ‘satyam' (relative
satyam). Pot is mithya. Like that, Brahman is satyam
(absolute reality).. The world of
nama roopas is mithya.
(4) The pot shape is not away from clay. It
is there where the clay is. Mithya is not away from its adishtaanam.
The locus of mithya is its sub-stratum. So, we say
that there is no pot other than clay. The locus of the adhyasta
nama roopas is Brahman, the Existence. So, we say that there
is no world other than Brahman.
(5) Mithya pot shape does not affect clay. The mithya pot shape does not affect clay, the
relative satyam.. Like that, the
mithya nama roopas do not affect Brahman, the absolute
satyam.
(6) Clay is one. Shapes are many.. Clay is one. Pots, jugs etc. are many. Like that, Brahman,
the sub-stratum, is one. The superimposed nama roopas are
many.
(7) Functional indispensability
of shapes. The lump of clay cannot hold water. Pot holds
water. The sub-stratum without nama roopa is not functional.
For transaction, nama ropas are necessary. Thus Brahman is
not accessible for transaction (“is avyavahaaryam”).
It is the nama roopas that transact with each other. Cf. Bhagawadgita
“guna guneshu vartante”.
(8) Mutual exclusiveness of shapes, Pot and tile or bangle and chain can't coexist
in the same entity (pot does not exist in tile; tile does
not exist in pot. Bangle does not exist in chain; chain does
not exist in bangle) but clay exists as the sub-stratum of
pot and tile. Gold exists as the substratum of bangle and
chain. Like that, in the mithya universe, the nama roopas
are exclusive of each other, but the sub-stratum, Brahman
as existence is common.
NOTE
NO. 60 . PROBLEM IN CLAY POT EXAMPLE. ALTERNATIVES
(1) Clay-pot is a good example to illustrate that the
substance is Brahman and the universe of nama roopas that
are superimposed are not substances to be counted as second
entities, but when it comes to real-unreal relationship (“satya
mithya sambandha”), the point becomes arguable, because
the example can be construed to illustrate modifying material
cause (“parinami upaadaana kaaranam”) and the reality
of the cause and effect being of the same order of reality.
Though not quite like milk turning into curd, clay does undergo
some sort of change - a change in shape. Further, the pot
maker is of the same order of reality as the clay and has
to do work to bring about the change of shape. The plane on
which the lump of clay and the shape as pot exist is also
the same. Thus, it can be argued that the clay pot example
illustrates parinaami upadhana kaaranam and the sub-stratum
and superimposition being of the same order of reality, unlike
Brahman and the nama roopas. Brahman, as Existence, does not
undergo any modification when nama roopas are superimposed
on It; it is not as if nama roopas were another shape of Brahman,
the Existence. Brahman does not superimpose the nama roopas.
And Brahman and nama roopas are not of the same order of reality.
Therefore, examples other than clay-pot are given in Sastra.
In semi-darkness, a person mistakes the rope to be snake.
Though the snake, as a praatibhaasika entity, is actually
perceived, there is no real snake there. When another person
comes along with a torch and flashes the torch, it is known
that what was perceived as a snake is only a rope. A person
looking from a distance, sees the sea-shell half-submerged
in the sand of the beach and mistakes it to be silver,. Though
the silver, as a pratibhaasika entity is actually perceived,
there is no real silver there. When he goes there and digs
the sand, he discovers that what he mistook to be silver is
only a shell. However, in some other respect, there is no
concordance between the such examples and the things sought
to be illustrated. When the light is thrown on the object,
the snake disappears; when the sand is dug, the silver disappears.
But, even after the knowledge that Brahman alone is satyam
and the world is mithya is gained, the jivanmukta
continues to perceive a world. The same problem
is there in the similar example, namely the dream. The dream
world is mistaken to be real by the person who is dreaming
while the dream lasts but it does not survive for perception
when the person wakes up. Therefore, in Sastra, other examples
are given, namely, (i) the desert and the mirage that is mistaken
for water and is negated on reaching the spot but water continues
to be perceived in a mirage at a spot a further distance away.
(ii) the rising and setting of the sun, which continue to
be perceived as such even after it is known it is not the
sun going round the earth but it is the other way about and
(iii) the perception that the earth is flat, which continues
even after it is known that the earth is elliptical. All this
has been stated only to show that any example given to illustrate
the relationship between Brahman and the world is only intended
to illustrate a few aspects but not all and no example should
be stretched beyond a point. Complete concordance between
any example and the thing to be illustrated should not be
expected; one should only take the aspects pointed out by
the teacher who gives the example; the example is not invalidated
if it does not fit in in other aspects.
From one item of the definition of Brahman, we can derive
other items..(Most of these are specifically there in the
Upanishads. But, here, we are just indicating the inter-connections.
For example, Brahman is said to be non-dual (“advayam”)
Only if there is a second entity can there be a relationship.
So “Brahman is “asanga” is a corollary. (Sruti specifically
says that atma is asanga - Brhadaranyaka 4.3.15, 3.8.8,
3.9.26, 4.2.4, 4.4.22, 4.5.15. “Asanga” means it cannot
have any relation or transaction with anybody or anything..
(Mandukya 7 – “avyavahaaryam) and it cannot be doer
or enjoyer (cannot be ”karta” or “bhokta” vide
Kathopanishad 1.2.19, Swetaswatara 6.12, 6.19). Also being
asanga (relationless) means It is neither cause nor
effect, because to be cause is to have relation with effect
and to be effect is to have relation with cause. When Upanishad
says that Brahman is eternal, nityam that it is not
born nor does it die and that it is not born from anything
nor is anything born from it, it not only means that It is
neither cause nor effect, but it means that It has no beginning
or end.(that It is “anaadi” and “ anantah”).
That which has no beginning and has no end implies that it
remains the same and is free from other intermediary changes
also. So, changelessness of Brahman is also derived. Changelessness
also implies that It is neither cause nor effect (“kaaryaakaaranavilakshana”),
because cause has to undergo change to become effect and an
effect is one that has an end. Brahman (Atma) is said to be
all pervading (“sarvagatah”, “sarvaga” (“sarvavyaapi”).Mundaka
1.1.6, 3.2.5, 5, Swetasvatara 1.16, 3.11, 3.21, 6.13, 6.17).
Change is event in time and takes place for an entity with
form, that is, with boundaries, located in space. So, changelessness
is derived from all pervasiveness also. Brahman is the support
(adhishtaanam) of not only the objects of the world
but of time and space which is part of the beginningless creation
– Vide Swetasvatara 6.2 - which talks of Brahman, inter alia,
as the creator of time (“kaalakaarah”). So, the corollary
is that atma is beyond time and space. (Sruti support we have
in Brhadaranyaka 4.4.16 – “the Lord…….below which the year
itself rotates” ‘ Kathopanishad 1.2.14
– “…that thing which is different from the past and the present”;
Kathopanishad 2.1.13 “ He is the ruler of the past and the
future” The Taittiriya Upanishad says that Brahman is infinite
“anantam”). (The word, “Brahman” itself means unsurpassably
big. Only that which has no limits, i.e., only the infinite
can be said to be unsurpassably big.) The infinitude applies
to space time and entity. From this also, we have to understand
that Brahman is beyond time and space. From infinity time
wise, also, we can infer the beginningless and endlessness
of Brahman and vice versa. Similarly, from infinity space
wise, we can infer all pervasiveness and vice versa and from
infinity entity wise, we can infer non-duality and vice versa.
There can be only one infinite. ‘Many infinite things' is
a contradiction in terms Being infinite, Brahman has to be
without a second real entity. Therefore, the world has to
be of a lower order of reality. Further, all finite things
are of a lower order of reality than the infinite. Since Brahman
is infinite, world being finite, the world has to be of a
lower of reality than Brahman. Any finite entity will be one
that has been attained or is yet to be attained. (“sadhya
vastu”). The infinite cannot be attained. Brahman, being
infinite, we cannot attain Brahman unless we ourselves are
ever identical with Brahman. That is why Brahman is called
“siddha vastu” (that which is already attained) and
not sadhya vastu. To have attributes is to be limited.
So. when Brahman is said to be infinite, it follows that Brahman
is without attributes (‘nirguna”). To have attributes
is to be subject to change. Brahman which is without attributes
(“nirguna”) will therefore be changeless. From Kathopanishad
mantra 1.2.20 – “anoraniiyan mahatomahiiyan”, Sankaracarya
derives that Atma is adhishtanam. How can a thing be greater
than the greatest and smaller than the smallest? In only one
way. If it is the substratum of all that is great and of all
that is small. As substratum of mountain nama roopa, atma
is mahan and as sub-stratum of a microbe atma is anu. From
‘formless' (Swetasvatara 3.10 – amoorta), we can derive
‘all pervading' and vice versa. Taittiriya 1.1..1 and Swetasvatara
1.9 and 5.1 define Brahman as infinite (anantam). The
word. “anantam” as Sankaracarya has explained, applies
to space, time and entity. Brahman is defined as satyam, jnaanam
anantamOn the basis of the word, anantam (infinity), we can
know that the existence (satyam) nature and consciousness
(jnaanam) nature of Brahman are all pervasive, eternal and
non-dual. (1) Logic of consciousness being eternal.
NOTE
NO. 62. ATMA IS SELF-EVIDENT
Atma is self-evident. “Self-evident” (Self-effulgent”
is a synonym) means that it does not require any instrument
of knowledge to make its existence known. To know a book light
is required' eyes are required. To know that I am what light
and what eyes are required? By “I”, here, what is meant is
the consciousness which is recognized as the unchanging, constant
entity which abides behind fleeting operations of the mind.
No mental operation is required to be aware that I am. If
you ask me, “do you exist?”. I don't say “wait, let me think
about it”. The constant I is invoked. This immediate awareness
without any process of thinking means that atma is self-evident.
Our mind is also self-evident in the sense mentioned
above. As and when a thought (vritti) arises in the mind,
cidabhasa pervades it; when cidabhasa pervades the thought
we are aware of that thought. (Rise of thought and cidabhasa
pervasion are simultaneous). That is how you know that you
are angry even when you are not shouting at the person who
has insulted you.
Does Maya originate? No. Maya (moola avidya) is beginningless
(“anaadi”). but Maya is not beginningless in the sense
that nitya Brahman is. Maya is said to be is anaadi,
because for Maya there is no cause. Brahman is beginningless
in the sense that It is eternal, infinite. There are only
four possibilities to consider in trying to find out whether
Maya has a cause –Brahman, Iswara, the universe (“jagat”),
jiva, Brahman cannot be the cause because Brahman is eternal
and changeless and for anything to be a cause of an effect,
the cause has to undergo change. Iswara cannot be the cause,
because Iswara is himself constituted of Brahman-consciousness
reflected in Maya; the reflection cannot precede the reflecting
medium. Jiva or jagat cannot be the cause, because
jiva and jagat themselves are effects (kaaryam) of
Maya. It is account of Maya that Iswara, jagat and
jiva are superimposed on Brahman. Maya is anaadi but
Maya is has an end (it is “saantah”) for every jnaani;
every one who understands his identity with Brahman is free
from the aavarana sakti of Maya even as jivanmukta
and on attaining videha mukti there is no question
of Maya or its effects.
If Maya was also paaramaartika, there
will be no moksha. Maya generates ignorance of Brahmatvam
and that leads to our notion of plurality (“dwaitam”)
Real dwaitam cannot be eliminated. Dwaitam has
to be vyavaharika, if ignorance of our Brahmatvam
is to be dispelled. Moreover, if you say real dwaitam
goes, it means advaitam (the state of being the non-dual
Brahman) has come. So, advaitam becomes one with a
beginning (“saadi”). That which has a beginning will
have an end. So, you have to accept that the advaitam
that has come will go away, some time or other. That means
your moksha will be temporary
Iswara is witness of avidya and of
everything that takes place in the universe. That is to say,
the citabhasa part of Iswara is aware of the avyatka
(the unmanifested) and the vyakta (manifested) condition
of the universe..
(1). Visishtadvaitins also accept that the Supreme Being is inherent in every
being but they say that, in, addition, each jiva has a separate
atma of his own and that these atmas (and the universe) are
real parts of the Supreme Being. The Supreme being, according
to them, is a personal God with all good attributes (“sarva
kalyaana guna sahita”) and they call Him “Vishnu”
or “Narayana”. They say that the atmas, even after
liberation, retain a separate identity. (Dwaitins also regard
atmas of jivas to be separate from the Supreme Being). Existence
of a plurality of atmas and the many atmas being a part or
parts of Brahman is contradictory to Sruti statements. Apart,
from the four mahaavkyaas cited in paragraph 20 which
assert the identity of atma and Brahman, there are various
other Sruti statements. Some of them may be noted. Taittiriya
2.1.1., first defines Brahman “satyam, jnaanam, anantam
Brahma” and in the same mantra says” from atma
was born aakaasa” and it thus equates Brahman and atma.
. In Sankaracarya's' commentary., he says, “Since in the text,
‘From that Brahman indeed which is this atma (was produced
this space)’, the word atma is used with regard to Brahman
Itself; it follows that Brahman is the self (atma) of the
cognising individual; and this is supported by the text ‘he
attains this atma made of bliss’ (2.8.5).where Brahman is
shown to be the atma. In the same way, 2.8.5 equates Brahman
and atma; it talks of the attained as atma - “He who knows
thus attains, after desisting from this world, this atma…..”
Sankaracarya says, “What is he that knows thus and what does
he attain? Is the attainer different from or the same as the
supreme Self? What follows from that? Should the attainer
be different, the conclusion will run counter to such Vedic
texts as ‘Having created that, He entered into that very thing'
(2.6)”, “One who worships another god thinking ‘He is one,
I am another, he does not know” (Brhadaranyaka 1.4.10), “One
only without a second (Chandogya 6.2.1), and “Thou art That
“ ( repeatedly in Chandogya sixth chapter) . Chandogya 8.14.1 and Swtasvartara 1.12 equate Brahman
and atma. In his commentary on Brahma sutra 1.4.14 also, Sankaracarya
says, citing Taittiriya 2.1.1, ‘By using the word, atma” with
regard to Him (Brahman) subsequently, and by placing the atma
successively inner and inner in a series of sheaths, counting
from this body, He (Brahman) is shown to be pratyagaatma
(Taitiriya 2.2 to 2.5). Taittiriya
2.1.1 defines Brahman as infinity. The infinite cannot have
parts. If it has, it ceases to be infinite. In Brahadaranyaka
3.4.1, Ushasta asks Yagnavalkya to teach him the Brahman that
is immediate and direct -atma within all and Yagnavalkya says
“ That which breathes through your praana is your atma that
is within all. In 3.4.2, Ushasta asks for further clarification
and Yagnavalkya says, “You cannot think that which is the
thinker of thought. ….You cannot know that which is the knower
of knowledge.….” In the same Upanishad,
in 3.8.11, Yagnavalkya tells Gargi “This aksharam is
beyond thought but is the Thinker; It is never known but is
the knower” and adds “ there is no other Thinker than It;
there is no other knower than It.” In
4,3,7 the question is asked, “Which is the atma?” and Yagnavalkya
answers, “ this infinite entity (“purusha”) that is
identified with the intellect and, attaining the likeness
of the intellect, thinks ‘as it were' and shakes ‘as it were'.”.
Swetasvatara 3.18 talks of the Lord
of the universe dwelling in the body going out and contacting
objects through the sense organs. 3.13 talks of Brahman dwelling
in the heart being the Lord of the mind. In Brhdaranyaka
1.4.7 Brahman is said to have entered into the universe including
the bodies of beings. and the Upanishad goes on to say that
when It does the function of living It is called praana…..when
it thinks, It is called the mind. Aitereya Upanishad, 1.3.11 says that Brahman wanting
to enter the indriyas and the mind asks, “if seeing,
hearing and thinking can be done without me, who am I?”
This indicates that Brahma caitanyam and the atma that enables
the sense organs and the mind to function as conscious entities
are the same caitanyam. In Mundaka 2.2.8 (in some texts it
may be 2,2,7), it is said Brahman (called “the savajna” and
“sarvavid”) seated in space within the luminous city
of Brahman
(i.e., the mind) is said to be conditioned by the mind.
In Brahadaranyaka 4.4.5 also, atma ‘that is indeed Brahman'
is spoken of as identified with mind, the intellect, praana
and the sense organs. Again, in the same
strain, in 3.1.2, Aitereya Upanishad talks of atma as the
mind and in 3.1.3 enumerates various vrittis of the mind like
thinking, suffering and memory as names of Consciousness (prajnaaanam)
and in 3.1.4, says that this prajaanam (the consciousness
behind the individual minds) is Brahman.“.
Whether we take the Brahma caitanyam
as merely conditioned by the mind or as reflected in the mind,
in all these passages,, since the same Brahman is said to
be associated with praana and the mind, plurality of atmas
is ruled out; Mundaka Upanishad 3.2.5,
3.26 and 3.2.7 also go against the part whole theory. 5 says,
“Having attained Brahman (i.e., having identified themselves
with Brahman), being contented with the knowledge ‘aham brahma
asmi', remaining free of desire and tranquil, the seers (rshis')
attain the all pervading entirely and, when the body falls,
merge in the Brahman that is all.”(as Sankaracarya explains,
at the time of the falling of the body, they enter into the
abode that is Brahman, like space confined within a pot on
the breaking of the pot.). 6 says, “Those to whom the entity
presented by the Vedic knowledge has become fully ascertained,
at the supreme moment of final departure all of them become
identified with the supreme Immortality in the worlds that
are Brahman. Sankaracarya explains ‘in the worlds that are
Brahman” means “in Brahman” and adds “like a lamp blown out
or like the space in a pot when broken.”). 7 says “all become
unified with the Supreme Undecaying.””
In Mundaka Upanishad, II.ii.9, (in some texts, it will be
2.2.10)I t is said that Brahman is known by people who know
the atma.; that is to say, The knower of Jivatma caitanyam
know the Paramatma caitanyam.(Brahman).
This is not possible unless the Jivatma and Paramatma
are the same caitanyam. Kaivalya 10 says, “ seeing one's own
atma in all beings and all beings in atma, one attains the
highest Brahman. And Kaivalya 16
says, “ That which is the supreme Brahman, the atma in all…..That
alone thou art, thou alone art That”.
Chandogya Upanishad 8.12.3 is significant. It says “ This
tranquil one (the reference is to jivatma), rising up from
this body (the reference is to videha mukti), ‘becomes one
with the supreme light' and ‘is established in his own nature'.
Brhadaranyaka 4.4.6 is also significant. Talking about Jivanmukti
and Videhamukti, it says”…..being but Brahman, he (i.e., Jivanmukta)
is merged in Brahman” Words like “Becoming one with the supreme
light” and “is established in his own nature” “ being but
Brahman, he is merged in Brahman” constitute incontrovertible
proof that the atma in us is no different from Brahman. In
Brhadaranyaka 2.4.12 (repeated in 4.5.13, the Upanishad, talking
of videha mukti, says that the (particular) consciousness
of jivas ceases at that time ( “na pretya samja asti”). Whether we take samja as cidabhasa
or the mere adhyasa of being separate individuals. This passage
is sufficient to refute the proposition that jivatmas retain
their identity as separate atmas even after liberation.
(2). As regards refutation of atmas being
parts of Brahman there are specific Sruti statements that
Brahman is divisionless (without parts) (“nishkalam”)
(Kaivalya 23, Swetasvatara 6.19, Mundaka 2.2.9 (in some texts,
it is 2.2.10), 3.1.8, Brahma 1, Brahmabindu 21, Dhyabnabindu
13, Nadabindu 17) “It should be realised in one form only”
(Brhadaranyaka 4.4.20) (Sankaracaya’s commentary – “It should
be realised in one form only, i.e., as homogenous pure caitanyam,
without any break in it , like akasa.”) In the light of such
specific statements, there can be no question of many atmas
being parts of Brahman. Moreever, plurality of atmas or atmas
being parts implies such atmas being located in space. Whar
is located in space is located in time. That means limitatioin.
To talk of atmas being limited in space or time goes against
the Vedic statement that Brahman is anantam (infinitude).
Visishtadvaitins and Dwaitns say that the
world is as real as Paramatma and it is a transformation of
Paramatma. In the earlier portions we have already discussed,
how, in the light of various Sruti statements, such a view
would be illogical.
.
(1) As regards the Dwaita and Visishhtadvaita
thesis that Brahman is saguna (one with attributes)
the Advaitin replies that to have attributes is to be
limited. To be small is not to be big. To be good is to be
not bad. Exclusion is limitation. If Brahman is credited with
any attributes, we would be making Brahman a limited entity.
To be limited, entity wise, Brahman has to be attributeless
(“nirguna”). Svetasvatara Upanishad 6.11 specifically
says that Sakshi (Brahman) is “nirguna”. This occurs also
in Brahma Upanishad 3. Nrsimhaottarataapani says “aguna”.
Apart from this, there are numerous passages which talk of
Brahman being free of attributes, mentioning specific attributes
– vide Mundaka 2.1.2 – “ formless,…………………without vital force
and without mind”; Katha
1.3.15 – soundless, touchless, colourless, odourless”; Katha 1.2.22 – “ without vital airs and without mind”;
Mundaka 1.1.6 – “without features, eyes and ears; which has
neither hands nor feet” Brhadaranyaka
3.8.8 – “neither gross nor minute, neither short nor long,
neither red colour nor oiliness, neither shadow nor darkness…..neither
flavour nor odour, without eyes or ears, without the vocal
organ or mind, ….without the vital force nor the mouth..”
– Prasna 4.10 – “ Shadowless, bodiless,
colourless – Mandukya 7 makes it
clear that Brahma caitanyam is not the objectifying consciousness. As regards the interpretation of Visishtadvaitins that
“nirguna” means that Lord Narayana who is Brahman, is devoid
of all evil and has only all auspicious attributes (sarvakalyanagunavan),
we have the Kathopanishad mantra 1.2.14 which says that Brahman
is beyond dharma as well as adharma (virtue
as well as vice).
(2) What has been said above is sufficient to refute
the view ( of Visishtadvaitins and Dwaitins that the Supreme
Being is not only swaroopa jnaanam but He has, as one of His
attributes, visesha jnaanam ( what they call dharma
jnaanam) and they talk of Brahman as omniscient (sarvajna).
Any knowledge, even omniscience, involves triputi - and to
make Brahman a pramaata entertaining perception or thought
of objects (prameyam) involves pramanam (knowing instruments).
This will not be in accordance with Sruti statements that
Brahman is amanah. The word “sarvajna” is not applicable to Brahman because
Brahman is non-dual (advayam) and there is no second entity
for It to know. Cf. Chandogya Upanishad 7.24.1 – “The Infinite
is that where one does not see anything else, does not hear
anything else and dos not know anything else”.
Visishtadvaitins say that in Advaita, since
moksha involves negation of jivas, moksha is
a futile attainment; jiva himself is not there to enjoy moksha..
The answer is “when you talk of jiva, you are taking jiva
to be ahamkara. No doubt, moksha involves negation
of ahamkara. Jiva is a mixture of Brahma caitanyam and ahamkaara.
What we are negating is the jivatvam of jiva ( the
adhyaasa that he is a separate, limited individual), not jiva
as a whole; we negate the ahamkara and retain the Brahma
caitanyam. The Advaitin's moksha is discovery of Brahmatvam
and becoming jivanmukta and, in videha mukti, being Brahman.
What more does one want than being the infinite and the aananda
swaroopam
NOTE NO.71. ENJOYMENT AND SUFFERING DEPENDS
ON UPADHI. Enjoyment or suffering depends not only on the object
of enjoyment but on the upadhi (the physiological and
the mental equipment). Human equipment enables man to enjoy
music, but a buffalow's is not adequate for that. The kind
of world the dog or the horse experiences is not the same
as we do. The dog can hear frequencies of sound that we can't.
The horse that is running sees the objects that it is crossing
moving towards it. The caterpillar sees only a two dimensional
space. If I had the capacity to see atoms, I would be seeing
you not as a man with a head, hand and feet, but as waves
or particles moving in concentric orbits.
In vayu loka, your upaadhi will
enable you to travel in air without any vehicle. But, even
the loka where you are born and the upadhi with which you
are born depends on karma. Enjoyment or suffering depends
also on your reaction i.e., your mental attitude. The foolish
way of seeking happiness is contact with objects. This process
suffers from various defects. It is mixed with the pain of
acquiring, protecting and parting with the objects. There
is no end to desire. Happiness is fleeting, lasting only for
the moment of accomplishment. One desire arises after another.
One is always hankering after something better. Satiation
sets in. The law of diminishing returns operates. If going
to a picture once a month is enough, to begin with, you reach
a stage when you want to go daily and even that is not enough
later. Your sense faculties undergo wear and tear by the enjoyment
and one becomes mentally a slave of the objects and physically
a wreck. The wiser way of having happiness is to develop dispassion
for objects (called vairaagya in Sanskrit.) This gives
unalloyed and unconditional happiness – vide Isavasya 1 –
“ Protect your self by giving up desire.
NOTE NO. 72. MEA n Taittiriya Upanishad, Jnana phalam is said to be “sa asnute sarvaan
kamaan saha” (“the jaani enjoys all pleasures simultaneously.”.
How is it possible. Normally, we can only enjoy one pleasure
at a time and that too, through one sense organ, at a time.
(1)The meaning given by Sankaracarya is as
follows:-
Atma, the original consciousness is reflected
in every mind as the cidabhasa. The cidabhasa in each mind
is enjoying a particular pleasure. Atma is in every mind in
the form of cidabhasa. So atma is indirectly enjoying all
pleasures simultaneously. Jnani is identified with atma; so,
he enjoys all pleasures indirectly at the same time.-‘indirectly'
in the sense ‘not physically but intellectually'.
(2) Another interpretation is as follows:-
What is desire for objects and what is fulfillment
of the desire? There is separation between me and the object
and I desire the object and I want to abolish the division
between me and the objects. That is desire. I attain the object;
I abolish the division and that is fulfillment of the desire.
Atma, as the nondual existence is the existence in all nama
roopas (in all objects). So, for atma, there is no distance
from any object. Since no object is away from atma, atma has
fulfilled all desires. Jnani, identified with atma, has attained
all objects – not physically but intellectually..
(3) A third interpretation is as follows:-
Desire is born out of a sense of apoornatvam
(incompleteness). I desire to have a wife because I feel incomplete
without a wife. As long as I am identified with the body mind
complex, I am incomplete. Once I own up the fact that I am
the infinite Brahman (anantam Brahma), I am complete (poornah).
Jnani, identified with Brahman, is poornah. In this sense
also, all desires are fulfilled for a jnaani (one who
has gained knowledge of aham brahma asmi).
(1). In Advaita Vedanta, dream world (swapna
prapanca) is taken as an example to show that, just as
the swapna prapanca is realised to be unreal when we
wake up, the waking world (jaagrat prapanca) becomes
unreal when we gain knowledge of the non-dual Brahman.. That
the swapna prapanca is nothing but thoughts in the
mind of the ‘waker' is known when he wakes up from sleep.
(‘Waker' is a term adapted for convenience to refer to a person
who has gone to bed and is having a dream, to distinguish
him from the subject in the dream experiencing the dream objects,
which we shall call “dream pramata” or “dream I ” or “pratibhaiska
I”) In the dream, the waker sees an elephant or a mountain.
Where is the required space in his head for either? Or, in
the dream, he goes from New
Delhi to New
York when only a minute of jaagrat
time has passed. Where is the time required for the journey?
And when he wakes up, he finds himself, not in New York but in New Delhi. In the dream
he meets his old friend and talks to him, but when he gets
up he knows thatrhe died a few years ago. Or, a barren woman
dreams that she has a son. Or a blind person may dream that
he has eyesight (Cf. Chandogya 8.10.1).. Or a person is ill
but is still in his house when he goes to bed. In his dream,
he is hospitalised and when he is discharged, the Doctor advises
him to continue for another week with the tablets of medicine
a part of which he is taking home. Will he find the medicines
when he wakes up? Or, when he goes to bed, his bank balance
is Rs.10000. In the dream, he wins a lottery of Rs. 20 million.
When he gets up, can he issue a cheque against that? Or one
goes to bed on a new moon night switching off all lights but
in the dream one is basking in the sun. Or one has gone to
bed after a full meal but in the dream one feels ravenously
hungry. Or vice versa. And one sees things in dream, which
are strange from the point of view of jaagrat experience,
such as oneself with the head of an elephant or water flowing
upwards or oneself flying the air or cutting one's own head
or oneself with eight hands or oneself riding an elephant
with four tusks.. In the dream, a a chariot may turn into
a man in the dream itself or a man may turn into a tree. When
we wake up, we know that we had a dream, but often, we do
not remember what the dream was, and, if sometimes we do,
we remember only vaguely. Thus, the space, time, patterns
of behaviour and cause-effect relationship as they are required
for jaagrat experience are not there in the swapna prapanca.
So we regard the swapna prapanca as unreal.
(2). .
Within my main dream, I may have a sub-dream.
The waker I goes to bed at New Delhi and has a
dream. The dream I goes to Chennai. He is doing a lot of shopping
in Burma Bazaar and being tired falls asleep as soon he reaches
the Taj Coramandel Hotel. There, the dream I has a sub-dream.
In this sub-dream, the sub-dream I is going to New
York, stays in Waldorf Astoria, and
goes to bed there after a sumptuous dinner. When the New York
sub-dream I wakes up, he finds that he is not in New York
but at Chennai; then the Chennai main dream I realises
that his going to New York etc. were unreal and has remained
in Chennai. When the waker who was having the dream wakes
up, he finds himself at New Delhi; then the waker realises that
even his shopping in China
bazaar at Chennai was unreal. Now the dream as well as the
sub-dream have become unreal. If we substitute the sub-dream
for svapna prapanca and the main dream of the
waker for our jaagrat prapanca, we can understand
what we mean by saying that the jaagrat prapanca as
well as the svapna prapanca that we experience are
unreal. Just as, when the waker wakes up at Chennai, both
the Chennai main dream and the New York sub-dream become unreal,
for one who has “woken up” to the knowledge of jaganmithya
brahmasatyam both the swapna and the jaagrat
prapanca become unreal (mithya).
(3). What happens during the state of dream
(svapna avastha) is as follows:-
During the course of sleep, when a person
is dreaming, his physical body and his sense organs are resolved
and are non-functional but his ahamkara is functioning.
But the ahamkaara is not in a position to contact the external
world because the physical body and sense organs are not available.
In this state of the ahamkara, vasanas, also
called samskaras, i.e., impressions stored in the citta
portion of the ahamkara, based on the person's experience
during the jaagrat avasthas of past period of life
(janma) and even of past janmas are activated.
In any particular swapna avastha, some of these vasanas emerge
in the mind of the waker and appear as a world outside. are
get activated and the waker's ahamkara projects a dream
world. The dream world is not, really outside the waker's
ahamkara. But, due to the power of nidra (sleep),
a mini-Maya, what are only thoughts within the waker's
ahamkara appear to him as a world outside his mind. That is
how the waker perceives a dream world. In this dream world,
there are not only dream objects (svapna padaarthaas,
svapna prameyam), but a dream knower (a svapna pramaata,
a dream I) who perceives the svapna prameyam including
other dream persons, dream animals, dream trees etc. and dream
instruments of knowledge (svapna pramaanam) which includes
not only dream sense organs (svapna indriyas) but also
a dream mind (a svapna ahamkaara). It is with the svapna
indriyas that the svapna pramaata contacts the
svapna prameyam and it is with the svapna ahamkara
that he cognises the svapna prameyam. During the dream,
the waker is identified with the swapna pramaata. Identified
with the swapna pramaata, the waker takes the svapna avastha
to be real. As soon as the he wakes up, he realises that what
he thought was a real world was merely thoughts in his own
mind based on his vasanas. Thus he knows that the swapna
prapanca is unreal. In Mandukya karika, in Vaitathya prakaranam,
the example for jagrat prapanca being mithya is swapna
prapanca. In Advaita prakaraman, the example is
pot space. If pot space were real, when a pot is taken from
Adyar to Besant Nagar, there should be a vacuum at the point
where the pot was is Adyar and a struggle for the pot to enter
at the point to which the pot has been brought in Besant nagar
In Sastra, the svapna avastha
is taken as an example for the unreality of the jaagrat
prapanca, from the point of view of the paramarthika satyam.
Just as the waker, during the svapna avastha, divides
himself into swapna pramaata, a svapna prameyam and
a svapna pramanam and, in ignorance, takes them to
be real, the jiva who in his real nature is the divisionless
Brahman, divides himself, in the jaagrat avastha, out
of ignorance, into a jaagrat pramaata, a jaagrat prameyam
and a jaagrat pramaanam and takes them to be real.
Like the waker realising, when he wakes up, that the svapna
prapanca was unreal, when the jaagrat jiva “wakes
up”, i.e., gains the knowledge of his real nature as Brahman,
he dismisses the jaagrat prapanca as mithya.
The waker identifies himself with the swapna pramata and experiences
the pleasure and pain of the swapna pramaata. If the swapna
I, as bhokta, is having sexual contact with a woman, the waker
feels the pleasure of the contact. If the swapna I, as the
victim in an accident is mauled by a tiger, the waker is scared
and often, the fright is so intense that he wakes up suddenly.
Like that, the jiva who is really the asanga atma, identifies
himself with his body and mind and takes the pleasure and
pain of the body and mind to be his pleasure and pain. When
the waker wakes up from the dream and becomes the vyavaharika
jiva, he is disidentified with the dream
I. He realises that what happens
in the swapna prapanca cannot affect him. A dog may have bit
the dream I in the dream but the vyavaharika jiva does not
find even a scratch in his body. The dream I may have met
a beautiful girl in the dream in a house which appeared like
a house known to him in the waking state and may have wanted
to marry her; when the vyavaharika goes to the house where
he met the girl, all that he finds there are an old woman
and his wife. The dream I may have won a lakh of rupees in
a lottery and deposited it in his bank. When the vyvaharika
goes to the bank he will find that his bank balance is just
the two thousand rupees entered in the pass book on the previous
day. Only entities of the same order of reality can affect
each other and have relationship. In the svapna example,
there are two conscious entitles – a pratibhasika conscious
entity, the dream I and a vyavaharika conscious entity, the
waker I lying in bed. In the same way, in jagrat avastha,
there is a vyvaharika conscious entity, the pramaata
I and a paramarthika conscious entity, the sakshi .Just
as the waker, when he has woken up as the vyavaharika jiva,
realises that the swapna prapanca is mithya, when the vyvaharika
jiva wakes up, i.e. gains knowledge of his true nature as
the infinite Brahman, he realises that the jagrat prapanca
is mithya.
(5). When Advaita Vedanta gives the example
of swapna prapanca for saying that, just as the swapna
prapanca (which is praatibhaasika) is unreal relative
to the jaagrat prapanca (which is vyaavahaarika),
the jaagrat prapanca (which is vyaavahaarika)
is unreal, relative to the paaramartika plane, an opponent
argues that both the swapna prapanca and the jagrat
prapanca enjoy the same order of reality. His argument
is that the only difference is that the swapna prapanca
is within the head of the waker and the jaagrat prapanca
is outside his head and both his head and the outside space
are vyaavahaarika. The Vedation’s answer is that when
the opponent says “the world is inside the head of the waker”
he is talking from the point of view of the waker after he
has got up from sleep. But from the point of the waker when
he is in the state of dream, the swapna prapanca is
outside his head. The adhyasa of the jivatma in the
jaagrat avastha – the jivatma taking the world to be real
- is comparable to the waker's experience – the waker taking
the dream world to be real - when he is still in the stage
of dream and the jaganmithya brahma satyam jnaanam
of the jivan mukta is comparable to the realisation
of the unreality of the dream world by the waker when he has
got up from sleep.
(6) Visishtdvaitins hold that swapna prapanca
is also a world created by the Lord and the jiva’s sukshma
sarira goes out and experiences that world. Advaitins agree
that, through the identification of the waker with the swapna
I, the jiva does exhaust some of his praarabdha through the
swapna I’s experience of the swapna prapanca. Whether the
swapna prapanca is called Iswara srshti or jiva srshti, the
fact remains that it is pratibhasika and that the sukshma
sarira of the jiva is not separated from the sthoola sarira
lying in bed. The experience is not by the sukshma sarira
going out but but by its identifying itself with the dream
I that is out there in the svapna prapanca and is experiencing
objects. If the sukshma sarira has gone out into the swapna
prapanca, it means that only the sthoola sarira is lying in
bed. In that case, which is the entity which gets scared when
the swapna I is mauled by a tiger in the swapna and makes
the sthoola sarira get up? If the sukshma sarira has gone
out and fallen in love with a girl in a house and suppose
that it appears to be no different from a house known to him
in the jagrat avastha, he would go to that house when he wakes
up and ask for the girl’s hand in marriage.
In sushupti, jivatma is said to be
resolved in Paramatma (Brahman). This should not be
taken literally, because the aavarana sakti of moola avidya
(Maya) is not destroyed. Vikshepa sakti is suspended, but
the avarana sakti is still maintaining Brahma ajnaanam ( ignorance
of Brahmatvam) in the resolved antahkarana. So, unless he
is a jnaani, when he the ajnani wakes up, he does so with
Brahma ajnaanam and the consequent adhyaasa. In sushupti
on account of temporary suspension of identification with
upaadhis, the distraction by the world created by the vikshepa
sakti of Maya is not there. Adhyasa engendered by the avarana
sakti comes into play only when the world created by the vikshepa
sakti is there as the premeyam .Since the pramaata is resolved
in sushupti, there is no premeyam for the person in sushupti.
So, there is no adhyaasa for the time being and samsara is
suspended for the nonce. When the person wakes up, he says,
“I slept happily; I did not know anything”. The absence of
cognition of external objects and of internal cognition is
registered mechanically in the citta part of the resolved
antahkarana (antahkarana in karana avastha). Ananda (happiness
) is also registered. The source of the ananda is the ananda
swaroopam ( the anantatvam) of atma. Since the resolved antahkarana
is in a calm state, the atma ananda is reflected in it without
it being aware of it at that time and that is registered by
the citta part of the antahkarana. In technical language,
there is a sukshma vritti in them antahkarana, called avidya
vritti pertaining to non-experience of external objects, to
the absence of internal disturbance and to happiness. ( When
the vritti is taking place, the person is not aware of it
but vritti is taking place). Otherwise, we cannot explain
the ability of the person tom say, on waking up,” I slept
happily; I did not know anything” (sukham aham asvaaptam
na kncit avedisham). What was not registered cannot be
recollected. By arthapatti pramanam, we know that atma caitanyam
had illumined sukham in the kaarana sariram during sushupti.
We also know that consciousness (caitanyam) as well as ajnaanam
(ignorance of Brahmatvam) continue to exist in sushupti.
THIS
IS APPENDIX 9