Author Topic: Chapter I - Agama Prakarana (Scripture)  (Read 287 times)

Commentary

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 341
    • View Profile
Chapter I - Agama Prakarana (Scripture)
« on: April 07, 2019, 05:41:28 PM »
Upanishad Verse 1 Introductory & Commentary
How does, again, the determination of (the meaning of) Aum help the realization of the essential nature of Atman? It is thus  explained: The Śruti passages such as these declare  thus: “It  is Aum.” “This (Aun) is the (best)  support.” “Oh, Satyakāma, It  is the Aum which is also the higher and the lower Brahman.” “Meditate  on the Self as Aum.” “Aum, this  word is Brahman.” “All  this is verily Aum [Om].” As the rope, etc., which are the substratum of such illusions (misapprehensions) as the snake, etc., so is the non-dual Atman, which is the Ultimate Reality, the substratum of such imaginations as the vital breath (Prana), etc., which are unreal. Similarly, Aum is the substratum of the entire illusion of the world of speech having  for its (corresponding) contents such illusory objects as Prana, etc., imagined in Atman. And Aum is verily of the same  essential character as the Atman; for it is the name for Atman. All illusions such as Prana, etc., having Atman for their substratum and denoted by words—which are but modifications of Aum—, cannot exist  without names (which are but the modification of Aum). This is supported by such Śruti passages as: “The modification  being only a name arising from speech.” “All this related to It (Brahman) is held  together by the cord  of speech, and strands  of (specific) names.” “All these (are rendered possible in experience) by names,” etc.

Aum, the word, is all this. As all diversified objects that we see around us, indicated by names, are not different  from their (corresponding) names, and further as the different names are not different from Aum, therefore all this is verily Aum. As a thing is known through its name, so the highest Brahman is known through Aum alone. Therefore the highest Brahman is verily Aum. This (treatise) is the explanation of that, tasya, that is, of Aum, the word, which is of the same nature as the higher as well as the lower Brahman. Upavyākhyānam means clear explanation, because Aum is the means to the knowledge of Brahman on account of its having the closest proximity to Brahman. The word ‘Prastutam’ meaning ‘commences’ should be supplied to complete the sentence (as otherwise, it is incomplete). That which is conditioned by the triple (conceptions of) time, such as past, present and future is also verily Aum for reasons already explained. All that is beyond the three (divisions of) time, i.e., unconditioned by time, and yet known by their effects, which is called ‘Avyākṛta’, the unmanifested, etc.,—that also  is verily Aum.

Upanishad Verse 2 Introductory & Commentary
Though the name and the object signified by the name are one and the same, still the explanation  has been given (here) by giving prominence  to the name (Aum). Though in the Upaniṣadic passage,—“Aum, this word, is all this”—explanation has been furnished by giving prominence  to the name (Aum), the same thought is again expounded by giving prominence to the thing signified by the name. The object is to realize the knowledge of the oneness of the name and the thing signified by it. Otherwise, (the explanation) that the knowledge of the thing is dependent on the name, might suggest that the oneness of the name and the thing is to be taken only in a figurative  sense. The purpose of the knowledge of the unity (of the name and the thing signified by it) is to simultaneously remove, by a single effort, (the illusion of) both the name and the thing and establish (the nature of) Brahman which  is other than both. Therefore,the Śruti says,’ “The quarters (Pādas) are the letters of Aum (Mātrā) and the letters are the quarters.”

All this is verily Brahman. All that has been said to consist merely of Aum (in the previous text) is Brahman. That Brahman which has been described (as existing) inferentially  is now pointed out, as being directly  known, by the passage, “This Self is Brahman”. The word this, meaning that which appears divided into four quarters,  is pointed out as the innermost Self, with a gesture (of hand) by the passage, “This is Atman”. That Atman indicated by Aum, signifying both the higher and the lower Brahman, has four quarters (Pādas), not indeed, like the four feet (Pādas) of a cow,  but like the four quarters (Pādas) of a coin known as Kārṣāpaṇa. The knowledge of the fourth (Turiya) is attained by merging the (previous) three, such as Viśva, etc., in it in  the order of the previous one, in the succeeding one. Here  the word ‘Pāda’ or ‘foot’ is used in  the sense of instrument. The word ‘Pāda’ is again used in the sense of an object when the object to be achieved is the fourth (Turiya).

Upanishad Verse 3
Jāgaritasthāna, i.e., his sphere  (of activity) is the waking state. Bahiṣprajña, i.e., who  is aware of objects other than himself. The meaning is that consciousness appears, as it were, related to outward objects on account of Avidya. Similarly Saptāṅga, i.e., he has seven  limbs. The Śruti says, “Of that Vaiśvānara Self, the effulgent  region is his head, the sun his eye, the air his vital breath, the ether (Ākāśa) the (middle part of his) body, the water his kidney and the earth his feet.” The Āhavanīya fire (one of the three fires of the Agnihotra sacrifice) has been described as his mouth in order to complete the imagery of the Agnihotra sacrifice. He is called Saptāṅga because these are the seven limbs of his body. Similarly he has nineteen mouths. These are the five  organs of perception (Buddhindriyas); the five  organs of action (Karmendriyas); the five  aspects of vital breath (Prana, etc.); the mind (Manas); the intellect (Buddhi); egoity (Ahamkara); mind-stuff (Chitta). These are, as it were, the mouths, i.e., the instruments by means of which he (Vaiśvānara) experiences (objects). He, the Vaiśvānara, thus constituted, experiences through the instruments enumerated above, gross objects, such as sound, etc. He is called Vaiśvānara because he leads all creatures of the universe in diverse ways (to  the enjoyment of various objects); or because he comprises all beings. Following the grammatical rules regarding the compound which gives the latter meaning, the word that is formed is Viśvānara, which is the same as Vaiśvānara. He is the first quarter because he is non-different from the totality of gross bodies (known as Virāt). He is called first  (quarter) because the subsequent quarters are realized through him (Vaiśvānara).

Objection: While the subject-matter under discussion treats of the innermost Self (Pratyak Ātmā) as having four quarters—in the text, “This Atman is Brahman”—how is it that (the external universe consisting of) the effulgent regions, etc., have been described as its limbs such as head, etc.?
Reply: This, however, is no  mistake; because the object is to describe the entire phenomena, including those of gods (Adhidaiva) as having four quarters from the standpoint of this Atman known as the Virāt (i.e., the totality of the gross universe). And in  this way alone is non-duality established by the removal of (the illusion of) the entire  phenomena. Further, the one Atman is realized as existing in all beings and all  beings are seen as existing in Atman. And, thus alone, the meaning of such Śruti passages as “Who sees all beings in the Self, etc.” can be said to be established.

Otherwise, the subjective world will, verily, be, as in the case of such philosophers as the Sāmkhyas,  limited by its (one’s) own body. And if that be the case, no room would be left for the Advaita which is the special feature of the Śruti. For, in the case of duality, there would be no difference between the Advaita and the Sāmkhya and other systems. The establishment of the identity of all with Atman is sought by all the Upaniṣads. It is, therefore, quite reasonable to speak of the effulgent regions, etc., as seven limbs in connection with the subjective (individual self, Adhyātma) associated with the gross body, because of its identity with the Adhidaiva (comprising the super-physical regions) universe from the standpoint of the Virāt (the totality of the gross physical universe). This is further known from such characteristic indication (of the Śrutí), as “Thy head shall fall”, etc. The identity (of Adhyātma and Adhidaiva) from the standpoint of the Virāt indicates similar identity  of the selves known as the Hiraṇyagarbha and the Taijasa   as well as of the Unmanifested  (Isvara) and the Prajna. It is also stated in the Madhu Brāhmaṇa, “This bright immortal person in this earth and that bright immortal person in the body (both are Madhu).” It is an established fact that the Self in deep sleep (Prajna) is identical with the Unmanifested (Isvara) because  of the absence of any distinction between them. Such being the case, it is clearly established that non-duality is realized by the disappearance (of the illusion) of all duality.

Upanishad Verse 4
He is called the Svapnasthāna because the dream (state) is his (Taijasa) sphere. Waking consciousness, being associated as it is with many means,  and appearing  conscious of objects as if external, though (in reality) they are nothing but states  of mind, leaves in the mind corresponding  impressions. That the mind (in dream) without  any of the external means, but possessed of the impressions left on it by the waking consciousness, like a piece of canvas  with the pictures painted on it, experiences the dream state also as if it were like the waking, is due to its being under the influence of ignorance, desire and their action.  Thus  it is said, “(And when he falls asleep) then after having taken away with him (portion of the) impressions from the world during the waking state (destroying and building up again, he experiences dream by his own light)” (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad, 4. 3. 9). Similarly the Atharvana, after introducing the subject with “(all the senses) become one in the highest Deva, the mind,” continues “There the god (mind) enjoys in dream greatness” (Praśna Upaniṣad). From the standpoint of the sense-organs, the mind is internal. He (the Taijasa) is called the Antaḥprajña or conscious of the internal because his consciousness in dream becomes aware of the mental states, which are impressions left by the previous waking state. He is called the Taijasa because he appears as the subject though this (dream) consciousness is without any (gross) object and is of the nature of the essence of light. The Viśva (the subject of the waking state) experiences consciousness associated with gross external objects; whereas, here (in the dream state), the object of experience is consciousness consisting of Vāsanās (the impressions of past experience). Therefore this experience is called the experience  of the subtle. The rest is common (with the previous Śruti). This Taijasa is the second quarter (of Ātmarn).

Upanishad Verse 5
The adjectival clause, viz., “Wherein the sleeper,” etc., is put with a view to enabling one to grasp what the state of deep sleep (Suṣupti) signifies, inasmuch as sleep characterized by  the absence of the knowledge of Reality is the common feature of those mental modifications which are associated with (waking, that is) perception  (of gross objects) and (dream, that is the) non-perception  (of gross objects). Or  the object of the introduction of the adjectival clause may be to distinguish the state of deep sleep (of the sleeping person) from the two previous states as sleep characterized by the absence of knowledge of Reality is the common feature of the three states. ‘Wherein,’ that is to say, in which state or time, the sleeping person does not see any dream, nor does he desire any desirable (object). For; in the state of deep sleep, there does not exist, as in the two other states, any desire or the dream experience whose characteristic is to take a thing for what it is not. He is called the ‘Suṣuptasthāna’ because his sphere is this state of deep sleep. Similarly it is called Ekībhūta, i.e., the state in which all experiences become unified—a state in which all objects of duality, which are nothing but forms  of thought, spread over the two states (viz., the waking and the dream), reach the state of indiscrimination or non-differentiation without losing their characteristics, as the day, revealing phenomenal objects, is enveloped by the darkness of night. Therefore conscious experiences, which are nothing but forms of thought, perceived during dream and waking states, become a thick mass (of consciousness) as  it were (in deep sleep); this state of deep sleep is called the ‘Prajñānagharta’ (a mass of all consciousness unified) on account of the absence of all manifoldness (discrimination of variety). As at night, owing to the indiscrimination produced by darkness, all (percepts) become a mass (of darkness) as it were, so also in the state of deep sleep all (objects) of consciousness, verily, become a mass (of consciousness). The word ‘eva’ (‘verily’) in the text denotes the absence  of any other thing except consciousness (in deep sleep). (At the time of deep sleep) the mind is free from the miseries  of the efforts made on account of the states of the mind being involved in the relationship of subject and object: therefore, it is called the Ānandamaya, that is, endowed with an abundance of bliss. But this is not Bliss Itself; because it  is not Bliss Infinite. As in common (experience) parlance, one, free from efforts, is called happy and enjoyer of bliss. As the Prajna   enjoys this state of deep sleep which is entirely free from all efforts, therefore it is called the ‘Ānandabhuk’ (the experiencer of bliss). The Śruti also says, “This is its highest bliss.” It is called the ‘Cetomukha’ because it is the doorway to the (cognition) of the two other states of consciousness known as dream and waking. Or because the Ceta (the perceiving entity) characterized  by (empirical) consciousness (Bodha) is its doorway leading to the experience of dreams, etc., therefore it is called the “Cetomukha’. It is called Prajna as it is conscious of the past and the future as well as of all objects. It is called the Prajna, the knower par excellence, even in deep sleep, because  of its having been so in the two previous states. Or it is called the Prajna because its peculiar feature is consciousness  undifferentiated. In the two other states consciousness exists, no doubt, but it is (there) aware of (the experiences of) variety. The Prajna, thus described, is the third quarter.

Upanishad  Verse 6
This in its natural  state, is the Lord (Isvara) of all. All, that is to say, of the entire physical and super-physical universe. He (Isvara) is not something separate from the universe as others  hold. The Śruti also says, “O good one, Prana (Prajna or Isvara) is that in which the mind is bound.” He is omniscient because he is the knower  of all beings in their different conditions. He is the Antaryāmin, that is, he alone entering into all, directs everything from within. Therefore He is called the origin of all because from Him proceeds the universe characterized by diversity, as described before. It being so, He is verily that from which all things proceed and in which all disappear.

Karika, verse 1.1
The implication of the passage is this:—That Atman is (as witness) distinct from the three states (witnessed) and that he is pure  and unrelated,  is established by his moving in three states, in  succession, and also on account of the knowledge, “I am. that,” resulting from the experience which unites  through memory. The Śruti also corroborates it by the illustration  of the ‘great fish’, etc.

Karika, verse 1.2
This verse is intended to show that the threefold experience of Viśva, etc. (Taijasa and Prajna) is realised in the waking  state alone. Dakṣinākṣi: the means of perception (of gross objects) is the right eye. The presence of Viśva, the cognizer of gross objects, is chiefly felt there. The Śruti also says, “The person that is in the right eye is known as Indha—the Luminou s One” (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad). Indha, which means the effulgent one, who is the Vaiśvānara and also known as the Virāt Atman (the totality of gross bodies), the perceiver in the sun, is the same  as the perceiver in the eye.

Objection: The Hiranyagarbha is distinct from the knower of the body (Kṣetra) who is the cognizer, the controller of the right eye, who is also the general experiencer and who is the Lord of the body.
Reply: No, for, in reality, such a distinction is not admitted. The Śrutí says, “One effulgent being alone is hidden in all beings.” The Smṛti also says: “Me do thou also know, O Arjuna, to be the Kṣetrajña (the knower of the body) in all Kṣetras (bodies)” (Gītā, 13. 2). “indivisible, yet it exists as if divided in beings” (Gītā, 13. 16). Though the presence of Viśva is equally felt in all sense-organs without distinction yet the right eye is particularly singled  out (as the chief instrument for its perception), because he (Viśva) makes a greater use of the right eye in perceiving objects. (The right eye is made here to represent all the sense-organs). The one, who has his abode in the right eye, having perceived (external) forms, closes the eye; and then recollecting them within the mind sees  the very same (external objects) as in a dream, as the manifestation of the (subtle) impressions (of memory). As  is the case here (waking), so also is the case with dream. Therefore, Taijasa, the perceiver in the mind.within, is verily the same as Viśva. With the cessation of the activity known as memory,  the perceiver (in the waking and dream states) is unified  with Prajna in the Ākāśa of the heart and becomes  verily a mass  of consciousness, because there is, then, a cessation of mental activities. Both perception and memory are forms of thought, in the absence of which the seer remains indistinguiṣably  in the form of Prana in the heart alone. For, the Śruti  also says, “Prana alone withdraws all these within.” Taijasa is identical  with Hiraṇyagarbha on account of its existence being realised in mind. Mind is the characteristic indication  (of both). This is supported by such scriptural passages as “This Puruṣa (Hiraṇyagarbha) is all mind,” etc.

Objection: The Prana (vital breath) of a deep sleeper is manifested. The sense-organs (at the time of deep sleep) are merged in it. How, then, can it (Prana) be said to be unmanifested?
Reply: This is no mistake, for the unmanifested (Avyākritā) is characterised by the absence (of the knowledge) of time and space. Though Prana, in the case of a person who identifies himself with (particular) Prana, appears to be manifested (during the time of waking and dream), yet even in the case of those who (thus) identify themselves with individualized Prana, the Prana, during deep sleep, loses (such) particular identification, which is due to its limitation by the body, and is verily the same as the unmanifested. As in the case of those who identify themselves with individualized Pranas, the Prana, at  the time of death, ceases to be the manifested, so also in the case of those who think of themselves as identified with the individualized Pranas, the Prana attains to the condition like the unmanifested, in the state of deep sleep. This Prana (of deep sleep) further contains the seed (cause) of (future) creation  (as is the case with the Avyākritā). The cognizer of the two states—deep sleep and Avyākritā—is also one  (viz., the Pure Consciousness). It (one in deep sleep) is identical  with the (apparently) different cognizers identifying themselves with the conditioned (in the states.of waking and dream), and therefore such attributes as “unified,” “mass of all consciousness,” etc., as described above, are reasonably applicable to it (one in deep sleep). Other reason, already stated, supports it. How does, indeed, the word Prana  apply to the Avyākrita (unmanifested)? It is supported by the Śruti passage, “Oh, good one, the mind is tied to the Prana.”

Objection: In that Śruti passage, the word Prana indicates Sat (Existence) i.e., the Brahman, (not the Avyākrita) which is the subject-matter under discussion, as the text commences with the passage, “All this was Sat in the beginning.”
Reply: This is no mistake, for (in that passage) the Sat is admitted to be that which contains within it the seed  or cause (of creation). Though Sat, i.e., Brahman, is indicated in that passage by the word ‘Prana’, yet the Brahman that is indicated by the words Sat and Prana (in that connection) is not the one who is free from its attribute of being the seed or cause that creates all  beings. For if in that Śruti passage, Brahman, devoid of the causal relation (i.e., the Absolute) were sought to be described, then the Śruti would have used such expressions as “Not this, Not this,” “Wherefrom speech turns back”, “That is something other than both the known and the unknown”, etc. The Smṛti also declares, “It is neither Sat (existence) nor Asat (non-existence)” (Gītā). If by the text were meant the (Absolute) devoid of causal relation then the coming back, to the relative plane of consciousness, of those who were in deep sleep and unified with Sat at the time of Praḷaya (cosmic dissolution), could  not happen. Further, (in that case) the liberated souls would again come back to the relative plane of consciousness; for the absence of seed or cause (capable of giving birth to the world of names and forms) would be the common  feature of both. Further, in the absence of the seed  (cause, i.e., at the time of Suṣupti and Praḷaya) which can be destroyed by Knowledge (alone), Knowledge itself becomes futile. Therefore the word Sat (the text of the Chāndogya Upaniṣad, the passage under discussion) in that aspect in which causality is attributed to it, is indicated by Prana, and accordingly has been described in all the Śrutis as the cause.  It is for this reason also that the Absolute Brahman, dissociated from its causal attribute, has been indicated in such Śruti passages as “It is beyond the unmanifested which is higher than the manifested”, “He is causeless and is the substratum of the external (effect) and the internal (cause),” “Wherefrom words come back....”, “Not this, not this”, etc. That which is designated as Prajna (when it is viewed as the cause of the phenomenal world) will be described as Turiya separately when it is not viewed as the cause, and when it is free from all phenomenal relationship (such as that of the body, etc.), i.e., in its absolutely Real aspect. The causal condition is also verily experienced in this body from such  cognition of the man who is awakened from the deep sleep, as “I did not know anything (at the time of deep sleep).” Therefore it is said that (one) Atman is perceived as threefold  in the (one) body.

Karika, verse 1.3-5
In the three states, namely, waking, etc., the one and the same object of experience appears in threefold forms as the gross, the subtle and the blissful. Further, the experiencer (of the three states) known (differently) as Viśva, Taijasa and Prajna has been described as one on account of the unity  of consciousness implied in such  cognition as ‘I am that’ (common to all conditions). as well as from the absence  of any distinction in respect of the perceiver. He who knows the two (experiencer and the objects of experience), appearing as many in the form of subject and objects of experience, though enjoying them, is  not affected thereby; because all objects (of experience) are experienced by one subject alone. As (the heat of the) fire  does not increase or decrease by consuming wood, etc., so also nothing  is added to or taken away (from the knowingness or awareness of the Atman) by its experience of that which, is its object.

Karika, verse 1.6
The manifestation can be predicated of positive  entities comprehended as the different forms of Viśva, Taijasa and Prajna—whose existence, of the nature of illusory names and forms caused by an innate Avidya (ignorance), cannot be denied. This is thus explained later on: “Neither in reality nor in illusion can the son of a barren woman be said to be born.” For, if things could come out of non-entity, Brahman whose existence is inferred from experience  will itself be rendered a non-entity because of the absence of means of comprehension. That the snake (in the rope) appearing as such on account of an illusory cause (Māya) which itself is the effect of ignorance (Avidya), pre-exists in the form of the rope is a matter of common experience. For by no one is the illusion of the rope-snake or the mirage, etc., ever perceived without a substratum. As before the illusory  appearance of the snake, its existence was certainly there in the rope, so also all  positive entities before their manifestation certainly exist in the form of a cause, i.e., Prana. The Śruti also declares this in such passages as: “All this (the phenomenal universe) was verily Brahman at the beginning” and “All this existed, at the beginning as Atman.” Prana manifests all. As the rays proceed from the sun, so also all different centres of consciousness (i.e., the Jivas) which are like the (many) reflections of the same sun in the water and which are manifested differently as Viśva, Taijasa and Prajna, comprising various physical forms of gods, animals, etc., proceed from the Puruṣa.  The Puruṣa manifests all these entities called as living beings, which are different from inanimate objects, but of the same nature as itself (Puruṣa), like fire and its sparks and like the sun with its reflections in water. Prana, the causal self, manifests all other entities like the spider producing the web. There are such scriptural pass-ages in its support as, “The sparks from the fire, etc.”

Karika, verse 1.7
Creation is the manifestation of the superhuman power of God ; thus think those who reflect on (the process of) creation. But  those who intently think  of the Ultimate Reality find no interest in (the theory of) creation. It (that no interest should be attached to the act of creation) is also supported by such Śruti passages as, “Indra (the great god) assumed diverse forms through Maya (Maya)”. The juggler throws the thread up in the sky, climbs by it with his arms, disappears from the sight (of the spectators), engages himself in a fight (in the sky) in which his limbs, having been severed, fall to the ground and he rises up again. The on-looker, though witnessing the performance, does not evince any interest in the thought in regard to the reality of the jugglery performed by the juggler. Similarly there is a real juggler who is other than the rope and the one that climbs up the rope. The manifestation of deep sleep, dream and waking is analogous to the throwing up of the rope by the juggler (in the above illustration) and the (empirical selves known as) Prajna, Viśva and Taijasa, related to the three states, are similar to the juggler, who appears to have climbed up the rope. As he, the juggler, remains on the ground unseen (by the on-lookers) having veiled himself, as it were, by his illusion, so also is the truth about the Highest Reality known as Turiya Therefore those noble souls seeking Moksa evince interest in the contemplation of this (the Turiya) but not in the creation which is futile. The word, ‘SvapnaMayasarūpa’—meaning, alike dream and illusion—is intended to show that all  these (false) notions (regarding manifestation) belong only to those who imagine the process of creation or manifestation.

Karika, verse 1.8
The manifestation (creation) proceeds from the mere will of God because His will in reality cannot but achieve its purpose. Such objects as pot, etc., are but the (manifestation of the) will (of the potter). They can never be anything external or unrelated to such will. Some say manifestation proceeds from time.

Karika, verse 1.9
Others think that the purpose of manifestation is only the enjoyment (by God of the objects so created), that creation is merely a diversion of God. These two theories are refuted (by the author) by the single assertion that it is the very  nature of the Effulgent (Brahman). Thus taking this standpoint (the nature of the Effulgent Being) all  the theories (of creation) herein (stated) are refuted  for the reason indicated by: “What could be the desire for manifestation on the part of Brahman whose desires are ever in a state of fulfilment?” For the rope, etc., to appear as snake, no other reason can be assigned than Avidya.

Upanishad Verse 7 Introductory & Commentary
The fourth  quarter which now comes in order (for explanation) has to be described. This is done in the words of the text: “Not conscious of the internal object.” It (Turiya) does not admit of description or indication by means of words, for all uses (affirmative or negative) of language fail to express it. Therefore Turiya is sought  to be indicated by the negation of all attributes (characteristics).

Objection: Then it becomes mere void or Sunya.
Reply: No, because it is impossible for imagination to exist without  a substratum. The illusion of silver, a snake, a man or mirage, etc., cannot be conceived as existing without the (corresponding) substratum of the mother-of-pearl, rope, stump or desert, etc.
Objection: If that be the case, Turiya ought to be indicatable by words and not by the negation of all attributes. For, it is the substratum of all imaginations such as, Prana, etc., in the same way as jars, etc., which being the substratum of water, etc., are indicated as such by words.
Reply: The idea of Prana, etc., (supposed to exist in Turiya) is unreal like the false idea of silver, etc., in the mother-of-pearl, etc. A relation  between the real and the unreal cannot be expressed by words because such relation is, itself, non-existent. Turiya cannot be the object of any other instrument of knowledge (such as direct perception) like the cow, etc., because of its unique nature, owing to the absence of Upādhis. Atman cannot have anything like a generic property, like the cow, etc., because it is devoid of all Upādhis or attributes; it has neither generic nor specific characteristics because it is one, without a second. It cannot be known by any activity (proceeding from it) as in the case of a cook; because it is devoid of all actions. It cannot be described by attributes such as blue, etc., because it is without any attribute. Therefore it follows that Turiya cannot be indicated by any name.

Objection: Then it (Turiya) would be like the “horns of a hare” and hence one’s pursuit of it must be futile.
Reply: No, the knowledge of Turiya as identical with Self (Atman) destroys the hankering after objects which are non-self just as the knowledge of mother-of-pearls (mistaken for silver) removes the desire for (illusory) silver. For, once the identity of Turiya and Self is realised there is no possibility of one’s being deluded  by ignorance, desire and the like misapprehensions (which are the effects of ignorance) and there is no reason for Turiya not being known as identical with the Self. For all the Upaniṣads point to this end only as is evident from the following: “That thou art”, “This Atman is Brahman”, “That is real and that is Atman”, “The Brahman which is directly and immediately cognized”, “He is both without and within, as well as causeless”, “All this is verily Atman”, etc. This very Atman has been described as constituting the Highest Reality and its opposite  (the unreal) and as having four quarters. Its unreal (illusory) aspect has been described as due to ignorance, like the illusion of snake in the rope, having for its characteristics the three quarters and being of the same nature as the seed  and the sprout. Now is described (in the following Śruti) Turiya which is not of the nature of cause but which is of the nature of the Highest Reality corresponding to the rope—by negating  the three states, enumerated above, which correspond to the snake, etc.

Objection: The object was to describe Atman as having four quarters. By the very descriptions of the three quarters, the fourth is established as being other than the three characterised by the “conscious of the subjective”, etc. Therefore the negation (of attributes relating to the three quarters) for the purpose of indicating Turiya implied in the statement, “Turiya is that which is not conscious of the subjective”, etc., is futile.
Reply: No. As the nature of the rope is  realised by the negation of the (illusory) appearances of the snake, etc., so also it is intended to establish the very Self, which subsists in the three states, as TuriyaThis is done in the same way as (the great Vedic statement) “Thou art that”. If Turiya were, in fact, anything different  from Atman subsisting in the three states, then, the teachings of the Scriptures would have no meaning on  account of the absence of any instrument of knowledge (regarding Turiya). Or the other (inevitable alternative would be to declare absolute nihilism ( śūnya) to be the ultimate Truth. Like the (same) rope mistaken as snake, garland, etc., when the same Atman is mistaken as Antaḥprajña (conscious of the subjective) etc., in the three states associated with different characteristics, the knowledge, resulting from the negation of such attributes as the conscious of the subjective, etc., is the means of establishing the absolute absence of the unreal phenomena of the world (imagined) in Atman.

As a matter of fact, the two results, namely, the negation of (superimposed) attributes and the disappearance of the unreal phenomena happen at the same time. Therefore no additional  instrument of knowledge or no other  effort is to be made or sought after for the realisation of TuriyaWith the cessation of the idea of the snake, etc., in the rope, the real nature of the rope becomes revealed and this happens simultaneously with the knowledge of the distinction between the rope and the snake. But those who say that the knowledge, in addition to the removal of the darkness (that envelopes the jar), enables  one to know the jar, may as well affirm  that the act of cutting (a tree), in addition to its undoing the relation of the members of the body intended to be cut, also functions (in other ways) in other parts of the body. As the act of cutting intended to divide the tree into two is said to be complete with the severance of the parts (of the tree) so also the knowledge employed to perceive the jar covered by the darkness (that envelopes it) attains its purpose when it results in removing the darkness, though that is not the object intended to be produced. In such case the knowledge of the jar, which is invariably connected with the removal of the darkness, is not the result accomplished by the instrument of knowledge. Likewise, the knowledge, which is (here) the same as that which results from the negation of predicates, directed towards the discrimination of such attributes as “the conscious of the subjective” etc., superimposed upon Atman, cannot  function with regard to Turiya in addition to its act of negating of such attributes as “the conscious of the subjective” which is not the object intended to be produced. For, with the negation of the attributes such as “conscious of the subjective,” etc., is  accomplished simultaneously the cessation of the distinction between the knower, the known and the knowledge. Thus it will be said later on, “Duality cannot exist when Gnosis, the highest Truth (non-duality), is realised.” The knowledge of duality cannot exist even for a moment immediately after the moment of the cessation of duality. If it should remain, there would follow what is known as regressus ad infinitum; and consequently duality will never cease. Therefore it is established that the cessation of such unreal attributes as “conscious of the subjective” etc., superimposed upon Atman is simultaneous with the manifestation of the Knowledge which, in itself, is the means (pramana) for the negation of duality.

By the statement that it (Turiya) is “not conscious of the subjective” is indicated that it is not “Taijasa”. Similarly by the statement that it is “not conscious of the objective,” it is denied that it (Turiya) is Viśva. By saying that it is “not conscious of either”, it is denied that Turiya is any intermediate state between  the waking and the dream states. By the statement that Turiya is “not a mass all sentiency”, it is denied that it is the condition of deep sleep—which is held to be a causal condition on account of one’s inability to distinguish the truth from error (in deep sleep). By saying that it is “not simple consciousness”, it is implied that Turiya cannot simultaneously cognize the entire world of consciousness (by a single act of consciousness). And lastly by the statement that it is “not unconsciousness” it is implied that Turiya is not insentient or of the nature of matter.

Objection: How, again, do such attributes as “conscious of the subjective,” etc., which are (directly) perceived to subsist in Atman become non-existent only by an act of negation as the snake, etc. (perceived) in the rope, etc., become non-existent (by means of an act of negation)?
Reply: Though  the states (waking and dream) are really of the essence of consciousness itself, and as such are non-different from each other (from the point of view of the substratum), yet one state is seen to change  into another as do the appearances of the snake, water-line, etc., having for their substratum the rope, etc. But the consciousness itself is real because it never changes.

Objection: Consciousness is seen to change (disappear) in deep sleep.
Reply: No, the state of deep sleep is a matter of experience.  For the Śruti says, “Knowledge of the Knower is never absent.”
Hence it (Turiya) is “unseen” ; and because it is unseen therefore it is “incomprehensible”.  Turiya cannot be apprehended by the organs of action. Alakṣanam means “uninferable”,  because there is no Liṅga (common characteristic) for its inference. Therefore Turiya is “unthinkable”  and hence “indescribable”  (by words). It is “essentially  of the nature of consciousness consisting of Self”. Turiya should be known by spotting that consciousness that never changes in the three states, viz., waking, etc., and whose nature is that of a Unitary Self. Or,  the phrase may signify that the knowledge of the one Atman alone is the means for realising Turiya, and therefore Turiya is the essence of this consciousness or Self or Atman. The Śruti also says, “It should be meditated upon as Atman.” Several attributes, such as the “conscious of the subjective” etc., associated with the manifestation (such as, Viśva, etc.) in each of the states have already been negated. Now by describing Turiya as “the cessation of illusion”, the attributes which characterise the-three states, viz., waking, etc., are negated. Hence it is “ever  Peaceful”, i.e., without any manifestation of change—and “all  bliss”. As it is non-dual, i.e., devoid of illusory ideas of distinction, therefore it is called “Turiya”, the “Fourth”, because it is totally distinct (in character) from the three quarters which' are mere appearances. “This, indeed, is the Atman and it should be known,” is intended to show that the meaning of the Vedic statement, “That thou art”, points to the relationless Atman (Turiya) which is like the rope (in the illustration) different from the snake, line on the ground, stick, etc,, which are mere appearances. That Atman which has been described in such Śruti passages as “unseen, but the seer”, “the consciousness of the seer is never absent”, etc., should be known. (The incomprehensible) Turiya “should be known”, and this  is said so only from the standpoint of the previously unknown condition, for duality cannot exist when the Highest Truth is known.

Karika, verse 1.10
In (the Knowledge of) Īśāna, meaning the Turiya Atman there is a cessation  of all miseries characterised by the three states, viz., Prajna,  Taijasa and Viśva. The word ‘Īśāna’ is explained as ‘Prahhu’, i.e., the one who brings about the cessation of miseries. It is because misery is destroyed by one’s own Knowledge of it (Turiya). ‘Avyaya’ means that which is not subject to any change, i.e., which does not deviate from its own nature. How? It is so because Turiya is non-dual, all  other entities being illusory (unreal) like the idea of the snake, etc., imagined in the rope. It is he who is recognised  as the Deva (on account of his effulgent nature), the Turiya, the fourth, the Vibhu, that is the all-pervading one.

Karika, verse 1.11
The generic  and specific  characters of Viśva, etc., are described with a view to determining the real nature of Turiya‘Kārya’ or effect is that which is done, i.e., which has the characteristic of result. ‘Kāraṇa’ or the cause is that which acts, i.e., it is the state in which the effect remains latent. Both Viśva and Taijasa, described above, are known as being conditioned by cause and effect,  characterised by both non-apprehension and mis-apprehension of Reality. But Prajna is conditioned by cause alone. Cause, characterised by the non-apprehension of Reality, is the condition of Prajna. Therefore these two, cause and effect, i.e., non-apprehension and mis-apprehension of Reality, do not exist, i.e., are not possible in Turiya.

Karika, verse 1.12
How is it that Prajna is conditioned by cause? And how is it, again, that the two conditions of non-apprehension and mis-apprehension of Reality do not exist in Turiya? It is because Prajna does not, like Viśva and Taijasa, perceive anything of the duality,  external to and other  than itself and born  of the cause known as Avidya. Therefore it is conditioned by darkness characterised by non-apprehension of Reality which is the cause of mis-apprehension. As Turiya exists always, ever all-seeing , on account of the absence of anything other than Turiya, it is never associated with the causal condition characterised by non-apprehension of Reality. Consequently mis-apprehension of Reality winch is the result of non-apprehension is not found in TuriyaFor, it is not possible to find in the sun, whose nature is to be ever-luminous, anything contrary to light, viz., darkness, or any other light different from itself. The Śruti also says: “The Knowledge of the seer is never absent.” Or the phrase may be explained thus: Turiya may be designated as ever all-seeing because it subsists in all, in dream and waking states and all the seers that cognize them (in those states) are Turiya alone. This is also borne out by the following Śruti passage, “There is no seer other than this.”

Karika, verse 1.13
This śloka is meant to remove a doubt that has arisen incidentally. The doubt is this: How is it that it is Prajna alone and not Turiya that is bound by the condition of cause, since the non-cognition of duality is the common feature of both? This doubt is thus removed : The meaning of the phrase Bījanidrāyuta is: Nidrā or sleep is characterised by the absence of the Knowledge of Reality. This is the cause which gives rise to the cognition of varieties. Prajna is associated with this sleep which is the cause. It is because Turiya is ever all-seeing, therefore the sleep characterised by the absence of the Knowledge of Reality does not exist in TuriyaTherefore the bondage in the form of causal condition does not exist in Turiya.

Karika, verse 1.14
Svapna or dream is the mis-apprehension  of Reality like that of the snake in the rope. Nidrā or sleep has already been defined as darkness characterised by the absence of the Knowledge of Reality. Viśva and Taijasa are associated with these, viz., the conditions of dream and sleep. Therefore they have been described as conditioned by the characteristics of cause and effect. But Prajna is associated with sleep alone without dream; therefore it is described as conditioned by cause only. The knower of Brahman does not see them (dream and sleep) in Turiya, as it would be inconsistent like seeing darkness in the Sun. Therefore Turiya has been described as not associated with the conditions of cause and effect.

Karika verse 1.15
When is one established in Turiya? It is thus replied: During the states of dream and waking when one wrongly cognizes Reality like the perception of the snake in the place of the rope, he is said to be experiencing dream.  Nidrā or sleep,  characterised by the ignorance of Reality, is the common feature of the three states. Viśva and Taijasa, on account of their having the common features of Svapna (dream) and Nidrā (sleep), form a single class. That Nidrā (sleep) which is characterised by the predominance of wrong apprehension (of Reality) constitutes the state of inversion which is Svapna (dream). But in the third state, Nidrā (sleep), alone, characterised by the nonapprehension of Reality is the only inversion. (This forms the second or the other class implied in the text which speaks only of dream and sleep as covering the three states.) Therefore when these two classes of the nature of effect and cause, characterised by the mis-apprehension and non-apprehension respectively (of Reality), disappear by the destruction of the inversion characterised by effect and cause, by the knowledge of the nature of the Highest Reality, then one realises Turiya which is the goal. Then one does not find in Turiya this condition, the characteristics of which are these two (effect and cause), and one thus becomes firm in the Highest Reality which is Turiya.

Karika, verse 1.16
One who is called the Jiva, the individual soul, (whose characteristic is to be) subject  to the law of transmigration, sleeping  under the influence of Maya which is active from time without  beginning and which has the double characteristics of non-apprehending (on account of its being of the nature of the cause) and mis-apprehending Reality, experiences such dreams as, “This is my father, this is my son, this is my grandson, this is my property and these are my animals, I am their master, I am happy, I am miserable, I have suffered loss on account of this, I have gained on this account”... When the Jiva remains asleep experiencing these dreams in the two states  he is then thus, awakened  by the gracious teacher who has himself realised the Reality, indicated by Vedānta: “Thou art not this, of the nature of cause and effect, but That thou art.” When the Jiva is thus awakened from sleep, he, then, realises his real nature. What is his nature? It (Self) is birthless, because it is beyond cause and effect and because it has none of the characteristics  such as birth, etc., which are (inevitably) associated with all (relative) existence. It is birthless, i.e., it is devoid of all changes associated with the object of relative existence including the conditions of cause and effect. It is Anidram (sleepless) because there does not exist in it Nidrā (sleep), the cause, of the nature of the darkness of Avidya, which produces the changes called birth, etc. Turiya is free from Svapna (dream) because it is free from Nidrā (sleep) which is the cause of mis-apprehension of Reality (dream). It is because the Self is free from sleep and dream therefore the Jiva, then  realises himself as the Turiya Atman, birthless and non-dual.

Karika, verse 1.17
If  the knowledge of non-duality (Turiya) be possible.after the disappearance of the perceived manifold, how could non-duality be said to exist (always) while the perceptual manifold remains? This is explained thus: This would have been true if the manifold really existed.  This manifold being only a false imagination, like the snake in the rope, does not really exist. There is no-doubt that it would (certainly) disappear if it really existed. The snake imagined in the rope, through false conception, does not really exist and therefore does, not disappear  through correct understanding. Nor, similarly, does the illusion of the vision conjured up by the magician exist and then disappear as though a veil thrown over the eyes of the spectators (by the magician) were removed. Similar is this duality of the cognized universe called the Phenomenal or manifold, (Mayamātraṃ dvaitaṃ) a mere illusion. Non-duality Turiya like the rope and the magician (in the illustrations) is alone the Supreme Reality. Therefore the fact is that there is no such thing as the manifold about which appearance or disappearance can be predicated.

Karika, verse 1.18
Objection: How  could (duality implied in) ideas such as the teacher, the taught and the scripture disappear?
Reply: This is thus explained. If  such ideas had ever been imagined by someone then they might be supposed to disappear. As the manifold is like the illusion (conjured up by the magician or) of the snake in the rope, so  also are the ideas of the teacher, etc. These ideas, namely, the ideas of teacher, taught, and scripture are for  the purpose of teaching which are (therefore appear) true till one realises the Highest Truth. But duality does not exist when one, as a result of the teaching, attains knowledge, i.e., realises the Highest Reality.

Upanishad Verse 8
In the word Aum prominence is given to that which is indicated by several names. The word Aum which has been explained before as Atman having four quarters is again the same Atman described here from the standpoint of syllable where prominence is given to the name. What, again, is that syllable? It is thus replied: Aum. It is that word Aum which being divided into parts, is viewed from the standpoint of letters. How? Those which constitute the quarters of the Atman are the letters of Aum. What are they? The letters are A, U and M.

Tn the first Upaniṣad it is said, “Aum, the word, is all this.” The word Aum is the name (abhidhāna) which indicates everything (abhidheya) past, present, future and all that which is beyond even the conception of time. Thus Aum is the name for Brahman. The second Upaniṣad declares that Brahman is the Atman. The Atman with its four quarters has been explained in the following Upaniṣads. Therefore all these explanations are of Aum from the standpoint of Atman where prominence is given to that which is indicated by names. Now the same Aum is explained from the standpoint of the word itself, that is the name which indicates Atman or the Supreme Reality.
The Highest Truth as explained above by the process of the refutation of the erroneous superimposition can be grasped only by the students of sharp or middling intelligence. But those ordinary students who cannot enter upon philosophical reflection regarding the Supreme Reality as given in the previous texts, are advised to concentrate on Aum as the symbol of the Ultimate Reality.

Upanishad Verse 9
Points of specific resemblance between them are thus pointed out. That which is Vaiśvānara, whose sphere of activity is the waking state, is the first letter of Aum. What is the Common feature between them? It is thus explained: the first point of resemblance is pervasiveness.  All sounds are pervaded  by A. This is corroborated by the Śruti passage, “The sound A is the whole of speech.” Similarly the entire universe is pervaded by the Vaiśvānara as is evident from such Śruti passages as, “The effulgent Heaven is the head of this, the Vaiśvānara Atman,” etc. The identity of the name and the object, indicated by the name, has already been described. The word ‘Ādimat’ means that this has a beginning. As  the letter A is with a beginning, so also is Vaiśvānara. Vaiśvānara is identical with A on account of this common feature. The knower of this identity gets the following result : One who knows this, i.e., the identity described above, has all his desires fulfilled and becomes the first of the great.

Upanishad Verse 10
He who is Taijasa having for its sphere of activity the dream state is U (उ) the second letter of Aum. What is the point of resemblance? It is thus replied: The one common feature is superiority. The letter U:is, as it were, ‘superior’  to A; similarly Taijasa   is superior to Viśva. Another common feature is: the letter U (उ) is in between the letters A (अ) and M (म). Similarly Taijasa is in between Viśva and Prajna. Therefore this condition of being in the middle is the common feature. Now is described the result of this knowledge. The knowledge (of the knower of this identity) is always on the increase, i.e., his power of knowing increases considerably. He is regarded in the same way by all, i.e., his enemies, like his friends, do not envy him. Further, in his family not one is born who is not a knower of Brahman.

Upanishad Verse 11
One who is Prajna associated with deep sleep is M (म) the third sound (letter) of Aum. What is the common feature? It is thus explained. Here this is the common feature: The word Miti in the text means “measure”. As barley is measured by Prastha (a kind of measure), so also Viśva and Taijasa are, as it were, measured  by Prajna during their evolution (utpātti) and involution (praḷaya) by their appearance from and disappearance into Prajna (deep sleep). Similarly  after once finishing the utterance of Aum when it is re-uttered, the sounds (letters) A and U, as it were, merge into and emerge from M. Another common feature is described by the word “Apiteh” which means “becoming one”. When the word Aum is uttered the sounds (letters) A and U become  one, as it were, in the last sound (letter) M. Similarly, Viśva and Taijasa become one (merge themselves) in Prajna in deep sleep. Therefore Prajna and the sound M are identical on account of this common basis that underlies them both. Now is described the merit of this knowledge. (One who knows this identity) comprehends all this, i.e., the real nature of the universe. Further he realises himself as the Atman, the cause of the universe, i.e., Isvara. The enumeration of these secondary  merits is for the purpose of extolling the principal means (of knowledge).

Karika, verse 1.19
When the Śruti intends to describe Viśva as of the same nature as A (अ), then the most prominent ground is seen to be the fact of each being the first, as described in the Upaniṣad discussed above. “Mātrā sampratipath” in the text means the identity of Viśva and A. Another prominent reason for such identity is their all-pervasiveness.

Karika, verse 1.20
When Taijasa is intended to be described as ‘U’, the reason of their being ‘Superior’ (in respective cases) is seen to be quite clear. Their being in ‘the middle’ is also another plain ground. All these explanations are as before.

Karika, verse 1.21
Regarding the identity of Prajna, and M the plain common features are that both of them are the ‘measure’ as well as that wherein all merge.

Karika, verse 1.22
One who knows positively, i.e., without a shadow of doubt, the common features that are found in the three states, is worshipped and adored in the world. He is a knower  of Brahman.

Karika, verse 1.23
Having identified the quarters of Atman with the sounds (letters) of Aum, on account of the common features stated above, he who realises the nature of the sound Aum, described above, and meditates upon it, attains to Viśva through the help of A. The meaning is that he who meditates on Aum having  for his support A becomes Vaiśvānara.  Similarly the meditator of U becomes Taijasa. Again the sound M leads its meditator to Prajna. But when M too disappears, causality itself is negated. Therefore about such Aum, which thus becomes soundless, no attainment can be predicated.

Upanishad Verse 12
The amātroḥ (soundless) is that which has no parts (sounds, etc., or letters). This partless Aum which is the fourth, is nothing but Pure Atman. It is incomprehensible, because both speech and mind which correspond to the name  and the object disappear or cease; the name and the object (that is indicated by the name) which are only forms of speech and mind cease or disappear (in the partless Aum), It is the cessation  of the (illusion of) phenomena and all  bliss and is identical with non-duality.  Aum, as  thus understood, has three sounds which are the same as the three quarters and therefore Aum is identical  with Atman. He who knows this merges his self in the Self which is the Highest Reality. Those who know Brahman, i.e., those who realise the Highest Reality merge into Self, because in their case the notion of the cause which corresponds to the third quarter (of Atman) is destroyed (burnt). They  are not born again, because Turiya is not a cause. For, the illusory snake which has merged in the rope on the discrimination of the snake from the rope, does not reappear as before, to those who know the distinction between them, by any effort  of the mind (due to the previous impressions). To the men of dull or mediocre intellect who still consider themselves as students of philosophy, who having renounced the world, tread on the path of virtue and who know the common features between the sounds (mātrāḥ) and the quarters (or parts) as described above,—to them Aum, if meditated upon in a proper way, becomes a great  help to the realisation of Brahman. The same is indicated in the Kārikā later on thus: “The three inferior stages of life, etc” (Māṇḍūkya Kārikā, Advaita Chapter, 16.)

Karika, verse 1.24
Here are, as before, the following verses:
Aumkāra should be known along with the quarters; for the quarters  are identical with sounds (letters) because of their common features described before. Having  thus understood Aumkāra, no other object, seen or unseen, should be thought of; for, the knower of Aumkāra has all his desires fulfilled.

Karika, verse 1.25
The word Yuñjīta means to unify, i.e., to absorb. The mind should be absorbed in Aum, which is of the nature of the Supreme Reality, as explained before. The Aum is Brahman, the ever-fearless. He who is always unified with Aum knows no fear whatever; for the Śruti says, “The knower of Brahman is not afraid of anything”.

Karika, verse 1.26
Aum is both the Lower  Brahman and the Supreme TuriyaWhen from the highest standpoint, the sounds and quarters disappear (in the soundless Aum) it is verily the same as the Supreme Brahman. It is without cause because no cause can be predicated of it. It is unique because nothing else, belonging to any other species-separate from it, exists. Similarly nothing else exists outside it. It is further not related to any effect (because it is not the cause of anything). It is without cause and exists everywhere, both inside and outside, like salt in the water of the ocean.

Karika, verse 1.27
Aum  is the beginning, middle and end of all; that is, everything originates from Aum, is sustained by it and ultimately merges in it. As  the magician, etc. (without undergoing any change in themselves) stand in relation to the illusory elephant, (the illusion of) snake-rope, the mirage and the dream, etc., so also is the sacred syllable Aum to the manifested manifold such as Ākāśa (ether), etc. The meaning is that he who knows thus, the Aum, Atman, which, like the magician, etc., does not undergo any change, at once becomes unified with it.

Karika, verse 1.28
Know Aum as the Isvara present in the mind, which is the seat  of memory and perception, of all things. The man of discrimination realising Aumkāra as all-pervading  like the sky, i.e., knowing it as the Atman, not bound by the law of transmigration, does not grieve; for, there is no cause  of misery for him. The Scriptures also abound in such passages as, “The knower of Atman goes beyond grief.”

Karika, verse 1.29
Amātra or soundless Aum signifies Turiya Mātrā means “measure”; that which has infinite measure or magnitude is called Anantamātra. That is to say, it is mot possible to determine its extension or measure by pointing to this or that. It is ever-peaceful on account of its being the negation of all duality. He who knows Aum, as explained above, is the (real) sage because he has realised the nature of the Supreme Reality. No one else, though he may be an expert in the knowledge of the Scriptures, is a sage.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2019, 01:14:16 PM by Commentary »