Author Topic: Chapter III - Advaita Prakarana (Non-duality)  (Read 510 times)


  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 341
    • View Profile
Chapter III - Advaita Prakarana (Non-duality)
« on: April 07, 2019, 05:42:10 PM »
Karika, verse 3.1
While determining the meaning of Aum, it has been stated in the form of a proposition that “Atman is the negation of phenomena, blissful and non-dual.” It has been further stated that “Duality does not exist when the reality is known.” Further, in the chapter on Illusion, that duality does not exist really has been established by the illustrations of dream, magic, castle-in-the-air, etc., and also by reasoning on the grounds of “the capability of being seen” and “the being finite,” etc. Now it is asked whether non-duality can be established only by scriptural evidence or whether it can be proved by reasoning as well. It is said in reply that it is possible to establish non-duality by reasoning  as well. How is it possible? This is shown in this chapter on Advaita. It has been demonstrated in the last chapter that the entire realm of dualism including the object and the act of devotion is illusory,  and the attributeless, non-dual Atman alone is the Reality. The word “upāsanāŚrīta” in the text, meaning the one  betaking himself to devotion, signifies him who has recourse to devotional exercises as means to the attainment of liberation and who further thinks that he is the devotee and Brahman is his object of worship. This Jiva or the embodied being further thinks that through devotional practices he, at present related to the evolved  Brahman (Personal God), would attain to the ultimate Brahman after the dissolution of the body. Prior  to the manifestation, according to this Jiva, everything including itself, was unborn. In other words he thinks, “I shall, through devotional practices, regain that which was my real nature before manifestation, though at present I subsist in the Brahman that appears in the form of the manifold.” Such a Jiva, that is, the aspirant, betaking itself to devotion, inasmuch as it knows only a partial aspect of Brahman, is called of narrow  or poor intellect by those who regard Brahman as eternal  and unchanging. The Upaniṣad of the Talavakāra (Kena) supports this view in such statements as, “That which is not expressed (indicated) by speech and by which speech is expressed, That alone know as Brahman and not that which people here adore,” etc.

Karika, verse 3.2
One unable to realise Atman, which is both within and without and birthless, and therefore believing oneself to be helpless through Avidya, thinks, “I am born, I subsist in the Brahman with attributes (saguṇa) and through devotion to It I shall become Brahman,” and thus becomes Kripaṇa (narrow-minded). Therefore, I shall describe Brahman which has never been subject to any limitation and which is birthless (changeless). The narrowness of mind has been described in such Śruti passages as, “When one sees another, hears another, knows another, then there is limitedness (littleness), mortality and unreality,” “Modification is only a name arising from speech, but the truth is that all is clay,” etc. But contrary to it is Brahman known as Bhumā (great) which is both within and without and which is free from all limitations. I shall now describe that Brahman, free from all limitations, by realising which one gets rid of all narrowness superimposed by ignorance. It (Brahman) is called Ajāti, birthless, inasmuch as none knows its birth or cause. It is the same always and everywhere. How is it so? It is so because there does not exist in it (Brahman) any inequality caused by the presence of parts or limbs. For, only that which is with parts may be said to be born (or to have taken new form) by a change of its parts. But as Atman is without parts, it is always the same and even, that is to say, it does not manifest itself in any new form through a change of the parts. Therefore it is without birth and free from limitation. Now listen as to how  Brahman is not born, how it does not undergo change by so much as a jot, but ever remains unborn, though it appears, through ignorance, to be born and to give birth to others, like the rope  and the snake.

Karika, verse 3.3
It has been said in the previous text, “I shall now describe Brahman, birthless and free from all narrowness.” Now I shall give an illustration and a reason to substantiate the proposition. As the Supreme Atman is like the Ākāśa, subtle, without parts and all-pervasive, it is compared to the Ākāśa. The Supreme Self again, who is likened to the Ākāśa, is said to be manifested as the embodied beings (Jivas) or Kṣetrajñas (Knowers of bodies), and are likened to the Ghaṭākāśas or the Ākāśa enclosed in jars. This is the Supreme Self which is like the Ākāśa. Or the sentence may be explained thus:—As the totality of the Ākāśa enclosed within the pots is said to constitute what is known as the Mahākāśa or the great expanse of ether, similarly the totality of the embodied beings (Jivas) constitutes the Supreme Being. The creation or manifestation of the Jivas (embodied beings) from the Supreme Self, as stated in the Vedānta, is like the creation or manifestation of the Ghaṭākāśa (i.e., the ether enclosed in a jar) from the Mahākāśa (or the great and undifferentiated ether). That is to say, creation or manifestation is not  real. As  from that Ākāśa are produced such physical objects as the pot, etc., similarly from the Supreme Self which is like the Ākāśa, are produced the entire aggregate of material entities, such as the earth, etc., as well as the individual bodies, all  characterised by causality, the entire  production being nothing but mere imagination like that of the snake in the rope. Therefore it is said, “The aggregates (of the gross bodies) are produced like the pot, etc.” When  the Śruti, with a view to the enlightenment of the ignorant, speaks of the creation or manifestation (of the Jivas) from the Atman, then such manifestation, being admitted as a fact, is explained with the help of the illustration of the creation of the pot, etc., from the Ākāśa.

Karika, verse 3.4
As the creation of ether enclosed within the pot, etc., follows the creation of the pot, etc., and as the merging of the same ether (in the Mahākāśa) is consequent on the destruction of the pot, etc.; in the same manner the creation or manifestation of the Jiva follows that of the aggregate of the body, etc., and the merging of the Jiva in the Supreme Self follows in the wake of the destruction of the aggregate of the body, etc. The meaning is that neither the creation nor destruction is in itself real (from the standpoint of the Absolute).

Karika, verse 3.5
The dualists contend that if one Atman exists in all bodies then the birth, death, happiness, etc., of one Atman (as Jiva) must affect all and, further, there  must follow a confusion regarding the results of the action (done by individuals). This contention is,thus refuted:—As  the Ākāśa enclosed within one jar being soiled by dust, smoke, etc., does not make the Ākāśa enclosed in other jars soiled with the dust and the  smoke, so all created beings are not affected by the happiness, etc. (of one Jiva).

Objection: Is it not your contention that there is only one Atman?
Reply: Yes, we admit it. Have you not heard that there is only one Atman like the all-pervading space, in all bodies?
Objection: If  there be only one Atman then it must always and everywhere feel misery and happiness.
Reply: This objection cannot be raised by the Sāṃkhyas. For,  the Sāṃkhyas do not admit that misery, happiness, etc., ever cling to the Atman; for they assert that happiness, misery, etc., belong inseparably to Buddhi.  Further, there is no evidence for imagining multiplicity of Atman which is of the very nature of knowledge.
Objection: In the absence of the multiplicity of Atman the theory that the Pradhāna or Prakṛti acts for the sake of others  does not hold good.
Reply: No, this argument is not valid; for whatever the Pradhāna or Prakṛti may be supposed to accomplish by itself for another cannot inseparably inhere in Atman. If bondage  and liberation accomplished by the Pradhāna inseparably inhered in the multiple Puruṣas, then the theory that the Pradhāna (Prakṛti) always acts for the sake of others would not be consistent with the unity of Atman existing everywhere. And the theory of the Sāṃkhyas regarding the multiplicity of Atman would be reasonable. But the Sāṃkhyas do not admit that the purpose of bondage or liberation can ever be inseparably associated with the Puruṣa. For, they admit that the Puruṣas are attributeless and are centres of Pure Consciousness. Therefore,  the very existence of the Puruṣa is their support for the theory that the action of Pradhāna is directed to serve the purpose of others (the Puruṣas). But the supposition of the multiplicity of Puruṣas need not be made for this purpose. Therefore the theory of the Pradhāna seeking to serve the purpose of others cannot be an argument for the supposition of the multiplicity of Atman. The Sāṃkhyas have no other argument in support of their supposition regarding the multiplicity of Atman. The Pradhāna takes upon itself bondage and liberation only through the instrumentality of the existence of the other (the Puruṣa). The Puruṣa which is of the very nature of knowledge, is the cause of the activity of the Pradhāna by the fact of its very existence and not on account of its any specific qualities. So it is through ignorance alone that people imagine the Puruṣa (Atman) to be many and also thereby give up the real  import of the Vedas.
The Vaiśeṣikas and others assert that attributes such as desire, etc., are inseparably related to Atman. This  view is also not correct. For, the Samskāras (the impressions) which are the cause of memory cannot have any inseparable relation with Atman which has no  parts. Further, if  it be contended that the origin of memory lies in the contact of Atman with the mind, we say that this contention is not valid; for, in that case there will be no principle regarding memory. Memory of all things will come simultaneously. Besides  mind can never be related to the Atman which is devoid of all sensations such as touch, etc., and which belongs to a class other than that of the mind. Further the Vaiśeṣikas do not admit that the attributes (Guṇa) such as forms, etc. (Rūpas), action (Karma), generality (Sāmānya), particularity (Viśeṣa) and inherence (Samavāya), can exist independently of the substance (Dravya). If these are totally independent of one another, the contact between the Atman and desire, etc., and also between the attributes (Guṇa) and the substance (Dravya) will be an absurdity.

Objection: The contact characterised by an inseparable inherence is possible in the case of entities where such relation is proved to be innate.
Reply: This  objection is not valid; for such innate relationship cannot be reasonable, as the Atman, the ever permanent, is antecedent to the desires, etc., which are transitory. And if desires, etc., be admitted to have inseparable innate relationship with Atman, then  the former would be as permanent as such innate attributes of Atman as greatness, etc. That is not desirable, for then there would be no room for liberation of the Atman. Further, if inseparable relationship (Samavāya) were something separate from the substance, then another factor must be stated which can bring about the relationship between Samavāya and the substance,—as in the case of the substance and the attributes. Nor can it be stated that Samavāya is a constant inseparable relationship with Atman; for, in that case, the Atman and Samavāya on account of their constant and inseparable relationship can never be different from one another. If, on the other hand, the relationship of Samavāya be totally different from the Atman, and the attributes also be different from the substance, then the possessive case cannot be used to indicate their mutual relation which is possible only when the two terms connected by the possessive are not totally different. If Atman be inseparably connected with such categories as desires, etc., which have both “beginning” and “end,” then it would itself be impermanent. If Atman be considered to have parts and undergo changes, like the body, etc., then, these two defects always associated with the body, etc., would be inevitable in the case of the Atman. (Therefore the conclusion is that) as the Ākāśa (ether), on account of the superimposition of ignorance (Avidya), is regarded as soiled by dust and smoke, in like manner, the Atman also, on account of the limiting condition of the mind caused by the erroneous attribution of Avidya, appears to be associated with the contamination of misery, happiness, etc. And such being the case, the idea of bondage and liberation, being empirical in nature, does not contradict (the permanent nature of Atman from the standpoint of Truth). For, all the disputants admit the relative experience to be caused by Avidya and deny its existence from the standpoint of the Supreme Reality. Hence it follows that the supposition of the multiplicity of Atman made by the logicians is without basis and superfluous.

Karika, verse 3.6
Objection: If Atman be one then how is it possible to justify the variety of experiences pointing to the multiplicity of Atman (which is explained as being) due to Avidya (ignorance)?
Reply: This is thus explained: In our common experience with regard to this Ākāśa (which is really one), we find variety of forms, such as large, small, etc., in respect of the Ākāśa enclosed in a pot, a water-bowl and a cover. Similarly there are various functions (of the same Ākāśa) such as fetching water, preserving water and sleeping. Lastly there are various names as the ether enclosed in a jar (ghaṭa). the ether enclosed in a water-bowl (karaka), etc., caused by different upadhis. All these different forms, functions and names are matters of common experience. This variety of experience caused by different forms, etc., is not true from, the standpoint of the ultimate Reality. For, in reality Ākāśa. never admits of any variety. Our empirical activities based upon the difference in Ākāśa are not possible without the instrumentality of an adventitious upadhi.  As in this illustration, the Jivas (embodied beings) which may be compared to the Ākāśa enclosed in a jar, are regarded as different, this difference  being caused by the upadhis. This is the conclusion of the wise. This text gives one of the explanations of the empirical world as stated by the wise.

Karika, verse 3.7
Objection: Our experience of the variety of forms, functions, etc., associated with the ether enclosed in the pot, etc., is true from the standpoint of the ultimate Reality (and not illusory, as you say).
Reply: No, this  cannot be so. For, the ether enclosed in the pot cannot be the evolved effect of the real ether in the same way as the ornament,  etc., are the effect of gold or the foam, bubble, moisture, etc., are the effect of water. Nor, again is the Ghaṭākāśa (the Ākāśa in the pot) similar to the branches and other parts of a tree. As Ghaṭākāśa is neither a part (limb) nor an evolved effect of the Ākāśa, so also the Jiva (the embodied being), compared to the Ākāśa enclosed in the pot, is neither, as in the illustrations given above, an effect nor part (limb) of the Atman, the ultimate Reality, which may be compared to the Mahākāśa (i.e., the undifferentiated expanse of ether). Therefore the relative experience based upon the multiplicity of Atman is an illusion (from the standpoint of the ultimate Reality).

Karika, verse 3.8
As  the diversity of experiences such as forms, functions, etc., is caused by the admitted differences of the Ghaṭākāśa, etc., so also is the experience of birth, death, etc., consequent on the perception of the different Jivas, due to the limitations caused by Avidya (ignorance). Therefore the contamination of misery, action and result (of action) caused by Avidya does not really inhere in the Atman. In order to establish this meaning by an illustration, the text says:—As in our ordinary experience it is found that the ignorant regard the Ākāśa (ether),—which, to those who know, the real nature of a thing by discrimination, is never soiled by any contamination—as soiled with cloud, dust and smoke, so also the Supreme Atman, the Knower, the innermost Self directly perceived within, is regarded by those who do not know the real nature of the innermost Self, as affected by the evils of misery, action and result. But this is not the case with those who can discriminate. As in the desert are never found foam,  waves, etc., though thirsty creatures falsely attribute these things to it, similarly the Atman also is never affected by the turbidity of misery,  etc., falsely attributed to it by the ignorant.

Karika, verse 3.9
The point which has been just stated is again thus developed:—Birth, death, etc., of the Atman as seen in all bodies is like the creation, destruction, coming, going and existence of the Ghaṭākāśa (or ether enclosed within a jar).

Karika, verse 3.10
The aggregates of body, etc., answering to the pots, etc., in the illustration, are produced,—like the body, etc., seen in dream or conjured up by the magician—by the illusion  of the Atman, i.e., the Avidya (ignorance) which is in the perceiver. That  is to say, they do not exist from the standpoint of the ultimate Reality. If it be argued, in order to establish their reality, that there is a superiority (among the created beings),—as in the case of the aggregates of cause and effect constituting gods who are superior to lower beings, such as birds and beasts—or that there is an equality (of all created beings), yet no cause  can be set forth regarding their creation or reality. As there is no cause therefore all these are due to Avidya or ignorance; they have no real existence.

Karika, verse 3.11
Now statements are made in order to show that the existence of the essence of Atman which is non-dual and without birth, etc., can  as well be proved on the evidence of the Śruti. Rasa, etc., are the five  sheaths such as the physical sheath (Annarasamaya), the vital sheath (Pranamaya), etc. These are called “sheaths” (Kośa) because they  are like the sheath of the sword, the previous  sheaths being outer than the following ones. These have been clearly explained in the Taittirīyaka, i.e., in a chapter of the Taittirīyaka-śākhā Upaniṣad. It is the Self (Atman) of these sheaths. By It, the innermost Self, the five sheaths are regarded as alive. It is again called Jiva as it is the cause of the life of all. What is It? It is the Supreme Self which has ' been described before as “Brahman which is Existence, Knowledge and Infinity.” It has been further stated that from this Atman the aggregates of the body known as Rasa, etc., having the characteristics of the sheath, have  been created by its (Atman’s) power called ignorance, this creation being like the illusory creation of objects seen in a dream or in a performance of jugglery. We have described this Atman as the ether (Ākāśa) in the text, “The Atman is verily like the Ākāśa” (Gauḍapada Kārikā, 3. 3). This Atman cannot be established by the reasoning  of a man who follows the logician’s method of arguments as the Atman referred to by us is different from the Atman of the logicians.

Karika, verse 3.12
Moreover, in the words  “All this is the Supreme Atman, the Brahman, the bright, the immortal Person who is both the celestial (superphysical—Adhidaiva) and the corporeal (Adhyātma), who is in this earth as well as the Knower incorporated in the body,”—Brahman alone is described in order to indicate the limit at which duality vanishes. Where does this occur? It is thus replied:—It occurs in the Madhu Brāhmaṇa chapter which is known as the chapter dealing with the Knowledge of Brahman. It is because therein is described the nectar (i.e., immortality) which is known as Madhu, i.e., honey, as it gives us the highest bliss. This Brahman is like the Ākāśa which is said to be the same or identical though separately indicated as existing in the earth and in the stomach.

Karika, verse 3.13
The Śāstras   as well as the sages like Vyāsa, etc., extol the identity of Jiva and the Supreme Self through the negation of all differences—the conclusion arrived at by reasoning and supported by the scriptures. Further, the experiences of multiplicity which are natural (to the ignorant) and common to all beings—the view propounded by those who do not understand the real import of the Śāstras and who indulge in futile reasoning—have been condemned  thus: “But there is certainly nothing corresponding to the dual existence,” “Fear arises from the consciousness of duality,” “If he sees the slightest difference (in Atman) then he is overcome with fear,” “All this is verily Atman, “He goes from death to death who sees here (in this Atman) multiplicity.” Other Knowers of Brahman as well as the scriptures (quoted above) extol identity (of Jiva and Brahman) and condemn multiplicity. Thus alone this praise and condemnation can easily be comprehended; in other words, it accords with reason. But the false views (vainly) advanced by the logicians,  not easy of comprehension, cannot be accepted as facts (Truth).

Karika, verse 3.14
Objection: Even the Śruti has already declared the separateness of the Jiva and the Supreme Self in that part of the Upaniṣad which describes the creation (of the universe), i.e., in the ritual portion (Karmakāṇḍa) of the Vedas. The texts of the Karma - kāṇḍa, referred to here, describe the Supreme Puruṣa who had multiple desire, in such words as, “desirous of this,” “desirous of that,” “He,  the Highest, supported the heaven and the earth,” etc. This being the case, how is it possible, when there is a conflict between the knowledge portion and the ritual portion of the Vedas, to conclude that the unity underlying the meaning of the knowledge portion (of the Vedas) is alone reasonable and accurate?
Reply: Our reply is as follows: The seperateness (of Jiva and ParamAtman) described in the Karma - kāṇḍa (ritual portion of the Vedas)—anterior to such Upaniṣadic statements dealing with the creation of the universe as “That from which all these beings emanate,” “As small sparks (come out) from fire,” “The Ākāśa has evolved from that which is this Atman,” “It created heat”—is not real from the absolute.standpoint.

Objection: What is it then?
Reply: It has only a secondary meaning. The separateness (between Jiva and ParamAtman implied in these passages) is like that between the undifferentiated  ether (Mahākāśa) and the ether enclosed in the jar (Ghaṭākāśa). This statement is made with reference to a future  happening as in the case of another statement we often make, “He is cooking rice.” For, the words describing separateness (of Jiva and ParamAtman) can never reasonably uphold such separateness as absolutely real, as the statements regarding the separateness of Atman only reiterate the multiple experiences of those beings who are still under the spell of their inborn  Avidya or ignorance. Here  in the Upaniṣads, the texts regarding the creation, destruction, etc., of the universe are meant only to establish the identity of Jiva and the Supreme Self, as is known from the texts, “That thou art,” “He does not know who knows I am another and he is another”. In other words, in the Upaniṣads the purpose of the Śruti is to establish the identity (of Jiva and Brahman). Keeping in view this identity which is going to be established later on, the (dualistic) texts only reiterate the common  experience of multiplicity (due to ignorance). Therefore these (dualistic) texts are only metaphorical. Or, the Kārikā may be explained thus:—The scriptural text, “He is one and without a second,” declares the (complete) identity of Jiva and Brahman even before creation, denoted by such passages as, “He saw,” “He created fire,” etc. The culmination is, again, that identity as is known from such Śruti passages as, “That is the Reality; He is the Atman. That thou art”. Now, if keeping in view this future identity, the separateness of Jiva and Atman has been declared in some texts, it must have been used in a metaphorical way as is the case with the statement “He is cooking rice”.

Karika, verse 3.15
Objection: Before  creation all this might have been unborn, one and non-dual; but after creation, all this evolved world and the embodied beings (Jivas) denote multiplicity.
Reply: No, it cannot be so. For, the scriptural passages dealing with creation have another meaning. This difficulty raised here has already been solved by the statements that  the aggregates (entities) of body, etc., like dream-objects, are produced through illusion of the subject (Atman) and that creation and the differences of the Jivas are like the creation and the differences of the Ghaṭākāśas, i.e., the bits of Ākāśa enclosed in different jars. The scriptural  statements dealing with creation and differences (of the created beings), have again been referred to here in order to show that such statements regarding creation have the purpose of determining the unity of Jiva and Brahman. The  (theory of) creation has been described in the scripture through the illustrations of earth, iron, sparks, etc., or otherwise; but all these modes of creation are meant for enlightening our intellect so that it may comprehend the identity of Jiva and Brahman. It is just like the story  of the organs of speech (vāk), etc., being smitten with evil by the Asuras (demons) as described in the chapter on Prana (vital breath), where the real purpose of the Śruti is to demonstrate the special importance of Prana.

Objection: We  do not accept this meaning as indicated.
Reply: Your contention is not correct. For  this story about Prana, etc., has been differently narrated in different recensions of the Vedas. If the story of Prana were literally true, there should have been one version only in all recensions. Different versions of contradictory nature would not have been narrated. But we do come across such different versions in the Vedas. Therefore the scriptural passages recording stories of Prana are not meant to serve any purpose of their own, i.e., they should not be taken literally. The scriptural statements regarding creation should also be understood in a similar manner.
Objection: There have been different creations in different cycles. Therefore, the scriptural statements regarding creations (of the universe) and stories (of Prana) are different as they refer to the Creations in different cycles.
Reply: This contention is not valid. For, they (the illustrations of earth, iron, etc., as well as the stories of Prana) serve no other useful purpose than clearing our intellect as stated above. No one can imagine any other utility of the scriptural statements regarding creation and Prana.
Objection: We  contend that these are for the purpose of meditation so that one may ultimately attain to that end.
Reply: This is not correct either; for no one desires to attain his identity with the dispute (in the case of the Prana narrative), or with the creation or destruction (in the case of the scriptural statements regarding creation, etc.). Therefore we have reasonably to conclude that the scriptural statements regarding creation, etc., are for the purpose of helping the mind to realise the oneness of Atman, and for no other purpose whatsoever. Therefore, no multiplicity is brought about by creation, etc.

Karika, verse 3.16
Objection: If according to such Śruti passages as “Atman is one and without a second”, etc., the Atman alone, the one, the eternally pure, illumined and free, is the highest and the ultimate Reality and all else is unreal, what then is the purpose of the devotion and spiritual practices implied in such Śruti   passages as “Oh dear, Atman alone is to be seen”, “The Atman who is free from”, “He desired”, “It should be worshipped as Atman”, etc.? Further, what is the utility of Karma (Vedic works) like Agnihotra, etc.?
Reply: Yes, listen to the reasons. Āśrama signifies those who are competent to follow the disciplines of life as prescribed for the different stages.  The word (in the text) also includes those who belong to the (different) castes  and therefore who observe the rites (prescribed for those castes). The application of the word “Āśrama” implies that these castes are also three in number. How? It is because they are endowed with three kinds of intellect, viz., low,  middle  and high.  This discipline as well as the (various) Karmas (works) are prescribed for the Āśramis of low and average intellect, by the Śruti, out of compassion, so that they also, following the correct disciplines, may attain to the superior knowledge. That  this discipline is not for those who possess the right understanding, i.e., who are already endowed with the Knowledge of Atman which is one and without a second, is supported by such Śruíi passages as “That which cannot be known by the mind, but by which, they say, the mind is able to think, that alone know to be Brahman, and not that which people here adore”, “That thou art”, “All this is verily Atman”, etc.
In the previous Kārikās it has been proved that the Scriptural statements regarding creation, etc., do not conflict with the nondual Atman. This Kārikā states that the prescription of various disciplines associated with different Varṇas and Āśramas also does not contradict the view of the non-dual Atman. The statements regarding creation, etc., as well as the various spiritual disciplines are only meant for the unenlightened in order to assist them to understand the oneness of Atman.

Karika, verse 3.17
The knowledge of the non-dual Self is established by both Scriptures and reasoning. Therefore, it is alone the perfect knowledge. Other views, on account of their being devoid of the bases of Scriptures and reasoning, lead to false systems. The views of the dualists are false on account of this additional reason, that they are the fruitful sources of the vices of attachment and hatred, etc. How is this? The dualists following the views of Kapila, Kanāda, Buddha and Jina, etc., hold firmly to the conclusions as outlined and formulated by their respective schools. They  think that the view they hold is alone the ultimate Reality, whereas other views are not so. Therefore they become attached to their own views and hate others whom they consider to be opposed to them. Thus being overcome with attachment and hatred, they contradict one another, the reason being the adherence to their own convictions as the only truth. But our view, viz., the unity of Atman, based upon the identity of all, supported by the Vedas, does not conflict with others who find contradictions among themselves,—as  one’s limbs such as hands, feet, etc., do not conflict with one another. Hence the purport of the Śruti is that the knowledge of the oneness of Atman, as it is free from the blemish of attachment and aversion, is the true knowledge.
This Karikā proves the superiority of the Advaita knowledge over other views as it does not contradict the Scriptural statements regarding creation and exercises (Upāsana), and also because it does not clash with other theories. Advaita alone harmonises all other doctrines and theories. It alone gives the rationale of other relative views regarding Truth.

Karika, verse 3.18
How is it that the non-dualist does not conflict with the dualist? The reason is thus stated:—As  nonduality is the ultimate Reality, therefore duality or multiplicity is only its effect. The Scriptural passages such as, “He is one and without a second”, “He created fire”, etc., support this view. It  is further borne out by reason as duality is not perceived in the states of swoon, deep sleep or trance (samādhi), in the absence of the activity of the mind. Therefore duality is said to be the effect of non-duality. But the dualists perceive duality alone either  way, that is, from both the absolute and the relative standpoints. As duality is perceived only by the deluded and non-duality by us who are enlightened,  therefore our view does not clash with their views. For, the Scripture also says, “Indra (the Supreme Lord) created all these diverse forms through Maya”, “There exists nothing like duality”. It  is like the case of a man on a spirited elephant, who knows that none can oppose him, but who yet does not drive his beast upon a lunatic who though standing on the ground, shouts at the former, “I am also on an elephant, drive your beast on me”. Therefore from the standpoint of Reality, the Knower of Brahman is the very self of (even) the dualists. Hence, our, viz., the non-dualistic view does not clash with other views.
It may be asked in view of the differences between the dualistic and the non-dualistic views, how it can be said that the latter does not find any contradiction with the former. The text of the Kārikā gives the reply. It says that the so-called duality does not exist at all. Whatever exists is non-dual Brahman alone. Therefore the non-dualist cannot quarrel with a thing which is ultimately non-existent.

Karika, verse 3.19
If duality  were the effect of non-duality, then it could be contended that duality also, like the Advaita, is the Supreme Reality. In order to remove this doubt which may crop up in the minds of some, it is said that non-duality which is the Supreme Reality appears manifold through Maya,  like the one moon appearing as many to one with defective eye-sight and the rope appearing (to the deluded) as the snake, the water-line, etc. This manifold is not real, for Atman is without any part. An object endowed with parts may be said to undergo modification by a change of its parts, as clay undergoes differentiation into pots, etc. Therefore the purport is that the changeless (unborn) Atman which is without parts cannot, in any manner, admit of distinction excepting through Maya or the illusion of the perceiver. If  the appearance of manifoldness were real, then the Atman, the ever-unborn and non-dual, which is, by its very nature, immortal would become mortal as though fire would become cold (which is an absurdity). The reversal of one’s own nature is not desired by any—as it is opposed to all means of proofs. Therefore the Reality—which is Atman—changeless and unborn, appears to undergo a modification only through Maya. Hence it follows that duality is not the ultimate Reality.

Karika, verse 3.20
Some interpreters of the Upaniṣads, who  are garrulous and who put on the airs of the Knowers of Brahman, admit that the Reality—the Atman—which is by nature ever-unborn (changeless) and immortal, really passes  into birth (i.e., becomes the universe). If,  according to them, the Atman really passes into birth it must undergo destruction. But,  how is it possible for the Atman which is, by its very nature, ever-unborn (changeless) and immortal to become mortal, i.e., to be subject to destruction? It can never become mortal which is contrary to its very nature.

Karika, verse 3.21-22
As in common experience the immortal never becomes mortal, nor the mortal ever becomes immortal; therefore it is, in no way, possible for a thing to reverse its nature, i.e., to become otherwise than what it is. Fire can never change its character of being hot.
The disputant who maintains that the naturally immortal entity becomes mortal, i.e., really passes into birth, makes  the futile proposition that that entity before creation is by its very nature, immortal. How can he assert that the entity is of immortal nature if it be admitted that it passes  into birth? That is to say, how can the immortal retain its immortal nature of changelessness if it should undergo a change? It cannot, by any means, be so. Those who hold that the Atman passes into birth (i.e., undergoes a change), cannot speak of the Atman as ever birthless. Everything, according to them, must be mortal. Hence  there cannot be a state called liberation.

Karika, verse 3.23

Objection: Those  who do not admit the change or the passing into birth of Brahman, cannot justify the Scriptural passages which support creation.
Reply: Yes, we also admit the existence of Scriptural texts supporting creation as actual, but such texts serve other purposes. Though the question has already been disposed of, the contention is here again made and refuted in order to allay all doubts regarding the applicability or otherwise of the Scriptural texts to the subject-matter  that is going to be dealt with. The Scriptural text regarding creation is the same, whether the creation of things is taken in the real sense or as a mere illusion produced by the juggler.
Objection: If words admit of metaphorical and direct meanings, it is reasonable to understand the world according to their direct meaning.
Reply: We do not admit it. For,  creation, in any sense other than illusion, is unknown to us, and further, no purpose is served by admitting (the act of) creation. All  creation, whether metaphorical or actual, refers to the apparent creation caused by Avidya but not to any creation from the standpoint of Reality. For the Scripture says, “Though existing both within and without, he (the Atman) is (really) changeless”. Therefore we have stated in the foregoing part of this work only what is supported by reason and determined by the Śruīi such words as, “He is one and without a second and is free from birth and death”. That alone is the true import of the Scripture and not anything else.

Karika, verse 3.24
It may be asked how the changelessness (Ajāti) of Atman is the final conclusion of the Śruti. In reply it is said that if creation were real, then the existence of the variety of objects would be absolutely real. Consequently there ought not to be Scriptural texts implying their unreality. But there are such Scriptural texts as, “In this (Atman) there is no multiplicity,” etc., which negate the existence of duality. Therefore creation (imaginary) has been imagined in order to help the understanding of the non-duality of Atman. It  is like the story of Prana. And this is further borne out by the use of the word, “Maya” denoting unreality (in connection with creation) in such Scriptural texts as “Indra  through Maya assumed diverse forms”.

Objection: The word denotes knowledge (Prajna).
Reply: It is true, but sens e-knowledge is illusory. The word  “Maya” is used to denote that (sense-) knowledge. Hence there is no blemish (in such use of the word). The word “Mayabhiḥ” (through Maya) in the Scriptural text means through sense-knowledge, which is illusory. For, the Scripture again says, “Though unborn he appears to be born in many ways.” Therefore Atman passes into birth through Maya alone. The word “Tu” (“verily”) in the text (of the Kārikā) denotes certainty, that is to say, it  indicates that creation is possible only through Maya or illusion and not in any real sense. For, birthlessness and birth in various forms cannot be predicated of the same object, as fire cannot be both hot and cold. Further, from such Śruti passages as “How can there be any delusion and any grief for him who sees unity,” etc., we know that the knowledge of the unity of Atman is alone the conclusion of Śruti on account of the (good) result it brings to the knower. Again, the perception of differentiation implied by creation has been condemned in such Śruti passages as, “He goes from death to death (who sees here many)”.

Karika, verse 3.25
By the condemnation of Sambhūti   (i.e., Hiraṇyagarbha) as something fit to be meditated upon, in such Śruti  passage as, “They enter into blind darkness who worship Sambhūti,” the whole  creation (evolution) is negatived. For, if Sambhūti were absolutely real, then its condemnation, in such manner, would not be reasonable.

Objection: The  condemnation of Sambhūti is meant here for co-ordinating Sambhūti with Vināśa   as is the case with the Śruti passage,  “They enter into blind darkness who worship Avidya”.
Reply: Yes, it is indeed true that the condemnation of the exclusive worship of Sambhūti is made for the purpose of co-ordinating the meditation regarding Sambhūti with the Karma (ritual) known as Vināśa. Still it should not be forgotten that as the purpose of the Karma known as Vināśa is to transcend death,—whose nature is the desire consequent upon the inborn ignorance of man—so also the aim  of the co-ordination of the meditation on Devatā (i.e., Sambhūti or Hiraṇyagarbha) with the Karma (called Vināśa) undertaken for the purpose of the purification of the mind of man, is to transcend death,—which  is of the nature of the attachment to ritual and its results characterised by the dual hankering after the end and the means. For, thus alone man becomes free from death which is of the nature of impurity and is characterised by the dual impulse of end and means. Therefore the co-ordination of the meditation of Devatā and of Karma—which is Avidya—leads to freedom from death. Thus  the realisation of Vidyā (the highest knowledge), characterised by the identity of the Supreme Self and Jiva, is inevitable  for one who has transcended death,—of the form of Avidya and characterised by the dual impulses (of the means and the end),—and who is established in renunciation and also devoted to the meaning of the import of the Upaniṣad. It is therefore said thus : BrahmAvidya (i.e., the knowledge of Brahman—which is the means for the attainment of Immortality and which is (from the relative standpoint) subsequent to the state of the antecedent Avidya (ignorance) being related to the same person (who is still in the state of ignorance), is said to be coordinated with Avidya (avidya).

Hence the negation of Sambhūti is for the purpose of condemnation as it serves a purpose other  than the knowledge of Brahman which (alone) is the means to the attainment of Immortality. Though it serves the purpose of removing impurity yet the devotion to Sambhūti does not enable one to realise (directly) immortality. (Therefore the condemnation of Sambhūti is reasonable.) Hence, Sambhūti, being thus negatived, it can be said to have only a relative existence. Having regard to the unity of Atman, the ultimate Reality, creation (symbolised by Hiraṇyagarbha) which is known as immortal  (only from the relative standpoint) is negated. Such  being the case, who can bring into being the Jiva who is seen as created only through illusion (Maya) and who exists only while ignorance (Avidya) lasts? This Jiva reverts to its original nature (of Brahman) with the disappearance of Avidvā, For, no one can verily bring into being the snake (falsely) superimposed upon the rope through Avidya and which disappears when one knows (the true nature of the rope). Therefore no one can produce or create the Jiva. The words “Ko nu” (“who can?”) in the text, being in the form of interrogation refute the idea of causality. The purport of the Kārikā is that there can be no cause for a thing which is seen to be born only through ignorance and which disappears with the destruction of the said ignorance. The Śruti also says, “This  Atman is not born from any cause nor is anything born from it.”

Karika, verse 3.26
The Śruti in such passage as, “This is the final instruction. It is not this, not this,” has determined the nature of Atman by the refutation of all specific characteristics. But knowing this Atman to be incomprehensible  the Śruti has again sought to establish the very same Atman through other means and finally refuted what have been described (as the means for the attainment of Atman). That is to say, the Śruti, in such passage as, “It is not this, not this,” demonstrates the incomprehensibility of Atman or in other words, refutes the idea that Atman   can be realised or understood. Those  who do not understand that the means (suggested for the realisation of Atman) have only one purpose, viz., the realisation of the end (i.e., the non-dual Atman), make a mistake by thinking that what are suggested as the means have the same reality as the end. In order to remove this error, the Śruti negates the reality  of the means by  pointing out the incomprehensibility of Atman, as its reason. Subsequently,  the student knows that the means serve their purpose by pointing only to the end and the end itself is always one and changeless. To such a student the knowledge of the unborn Self which is both within and without reveals itself.

Karika, verse 3.27
Thus hundreds of Scriptural passages conclude that the essence which is the non-dual and birthless Self, existing both within and without, is the only Reality, and that nothing else, besides the Self, exists. Now, in order to determine this very Reality through reason, again it is stated:—

Objection: It may also be true that if Reality be incomprehensible then the knowledge of Self would be unreal.
Reply: No, this cannot be, for  the effect is comprehended. As the effects, that is to say creation (of new things), come from a really existent magician through Maya (magic), so also the comprehension of the effects, in the form of the creation of the universe, leads us to infer the existence of the Atman, the Supreme Reality, who, like the magician, is, as it were, the substratum of the illusion which is seen in the form of the creation of the universe. For, the creation of the universe is possible only with a Reality, i.e., an existing cause, like the birth of the effects, such as the elephant, etc., conjured up through illusion (by an existing magician); and this creation is never possible with a non-existing cause. It is not, however, possible for the unborn Atman to really pass into birth. Or,  the first line of the text may be explained in another manner. As a really existing entity, such as the rope, etc., passes into such effects as the snake, etc., only through Maya and not in reality, similarly, the real and the incomprehensible Atman is seen to pass into birth, in the form of the universe, like the rope becoming the snake, only through illusion. The birthless Atman cannot pass into birth from the standpoint of Reality. But the disputant who holds that the unborn Atman, the Supreme Reality, is really born in the form of the universe, cannot assert that the unborn is born, as this implies a contradiction.  In that case he must admit that, in fact, what is (already) born, again passes into birth. If, thus, birth is predicated of that which is already born, then the disputant is faced with what is known in logic as regressus ad infinitum. Therefore it is established that the Essence which is Atman is ever unborn and non-dual.

Karika, verse 3.28
There are those who hold that all entities are unreal, that the non-existent produces this world. But production, by the non-existent, of any thing either in reality or in illusion is not possible. For we know nothing like it in our experience. As the son of a barren woman is not seen to be born either really or through Maya, the theory of the non-existence of things is in truth untenable.

Karika, verse 3.29
How is it possible for the Reality to pass into birth through Maya? It is thus replied; As the snake imagined in the rope, is real  when seen as the rope, so also the mind,  from the standpoint of the knowledge of the ultimate Reality, is seen to be identical with Atman. This mind, in dream, appears to us as dual in the forms of the cogniser and the cognised through  Maya, as the snake àppears to be separate from the rope through ignorance. Similarly, indeed the mind acts (in a dual form) in the waking state through Maya. That is to say, the mind appears to act.

Karika, verse 3.30
Really speaking, the snake is identical with the rope. In like manner, the mind which is nondual  as Atman appears undoubtedly in dual forms in dreams. Verily in dream, such objects of perception as elephants, etc., or their perceivers such as eyes, etc., have  no existence independently of consciousness (mind). Similar  is the case in the waking state as well. For (conciousness) mind, which is the highest Reality, is common to both.

Karika, verse 3.31
It has been said that it is the mind alone which appears as dual (objects) like the appearance of the snake in the rope. But what is its proof? Our answer is this: We make the statement on the strength of an inference following the method of agreement and difference. The proposition is that all this duality perceived as such by the imagination of the mind is, in reality, nothing but the mind. The reason for such inference is that duality is perceived when the mind acts and it vanishes when the mind ceases to act; that is to say, when the (activity, i.e., the Vṛttis of the) mind is withdrawn  unto itself by the knowledge got through discrimination, repeated practice and renunciation,—like the disappearance of the snake in the rope—or during deep sleep.  Hence on account of the disappearance of duality it is established that duality is unreal or illusory. That the perception of duality is due to the action of the mind is further proved in this Kārikā.

Karika, verse 3.32
How does the mind become naught? It is thus replied:—The Atman alone is the Reality like  the clay; as in the Śruti passage, “All modifications are mere names arising from efforts of speech. The clay alone is real.” That knowledge of the reality of Atman comes through the Scripture  and the teacher. The mind having attained to that knowledge does not imagine, as  there remains nothing to be imagined. The mind then is like fire when there is no fuel to burn. When the mind thus does no longer imagine, it ceases to be mind, that is, the mind, for want of any object to be cognised, becomes free from all cognition.

Karika, verse 3.33
If all this duality be illusory, how is the knowledge of the Self to be realised? It is thus replied: The Knowers of Brahman describe knowledge, i.e., the mere essence of thought, which is unborn and free from all imaginations as  non-different from Brahman, the ultimate Reality, which is also the object of knowledge. This is supported by such Scriptural passages as, “Like heat from fire, knowledge (Jñānam) is never absent from the knower (Atman),” “Brahman is Knowledge and Bliss,” “Brahman is Reality, Knowledge and Infinity,” etc. The knowledge of which Brahman is the object, is non-different from (the know-able) Brahman, as is the heat from the fire. The Essence of the Self, which is the object of knowledge, verily knows itself by means of unborn knowledge, which is of the very nature of Atman. Brahman which is of the nature of one homogeneous mass of eternal consciousness, does not depend upon another instrument of knowledge (for its illumination), as is the case with the sun, which being of the nature of continuous light (does not require any instrument to illumine itself).
As non-different, etc.—The Jñānam or knowledge is the same as Brahman; otherwise no knowledge would be able to tell us what Brahman is. Darkness cannot illumine the sun. Only the light of the sun which is the sun itself, can illumine the sun. Another instrument—Such as scripture, etc., which only tell us what is not self.
To the Jñāni (Jnani), even when he acts in this empirical world, the knower, the knowledge and the object of knowledge are all Brahman. And yet all these, being of the nature of Brahman, are without birth (Aja).

Karika, verse 3.34-35
It has been stated before that the mind, free from imagination on account of the knowledge  of Truth, which is Atman, becomes tranquil for want of external objects, like the fire not fed by fuel. Such mind may be said to be under control, It has been further stated that duality disappears when the mind thus ceases to act. The Yogis should particularly know the behaviour  of the mind which is thus brought under discipline, which is free from all imaginations and which is possessed of discrimination.

Objection: In  the absence of all specific consciousness the mind, in the state of deep sleep, behaves exactly in the same manner as does the mind under control. What is there to be known in the absence of all specific knowledge?
Reply: To this objection we reply thus:—Your objection is not valid. For, the behaviour of the mind in deep sleep, overcome by the darkness of delusion caused by ignorance, and still full of many potential desires which are the seeds of numerous future undesirable activities, is quite different from the behaviour of the mind well under control and free from the ignorance which produces activities that give rise to numerous afflictions, and from which has been burnt away by the fire of self-knowledge the ignorance which contains the harmful seed of all potential tendencies to act. The behaviour of the latter kind of mind is quite different. Therefore it is not like the mind in deep sleep. Hence the behaviour of such mind should be known. This is the purport.

Karika, verse 3.36
Brahman is both within and without as well as unborn, as there is no cause for its passing into birth. For, we have already stated that (the phenomenon of) birth is seen on account of the ignorance (of the real nature of a thing), as  is the case with the rope giving birth to the (illusion of the) snake. It is birthless because all ignorance is destroyed by the knowledge of Truth which is the Atman. Hence it is free from sleep ; for, Atman, which is, by nature, non-dual, is always free from sleep the nature of which is that of beginningless delusion characterised by ignorance. Therefore it is free from dream.  Names and forms which are ascribed to it are due to the ignorance of its real nature. These names and forms are destroyed by Knowledge. It is like the (destruction of the illusion of the) snake seen in the rope. Hence Brahman cannot be described by any name, nor can it be in any manner described to be of any form. To support this, there are such Śruti passages as, “From which words come back,” etc. Moreover, it  is ever effulgent or it is of the very nature of effulgence. For,  it is free from (the ideas of) manifestation and non-manifestation characterised by wrong apprehension and non-apprehension. Apprehension and nonapprehension are (as inseparable) as day and night. Darkness is the characteristic of ignorance. These are the causes of the non-manifestation (of the real nature of Atman). These  are absent in Atman. Moreover, Atman is always of the nature of consciousness and effulgence. Therefore it is reasonable to speak of Atman as ever-effulgent. It is all-knowing, that is to say, Atman is all that exists and Atman is consciousness (awareness) itself. As regards such Brahman (i.e., the one that knows such Brahman) no action can be enjoined, as may be in the case of others, who (on account of their ignorance of the real nature of Brahman) are asked to practise concentration, etc., on the nature of Atman. The  purport is that besides the destruction of ignorance it is not possible to prescribe any disciplinary action (for the knowledge of Brahman), as Brahman is always of the nature of purity, knowledge and freedom. The nature of Brahman, which is the subject-matter under discussion is thus described in other ways. The purport of the Kārikā is that apart from the realisation of one’s identity with the attributeless Brahman no effort is to be made by him. The categorical imperative of Kant has no meaning for a knower of Atman. Yogic Samādhi is not the same as the goal of Jñāna Yoga as described in the philosophy of Advaita Vedānta or the Kārikā.

Karika, verse 3.37
Now is explained the reason for indicating Brahman as without name, etc., as stated above. The word Abhilāpa, meaning expression, denotes here the instrument of sound by which all sounds are expressed. Brahman is beyond speech. The instrument of sound is used in the sense of metonymy, i.e., it also implies other instruments of sense-knowledge. The purport is that the Atman is beyond all external sense-organs. Similarly, it is beyond all activities of the mind. The word “Chintā” in the text stands for “mind” (or the internal organ of thought). For, the Śruti says, “It is verily without Prana and without mind”, “It is higher than the imperishable Supreme.” It is all peace as it is free from all distinctions. The Atman is ever-effulgent, that is to say, being of the nature of self-consciousness which is its very essence, it is eternal light. The Atman is denoted by the word Samādhi   as it can be realised only by the knowledge arising out of the deepest concentration (on its essence) or, the Atman is denoted by Samādhi because the Jiva concentrates his mind on Atman. It is immovable, i.e., beyond change. Hence, it is fearless as it is free from change.

Karika, verse 3.38
As Brahman alone has been described in the previous text as Samādhi (i.e., the sole object of concentration) and as free from activity and fear, therefore in that Brahman there  is nothing to accept nor is there anything to give up. For, acceptance or abandonment is possible only where there is change or the possibility of change. But both these are inconsistent with Brahman—as nothing else exists which can cause a change in Brahman, and further because Brahman is without parts. Therefore, the meaning is that in Brahman there is no possibility of either accepting or giving up anything. The purport of the Kārikā is this: How can there be any acceptance or abandonment (in Brahman) where, in the absence of the mind, no  mentation whatsoever is possible? When the knowledge of Reality which is the Self, ensues, then Knowledge, for want of any object to rest upon, becomes established in Atman, like the heat of fire (in the absence of fuel). Ajāti, i.e., free from birth. It attains to the state of supreme non-duality. Thus is concluded, by means of reasoning and Scriptural authority what was stated before as a proposition in the following words: “Now I shall describe the non-dual Brahman which is free from limitation and birth and which is the same everywhere.” Everything else, other than the knowledge of Reality which is the Self, birthless and homogeneous, implies limitation. The Śruti also says, “O Gārgi, he who departs from this world without knowing that Imperishable One, is, indeed, narrow-minded.” The purport is that everyone, realising this knowledge, becomes established in Brahman and attains to the fulfilment of all desires.

Karika, verse 3.39
Though  such is the nature of the knowledge of the Supreme Reality, yet it is described in the Upaniṣads as Yoga not in touch with anything; for, it is free from all touch implying relations (with objects). It is hard to be attained by the Yogis   who are devoid of the knowledge taught in the Vedānta philosophy. In other words, this truth can be realised only by the efforts culminating in the knowledge of Atman as the Sole Reality. The Yogis shrink from it, which is free from all fear, for  they think that this Yoga brings about the annihilation of their self. In other words, the Yogis, being devoid of discrimination, who, through fear, apprehend the destruction of their self, are afraid of it which is, in reality, fearlessness.

Karika, verse 3.40
Those  who regard mind and the sense-organs, when seen apart from their identity with the very nature of Brahman, as mere imagination,—like that of the snake when seen apart from its identity with the rope—and who thus deny the sole reality of the mind and the sense-organs (independent of Brahman), i.e., those who look upon themselves as of the very nature of Brahman, spontaneously enjoy, as quite natural to them, fearlessness and eternal peace known as Freedom, (perfect knowledge) for which they (the Jñānis) do not depend upon any mechanical effort (such as the control of the mind, etc.). We have already stated that no duty (effort), whatsoever, exist for the Jñāni. But those other Yogis who are also traversing the path (leading to Truth), but who possess inferior  or middling understanding and who  look upon the mind as separate from but related to Atman, and who  are ignorant of the knowledge regarding the reality of Atman—the Yogis belonging to this class can experience fearlessness as a result of the discipline of the mind. To them  the destruction of misery is also dependent upon mental control. The ignorant can never experience the cessation of misery, if the mind, (considered) related to Atman, becomes active. Besides, their knowledge of self is dependent on their control of the mind. And similarly, eternal peace, known as Mokṣa (or liberation), in their case, depends upon the mental discipline.

Karika, verse 3.41
As one may try to empty the ocean, by draining off its water drop by drop, with the help of a (blade of) Kuśa -grass, even so may one control the mind by making the same effort with a heart which becomes neither depressed nor tired.
This Kārikā gives us an idea of the effort that a Yogi should make to control his mind completely. But it appears that the complete suppression of the mental Vṛttis is impossible in this way. And as the happiness of a Yogi is dependent upon such suppression, he can never attain to eternal Truth by the Yogic method. Jñāna - yoga is the royal road for the attainment of eternal Truth and peace.

Karika, verse 3.42
Is untiring effort the only way for bringing the mind under discipline? We say, in reply, no. One should, with untiring effort, follow the means, to be stated presently, in order to bring the mind under discipline, that is to say, bring it back to Atman,  when the mind turns towards objects of desires and enjoyments. The word “Laya”  in the text indicates Suṣupti, i.e., deep sleep in which state one becomes oblivious of all things. The  (injunction implied in the) words “should be brought under discipline”, should also be applied in the case of the mind when it feels happy, that is to say free from all worries in the state of Laya or oblivion. Why should it be further brought under discipline if it feels pleasure (in that state)? It is thus replied: Because the state of oblivion is as  harmful as desire, the mind should be withdrawn from the state of oblivion as it should be withdrawn from objects of enjoyment.

Karika, verse 3.43
What is the way of disciplining the mind? It is thus replied: Remember that all  duality is caused by Avidya or illusion and therefore afflicted with misery. Thereby dissuade the mind from seeking enjoyments produced by desires. In other words, withdraw the mind from all dual objects by impressing upon it the idea of complete non-attachment.  Realise from the teachings of the Scriptures and the Āchāryās that all this is verily the changeless Brahman. Then you will not see anything to the contrary, viz., duality; for it does not exist.

Karika, verse 3.44
When  the mind is immersed in oblivion, i.e., in Suṣupti, then rouse it up by means of knowledge and by detachment. That is to say, turn the mind to the exercise of discrimination which leads to the knowledge of the Self. The word “Chitta” in the text bears the same meaning as “Manas” or mind. Bring  the mind back to the state of tranquillity if it is distracted by the various objects of desires. When the mind is thus, by constant practice, awakened from the state of inactivity and also turned back from all objects, but not yet established in equilibrium,  that is to say, when the mind still dwells in an intermediary state,—then know  the mind to be possessed of attachment. Then the mind contains within it the seeds of desires for enjoyment and inactivity. From  that state also, bring the mind, with care, to the realisation of equilibrium. Once the mind hás realised the state of equilibrium, that is, when it is on the way to realise that state, then do not disturb it again. In other words, do not turn it to (by attachment) external objects.

Karika, verse 3.45
The seeker should not taste that happiness that is experienced by the Yogis seeking  after Samādhi. In other words, he is not to be attached to that happiness. What then should be done by the student? He should be unattached to such happiness, by gaining knowledge through discrimination, and think that whatever happiness is experienced is false  and conjured up by ignorance. The mind should be turned back from such happiness. When, however, having been once withdrawn from happiness and fixed on the state of steadiness, the mind again manifests its outgoing propensities, then control it by adopting the above-mentioned  means; and with great care, make it one  with Atman; that is, make the mind attain to the condition of pure existence and thought.

Karika, verse 3.46
When the mind brought under discipline by the above-mentioned  methods, does not fall into the oblivion of deep sleep, nor is distracted by external objects, that is to say, when the mind becomes quiescent  like the flame of a light kept in a windless place; or when  the mind does not appear in the form of an object,—when the mind is endowed with these characteristics, it verily becomes one  with Brahman.

Karika, verse 3.47-48
The above-mentioned bliss which is the highest Reality and which is characterised by the knowledge of the Atman is  centred in the Self. It is all peace, characterised by the cessation of all evils. It is the same as liberation.  It is indescribable as  nobody is able to describe it; for, it is totally different from all objects. This ultimate bliss is directly realized by the Yogis.  It is unborn because it is not produced like anything resulting from empirical perceptions. It is identical with the Unborn which is the object sought by Knowledge. The Knowers of Brahman describe this bliss verily as the omniscient Brahman, as it is identical with that Reality which is omniscient.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2019, 01:27:36 PM by Commentary »