Author Archives: Bimal

Mandukya Upanishad and Karika (Part 9)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 8

Chapter IV

K 24–28 concern Buddhist schools of philosophy (See the Annexure at the conclusion of the series).

K 29
There is no satisfactory explanation of creation. Creation implies the birth of an effect, which immediately raises the question of its cause. If that cause is identified, it in turn becomes the effect of an earlier cause. Ultimately, one has to arrive at a causeless cause. Such a cause must necessarily be birthless, eternal, and changeless. But creation implies change. Therefore, the notions of an eternal cause and a real creation are mutually contradictory.

K 30
If the world is beginningless in the sense of an endless cycle of karma and rebirth, liberation would be impossible because samsara would have no end. On the other hand, if liberation itself has a beginning, it must also have an end. Such liberation would only be temporary. (This point was discussed earlier under K 14–20)

Continue reading →

Mandukya Upanishad and Karika (Part 8)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 7

Part 9

Chapter IV             

Alatasanti Prakaran (On Quenching of The Firebrand)

Introduction                                                                                                                         In this chapter, Gauḍapada consolidates the teachings of the previous three chapters and establishes the doctrine of non-origination (ajativada). He also examines and refutes rival philosophical systems to reinforce the Advaitic vision of non-duality. In the first two karikas, Gaudapada pays salutations to Narayana, the the Adi Guru, who initiated the lineage of teachers (guru-parampara). He was the first to teach non-duality, i.e., identity of jiva and Brahman. Gaudapada pays obeisance to asparsh-yoga which is without any contradiction. It is both beneficial and enjoyable because it culminates in liberation, which is of the nature of limitless bliss.

Continue reading →

Brahman: The Paradox of Neither Known Nor Unknown

Posted on by
1

In the Kena Upaniṣad, the teacher attempts to impart knowledge of Brahman. The eyes, speech, and mind cannot reach It. An object is ordinarily cognised through the mind and senses. Since Brahman is not an object of perception, the teacher says: We do not know Brahman as an object that can be described as such and such, nor are we aware of any process by which It can be taught as an object.

An object perceived by the senses can be taught by classifying it on the basis of its class, qualities, and actions. Brahman, however, does not fall within these categories. Therefore, the methods ordinarily employed to teach about objects are unsuitable for imparting knowledge of Brahman.

A different approach is required to impart this knowledge and bring the truth within the seeker’s comprehension. This is provided by the traditional teaching handed down by the ancient teachers. They have described Brahman through apparently paradoxical statements:

Brahman is different from the known and also different from the unknown. It is neither known nor unknown.

Shankarcharya resolves this apparent paradox.

Whatever is known as an object is limited, mortal, and subject to misery; hence, it is to be rejected as the ultimate reality. Therefore, when Brahman is said to be different from the known, it amounts to saying that It is not something to be rejected. Similarly, when Brahman is said to be different from the unknown, it means that It is not something to be attained as an object.                                                                                                

Since Brahman is neither an object to be acquired nor one to be rejected, the disciple’s desire to know Brahman objectively comes to an end. Instead, he understands the teacher’s instruction that nothing other than one’s own Self can be different from both the known and the unknown.
In this way, the teacher successfully imparts the knowledge that Brahman is the very Self of the seeker, which is pure consciousness.

Shankaracharya affirms the effectiveness of the above method.

 Brahman is to be known only through the traditional instruction imparted by preceptors. It cannot be known through mere argumentation, study or exposition, intelligence, extensive learning, austerity, sacrifices, or similar means.

Note: Main source: Eight Upaniṣhads with the Commentary of Shankaracharya translated by Swami Gambhirananda, Advaita Ashrama.

Mandukya Upanishad and Karika (Part 7)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 6

Part 8

Chapter III

Advaita Prakarana (On Non-duality)

K 15-20                                                                                                                                It is difficult to teach non-duality which is the final teaching of the Upanishad because the intellect is obsessed with worldly affairs which thrive on duality. There are three categories of students, the lowest, mediocre and the sharpest depending upon their maturity of intellect. A sharp intellect can understand that the world is like a dream, whereas Brahman alone is the reality. It is difficult for other two types of intellect. Therefore, the Upanishads introduce them to creation by using metaphors of clay-pot, gold-ornament, fire-spark, etc. As the teaching progresses, creation is negated by saying that effect is not different from the cause. Existence of the creation does not belong to it. The creation borrows it from Brahman which is the substratum and creation is a superimposition upon It.

Continue reading →

Mundaka Upanishad (3.2.9)

Posted on by
Reply

The Mundaka Upanishad (3.2.9) makes a bold statement, “Anyone who knows that supreme Brahman becomes Brahman indeed.”  This statement gives rise to two potential doubts:
The Issue of Action: The verb “becomes” implies a transformation or action. However, according to Advaita Vedanta, knowledge alone—not action—is the direct means to liberation.
The Issue of Essential Identity: The mantra might suggest that an ignorant person is not Brahman, whereas the fundamental premise of Advaita is the intrinsic identity of the Jiva and Brahman.

Continue reading →

Mandukya Upanishad and Karika (Part 6)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 5

Part 7

Chapter III – Advaita Prakarana (On Non-duality)

This chapter discusses the word ‘advaitam’ occurring in the seventh mantra of the Mandukya Upanishad.

K 1–2
In the empirical world, there are two types of transactions: sacred and secular. Both involve duality. Secular transactions involve I and mine on the one hand and the world on the other. Sacred transactions involve I and mine on the one hand and God on the other.
In the sacred sphere, I worship God because I consider myself limited and insecure, while I regard God as all-powerful and compassionate. I am a devotee of God. The Vedas do prescribe devotion in their earlier portion. However, Gauḍapada says that remaining a devotee forever is not the final goal and that such a devotee is unfortunate, because devotion by itself is not a permanent remedy of human suffering. Self-knowledge alone is the permanent remedy. The Self is non-dual.

Continue reading →

Mandukya Upanishad and Karika (Part 5)

Posted on by
1

Part 4

Part 6

Chapter II – Vaitathya Prakarana (On Unreality)

Shankaracharya introduces the chapter as follows:
“In consonance with such Vedic texts as, ‘One only, without a second’ (Ch. VI. ii. 1), it has been said that duality ceases to exist after realization (Karika I.18). That is, however, only a scriptural assertion. But this falsity can be confirmed even through reasoning. This is why the second chapter (of the Karika) commences.”
(Translation by Swami Gambhirananda, Eight Upanishads, Advaita Ashrama)

Continue reading →

Name and Form

Posted on by
3

Manifestation/Appearance – A view | Advaita Vision elicited some discussions on ‘name and form’. In this sense, the present post is a continuation.

In Vedantic terminology, the expression ‘name and form’ is often used in the context of the world. The world is of name and form.

On the other hand, the statement–the world is the name and form of Brahman– could be misunderstood to mean that Brahman itself consists of name and form.

Shankaracharya, inter-alia, explains this point in his commentary on the Taittiriya Upanishad (2.6).                                                                                                  “Objection: How can the One become many unless It enters into something else? The answer is: ‘Prajāyeya—I shall be born.’ The multiplication here does not refer to becoming something extraneous, as when one begets a son. How, then, does it take place? Through the manifestation of name and form that are latent in Itself. When name and form, existing latently in the Self, become manifest, they evolve—while retaining their essential nature as the Self under all conditions—in time and space, which are inseparable from Brahman. That manifestation of name and form is what is called the appearance of Brahman as the many.”

He further explains:                                                                                                    “Therefore, it is only because of Brahman that name and form have their being under all circumstances, but Brahman does not consist of them. They are said to be essentially Brahman, since they cease to exist when Brahman is eliminated.”

[Extracts from Eight Upanishads, Vol. I, with the Commentary of Shankaracharya translated by Swami Gambhīrānanda, Advaita Ashrama].

Brahman—Neither reaching nor non-reaching

Posted on by
1

Varuna instructs Bhrigu:
“Seek to know well that from which all beings are born, that by which they live after being born, and that towards which they move and into which they merge. That is Brahman.” (Tai. 3.1)
 A well-established principle is that, upon dissolution, an effect resolves into its cause.

In his commentary (Tai. 2.6), Shankaracharya raises the following questions:
“Does an ignorant person, after departing from this world, reach the other world, or does he not? Similarly, does a person of knowledge, after departing from this world, reach the other world, or does he not?”
He explains the difficulty as follows:
“Brahman, being the cause of space and everything else, is equally the source of both the ignorant person and the person of knowledge. Therefore, one might suspect that the ignorant person, too, reaches Brahman.”
Conversely, “if the ignorant person does not reach Brahman, even though Brahman is the common source of all, one might also doubt whether the enlightened person reaches Brahman.”

This appears to present a catch-22 situation.

Resolution                                                                                                                        The difficulty arises because the questions themselves are incorrectly framed. The concepts of reaching and not reaching are meaningful when there is a distance to be traversed or there is a difference between the seeker and the goal. Neither applies to Brahman which is the true nature of the individual.

From the standpoint of Advaita Vedanta, both the ignorant person and the enlightened person are, in their true nature, Brahman. Therefore, Brahman is not something that either of them must reach in the sense of attaining a previously absent reality.                There can be no satisfactory answer to a question based on a mistaken assumption.

The distinction between the ignorant person and the enlightened person lies not in their true nature, but in their knowledge of it. The ignorant person does not know that his or her true nature is Brahman, whereas the enlightened person knows this to be the case.

Self-knowledge does not bring about a transformation into Brahman; it removes the ignorance that conceals the ever-present truth that one has always been Brahman.

Note: Translation by Swami Gambhirananda, Eight Upanishads, Advaita Ashram

Mandukya Upanishad and Karika (Part 4)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 3

Part 5

Chapter I

K-11 to K-15
Gauḍapda analyses the common and distinguishing characteristics of Visva, Taijasa, Prajna, and Turiya. His definitions are only superficially different from those given earlier but are necessary for understanding these verses.
Ignorance gives rise to misconception. Ignorance of Turiya causes the misconception, “I am the waker” or “I am the dreamer.” Although ignorance is also present during deep sleep, there is no misconception because the mind which can entertain misconceptions is dormant. Turiya is free from both ignorance and misconception.
Prajna is ignorant of both himself and other things. He is blissfully ignorant. Turiya, however, is the witness even of ignorance, though It is never associated with it.

Continue reading →