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)
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].
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
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.
Chapter 1
Karika 6
During deep sleep, everything exists in a potential condition. From this potential condition, the waking and dream states emerge. An important Vedantic conclusion is that anything that appears to be created must already exist in a potential form. If it exists in a potential form, creation is a misnomer. There are only two states: the unmanifest and the manifest. A product (effect) is not a new entity; it pre-exists in an unmanifest form in its cause. This is the doctrine of Satkaryavada.
Mantra 3
The Self associated with the waker’s body is called Visva. Its field of experience is the universe obtaining in the waking state. Worldly objects are experienced because they are illumined by consciousness. Although consciousness is different from Visva, it appears to be related to external objects because of ignorance. In this sense, consciousness is said to be turned outward.
Visva experiences the waking world through nineteen instruments. They are the five sense organs, the five organs of action, the five vital forces, the mind, the intellect, the memory, and the ego.
Introduction
The Mandukya Upanishad belongs to Atharva Veda. Though it has only twelve mantras, its teachings are profound. Gauḍapadacharya wrote the Karika on it. A Karika differs from a commentary. In a commentary, the commentator analyses each mantra and comments on it in detail. A Karika, on the other hand, presents the essential philosophical teachings.
The Karika consists of four chapters comprising a total of 215 verses (Karikas). Chapter I is called Agama Prakaraṇa. It is so called because it is based on the twelve mantras of the Upanishad. This chapter contains 29 Karikas. Chapters II, III, and IV are respectively Vaitathya Prakaraṇa (On the Unreality of the World), comprising 38 Karikas; Advaita Prakaraṇa (On Non-duality), comprising 48 Karikas; and Alatasanti Prakaraṇa (On the Quenching of the Firebrand), comprising 100 Karikas.
The Upaniṣhad and Karika are traditionally studied together along with the commentary of Shankaracharya.
Chapter 19 Conversation between Atma and the Mind
19.19 Owing to ignorance, people superimpose upon Atma such notions as relative existence, relative non-existence, qualified, unqualified, agent, non-agent, and so on. Yet Atma is birthless, imperishable, non-dual, and is never Itself superimposed upon anything.
The ignorant mind takes Atma and the world of duality to belong to the same order of reality. Consequently, it performs actions that produce punya and papa, which in turn become the cause of birth and death—that is, samsara. The cycle of samsara continues endlessly until the mind realizes that Atma and the world belong to different orders of reality. The mind is mithya, and all superimpositions are likewise mithya.
Chapter 19 Conversation between Atma and the Mind
19.07 An ignorant mind believes that it can improve the status of I, the Atma. The wise person knows that the mind can neither improve Atma nor is there any need for such improvement, for Atma is already complete. Any improvement that occurs in time is destined to disappear with time. Therefore, every improvement in the mind, or brought about by the mind, is mithya. How can a mithya mind improve the real Atma? Therefore, Atma tells the mind to remain quiet and attend to its own welfare. Atma is self-effulgent. It requires no external support, including that of the mind, to shine. Rather, it is the mind that is illumined by Atma.
Chapter 19 Conversation between Atma and the Mind
Introduction It is a ‘dialogue’ between Atma and the mind. Since Atma is free from all action, the dialogue is figurative. Where the text makes such statements, what is meant is that the MIND REALIZES THIS and ceases (for the moment) to identify with ahaṃkara. Nevertheless, this chapter presents a unique method of nidhidhyasana, the third stage of jnana-yoga, following sravana and manana. At this stage, the aspirant has gained clear knowledge of Atma but must assimilate it until it becomes living knowledge.
The aspirant knows that his essential nature is consciousness, which is distinct from the mind. Yet the locus of knowledge is the mind. Thus, a peculiar situation arises in which the mind instructs itself that the aspirant’s true nature is consciousness, which is different from the mind. The mind must further remind itself that consciousness is changeless and eternal, whereas the mind is mithya.