असुर्या नाम ते लोका अन्धेन तमसा वृताः ।
तांस्ते प्रेत्याभिगच्छन्ति ये के चात्महनो जनाः ॥ — mantra 3, IshAvAsya upa.
[Meaning: Those worlds of devils are covered by blinding darkness. Those people that kill the Self go to them after giving up this body. (Translation: Swami Gambhirananda, 1957).]
The Upanishad counters the argument of the Mimamsakars saying that it is not a worthy stand to take, for it is tantamount to killing one’s Atma. AtmA is none other than what the Upanishad has been describing as the Lord.
How can the Lord be the same as AtmA?
AtmA is the generic name. It denotes the intrinsic nature as explained by Shankara in his commentary on brahma sUtra-s.
आत्मा हि नाम स्वरूपम् । — Shankara in his commentary at brahma sUtra 1.1.6.
[Meaning: By ‘Self’ we understand (a being’s) own nature. (Translation: G. Thibaut).]
The intrinsic nature is that from which a substance is derived. For example, being salty is the intrinsic nature of salt. The intrinsic nature of all the golden ornaments is gold. Clay is the intrinsic nature, AtmA, for all earthenware. Likewise, Pure Consciousness is the intrinsic nature, AtmA, for the entire world. Just like gold pervades all the ornaments, clay pervades all the earthenware, Consciousness pervades the entire world.
In other words, AtmA exists permeating throughout all of its effects (derivatives) and that itself is their intrinsic nature. The Lord that the Upanishad has been referring to is not something or someone that exists somewhere at a remote location. He signifies the very nature of all that is. He pervades all things and the space in-between too leaving no gap.
Hence, whatever meritorious actions one may conceive of doing, one should know that the Lord exists permeating those actions also. It is again the Lord Himself who is present permeating all the expected and anticipated favorable results of the actions. Under these circumstances, it is foolhardy to claim that one can perform an action and reap the results. It is impossible to do any deed, obtain a result or experience the fruits of the action by oneself without the Lord knowing.
The Upanishad also said that the stand of the Mimamsakars amounts to “killing the AtmA.” AtmA is immortal. It cannot be killed. Therefore, we have to understand that it is just an idiomatic way of saying that such a stance of the Mimamsakars indicates their failure to notice the Lord in all things.
Granting that by doing meritorious works one achieves heaven after death, the Upanishad avers that it is not a worthy objective. Being in heaven is no better than being in a dark dungeon, if one fails to notice the Lord in everything and everywhere.
अदर्शनात्मकेनाज्ञानेन … | — Shankara in his commentary at mantra 3, IshAvAsya upa.
[Meaning: Because of not knowing the Consciousness, being ignorant …]
Shankara explains that inability to know the Lord is like being blind. The illumination that provides the true insight comes from Consciousness only. All other lighting is just nominal, of no value in the absence of Consciousness. Merely performing meritorious deeds ignoring the illumination of the Consciousness is equivalent to being in darkness.
Any action done without being aware of the Self is insensitive. Fruits of such actions have no real value.
ज्ञात्वा कर्माणि कुर्वीत …| — a popular saying in the Vedic culture.
[Meaning: Actions should be done knowing the Self.]
The performer of the ritualistic actions should be aware of the fundamental Consciousness which is the one that actually illuminates the name, form and action.
The Upanishad has been using two words – Lord and AtmA. We need to get a clarity with regard to these two terms – what does each refer to and whether there is a difference between the Lord and AtmA?
We may, broadly speaking, think of these two words as two names for the same substance. The Upanishad says that AtmA is the name when there is no limiting adjunct and Ishwara is the name when there is an adjunct. [Adjunct is “a technical term used in Vedanta philosophy for any superimposition that gives a limited view of the Absolute and makes It appear as the relative.”]
AtmA is that intrinsic nature which knows that “I AM.”
“I” is Consciousness and “AM” is Beingness.
“I AM” is formless and all-pervading. Therefore, It is referred to as AtmA. It constitutes the intrinsic quality of All that IS. Any ‘thing’ is first cognized to ‘be’ (i.e. present / existing) and (its beingness) is ‘known.’ Afterwards, it is given an ID (identified with a specific name tag). When a thing is ‘not’ (present) and is not known, we will not be able to ID it with a name or form. Therefore, if we are able to identify an entity with a specific name, it should have ‘been’ present and also must have been ‘known’ to us. That ‘Beingness and Knowingness’ is the AtmA for that entity.
We can also, therefore, say that all things are dependent on AtmA which is common to them all (or which is universally present in all). In other words, all things are under the control of that Universal factor. For example, gold is universal in all the ornaments made out of it. Hence, the ornaments are dependent on gold. In the absence of the gold, the ornament cannot exist. Gold exists occupying (pervading) the entire necklace. Implicitly then, the necklace is under the control of gold. Therefore, we can say that gold is the Lord of the necklace.
When Consciousness-Beingness stays just as It is, It is called AtmA.
When It exists permeating all the things that have extruded out of It, and hence It exists lording over them all, It is known as Ishwara (Lord).
The basic substance is One only. When It stays without any adjuncts, It is AtmA and when It is with adjuncts, It is Lord. The ‘adjunct’ may be considered to be like a costume worn by the AtmA. It’s like an actor putting on different costumes as per the role s/he plays. The costumes of AtmA are none other than the trio – name, form and action. Therefore, we can say that name, form and action are AtmA Itself appearing to us in those roles. The golden ornaments are all nothing else than gold itself appearing in those forms. The Consciousness-Beingness revealing Itself in the role of a name, form or an action is Ishwara. If it remains concealed, it is called AtmA. Therefore, in essence both AtmA and Ishwara are one and the same.
The existence of the trio, name-form-action, does not negate the presence of the Lord. The Lord is showing Himself as that name-form-action.
The AtmA to Ishwara transformation happens through ‘shakti’ (power). AtmA plays the role of a Lord creating a world through shakti. He supervises and lords over His creation. He may also end the show of the world absorbing back the name-form-action into Himself and remain simply as AtmA.
(To Continue … (Part – 3 (Isha))
“Gold is the Lord of the necklace” – excellent, I haven’t come across that idea before!
I would delete the example of salty salt, though – I think that is confusing. I would have said that ‘being salty’ (I presume you mean taste) is simply an attribute of salt, not its intrinsic nature.
Best wishes,
Dennis
Dear Dennis,
Thank you for the observations.
With regard to the example of “being salty” (yes, it is with reference to its taste, as you mentioned), to be intrinsic to “salt” (e.g. Table salt):
It is a classic pedagogic metaphor in Advaita Vedanta.
6.13.1-3, chAn. U. and 2.4.12, BU also use it. Shankara explains this illustration in greater detail in his commentary at those mantras. Sureshwara expands on it in his BUBV to say:
“Just as a lump of salt has no interior or exterior of a different nature [it is not salt on the outside and something else on the inside], but is purely a mass of taste (salty) by its very nature (svabhāvāt) everywhere.”
We have from brihadAraNyaka:
स यथा सैन्धवघनोऽनन्तरोऽबाह्यः कृत्स्नो रसघन एवैवं … | — 4.5.13, BU
Meaning: As a lump of salt is without interior or exterior, entire, and purely salt in taste, … (Trans: Sw-M).
I understand that people who are not familiar with Vedanta may take “saltiness” as an attribute of “salt” unlike in the sense Advaita Vedanta uses it. I have no problem to delete this as a dRShTAnta.
But would you really like me to delete it in view of the citations I provided above or slightly modify the sentence?
regards,
Dear Ramesam,
No, don’t delete it. You have clearly justified it by your quotations. But it is a good example of how certain aspects of the teaching need to be suitably modified to take account of modern, dare I say ‘scientific’ understanding. It is like such teaching as scorpions growing in cow-dung (BSB 2.1.6).
Obviously there are some aspects of everyday life that were understood in some primitive fashion back in Shankara’s time that now have more ‘sophisticated’ explanations that are understood and accepted by seekers.
I think that some may be put off Advaita because of such examples, because they are not prepared to accept that these were valid metaphors at the time even if they are no longer.
Best wishes,
Dennis
Dear Ramesam,
I am currently re-reading A. J. Alston’s Shankara Source Book (Vol. 2) on ‘Creation’ for probably the 3rd or 4th time (Excellent – see https://www.advaita.org.uk/library/s1_shankara.html) and, lo and behold, I just came across the following extract this morning. It is talking about the whole world of experience being of the nature of name, form and action only. Every sound is an aspect of the word ‘vāc’, which therefore effectively means sound in general.
And Shankara then says: “This sound-universal is the ‘uktha’ or material cause of the various names, as a salt-mound is the material cause of the individual particles of salt which came from it… All particular names such as Yaj~nadatta and Devadatta proceed from this sound-universal, in the sense of being separated off from it like salt particles from the parent mound.”
Thought you might be interested – ‘salt mound’ seems so much more reasonable as a metaphorical material cause than ‘being salty’.
Best wishes,
Dennis
P. S. It is from Br.Up.Bh. 1.6.1 incidentally
Dear Dennis,
Thanks for the reference from 1.6.1, BU and BUB.
Dr. Alston’s translations are usually good and stay as close to the original as possible.
The mantra at 1.6.1, BU explains the “creation” of the world – the changeless change of One to many. It says that the world comprises three things, viz., name, form and action (nAma, rUpa and karma). These have come through differentiation, the cause of differentiation being uttered sound (uktha).
[Incidentally, I may also mention that it helps to remember that nAma just does not mean a name; it means any pratyaya, i.e., idea, notion.]
Shankara writes in his commentary that all the three, “Name, form and action, all non-Self, are not the Self that is the Brahman, immediate and direct.” So, they have to have a “material cause.” As you pointed out, Shankara says that “the sound-universal is the material cause of the various names, as a “salt-mound” is the material cause of the individual particles of salt which came from it.”
Shankara has been very careful in the choice of his words while giving the illustration of the “material cause” — salt mound (lavaNa acalah) vs. individual particles of salt (lavaNa kaNAh).
The Upanishads as well as Shankara bhASya choose a different “terminology” when using the example of “saltiness” (to taste) to describe the “intrinsic nature = svabhAva or svarUpa” of Brahman before differentiation. The word chosen by them is “rasa ghana = (a) mass of (salty) taste.
For example, 4.5.13, BU says: “saindhava ghanaH kRtsnah rasa ghana eva” (As a lump of salt is, entirely, and purely salt in taste …).
Shankara wishes to emphasize that “just as saltiness is inseparable from the salt and pervades the water once dissolved, the Pure Self (Atman) pervades the entire body and world, even if it is not “grasped” by the eyes.” His argument is that a thing’s nature (svabhAva) cannot be separated from the thing itself. If we have salt, we have saltiness. If we have Brahman, we have Existence-Consciousness-Bliss.
IOW, The dRSTAnta at 1.6.1, BU goes to establish the “sameness” being conserved from the general to the particular; The dRSTAnta at 6.13.1, chAn, 2.4.14, 4.5.13, BU etc., goes to prove that “a things intrinsic nature cannot be separated from the thing.” So, I basically suppose that there is a subtle difference in what is being illustrated at 1.6.1, BU and in the context of the metaphor in the Post. The word “salt-mound” may not suit the Post. Perhaps, this is what was being indicated to me by Shri SNS.
I erred a bit, on purpose, in excessive explanation so that a casual reader too may note the subtlety of “word usage” by Shankara.
regards,
Dear Ramesam,
That is very well explained – thank you. And it highlights a danger for the seeker when reading books, or listening to pre-recorded talks, especially in the context of use of metaphor. These are only analogies and never reflect literally. Metaphors are chosen by the author to illustrate a point being made, and the prior understanding of the recipient may not correspond. If it is a live talk being presented in a class, then clarification can be sought – manana following the śravaṇa. But without that benefit, the teaching may be misunderstood or even dismissed altogether. These problems always need to be born in mind. If in doubt, seek other translations or (ideally) go back to the Sanskrit. This, of course, is what I did frequently in the ‘Confusions’ books, as you know yourself, having kindly translated a number of them for me!
Best wishes,
Dennis