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].
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.
18.170–184
In a series of verses, Shankaracharya explains how Tat Tvam Asi (TTA) should be taught and understood. As in the case of any sentence, in order to understand the meaning of TTA, one must understand the meanings of the words Tat, Tvam, and Asi.
The direct or literal meaning of Tat is Isvara, the creator, sustainer, and destroyer of the universe. Tvam means you, the individual (jiva), and Asi signifies that Tat and Tvam are identical, that is, Isvara = Jiva.
An equation is meaningful only when its two sides are apparently different but essentially the same. If the two sides are apparently identical, the equation serves no purpose. Thus, 5 + 4 = 10 – 1 is meaningful, whereas 9 = 9 is not. For one who understands addition and subtraction, both 5 + 4 and 10 – 1 resolve into 9, thereby validating the equation.
Advaita Siddhānta (doctrine) is about the Knowledge of the Self—the one and only “substance” that is eternally present, immutable, infinite, and complete, lacking nothing. It is no exaggeration to say that the most fundamental prerequisite for correctly understanding this millennia-old pinnacle of human thought known as Advaita Vedānta is humility.
Śaṅkara Bhagavatpāda beautifully summarizes the means to grasp Advaita Siddhānta in a single sentence in his commentary on Bhagavad Gītā 18.50. He adds that this is the very message conveyed by Śrī Kṛṣṇa in Bhagavad Gītā 2.69 and at several other places. He writes:
“It is only a cessation of the perception of the differentiated forms of the external world that can lead to a firm grasp of the real nature of the Self.”
Śaṅkara is equally careful to point out that Self-knowledge remains unattainable for those: Continue reading
18.133–138 Advaita acknowledges six means of knowledge (pramana). They are perception, inference, comparison, postulation, non-cognition and testimony. Does the Self require a pramana for its substantiation, like the non-Self? According to the opponent, a pramaṇa is required even though the Self is self-evident, and this would be so irrespective of whether ignorance is about the Self or something other than the Self.
Before responding, Sri Shankara analyses the meaning of the word ‘substantiation’ (siddhi). Does it mean ‘coming into existence’, ‘being known’, or something else?
18.97–98
In the waking and dream states, there are experiences respectively of the external world and the internal world. This proves the existence of consciousness in these two states. In deep sleep, however, there is blankness. From this, one inference could be that consciousness does not exist during deep sleep. Another inference is that consciousness does exist, but there is nothing to experience.
In such a situation, when reason and experience are inconclusive, Sruti is the pramaṇa. Sruti (Br. Up. 4.3.9) discriminates between Consciousness (pure consciousness), the knowing principle, and mental modifications, that is, experiences. Consciousness is self-luminous, which means that its illuminating power never ceases (Br. Up. 4.3.23). In deep sleep, there is apparently no experience because the mind is dormant and there are no mental modifications to be illumined. As a result, there is the experience of nothingness which proves the existence of Consciousness.
18.79–87
In these verses, Sri Shankara refines the theory of reflection. In the teaching of Tat Tvam Asi (TTA), the word ‘Tvam’ directly refers to the ego and indirectly to the Self. This requires a relationship between the Self and the ego. The Samkhya system is unable to explain because it does not accept the theory of reflection. Consequently, a teaching imparted directly to the ego cannot be said to be imparted indirectly to the Self. In Advaita, however, reflection establishes the relationship. It is not a relationship of seer and seen because the Self is devoid of activity. Reflection, on the other hand, is formed merely by the presence of the Self. The opponent’s further argument that there is a relation of non-difference between the Self and the ego is also untenable because there is no knowledge in the form, “Consciousness is my real Self.”
18.72–75 are omitted, as they primarily deal with the Buddhist doctrine of momentary consciousness.
Who is the Hearer? Who Says, “I am Brahman”?
The teaching of Tat Tvam Asi (TTA) can serve its purpose only if there is a hearer to whom it is addressed (18.111). Accordingly, verses 18.76–77 raise the question: Who is the hearer of the teaching?
Two possible answers are examined: the Self and the ego. The Self cannot be the hearer being actionless and beyond all empirical transactions. Nor can the ego, who is a sufferer, be the hearer in the ultimate sense and truthfully declare, “I am free.” Does it imply that scripture is not a valid means of knowledge and the teaching is purposeless? To remove this confusion, verse 18.78 introduces the concept of reflected consciousness.
18.44–46
The opponent raises the question: Who experiences transmigratory existence (saṃsara)? Who is the saṃsari? The Self cannot be the experiencer of saṃsara because It is changeless. Nor can the reflection be the experiencer, since it is not ultimately real. The intellect too cannot be the experiencer because it is inert.
Sri Shankara agrees that saṃsara is indeed experienced, but he maintains that it is not real. It appears to belong to the Self, which serves as its substratum. The classic analogy is that of the rope and the snake. The snake exists only as a mental projection and is therefore unreal. Nevertheless, it is experienced because of the rope, the substratum upon which it is superimposed. Similarly, saṃsara is experienced because it is superimposed upon the Self.