19.14 (part) All controversies should be resolved into something which is finally existent. Take the example of enquiry. Before enquiry there are views and counter views, and they are resolved into a verdict which is the truth or the substratum. Likewise debate about existence and non-existence is resolved in substratum, i.e., AtmA.
19.15 Shankaracharya discards the theory of emptiness. The debate whether the perceived duality is non-existent (empty) or not is possible only if it is accepted that there is something which makes the debate possible.
19.16 to 19.18 The mind backed by believers of emptiness has earlier suggested that everything is empty and unreal. This has been discarded because an unreal entity requires a substratum. It now says that the real substratum is as good as non-existing because it cannot transact and is therefore useless. Shankaracharya says that non-usefulness does not mean non-existent. Moreover, utility is no proof of existence. It is oversimplification to say that AtmA is useless. It is indirectly (i.e., with mAyA) responsible for creation which is useful. There is scriptural authority that after negating the world of duality, AtmA alone is left. AtmA is higher order of reality than that of the creation. Though a screen is not a part of film, its utility is beyond question. Reality is subject of deliberation and hence serves some purpose. AtmA, the observer is the substratum of creation. It exists independent of and prior to the creation.
19.19 Ignorant persons owing to wrong notions in their minds, superimpose the ideas of (relative)existence, (relative) non-existence, qualified, non-qualified, agent, non-agent and so on, on AtmA which is birthless, imperishable and without a second and is not Itself superimposed. An ignorant mind considers that AtmA and the world of duality are of the same order of reality. As a result, it earns punya and papa which are the cause of birth and death, the other name of samsAra. The cycle of samsAra is repeated again and again until the mind realizes that the two above are of different orders of reality. The mind is mithyA and superimposition is mithyA.
19.20 to 19.22 Duality has neither birth nor absence of birth because of possible contradictions and therefore duality is not real. Birth of duality from duality leads to infinite regress. Duality cannot have birth from non-duality because non-duality is not subject to change. If duality has no birth, it will mean it is changeless. Changeless duality is a contradiction. Therefore, the world of duality is mithyA though it is experienced. It is neither real nor unreal. There is another reason for the same conclusion. Any creation requires accessories and activity. Are the accessories endowed with activity? Both the answers, namely, ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ lead to absurdity. The answer ‘No’ will mean that there is no activity and everything is accessory which is absurd. If the answer is ‘Yes’, then also activity cannot result in any new thing otherwise anything can come out of anything.
Even name and form are not created because they are already there in the accessories. It is satkArvAda. AsatkArvAda is coming into existence of a new thing which is non-existent in the cause. A non-existent thing arrives is grammatically incorrect. ‘Arrive’ is a verb for which a subject is needed. A non-existent thing cannot be a subject. The argument that because of an intimate relationship between clay and the non-existing pot, the pot is created, is refuted for a relationship with a non-existing entity is inconceivable.
It is also asserted that real and unreal cannot interchange. BG 2.16 refers. Sat cannot ‘downgrade’ to asat and asat cannot ‘upgrade’ to sat. For otherwise, it will not be possible to know which is the cause and which is the effect like cause-effect relationship is not ascertainable in the two sides of a weighing balance which alternatively go up and down. Interchangeability of real and unreal is not desirable, for otherwise anything can appear from nowhere and disappear into nowhere. Thus, real and unreal are fixed categories and there is no question of creation. Existence is not a destination. A non-existent entity cannot travel, and an existent entity need not travel to existence.
19.23 Let it be assumed for argument’s sake that things are created. AtmA says to the mind that any such creation by actions has no use for AtmA which is infinite and is free from attributes. Therefore, there can be no improvement dimension-wise or quality-wise. Hence mind should remain quiet.
19.24 According to buddhist and naiyAyika theories the whole creation has come out of minute atoms. Assembly of atoms is creation. But there is a difference. NaiyAyika says that the atoms are eternal. They can never be created or destroyed. Buddhist says that everything including atom is momentary. ShankarAchArya argues that in both philosophies, assembly of atoms is not possible. The momentary atoms cannot combine because for combination they have to survive. NyiyAyika says that atoms are the fundamental particles and are not an assembly. Therefore, they must be part-less like the space. If they do not have parts, they cannot combine. Eternal, changeless atoms cannot combine involving change in status not to talk of combining to produce creation which involves change in status.
19.25 During nidhidhyAsana, an aspirant meditates on ‘I am AtmA, I alone am and there is nothing else other than me’. There is no creation. I as consciousness am present during the three states of experience. I do not become liberated. I was, I am and I ever will be liberated. Bondage is a wrong notion superimposed on me. Liberation is dropping the notion that I am bound. I am ever effulgent and free from all the opposites belonging to the relative universe. The relative existence and the relative non-existence do not belong to me. Relative existence means temporary existence which is preceded by non-existence and followed by the non-existence.
19.26 A Self-realized person does not objectify Brahman which is beyond gunAs. He does not say that he knows Brahman. He claims, “I am Brahman”. Keno Upanishad 2.2 is relevant: I do not think that ‘I know it well’; but not that I do not know; I know too. Who amongst us comprehends It both as the Not known and as the known – He comprehends It. Don’t wait for the arrival of Brahman. Ignorant people do not know this teaching. One should clearly understand this fact that Brahman is not an object experienced at a particular time. Brahman is the subject immediately known at all the time.
19.27 Duality is delusion resulting in likes and dislikes, anger, jealousy. Advaita teachings remove delusion. It is the only remedy.
19.28 ShankarAchArya glorifies the teacher student tradition. He gives credit to all earlier teachers who have carefully preserved and transmitted the teachings from generation to generation. He bows to them. In all humility, he does not take any credit.
Concluded
Wow! Thanks for this, Bimal. I haven’t ever really studied this text. Swami P’s lectures spend 13 hours on this chapter alone. I will definitely add it to my list for the near future.
Best wishes,
Dennis