the manifest and the unmanifest

[Guest guest]

namaste.

 

I find the bhAShya by shri shankara on Br^ihadAraNyaka

upanishad 1.iv.7 to be a beautiful explanation of the

jagat of names and forms and its evolution. As the List

members are aware, we had many discussions on the duality

we 'see' coming out of the non-dual brahman. As I understand

this passage from the Br^ihadAraNyaka upanishad, it clearly

shows that we need not be concerned with names and forms.

Just like it never ceases to amaze us how a huge tree has

evolved from a tiny seed, we can also see in the same

amazement how the jagat has evolved from the brahman.

Just as we say the branches, leaves, fruits of a tree

are all contained in that tiny seed, similarly the whole

diversity that we perceive is all contained in that brahman.

It is not the plurality of the jagat that causes problems

but taking that plurality to be real is the one that

causes problems.

 

The following is from shri Madhavananda's "Br^ihadAraNyaka

upanishad with shankara's commentary" on Br. u. 1.iv.7

 

"... This (universe) was then undifferentiated. It

differentiated only into name and form - it was called such

and such, and was of such and such form. So to this day it

is differentiated only into name and form - it is called such

and such, and is of such and such form. This SELF has entered

into these bodies up to the tip of the nails - as a razor may

be put in its case, or as fire, which sustains the world, may

be in its source. People do not see It, for (viewed in Its

aspects) It is incomplete. When It does the function of living,

It is called the vital force; when It speaks, (It is called)

the organ of speech; when It sees, the eye; when It hears,

the ear; and when It thinks, the mind. These are merely Its

names according to functions. He who meditates upon each of

this totality of aspects does not know, for It is incomplete,

(being divided) from this totality by possessing a single

characteristic. The Self alone is to be meditated upon, for

all these are unified in It. Of all these, this Self alone

should be realized, for one knows all these through It, just

as one may get (an animal) through its footprints. He who knows

It as such obtains fame and association. "

 

Coming back to our analogy with the tree: "...Tat (That) refers

to the seed-form of the universe before its manifestation. Being

remote, it is indicated by a pronoun denoting an object not

directly perceived. When it is said, 'It was then like this,'

one easily comprehends the causal state of the universe. 'This'

refers to the universe differentiated into name and form. The

coordination of the two words 'that' and 'this', denoting

respectively the remote and present states of the universe,

indicates an identity of the universe in these two states,

meaning that which was this, and this which was that was

undifferentiated. From this it is clear that a non-existent

effect is not produced , nor an existent effect lost. It,

this sort of universe, having been undifferentiated,

differentiated into name and form. The neuter-passive form

of the verb indicates that it differentiated of itself, i.e.,

manifested itself till it could be clearly perceived in terms

of name and form."

 

"...This Self, (which it is the aim of all scriptures to teach),

on which differences of agent, action, result have been

superimposed by primordial ignorance, which is the cause

of the whole universe, of which name and form consist as they

pass from the undifferentiated to the differentiated state,

like foam, an impurity, appearing from limpid water, and which

is distinct from that name and form, being intrinsically

eternal, pure, enlightened and free by nature - this Self,

while manifesting undifferentiated name and form, which are

a part of It, has entered into these bodies from Hiranyagarbha

down to a clump of grass ..."

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

--