NOTES ON MANDUKYA UPANISHAT AND KARIKA - INTRODUCTION -1.

[Guest guest]

NOTES ON MANDUKYA UPNISHAD AND KARIKA

 

Introduction: This notes is prepared as a part of my learning process.

I had the benefit of listening to Gurudev Swami Chinmayanandaji’s

discourses on MAnDUkya UpaniShad during several spiritual camps. I was

also benefited by the discourses by H.H. Swamini Sarada Priyanandaji and

H.H. Swami Shantaanandaji, both from Chinmaya Mission, and H.H. Swami

Paramaarthanandaji, of Chennai. All the teachings are primarily based

on Shankara bhAShya. As usual, I am propelled to put my understanding

in writing in the form of notes as a part of my mananam and

nidhidhyAsanam. This is not a commentary on the upaniShad, but is only

a notes based on my understanding. If this writings help others, it is

a blessing indeed. Since advaita Vedanta speaks for itself, and has

been doing so for many centuries, I have no intention or inclination to

convince anyone else of Advaita. I have no intension of getting into any

debates or extensive discussions on the interpretation of the upaniShad,

neither I have interest in polemical arguments. MAnDUkya analyzes about

the self, ‘I am’, which is of the nature of existence and consciousness.

That I am existent and that I am conscious are beyond any pramANa or

means of knowledge, since my existence is prerequisite before any

pramANa can be validated. It only presents the nature of that existence

and consciousness, in relation to waking, dream and deep sleep worlds,

using shRiti pramANa. It also addresses the Omkaara praNava mantra as

symbolic representation of that truth.

 

I consider the MAnDUkya UpaniShad is one of the most comprehensive

scientific analyses of human experience taking into consideration

complete set of data involving three states of experiences; waking,

dream and deep sleep states. At the same time, it redirects our

attention to the truth underlying all the three states, the truth that

forms a substantive for the experiencer, experienced and experiencing,

in all the three states. In the following, I have provided an extensive

background analyzing some of the issues that are dealt within the

UpaniShad and kArika. Study of this text again and again would help in

assimilating and owning the knowledge in the light of which all wrong

notions about oneself, Iswara, and the world will be unceremoniously

dropped by the understanding of the underlying truth.

 

With prostrations to my teacher H.H. Swami Chinmayanandaji who

literarily lifted me out of my confused state, to my mother who taught

me how to be human by her own example, and to my father who showed me

the importance of knowledge, I undertake this study. I am following

ITRNS scheme for transliteration.

 

sadAshiva samArambhAm shankarAchArya madhyamAm

asmdAchArya paryantAm vande guruparamparAm||

 

vAtsalyarUpam triguNairatItam,

Ananda sAndram amalairnidhAnam|

shree chinmayAnanda guropraNItam

sadA bhajeham tava pAda pankajam||

--

General Background

 

MAnDUkya upaniShad is one of the shortest upanishad involving only 12

mantra-s but is considered as one of the most scientific and profound

upanishad revealing the truth. Vedanta itself glorifies the mAnDUkya

UpaniShad as one of the most important upaniShad. It is said in

muktikOpaniShad that mAnDUkya upaniShad alone is sufficient for a seeker

to reach liberation (mAnDUkyam ekam kevalam mumuxUnAm vimuktayE).

 

In science, any theory that is based on partial data will not be

accepted as valid theory and will be treated as incomplete at best, if

not speculative. Similarly, any philosophy that is based on one third

of human experience ignoring the other two thirds will not be considered

as a valid philosophy and will be treated as hypothetical at best. Here

in this upaniShad, complete human experience or data consisting of not

only the waking state, but also dream and deep sleep states are

systematically analyzed to arrive at the truth of the total human

experience. Like any scientific theory, upaniShad presents the truth of

the experience in a very cryptic style using Vedic language. Unraveling

the truth expounded in the upaniShad requires an extensive analysis and

deep understanding. GoudapAda, the grand teacher of Adi Shankara,

recognizing the importance of the upaniShad, has written exhaustive

kArikas or gloss on the upaniShadic mantras. Shankara recognizing the

importance of both the upaniShad and the kArikas has written bhAShya or

commentary on both. Post Shankara advaitic masters have also written

notes on Shankara BhAShya. Thus, we have an extensive literature

explaining the upanishadic mantras. Although the upaniShad is very

short, the associated literature is extensive. To appreciate the depth

of the analysis involved, I present below some of the epistemological

issues that are involved in analyzing the truth of our experience.

Understanding of these issues would help in understanding the upaniShad.

I have presented the issues from my own perspective, without getting

into dialectic arguments. Note that all of the issues discussed here

are addressed in the upaniShad and the kArikas in one form or the other.

Many of questions that arise while studying these notes will be slowly

answered as we study together the upaniShad and kArika.

 

Attributive Knowledge:

 

Pramaa means knowledge. It is usually translated as valid knowledge,

even though there is slight redundancy in the term ‘valid knowledge’,

since invalid knowledge is not knowledge at all, and knowledge cannot be

invalidated. What is knowledge? Interestingly, the knowledge itself is

indefinable. When someone says I have knowledge, he only means that he

has the ‘knowledge of …’ of an object, physical or conceptual, rather

than knowledge by itself. Thus, what we are normally familiar in terms

of knowledge is always with reference to an objective knowledge or

knowledge of an object, real or imagined. For an objective knowledge to

take place, we need a means since object of knowledge is different from

the knower, the subject. We need to establish a connection between the

subject and the object, for knowledge to take place. This means is

called ‘pramaaNa’. PramaaNa depends on the prameya, the object of

knowledge that is to be known. Specificity of a pramaaNa depends on the

nature of the object. A typical example is ‘eyes’ are pramaaNa for

seeing forms and colors. Similarly, ears are pramaaNa to know the

sounds. Here, specificity is obvious, since eyes cannot hear and ears

cannot see. Thus in any objective knowledge, we have three components

that are involved – pramAta, the subject, prameya, the object of

knowledge, and pramaaNa, the means of knowing. When all the three are

conducive then, pramaa, the knowledge of an object takes place.

 

Normally, valid knowledge is defined as that which cannot be negated.

That which is taken as knowledge but is negated subsequently is defined

as bhramaa, invalid knowledge, rather than pramaa. Various schools of

thought have provided different definitions for pramaa and bhramaa,

which are compatible with their own theories. The disagreements in the

definitions itself indicate that there is an inherent ambiguity in

defining an object. Defining an object involves knowing the object.

Just as we stated that ‘knowledge’ could not be defined, we note that

the object also cannot be defined, in an absolute sense independent of a

reference state. Any knowledge relative to a reference is only a

relative knowledge and not an absolute knowledge. The objective

knowledge can only be a relative knowledge, even if one claims that it

is a valid knowledge. Therefore, it is relatively valid knowledge. The

relativity depends on several factors including the utility of the

object defined, and as we shall see later, it depends on the relative

state of experience, waking, dream or deep sleep state. At present, we

emphasize the fact that fundamentally object cannot be known absolutely.

To appreciate this fact, one has to examine carefully the mechanics of

the knowing process.

 

Briefly, any object is known only through its attributes or qualities.

Therefore, any object is defined only by its attributes. More specific

the attributes are more precise will be the definition of an object.

Hence, any definition of an object involves precise definition of its

attributes. An unambiguous definition of an object should be such that

it should differentiate the object from all other objects in the

universe. The differentiation from all other objects again is based on

the attributes of that object that should differ from those of the other

objects that are being differentiated. Corollary of this is that

attributes themselves are defined as the distinguishing features, which

differ from distinguishing features from other objects in the creation.

These distinguishing features could be incidental qualifications

(taTAsta) or inherent qualifications (swAbhAvika). Incidental

qualification is like indicating John’s house from the rest of the

houses around, which all look alike from a distance, by pointing a crow

sitting on its roof.

 

We can further differentiate the inherent qualifications as two types:

those that are necessary (swAbhAvika laxaNa) and those that are

necessary and sufficient (swarUpa laxaNa). (In my recent discussions

with Swami ParamArthanandaji, he mentioned that such kind of distinction

has not been done before, but agreed that it should be done. He

suggested to use the term swarUpa for the necessary qualification and

the term swarUpa laxaNa for necessary and sufficient qualification.

Here I am using swAbhAvika and swarUpa terms for each, since both may be

laxaNas). To illustrate the difference, let us take an example of

sugar. The example for necessary qualification is sweetness of sugar.

It is an inherent qualification or necessary qualification, since if it

is sugar it necessarily has to be sweet. If it is not sweet, it may

look like sugar but is not sugar. However, sweetness is not a

sufficient qualification to define sugar. For it to be sufficient

qualification, a converse statement should be valid. That is, if some

thing is sweet, it must be sugar. However, we know that if some thing

is sweet it need not be sugar. It can be, for example, aspartame or

more popularly knows as Equal. Necessary and sufficient qualification

provides a more rigorous definition for an object. For a qualification

to be necessary and sufficient, the converse statement has to be

applicable. The necessary and sufficient qualification becomes its

swaruupa laxaNa. For sugar, the swaruupa lakshaNa is not sweetness but

C6H12O6. If we say, it is C6H12O6 it has to be sugar. Similarly H2O is

for water. Conversely, if it is sugar, it has to be C6H12O6. Thus,

C6H12O6 becomes swarUpa laxaNa for sugar. Similarly, sat chit ananda

are not attributes of the Brahman but they are swaruupa laxaNas. Vedas

define Brahman beautifully in the statement “prajnAnam brahma” -

consciousness is Brahman’. Vedas do not say Brahman is consciousness –

then consciousness would only become a necessary but not sufficient

qualification. However, by putting in the converse form – consciousness

is Brahman, it categorically mandates that it is not only a necessary

but sufficient qualification to define Brahman. Hence, the statement

‘consciousness is Brahman’ implies that consciousness becomes swaruupa

lakshaNa for Brahman. The implication is very profound. It implies

that if there is a conscious entity, then it has to be Brahman, and no

two ways about it. We have preconceived notion that consciousness is

inside us or inside our body without recognizing that consciousness has

to be infinite and therefore the bodies are inside the consciousness. It

is like space. Space is indivisible yet we divide for the purpose of

transactions that this is my house and that is your house, and I do not

have enough space in my house, etc. Yet space cannot be divided and

even the apparent dividers are in space. Consciousness is even subtler

than space and thus it pervades the space too. By defining, that

consciousness is Brahman (infiniteness), Vedas declare that

consciousness alone exists and it is its swaruupa laxaNa. In addition,

Brahman being infiniteness or limitlessness it is also Ananda swarUpa or

full of bliss since any limitation causes sorrow. Since we are

discussing about ever-existent Brahman, sat swarUpa also follows, since

that which is nityam or eternal must be satyam. Hence, sat-chit-ananda

are not attributes of Brahman but they are indicators of the intrinsic

nature or swarUpa lakshaNa of Brahman. Here sat is chit, chit is

Ananda, and all three are swaruupa laxaNa for Brahman. Vedanta provides

the definitions in converse form – satyam, jnaanam, anantam brahma or

sat chit Anandam brahma to insure that they are indeed necessary and

sufficient qualifications or swarUpa laxaNas for Brahman. Hence, they

are not attributes of Brahman.

---------------------

I am forced to limit each posting so that it is easily readable. I will

provide some gap before I post the continuation of this.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda