Fwd: NOTES ON MANDUKYA UPANISHAD AND KARIKA: INTRODUCTION 6

[Guest guest]

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada wrote:

 

Mithyaa jnaanam

 

We discussed some aspects of mithya earlier. The whole second

chapter

of ManDukya kArika deals with this subject. That which appears to

exist

but subsequently negated is mithya. This is also called maaya. That

which is subject to negation is mithya. Many critiques of advaita

questioned the concept of maaya. Dvaitins, particularly Hare Krishna

community, call advaita as maaya vaada. Actually advaita is non-

duality

which ascertains that there is only Brahman and nothing but Brahman.

Hence, it should be called brahma vaada (proponents of Brahman)

rather

than mAya vaadins (proponents of maaya). MAya is brought to negate

what

appears to be different from Brahman since Brahman is infinite

consciousness, that is one without a second, and there cannot be

anything other than Brahman. That which appears to be different

Brahman

is called mithya or maaya. In the final analysis, even the mAya is

negated since Brahman alone is, which is without a second.

 

That it appears to be a snake which is different from what it is

(which

is a rope) is mithya. We negate the reality of the snake in the

knowledge that it is a rope. Similarly we negate the appearance of

the

world of objects as real, in the knowledge that every thing is

nothing

but Brahman, since according to Vedas, the substantive of everything

is

nothing but Brahman and Brahman alone.

 

Here, we state the fundamental laws of negation. 1. That which is

real

cannot be negated. Or conversely, that which can never be negated

alone

is real. Krishna says that which exists can never cease to exist and

that is real, `naabhaavo vidyate sataH'. Upanishad says existence

alone

was there before creation of the world and that is Brahman. Hence,

Brahman cannot be negated. Being consciousness and infiniteness

there

cannot be anything other than Brahman. Hence the scripture

says `sarvam

kalvidam brahma' and `neha naanaasti kincana' – every thing is

nothing

but Brahman and there is nothing other Brahman.

 

2. The second rule is that which is unreal or non-existent need not

be

negated, since it is not there even for negation. Krishna says that

which is non-existent can never come into existence, naasato vidyate

bhaavaH. It is like vandhyaaputraH, son of a barren woman. There is

no

locus for existence for negation.

 

Hence, what can be negated is that which appears to exist but upon

analysis that is different from what it is. Whatever that undergoes

modification cannot be real. This is where many daarshanikas err in

taking the world that continuously changes as real. When some thing

changes into something else there has to be something that is

changeless

in all the changes; and that by definition is real. We have shown

that

the substantive all the changing objects is nothing but Brahman.

That

which is changing is not unreal, since it is there to change. Since

it

is changing, it is not real either. Hence, we cannot but have a

category, which is mithya or mAya. To declare that there cannot

anything that is mithya, which is neither real nor unreal, is only

ignoring the facts. I learned not to argue with those who are blind

to

these simple facts.

 

When everything is Brahman, and there is nothing other than Brahman,

and

if I see something which is different from Brahman, then whatever I

see

must be only mithya. If I see two moons when there is only one, then

that vision is mithya. Shankara uses this example in his AdhyAsa

BhAshya. This is called arthaapatti sruti pramANa. Deduction based

on

the sruti's statement that everything is Brahman and Brahman is the

material cause for the universe, `yatOva imaani bhUtAni jAyantE … tat

brahmEti' (Tai.Up). If Brahman which is of the nature of

consciousness

is the material cause for the universe, then `inertness' that one

perceives is only mithya. This concept is not easily digestible

since

we transact with the inert world very intimately, starting from our

own

body. In order to establish this fact Mandukya uses the dream

Experience.

 

The concept of the second or dvaita arises with the mind. When

there is

no mind, the dvaita also disappears. Thus, any dvaita that arises

and

disappears is mithya. Any seen or perception is mithya, since seer-

seen

duality arises in all perceptions. Hence Shankara says in his BhAShya

that the world is mithya since it is seen - dRisyatvAt. From this,

it

follows that any moksha that involves dvaita is also mithya. Hence,

shruti declares that even a speck of duality causes fear and thus

samsaara or bondage. Advaita then alone is the truth that is

Brahman, as

Mandukya upaniShad declares in Mantra 7. Any creation is also mithya

since it requires modification of Brahman, which cannot happen since

Brahman is infinite, as GoudapAda emphasizes in his kArikas.

 

Are there two Brahmans in Advaita?

 

The question itself is self-contradictory since advaita implies

non-duality. However, there is notion among some Vedantins that

advaita

s to two Brahmans; one is nirguNa Brahman and the other is

saguNa Brahman. We have already noted that being infiniteness,

Brahman

cannot have any guNa or attributes since attributes belong to

finites.

There are no sajAti, vijAti swagata bhedAs in Brahman. SajAti bhedAs

distinguish different vyashhTi-s in the same jAti like different

types

of cows among the category of cows. All cows have some general

attributes that fulfill their cowness, but each cow can be distinctly

different in terms of its size, color, etc. VijAti bhedAs

distinguishes

one jAti from anther similar to cows are different from horses.

Swagata

bhedAs arises due to internal differences with in one vyakti – say

for a

given cow, legs, head, neck, stomach, tail etc are all different from

each other. Since Brahman is one without a second, no sajAti or

vijAti

differences are possible. Since it is

existence-consciousness-infiniteness, there cannot be internal

differences in it. One existence cannot differ from another

existence

or from the existence of the space that separates the two. Hence,

existences has to be homogenous infinite and eternal. Since Brahman

is

consciousness entity (prajnAnam brahman), that existence is conscious

existence and not inert existence. Since it is one without a

second, it

is infinite conscious existence. There cannot be any divisions in

the

infiniteness.

 

Objection: Space is infinite. Yet we can have mountains in space

that

are different from space. By the presence of mountains, infiniteness

of

the space is not compromised. Similarly, Brahman can remain as

infinite

with jiivas and jagat in side Brahman. Brahman remains one while

jagat

and jiivas constitute internal differences in the Brahman. Therefore

Brahman cannot have internal differences is wrong.

 

Answer: There are several fallacies in the above argument.

 

1. If one assumes that mountains are different from space then we

have

two entities, space and mountains and not one. If Brahman and jIvas

and

jagat are different from Brahman then the statement `ekam eva

advitiiyam' `one without a second' for Brahman is compromised. One

can

argue that one without a second would mean that there is only one

Brahman with out a second Brahman, Jiiva and jagat are not Brahman

but

exist separately. Then there is no dependent- independent relation

between jiiva and jagat and Brahman, which again violates the

scriptural

statements.

2. In the case of space and mountains both are `inert'. The same

analogy cannot be applied for Brahman, jiiva and jagat. Brahman is

not

only of the nature of existence, it is of the nature of

consciousness –

`prajnAnam brahma'. One cannot have inert jagat and still claim that

consciousness pervades that inert jagat. Inertness and consciousness

are

contradictory to each other. If inertness is apparent then there is

no

problem. However, if one claims that inert is also real and Braham

is

also real then Brahman cannot be inclusive of Jagat. If it is not

inclusive of jagat, Brahman cannot be infinite. To overcome these

contradictions one has to resort to additional postulates relating

the

jagat and Brahman.

3. Mountain is actually a product of space only as per Vedanta.

Creation progresses first from aatma, space; from space, air; from

air,

fire; from fire, water; and from water, the earth. (Tai.Up.: tasmAt

VA

EtasmAt Atmanam AkAShassabhUtaH ….). Thus, earth is the product of

space. Effect is not separate from cause – all resolve to Atma, the

conscious principle. Hence there can not be anything other than

consciousness. That is advaita.

4. If consciousness is all-pervading, any creation that comes and

goes

is not real but only apparent. Apparent snake cannot disturb the

rope.

From rope's point, there is no snake any where. Hence, there is no

inertness in Brahman. If one sees the world, the world seen can

only be

mithya as discussed above.

5. Any differences or swagata bhedas are only apparent and not

real.

GoudapAda discusses that there is no real creation, and what appears

to

be creation is not real. Only real is Brahman.

 

Since creation appears to exist from jiivas point, then a creator,

which

is both intelligent cause and material cause, has to exist in the

same

reference plane, vyaavahaarika satyam. Brahman is beyond cause and

effect (beyond the concept of time), paaramaarthika satyam. Hence

from

Brahman's point there is no creation-creator (kAryakAraNa

vilaxanam).

On the other hand, since one sees or experiences the creation in the

vyaavahaarika level, the intelligent and material cause has to exist

at

that level. It is defined as Iswara. Shruti takes us from the

experiential duality to transcendental reality in steps. It starts

with

creation, since duality is perceived, and subsequently negates the

duality saying, `neha nAnAsti kincana' from the point of reality.

SAdhana (spiritual practices), upAsana (prayers and meditations) and

yoga (karma, jnAna and Bhakti) are all within the realm of duality

with

Iswara as the creator, sustainer and annihilator of the creation.

Iswara, the creator, and the creation together is Brahman. Hence, it

is

both intelligent as well as material cause for the creation. Iswara

who

is saguNa Brahman is there only as long as creation is perceived.

Hence, from advaita point Iswara, jiiva and jagat all have relative

existence but from absolute point, all are nothing but Brahman. `tat

tvam asi' does not equate individual to Iswara, only equates

individual

stripped of all qualifications (which is sat chit ananda) with

unqualified Brahman (which is also sat chit ananda). Mandukya in

fact

presents Iswara in the analysis of the deep sleep state and

unqualified

Brahman in the discussion of the turiiyam. One Brahman appears to be

many including Iswara, jiiva and jagat. However, the apparent

plurality

is not reality. They are all appearing to be real only in their

plane

of reference. From absolute reference, Brahman alone is the truth

and

that is advaita, one without a second. Advaita s to only

one

Brahman, one without a second, which is the substratum for Iswara,

the

Lord, Jiivas, individuals and jagat, the world. Iswara, who is

saguNa

Brahman and jiivas and the jagat are all real with in the relative

frame

of vyaavahaarika or transactional reality. Iswara is different from

jiiva, jiivas are different from each other and world is different

from

both Jiiva and Iswara, within the relative frame of reference. At

the

absolute level all merge into one. The notions of reality are in the

mind of each jiiva due to delusion and liberation is the recognition

that I am that Brahman that is substratum for all jiiva-jagat-

Iswara. It

is re-cognition in the mind of the jiiva since notions are in the

mind.

Knowledge of the substantive Brahman has to take place only in the

mind

of jiiva. A realized master can still transact with the apparent

plurality knowing very well that is only a transactional reality but

not

absolute reality. It is like a scientist enjoying the sunrise and

sunset knowing very well that sun never rises nor sets.

 

Microcosm and macrocosm or vyaShTi and samaShTi :

 

Creation can be viewed from two different references; one from

individual perspective, microcosm and second from the total

perspective,

macrocosm. The causal body or kAraNa shariira is nothing but

vAsanas or

individual's likes or dislikes. Each jiiva has total account of

vAsanas

called sanchita karma, accumulated whenever one performs an action

with

an egocentric attitude that with the notion that `I am the doer' or

with

kartRitva bhAva. He brings into the life only a part of it called

prArabda karma (translated as fate). In the human form, where he is

given a choice of action, he can accumulate new ones (AgAmi karma)

which

can be either exhausted in this life or deposited into his total

account, sanchita karma. Given this scenario, individual gravitates

towards an environment conducive to his likes and dislikes or

vAsanas.

During his whole life, he will be moving from one environment to the

other determined by his vAsanas. Swami Chinmayanandaji puts this in

a

beautiful form – what I have is praarabda and what I do with what I

have

is called puruShArtha. Thus each environment that man faces is

dictated

by the results of his past actions (praarabda) and he has a choice of

how to act in a given the situation. The future prArabda is

determined

by past prArabda modified by the present action. Thus, he is the

prisoner or the past, while being master of his future. The whole

world

that he encounters from his birth to death is essentially dictated by

his vAsanas – that include the type of body (male or female, animal

or

man), the parents, the relatives, the education, job, etc. Thus, his

world is dictated by his vAsanas or product of his kAraNa sharIra or

causal body. It is called causal because it is the cause for his

gross

and subtle bodies. Similarly, everyone's world is dictated by his or

her

vAsanas. Family environment depends on the samaShTi vAsanas of all

the

people in that family. Extending further total world, therefore, is

dictated by the total vAsanas of all beings put together called

samaShTi

vAsanas. SamaShTi vAsanas or total causal body becomes cause or

kAraNa

for the creation of the total world. If there is Iswara or Lord for

creation of this world, his hands are tied in terms of what he can

create, since he is governed by the samaShTi vAsanas (we can state

this

in more polite form- Lord out of compassion for the jIvas creates an

appropriate world that is conducive to exhaust their vAsanas). Since

from individual point the future vAsanas are determined by past

vAsanas

modified by the present action, the future world is the outcome of

the

past modified by the present action by all the beings put together.

This implies that if we want a better world, we need to work for it

since we are the masters of our future vAsanas and thus masters of

the

future world too. We can make it or break it. The choice is ours.

 

My world is dictated by my vAsanas and the total world is dictated by

total vAsanas. The first is called microcosm and the second is

called

macrocosm. Describing creation, shRiti says `sa kAmayata ….' He

desired and He became many. The desire is the product of vAsanas.

His

desire is therefore is prompted by total vAsanas of all beings,

since he

has no personal desires of His own. He became many – that he is both

intelligent and material cause for the universe. The total vAsanas

can

also be called mAya, while the individual vAsanas are called avidya

or

ignorance. Consciousness or Brahman as though manifesting at an

individual level or microcosm is jiiva and the same consciousness as

though manifesting at the total level or macrocosm is Iswara. From

consciousness point there is an identity but from the manifestations

point, one is jIva and the other is Iswara. Subjective creation from

individual point (praatibhaasika) includes snake that one sees while

there is rope. All subjective notions about himself and the world

constitute microcosm or jiiva sRiShTi. Objective creation is from

total

point (vyaavahaarika) that includes the total objective world such as

rope and all other objects, and is called Iswara sRiShTi or God's

creation or macrocosm. Individual creation comes form individual

samskaara or vAsanas and total creation comes from total samskAra or

samaShTi vAsanas. For both micro and macrocosms, Brahman remains as

substantive. From Brahman point (pAramArthika) there is neither

micro

nor macrocosms. Since the individual is part of the total world,

when

he deals with the total creation, he is at transactional or

vyaavahaarika state. When he sleeps and creates the dream world, he

is

in the praatibhaasika state. When he realizes that he is sat chit

ananda svaruupa only, then both praatibhaasika and vyaavahaarika fold

into him, the Brahman that he is. Hence, shRiti says `brahma vit

brahmaiva bhavati' or knower of Brahman becomes Brahman

and `brahmavit

Apnoti paramam', knower of Brahman gains the supreme. One cannot

become

Brahman since a finite cannot become infinite. Here becoming is only

understanding that one is Brahman, ayam Atma brahma.

 

In the analysis of perception above, attributive knowledge is only

gained and not the substantive. To understand the distinction

between

micro and macrocosms, analysis of the dream state is very useful.

When

one dreams and projects the dream world where in both subject as

well as

objects are projected. Dream is experienced by everyone. It

provides a

powerful analogy to evaluate the reality of the waking world. We can

reach the following conclusion by systematically analyzing the

dreams.

 

Dream provides a powerful analogy:

 

We can appreciate the glory of Mandukya, since it provides this

powerful

analogy of the dream to understand the reality of the waking world

also.

Our humble praNaams to those great Rishiies, who were able to bring

out

this beauty of this dream analogy in a very systematic and scientific

way, that too thousands of years ago. From the analysis of the

dream we

gather:

 

a). The waking mind provides both the material cause and intelligent

cause for creation of the dream world. One can only dream what one

knows. Hence, one is a sarvajna of the dream. He is the Iswara of

the

dream world. Material for the dream world comes from the waking mind

only. So, we can say Iswara is nondifferentiable intelligent and

material cause (abhinna nimitta upaadaana kAraNa) of the dream

world.

 

b). For a dreamer the dream world appears to be real just as for a

waker

waking world appears to be real. That it appears to be real does not

make it as real. That it appears to be real does not make it real.

 

c). For a waker, who has awakened from the dream, the dream world is

dismissed as unreal. The bank deposits made in the dream bank in

dream

are not useful in the waking world.

 

d). In the dream, the dream subject has dream-body, dream-mind and

dream-intellect, which differ from those of other dream beings. The

tiger that is chasing in the dream has mind of its own different from

that of the subject who is running away to save himself from that

tiger.

Both may be praying; one to catch its pray and the other to escape

from

the tiger. Lord of the dream can declare – samoham sarva bhuteShu

na me

dveShyosti na priyaH – I am equal to everybody, neither I favor one

nor

disfavor one'. One gets what one deserves, even in the dream.

 

e) From the dream subject in the dream, the objective world exists

outside his body just as for a waker the waking world of objects

exists

outside in his body.

 

f). The dream experiences could be contradictory to the waking state

experiences. One may be a prince in the dream while being a pauper

in

the waking state. Both appear to be real in their respective states.

He

may be heavy weight lifter in the dream while does not have the

strength

to lift any weights in the waking state. Weights in the waking state

are no more real than the weights in the dream world. Since the

dream

world appear to be outside the dream subject, he also transacts with

his

world of objects as though they are outside him (vyaavahaarika

satyam).

He can also experience praatibhaasika satyam or subjective reality.

For

example, if he can go to sleep in the dream and have a dream in side

his

dream (second order dream), then it forms praatibhaasika satyam for

him.

The analogy between the waking world and the dream world is exact.

 

g). The Vasanas provide the kaaraNa or cause or basis for projecting

the

dream world. Thus nature provides a dream field of experience to

exhaust the suppressions and oppressions of the waking state. From

there is a subject `I', an existent and conscious entity who takes

the

role of dream subject in the dream world and interact with other

dream

subjects. In analogy with the waking world, we can state that the

vAsanas of all beings in the dream constitute the samaShTi vAsanas

projecting the total world of dream. Hence `I' the conscious entity

taking the role of Iswara for the dream world using the waking mind,

create the dream world consisting of both inert and multitude of

conscious beings and who transact mutually in the dream world.

There is

mini microcosm and mini macrocosm created in the dream world. All

are

supported by consciousness using the waker's mind as a base. Mind

(kAryam) which is the product of the vAsanas (kAraNam) are played out

both in the waking state and dream state. Mini minds are also

created

in the process of creation of individual subjects in the dream for

them

to interact with each other. For each subject in the dream, the

dream

objects are `out there', but when awaken, all the objects and

subjects

resolve into the waker's mind. Thus inside or outside becomes

relative

to a subject. The dream subject's knowledge is relatively valid for a

dreamer and is negated once awaken. What remains the absolutely real

is

the Brahman, which pervades and supports the universe in the waking

state, which pervades and supports in the dream state. In the deep

sleep

state, the subject and objects distinctions dissolved into

unmanifested

forms or more correctly, into a potential form, which can be

projected

in total once awakened from deep sleep state. Thus subjects, objects

and their interrelations all go into subtler form or potential form

or

unmanifested forms to be projected again all intact since vAsanas

that

are cause for the projections remains.

 

Dissolution at micro and macro levels:

 

When one goes to deep sleep state, both the waking world of subject-

objects (stored as information in the memory) and dream world of

objects

resolve are all dissolved into unmanifested forms, which remain as

such

due to the pressure of the vAsanas one gets up from sleep. Iswara

sRiShTi and jIva sRiShTi both are projected back in exactly the same

condition. Thus, they are stored in subtler form in the mind.

According to Vedanta the same mechanisms seems to occur at macro

level

too. The waker is picturized as four-faced Brahma, who is the first

born jiiva to Iswara and is represented as the creator for the

Universe,

who creates in his waking state the world of subjects and objects.

When

his day of work is over, he also goes to sleep, where in all the

creation goes back into his mind into a subtle unmanifested form or

potential form. They project again to the world of subjects and

objects

when his day of work starts. The day of Brahma last billions of

years,

and the process of dissolution of the world of subjects and objects

is

termed as Pralaya or great dissolution. Thus at individual mind

level,

there is `laya' dissolution of his small world, as one goes to deep

sleep state, microcosm dissolution; and at Brahma's level there is a

`pralaya', great dissolution, or macrocosm dissolution. Thus, there

is

parallelism between microcosm and macrocosm. Similarly, there is a

macrocosm from the point of dream subject who see the world outside

of

him, which gets dissolved when the waker's mind (creator) goes to

deep

sleep state. Thus dream state and waking states are parallel and

microcosmic dissolution and macrocosmic dissolution are parallel.

All

these aspects are presented in a cryptic form in the Mandukya

Upanishad.

 

 

As I move from one plane of consciousness to another that is from

waking

state to dream state to deep sleep state I, the conscious entity

remains

the same. I am the waker, I am the dreamer and I am the deep

sleeper.

States keep changing but the experiencer or knower of the state,

pramAta

remain changeless. `I am' the subject, without any state attached is

pure existence consciousness that I am and will be referred to the

fourth pAda or turiiyam. It is actually not a state to be named as

the

fourth, but it is that pervades all the three states taking the names

and forms, as manifestations with saguNa or attributes. `I am' in

essence is pure (`shivam) without association with any state,

advaitam,

one without a second, where all seconds or dvaita arises in me

sustained

by me and goes back into me (prapancOpashamam). `I am' is that pure

existence-consciousness, infinite and eternal. Hence, ManDukya

UpaniShad provides a daring declaration of the truth, `ayam Atma

brahma', the self that I am is Brahman, the infinite and eternal sat

chit ananda swarUpam.

 

With this background, we will enter into the study of the ManDukya

Upanishad and GoudapAda kArikas.

-

 

--- End forwarded message ---