If dreams are like special effects
The sleep of ignorance is the cause
If deep sleep is the absence of duality
Turiya is the presence of nonduality
Dreaming is the presence of duality
The waking state is like sleepwalking
Maya veils and projects and reveals
There's sleep and deep sleep
All dreams think they are awake
Awakening is beyond thought
There are two sleep states
The dreaming and the dreamless
There is one waking state
Realization
Gaudapada says both waking states and dreaming states are bound by cause and effect, deep sleep is bound by cause alone, and Turiya is beyond all cause and effect.
Deep sleep knows nothing of any other state of consciousness nor the state of deep sleep itself. It knows nothing of truth or untruth, but only knows the absence of duality. Turiya is the presence of nonduality, that all-seeing existence.
The absence of duality is actually common to both deep sleep and Turiya. But deep sleep is the seed of variety and such a fruit does not exist in Turiya.
Not only the dream state but the waking state is a state of sleep and dream. Deep sleep is a state of sleep without dream. The wise ones say neither sleep nor dream is to be seen in Turiya.
Dreaming misapprehends reality. Sleeping doesn't apprehend reality at all. Gaudapada says when these two errors disappear, reality is realized.
1. nondual haiku
We are programmed by our dna and social conditioning.
Beyond this matrix of desire is a thing called love.
Nonduality is appearing as one within the many.
2. another nondual haiku
Duality is one divided. That's why fractions hurt.
The mind does not cause consciousness. Consciousness does not cause the mind.
The mind is an appearance in consciousness, make no mistake about it.
3. nonduality haiku cubed
Killer bees, birds, x.
Duality is a choice.
The Ballad of Intuition and Nondoing.
4. haiku the fourth
Ignorance is personal. Maya is godlike.
A reflection of consciousness is consciousness reflecting off itself.
Lights. The silver screen. Introducing Maya
5. the fifth
Every good dream feels now.
This waking state is my current dream.
Deep sleep is my default.
Hopping further into Mandukya, I’m not the thinker nor the doer nor any other state of altered consciousness.
Nondual awareness is invisible and undivided, formless and nameless, beyond spacetime.
Ekatmapratayasaram. That intuitive endless I-essence. Ground of consciousness, principle of existence.
Do not confuse consciousness for the reflection of consciousness. Attention is the reflection of consciousness.
Attention equals pure consciousness and mind. Attention is an attribute of dreaming. Attention is ordinary consciousness.
Yoga is the fourth. Nonduality is the one. The difference between deep sleep and death is the causal drive. Buddha agrees.
Sages say the seventh mantra of the Mandukya Upanishad is the peak of Advaita. In fact, the word, advaita, makes its first appearance there.
The Muktika Upanishad says, “the only means by which the final emancipation is attained is through Mandukya-Upanishad alone” and this is considered to be scripture by many.
If not the creator, Gaudapada is the godfather of the Mandukya. Tradition says he’s the guru of the guru of Shankara. Disciple of a godlike teacher, Gaudapada is Paramaguru of Advaita.
Mandukya 7 is divided into three parts. The first nullifies the microcosmic atmans of all states of consciousness. The second nullifies all the macrocosmic brahmans. The third affirms Mandukya’s mahavakya: ayam atma brahma.
Some people call reality a fourth state. Like nirvikalpa samadhi. Gaudapada calls reality nondual. Atman is Brahman. That is the real self. That is to be realized.
Atman is not inner consciousness nor outer consciousness nor consciousness in-between. Not a seed of consciousness nor omniscient consciousness nor unconsciousness either.
Brahman is imperceptible, unrelatable, unreachable, uninferable, unthinkable, indescribable.
Turiyam is that intuitive endless I-essence. Cessation of the world's appearances. Peaceful. Blissful. Nondual. What is known as the Fourth. That is the real self. That is to be realized.
Ayam Atma Brahma.
One: Not the Knower (I minus Avidya)
1. nantah-prajnam:
not conscious of the internal world ~Ga
not that which is conscious of the inner (subjective) world ~Ni
not that which is conscious of the internal subjective world ~Ch
not consciousness turned inward ~Sw
not the dreamer ~Sa
Notes:
Na-antaḥ prajñam – Not that which is conscious of the internal subjective world:- By saying so, the śruti is pointing out to us that the turīya is not the dream. Taijasa has already been described as that Consciousness which is awareful of a world within, a world of dream objects. By negating thus the inner awareness, the ṛṣi is pointing out to us that Ᾱtman or the life force in man is not the dreamer. ~Ch
THAT WHICH IS CONSCIOUS OF THE INNER WORLD: Turiya is not to be identified with Taijasa, the perceiver of the dream, or inner, world. ~Ni
Nantapragyam - This means inward directed consciousness - the dreamer. It says you are not the dreamer. You, the Turiya, the fourth one, is not the dreamer. ~Sa
2. na bahis-prajnam:
nor conscious of the external world ~Ga
nor that which is conscious of the outer (objective) world ~Ni
nor that which is conscious of the extenal world ~Ch
not outward-moving consciousness ~Sw
not the waker ~Sa
Notes:
Na bahiṣ-prajñam – Not that which is conscious of the external objective world:- It means that the fourth plane of Consciousness is not the waking state ego, the vaiśvānara. The ‘waker’, we have seen, is fully aware of the external world of objects. ~Ch
Nor... OUTER worip: Turiya is not to be identified with Viéva, or the self that functions in the waking state ~Ni
Nabahishpragyam - You are not the waker. Your real nature is not the waker, which we all imagine as our reality. For example, I think I am Swami Sarvapriyananda standing here in this lecture hall number three in IIT Kanpur - this is my reality. The mantra says you are the consciousness illuminating this temporary appearance in your consciousness. ~Sa
3. na ubhayatah prajnam:
nor conscious of both the worlds ~Ga
nor that which is conscious of both ~Ni, Ch
not consciousness moving in any direction ~Sw
not an in-between state ~Sa
Notes:
Na ubhayataḥ prajñam – Nor that which is conscious of both:- When we negate, as we have done, the first two phases, both the waking state and the dream state, the obvious doubt that would arise in the mind of the disciple would be that the Ᾱtman might be a state in between the waking and the dream, a state wherein you are conscious slightly of both the outer world and the inner world; such moments are lived by almost all of us frequently. After heavy lunch, when we are just preparing for our dull forty-winks, there is a misty moment when neither are we fully aware of the external world nor are we totally unconscious of the world of dreamy nothingness in ourselves. Even this state is negated by the term now under discussion. ~Ch
Nor... Conscious of Both: It is denied that Turiya is an intermediate state between waking and dreaming. The reference is to a sort of day-dream when one is half dreaming and half waking. ~Ni
Nobhayatapragyam - Anything in between waking and dreaming. You are not some in between state (like coma, drug-induced state etc). ~Sa
4. na prajnana ghanam:
nor a mass of consciousness ~Ga
nor that which is a mass of consciousness ~Ni, Ch
It is not a mass of consciousness ~Sw
not the deep sleeper ~Sa
Notes:
Na prajñāna ghanam – Nor that which is a mass of Consciousness:- When we have thus negated the vaiśvānara, the taijasa and the state in between them, the thought would, at once, run of the seeker that it must be then the prājña, the ego in the deep sleep state. We have already discussed earlier, in the mantra describing the prājña, wherein we found that prājña is a state in which the entire Consciousness of the being is withdrawn from the gross body and the subtle body and the entire lot of it has come to lie coiled itself upon itself into homogeneous mass. Thus, by the expression under discussion, the ṛṣi is negating that, in turīya, there is no prājña even. ~Ch
Nor... A MASS OF conscrousness: The association of Turiya with deep sleep is denied. In deep sleep consciousness is devoid of specific characteristics and remains as a general awareness. It is a causal state in which the experiences of the two other states lose all their distinctive features. ~Ni
Napragyaanaghanam - who is pragyaanaghanam? - the deep sleeper. You, the Turiya, are not pragyaanaghanam. ~Sa
5. na prajnam:
nor conscious ~Ga
it is not simple consciousness ~Ni
nor that which is simple Consciousness ~Ch
nor all-knowing consciousness ~Sw
not the all-knower ~Sa
Notes:
Na prajñam – Nor that which is simple Consciousness:- The entire gamut of negation should naturally leave the student with only one possibility. He must certainly understand then that the Ᾱtman is his simple consciousness. But those daring great thinkers of the Hindu philosophy uncompromisingly stood on the platform of their realised knowledge, walled round so well with their ruthless logic and sturdy reason and declared that the Self in us cannot be described by the simple term ‘Consciousness’. This negation is only due to the fact that to describe the Reality as having a property would be to make the Infinite, a finite substance. ~Ch
Nor simpie consciousness: It is implied that Turiya does not, like God, who is omniscient, cognize simultaneously the entire phenomenal world. ~Ni
na pragyam here the word pragyam is interpreted as - are you God, all knowing? You are not that also. ~Sa
6. na aprajñam:
nor unconscious ~Ga
nor is It unconsciousness ~Ni
nor is it unconscious ~Ch
it is not unconscious either ~Sw
not unconscious ~Sa
Notes:
Na aprajñam – Nor is it insentient:- Here now we have in this term, a negation of the only proposition possible in the permutation and combination of the possible terms. If all the previously explained five negations be true then the only loophole through which the finite human intellect could perceive and feel the Reality would be through the definition that it is insentient. For, we have been told by the Master that the Ᾱtman is neither aware of the outer world, nor of the inner world, nor is it conscious of the both, nor is it a mass of Consciousness nor is it a simple Consciousness. Therefore, the only possibility is that It can be only insentient. Even this negative idea is negated by the ṛṣis when they say that it is (na aprajṅam) not that which is insentient. ~Ch
Nor... unconsciousness: That is to say, Turiya is not imsentient matter. ~Ni
na apragyam - means you are not unconscious. ~Sw
Two: Not the Known (That minus Maya)
7. adrstam
which is unseen ~Ga
it is unperceived ~Ni
it is unseen by any sense organ ~Ch
it is beyond perception ~Sw
the Self is invisible ~Sa
Notes:
Adṛṣṭam – Unseen:- The Self is explained here as that which is not seen by the sense organs. By the term unseen, it is not only meant that the Self has no form but the word is used in its amplest implication negating in it the services of all other sense organs. Self is not an object capable of being perceived by any of the five sense organs of knowledge that human beings are provided with. ~Ch
Unperceived: Turiya is the negation of all attributes, including the attribute of non-being. One cannot make It an object of perception. ~Ni
Adrishyam - This literally means invisible, but it also means something that you cannot be seen, you cannot be heard, you cannot be touched, you cannot be smelt. The Self is not an object of our five sense organs. Sometimes people say if God exists or aatma exists, why can’t I see it? It’s like saying if the Higgs Boson exists, why can’t I see it? This is because it is not yogya, it is not an object of your normal vision. Consciousness is not something that you can see or smell or touch, it is adrishyam. ~Sa
8. avyavaharyam:
beyond empirical dealings ~Ga, Ch
unrelated ~Ni
beyond all kinds of transactions ~Sw
not transactable ~Sa
Notes:
Avyavahāryam – Not related to anything:- By this term it is indicated that the Self is an all-pervading factor and that it is not related with other things of the world. In the world, all the things and beings have their vyavahāra (व्यवहार) only in the Self. As an analogy we may take space. Space is not related with anything and yet, no relationship can exist except in space. Similarly the Reality, eternal and immortal, is the medium in which all names and forms of the world function in their delusory dealings with one another. ~Ch
Avyavahaaryam - It is not within transaction. Transaction means usable. What we can see and feel and touch, what we can speak about, what we can manipulate, that is vyavahaaryam. Pure consciousness is not an object which can be manipulated, seen, felt and used. But remember - it is the ground and the source of all vyavhaara. None of this - waking, dreaming and deep sleep - can exist without the pure consciousness which is illumining all this. But pure consciousness is itself avyavahaaryam. ~Sa
9. agrahyam:
beyond the grasp (of the organs of action) ~Ga
incomprehensible ~Ni
incomprehensible by the mind ~Ch
ungraspable ~Sw
not graspable ~Sa
Notes:
Agrāhyam – Incomprehensible:- The above two terms and their meanings clearly give this import that the Self cannot be comprehensible by the mind. The mind can comprehend that which is reported to it through any one or more of the sense organs. In order that it may be perceived by the sense organs, the Self must be any one of the five sense objects. Sense organs of eyes, ears, nose, tongue and skin can perceive only their respective objects of shape, sound, smell, taste and touch. Since the Self is not a sense object and since it has no relationship with anything else, it can never be comprehended by the mind. ~Ch
Agraahyam - It cannot be grasped, which means it is not an object of the organs of action - not a vishaya of the pancha karmendriya. You cannot hold it with your hands, you cannot walk to it. On pilgrimage, you can walk to Badrinath or Kedarnath, but you cannot walk to Turiya. ~Sa
10. agrahyam:
uninferable ~Ga, Ni, Ch, Sw
cannot be inferred ~Sa
Notes:
Alakṣaṇam – Uninferable:- If we cannot perceive a thing through direct experience, then the other channel of ordinary knowledge that is open to us is inference. Whenever there is fire in the kitchen, we have noticed smoke also. Thus, we have derived a knowledge through our direct perception that wherever there is smoke, there is fire too. Later on when we see the effect, namely, the smoke, we infer and derive the knowledge that there is fire although we may not actually see the fire in the distant smoky ranges.
Here the inferential knowledge of the existence of fire is arrived at because of its effect, the smoke, which we had actually observed. This effect is called in Sanskrit terminology as lakṣaṇa. Since the Ᾱtman has no such effects from which we could infer its existence, the Self is defined by the great Masters of the Upaniṣad as alakṣaṇam (uninferable). ~Ch
Uninferable: Such attributes as existence, knowledge, and infinity are not positive attributes of Turiya. They only serve a negative purpose, indicating that Brahman is other than non-existence, non-consciousness, and non-infinity. Besides, to draw an inference one requires a common feature, which always presupposes more objects than one. But Turiya is one and without a second; hence It is uninferable. There is nothing in the phenomenal world through which Turiya can be inferred. ~Ni
Alakshanam - This is a technical term which means Turiya cannot be inferred. lakshanam here means the sign by which you infer something. For example, you see the road is wet, so what do you infer from this? You infer that there was rain earlier. In Indian philosophy, the classic example is, there is fire on the hill because I can see the smoke. Here there is a relation between smoke and fire. If I see the smoke I can infer there is fire. Inference is crucial in the field of science. But in the case of Turiya, it cannot be inferred because there is no sign by which you can infer it. ~Sa
11. acintyam:
unthinkable ~Ga, Ni, Ch
beyond thought ~Sa
Notes:
Acintyam – Unthinkable:- From the above explanation, it is self-evident that if there is a factor which is unseen, incomprehensible and uninferable then, naturally, that factor must certainly be unthinkable. ~Ch
Unthinkable: The predicates by which one can think about an entity are absent in Turiya. ~Ni
Achintyam - You cannot think about it. If you have thought about it, it would be an object -then it is not Turiya. You cannot think about it, but remember the opposite also holds. Whatever you think about is illumined by this Turiya. The fact that we are having a conscious experience is because of the Turiya. But it is not an object of thought. ~Sa
12. avyapadesyam:
indescribable ~Ga, Ni, Ch, Sw
beyond language ~Sa
Notes:
Avyapadeśyam – Indescribable;- It is logical that in these circumstances the Ᾱtman cannot be described since descriptions are but expressions of our experiences either through the sense organs or the mind or the intellect. ~Ch
Indescribable: What one cannot think about cannot be expressed in words. ~Ni
Three: The Knowledge: Ayam Atma Brahma
13. eka-atma-pratyaya-saram
whose valid proof consists in the single belief in the Self ~Ga
the essence of the Consciousness manifesting as the self [in the three states] ~Ni
essentially of the Self alone ~Ch
always experienced as the unbroken “I-sense” ~Sw
the essence of the “I-sense” ~Sa
Notes:
Eka-ātma-pratyaya-sāram – Either we know of a sound or such other sense perceptions or of our feelings or of our thoughts but we do not know the knowledge by which we perceive, by which we understand our feelings, by which we know our ideas. Here the Master insists that the Reality is Knowledge as such, wherein it has no objects to qualify. It is pure Awareness in the light of which all other sense organs go about their routine work of illuminating their individual objects. ~Ch
THE ESSENCE ETC: The elimination of all attributes may make Turiya appear to be a void. Therefore the Upanishad describes It as a positive existence which can be realized, by pointing It out as the changeless and constant factor in the three states. The states, no doubt, change, but an awareness underlies them in the form of the self or as expressed in the judgement “I am the perceiver.” Or the phrase may mean that through the consciousness of the self alone, which forms the basis of the three states, one can contemplate the transcendental Turiya. In other words, because of Turiya, which is changeless and constant, one is aware of self-consciousness in the three states. ~Ni
Ekaatmapratyayasaaram - eka or one, atma or Self, pratya or recognition, saaram or the essence. If you follow this Self - the 'I' feeling, you will come to Turiya. This is exactly what Ashtavakramuni told Raja Janaka: in the dream state, were you there? Dream is false no doubt, but were you there? Yes, I was there. In this waking state now are you there? Yes, I am here. That is the ekaatmapratyayasaaram, the presence of the 'I' feeling. The consciousness which is illuminating even the blankness of deep sleep, that consciousness is in and through all these three states, just like gold is in and through all the ornaments, and that consciousness is the Turiya. Ekaatmapratyayasaaram is a very extraordinary word. When you follow that 'I' feeling, you intuitively realize that you are Turiya. This is the famous 'Who am I?' inquiry taught by Ramana Maharshi. ~Sa
14. prapancopasamam
in which all phenomena cease ~Ga
the cessation of all phenomena ~Ni
negation of all phenomena ~Ch
free from the world ~Sw
the quiescence of the universe ~Sa
Notes:
Prapañcopaśamam – Negation of all phenomenon:- The turīya state is the realm into which the world of finitude and its imperfect experiences have no admission. It is only upto the gate of turīya that we have the plurality and the experience of the plurality. Prapañca, which is constituted of the pluralistic world of mortality, is experienced only in the waking state, the dream state and the deep sleep state. Once these three states are transcended, we enter into the world of Reality and there at turīya, the worlds of finitude and change, mortality and sorrow, imperfections and deceits, limitations and tears have no entry. ~Ch
Prapanchopashamam - This means the universe is an appearance. Turiya - the Self - alone is the reality. The three worlds - waking, dream and deep sleep - are appearances in consciousness. ~Sa
15. santam:
which is unchanging ~Ga
all peace ~Ni
the peaceful ~Ch
tranquil ~Sw
peace itself ~Sa
Notes:
Śāntam – Peaceful:- In our earlier talks, we have found that aśānti or agitations are caused in us because of our desires, likes and dislikes, and so on. Once we have retired from the world of duality into the realm of Self, we are entering the temple of peace, eternal and perfect. ~Ch
ALL PEACE: That is to say, free from attachment and aversion. ~Ni
Shaantam - absolutely peaceful, ever undis-turbed. Turiya is completely untouched by the trouble and sorrows and the limitations of the three states. There is no world there to disturb you even when all three states are arising and disap-pearing. That is your reality. ~Sa
16. sivam:
auspicious ~Ga
all bliss ~Ni
the auspicious ~Ch
auspicious ~Sw
bliss itself ~Sa
Notes:
Śivam – All-auspiciousness:- The peaceful is the blissful; Śānti itself is sukha. Happiness is but the mental condition of poise, and as such that which is all-peaceful must necessarily become all-blissful. And inauspiciousness can come only in the world of plurality. As such the only way we can signify the turīya state is by the term of auspiciousness. ~Ch
Shivam - This means aananda or full of joy (more precisely, Turiya is bliss itself). ~Sa
17. advaitam:
non-dual ~Ga, Ni, Ch, Sw, Sa
Notes:
Advaitam – Non-dual:- When the superimposed ghost retires at the vision of the post, all superimpositions upon it have retired and – ‘the One without a second’ – the reality of the post alone exists. The world of duality is available for our experience only in the worlds of the waking and the dream states. In the deep sleep state there is, in fact, an experience of something homogeneous; only we are not aware of it at the time of experiencing it. But in the world of Reality, when we enter the zone of turīya, there the pluralistic world rolls away and the experience of the non-dual Reality alone remains as eternally true. ~Ch
18. caturtham manyante:
this is what is known as the Fourth (Turiya) ~Ni, Ch
thought to be the fourth ~Sa
19. sa atma sa vijneyah:
That is the Self, and That is to be known ~Ga
This is Ātman, and this has to be realized. ~Ni
This is the Ᾱtman and this is to be realised. ~Ch
It is the Self. It is to be known. ~Sw
That is the Self to be realized. ~Sa
Full translations here:
Ten Translations of Mandukya 7 (plus one on Sankara's commentary) on Turiya
My Mandukya 7
Not inner consciousness nor outer consciousness nor consciousness in-between. Not a mass of consciousness nor omniscient consciousness nor unconsciousness either.
Imperceptible, unrelatable, unreachable, uninferable, unthinkable, indescribable.
That intuitive endless I-essence. Cessation of the world's appearances. Peaceful. Blissful. Nondual. What is known as the Fourth. That is the real self. That is to be realized.
They say turn, turn, turn.
Scientific materialism is
not foundational.
Consciousness is I Am.
my god and there appears to be
unadulterated consciousness.
In altered consciousness there is dreaming and sleeping.
There are untold dreams in consciousness. This one is your present one.
Effortless intuition is the way
thank God.
They say turn, turn, turn.
Scientific materialism is
not foundational.
Consciousness is I Am is my god. and there appears to be consciousness and altered consciousness.
In altered consciousness there is dreaming and sleeping.
There are untold dreams in consciousness. This one is your present one.
Effortless intuition is the way thank God.
Dedicated to the principle of existence, standing on the ground of pure consciousness, breathing in the blissful essence of realization.
Believing the brain is manufacturing consciousness in some yet unknown way is the last superstition of western materialism.
This movie is appearing on the silver screen of consciousness. Am I the movie or the silver screen, Zhuangzi?
In avidya, this consciousness is like the last state. In reality, that's the one and only.
For every microcosmic atman is a macrocosmic brahman. For every person is a god. Make one up if you have to.
Some people think altered consciousness is like a fourth kind of consciousness. Dreaming is altered consciousness.
There are two states of dreaming—the waking one and the sleeping one from the point of view of the waking one.
Unaltered consciousness transcends deep sleep. I am reading the Mandukya for a third time.
The first time was memorable. The second time, it was personal. Third time is, as they say, fathoming the gist.
As to that turiya of Mandukya fame, they say fools call it the fourth. The wise ones know that as the one. There are three states of reflected consciousness. There is one satcitananda.
Each Mandukya state of consciousness has its own microcosmic atman and macrocosmic brahman. For atman is brahman is the Mandukya’s mahavakya.
The three states of consciousness as noted in the Mandukya are your basic ones of waking, dreaming, and sleeping. These are altered states of reflected consciousness. Pure consciousness is stateless.
Guadapada knows there are no states of consciousness. These particular concepts are merely straw men made to be readily deconstructed by any earnest apprentice in the act of revelation. Like Shankara.
Footnotes to Talks on Mandukya
In avidya, this consciousness is like the last state. In reality, that's the one and only.
For every microcosmic atman is a macrocosmic brahman. For every person is a god. Make one up if you have to.
Some people think altered consciousness is like a fourth kind of consciousness. Dreaming is altered consciousness.
There are two states of dreaming—the waking one and the sleeping one from the point of view of the waking one.
I am reading the Mandukya for a third time. The first time was memorable. The second time, it was personal. Third time is, as they say, fathoming the gist
THE MANDUKYA UPANISHAD
Section 1: THE MEANING OF “OM”
Verse 1: Plurality is Nothing But OM
Verse 2: Brahman is Verily OM
Verse 3: The First Pada – Waking State Consciousness
Verse 4: The Second Pada – Dream State Consciousness
Verse 5: The Third Pada – Deep Sleep Consciousness (Vyashti)
Verse 6: The Third Pada – The Causal Consciousness (Samashti)
Section 2: THE “FOURTH” QUARTER – TURIYA
Verse 7: The Fruit of the Process of “Negation”
Section 3: THE SYLLABLES OF “OM”
Verse 8: Symbolism of the Letters of “OM”
Verse 9: “A” – The First Letter: VISHWA
Verse 10: “U” – The Second Letter: TAIJASA
Verse 11: “M” – The Third Letter: PRAJNA
Verse 12: ‘Amaatra’ – The Fourth Letter: TURIYA
GAUDAPADA’S KARIKA PART 1: Agama Prakarana
Section 1.1: EXPERIENCE & ENJOYMENT
Verse 1.1: The Three Objects of Experience
Verse 1.2: The Three Places of Experience
Verse 1.3: The Threefold Enjoyership
Verse 1.4: The Threefold Objects Enjoyed
Verse 1.5: Enjoyments & Enjoyers are all One
Section 1.2: THEORIES OF EXISTENCE
Verse 1.6: Existence – The Basic Premise
Verse 1.7: Theories 1 & 2: Non-creation and A Dream
Verse 1.8: Theories 3 & 4: By Will or By Time
Verse 1.9: Theories 5-8: Just For Fun!
Section 1.3: THE “FOURTH” QUARTER – TURIYA
Verse 1.10: Turiya – the Cessation of All Sorrows
Verse 1.11: Turiya – Beyond Cause and Effect
Verse 1.12: Turiya – Contrast with Prajna
Verse 1.13: Turiya & Prajna – No Cognition of Duality
Verse 1.14: Turiya – Beyond ‘Sleep’ & ‘Dream’
Verse 1.15: Turiya – the Pre-Conditions
Verse 1.16: Turiya – the Error of “Sleep”
Verse 1.17: Turiya – the Error of “Dream”
Verse 1.18: “Dream Lion” Needed to Awaken Us!
Section 1.4: OM – PREPARATORY UPASANAS
Verse 1.19 The Identity of Vishwa With “A”
Verse 1.20: The Identity of Taijasa With “U”
Verse 1.21: The Identity of Prajna With “M”
Verse 1.22: The Truth Common to All Three States
Verse 1.23: Individual Attainments in All Three States
Section 1.5: OM – ULTIMATE SADHANA
Verse 1.24: OM – Known “Pada by Pada”
Verse 1.25: OM – the “Ever-Fearless Brahman”
Verse 1.26: OM – the “Lower & Higher Brahman”
Verse 1.27: OM – the “Eternal Being”
Verse 1.28: OM – “All-Pervading & Beyond Sorrow”
Verse 1.29: OM – the “Sound-less & Sound Eternal”
Shankara on Avidya (nescience)
Shankara on the Absolute as Lord
Shankara on the Unmoving Mover
Shankara on Cause, Effect, and the Absolute
Shankara on Adhyaropa and Apavada
Shankara on Defining the Absolute
Shankara on Satyam Jñānam Anantam Brahma
Shankara on Gaudapada's Acosmic Doctrines
On Shankara. Snippets on Shankara's Identity and True Works (plus Alston Info)
On Shankara: Gaudapada and Madhyamika Teaching
On Shankara: Schools of Advaita
A. J. Alston Bibliography:
Shankara on the Absolute: Shankara Source Book Volume One Kindle Edition
Shankara on the Creation: Shankara Source Book Volume Two Kindle Edition
The Thousand Teachings of Shankara: Upadeshasahasri
Consciousness, existence, self-awareness, satcitananda.
The bliss of self-awareness takes a universe of space-time.
.
Consciousness-existence is nothing if not self-aware.
That self-awareness is bliss!
Bliss is the arc of a self-reflexive universe.
Mind does not manufacture consciousness. Mind manufactures dreams.
These dreams are appearing on the silver screen of consciousness.
If existence is the godhead, consciousness is the open godhead.
Evolution is deconstructing ignorance revealing the spirit of self-realization.
Try Shankara cask proof. Mythologies are made to be demytholigized.
First affirm the faithful foundation of consciousness-existence
that transcends the ends of science.
Attention is adulteration of awareness with thought.
To the mind, it’s a transcendental matter. To the self, it’s clarity.
Between outlandish belief and scientific nihilism is
the faithful spirit of listening, understanding, and realization.
In the beginning was the Himalayan Revelation.
Thought forms appear in the witness. The universe is steeped in the principle of existence.
All appears in atman. Brahman pervades it all. Like an ouroboros, atman is brahman.
Consciousness is swallowing a tail emerging from the mouth of being.
Śaṅkara admitted that there were several different lines of approach which the mind could take in its advance towards knowledge of the Absolute, before the final leap into the abyss of transcendence.
For him, the full significance of the upanishadic texts could only be seen when they were viewed collectively as constituting an affirmation of the self in various finite forms that had to be corrected and purified of all empirical elements through negation.
But the path that ends with transcendence begins with affirmation. Our experiences in this world imply a positive ground lying behind the world-appearance as its basis and support.
Metaphysical enquiry seeks for ‘Reality’ as the self-existent principle that appears from the standpoint of nescience as the first cause.
It seeks for ‘Knowledge’ as the inmost unchanging Witness present within the human mind and illumining it with its unchanging light while the passing images come and go.
And it seeks for ‘Infinity’ as the principle of beatitude or bliss in which there is no division, duality, limitation or suffering.
The famous Advaitic definition of the Absolute as ‘Being-Consciousness-Bliss’ (sac-cid-ānanda) does not appear in Śaṅkara’s certainly authentic works.
But it is appropriate to deal with Śaṅkara’s doctrine of the Absolute as Bliss here, as the Upanishads do also describe it as ‘Consciousness-Bliss’ (vijñānam-ānandam), and the formula ‘Reality-Knowledge-Bliss’ is already found in Śaṅkara’s direct pupil Sureśvara.
[The formula there is satya-jñānānanda. The transition from the upanishadic ‘jñāna’ to the familiar ‘cit’ of ‘sac-cid-ānanda’ probably occurred long after Śaṅkara’s day. Prakāśātman (? tenth century) still adheres to the upanishadic ‘jñāna’, speaking of ‘satya-jñānānanda’.]
~Alston, Absolute, pp204-207
The anecdotes about Śaṅkara’s pupils contained in the traditional biographies hardly seem worthy of credence today, but it is clear that we do have some of the actual works that were written by his direct pupils and early followers.
The Vārttikas (verse sub-commentaries) on his Bṛhadāraṇyaka and Taittirīya Upanishad commentaries attributed to his personal pupil Sureśvara are clearly genuine, as is the short general summary of Advaita doctrine called the Naiṣkarmya Siddhi by the same author.
There are grounds for thinking that the Śruti Sāra Samuddharaṇa attributed to Troṭaka was indeed the work of a personal pupil,and the same could be said of the short Hastāmalaka Stotra.
But the case of the Pañcapādikā, a large-scale sub-commentary on the Brahma Sūtra commentary which was probably never completed and of which only a fragment beyond the part on the first four Sūtras has survived, is more dubious.
Sureśvara and the author of the Śruti Sāra Samuddharaṇa, then, were direct pupils of Śaṅkara, and the author of the Pañcapādikā was either a direct pupil or an early follower.
Sureśvara, though a much more independent and inspired author, did not depart enough from the main line of Śaṅkara’s teaching to stand out as the founder of a particular branch of Śaṅkara’s school.
The author of the Pañcapādikā, however, was a more systematic thinker than either Śaṅkara or Sureśvara. He was more concerned with definition than Śaṅkara, and less keenly aware than Sureśvara that the empirical means of knowledge and proof are due to fade away completely under the floodlight of spiritual illumination.
Another important contributor to post-Śaṅkara Advaita Vedanta was Maṇḍana Miśra, who, as we have seen, was probably a younger contemporary of Śaṅkara.
More important than the opposition between Vācaspati and Prakāśātman, however, is the opposition between Gauḍapāda, Śaṅkara, Troṭaka and Sureśvara on the one hand and (with Maṇḍana added) all the writers of the school who followed them on the other.
Advaita Vedanta, which in the hands of Gauḍapāda, Śaṅkara and Sureśvara had remained basically a system for raising the student above the realm of individual experience through the instrumentality of the upanishadic texts administered by a Teacher who enjoyed an intuitive conviction of their truth, tended amongst Śaṅkara’s followers after Sureśvara and Troṭaka to become a group of competing speculative systems, in the formation of which hypothetical reasoning (tarka) unchecked by practical experience (anubhava) was given free rein.
We know that Śaṅkara’s teaching has survived in its pure form as there are men who have attained enlightenment through it even today. In a sense, too, Śaṅkara’s later followers who ‘intellectualized’ the doctrine were only performing again the service previously performed by Gauḍapāda and Śaṅkara themselves, that of restating the upanishadic teaching in language intelligible to men of their own day
As philosophy in India grew more abstract and complicated, the Advaitins of Śaṅkara’s school kept pace. But the starting-point of any enquiry into Advaita Vedanta must surely be the work of Śaṅkara himself. And the glance we have taken at developments in his school after his death should be enough to convince us of the need for adhering very strictly to his own texts of proven authenticity, and for avoiding the temptation to seek light on his views from the writings of his followers after Sureśvara.
~Alston, Absolute, pp62-67
The Teacher who best represented this tradition in the eyes of Śaṅkara was Gauḍapāda, author of four ‘Books’ of ‘Kārikās’ (mnemonic verses) on the short Māṇḍūkya Upanishad. Unlike the authors of the Brahma Sūtras, Gauḍapāda insists very strongly on the illusory or phenomenal character of the world, and claims that in this he is only following an earlier tradition for the interpretation of the upanishadic texts.
Three important principles used by Gauḍapāda and Śaṅkara for the interpretation of the upanishadic texts are, however, found in the earlier Mādhyamika teaching.
First, there is the principle that the transcendent is conveyed indirectly by attributing empirical characteristics to it that are subsequently denied.
Secondly there is the principle that ‘The enlightened ones (Buddhas) taught the spiritual truth through resort to two standpoints, that of the surface-truth (saṃvṛti-satya) and that of the final truth (paramārtha)’ and ‘One cannot teach the supreme truth except on the basis of the surface-truth’.
And thirdly the principle that, on the basis of the distinction between the two truths, the traditional texts may be divided into those, called nītārtha, which express the fundamental truth in terms of negations, and the rest, called neyārtha, which are not to be taken literally at their surface value but have to be interpreted as indirectly supporting the fundamental texts.
We may say, then, Gauḍapāda clearly considered that Buddhist dialectic, Buddhist methods of textual interpretation and Buddhist yoga were all powerful aids in attaining practical realization of the ancient upanishadic wisdom.
Why is it, then, that Gauḍapāda warmly acknowledges his debt to the Mahāyāna, while Śaṅkara is hostile to Buddhism in every aspect and explains most of Gauḍapāda’s references to Buddhism away? The answer to this question seems to lie in historical developments that occurred between the time of Gauḍapāda and Śaṅkara.
The mystical Inspiration that sustained the Mahāyāna Teachers of earlier centuries seems to have waned, and the leading Buddhist thinkers of the new period, speaking generally, tended to abandon the higher knowledge in their enthusiasm for the problems of logic and epistemology.
The typical Buddhist for Gauḍapāda was the author of the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra or Nāgārjuna: the typical Buddhist for Śaṅkara was Dharmakīrti, and mutatis mutandis one might compare the transition from the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra to Dharmakīrti to the transition from St Bonaventura to Kant.
And one is still left wondering whether Śaṅkara had any opportunity for studying the earlier Mahāyāna texts in sufficient depth to enable him to realize the extent of Gauḍapāda’s borrowing. Did he have any access at all to the earlier texts from which Gauḍapāda was quoting? Or was he dependent for his statement of Buddhist positions on contemporary Buddhist sources, eked out by an astute use of scraps of earlier Buddhist doctrine retained in Brahminical oral tradition?
After all, his prime concern was the protection of upanishadic Advaita from the attacks of Buddhist and other opponents of the Veda of his own day, and not the restitution of ancient Buddhist texts in the manner of a modern philologist.
The truth, Śaṅkara goes on to say, is ‘intuitively savoured only by those exceedingly venerable monks of the Paramahaṃsa order who have given up all desires for anything external, who depend on nothing outside their own Self, who have risen above the whole system of caste and stages of life (āśrama) and who are solely preoccupied with the knowledge proclaimed in the Upanishads. And this truth… has been formulated in four chapters of verses by one (i.e. Gauḍapāda) who followed the true tradition. And even today it is only they who teach it and no one else’.
~Alston, Absolute, pp34-44
Perception itself is the sign of maya.
Bees see what birds do not.
I am not the walrus.
Whether waking or sleeping, the dreaming always feels real.
Consciousness-existence is effortless and intuitive.
The bliss of self-awarenes is that power of three.
The science says this universe is ninety-nine point nine percent space. The wisdom says the mind needs even less to make its world realistic.
The truth is nondoing. All doing is in your head. If nondoing is the nature of that absolute, effortlessness is the quality of its manifestation.
There were those moments in the Whites when I no longer climb a mountain but the mountain is climbing me.
Satcitananda is nameless. Mahavakyas leave us speechless. Life materializes in being. Attention to death is appearing in consciousness.
1.
Whether waking or sleeping, the dreaming always feels real.
Consciousness-existence is effortless and intuitive.
The bliss of self-awarenes is the nature of brahman.
Metaphysical ignorance is not beyond belief. It is exactly belief.
Consciousness is believed to be a product of the mind’s brain. Do you think?
Consciousness cannot speak for itself. Our ancient nondual revelations do.
Consciousness-existence is obviously the ground and aham brahmasmi.
1.
The science says this universe is ninety-nine point nine percent space. The wisdom says the mind needs even less to make its world realistic.
The truth is nondoing. All doing is in your head. If nondoing is the nature of that supreme absolute, effortlessness is the quality of its manifestation.
There were those moments in the Whites when I no longer climb a mountain but the mountain is climbing me.
Satcitananda is nameless. The mahavakyas leave us speechless. Life is appearing in being. Attention is appearing in consciousness.
The idea that Śaṅkara was a Brahmin from the south who taught and wrote mainly in the north, who gathered many pupils about him, who won fame travelling about and engaging in debates and who was a devotee of Viṣṇu can be supported from the surviving writings of Śaṅkara himself and his early followers.
The picture drawn in the Śaṅkara Digvijaya of Śaṅkara travelling far and wide and gaining fame as a Teacher and debater can also be supported from the same sources.
That Śaṅkara was an incarnation of the deity Śiva receives no support from contemporary sources. On the contrary, a certain predilection for Viṣṇu has been detected in Śaṅkara’s own writings and in those of his immediate pupils and followers which militates against the possibility of any contemporary belief that he was an incarnation of Śiva. For instance, Śaṅkara himself identifies Hari and Nārāyaṇa (names of Viṣṇu) with the Absolute in his Brahma Sūtra commentary, but does not mention Śiva in this way.
But if his early followers did not regard him as an incarnation of the deity, they certainly regarded him as a Teacher of quite exceptional importance and magnitude.
Certain passages in his commentaries suggest that he had the capacity to write beautiful devotional poetry if he had wished, but in the verse part of the Upadeśa Sāhasrī, the only surviving verse work of certain authenticity, the beauty derives from the content rather than from the form throughout.
The groundwork for securing criteria for distinguishing between the authentic and inauthentic works has been done by Professor Hacker. The authenticity of the Commentaries (Bhāṣya) on the Brahma Sūtras and on the Bṛhadāraṇyaka, Chāndogya, Taittirīya, Īśa, Aitareya, Kaṭha, Praśna and Muṇḍaka Upanishads is not questioned by the vast majority of authorities.
Professor Hacker’s methods, has removed all reasonable doubt as to the authenticity of the commentaries on the Bhagavad Gītā and on the Māṇḍūkya Upanishad with Gauḍapāda’s Kārikās, as also of the two commentaries on the Kena Upanishad. It appears also that there is no reason to doubt the authenticity of the commentary on the Adhyātma Paṭala of the Āpastamba Dharma Sūtra,
Excluded (and it is very important to exclude them if one wants clarity about what Śaṅkara actually said) are such popular favourites as Viveka Cūḍāmaṇi, Ātma Bodha, Svātmanirūpaṇa, Aparokṣānubhūti and Śata Ślokī, which belong to an altogether later age. It is also unsafe to use any of the devotional hymns attributed to Śaṅkara’s name as guides to his doctrine. For instance, the two of them with the best prima facie claims to authenticity are the Dakṣiṇā Mūrti Stotra with a commentary ascribed to Sureśvara and the Hymn to Hari with a commentary ascribed to Ānandagiri. Both works, however, have dubious features.
The present anthology is accordingly based on the Commentaries to the Brahma Sūtras, the Gītā, the Kārikās of Gauḍapāda and to the Adhyātma Paṭala of the Āpastamba Dharma Sūtra, and on the individual commentaries to the classical Upanishads.
~A. J. Alston, Absolute, pp55-62
Dennis Waite (from Back to the Truth):
A. J. Alston (died 2004) was the brilliant translator of “The Method of the Vedanta”* (see [below]). His ability to render the often abstruse philosophical arguments of Shankara into comprehensible and readable English is without parallel in my experience. Accordingly, this set of books – “A Shankara Source Book Vols. 1 – 6” - is invaluable to serious students of Advaita. I have only read one of these - Vol. 2 Shankara on the Creation (Ref. 335) - but am prepared unreservedly to recommend them all on the basis of this. Each book is divided into clear sections and sub-sections. Each topic is introduced and explained by the author, who then selects relevant passages from Shankara’s text which address the topics. It took Alston 37 years to complete this task and Advaitins everywhere can now reap the rewards.
* The Method of the Vedanta: A Critical Account of the Advaita Tradition by Swami Satchidanandendra, translated by A. J. Alston (Ref. 24). This is a huge book, requiring considerable commitment but, if you want to understand clearly what Shankara believed and how his message has been modified or even distorted by subsequent interpreters, then it is indispensable reading. Shankara’s essential method is presented as that of adhyAropa - apavAda, attribution and subsequent denial. His commentaries on the prasthAna traya are examined in detail. Then, following a brief look at pre-Shankara Advaita, there are chapters on each of the major teachers and schools that followed him, in which the same topics are re-examined and the differences outlined. Fortunately, the translation is by A. J. Alston - see below - so is always understandable.
Let’s talk about intelligence, intuition, and intellect.
Like consciousness-existence, intelligence is the nature of brahman.
Intellect is partly material. Intuition is partly light.
Maya veils and projects. And maya reveals. Ego usurps.
Ego is the name of ignorance in the form of maya.
Feed your intellect. Listen to intuition. Aham Brahmasmi.
By playing your part, you worship its one. Saguna Braman is the one true god. Nirguna Brahman is the nondual one.
Advaita is beyond belief. Nonduality transcends all thought. Faith and its confirmation is the real thing.
The deepest you can go is consciousness-existence. Any thought is more shallow.
Mind-off is deep sleep. Mind-on is dreaming. Body-on is the waking dream.
Some say Gaudapada is Advaita cooked in Nargajuna. Some say they’re Shankara but they’re not.
You can’t lose consciousness. You are consciousness.
When the mind is turned off in deep sleep, consciousness is witnessing the absence of duality.
Some sages say nirvikalpa samadhi is consciousness witnessing the presence of nonduality.
Atman is the witness consciousness and absolute self but not the doer.
The mind, intellect, memory, and ego act in concert as the doer. They call it the inner instrument.
Intuition trains the intellect but that’s as far as maya goes.
Consciousness is not manufactured by the mind.
Dreams are manufactured by the mind.
Consciousness-existence is that in which both dreams and deep sleep are appearing.
Consciousness-existence is my nature but I do not have a name.
Self-awareness is the bliss of consciousness-existence to the power of three.
The mind waking from a dream is being mindful.
Pure consciousness seeing through all daydreaming is realization itself.
Don’t take yourself personally.
God isn’t dead but your particular concept of a god has outlived its usefulness.
The principle of existence is like fire. The mind is like on fire.
Seeing through one’s superimposition is the way.
The mind divides naturally. Use the mind carefully in these matters of the self.
All things must be deconstructed.
Effortless nondoing and intuitive nonknowing is the way of consciousness-existence.
The big is brahman. The big bang is maya.
Satcitananda is the foundation upon which this city of samsara has been imagined.
Maya is neither real nor unreal. Maya is both beginningless and finite.
Maya is the power of saguna brahman, Isvara, name your god.
Nirguna brahman is saguna brahman without the mindstuff.
Consciousness-existence is what I am when I’m not thinking about it.
Self-awareness is the nature of awareness. Another name for that is bliss.
From the point of view of avidya, self-awareness takes a universe of space-time.
As self awareness is the nature of awareness, enlightenment is sudden.
Realization is spontaneous. Like a dream, this never happened.
Like an ocean isle, the mind only knows what the mind can know. What the mind can’t know is like the boundless seven seas.
The mind knows what’s within the boundaries of the mind. The mind cannot know the boundless consciousness in which it is appearing.
In the binary way of the mind, the mind considers itself divided from that which it cannot know.
In religion, that unknowable is called god. In scientific materialism, where that unknowable is now a theory to be proven in time, the future is god.
Separating the knowable from the unknowable is a form of ignorance in the shape of maya from the point of view of that nondual consciousness which is all-knowing and myself.
A subtle body appears in consciousness-existence, and its brilliant reflection is so profound, it appears to come alive.
In time this artificial being identifies with the body-mind so much, it believes consciousness is produced by it, and pays top dollar for anyone to prove it.
But consciousness is foundational. Existence is that supreme principle. The absolute is beyond the ken of the mind. Parabrahman is all there is. Voila! I am that.
footnotes to voila
What happens in Maya stays in Maya. Maya may be brilliant but consciousness is self-luminous. Consciousness is fire. The mind is on fire. It’s called superimposition.
Science sees through lies but it cannot see the truth. The western empire of scientific materialism is founded on the big lie—the material world produces everything including pure consciousness.
Thoughts appear in consciousness. Without existence, where would you be? The sea is beyond the point of any shoreline. Atman is Brahman. Brahman is all there be.
3. voila haiku
consciousness is self-luminous
the mind is on fire
maya is brilliant
4.
consciousness-existence is not a name.
consciousness-existence is nameless.
consciousness-existence is atman
