māyayā bhidyate hyetan-nānyathājaṁ kathañcana, tattvato bhidyamāne hi martyatām-amṛtaṁ vrajet. (19)
मायया – through (māyā) delusion; भिद्यते – appears to undergo modification; हि – only; एतत् – this; न-अन्यथा कथञ्चन – not in any other manner; अजम् – birthless; तत्त्वतः – be real; भिद्यमाने – multiformed or change; हि – for; मर्त्यताम् – mortal; अमृतम् – the immortal (Brahman); व्रजेत् – will be subject to or become (tr-C)
19. The unborn Atman becomes manifold through maya, and not otherwise. For if the manifold were real, then the immortal would become mortal. (tr-N)
The term aja, meaning the unborn, has its implications. That which is born is finite, because birth is nothing but change. // In the chapter-2 on ‘illusion’ (in other words, on the unreality of the objective world), we have the first specific explanation given by the great Master for the world of objects. There he said ‘Ᾱtman, the self-luminous through the powers of His own māyā imagines the plurality in Himself by Himself’. Now, here we have in this stanza the second explanation which he has designed to give by saying that the dispersal of the One into the many is only an apparent phenomenon and that in reality it is not there in the outer world, it is only a delusion created for us by our mental impressions of it. ~C
Duality is created only one way because there is only one Self. If there were another Self, it would be different, so it might create triality, quadrality or quintality perhaps. Even then, jivas could not be more confused than they are now by duality. ~S
ajātasyaiva bhāvasya jātim-icchanti vādinaḥ, ajāto hyamṛto bhāvo martyatāṁ kaṭhameṣyati. (20)
अजातस्य – of the unborn, birthless one; एव – also; भावस्य – Reality itself; जातिम् – the birth; इच्छन्ति – contend; वादिनः – the disputants; अजातः – the unborn; हि – indeed; अमृतः – immortal; भावः – Reality, positive entity; मर्त्यताम् – mortality; कथम् – how; एष्यति – subject to (tr-C)
20. The disputants assert that the unborn entity (Atman) becomes born. How can one expect that an entity that is birthless and immortal should become mortal? (tr-N)
The problem with all the dualistic systems is that they treat Brahman as one of the objects in the creation. Because we are experiencing various things in the creation, and when the Upaniṣads introduce Brahman, we try to imagine Brahman as another thing or being. In the śāstra itself, initially the infinite formless Brahman is given a form for meditation and this leads to the misconception that Brahman is a person in a remote place according to the description given by the śāstra. ~P
Continuing the idea expressed in the previous lines Gauḍapāda here is taking his cudgels of discriminative knowledge against those dualists who believe in the theory of causation. And much more severely and scientifically will he be destroying the concept of causality, later on in the next chapter. And there we shall discover that Bhagavān has repeated this along with the following two stanzas. ~C
Na bhavaty-amṛtaṁ martyaṁ na martyam-amṛtaṁ tathā, prakṛter-anyathā-bhāvo na kathañcid-bhaviṣyati. (21)
न भवति – does not become; अमृतम् – immortal; मर्त्यम् – mortal; मर्त्यम् न – does not (become) mortal; अमृतम् – immortal; तथा – in the same way; प्रकृतेः – of the intrinsic nature; अन्यथा-भावः – the transformation, to change; न –does not; कथञ्चित् – in any manner; भविष्यति – takes place (tr-C)
21. The immortal cannot become mortal, nor can the mortal become immortal. For it is never possible for a thing to change its nature. (tr-N)
This is a very important and profound verse. It has so many corollaries. The essential nature of a thing will never be lost. It will never go away from that thing. Why? What nature does not go away is called essential nature. The essential nature of fire is heat. Wherever there is fire, there will be heat. There can be hot fire or no fire but there can never be cold fire. // Once I claim that I am the ātmā I can also claim that I am immortal. Therefore becoming immortal is not our goal but claiming immortality is our goal. While claiming immortality we should accept the mortality of the body. ~P
There is no connection between satya and mithya. If a connection obtains, freedom from mortality is impossible. Everything in the apparent reality is born and dies. Nothing can be done to escape it, except to understand by inquiry that you are immortal already. ~S
svabhāvenāmṛto yasya bhāvo gacchati martyatām, kṛtakenāmṛtas-tasya kathaṁ sthāsyati niścalaḥ. (22)
स्व-भावेन – intrinsically, essential; अमृतः – immortal; यस्य – for whom (person); भावः – reality, positive entity; गच्छति मर्त्यताम् – becomes mortal; कृतकेन – after modification, it being a product; अमृतः – that immortal; तस्य – for him; कथम् – how can; स्थास्यति – retains, continues to be; निश्चलः – its own essential nature of immutability (tr-C)
22. How can one who believes that an entity by nature immortal becomes mortal, maintain that the immortal, after passing through change, retains its changeless nature? (tr-N)
Dualist is one who believes that the immortal has undergone a change in order that the world of plurality may be created out of the Supreme. And yet he claims that there is the Reality still remaining as changeless and eternal as ever before. To talk of change and to insist on the changelessness of the changed one is not considered generally as very intelligent by any thinking person. ~C
[Gaudapada] persists in this matter to the very end. This is the fourth verse in a row that repeats the same Truth. It is literally the fourth ‘hammer-blow’ into the minds of the easygoing, casual, Dualist philosophers. ~S/G
Legend:
C: Chinmayananda
N: Nikhilananda
P: Paramarthananda
S/G: Sandeepany / Gurubhaktananda
S: Swartz
No comments:
Post a Comment