Translations & Commentaries on K3.27-28 re: sato / asato

27. sato hi māyayā janma yujyate na tu tattvataḥ, tattvato jāyate yasya jātaṁ tasya hi jāyate.

सतः – which is even existent; हि मायया – through delusion alone; जन्म युज्यते – birth is possible; तु – but; न तत्त्वतः – not from the standpoint of Reality; तत्त्वतः – Reality (is real); जायते – passing into birth; यस्य – for a person; जातम् – (then) which is born; तस्य – for him; हि जायते – alone is born (again) (tr-C)

What is ever existent appears to pass into birth through maya, yet from the standpoint of Reality it does not do so. But he who thinks this passing into birth is real asserts, as a matter of fact, that what is born passes into birth again. (tr-N)

As an existing entity, such as a rope, produces an effect, such as a snake, only through maya, and not in reality, so the incomprehensible and eternal Atman is seen to produce an effect, in the form of the universe, only through maya. No real birth from Atman can be predicated. ~N

28. Asato māyayā janma tattvato naiva yujyate, vandhyā-putro na tattvena māyayā vāpi jāyate.

असतः – unreal, non-existent; मायया – through delusion; जन्म – be born; तत्त्वतः – in Reality; न-एव युज्यते – not at all possible; वन्ध्या-पुत्रः – son of a barren woman; न – not; तत्त्वेन – in Reality; मायया – through delusion; वा-अपि – and also; जायते – is born. (tr-C)

The unreal cannot be born either really or through maya. For it is not possible for the son of a barren woman to be born either really or through maya. (tr-N)

There are those who hold that all entities are non-existent and that they are produced from a non-existent cause. But a non-existent entity cannot be produced either in reality or through illusion; for we know nothing like this in our experience. One cannot imagine the birth of the son of a barren woman either in reality or through maya. Therefore the view of the nihilists, who deny the reality of appearances and consequently of the cause, is untenable. ~N

A world of plurality cannot emerge out of the Reality, which is existent (sat) or non-existent (asat). By denying this effect as having arisen from any cause, we deny the very existence of the effect. ~C

Therefore, sat is not a cause and asat is not a cause. No other cause is there. The world has not originated. But what is seen? An appearance caused by māyā is seen. ~P

Legend:

C: Chinmayananda

N: Nikhilananda

P: Paramarthananda

Translations and Commentaries on MK3.23-26 re: sama sruti

23. Coming into birth may be real or illusory; both views are equally supported by the scriptures. But that view which is supported by the scriptures and corroborated by reason is alone to be accepted, and not the other. (tr-N)

Thus, as Śaṅkara would say it, the Vedāntin accepts the śruti declarations only when they are well ascertained through enquiry and when made intelligible through reason. If there be any statement in the śruti such as ‘Fire is cold’ the Vedāntin would not accept it as such because it is the declaration of a great sage. However great a sage may be, he cannot from the eminence of his pulpit, declare statements of contradiction that have no support of logic or reason. ~C

In the third chapter of Māṇḍūkyakārikā, Gauḍapādācārya extracts four important and profound messages about the status of the waking world, the world experienced by all of us. The messages are: 1. The existence of the waking world is to be negated. 2. The origination of the waking world from Brahman is to be negated. 3. The appearance and the experience of the waking world are to be accepted. 4. The cause for the appearance and experience of the waking world is to be understood as selfignorance or māyā. // Gauḍapāda is stressing these four points by addressing and analyzing them from various angles. He points out that this is a message found in not only Māṇḍūkya but the other Upaniṣads also. Māṇḍūkya is not different and unique but there is consensus among all the Upaniṣads with regard to the message. ~P

24. From such scriptural passages as, “One does not see any multiplicity in Atman” [Ka. Up II. i. 2.] and “Indra (the Supreme Lord), through maya, assumes diverse forms” [Ri. VI. xlvii. 18.], one knows that Atman, though ever unborn, appears to have become many only through maya. (tr-N)

In the first line of this stanza we have two very important quotations from the Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad which is the main scriptural textbook made use of very often by Gauḍapāda. // In the first quotation Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad definitely and pointedly refutes the pluralistic phenomenal world and in the second quotation we have an explanation of the world of plurality when Yājñyavalkya says that it is all because of the māyā (delusion) of Indra. // Indra is considered as the presiding deity of the mind. // Hence philosophically to say that the plurality is created by Indra is equivalent to saying that the pluralistic world is a delusion of our mind. ~C

25. Further, by the negation of the creation, coming into birth is negated. The causality of Brahman is denied by such a statement as “Who can cause It to come into birth?” (tr-N)

NEGATION OF THE CREATION: Compare: “Into a blind darkness they enter who worship only the creation.” (Is. Up. 12.) // THE CAUSALITY OR BRAHMAN ETC: Compare: “It has not sprung from anything; nothing has sprang from It.” (Ka. Up. I. ii. 18.) ~N

Bṛhadāranyaka Upaniṣad (Śākalya Brāhmaṇam 3.9.28g). This 28th mantra in the Upaniṣad is itself a group of seven verses. The seventh mantra is quoted here. The Upaniṣad is questioning, “Who can create this world?” By raising this question the Upaniṣad says that the cause for the origination of the world cannot be talked about. So Brahman can never become the cause of the universe. Other than Brahman, there is nothing else that can be the cause of the universe. Then, what is this world? That is called māyā. It is an appearance without any logical explanation. The more you probe into the creation, the more mysterious it becomes and our final answer will be, ‘I do not know’. That is called māyā, mūlā-avidyā. ~P

26. On account of the incomprehensible nature of Atman, the scriptural passage “Not this, not this” negates all [dualistic] ideas [attributed to Atman]. Therefore the birthless Atman alone exists. (tr-N)

THE SCRIPTURAL ETC: The reference is to Br. Up. II. iii. The section begins with the statement: “There are two forms of Brahman, gross and subtle, mortal and immortal, limited and unlimited.. .” It ends thus: “Now, therefore, follows the description [of Brahman]: ‘Not this, not this.’ ” Br. Up. II. iii. 6.) ~N

In the mantra, the Bṛhadāranyaka Upaniṣad divides the entire universe into concrete (mūrta) and abstract (amūrta) both at the micro and macro level. The physical body is mūrta universe and the subtle body, mind, and thoughts, etc., are amūrta universe. Matter is mūrta universe and energy is amūrta universe. The entire universe is classified into mūrta and amūrta. What is the truth? While revealing the truth, the Upaniṣad negates both the mūrta and amūrta through the statement, neti, neti. ~P

This language of negation is the only method by which we can indicate the experience of the Absolute, because the Infinite is not one that can be perceived by the intellect. It being thus, beyond the frontiers of our daily experiences, our worldly language cannot express positively the experience of non-duality. Negation of the world of plurality is the assertion of the Reality; the negation of the serpent is the means to discover the reality of the rope. ~C

Legend:

C: Chinmayananda

N: Nikhilananda

P: Paramarthananda

Talking MK3.19-22

Turiya is a mathematical way of saying Ayam Atma Brahma. Gods and godlessness appear in that unborn akasa.

The rope of satcitananda is like the snake of samsara under the influence of deoxyribonucleic acid.

Talks on Talks on MK3.19-22

Dreams are dreamt by the power of the mind's imagination. If dreams feel real, then what is being awake?

People are born into a world of duality. No binary system is perfect.

Satcitananda is beyond DNA transcendentally speaking. What is seen is appearing in the seer.

In Maya, there are Saguna Brahmans and Nirguna Brahman, but absolutely speaking, Brahman is nameless and formess.

ayam atma brahma

Talks on Mandukya K3.19-22: aja

The unborn is born only by the power of Maya and no other way. If this world were really real, the one immortal absolute would be phenomenally mortal right now. 

Some still say the unborn was born. As if that birthless and immortal ground could become a mortal seed.

The immortal can't really be mortal. The mortal can't really be immortal either. The object is never the subject.

How does an immortal one become the mortal many? How does the one that appears to change retain its changelessness? It's called Maya.

Some Commentaries on and Translations of MK3.19-22 re: Immortality

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

Talking about Talks on MK3.3-9

1. preface

Trying to get a handle on MK3.3-9 takes some effort.

In the end, I found Nikhilananda's new translation to be the easiest to follow.

Joseph Campbell edited the work and his sharp Mother English helps significantly.

2. in the beginning

Gaudapada spells out our simile first. Atman is like infinite space.

Death and infinite regression are to be seen through next.

K3.6 is the turn. No one is denying the Maya of names and forms.

3. in conclusion

Gaudapada isn't buying any chance of change in the changeless.

K3.7 leans into the turn. Atman is indivisible and beyond all cause and effect.

As the song is infinite space, the tenor is Atman, our song ends.

Talks on Mandukya K3.3-9: akasa

or Transcreating Nikhilananda

Say Atman is infinite space and Atman is manifesting in people like infinite space in clay pots. This is what birth is like.

Upon destruction of any clay pot, the infinite space contained in the pot merges with infinite space. So do people merge with Atman.

As the smoke-filled space in one clay pot doesn’t smudge the other spaces enclosed in other pots, so the emotions of one individual does not actually darken others.

Although a variety of names and forms of different spaces may be admitted, this does not imply there's any differentiation in space itself.

As the infinite space enclosed in a clay pot is neither an effect nor a part of infinite space, so an individual is neither a creation nor a part of Atman.

Only a child would think the actual dimension of space is being polluted by polluted air. Only the ignorant believe Atman can be similarly polluted.

Atman, in regard to its birth and death, its comings and goings, its dwelling in different bodies, is not unlike infinite space.

Some Commentary and Translations on and of MK3.1-2

K3.1

Upāsanā-āśrito dharmo jāte brahmaṇi vartate, prāg-utpatter-ajaṁ sarvaṁ tenāsau kṛpaṇaḥ smṛtaḥ.

The chief difficulty in this verse is the word dharma. Sankara… interprets the word dharma as the “seeker” meaning the individual soul (jiva). But why should the word have this unprecedented meaning? // …The explanation of dharma as soul… is somewhat forced, and it would be better to understand the word dharma in karika 3.1 along the lines of “teaching” or “doctrine”. ~Comans

Here, in this stanza, the word ‘upāsanā’ is used, though the word ‘bhakti’ is the term that is nowadays understood. Upāsanā is the term used in the Vedas. In the entire literature of Vedas there is no term as bhakti ever used. Bhakti is the term and a technique discovered by Vyāsa and elaborated in the mythological literature (purāṇas) of India. ~Chinmayananda

A doctrine (dharma) based upon a conceptual meditation occurs when Brahman is born. [That doctrine is]: “prior to origination, everything is unborn.” Therefore, that doctrine is considered as pitiable. (tr-Comans)

The individual ego taking to itself the path of devotion (upāsanā) imagines itself to be related to the Brahman, who is supposed by it as having manifested Himself. Such an ego is said to be of narrow intellect because it thinks that before creation, all was of the nature of the unborn Reality. (tr-Chinmayananda)

The aspirant, betaking himself to the devotional exercises, subsists in the conditioned Brahman. All this was but the birthless Brahman before creation. Hence such a man is considered pitiable (or narrow in his outlook). (tr-Gambhirananda)

K3.2

ato vakṣyāmy-akārpaṇyam-ajāti samatāṁ gatam, yathā na jāyate kiñcit jāyamānaṁ samantataḥ. (2)

Because of the reasons given in the previous mantra Gauḍapāda is now promising to explain to the sādhaka the supreme Reality which is beyond all limitations. // By the expression sama (same throughout), the Master means that the Reality is homogeneous and all-pervading. The implications are that there is nothing similar to It in It, nor dissimilar to It; nor is there any distinction in density or quality within Itself. // If the Reality be thus eternal and all-pervading how is it that, mortals as we are, we are recognising a world of plurality about and around us? The answer is that these are, in fact, nothing but the Reality Itself. The names and forms of the pluralistic world are but an illusory dream of the mind. ~Chinmayananda

Atah: “therefore”. This ‘therefore’ is quite significant and refers to the situation of the Upasaka of the above verse who finds himself in a pitiable, unworthy plight. He is unhappy of his condition of having taken birth and living in a state of conditioned consciousness rather than in Pure Consciousness. He takes recourse to worship of the Supreme Being in the hope that after his death he will merge into the state of Pure Consciousness again. To have such an idea in mind is itself a delusion, says Gaudapadaji. The Upasaka has reduced himself to a helpless entity for his whole life, imagining that only death will release him from his bound condition. With this background, expressed by the term ‘therefore’, Sri Gaudapadaji begins to elaborate on the correct interpretation of Brahman who is ‘without limitations’. ~Sandeepany / Gurubhaktananda

Therefore, I shall now describe to you (that Brahman) which is free from limitations, unborn, and homogeneous; and from which nothing is in reality born, though it appears to have manifested in endless forms everywhere. (tr-Chinmayananda)

Hence I shall speak of that (Brahman) which is free from limitation, has no birth, and is in a state of homogeneity; and listen how nothing whatsoever is born in any way, though it seems to be born. (tr-Gambhirananda)

Therefore T shall now describe that (Brahman) which is free from limitations, unborn and which is the same throughout; and from this, one understands that it is not (in reality) born though it appears to be manifested everywhere. (tr-Nikhilananda)

TOC Karika 3 Advaita Prakarana (from Chinmaya Sandeepany)

Advaita Prakarana

Section 3.1: NEED FOR AN OPEN INTELLECT

Verse 3.1: Keeping the Intellect Open

Verse 3.2: The Subject of This Chapter Stated

Section 3.2: THE METAPHOR OF POT-SPACE

Verse 3.3: The Pot Originates – BIRTH

Verse 3.4: The Pot Breaks – DEATH

Verse 3.5: Jeevas are Many, Atman is One

Verse 3.6: Upadhis are Many, Atman is One

Verse 3.7: Modifications or Parts are Many, Atman is One

Verse 3.8: The Taint of Impurity

Verse 3.9: The Value of the “Space” Simile

Verse 3.10: Conclusion: Objects are Projections of Maya

Section 3.3: SCRIPTURAL AUTHORITY

Verse 3.11: The Taittireeya Upanishad (II-Anuvaka 1 to 6)

Verse 3.12: Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (II – v. 1-14)

Verse 3.13: Non-duality Praised; Duality Condemned

Section 3.4: ORIGIN OF DUALISTIC SCHOOLS

Verse 3.14: General: Primary and Secondary Senses

Verse 3.15: Duality Used As Illustrations

Verse 3.16: Catering for Three Stages of Understanding

Verse 3.17: Dualists Quarrel Amongst Themselves

Verse 3.18: Duality – An Effect of Non-Duality

Section 3.5: IMMORTALITY VERSES MORTALITY

Verse 3.19 Maya Alone Creates Multiplicity

Verse 3.20: The Unborn Cannot Be Born

Verse 3.21: Intrinsic Nature Never Changes

Verse 3.22: The Immortal Cannot Be Modified

Section 3.6: IS CREATION A REALITY?

Verse 3.23: Both Scriptures and Reason Must Prevail

Verse 3.24: What Do the Shrutis Say on the Topic?

Verse 3.25: Gross, Subtle & Causal Levels Negated

Verse 3.26: Earlier “Temporary” Theories Negated

Verse 3.27: Birth Possible Only Through Maya

Verse 3.28: The Unreal Can Never Be Born

Section 3.7: “DRISHTI-SRISHTI VADA”

Verse 3.29: Apparent Duality in Dream & Waking

Verse 3.30: The Mind in Dream & Waking

Verse 3.31: Mind IS the Duality

Verse 3.32: The Cessation of All Mental Activity

Verse 3.33: Cessation of Mind & “Birthlessness”

Verse 3.34 & 35a: The Controlled Mind vs. Deep Sleep

Verse 3.35b & 36: The Controlled Mind & Knowledge

Verse 3.37 & 38: The Controlled Mind & Self-Experience

Verse 3.39a: “Asparsha Yoga” – the ‘Contactless Yoga’

Section 3.8: “SRISHTI-DRISHTI VADA”

Verse 3.39b & 40: The Yogis or “Srishti-Drishti Vada” Students

Verse 3.41: The Difficulty of Mind Control

Verse 3.42: The Proper Means of Mind Control

Verse 3.43: Method 1: “Remember Sorrow, Remember God”

Verse 3.44: Method 2: Working on the Gunas

Verse 3.45: Method 3: Discrimination Keeps Away Attachment

Verse 3.46: A Final Checklist for Mind Control

Verse 3.47: Features of Nirvikalpa Samadhi

Verse 3.48: The State of Non-Dual Reality