250905fr1

Reflected consciousness is both consciousness and maya.

Ordinary consciousness is reflected consciousness minus maya.

Consciousness divided by the mind is reflected consciousness.

Silly Rabbit

Scientific materialism doesn't know

if the chicken or the egg came first.

Silly rabbit, maya is beginningless.

Talking MK3.27-28

Existence is that in which this thought appears. Ego is this in which memories appear

Disbelieve everything but existence-consciousness. One should never disbelieve yourself.

Scientific materialism is just old-time nihilism. Wave-particle duality is its new antichrist.

Talks on MK3.27-28: sato

Existence passes into birth only through Maya and not really.

Believing things were born in such a way, they’ll be born ad infinitum.

The non-existent can’t be born the so-called real way or via Maya.

The child of an infertile woman isn't born one way or the other.

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