Talks on MK3.29-33: amani-bhava

As in the state of dreaming, a semblance of duality is projected by the maya of mind, so too in the waking state.

As a singular mind appears to be a world of duality in dreams, the nondual self appears to be dual in waking. No doubt.

A world of things, both moving and non-moving, is seen in the mind only. Duality is nowhere to be seen when the mind isn’t moving.

A mind, upon realizing the knowledge that Atman alone is real, ceases to be the mind. For the want of a mind, all perception is free from belief.

Ajam and free from imagination is Jnana. The Knowable is one with Brahman. That intent of Knowledge is unborn and immutable. By the birthless, the birthless is known.

Translations & Commentaries on K3.29-33: ajenajam

29. yathā svapne dvayābhāsaṁ spandate māyayā manaḥ, tathā jāgrad dvayābhāsaṁ spandate māyayā manaḥ. ~G

यथा – just as; स्वप्ने – in dream; द्वय-आभासम् – a seeming duality; स्पन्दते – projects, vibrates; मायया – through delusion; मनः – the mind; तथा – in the same way; जाग्रत् – in the waking state; द्वय-आभासम् – the seeming duality of; स्पन्दते – projects; मायया – through delusion; मनः – the mind ~G-trC

As in dreams the mind acts through maya, presenting the appearance of duality, so also in the waking state the mind acts through maya, presenting the appearance of duality. ~G-trN

The mind spins a seeming duality in the waking state through māyā just as the mind spins a seeming duality in dream through māyā. ~G-trP

As the snake imagined on a rope is true when seen as the rope, so manah, the mind, is true when seen as the Self, the supreme Consciousness. As like a snake appearing on a rope, the mind spandate, vibrates; svapne, in dream; mayaya, through Maya; dvayabha- sam, as if possessed of two facets-the cognizer and the thing cognized; tatha, just like that; jagrat, in the waking state; manah, the mind; spandate, vibrates, as it were; mayaya, through Maya. ~S-trGm

The diversity experienced in the waking state, like that perceived in dreams, is the activity of the mind, through maya. The mind is superimposed through ignorance upon the non-dual Atman. To the knower of Reality the mind is Brahman, just as to the knower of the rope the illusory snake is the rope, or to the awakened man the dream experience is nothing but the mind. ~N

30. advayaṁ ca dvayābhāsaṁ manaḥ svapne na saṁśayaḥ, advayaṁ ca dvayābhāsaṁ tathā jāgran-na saṁśayaḥ.  ~G

अद्वयम् – the non-dual; च – and, alone; द्वय-आभासम् – the seeming duality of; मनः – mind; स्वप्ने – in the dream; न संशयः – there is no doubt; अद्वयम् च – the non-dual alone; द्वय-आभासम् – the seeming duality; तथा – in the same way; जाग्रत् – in the waking state; न संशयः – there is no doubt ~G-trC

There is no doubt that the mind, which is in reality non-dual, appears to be dual in dreams; likewise, there is no doubt that what is non-dual [i.e. Atman] appears to be dual in the waking state. ~G-trN

Na samsayah, there is no doubt; that just as the snake is true in its aspect of the rope, so the manas, mind; that is but advayam, non-dual, in its aspect of the Self from the highest standpoint; dvayabahsam, appears to have two aspects; svapne, in dream. For apart from Consciousness, there do not exist two things in dream -elephants and so on that are perceived and eyes and the rest that perceive them. The ideas that the case is similar in the waking state also; for in either state there exists only the supremely real Consciousness. ~S-trGm

31. mano dṛśya-midaṁ dvaitaṁ yat-kiñcit-sacarācaram, manaso hyamanī-bhāve dvaitam naivopalabhyate. ~G

मनः-दृश्यम् – perception of the mind; इदम् द्वैतम् – this duality; यत् – which; किञ्चित् – anything; स – including; चर – all moveable; अचरम् – and immoveable; मनसः – when the mind; हि – for; अमनी-भावे – is transcended or cease to act; द्वैतम् – duality in other words, plurality; न-एव – not at all; उपलभ्यते – perceived ~G-trC

All the multiple objects, comprising the movable and the immovable, are perceived by the mind alone. For duality is never perceived when the mind ceases to act. ~G-trN

The state when the mind acts not (amanī-bhāva):-This is a chiselled expression of such exquisite beauty and ethereal harmony that it defies translation. ‘Mana’ is mind; ‘a-mana’ is non-mind; and a-manī-bhāva is equivalent to saying ‘non-mindhood’. The non-mindhood is Godhood; looking down from the balconies of the non-mindhood, the imperfect world of phenomena cannot be available for perception. ~C

Gauḍapāda suggests a method to tackle duality. Ultimately, the method is only one but the route taken is different. In waking and dream, we are experiencing duality reported by the mind alone. The active mind is reporting duality in waking and the semi-active mind is reporting duality in dream whereas in deep sleep the resolved mind is not reporting duality. The mind that reports duality is the problem. Now we have refined the problem. First it was said that duality is the cause of saṃsāra. The refined statement is that the mind that reports duality is the cause of saṃsāra. Therefore one should learn to tackle the duality-reporting mind. This tackling of the mind is what Gauḍapāda called amanībhāvaḥ. Converting the problematic mind into a non-problematic mind is called amanībhāvaḥ. ~P

32. ātma-satyānubodhena na saṅkalpayate yadā, amanastāṁ tadā yāti grāhyābhāve tad-agraham. ~G

आत्म-सत्य-अनुबोधेन – because of the knowledge of Truth which is Ᾱtman; न सङ्कल्पयते – (the mind) does not bring forth imaginations; यदा – when; याति अमनस्ताम् – ceases to be mind; तदा – then; ग्राह्य – objects of cognition; अभावे – for want of; तत् – that (mind); अग्रहम् – non-perceiver, becomes free from the idea of cognition ~G-trC

When the mind, after realizing the knowledge that Atman alone is real, becomes free from imaginations and therefore does not cognize anything, for want of objects to be cognized, it ceases to be the mind. ~G-trN

Atmasatya-anubodha is the realization of that Truth of the Self which follows from the instruction of scriptures and the teacher. Yada, when, as a consequence of that, there remains nothing to be thought of; and the mind na sankalpayate, does not think-as fire does not burn in the absence of combustible things; tada, then, at that time; yati amanastam, it attains the state of ceasing to be the mind. Grahyabhave, in the absence of things to be perceived; tat, that mind; agraham, becomes free from all illusion of perceptions. This is the idea. ~S-trGm

Why do we say that Self-realisation is the state of ‘non-mindhood?’ The reason is explained by Gauḍapāda. He says that the mind can exist and maintain its personality only if there are objects of perception. Later on, in chapter-4, we would be given an exhaustive explanation of this argument but, for the time being, it is sufficient for us to understand that the mind is nothing other than the ‘focal point’ of the five organs of knowledge. If there are no sense objects entertained by an individual’s organs of knowledge, the ‘focal point’ becomes empty. An empty mind is a ‘non-mind’; thus in that plane of Consciousness, when awareness is perceiving nothing other than awareness, mind cannot exist. ~C

Trying to tackle the world alone will not work and tackling the mind alone will also not work. It will end up in some other problem. Swami Dayananda: In psychology there is no solution, in Vedānta there is no problem. Trying to understand the root of both the world and mind alone will help. That root is ātmā the satyaṃ. When the truth ātmā is known as satyaṃ, the world and the mind are understood as mithyā. The world and the mind will continue to be experienced. It will be like a movie on a screen. The screen is ātmā. ~P

33. akalpakam-ajaṁ jñānaṁ jñeyābhinnaṁ pracakṣate, brahmajñeyam-ajaṁ nityam-ajenājaṁ vibudhyate. ~G

अकल्पकम् – free from imagination; अजम् – unborn; ज्ञानम् – the knowledge, ज्ञेय – the object of knowledge, knowable in other words, Brahman; अभिन्नम् – inseparable, not different; प्रचक्षते – (wise) say; ब्रह्म – Brahman; ज्ञेयम् – object of knowledge; अजम् – the birthless; नित्यम् – immutable; अजेन – by the birthless (knowledge); अजम् – the birthless Self; विबुध्यते – is known ~G-trC

Knowledge (Jnana), which is unborn and free from imagination, is described [by the wise] as ever inseparable from the knowable. The immutable and birthless Brahman is the goal of knowledge. The birthless is known by the birthless. ~G-trN

The phrase brahma jneyam, is an attribute of that very knowledge, and means that very knowledge of which Brahman Itself is the content and which is non-different from Brahman, as heat is from fire. By that ajena, unborn, knowledge, which is the very nature of the Self; vibudhyate, is known-It knows by Itself; the ajam, birthless Reality, which is the Self. The idea conveyed is that the Self being ever a homogeneous mass of Consciousness, like the sun that is by nature a constant light, does not depend on any other knowledge (for Its revelation). ~S-trGm

If both the mind and the world are negated as mithyā, how can one know the ātmā? For that Gauḍapāda says that ātmā is never recognized as an object with the help of the mind. If ātmā is an object, it will come under object-thought duality. The mind can never know the ātmā by objectification as it does in the case of the other objects in the world. // Ātmā reveals itself by itself because ātmā is self-evident. That ‘I am’ need not be known with the help of the mind because even before I start operating the mind, I know that I am. ~P

Brahman, which is the unchanging mass of Consciousness, does not depend upon any other instrument of knowledge for Its revelation. Scripture and the teacher describe to students only what is not Brahman, Reasoning and discipline remove the obstacles, whereupon Brahman, or Consciousness, is revealed by consciousness. // When the knower of Non-duality does any work in the world, which, to the ignorant, implies a knowledge of duality, he knows that the doer, the deed, and the goal are all Brahman. Likewise, to him the knower, knowledge, and the goal of knowledge are all Brahman. All these, being of the same nature as Brahman, are without beginning or end. ~N

Legend:

G: Gaudapada

C: Chinmayananda

Gm: Gambhirananda

N: Nikhilananda

P: Paramarthananda

S/G: Sandeepany / Gurubhaktananda

Sw: Swartz

tr: translated by

29. As in dreams the mind acts through maya, presenting the appearance of duality, so also in the waking state the mind acts through maya, presenting the appearance of duality.

30. There is no doubt that the mind, which is in reality non-dual, appears to be dual in dreams; likewise, there is no doubt that what is non-dual [i.e. Atman] appears to be dual in the waking state.

31. All the multiple objects, comprising the movable and the immovable, are perceived by the mind alone. For duality is never perceived when the mind ceases to act.

32. When the mind, after realizing the knowledge that Atman alone is real, becomes free from imaginations and therefore does not cognize anything, for want of objects to be cognized, it ceases to be the mind.

33. Knowledge (Jnana), which is unborn and free from imagination, is described [by the wise] as ever inseparable from the knowable. The immutable and birthless Brahman is the goal of knowledge. The birthless is known by the birthless. 

~G-trN

Seven Views of Maya

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.

Existence is that in which this thought appears.

Ego is this in which memories appear.

Disbelieve everything but existence-consciousness.

One should never disbelieve oneself.

Scientific materialism is old-time nihilism.

Wave-particle duality is its antichrist.

Scientific materialism doesn’t know if the chicken or the egg came first.

Silly rabbit, maya is beginningless.

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.