Ordinary deep sleep is a temporary absence of duality. Amani-bhava is the timeless presence of nonduality.
No-mind is a bold mind. A bold mind is Brahman. Neti, neti, neti, neti, neti. Jnana.
Not within, not without. If dhi is Sanskrit for intellect, samadhi is a Self-possessed intellect.
Enlightenment is beyond the social contract. No superego, no ego, no id.
A withdrawn mind, no-mind, is enlightened, free from imagination and fully discerning. Deep sleep is not like that.
The mind is absent in deep sleep but present when withdrawn that way. A bold mind is Brahman pervading all with the light of knowledge.
Unborn, not asleep, not a dream, nameless, formless, forever self-shining, all-knowing, and lacking ceremony in any way.
Beyond expression or thought, tranquil, luminous, knowable in the pure intellect as changeless and steadfast.
No agreement, no denial, no thought. Ever-present in the Self is the Knowledge of that unborn one.
34. nigṛhītasya manaso nir-vikalpasya dhī-mataḥ, pracāraḥ sa tu vijñeyaḥ suṣupte‘nyo na tat-samaḥ. ~G
निगृहीतस्य – that is under perfect control; मनसः – of the mind; निर्विकल्पस्य – which is free from all imaginations; धीमतः – the enlightened, which is brought about with discrimination; प्रचारः – the condition; सः तु – but that; विज्ञेयः – should be known; सुषुप्ते – in deep sleep; अन्यः – of another sort; न-तत्-समः – is not like that (of a peacefully controlled mind) ~G-trC
34. The behavior of the enlightened, disciplined mind, which is a non-perceiver should be known. (The behavior) in sleep is different. It is not similar to that. ~G-trP
Gauḍapāda gives that enlightened mind a title, nigṛhītam manaḥ. It is a mind that knows that there is no mind and world other than ātmā. An enlightened mind has ‘dissolved’ the world and the mind by wisdom. During the deep sleep state also, the mind and the world are dissolved. For both the mind in deep sleep and the enlightened mind, there is no duality. Gauḍapāda asks what the difference is between these two. What is common is that duality is negated. If both are same, one can opt for sleep. The difference will have to be understood. For a sleeper the problem is only temporarily solved. In fact it is potentially still there in sleep. In enlightenment the problem is solved on a permanent basis. The mind and the world are wonderful for interaction but they cannot touch me the screen that allows the play to go on. A jñāni will allow the play to go on but not be affected by it. ~P
35. līyate hi suṣupte tan-nigṛhītaṁ na līyate, tadeva nir-bhayaṁ brahma jñān-ālokaṁ samantataḥ. ~G
लीयते – withdrawn or drowned in ignorance; हि – for; सुषुप्ते – in sleep; तत् – that (the mind); निगृहीतम् – the disciplined (through knowledge arising from discrimination); न लीयते – is not withdrawn; तत् ब्रह्म एव – that (mind) is Brahman itself; निर्भयम् – fearless; ज्ञान-आलोकम् – possessed of the light of knowledge; समन्ततः – all around ~G-trC
35. Indeed that (mind) becomes dormant in sleep. The disciplined (mind) does not become dormant. That (mind) is Brahman itself which is fearless and which consists of the light of consciousness all around. ~G-trP
In the case of a sleeper and a yogi in samādhi, the mind is physically dissolved but in the case of a jñāni, the mind is not physically dissolved but it is awake and functioning. When the mind is physically dissolved either by sleep, samādhi, taking a drug or anesthesia it will go into potential condition. The problem never gets solved. The jñāni never tries to physically eliminate the thoughts but he educates the mind about the nature of the mind. Holding the mind the jñāni understands that there is no such thing as the mind. What you are calling the mind, it is nothing but Brahman. The mind is experienced but it does not exist. ~P
36. ajam-anidram-asvapnam-anāmakam-arūpakam, sakṛd-vibhātaṁ sarvajñaṁ nopacāraḥ kathañcana. ~G
अजम् – birthless; अनिद्रम् – sleepless; अस्वप्नम् – dreamless; अनामकम् – nameless; अरूपकम् – formless; सकृत्-विभातम् – ever-effulgent; सर्वज्ञम् – all-knowledge; न-उपचारः – without ceremony; कथञ्चन – in any way ~GtrC
36. Brahman is birthless, sleepless, dreamless, nameless, and formless. It is ever effulgent and omniscient. No duty, in any sense, can ever be associated with It. ~G-trN
We have here in this stanza a perfect definition of the state of pure Consciousness indicated by the negation of all the known world of experiences and by positively asserting itself to be the non-dual, omniscient, dynamism in life. // In order to realise this Reality, no ritualistic action is necessary. Even meditation is not the cause of Self-realisation. We cannot say that the Supreme is caused by sādhanā. If it were so, then the Supreme would become the effect of a cause. ~C
At regular intervals Gauḍapāda will connect his teaching to the Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad to remind us that his teaching is extracted from the Upaniṣad. // In the 7th mantra of the Upaniṣad, the statements “na bahiṣprajñaṃ, nāntaḥprajñaṃ, na prajñānaghanaṃ” refer to Turīyam not being Viśva, Taijasa or Prājña respectively. Turīyam is not Viśva (ajam), not Taijasa (asvapnam), and not Prājña (anidram). Brahman mentioned in the previous mantra is Turīyam Ātmā, which is nameless and formless. Turīyam is referred to by silence. It is ever self-revealing. ~P
37. sarva-abhilāpa-vigataḥ sarva-cintā-samutthitaḥ, su-praśāntaḥ sakṛj-jyotiḥ samādhir-acalo‘bhayaḥ. ~G
सर्व-अभिलाप – all expressions or words (sense organs); विगतः – free from; सर्व-चिन्ता – all acts of the mind in other words, internal worries; समुत्थितः – free from (lit. risen above); सुप्रशान्तः – all-peace in other words, totally tranquil; सकृत्-ज्योतिः – ever-effulgent; समाधिः – knowable through samādhi in other words, concentrated intellect; अचलः – free from activity, immovable; अभयः – fearless. ~G-trC
37. This Self is beyond all expressions or words, beyond all acts of the mind. It is all-peace, ever effulgent, free from activity and fear. It is attainable through concentrated intellect. ~G-trC
The word ‘dhī’ means ‘intellect’ and samādhi, therefore, means a ‘state of equanimous intellect’. // To go into samādhi, therefore, is not necessarily a trick of the yoga, of some supermind... It is a poise of the intelligence in a fully grown, perfectly cultured human being who has rounded off his personality into a balanced equipoise. Such a one comes to experience within oneself an ever-flowing joy of voiceless ecstasy. He comes to entertain an attitude of nonchalance to life because of his supreme self-confidence born out of his steady intelligence and unemotional mental poise. ~C
Śaṅkarācārya gives two meanings for the word samādhi that appears in the verse: 1. It is that which can be grasped only by a mind that is not preoccupied. A shallow preoccupied mind cannot grasp the teaching because it is not available for deep discussion. 2. Samādhi = sarvaadhiṣṭhānam. It is that in which Viśva, Taijasa, Prājña, Virāt, Hiraṇyagarbha and Īśvara rest. Therefore, it is non-moving. ~P
38. graho na tatra notsargaś-cintā yatra na vidyate, ātma-saṁsthaṁ tadā jñānam-ajāti samatāṁ gatam.
न ग्रहः – nor acceptance; तत्र – there (in the Self); न उत्सर्गः – nor rejection; न चिन्ता – no thoughts; यत्र – where; विद्यते – present; आत्म – in the Self; संस्थम् – established; तदा – then; ज्ञानम् – Knowledge; अजाति – immutability, birthlessness; समताम् – homogeneous, uniform; गतम् – becomes, reaches
38. Neither acceptance nor rejection takes place in the Self, where thought does not exist. Then, knowledge becomes established in the Self. It is uniform and unborn. ~G-trSw
Where there is change or the possibility of change one can imagine acceptance and relinquishment. The sense of the passage is that when a person identifies himself with the non-dual, partless, and changeless Brahman, he goes beyond all scriptural and social injunctions, whether mandatory or prohibitory. These injunctions apply only to the relative world. ~N
Gauḍapāda says that the jñāni is one who abides in this Turīyam all the time. Gaining the knowledge is relatively easy but that knowledge should be available for me. During worldly and family transactions especially during unfavorable prārabdha events, I should know that the experiences belong to the Viśva role and I, the one who is behind this role is not affected by them. ~P
39. asparśa-yogo vai nāma durdarśaḥ sarva-yogibhiḥ, yogino bibhyati hy-asmād-abhaye bhaya-darśinaḥ. ~G
अस्पर्श-योगः वै नाम – the yoga called the touch of the untouch; दुर्दर्शः – is hard to be attained or seen; सर्व-योगिभिः – by all seekers; योगिनः – yogins, seekers; बिभ्यति – are afraid; हि – for; अस्मात् – this (path); अभये – fearless; भय-दर्शिनः – feel frightened ~G-trC
39. The Yoga that is familiarly referred to as `contactless' is difficult to be comprehended by anyone of the Yogis. For those Yogis, who apprehend fear where there is no fear, are afraid of it. ~G-trGm
In the Gītā, ‘sparśa’ has been used as the mental contact which an ordinary deluded one makes with the external world of objects and thereby earns for himself either joy or happiness in life. // The same term is employed here by Gauḍapāda to make this novel term, Asparśa-yoga, to impress upon us the process of Vedānta of Self-realisation. // To get our mind disconnected from its objects, through the processes of intellectual analysis and right understanding, is the practice of Vedānta for spiritual evolution. This idea cannot be better expressed than by the term ‘Asparśa-yoga’. ~C
Gauḍapāda says that he does not wish to force advaitam on all. If you are ready and willing to take the challenge to drop all support, advaitam is for you, otherwise if you need external support, use the walking stick. The walking stick is called God. // Gauḍapāda says that ātmajñānam is a yoga of no relationships, which transcends all relationships including the relationship with God. Relationship with God is dvaitam. In advaitam, relationship with God as a second entity is not there because a jñāni discovers God as his own higher nature that is himself. // The real security is in advaitam only but people do not understand this. In advaitam, which is the source of fearlessness they are seeing fear. They see fear in the fearless advaitam. ~P
Legend:
C: Chinmayananda
G: Gaudapada
Gm: Gambhirananda
N: Nikhilananda
P: Paramarthananda
S: Shankara
S/G: Sandeepany / Gurubhaktananda
Sw: Swartz
tr: translated by
Gaudapada says there are two states of sleeping. Deep sleep and dreaming. And two states of dreaming. The dream state and waking state.
As one mind appears to be countless dream states, one self appears to be eight billion and counting.
Doing and not doing are doings of the mind. Nondoing is beyond the mind. The mind ceases to be the mind upon realization. No mind, no cry.
Atman is birthless and free. Ayam atma brahma. That highest knowledge is free of name, form, and function. Birthlessly.
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.
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
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.
Reflected consciousness is both consciousness and maya.
Ordinary consciousness is reflected consciousness minus maya.
Consciousness divided by the mind is reflected consciousness.
Scientific materialism doesn't know
if the chicken or the egg came first.
Silly rabbit, maya is beginningless.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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)
