Mandukya Upanishad Alatasanti Prakaranam

Prakaranam
Uotoi 35 sanskrit done

Introduction
The purpose of this chapter is this: The teaching seems to be complete in the previous
chapters. Sruti wanted to reveal turiyam advaitam. It has done it. The implication is that if
turiyam is nondual the world must be unreal. Brahma satyam or advaitam cet jagat mithya
syat. This is essence of Vedantic teaching. It has been done in 2nd and 3rd chapter. So the
teaching is complete. Sravanadi is revealed. What is the purpose of fourth chapter - the
question will come. However much we thoroughly study Vedanta, as long as opposite ideas
are there, they can shake our knowledge at any moment. Pratipakshabhutani ideas are ideas
opposite to Vedantic ideas. It will shake our conviction. Then knowledge cannot be
knowledge.
The opposite ideas can come either from my own intellect . It can put lot of questions.
Right from questioning the very Vedanta itself. Why should I accept it? After at all it has been
given by somebody else. Why should I have faith in it? The fundamental question regarding
the Vedanta’s truthfulness itself. Or our own intellectual thinking can create a doubt. Then
there are many doubts born of our own experience. Vedanta says I am ananda svarupah. But
every day I am facing lot of problems. I am not able to smile at all. I go on repeating I am
anandah. But It is not reflected in vyavahara. Is there any relevance to our life with this
Vedanta. It can come after15 years of study also. A small fever is enough to shake the whole
Vedanta. I am not the body I tell. But fever I see as my intimate experience. So thus our own
experiences can create a doubt. And also there are so many systems of philosophy which
vehemently oppose advaitam. Not even ordinary. They say that advaitin is mayavadin. He is
misleading the society. He will go to hell. Along with sishyas. They will say guru will go to
higher hell and sishtas will get relatively lower hell. Nastika darasanams which never believe
in Vedas. They say we are fools hanging to to a few Upanishads trying to guide our life with
them. Who knows they are true? Coming to astika vadis there are people who say that
Upanishads are to be taken but logic is more important. Nayyayikadi darsanakaras are there
in this list. The greatest thing is the very same Upanishad have been interpreted by
different people arriving at different philosophies. They have concluded that Upanishads
are talking dvaitam only. If they base on some other text it is okay. Same text they interpret.
They logically and analytically interpret and grammatically also. They follow the same
Brahmasutram written by Vyasacarya. Same Gita they explain. Finally they say advaitin is
wrong. They are ready to challenge also. We may think perhaps advaitam is one of the views.
I think that is also right. If I say I alone is correct he also says I alone is right. This is called
samsayah or vagueness. As long as we do not read them safe. But if you happen to see them
you may get doubt. So how can the same Prasthanan Trayam give different ideas. It can
shake our ideas. Advaita pratipaksha bhutani darsanani. Philosophies which are opposed to
advaitic teaching.
The only way is I should clearly know they are all wrong. It means I should analyze their
views and see the defect in their views. This exercise is called mananam. I try to understand
thoroughly advaitam in sravanam. How it is the teaching of sastram. In mananam I try to find
out how other interpretations are wrong. How other systems are mistaken. It must also be
equally clear.
When we study there is no personal hatred or anything. We are not bothered about person. We
are bothered about the ideas. Who ever has given those ideas we should objectively see them.
Even if Patanajli says so we have to analyze properly. Buddha may be a great person. He
might be compassion manifest. His philosophy is not acceptable. He does not accept Veda or
isvarah. If a person gets close to Buddhist philosophy one goes away from Veda. He
emphasizes yukti. We say naisha tarkena + Jesus may be a highly noble person. I may respect
him. If I want my knowledge to be thorough I have to analyze their teaching and if there are
fallacies I have to dismiss them. Ramanuja may be a great person. If his system comes, I just
objectively analyze and dismiss what is wrong. So we should not have sentimental attachment
when it comes to truth. In Sankara we do not find any such fallacy. Jnanam cannot have
vagueness. That is our tradition. Even if Lord Siva says, if it is against yukti it will be
dsimissed. Until that is done our adviata jnanam will be vague and shaky. One question is
enough. So how to find out this defects in other systems.
Take various views and check whether our knowledge is shaking or not. You yourself start an
argument within yourself. This is called sthanu nikhanana nyayah. A pole is called sthanu. It
is fixed on the ground for some purpose. Before making use of the pole we have to see
whether the pole is weak or not. How to find out whether it is thoroughly fixed or not. You
yourself shake it and see. When you find it shaky, put some more stones and bang. Again
shake. Till it is totally unshakable you go no shaking it. I myself put counter arguments
against advaitam. Brahma sutrams is full of such counter arguments. We ourselves may come
out with a statement that advaitam may perhaps be wrong. It is a blind belief. It is a
conditioning by a teacher. Then how do I see this response from within. If I think it is right,
then there is some problem. The story of the person taking goat on his back. The one who
wants to snatch it said why are you carrying a donkey on your back. Ten people said the same
thing. He got a doubt. So too if people say you are brainwashed then we start believing. How
do we know we are brainwashing ourselves or it is true. I want to prove it and you say it
cannot be proved by pratyaksham etc because Brahman is not available for these means. So
we ourselves raise doubts or teacher can raise and you remove all of them. This is called
mananam. Fourth chapter is mananam part of it. Sravanam is done in first chapter.
Nididhyasanam in third. Now mananam part.
Alata Santi Prakaranam
This chapter is called alata santi prakaranam. A famous example of alatam is taken here for
discussion. Alata drstantah. It is a torch of olden days. When they want to go to some place in
the night, they will have this torch. Clothes are tied at the end of a stick and it is soaked in oil.
It is lighted up. It is going to be given here as example. What he wants to show is that when
the fire brand is moved, varieties of patterns come. One fire brand or torch is there. When it is
in motion you get varieties of forms. One appears as many. Advaitam falsely appears as dvaita
rupani. When the moment of fire brand is stopped, alata santih takes place. All varieties of
forms disappear. From where it came you cannot say. Where it goes you cannot say. Advaitam
alone was, its and will be. In between advaitam appears as though dvaitam. This is the
teaching given through fire brand example. The cessation of the movement of the fire brand is
the meaning of the topic. Here the Acharya begins with a namaskaram for mangalam. It is a
very important task and so there is mangalam. First two are mangalam.
YÉÉxÉäxÉÉEòÉ¶ÉEò±{ÉäxÉ vÉ¨ÉÉÇxªÉÉä
MÉMÉxÉÉä{É¨ÉÉxÉÂ*
YÉäªÉÉÊ¦ÉzÉäxÉ ºÉÆ¤ÉÖrùºiÉÆ ´Éxnäù
Êuù{ÉnùÉÆ ´É®ú¨ÉÂ** 1**
ªÉ& +ÉEòÉ¶ÉEò±{ÉäxÉ YÉäªÉÉÊ¦ÉzÉäxÉ
YÉÉxÉäxÉ MÉMÉxÉÉä{É¨ÉÉxÉÂ vÉ¨ÉÉÇxÉÂ
ºÉÆ¤ÉÖrù& iÉÆ Êuù{ÉnùÉÆ ´É®Æú ´Éxnäù **
1**
I salute the dvipadam varam. I prostrate the Lord who is called dviapdam varah. Dvipad
means human beings. They have two feet. The two feeted ones. Do not say crows also. It is
contextual. Varah is uttamah. Sreshtah. One who is great among purushas. Purushottam. Lord
is purushottama. Narayanakhyam Vishnum vande. What type of Vishnu. Other words describe
this Vishnu.
Here some explanation is required before we take up the words. Jivatma is of what nature?
Caitanya svarupam. Paramatma is what? Same nature. Jivatma, the Caitanya, recognizes
paramatma as Caitanya with the help of Caitanya. Jnanam is jivatma. It is paramtma also. It is
means of knowledge also. What do we do? Generally one who recognises is called jnata.
That which is recognised is called jneyam. The instrument of recognition is called jnanam. In
ordinary knowledge jnata is jivatma Caitanya. Jneyam is various objects which are jadam.
Jnata etc are different. In the paramatma jnanam that a jiva gets, all the three are one
Caitanya. It came in advaita prakaranam. Ajena ajam vibudhyate. In this sloka the uniqueness
is that we are talking about Paramatma knowing about jivatma. We are initially ignorant of
isvara and later come to know of him. But isvara knows jiva here always. Here also three are
same Caitanya. In this clase isvara is called janta. Jiva is jneyam. Isvara the Caitanya
svarupam knows jiva the Caitanya svarupam with knowledge which is Caitanya svarupam. To
that Isvara my prostration.
Whenever a Vedanta teacher prostrates lord he prostrates the lord as original or first guru or
adi guru. Even though lord is srishti karta, even though he is sthiti karta or laya karta, he is
dharmasthapakah, so many aspects are there for lord, But Vedanta teacher does not worship
those aspects, but he worships him as Vedanta pravrattakah. The idea is that you always
invoke that aspect of the lord which you want the most. If a poor person invokes the lord he
will invoke the wealth aspect of lord. Lord of wealth. A Vedantic teacher / student wants
knowledge and so he is invoked as guru. He is adiguru is indicated by so many slokas like
narayanam + I worship that purushottam who is adi guru.
What type of Vishnu? yah dharman sambuddhah - sambudddhah means one who
recognizes. He recognizes what? Dharman + Dharma is jivah. Lord who recognizes jivas.
What type of jivas? gaganopaman - who are all pervasive like akasa. Not sthula sarira jiva.
He will not be all pervasive. Not even sukshma saritra jiva. One who is sarira trayat
vyatiriktah. Satcidananda svarupah. With what instrument he recognizes? Jnanena. With the
Caitanya. What type of Caitanya? Akasa kalpena. Which is also all pervading like space.
The all pervading Caitanya which is jiva is recognized with all pervasive Caitanya which is
knowledge. The object of knowledge is all pervasive Caitanya. The instrument of knowledge
is also all pervading caitanyam. When we say that Lord knew the jivas here the instrument
and object are one and the same Caitanya. Jnanam and jneyam are one and the same. It is
indicated in the second line. Jneyabhinnena jnanena. Jneyabhinnena is adjective to jnanam.
It is there in the first line. which Lord recognizes? Lord who is also of the nature of Caitanya.
What is the meaning. Lord the Caitanya recognises jiva the Caitanya with the help of jnanam
which is Caitanya. So the triputi is Caitanya. The essence is when jiva knows isvara also
there is no triputi. When isvara knows jiva also there is no triputi. To that isvara who is
advaitam, who knows jiva without triputi, my prostration.
Mangala sloka 2
+º{É¶ÉÇªÉÉäMÉÉä ´Éè xÉÉ¨É ºÉ´ÉÇºÉk
´ÉºÉÖJÉÉä Ê½þiÉ&*
+Ê´É´ÉÉnùÉä%Ê´É¯ûrùÉ näùÊ¶ÉiÉºiÉÆ
xÉ¨ÉÉ¨ªÉ½þ¨ÉÂ** 2**
+º{É¶ÉÇªÉÉäMÉÉä ´Éè xÉÉ¨É ºÉ´ÉÇºÉk´ÉºÉÖJÉÉä
Ê½þiÉ& +Ê´É´ÉÉnùÉä%Ê´É¯ûrùÉ (¦É´ÉÊiÉ*) (ªÉ&
ªÉÉäMÉ&) näùÊ¶ÉiÉºiÉÆ (ªÉÉäMÉÆ) +½þ¨ÉÂ
xÉ¨ÉÉÊ¨É ** 2**
In this sloka acarya is prostrating the very teaching itself. Teacher was worshipped. Guru
namaskara before and now sastra namaskara. For this teaching he gave a new name viz.
asparsa yoga. Until the teaching comes to me I and the world have got same degree of
reality. When I and the world have the same degree of reality we will have sambandha.
Varieties of sambandha. Owner-owned sambandha. Father-son and so on. Vedanta raises me
up. I am no more visva etc. If visva etc then sambandha with world will be there as both
have same degree of realty. If I am turiyam, then no sambandha as both have different degree
of reality. Na gurur na sishyah. Asparsa yoga it is.
In my old age I will become lonely then? I am not visva. Na jayate + So no old age for me.
With old vasanas we are frightened. Here Acharya says it is not something to be frightened. It
is most enjoyable teaching. Sarva sattva sukham hitam + Satvam means all beings. Sukham
means it is most enjoyable teaching. There is no loneliness because I am purnah. It is for all
human beings. It is a source of ananda. It is reverse to all our thinking. In company we see
sukham. It is hitam also. There are many things which are enjoyable but are not good. You
like but it is not good says doctor. Many things which are very good but not enjoyable. Like
neem juice. In summer it is good. Castor oil is hitam. But not enjoyable. Whereas Vedanta is
both hitam and sukham ca. Sarva sattva will go with both.
It is avivadah. It is a teaching which is never subject to debate. Undebatable. It is not subject
to dispute. No sankhya etc. can question. Aviruddhah. Because we do not contradict them.
When does dispute comes? When I contradict dvaiti he can get angry and come to me to
argue. But no dvaitin can come to debate with me because our advaitam is not contradictory
to dvaitam. Refer 17th and 18th karika of third chapter. The essence is that when they talk of
dvaitam they are at vyavaharika plane. They talk as visvah, not as turiyam. Taijasah will be in
dream only. Prajna is in sleep. Whoever is arguing is visvah. Visva is in dvaitam. We very
much agree that at visva level there is dvaitam. Turiyam is Paramarthika satyam. From that
drishti there is no dviatam at all. Dvaitam will contradict if both are in the same order or
reality.
Desitah. That which is imparted, handed over. Desikah is teacher. The teaching which is
handed over by guru to a sishya. This teaching never comes of its own. It is not self taught or
studied. Or self originated. Tam - that asparsa yoga. I am prostrating.
Karika 3
¦ÉÚiÉºªÉ VÉÉÊiÉÊ¨ÉSUÊôxiÉ ´ÉÉÊnùxÉ&

EäòÊSÉnäù´É Ê½þ*
+¦ÉÚiÉºªÉÉ{É®äú vÉÒ®úÉ Ê´É´ÉnùxiÉ&
{É®úº{É®ú¨ÉÂ** 3**
{É®úº{É®Æú Ê´É´ÉnùxiÉ& ºÉxiÉ& EäòÊSÉnÂù Bù
´É ´ÉÉÊnùxÉ& Ê½þ ¦ÉÚiÉºªÉ VÉÉÊiÉÊ¨ÉSUÊôxiÉ *
+{É®äú vÉÒ®úÉ& +¦ÉÚiÉºªÉ (VÉÉÊiÉÊ¨ÉSUÊôxiÉ)
** 3**
I said the topic is mananam. Analyzing all the other philosophies which hold views that are
opposite to the Advaita teaching. Pratipaksha bhutani. We are pakshas. All others are
pratipaksha. When the other systems of philosophy have different different views, these
different views can be with respect to any aspect of teaching. They can have different view
with respect to jiva. They can have different view with respect to Isvara. They can have
different view with respect to Moksha. They can have different view with respect to creation.
If you take jiva, they will say jiva is ever different from Isvara. After moksha also. Even after
going to Vaikuntha also. Similarly with respect to isvara. Is Isvara saguna or nirguna. There is
no such thing called nirguna isvara at all for them. They will explain nirgunam as one who
does not have vices. Evil attributes are not there. He is ananta kalyana guna nilayah. Like
love, knowledge etc. With respect to moksha also they hold different views. Moksha is deha
sambandha abhava. As long as sarira sambandha is there, you will have to suffer. Suffering
means bondage. So you have to go to Viakuntha dropping the body. There you will have
special body, aprakrita body which will not give you any suffering. Like they will give you a
special specs for three dimension movies. Of course differences with regard to srsihti. It is
real for all of them. Here Gaudapada is going to take which opposite views. He takes srishti
here for analysis. We analysed srishti in the third chapter and said ajati vada. So he takes
those views of other systems of philosophies in regard to srishti for analysis.
There are many systems of philosophies are there each one talking in different ways. They all
can be divided into two groups. Sat karya vada and asat karya vada. Refer I chapter sixth
karika. Sat karya vada means before creation the karyam, the effect existed in the karanam.
Srshteh purvam karane karyam sat. Before the creation of pot, pot was already existent in
clay. Existent karyam alone comes into being later. Asat karya vada - Why should the existent
pot be born. It is existent you say. Then how it is born? So non-existent pot alone is born.
Srshteh purvam karane karyam asat. The debate is existent pot is born or nonexistent pot is
born. Each one dismisses the other. All have to join one of these two. Like all countries will
be joining USA or Russia. The champions of these two views are Sankhyas and Nyaya
philosophies. Sankhyas are satkarya vadins. Nayyayikas are asat karya vadins.
What about advaitin? Gaudapada will say what? Look at the last sloka of the previous
chapter. Na kascit jayate + Nothing is born. So the question does not arise whether it is
satkarya or asat-karya. Since Brahman is ajati we do not belong to any one of them. By
quarrelling each other they only support me. One says the other is illogical. The conclusion is
both are illogical. Then what is correct? Advaitam alone is correct. I survive without doing
any thing. He is going to say that. He is introducing the both vadas in this karika.
Kecit vadinah - some philosophers, debaters, referring to sankhyas, bhutasya jatim icchanti
- they accept or talk about the origination (jati means janma) of bhutasya, of something which
is already existent. Bhuta means sat here. They accept a sat vastu. satah janma. Apare
dhirah, some other philosophers. Dhirah who are very intelligent. He is doing parihasa.
Viruddha lakshanam. You mean the opposite meaning. The so called intelligent nayyayikas.
They are logicians. Abhutasya (jatim icchanti). They talk about origination of a thing which
is non existent. What is not there has to be born. Has to come into existent. Asatah janma -
they say. All others join one of the two. If we refute these two systems, we have refuted all
other systems. They parapsaram vivadantah - they mutually argue vehemently. They come to
blows arguing like in parliament. Gaudapada says I need not argue with any one of them.
They mutually dismiss themselves. This he says in the next sloka.
Karika 4
¦ÉÚiÉÆ xÉ VÉÉªÉiÉä ËEòÊSÉnÂù +¦ÉÚiÉÆ
xÉè´É VÉÉªÉiÉä*
Ê´É´ÉnùxiÉÉä uùªÉÉ Áä´ÉÆ +VÉÉËiÉ
JªÉÉ{ÉªÉÎxiÉ iÉä** 4**
ËEòÊSÉnÂù ¦ÉÚiÉÆ xÉ VÉÉªÉiÉä* (ËEòÊSÉnÂù)
+¦ÉÚiÉÆ xÉè´É VÉÉªÉiÉä* B´ÉÆ Ê´É´ÉnùxiÉ&
(ºÉxiÉ&) iÉä uùªÉÉ& (uèùÊiÉxÉ&) {+uùªÉÉ&
<iªÉÊ{É {ÉÉ`ö& +ÎºiÉ}+VÉÉËiÉ Ê½þ JªÉÉ{ÉªÉÎxiÉ
** 4**
One says kincit bhtuam na jayate - An existent thing is never born. Nayyayika says.
Bbhutam jayate iti Sankhya says. Nayyayika refutes that statement. An existent thing cannot
be born because it is already existent. So abhutam eva jayate iti they say. Nonexistent alone is
born. Sankkya comes and says - What you say is wrong. Abhutam naiva jayat. A non-existent
one is never born. Because it is not-existent. Vivadantah - thus they argue pointing out bhutam
as well as abhutam both are not born.. Joining both of them advatin says nothing is born.
Ajatim khyapanti. Vedantin jumps and says - advayat none is born. Both of you are advaitn
only because you support me. Both of you are ultimately pointing out ajati vada alone. Both
are contributing to ajati vada only. Neither existent is born nor nonexistent is born. Now this
is to be analysed elaborately. So what do we do? Gaudapada says now.
Note: Dvayah is better than advayah. We call them as advayah because they contribute to our
siddhanta. Or they are in fact dvatins.
Karika 5
JªÉÉ{ªÉ¨ÉÉxÉÉ¨ÉVÉÉËiÉ iÉè&
+xÉÖ¨ÉÉänùÉ¨É½äþ ´ÉªÉ¨ÉÂ*
Ê´É´ÉnùÉ¨ÉÉä xÉ iÉèººÉÉvÉÇ¨ÉÂ +Ê´É
´ÉÉnÆù ÊxÉ¤ÉÉävÉiÉ**5**
iÉè& JªÉÉ{ªÉ¨ÉÉxÉÉ¨ÉVÉÉËiÉ ´ÉªÉ¨ÉÂ
+xÉÖ¨ÉÉänùÉ¨É½äþ* iÉèººÉÉvÉÈ xÉ Ê´É
´ÉnùÉ¨É&* (iÉ¨Éº{É¶ÉÇªÉÉäMÉ¨ÉÂ) +Ê´É´ÉÉnÆù
ÊxÉ¤ÉÉävÉiÉ**5**
We approve of their conclusion. So ajatim taih khayapyamanem - Non creation that is
pointed out or revealed by them. We did not talk at all. He has not opened his mouth at all. In
their argument they have mutually negated each other through what they have revealed.
Vayam anumodamahe - We only approve. When one refutes the other we congratulate him.
Taih sardham na vivadamaha - We will never argue with them. We will approve the
arguments of each against the other. So ajati vadam is avivadam nibodhata - know it to be
beyond vada, beyond disputes. He will not use any argument to refute them. But he will give
their arguments to do the job. Before giving their arguements he gives advaitin’s conclusion
in the following sloka. It is already done in advaita prakaranam. So they are same slokas seen
in the Advaita Prakaranam 20-22.
Note: Paramartha darsanam avivadam nibodhata - Here avivadam is used as objective
complement. Avivadam paramarhtadarsanam nibodhata - here it will be adjectivial usage.
Both are contextual.
Karika 6 (3.20)
+VÉÉiÉºªÉè´É vÉ¨ÉÇºªÉ VÉÉÊiÉÊ¨ÉSUÊôxiÉ
´ÉÉÊnùxÉ&*
+VÉÉiÉÉä Á¨ÉÞiÉÉä ¦ÉÉ´É& ¨ÉiªÉÇiÉÉÆ
EòlÉ¨Éä¹ªÉÊiÉ** 6**
´ÉÉÊnùxÉ&+VÉÉiÉºªÉè´É vÉ¨ÉÇºªÉ
VÉÉÊiÉÊ¨ÉSUÊôxiÉ +VÉÉiÉÉä +¨ÉÞiÉÉä vÉ¨ÉÇ&
Ê½þ EòlÉÆ ¨ÉiªÉÇiÉÉ¨ÉÂ B¹ªÉÊiÉ** 6**
Neither caitanyam is born nor jadam is born. That is elaborated from 6th sloka onwards. This
will be done by (yukti) upto 8th. Then he will take sruti pramanam. Yukti is if the creation is
real, the karyam is real, then karanam will have to be parinami karanam. This is solid
argument. Milk and curd etc. A real world has to be produced Brahman has to modify to
become so. It means destruction of Brahman. Brahman will become, savikaram. Let it be.
Then it will have shad vikaram. It will die also.
So he says vadianah jatim + the dvaita philosophers desire to accept birth of a real world.
Out of what? Ajatasya + Of the birthless Brahman changeless Brahman. Brahman is ajatam
or akaranam Brahman. That Brahman they want to make really changing by accepting a real
creation. Ajatah amrtah bhavah. That Brahman which does not have janma or maranam. Two
vikaras are taken here. Janma and marana. So it is nirvikarah. How can such Brahman become
mortal by becoming universe. It can never become universe. If I experience universe, you say
then just experience is not enough to prove reality. Experience can mislead. Optical illusions.
Two lines with reverse arrows. Even for vyavaharika satyam we cannot trust eyes. We want to
trust them and prove paramarthika satyam. Experience may mislead. Do not try to prove
reality through senses. Advaitam alone was is and will be. So if the nature of Brahman is as
described in the Upanishads, then it cannot be a parinami karanam of the world. Parinami
karanam is martyam.
If world is accepted as vivarta karyam then your ajati vada will go away. Vivarta karyam is
born means jati has come into being. Gaudapada says, when you say vivarta iaryam is born,.
it is as good as nothing is born. Vivarta means as though born. Vivarta karyam means
adhyasa. Like snake born. Or dream is born.
Karika 7 (3.21)
xÉ ¦É´ÉiªÉ¨ÉÞiÉÆ ¨ÉiªÉÇÆ xÉ
¨ÉiªÉÇ¨É¨ÉÞiÉÆ iÉlÉÉ*
|ÉEÞòiÉä®úxªÉlÉÉ¦ÉÉ´É& xÉ EòlÉÊˆÉnÂù
¦ÉÊ´É¹ªÉÊiÉ** 7**
+¨ÉÞiÉÆ ¨ÉiªÉÇÆ xÉ ¦É´ÉÊiÉ* iÉlÉÉ
¨ÉiªÉÇ¨É¨ÉÞiÉÆ xÉ (¦É´ÉÊiÉ)* |
ÉEÞòiÉä®úxªÉlÉÉ¦ÉÉ´É& EòlÉÊˆÉnÂù xÉ ¦ÉÊ
´É¹ªÉÊiÉ** 7**
Here an important principle he says. It is that the nature of a thing is never subject to change.
What is subject to change cannot be the true nature of a thing. For example if water is in
particular vessel it seems to have a particular shape but the shape we do not call the nature of
water. It will not be the same always. Shape is not the nature of water. Nature is coolness. It is
cool to touch. Water is always so. Hot water is possible, you cannot say. Heat is not the
nature of water. It is the nature of fire that is pervading the water. Or Fire itself we will take.
Fire may show various shapes. Flame is tall or flat or round. That is not its nature. It varies.
Even the very brightness of fire is not always there because when heat is there in water do
you see brightnesss in water? So that is also not the nature of fire. What is there always with
fire is heat and it is supposed to be its nature. In short the definition of nature is that which is
always there in a thing and which is not subject to change.
Upanishad describes Brahman as advaitam. So that is the nature of Brahman. If advaitatvam
is nature of Brahman then it will never be subject to change. Now also Brahman should be
nondual. That is what Upanishad conveys. If you say Brahman is nondual now also, then how
can you account for dvaita experience. It can be done only in one way that dvaita is a false
experience and it does not have any reality. We cannot call a karana vastu as advaitam. Why?
If cause is advaitam, then it should be all the time advaitam. If cause is advaitam, the nature
of it is advaitam,. Then it should be all the time advaitam. Karanam becomes many later. One
seed becomes many trees. One lump of clay becomes many pots. When one becomes many
that one thing cannot be called advaitam. If advaitam were the nature of one thing, it would
have ever remained advaitam. Before it became karyam, karanam was only one. That is why I
said there are two types of ‘ones’. 1) One one is which will become many (manyable one
which is cause) and 2) another one which or whose one is very nature, unmanayable one.
Karanam is multipliable. Unmultipliable is akarana-vastu. In Sanskrit multipliable one is
ekam. Unmultipliable one is advaitam. No two three etc in advaitam. By saying advaitam it
indicates unmultipliable one. It is neither cause nor effect. Nature of Brahman is advaitam
and nature cannot be changed and it will ever be advaitam. If you see many you have to have
eye test. Which test? Ajnanatimirandhasya. Ajnana cataract.
Another angle is Brahman is said to be nirvikaram. Free from shadvikaram. We will take first
and last and Brahman is free from janma and maranam. If that is so, Brahman is neither. To be
karanam means it will die producing karyam. Karyam is jatam. Karanam is martyam.
Brahman amrtam ajatam. So neither cause nor effect. So vivarta karanam. Amrtam martyam
na bahvati. Akaranam Brahman karanam na bhavati. Reverse also. Martyam Brahman
amrtam na bhavati. Nothing changes its svarupam. Changing one alone becomes another
changing one. One mortal can become another mortal. Mortal can never be converted to
immortal. Prakrteh anyatha + The nature of a thing can never be made otherwise. It can never
happen. Even if God wills it can never happen. Jatasya hi dhruvor + apariharyam. He does
not tell Arjuna I will change the laws for you and make bhishma etc immortal.
We are all samsaris because of our mortality. We are all working of rmoksha which is
immortality. Suresvara says it is impossible either way. Better do not do any sadhanam.
Mortal can never become immortal. Earn more money and enjoys some more pleasure. Give
up your spiritual sadhana. Even Krishna’s sariram also could not become. Can we convert
immortal into immortal. Why is it to be done? No sadhana is useful for immortality. Then
why all these sadhanas? To know no sadhana is necessary. Immortality is a fact. It has to be
known. It is a goal iva goal.
Karika 8 (3.22)
º´É¦ÉÉ´ÉäxÉÉ¨ÉÞiÉÉä ªÉºªÉ vÉ¨ÉÉæ
MÉSUôÊiÉ ¨ÉiªÉÇiÉÉ¨ÉÂ*
EÞòiÉEäòxÉÉ¨ÉÞiÉºiÉºªÉ EòlÉÆ ºlÉÉºªÉÊiÉ
ÊxÉÉ™ô&** 8**
ªÉºªÉ (´ÉÉÊnùxÉ&) +¨ÉÞiÉ& vÉ¨ÉÇ& º´É¦ÉÉ´ÉäxÉ
¨ÉiªÉÇiÉÉÆ MÉSUôÊiÉ iÉºªÉ EÞòiÉEäòxÉ
(½äþiÉÖxÉÉ) +¨ÉÞiÉ& EòlÉÆ ÊxÉÉ™ô&
ºlÉÉºªÉÊiÉ ** 8**
Suppose the immortal Brahman has really become mortal jivah. It is hypothetical. As dvaitins
say. Not vivarta karanam but parinami for them. Suppose there are certain sadhanas by which
we get moksha. List they have about who became immortal. like Garudha Adisesha etc. Now
what is the guarantee that after becoming immortal we will not become mortal. If immortal
Brahman became mortal jiva, then what is the guarantee that I will not again become mortal
after becoming immortal. If once change takes place another is also possible iti. In the next
sristhi I may come back. You will not come back iti you cannot say. Because you yourself
said immortal became mortal. Once the road is there, travel cannot be avoided. Moskha will
be impermanent.
Advaitin does not say mortal becomes immortal. Immortal alone recognises or owns up the
immortality. Previously he thought he was mortal. Now he knows that he is immortal. The
beauty is when he thought he was mortal at that time also he was immortal. What has
happened? Mistake has been corrected. An erroneous thinking has been rectified. During
dream I get caught up in all samara I own up my comfort only on waking. I disowned it
during dream. Even then I was comfortable on bed only. The whole world is like a dream.
Yasya = if a philosopher thinks that svabhavena amrtah maryatam + A naturally immortal
Brahman becomes mortal really. Svabhevena + Then tasya for him, amrtah + how can the
immortality be ever there. Immortality attained by sadhanam. By going to Vaikuntham etc.
How can it remain permanent. It being a product of sadhanam. Two arguments are involved
1. Immortality becomes a result of action and yat karmaphalam is anityam. 2. It is immorality
which is karmaphalam and so it is permanent. Then immortal Brahman can become the world
in your system, then immortal moskha how can it be permanent.
The essence of these three slokas (6-8) is that 1) Brahman is neither karanam nor karyam. If
Brahman is karanam, it will also become karyam. So if you accept srishti as karyam and
Brahman as karanam, Then Brahman itself will become karyam for which another karanam is
necessary and that karanam will have another karanam and we will have logical fallacy of
anavastha dosha. So we say that Brahman is anaadi and not a karyam. If so then Brahman is
not a karanam also. The world cannot come out of Brahman. So world has not come out.
Karanam will have to be karyam. If it is not a karyam then it is not a karanam also. 2) Another
argument given here is that it is not possible for immortal Brahman to become mortal karyam
viz. jiva or jagat, because prakrteh anyatha bhavah na. 3) Thirdly if by any chance
Brahman the infinite has become a finite jiva, and when jiva become immortal again due to
sadhanam or effort, then that immorality becomes sadih, having a beginning and there is no
guarantee that it will not again become mortal. That amrtatvam cannot remain
permanently. Anything that has a beginning will have an end. Amrtatvam will become
temporary.
Karika 9
ºÉÉÆÊºÉÊrùEòÒ º´ÉÉ¦ÉÉÊ´ÉEòÒ ºÉ½þVÉÉ
+EÞòiÉÉ SÉ ªÉÉ*
|ÉEÞòÊiÉ& ºÉäÊiÉ Ê´ÉYÉäªÉÉ º´É¦ÉÉ´ÉÆ xÉ
VÉ½þÉÊiÉ ªÉÉ** 9 **
ªÉÉ ºÉÉÆÊºÉÊrùEòÒ º´ÉÉ¦ÉÉÊ´ÉEòÒ ºÉ½þVÉÉ
+EÞòiÉÉ SÉ, ªÉÉ º´É¦ÉÉ´ÉÆ xÉ VÉ½þÉÊiÉ ºÉÉ |
ÉEÞòÊiÉ& <ÊiÉ Ê´ÉYÉäªÉÉ ** 9 **
In the previous three slokas he had made one immortal point that the nature of a thing does
not change and cannot change. It is worth remembering this line. It is very important for the
entire chapter. It is also very important for the whole Vedanta. The nature cannot be changed.
If Brahman is nirvikaram Brahman then it cannot become savikaram jagat. If Brahman is
nityam then it cannot become anitya jiva. If Brahman is cetanam, it cannot become acetana
jagat. You can add any number. So what is the definition of prakriti? How do you define the
nature of a thing.Gaudapada said nature cannot be changed. What is nature then?
Here he says four different definitions.
Samsiddhiki - Prakriti is like the supernatural power belonging to a siddha purusha. It will be
there permanently with him. Sidhdapurusha’s siddhi is always there. It cannot be changed.
Definition of siddhapurusha is one who has got siddhi right from birth itself. We are not
talking about siddhi that is acquired by a siddha purusha. Such a power is called samsiddhi.
The example here is siddha purusha.
Svabhaviki - That which is innate to an object. The example Sankara gives is agneh
ushnavat - just as the heat of the fire is innate to fire. The essence of fire.
Sahaja - that which is born alongwith. Here Sankara gives the example of flying capacity of a
bird. Training is not required.
Akrita - not artificial. Not created. Which happens naturally. Sankara gives the example of
water naturally flowing downwards. The difference between each one is very narrow and
subtler. The main idea is that it is inseparable. The substance and nature cannot be separated.
That he gives in the second line. Ya + that which does not give up its nature or characteristic
or its very existence is called prakrti. Flowing prakriti does not get separated from water. The
burning prakrti does not get separated from fire. The flying power does not get separated from
bird. So too siddhi. Sa prakriti + thus it is to be known. Some times we call it samsiddhiki
and so on. The essential definition is that which does not go away. So Brahman is ever
liberated. It is ajati. It has not become jiva. I am already Brahman. If Brahman has change
dot become you. You have to change to become Brahman. You are Brahma already. So
sadhanam is knowing that there is no sadhanam for being Bahaman. That is what he is going
to tell in the next sloka.
Karika 10
VÉ®úÉ¨É®úhÉÊxÉ¨ÉÖÇHòÉ& ºÉ´Éæ
vÉ¨ÉÉÇ& º´É¦ÉÉ´ÉiÉ&
VÉ®úÉ¨É®úhÉÊ¨ÉSUôxiÉ& SªÉ´ÉxiÉä
iÉx¨ÉxÉÒ¹ÉªÉÉ** 10**
ºÉ´Éæ vÉ¨ÉÉÇ& º´É¦ÉÉ´ÉiÉ&
VÉ®úÉ¨É®úhÉÊxÉ¨ÉÖÇHòÉ& (¦É´ÉÎxiÉ)* (B´ÉÆ-º
´É¦ÉÉ´ÉÉ& ºÉxiÉ& iÉä vÉ¨ÉÉÇ&)
VÉ®úÉ¨É®úhÉÊ¨ÉSUôxiÉ& (ºÉxiÉ&) (<´É)
iÉx¨ÉxÉÒ¹ÉªÉÉ SªÉ´ÉxiÉä** 10**
The main point is that Brahman has not changed to become jagat or jiva. Jagat or Jiva is
nothing but Brahman. Even now therefore I am Brahman. So the Upanishad never orders us
to become Brahman. Throughout Upanishad it does not say you do sadhana and having done
sadhana you all will become liberated. A wrong teacher alone will say. Present tense is very
important. Asi means are. Therefore if I am Brahman right now, I do not have all the shad
vikaras. Of the shad vikaras, we love all other vikaras except old age and death. So vyagriva
tishtati jara paritarjanyanti + It does not enter the first fifty years. It is waiting outside. Last is
maranam. But here you are jara marana nirmuktah Now also. Brahman has not changed.
One may say that in the case of special qualified people it may be okay. Sankara may be.
Suresvara many be Brahman. But we are ordinary. Gaudapada says, ‘Fools!’ - dharmah
svabahvatah - All jivas. By the very nature nirmuktah. Totally free. Not just muktha. But
what happens. Without inquiring they are struggling to be free from jaramaranam.
Jaramaranam icchantah. Before struggle they should wait and ask who is struggling. If I
am struggling for immortality, then I am taking myself to be now what? Mortal. Poor alone
will struggle to become rich. So too mortal alone will struggle to become immortal. I have
taken by self to be mortal, taking for granted. I have not come to this conclusion without
proper inquiry. I did not enquire at all. From childhood you think - when did I do this viveka?
But conclusion is there that I am mortal becoming old etc. This conclusion is samsara. Jara
maranam is not samsara. Every sadhana we do only confirms this samsara. I am not complete
with myself and only this video completes me. Every struggle confirms samsara. How can it
release me. Stop the struggle and ask the question whether struggle is necessary. The very
seeking is the confirmation of seeker and denial of sought. So desiring for immortality, tan
manishaya - because of the very desire cyavante. These jivas fall. Fall means they deny
themselves of the moksha. You have to own up the fact that end is myself. These portions
have to be use for rnididhyasanam. Dvaitins say inspite of your sadhanam bhagavan has to
decide when you will get liberated. Your sadhanam is only an application to lord. He has to
bless you.
Karika 11
Upto the previous sloka from 6th Acharya established our siddhanta. When karya itself is not
there, there is no question of whether sat karyam is born or asatkaryam is born.
Hereafterwards the negation of sat karya vada and asatkarya vada. Gaudapad need not negate
them by giving his argument. He need not scratch his head. Asatkarya vada can be refuted by
borrowing arguments from sat karya vada. Acharya does not refute asatkarya vada at all. He
feels it is a very simple affair. He is refuting only satkarya vada. Sankhya negation is done
here from 11th sloka.
Why does he refute only satkarya vada and not the other. 1) Acharya feels that asatkarya vada
is very feeble and weak. It does not demand his time. You need big person for big things. 2)
When we talk about the worldly creation that is the vyavaharika srishti, when we are
discussing relative creation within the world like creation of pot from clay or tree from seed,
generally we hold sat karya vada. When the ultimate discussion comes, when we are talking
of the whole world at that time we take to ajati vada. For creation in relative realm, we
temporarily join satkarya vada only. Satkarya vada therefore becomes stronger. So we have
to negate it strongly.
Before going to this sloka we shall negate asat karya vada. Reason to negate asatkarya vada
we have to see. We will see them. Acharya does not give. When we are giving it, we will take
them from satkarya vada. Asatkarya vada should be clear. Non-existent thing alone is born.
This seems to be correct argument on the face of it. A child is born when we say it was not
before. When we talk of the birth of a thing, before birth it was not there. So abhutam alone is
born.
1) It is sruti pramanam against asat karya vada. In Changoya there is a statement katham
asatah sat jayeta? How can an existent thing come out of non-existent thing. Sruti itself
negates asat akrya vada.
2) Birth is considered to be one of the six modifications. (shad vikaras). First is asti.
Modification belongs to an existent thing or non-existent thing. Some thing has modified.
So it always belongs to something that is. That has changed or he has changed. Meaning
sat vastu we are talking about. The changes can happen only when there is vikari.
Vikaram cannot be without a vikari. All six modifications are called therefore shad bhava
vikaras. If it is so, janma is one of them. So janma also must be one of bhava vikara. So
janma belongs to bhava vastu. So asat-karyam is not possible.
3) A little bit of grammar. Asat vastu is born they say. In this asat is subject. Jayate is verb.
Verb means kriya. Kriya means an action. Which has got a beginning and an end. Any
action has beginning and end. Talking begins at 7 and ends at 8. Eating begins and it must
have an end. No action can exist independently It requires a locus or asraya. Can talking
alone exist? A talker is needed. Who is called kriti asrayah. This talking action has got a
beginning and end. It begins in the talker. It is born in the talker. Kriti is born in kriti
asrayah. Before action was born in the agent, the agent of action was there. During the
action also he is. It is expressed in language as follows: action is expressed by verb. agent
of action or locus of action is expressed by the subject. Ramah gacchati. Gacchati is
kriya. Ramah is kriya asrayah. Subject must exist before the action takes place. Birth
being action also requires asrayah for it. Rama is born. Jayate is verb. It indicates jani
kriya. Ramah is asrayah for it. He is subject. He was existent. If subject itself is not
existent in a sentence (by saying non-existent Rama is born), it means kriya-asrayah is
not there. If that is so, then how can there be the jani kriya. Talker is not there, but talking
is there! Kriya asrayah is called karta. That is definition of karta, the subject. So janikriya
presupposes bhava vastu.
4) There is only one escape route for him. He can say that when I say Rama is born, I mean
Rama comes into existence. I do not say he is doing some action. If so then asrayah is
required. If he says so then it is the most foolish statement. What is the destination of
Rama when he is born. Existence becomes the destination. Can existence be destination
of anyone. It is not possible. Because we have to say existence is destination of either an
existent thing or non-existent thing. Destination presupposes traveller. He must be sat or
asat. Non-existent one can have the destination of existence. But we say it is not so
because traveller himself is not there. Then existent one can have the goal of existence.
That is also not possible. He is already existent. So existence can never be goal.
Sankhya must be very happy with the Vedantin by his side. Sruti also supports. Now
Acharya wants to demolish him also. What does sat karya vadi says. An existent thing alone is
born. Here also problem,. If already existent thing why should it be born. How does one say a
sat vastu alone is born? So the satkarya vadi can give only one answer. Karyam was already
existent but it was in unmanifest form or potential form. Bijataman asit. So karyam born
means karyam comes to manifestation. Pot is born means pot was there in the form of clay.
From the clay you bring about pot through potter’s actions. Karanam is karyam in unmanifest
condition. Karyam is nothing but karanam in manifest condition. Srishit is nothing but
bringing about this change in avastha from unmanifest to manifest. So nothing new is
produced in this vada. So srishti is avastha bhedah. For nayyayikas something new is created.
So he is called arambha vadi. They believe in fresh production. Karyam arabahte. In
destruction the thing will go away. In sat karya vada no karya goes into oblivion. It goes to
karana avastha. So satkarya vada is also known by parinama vada. Parinama is change.
Karaya avastha changes to karana avastha which we call pralaya. The reverse is srishti.
So in most of the contexts we accept this vada. When we talk about relative creation in the
relative world sat karya vada is acceptable. Vyavaharika drshtya we accept this vada. When
chair is made of wood it is sat karyua vada. Annam is karana avastha and anna maya is karya
avastha. So it is sat karyam because body was in unmanifest condition in annam. In this vada
we have to accept parinama, change. Avastha parinama. In the wordily cases we gladly accept
it. It is also parinama changes, avastha cvhanges.
We have been all the time talking about before, that Brahman is jagat karanam. Brahma
sutram says janmadyasya yatah in second sutram based on Tai vakya yato va imani + .
Mamatma bhuta bahvanah in Gita. Sometimes we said Maya is karanam or maya sahitam
Brahman. Karanam idea we have accepted. In Gita also we saw avyaktat vyaktayas sarva
prabhavanti. (8th ch). Here we say it is fallacious. Then what about these doshas? Will it not
come to us when we presented Brahman is jagat karnam. In Mandukya it will not be there
because here we have generally accepted Brahman as ajati. It is not a karanam as there is no
karyam. So what will be our answer in those places? Are we not accepting sat karya vada
there? Here too in the sixth karika Acahrya accepts sat karya vada. Gaudapacahray withdraws
that now. Why does he do this? I will deal with this at the end.
Here with respect to Brahman and world, we cannot accept parinama vada. Brahman is
nirvikari. So we cannot accept sat karya vada. For utpatti within vayavahara jagat we accept
satkarya vada. Since we take the whole creation here we do not accept it because our karanam
(which karanam has to be other than the world and that is only Brahman) Brahman is
nirviakri. So Brahman cannot manifest as world. Satkarya vada cannot work in Brahma
vishaya. So we do not accept it.
EòÉ®úhÉÆ ªÉºªÉ ´Éè EòÉªÉÈ EòÉ®úhÉÆ
iÉºªÉ VÉÉªÉiÉä*
VÉÉªÉ¨ÉÉxÉÆ EòlÉ¨ÉVÉÆ Ê¦ÉzÉÆ ÊxÉiªÉÆ
EòlÉÆ SÉ iÉiÉÂ** 11**
ªÉºªÉ ´Éè EòÉ®úhÉÆ EòÉªÉÈ (¦É´ÉÊiÉ) iÉºªÉ
EòÉ®úhÉÆ VÉÉªÉiÉä* (EòÉªÉÇ°ü{ÉähÉ)
VÉÉªÉ¨ÉÉxÉÆ (EòÉ®úhÉÆ) EòlÉ¨ÉVÉÆ (¦É´ÉÊiÉ)*
(EòÉªÉÉÇEòÉ®äúhÉú) Ê¦ÉzÉÆ (º¡ÖòÊ]õiÉÆ, Ê
´ÉEÞòiÉÆ) SÉ iÉiÉÂ (EòÉ®úhÉ¨ÉÂ) EòlÉÆ ÊxÉiªÉÆ
(¦É´ÉäiÉÂ)** 11**
If any one established a karyam or creation or janma we have to dismiss as Brahman is not a
karanam. The two darsana that try to establish it is Nayyayika and other Vaiseshika. We will
now see arguments against satkarya vada. How do you say an existent thing is born? When it
comes to manifest condition we say it is born. That means previously also karyam was
existent (before birth). After birth also it is existent. The difference is before it was in karana
form and now it is in karya form. Before clay form and now pot form. Purvam anna rupam.
Now annamaya rupa. So nothing new is born. Karana avastha changes to karya avastha. It is
parinama here. This we are going to dismiss from 11th sloka onwards. Gaudapada points out
various fallacies or defects in this vada. Final conclusion will be Brahman is not a karanam as
there is no karyam at all.
Satkarya khandanam
We should have some idea about their philosophy.. 1) For him world is a karayam. It was sat
before in the form karana. It is called pradhanam by him. Before srishti pradhanam was there.
It is world in unmanifest form. it modifies to become jagat. So the substance of karanam and
karyam are one and the same substance as nothing new is created.. So karana karyayoh
abhedah. Rice and dosai are one and the same substance. Avastha bheda is there and so two
names. Like ice, water and steam. Substance is one and states are different. Solid, liquid and
gaseous states. 2) karyam jagat is jatam. Karyam means it is born. 3) What about
pradhanam? Is it jatam or ajatam? He says pradhanam is ajam. Karanam pradhanam is
ajam and karyam jagat is jatam. First principle is both are identical. We are going to catch
him on this point. 11th sloka questions this alone
Yasya - refers to for this sankhaya philosopher. karanam vai karyam - Karanam alone is
karyam. That means karanam and karyam are identical Vai means He is pointing out to them
that you yourself tell. Then you say karyam jayate - karyam is born. You say karyam is equal
to karanam. Replace the word karyam by karanam, So Tasya - for him. karanam jayate.
Karanam becomes jatam. But according to you pradhanam is ajam. Karanam jayate - in your
philosophy karanam will be born. But it is against your stand. In the second line - he reverses.
You say karanam is ajam. You also say karanam is equal to karyam. So you must accept
karyam also ajam. Can you say karyam is ajam. It is contradictory. Product is unborn - this is
vyaghata dosha. If both karyam and karanam are one and the same, then either you say both
are ajam or both jam. But you are telling one is ajam and the other is jam. Jayamanam
(karyam) katham ajam (syat)? How can karyam that is born be identical with ajam karanam.
(yadi) Bhinnam ( tat meaning karanam) katham nityam (syat). Bhinnam means that which
modifies. Bhinnam comes from bheda. That which changes. If karanam is modifying to
become karyam how can you call it (that pradhanam) as nityam. Like milk has become curd
but it is nityam. This is absurd. Karanam destroys itself to become karyam.
There are three defects in this sloka pointed out.
1) Karanam pradhanam cannot be ajam but jam because both are identical and karyam is
jatam and so karanam also jatam. But you say it is ajam. karanasya jatva doshah
2) Again since both are identical and you say karanam ajam then karyam must also be ajam.
But you say karyam is jatam. karyasya ajatva iti doshah
3) Karanam modifies to become karyam which means it is destructible and it is nityam. But
you say karanam is nityam. Karanasya anityatva doshah
Karika 12
EòÉ®úhÉÉnÂù ªÉtxÉxªÉi´É¨ÉiÉ& EòÉªÉÈ
+VÉÆ ªÉÊnù*
VÉÉªÉ¨ÉÉxÉÉÊrù ´Éè EòÉªÉÉÇiÉÂ
EòÉ®úhÉÆ iÉä EòlÉÆ wÉÖ´É¨ÉÂ** 12**
ªÉÊnù (EòÉªÉÇºªÉ) EòÉ®úhÉÉnÂù +xÉxªÉi´É¨ÉÂ
(¦É´ÉÊiÉ) +iÉ& (iÉÌ½þþ) EòÉªÉÈ +VÉÆ (¦É´ÉÊiÉ)
ªÉÊnù Ê½þ ´Éè VÉÉªÉ¨ÉÉxÉÉiÉÂ EòÉªÉÉÇiÉÂ
EòÉ®úhÉÆ (+xÉxªÉiÉÂ ¦É´ÉÊiÉ) (iÉÌ½þ) iÉä (iÉ´É)
(EòÉ®úhÉÆ) EòlÉÆ wÉÖ´É¨ÉÂ (¦É´ÉÊiÉ)** 12**
The same idea is conveyed in this sloka also but in a different languages so that if it was not
clear before it can become clear. Karanat yadi ananyatvam If you say karyam is non
separate from karanam, atah then what will be the dosha? karyam ajam bahvati. it is
contradictory. It is a dosha. Karyam = karanam. Karanam = ajam. So karyam = ajam. Can
you accept this?
Jayamanat karyat ananyat karanam Ananyat karanam is to be supplied after jayamanat. If
you say karanam is identical to karyam, the karyam that is jayamanam is identical to karanam.
Karanam = karyam. Karyam = jatam. Therefore karanam = jatam. Can you accept this also?
You cannot. So karanam katham dhruvam bahvati. How can your karanam be nityam?
Dhruvam means eternal.
Karika 13
+VÉÉuèù VÉÉªÉiÉä ªÉºªÉ oùŸõÉxiÉºiÉºªÉ

xÉÉÎºiÉ ´Éè*
VÉÉiÉÉcÉ VÉÉªÉ¨ÉÉxÉºªÉ xÉ ´ªÉ´ÉºlÉÉ |
ÉúºÉVªÉiÉä** 13**
ªÉºªÉ ´Éè +VÉÉnÂù (EòÉªÉÇÆ) VÉÉªÉiÉä iÉºªÉ
´Éèù oùŸõÉxiÉ& xÉÉÎºiÉ * VÉÉiÉÉcÉ
VÉÉªÉ¨ÉÉxÉºªÉ (+¦ªÉÖ{ÉMÉ¨Éä ºÉÊiÉ) ´ªÉ´ÉºlÉÉ
xÉ |ÉúºÉVªÉiÉä** 13**
When you talk of karanam we have three options. The possibilities are three. We will say all
these are not possible. 1) One is either you should say both are ajam. Ajat karanat ajam
karyam jayate. 2) Both are jam. Jaat karyat jam karyam jayate. 3) Karanam is ajam and
karyam is jam. Ajat karanat jam karyam jayate.
We have to dismiss all the three possibilities.1) First is not possible because if both are ajam,
where is the question of one being born from the other?. Ajam means unborn. So ridiculous
option 2) Both are born if you say. From born karanam karyam is born. Like from born father
son is born. Then karanam is born from where? What is its karanam? You cannot never arrive
at the fundamental cause. Anavastha dosha or regress. Non finality is there. No avastha is
there. 3) Karanam is ajam and karyam is jam. Pradhanam is cause of the universe for
sankhays. World is born of it and so it is jam. For that we say we cannot agree for this we do
not have any pramana to show that. Pramana abhavat. I may say that elephant came from this
table. What is pramanam? Did you see? Is there then anumana? Is there any sabda pramana?
None Our experience is every karanam happens to be jatam only. This is answered in the first
line of 13th karika
Ajat vai jayate yasya - That philosopher who holds that from birthless karanam a world is
born, for his na drshtantah. He does not have any pramanam. Pramana is proof. Proof in the
form of illustration. You cannot wildly hold any idea. You cannot say from table a mango tree
is born. Proved idea alone is valid idea. So your stand is not right. Proof is three fold. 1)
Pratyaksha. You should see mango tree coming from mango seed. For you no pratyaksha
pramanm is there. Effect has birth and we also see cause also has birth. We have not seen a
birthless cause in our experience. A tree is born of seed which is from previous tree. Karanam
is jatam Yat yat karanam tat tat jatam. 2) second proof is anumanam. For that we need
pratyaksha based illustration or data. We do not have that. Even for a doctor to infer a disease
he has to have data like blood test, scanning etc. Form that he can infer. Proof for what? For
the idea of Sankhya. 3) The third proof is words. Is there sruti pramanam? Does Veda
supports this idea? In Veda Brahman is what? Ajatam. It talks of creation of the world which
is naturally jam. So Sankhya wants to show sruti support. The answer is seen already. Mrlloha
+ Srishti topic is not to prove srishti. It is upayah, a method of teaching. It is adhyaropa
method. The main teaching of Veda is Nasti bheda kathancana Neha nanasti kincana. The
teaching of the Upanishad is non creation. If you systematically and thoroughly analyse the
Upanishad, we see everything is said to be Brahman. There is no duality. Sruti pramana does
not support ajatam Brahman as karanam and world as karyam.
First line dismisses the third possibility. Second line is dismissing the second possibility.
Jatacca jayamanasya na vyavastha prasajyate. Refer above the discussion. There will be
avyavastha dosha. The first possibility is presented by us and dismissed by us.
Karika 14
½äþiÉÉä®úÉÊnù& ¡ò™Æô
ªÉä¹ÉÉ¨ÉÉÊnù½æþiÉÖ& ¡ò™ôºªÉ SÉ*
½äþiÉÉä& ¡ò™ôºªÉ SÉÉxÉÉÊnù& EòlÉÆ
iÉè¯û{É´ÉhªÉÇiÉä**14**
ªÉä¹ÉÉÆ ({ÉÚ´ÉÇ{ÉÊIÉhÉÉÆ ¨ÉiÉä) ½äþiÉÉä&
+ÉÊnù& ¡ò™Æô (¦É´ÉÊiÉ) ¡ò™ôºªÉ SÉ +ÉÊnù&
½äþþiÉÖ& (¦É´ÉÊiÉ) iÉè& ½äþiÉÉä& ¡ò™ôºªÉ SÉ
+xÉÉÊnù& EòlÉÆ (+ÉIÉä{ÉÉlÉæ) ={É
´ÉhªÉÇiÉä**14**
Another person interferes here to support Sankhya but for this argument he takes the support
of Veda itself. What odes he say? The creation that is all jiva rasis are born. Karyam is there.
You cannot say creation is not there. All beings are born. Blindly saying no creation does not
work. I see all and I see all are sometimes enjoying and sometimes suffering. Scientists do not
have much answer as to why they are born. He will say accidental or some theory of
evolution. Why one should be born in one condition and another in another condition. He has
no answer. This person says that everything is happening perfectly according to law. All
bodies are born according to some cause and that is punya and papa karmas. Or we can say
dharma and adharma. Dharma and adharma becomes cause and body becomes karyam. Now
Gaudapada wants to dismiss this idea. We should carefully listen to this portion. One may get
lot of doubts. Here we are dismissing this idea that dharma and adharma is cause of this
body. Throughout we have seen that all birth is due to sancitam and prarabdham. Here it is
condemned. Dharmdharma is cause and body is karyam - this we will dismiss. We are not
accepting any karyam and so where is karanam for body? Then why did you talk about this
idea in the gita and other Upanishads. We will see the answer later. The point here is that we
do not accept any karanam. Even if you take the support of Veda I will not accept it - acharya
says. because there are lot of logical problems in that contention. The logical problem is -
Body is karyanm. Dharmadharma is karanam. Now he wants to find out if this dharma
adharma itself is born or unborn. We have to answer that it is certainly born out of action.
Once dharma adharma is born then he will ask born out of what? You have to say it is born of
action. Action itself comes out of body. So dharma adharma is born of sariram. Sariram is
born of dharma adharma. Who is father and who is son?
Esham - Suppose for a philosopher, hetoh adih phalam. Hetuh is dharma adharma. Phalam
is sariram. Hetu is punya and papa. Do not go by dictionary meaning. Adih means karanam.
The cause of dharma and adharma is body. Then adih hetuh phalasya ca. The cause of body
is dharma and adharma. So both sariram and dharma / adharma are karyam. Both are with a
beginning due to being karyam. They say it is anadi. How can they talk of birthlessness of
dharmadharma or body when both have beginning.
Karika 15
½äþiÉÉä®úÉÊnù& ¡ò™Æô
ªÉä¹ÉÉ¨ÉÉÊnù½æþiÉÖ& ¡ò™ôºªÉ SÉ*
iÉlÉÉ VÉx¨É ¦É´ÉäkÉä¹ÉÉÆ {ÉÖjÉÉWÉx¨É
Ê{ÉiÉÖªÉÇlÉÉ** 15**
ªÉä¹ÉÉÆ ({ÉÚ´ÉÇ{ÉÊIÉhÉÉÆ ¨ÉiÉä) ½äþiÉÉä&
+ÉÊnù& ¡ò™Æô (¦É´ÉÊiÉ), ¡ò™ôºªÉ SÉ +ÉÊnù&
½äþþiÉÖ& (¦É´ÉÊiÉ), iÉä¹ÉÉÆ ªÉlÉÉ {ÉÖjÉÉiÉÂù
Ê{ÉiÉÖ& VÉx¨É (¦É´ÉÊiÉ) iÉlÉÉ (¡ò™ôÉnÂù
½äþiÉÉä&) VÉx¨É ¦É´ÉäiÉÂ ** 15**
The same as in the previous sloka is first line. Suppose one says dharma and adharma is born
of body and body is born of dharmadharma, it is like saying Rama is born of Dasaratha and
Dasaratha is born of Rama. Can you say so? Tatha tesham janma bhavet - the birth
according to them will be like the following. Meaning putrat pituh janma - father is born of
son.
Karika 16
ºÉÆ¦É´Éä ½äþiÉÖ¡ò±ÉªÉÉä®äúÊ¹ÉiÉ´ªÉ&
Gò¨Éºi´ÉªÉÉ*
ªÉÖMÉ{ÉiºÉÆ¦É´Éä ªÉº¨ÉÉnÂù
+ºÉÆ¤ÉxvÉÉä Ê´É¹ÉÉhÉ´ÉiÉÂ**16**
½äþiÉÖ¡ò±ÉªÉÉä& ºÉÆ¦É´Éä (ºÉÊiÉ) Gò¨É& i´ÉªÉÉ
BúÊ¹ÉiÉ´ªÉ&* ªÉÖMÉ{ÉiºÉÆ¦É´Éä ªÉº¨ÉÉnÂù
(½äþiÉÖ¡ò±ÉªÉÉä& EòÉªÉÇEòÉ®úhÉi´ÉäxÉ)
+ºÉÆ¤ÉxvÉÉä Ê´É¹ÉÉhÉ´ÉiÉÂ**16**
Now this person is logically in trouble. He cannot say both are anadi. Both having a
beginning. Then one has to say which begins first. What is the order? We do not worry about
these things because of our day to day problems. A philosopher cannot afford to leave it. We
have to find out the order.
Hetu phalayoh sambhave sati - if you accept the beginning for both hetu and phala
(sambahvah is birth), you have to give me the order in which it comes. Hetu is dharma
adharma and phalam is sariram. You have to give me the order kramah tvaya vaktavyah.
How did the first body come in the world. If Lord created, on what basis he created and gave
the body. Sick body or health body. Second body no problem. First body is due to karma.
Then that karma how did it come. So you cannot talk of an order. If both came together.
Round table conference came because of this problem who is first and who is next. So say
both are simultaneous. You have dropped your fundamental point arguing and arguing. If you
say both are together, then you cannot talk of karya karana bahva at all. Yugapat sambahve -
if dharma and sariram are born together . Then they will not have karya karana sambanda
Like what? Vishanavat. Horn like. Horn of any animal. When two horns are simultaneously
born, you cannot say one is cause of another. Like twins. One cannot be cause of another.
father and son cannot have same date of birth. Then what is another possibility. That will
come in the next karika.
Karika 17
Gaudapada dismissed the sankhya vada which says that ajam pradhanam is karanam and the
jagat is the jatam karyam. Gaudapada dismissed this view by pointing out that there is no
pramanam in favor of that. Even though sastram seems to support, we find that on analysis
even sastra does not support this. Sastra seems to support on superficial analysis but sastram
does not support the theory that karanam ajam and karyam is jatam. Now he was taking up
another vada from 14 and this person is arguing based on the scriptures themselves pointing
out dharma and adharma is karanam and sariram is karyam. We say karma generally. Karma
is karanam and sariram is karyam. Sankara uses the expression dharma adharma. We also
have supported this view in previous Upanishads and in the gita etc. But here in Mandukya
we are dismissing it. Then we did accept it previously? We will see answer later. Here
Gaudapada was discussing various options in those previous kariaks. Both cannot be ajams.
Karma and sariram cannot be anadi. Sariram has birth date and karma is done by this body
and it starts. If both are jam simultaneously then they cannot have cause and effect
relationship like twins. There must be some order. That order they are not able to give because
body is born of karma and karma is born of body. If both are mutually dependent that will be
contradictory like saying son produces father and father producing son. Mutual cause and
effect. It is not possible. Same idea is going to be presented in different ways.
¡ò™ôÉnÖùi{Ét¨ÉÉxÉ& ºÉzÉ iÉä ½äþiÉÖ& |
ÉÊºÉvªÉÊiÉ*
+|ÉÊºÉrù& EòlÉÆ ½äþiÉÖ&
¡ò™ô¨ÉÖi{ÉÉnùÊªÉ¹ªÉÊiÉ** 17**
¡ò™ôÉnÖùi{Ét¨ÉÉxÉ& ºÉxÉÂ ½äþiÉÖ& iÉä (iÉ´É
{ÉÚ´ÉÇ{ÉÊIÉhÉ&) xÉ |ÉÊºÉvªÉÊiÉ* +|ÉÊºÉrù&
(½äþiÉÖMÉ¦ÉÇÊ´É¶Éä¹ÉhÉ¨ÉÂ) ½äþiÉÖ& (¶É¶ÉÊ
´É¹ÉÉhÉ´ÉiÉÂ) EòlÉÆ (+ÉIÉä{ÉÉlÉæ) ¡ò™ô¨ÉÂ
=i{ÉÉnùÊªÉ¹ªÉÊiÉ** 17**
Here the idea is same. He is presenting in a different way. Phalat udpatyaman hetu -
phalam is sariram. From the sariram is born hetuh or dharma and adharma. Punya papa. From
the body alone is karma is to be born. When the body is being created, karma has come into
existence or not? Because karma is to be born only after the birth of the body. Karma is
product of sariram. Dharma and adharma is yet to be produced when body is being created.
During the production of the body karma / dharma has not come. So how can you say the
body is product of dharma and adharma which is to be produced later. Phalat utpadyamanah
san = dharma adharma has not come into existence when the body is being created. It is na
prasidhyati - It is not there. it is not established. Aprasiddhah katham hetuh? Aprasiddhah
hetuh katham phalam udpadayishyati. Aprasiddhah hetuh means dharma adharmah.
Aprasiddham means not yet established. Meaning not yet born. How can it (which is yet to be
produced) produce sariram. This idea is also said in 15 th karika. How can son be the cause of
father when son himself is not there at the time of creation of father.
Karika 18
ªÉÊnù ½äþiÉÉä& ¡ò™ôÉÎiºÉÊrù&
¡ò™ôÊºÉÊrùÉ ½äþiÉÖiÉ&*
EòiÉ®úi{ÉÚ´ÉÇÊxÉ¹{ÉzÉÆ ªÉºªÉ
ÊºÉÊrù®ú{ÉäIÉªÉÉ** 18**
ªÉÊnù¡ò™ôÉiÉÂ ½äþiÉÉä& ÊºÉÊrù& (¦É´ÉÊiÉ)
½äþiÉÖiÉ& ¡ò™ôÊºÉÊrùÉ (¦É´ÉÊiÉ) EòiÉ®úiÉÂ
(xÉÆ) {ÉÚ´ÉÇÊxÉ¹{ÉzÉÆ (¦É´ÉÊiÉ)* ªÉºªÉ ({É
ÉÉ‘ùÉÊ´ÉxÉ&) (EòÉªÉÇºªÉ) ÊºÉÊr& ({ÉÚ
´ÉÇÊºÉÊrù) +ú{ÉäIÉªÉÉ (¦É´ÉÊiÉ) iÉnÂù
ù¥ÉÚÊ½þ* 18**
This also is repetition of same idea of the 16 th karika. If you say they are mutually dependent,
again the question of order will come. Which came first and which next. In the 16th karika
eshitavyah tvaya iti it was said. Yadi hetoh - hetuh means dharma adharma. If dharma
adharma is born of phalam that is sariram, and phalaasiddhisca hetutah - sariram is born of
punya papa or dharma adharma. Then Katarat which one of the two. Purvanishpannam - is
born first. Yasya siddhirapekshaya - with respect to the other. You cannot say this at all. So
dharma adhamra - sarriam theory will not work.
Karika 19
+¶ÉÊHò®ú{ÉÊ®úYÉÉxÉÆ
Gò¨ÉEòÉä{ÉÉä%lÉ´ÉÉ {ÉÖxÉ&*
B´ÉÆ Ê½þ ºÉ´ÉÇlÉÉ ¤ÉÖþrèù& +VÉÉÊiÉ&
{ÉÊ®únùÒÊ{ÉiÉÉ** 19**
+¶ÉÊHò& +ú{ÉÊ®úYÉÉxÉÆ (¦É´ÉÊiÉ)* +lÉ´ÉÉ
{ÉÖxÉ& Gò¨ÉEòÉä{É& (¦É´ÉÊiÉ)* B´ÉÆ Ê½þ ºÉ
´ÉÇlÉÉ ¤ÉÖþrèù& +VÉÉÊiÉ& {ÉÊ®únùÒÊ{ÉiÉÉ**
19**
So we have to come to the theory of ajati vadah. What are the defects Asaktih - weakness,
incapacity. Incapacity for what? To give the order. You are not able to say whether dharma
adharma came first or sariram came first. Your inability to answer this question is a weakens
in your philosophy. Why you are not able to answer? Because aparijanam Because of
confusion or incomplete knowledge. If ignorance is there no problem. Only incomplete
knowledge is there there is confusion. Neither you know logic complete nor sastam
completely. Mixing half knowledge you have some hotch potch. Mudhata is aparijnanam.
The krama kopah - confusion is in order. This is another problem. Order is whether hetu is
first or phalam is first. Which is cause and which is effect - you are not able to say clearly. If
you say both statements, in the first pada of first line of 18 th karika there is krama and in the
second pada itself there is opposite statement, it is kopa. There is disturbance in that order. So
the conclusion is I am right. Evam hi sarvatha buddhaih - In this manner alone ajatih
paridipita - non creation or non-origination is revealed by wise people. Buddhaih is referring
to purvapakshi. So it is parihasa. Every point they give happens to be false and by their false
opinions they are only strengthening my stand indirectly. Ajati vada stands strengthened by
each one of their false theories. Buddhus,
When Gaudaopada says purvapakshi gets angry. he is going to argue now.
Karika 20
¤ÉÒVÉÉ€Ùó®úÉJªÉÉä oùŸõÉxiÉ& ºÉnùÉ
ºÉÉvªÉºÉ¨ÉÉä Ê½þ ºÉ&*
xÉ Ê½þ ºÉÉvªÉºÉ¨ÉÉä ½äþiÉÖ& ÊºÉrùÉè
ºÉÉvªÉºªÉ ªÉÖVªÉiÉä**20**
ºÉ& ¤ÉÒVÉÉ€Ùó®úÉJªÉÉä oùŸõÉxiÉ& ºÉnùÉ Ê½
ºÉÉvªÉºÉ¨ÉÉä (¦É´ÉÊiÉ)þ * ºÉÉvªÉºÉ¨ÉÉä ½äþiÉÖ&
Ê½þ ºÉÉvªÉºªÉ ÊºÉrùÉè xÉ ªÉÖVªÉiÉä**20**
Now purvapakshi is arguing for which he will give the answer. This sloka has only answer
and it does not have the contention. The argument is that (the one who argues in favor of
creation is purvapakshi) you seem to refute my views but you have not got my view at all
clearly. You have not understood what I am saying. I say that dharma and adharma is cause of
sariram. Sariram is cause of dharma and adharma. This is illogical we said. It is like son is
cause of father when you reverse the statement. Another objection is how dharma adharma
can be the cause when it itself is to be born later. For this purvapakshi says :
If I say dharma adharma is the cause of sariram, it is not the same dharma adharma that is
born out of would-be-sariram that is the cause. I say that from the sariram a new dharma
adharma is going to come and this sariram is born out of old dharma adharma. If I say same
dharma adharma which causes this sariram is going to be the cause of this sariram then it is
illogical. Sariram is going to produce a fresh dharma adharma called no 2 and sariram is born
out of dharma adharma called No1. born of previous sariram.
The I will ask how does dharma adharma no1 come? Out of sairam. Sariram itself is going to
be born of dharma adharma no !. This dharma adharma is not caused by this sariram but it is
by previous sariram. So there is no mutual cause and effect relationship. So body-karma is
like a cycle. Cause effect is not interchanged. He gives famous example of seed and tree. Bija
and ankura. Seed is cause and tree is effect. We cannot interchange it. But we can say seed
no 1 is cause of tree no 1. When I say tree is cause and seed is effect. then I say tree no 1 is
cause of seed no 2 and not seed no1.So too dharma adharma and body. So creation with cause
and effect relationship is possible like this example.
Acharya refutes this : The answer is like this. When there is problem we give the example to
solve the problem. The example itself must be solved problem, But the example itself is
another unsolved problem, that cannot form an example for solving a problem. Seed tree
example does not solve the problem. It is another example for the same problem. So he says
that this example Bija and ankura is sadhya samah - it is something to be logically solved.
Sadhya is itself unsolved problem. It is yet to be proved. It is nayyayika terminology. Sadhya
is problem to be solved. The solution is to be found. Here the example itself is equally
mysterious. One mystery cannot be solved by another mystery. He says that. Na hi
sadhyasamah hetuh - hetuh here is drshtantah. Hetu generally means cause. Here it is
illustration. An example which itself is an unsolved problem, cannot be given as example. It
cannot be applied. For what? For sadhyasya siddhau - for solving an unsolved problem. One
unsolved problem cannot serve as an example to solve another unsolved problem. What is
atma? It is eternal. He does not know eternal is meant what. What is eternity. It is infinite.
what is infinite. It is absolute. What is it. It is truth. When I give a meaning the meaning
should be something understandable. If I give another unknown world I am not
communicating. Here the problem is between dharma and sariram. The problem continues in
both cases. So the example wont work.
What is the problem with this example. 1) We say the seed is born of tree. Every seed and tree
are relative causes. None of them are absolute cause. The purpose of this philosophical
discussion is to find out the absolute cause. I know who is my father and who is father’s
father and so on. I have to know who is first cause. 2) To solve he has to say that it is anadi. It
goes on and on. In that case two problems will be there a) Logically whatever is anadi has to
be anantah Since the cycle has no beginning then there is no question of end also which
means never work for mokshah. Anirmoksha prasangah. The inquiry is meant to get
freedom. Why do you argue with me. b) If anadih then what is anadi? Sariram is anadi? Or
dharma adharma is anadi? Which one is anadi? We cannot say either one is anadi. The seed-
tree parampara is anadi. For that we say that there is no such thing called lineage because
parmapara is purely a mental concept. There is no such ting called paramapara. There is no
vastu called parampara. There is no lineage other than individuals. So no sariram - dharma
adharma parampara other than sariram and dharma-adharma. The class when I say, I mean the
group of people. Can you point out a thing called group? So parampara is only a word you
use. What is there is only sariram. Dharma and adharma,. Both are sadih. So Sankara says
parampara is mithya. It is not existent. So the conclusion is this example is unestablihsable.
You cannot establish the lineage of seed-tree. You cannot establish logically the cause effect
.Our explanation we will see later.
Karika 21
Summary upto 20th
One alone is right. For that I should prove others are wrong. It is not hatred. Proving wrong
does not mean there is hatred. Dvaitin can have his view. In my brain I should have clear
vision. Nayyayika was negated by implication. Now he is dismissing Sankhya. vada. Now
an aspect of satkarya vada is being discussed. based on Veda, this vadin argues that creation is
born out of dharma and adharma (punya/papa) taking support from Vedas. How can you say
there is no karyam. Do not talk of ajati or akarya vadam. If world a d beings are born because
of dharmadharma. Hetu and phalam is there. This hetuphala vada is being refuted. Hetu is
dharma adharma and phalam is bdoy. 1) Are they simultaneous or one after another. Yugapat
or krmena. Both cannot be simultaneous. If so then karana-karya bhava is not possible. Like
twins. One cannot be hetu and another phalam. Krame - Which came first? 2) Mutually they
cannot come. Hetu from phalam and phalam from hetu. Then like father from son and son
from father. Anyonya asraya will be there. 3) So if krama is there and one of them came first.
Let us say we started with body. There was no dharma adharma. Like start with love. In
games it is there. Zero account. We build up from there. No. If zero to begin with, then which
body Lord will give? Criterion will not be there. Then let us start with dharma adharma. How
can you start with it when sariam itself has not come into being. So neither can be beginning.
So order cannot be given. 4) Satkaryavadi wants to escape by giving some example. (Like if
you are cornered, you say you also did the other day). The example is bija-ankura. You
cannot say anyonya asraya dosha. Because there is a cycle and this cycle is anadi. Acarya
gave the answer that the example cannot solve the problem as that itself is mystery. One
mystery cannot be used to solve another mystery. Example itself is unsolved problem. Chick -
hen also same unsolved problem. What is the mystery in that example or unsolved problem?
Which is first You cannot say. It is anadi, if you say then which is anadi? If both anadi then
cause and effect relationship is not there. I do not say both are anadi. But parampara is anadai.
Santati is anadi. Cause effect parampara is anadi. No. What do you mean by parampara?
Show me a substance called parampara. It is purely a concept. No parampara other than the
constituents. Like group. Like salad. What is salad? Fruit. I thought there is fruit called salad.
I removed all individual fruits and there is no salad. salad is only a conceptual thing. No
substance. So no anadi parampara.
Karika 21
{ÉÚ´ÉÉÇ{É®úÉ{ÉÊ®úYÉÉxÉ¨ÉVÉÉiÉä&
{ÉÊ®únùÒ{ÉEò¨ÉÂ*
VÉÉªÉ¨ÉÉxÉÉÊrù ´Éè vÉ¨ÉÉÇiÉÂ EòlÉÆ {ÉÚ
´ÉÈ xÉ MÉÞÁiÉä** 21**
{ÉÚ´ÉÉÇ{É®úÉ{ÉÊ®úYÉÉxÉ¨ÉÂ +VÉÉiÉä&
{ÉÊ®únùÒ{ÉEÆò (¦É´ÉÊiÉ)* VÉÉªÉ¨ÉÉxÉÉÊrù
vÉ¨ÉÉÇiÉÂ ´Éè {ÉÚ´ÉÈ (EòÉ®úhÉ¨ÉÂ) EòlÉÆ (i
´ÉªÉÉ) xÉ MÉÞÁiÉä** 21**
Here Gaudapada says that you are not able to answer my questions and so it proves that I am
correct. This is the essence. Why you are not able to answer my questions. Because
purvapara aparijnanam You do not have a clear knowledge of the pruva and apara. What is
purva apara? Former and later is what? What is cause and what is effect. This order you are
not able to yet give. Which is first? You cannot say anadi because it is already dismissed. It is
only in your mind. Your ignorance of the order is aparijnanam. Order between body and
dharma adharma. It reveals ajateh paridipakam. It is only revealing Paridipakam means
revealer. Of what? Ajateh. It reveals only my jati vada. Your inability to establish your jati is
only establishing my ajati vada.
The same idea is repeated in a different way in second line. If you consider the creation is
born, then you must be able to give the cause of it. Why you are not able to give cause of it? If
you accept effect you must be able to talk about cause.. Not ascertain the cause. jayamanat
dharmat - dharma here means jivas. It includes world also. If jivas are born as you think,
purvam katham na grhyate. Here purvam means cause. Purvam is cause because it is
before. Cause is always before the effect. How you are not able to talk about. Effect cannot be
established without a cause. So ajati vada alone is right.
º´ÉiÉÉä ´ÉÉ {É®úiÉÉä ´ÉÉ%÷Ê{É xÉ
ËEòÊSÉuùºiÉÖ VÉÉªÉiÉä*
ºÉnùºÉiºÉnùºÉuùÉ%Ê{É xÉ ËEòÊSÉuùºiÉÖ
VÉÉªÉiÉä** 22**
º´ÉiÉÉä ´ÉÉ {É®úiÉÉä ´ÉÉ (=¦ÉªÉiÉ& ´ÉÉ) +÷Ê{É
ËEòÊSÉuùºiÉÖ xÉ VÉÉªÉiÉä* ºÉnùºÉnÂù (xÉ
VÉÉªÉiÉä) ºÉnùºÉuùÉ%Ê{É ËEòÊSÉuùºiÉÖ xÉ
VÉÉªÉiÉä** 22**
He is summing up in fact. Here he says that whatever combination you take. Birth cannot be
established. Various possibilities he takes and says whatever possibility you logically
consider, creation can never be established.
Kincit vastu na jayate - Nothing is born. We talk of creation all the time. Population control
is a big issue. Acharya says no creation. When knowledge is drdham, we are not afraid of
number of people who support us. For this he takes two possibilities. A thing has to be born
out of two sources. 1) Source must be other than the thing. Pot is born means it must be born
of something other than pot. 2) It should be born out of itself. You cannot say pot is born out
of pot. it is impossible and illogical. You cannot say it is cause and it is effect. So you have to
say it is born of something. Can we say pot is born of cloth? No. Can it be born of another
pot? No. So a thing cannot be born of something else also. Purvapakshi says - I do not say pot
is born of itself or of something else. I say it is born of clay. So birth of something is possible
from another thing. Here alone you have got greatest delusion which is universal. Then
Sankara asks the question - do you say pot is born of clay? When you say so, tell me what is
born? How many kilos of pot is born? You will find that previously clay was there. After the
birth of pot also clay is there. Nothing is born. You have used a new word. You have only
changed the word from clay to pot. There is no pot other than clay. There are no two things.
So the second possibility that one thing is born of another thing you can never say. So svato
va parato va. You cannot prove the birth of a single small little thing like pot. What to talk of
the whole creation.
In second line he is taking another possibility. In this argument he is talking the birth of three
possibilities. Either a sat vastu must be born or an asat vastu must be born. Or sadasat vastu
must be born. In knowledge you have to break your head. This is another approach. If we
have to prove the birth of any substance let us say pot, you should say pot must belong to one
of the three categories, sat, asat or sadasat. No fourth alternative. Vastu we have to add to
every one. Sad vastu kincit na jayate. Asad vastu kincit na jayate. Sadasat vastu kincit na
jayate. An existent thing or nonexistent or existent-nonexistent thing is not born.
All the three not possible. What is the logic?
Sat vastu is not born. No need for explanation. I cannot say I am born today. Asat vastu is not
born. These two are satkarya vada and asatkaryavada. In 11 th karika we saw the reasons for
this. Third one is sadasatvastu. Because anything cannot possess opposite attributes. It can
possess many attributes. He is tall, fat, etc is possible. Ekasmin vastuni viruddha dharmah na
bhavati. So ajati vada.
So first line is from karana angle and second is karya angle. From nothing a karyam is born
and nothing is born.
Karika 23
½äþiÉÖxÉÇ VÉÉªÉiÉä%xÉÉnäù& ¡ò™Æô

SÉÉÊ{É º´É¦ÉÉ´ÉiÉ&*
+ÉÊnùxÉÇ Ê´ÉtiÉä ªÉºªÉ iÉºªÉ ÁÊnùxÉÇ Ê
´ÉtiÉä** 23**
+xÉÉnäù& ½äþiÉÖxÉÇ VÉÉªÉiÉä* ¡ò™Æô º´É¦ÉÉ
´ÉiÉ& SÉ +Ê{É (xÉ VÉÉªÉiÉä) (SÉÉ{Éä&
+xÉÉnäù& ½äþiÉÉä& ¡ò™Æô xÉ VÉÉªÉiÉä* º´É¦ÉÉ
´ÉiÉ& +Ê{É ¡ò™Æô xÉ VÉªÉiÉä)* ªÉºªÉ +ÉÊnùxÉÇ
Ê´ÉtiÉä iÉºªÉ ÁÊnùxÉÇ Ê´ÉtiÉä** 23
This is will go well after 20th karika. In 20th karika purvapkshi was establishing creation and
he said cause is punya papa and effect is body or jagat. Then we asked which came first. He
said you should not ask for it. It is like bija and ankura like. It is lineage and beginningless. In
that context he did refute it logically. He said your example is not acceptable to us.
Gaudapada gives that in this Karika. The idea in this illustration is that creation is anadi. You
will have serious problem by this anadi theory. Body also anadi and punaya papa also is
anadi. Then the problem is karya karana bahva is not established.
Hetuh na jayate. - meaning dharma adharma is not born. (According to purvapaklshi). Why
it is not born? Because it is anadi. What about sariram? Phalam ca api. Phalam means body.
The verb is to be supplied. Na jayate. Why? Because it is svabhavatah anadi. Because of its
nature being anadi. Beginnigless means no janma. So yasya adih navidyate, That which does
not have a beginning Tasya adih na vidyate - that cannot have birth. First adi means
beginning. Second adih means birth. So both are birthless. Then how can you say one is
karanam for the other. The sambandha itself cannot be established.
As extension I gave one more argument. I do not say punya papa is anadi. Nor I say sariram is
anadi. I say that parampara is anadi. For that we said that there is no such thing called
parampara other than punya papa and sariram. it is only a concept or conceptual idea. With
this satkarya vada negation is over. It started on 11th karika. Asatakrya vada is not dismissed
by us because of the nyaya prathama Malla nyaya. Satkarya vada is champion and so we only
dismiss him. So no world has come out.
Clarification of our stand
From here onwards Bauddha mata khandanam will come. But before going to that vada, we
will have to clarify certain points. Certain confusions may come when we discuss his
arguments. Throughout this Satkarya vada topic he consistently negated srishti. Again he
negated punya papa and sariram. We may ask a question how come previously we talked
about srishti as part of teaching, Second confusion is of negation of punyapapa and sariram.
This also we accepted and discussed elaborately classifying them as sancita etc and saying
srishti is anadi like bija and ankura. It looks like Kalidasa who was cutting the branch of the
tree sitting on it. Our own stands we are dismissing now.
Our ultimate answer is ajati vadah. That means no world other than Brahman. It is not
sunyam. We accepted srishti etc first. But really we do not accept them. Because of so many
logical problems in all of them. Even though this is the truth, this is what we want to teach, in
the beginning the student cannot swallow this teaching. Even now it is problem. No body etc
if I say nobody will listen. To get the confidence of student, initially we accept the srishti,
body, punya papa and anaditvam of them as a stage of adhyaropa. At this stage if you ask
when did it start, I have to answer. Though I do not see creation. I have to say anadi. AN
intelligent student may ask further questions like purvapkashi was asked here. To avoid
logical questions on srishti so temporarily introduce Maya. Maya means no questions. I know
srishti has no logical standing. I willfully am introducing for adhyaropa purpose. Logical
questions cannot be asked because it is caused by Maya. It is another word for illogicality.
Without adhayropa the vastu cannot be revealed. Once the student gets confidence then I
negate the srishti. Since world is negated I need not talk about srishti thereafter. After apavada
Maya is not there. Apavada itself is ajati vada. It is like our rope snake. Snake I accept
The rope has unique power and so snake is born of rope. Avidya power. After that I take you
to the snake and show rope. Then I need talk of snake anymore. Every Upanishad has both
stages. In other Upanishads we talk more of srishti. In mandukya apavada stage is more. That
is why they give the example of 17 elephants. Will one half to first one third to second and
one ninth to third. He donates his elephant. 9, 6, 2 = 17. He went way with his elephant.
When apavada is done Brahman is revealed. So Maya goes away.
One more question. Finally our siddhanta is no creation. Then how can we accept ajati vada
since we experience creation solidly. Ajati vada never denies the experience eof creation. It
denies reality of creation. So long as you do not ask fundamental questions about creation,
then I will start my teaching in two stages. In first stage we accept it as born of Maya and no
logic about it. Second stage is apavada.
Karika 24
|ÉYÉ”Éä& ºÉÊxÉÊ¨ÉkÉi´É¨ÉÂ +xªÉlÉÉ

uùªÉxÉÉ¶ÉiÉ&*
ºÉÆKäò¶ÉºªÉÉä{É™ô¤vÉäÉ
{É®úiÉxjÉÉÎºiÉiÉÉ ¨ÉiÉÉ** 24**
+xªÉlÉÉ uùªÉxÉÉ¶ÉiÉ& |ÉYÉ”Éä& ºÉÊxÉÊ¨ÉkÉi
´É¨ÉÂ (+ÎºiÉ)* ºÉÆKäò¶ÉºªÉÉä{É™ô¤vÉäÉ
+lÉ´ÉÉ (´É®ú¨ÉÂ)
+xªÉlÉÉ uùªÉxÉÉ¶ÉiÉ& ºÉÆKäò¶ÉºªÉÉä{É™ô¤vÉä
É |ÉYÉ”Éä& ºÉÊxÉÊ¨ÉkÉi´É¨ÉÂ (+ÎºiÉ)* (+iÉ&)
Bauddha mata khandanam from 24 to 28. The difference between sankhya vadi and bauddha
vadi is this. Sankhya is astikha and Bauddha is nastikla. Nayyayika also is astika. This is
based on belief in Vedas. But some astikas do not believe in god. So now he comes to
nastika mata khandanam. So tradition is very much afraid of buddha. Like JK who dismisses
sastram, guru and tradition. So if one gets associated with these traditions one may loose the
path. It is called Veda bahyam. Buddha did not systematically teach his philosophy. He only
made some passing statements. Others made it up later. These people divided into many
branches. One is hina yanam and Maha yanam. Hinayana is bahyartha astitva vadinah
mahayana is bahyartha nastitva vadinah . Bahya artham means external world other than the
subject. Astitva vadi is one who believes in the existence of external world. He is hinavadi.
Mahayanas are those who do not accept the existence of external world of objects. This is first
broad classification. Between them Mahayana is closer because Gauda pada also is dismissing
the external world in ajati vada. Because of this closeness others accuse Gaudapada is
Bauddha supporter. Prachanna bauddha. It is not at all true.
They themselves got subdivided. Hinayana got divided into two. Called Vaibhashika and
Sautrantikah. So too Mahayana also got divided into two. One is Yogacara and another is
Madhyamikah. Yogcara is called Kshanika vijanavadi and Madhyamika is known by the
name sunyavadi. Both agree in one thing. That there is no external world of objects. The
difference is with respect to subject. Whether there is subject or not. Yogacara accepts the
subject as the consciousness. He says there is consciousness which is the subject. There is no
world other than this subject consciousness. Madhyamika says there is no external object and
there is no subject also. Sunya is the truth. Between these two who is close to advaitin.
Yogacarah is close to advatin. Both say there is not external world. What is the difference
between the two? We also say vijnaana vyatirikta padarthah nasti. They also say. But there is
a difference. In defining the nature of consciousness we differ. Is it nityam or anityam?
Yogacara says consciousness is kshanikam. So it is anityam. Not even anityam like our body
but it is kshana bhanguram. Kshanika vijnanam is satyam for them.
Kshanika vijnana vadi says what? he says vijnanam is khsanikam because every time we are
conscious of one one thing only. Pot experience is pot consciousness. Does it remain the
same? If so it will be nice to do meditation without any problem. Vijnanam keeps changing.
But one beauty is the moment vijnanam goes immediately there is another vijnanam. That is
why in meditation also when you try to observe the silence in between you find you are not
able to see the silence in between. The flow is so quick and continuous. So we have kshanika
santatih or pravaha all the time.
In English it is called contiguous meaning very close. This who says? Yogacara. It is constant
and continuous. It creates an illusion that there is continuous consciousness. Consciousness is
not continuos. It constantly breaks and forms. But it appears to be continuous because of
constant flow. It is like when you see the ceiling beyond fan. Normally the feeling is
obstruction must be there because fan is rotating. But the experience is that it looks as though
ceiling is constantly seen. Theoretically it is not so. The obstruction is for a very short period
and so it looks as though there is no obstruction. In movie also when you see he is siting
without movement. But the film is so lastly moving. Or the flow of the Ganges. The water is
constantly flowing. Though it is not same water. Rive is not permanent. His conclusion is that
vijnanam is kshanikam. Subject is constantly changing. But it appears to be one continuos
consciousness. This is his vada.
What do we say for this? Vijnanam is nityam. consciousness is nityam. Why? Because if
consciousness is khsanikam quickly coming and going, to know that it is coming and going
you require a permanent consciousness. How do you know it is kshanikam. Who said? So to
experience that kshanikam caitanyam you require a nitya vijnanam. So truth is nitya
caitanyam. It never comes and goes.
If the vijnanam is nityam and changeless how is it that we have constantly changing
experiences. Now I am conscious of pot there is ghata vijnanam. Next moement vriksha
vijnanam is there. How do we experience the changes if vijnanam is nityam. We answer that
the changes do not belong to the nitya vijnanam but it belongs to the vritti vijnanam. In every
vritti the caitanyam is pratibimbitam. cidabhasa rupena. It is that which is constantly
changing. The flow belongs to vritti jnanam. It does not belong to svarupa jnanam.
The problem of yogacara is that he is not able to differentiate between vritti and caitanyam.
Taking them together when the vritti is changing he has mistaken that caitanyam is also
changing. That is his confusion. This is how we dismiss all people like yogacarah. We are not
here discussing madhyamika at all. Because he is sunyavadi. Gaudapada feels he is not worth
discussing. He is sunya Vadi and so he is not there. Why should I dismiss him. He has already
dismi9ssed himself. This is the background. Dismissal of hinayana matam is the goal here.
Bahya prapanca artha he has to dismiss. If he accepts bahya prapanca ajati vada cannot be
established. So to establish ajati vada he dismisses bahyartha. For that he is going to do a
trick. He himself does not dismiss hinayana but he takes the help of mahayana people.
Argument of mahayana is taken for dismissing hinayana. Of mahayana he will take the view
of yogacara. Both vaibhashika and sautrantika are dismissed with ygoacara help. The topic is
dismissal of hinayana with yogacara branch of mahayana. Afterwards he will be taken care of
when he is happy about the dismissal of hinayana. This will be in five slokas.
sloka
In sloka 24 hinayana view is presented. Prajnapteh sanimittatvam - he says for the
consciousness (prajnapti) like ghata vijnanam. Prajnapti is any particular vijnanam. For that
you require a nimitta or vishaya. Sanimittattvam. A relevant external object is necessary.
Ghata jnanam requires ghata vishayah. if there is no vishaya we cannot have ghata jnanam
etc. So anyatha, otherwise, if you do not accept external objects,. What will happen? Dvaya
nasatah - varieties of experiences cannot be there. Dvaya is vibhinna jnanam like ghata pata
etc. Dvayam is dual world. It will not be there. Our experience is that from morning to night
and in sleep also (dream) we experience. So we have to accept external objects. Ghata jnanam
presupposes ghata vishaya and so on. Bahu jnanam presupposes bahu vishayah.
In the second line he gives second reason. Samklesasya upalabdheh - upalabdhi means
experience. Sam klesha means various feelings like pain pleasure heat cold etc. Like
samklesha. it is an example. It is pain. If consciousness alone is there, we cannot have this
different experiences of feelings. Our experience must have been uniform all the time if
consciousness alone sit here. If we have pleasure pain etc, we must be coming into contact
with something or other. So agni might be there for us to experience the heat. Water to
experience coldness. Soft touch experience is there means relevant object is there. Since we
have them and so external objects must be there. The conclusion is astita mata - bahyartha
astita mata. The existence of external objects is to be accepted. Otherwise there will be only
one constant feeling for all the people. Waking experience should be like sleep experience.
Here acharya uses the word paratantra. It means other systems of philosophy. Para means
other. Tantram means darsanam. Like sankhaya etc. So hinayani says you have to accept the
external objects which have been already accepted in other systems. Paratantra sammata
bahyartha astita mata. When we feel weaker, we want to strengthen ourselves by saying he
also said like that only. So we are not the only people to accept external objects. There are
many more. So if you conduct a poll, they are in majority. Even some of the students of
Vedanta may not accept. Advaitin have only two supports - mahayana. In 25 we have the
answer of yogacara given, in 25-27.
Karika 25
|ÉYÉ”Éä& ºÉÊxÉÊ¨ÉkÉi´ÉÊ¨É¹ªÉiÉä
ªÉÖÊHònù¶ÉÇxÉÉiÉÂ*
ÊxÉÊ¨ÉkÉºªÉÉÊxÉÊ¨ÉkÉi´ÉÊ¨É¹ªÉiÉä
¦ÉÚiÉnù¶ÉÇxÉÉiÉÂ** 25**
ªÉÖÊHònù¶ÉÇxÉÉiÉÂ |ÉYÉ”Éä& ºÉÊxÉÊ¨ÉkÉi´ÉÆ i
´ÉªÉÉ <¹ªÉiÉä* ¦ÉÚiÉnù¶ÉÇxÉÉiÉÂ ÊxÉÊ¨ÉkÉºªÉ
+ÊxÉÊ¨ÉkÉi´ÉÆ ¨ÉªÉÉ <¹ªÉiÉä ** 25**
Refutation of hinayana by mahayana (yogachara)
Prajnapteh sanimittatvam ishyate Yogascara partially accepted. From the standpoint of
your reasoning. Yukti darsanat, looking from the standpoint of your arguments, prajnapti’s
sanimittatvam is accepted. It is perfect alright to accept sanimittatvam or savishayatvam for
caitanyam. If you reason out superficially your argument seems to be very true. Dvaiti’s
arguments seems to be right. He will talk about vayavahara facts which are all ture. So objects
must be there to have variety of experiences. When you experience a pot, there is an object
called pot outside and so too with other objects. But at the same time, bhuta darsanat - if
you analyze the truth of things. Bhuta means reality or fact or truth. If you inquire into the
truth of things, nimittasya animitatvam - the so called external objects are really not external
objects at all. Which means external objects are really not there. When? When you inquire
into the truth.
What does it mean? Even though there seems to be external objects, the external objects do
not have an existence independent of the subject. Pot does not exist independnet of pot
consiousness. The truth of external objects is nothing but subject only. But It appears to be an
external object independently because of our bhrama or ignorance. Visvam darpana +
bahiriva. Prabodha samaye is bhuta darsnasat. The best example is dream. In dream we feel
that the whole world is existing out side me. They give varieties of sukham and duhkahm.
When he is seeing the dream does he feel the dream inside? No. Outside only. it is really there
outside capable of creating even reaction. Such reactions it can create that even after waking
up the padapadappu has not gone. On waking up we understand what was seen outside is
really happening not outside but it is myself. So too when we superficially see, world seems
to be outside caitanyam but on inquiry there is no external objects other than the caitanyam.
What caitanyam it is we will see later. The truth of objects are subject only.
Karika 26
ÊSÉkÉÆ xÉ ºÉÆº{ÉÞ¶ÉiªÉlÉÈ
xÉÉlÉÉÇ¦ÉÉºÉÆ iÉlÉè´É SÉ*
+¦ÉÚiÉÉä Ê½þ ªÉiÉ¶SÉÉlÉÉæ
xÉÉlÉÉÇ¦ÉÉºÉºiÉiÉ& {ÉÞlÉEÂò** 26**
ÊSÉkÉ¨ÉÂ +lÉÈ xÉ ºÉÆº{ÉÞ¶ÉÊiÉ* iÉlÉè´É
+lÉÉÇ¦ÉÉºÉÆ SÉ xÉ (ºÉÆº{ÉÞ¶ÉÊiÉ)* ªÉiÉ& Ê½þ
+lÉÇ& +¦ÉÚiÉ& (+ÎºiÉ)* +lÉÉÇ¦ÉÉºÉ& SÉ iÉiÉ&
{ÉÞlÉEÂò xÉ +ÎºiÉ** 26**
Same idea in different form. That there is no objective world different from the subject the
consciousness. There is no jada vastu other than the subject the cetana vastu. (Vijnana-
vyatirikta vishayam nasti they mahayanis say). How do you say jada vastu is not there.
Hinayani is counter questioning the mahayani. Every experience happens when the caitanyam
comes into contact with the external object. Nana chidra + When the caitanyam comes in
contact with table I get the table knowledge. Table is jadam and I am cetanam. And therefore
you should accept there is jada prapanca or world of objects and there is a cetana vastu
subject and subject comes into contact with objects and out of that interaction experience
comes.
Mahayani Yogacara answers :
He says it is not true. Cittam artham na samsprasti - Consciousness never comes in contact
with any object. The objective world may not exist separate from the subject. But why cannot
we say that there is unreal world and consciousness is coming into contact with an unreal
world. Tatha eva artha abhasam na samsprsati. An unreal object is called artha abhasam. It
does not come into contact with unreal object also. Consciousness has never a contact. Why?
The solid argument is that contact is possible only when there are two things. Kshnaika
Vijnana vadi argues rightly that there are no two things. Only subject consciousness alone is
there. When no two things how can there be a contact. Okay. An unreal world is a world
which does not exist independent of caitanyam. It will be like the water trying to contact the
wave. What you call wave is essentially water. Water and shore can come into contact.
Consciousness cannot contact either a real thing or an unreal thing. It is not separately there.
I do feel I am the subject and I am coming into contact with you. When I am contacting you I
have experience of pain and pleasure. How do you negate that? We say it is due to a bhrama.
It is exactly like dream. We are contacting people in the dream. In that transaction pain and
pleasure is there. But the fact is neither there is subject object duality nor is there subject
object contact. It is all avidya adhyastam. So just because you feel the experience it cannot be
proof of anything. Yatah arthah abhutah - arthah means an external object. Abhutah means
not at all there. Artha abhasah - what about it? Na artha abhasah tatah prthak, there is not
even an unreal object which is outside the subject. Here we have to carefully note - no
external object means external to what? From the standpoint of consciousness the subject, no
external object. External to body we are not discussing. Outside the body world is there or
not, is not the topic. Other than consciousness it is there or not is the topic. Tatah means
caitanyat prthak nasti. So no contact
Karika 27
ÊxÉÊ¨ÉkÉÆ xÉ ºÉnùÉ ÊSÉkÉÆ
ºÉÆº{ÉÞ¶ÉiªÉv´ÉºÉÖ ÊjÉ¹ÉÖ*
+ÊxÉÊ¨ÉkÉÉä Ê´É{ÉªÉÉÇºÉ& EòlÉÆ iÉºªÉ
ÊSÉkÉÆ ºÉnùÉ ÊjÉ¹ÉÖ +v´ÉºÉÖ ÊxÉÊ¨ÉkÉÆ xÉ
ºÉÆº{ÉÞ¶ÉÊiÉ* iÉºªÉ +ÊxÉÊ¨ÉkÉÉä Ê´É{ÉªÉÉÇºÉ&
EòlÉÆ ¦ÉÊ´É¹ªÉÊiÉ** 27**
Now you have to supply a question by the pruvapakshi. Hinayana matam who accept external
world. They ask : If you do not accept a real external world, how will you explain right
knowledge and wrong knowledge or differentiate between right and wrong knowledge? What
is right knowledge? Suppose I get a knowledge that there is a snake. Whether it is right or
wrong knowledge? You will look at that place and see that if the object that is there? If my
knowledge correspond to the object outside you say it is right knowledge. How do you define
a wrong knowledge. When the inside cognition and outside object do not tally. Inside I have
snake knowledge and outside rope is there, then it is wrong knowledge. To distinguish right
and wrong knowledge you depend on external object. If there is no external object at all you
cannot differentiate right and wrong knowledge. Either you have to say all knowledge is right
or all knowledge is wrong. What is prama and bhrama. Between yathartha and ayathartha
jnanam There is no external object at all. So wrong perception cannot be there at all.
Hinayani tells kshanika vadi. You cannot explain error.
Mahanyani is answering that. First part of it he agrees. He says right and wrong knowledge
cannot be based upon external object at all because external object is not there. AN object is
wrongly perceived in error you cannot say. An object is wrongly perceived in error we
generally say. Cittam trishu adhvasu + Cittam is consciousness here. This vijnanam does
not contact nimittam. Here nimittam means external object. In all the three periods of times
cittam does not contact. that being so how can you talk about wrong perception of objects.
When object itself is not. there is no question of rightly perceiving and wrongly perceiving.
How can there be viparyasah - an erroneous perception. Tasya caitanyasya. When there is no
nimittah for that consciousness. Nimittam means object. So I need not explain how erroneous
perception takes place. A note is that if at all there is an error thinking that there is external
object is alone error. Not wrong perception of external object is error. There is no external
object other than you the vijnanam. All these things are close to advaitam. naiva bhavishyati.
So there is nothing called wrong perception.
Now he concludes the arguments in the next sloka.
Karika 28
iÉº¨ÉÉzÉ VÉÉªÉiÉä ÊSÉkÉÆ ÊSÉkÉoù¶ªÉÆ
xÉ VÉ÷ÉªÉiÉä*
iÉºªÉ {É¶ªÉÎxiÉ ªÉä VÉÉËiÉ JÉä ´Éè
{É¶ªÉÎxiÉ iÉä {Énù¨ÉÂ**28
iÉº¨ÉÉiÉÂ (ªÉlÉÉ) ÊSÉkÉoù¶ªÉÆ xÉ VÉÉªÉiÉä
(iÉlÉÉ) ÊSÉkÉÆ xÉ VÉ÷ÉªÉiÉä* ªÉä iÉºªÉ VÉÉËiÉ
{É¶ªÉÎxiÉ iÉä ´Éè JÉä {ÉnùÆ {É¶ªÉÎxiÉ ** 28
Gaudapada concludes the Hinayana Mata khandanam. He says : Therefore Tasmat. Citta
dryam take it first. na jayate. Citta drsyam means an object of consciousness. Object of
consciousness is not born. Why? Because there is no object of consciousness. Because object
does not exist different from the subject. If no object at all can I accept its birth? I have no
child he says. Can you ask what is his star. Jatih means janma. Tasya jatih katham bhavati. So
no citta drasya jatih na. So Gaudapada’s ajati vada stays. Khandanam of his vada is
establishment of our vada. When we discuss something, we should constantly ask what is the
prayojanam by this for our main topic. Hianayana is condemned so what? The prayojanam is
therefore ajati vada is sadhu. Drsyam nasti - hinayana mata khandanam. So it is not born and
so my ajati vada alone is correct.
Next is what? Yogacara we have to deal. We are parting with him also. Drsyam na jayate is
hinayana mata condemnation. Tasmat cittam na jayate - this is negation of kshanika vijnana
vada. How? Why it is negated. Both we have to say. Why should we negate him? He has
helped us so much. Kicking him unceremoniously is not proper. You should have some
gratitude. No. It also disturbs our siddhanta. it is an obstacle for ajati vada. Yocagacara is
obstacle because for him citta drsyam na jayate. Cittam alone is. But cittam jayate.
Consciousness is born. It is kshanikam. Means what? Means it is born. Previous is gone and
new one is born. That also is gone. Vijnanam will have jati. So we say cittam api na jayate.
We have to negate citta jati also. CIttam is nitya vijanam. In all three periods of time nitya
caitanya.
What is the argument for negating citta jati? We have to give arguments. Second chapter of
Brahmasutram is meant for that.
1) He says subject consciousness is kshanikam. How do you know it is kshanikam. It is
coming and going. One who knows the changes must be the witness of the changes and not
involved in the changes. Witness must be permanent and not kshanikam. I know previously
that pot jnanam and now vriksha jnanam. It is noted by witness who is nitya jnanam. It is
atma, the subject. So we say we have two types of jnanam. One is nitya jnanam I the subject
and the other is vritti jnanam which is objective knowledge. Vritti jnanam is anityam. Vritti
jnanam is formed whenever an object comes. Vritti is thought mode in the mind Thought is
jadam by itself. The nitya jnanam gets reflected in the thought and therefore there is vritti and
cidabhasa. This is what we call vritti jnanam. Another vritti comes and goes. Vrtti jnanam
comes and goes as even vritti comes and goes. Cittam is always there. Yogacara is not able to
differentiate vritti jnanam and svarupa jnanam. The main argument against them is that to
know the kshanika vijnanam we require nitya vijnanam.
2) If the subject is changing consciousness, yesterday the subject will be one. The previous
moment there will be one subject experiencing pot and next moment the subject is different
experiencing now tree. the new subject cannot remember the previous experience because to
remember the rememberer and the experiencer must be one and the same. I was not there in
the previous moment. I will not be there in the next moment. Smrityanupapattih.
With the help of Kshanika vada hinayana was dismissed. No object other than object jnanam
like elephant etc are not other than vijnanam. So for kshanika vadi waking is like dream. That
also we dismiss because jnanam is born and gone for them. Citta drsyam na jayate is hinayana
is out. Cittam na jayate is mahayana out.
In the second line he does parihasa. If you go on saying there is jati birth of objects and so on,
it will be like seeing the foot prints of a bird in the sky. Ye tasya jatim pasyanti - whichever
philosopher sees the origination of that, that means the birth of either citta drasyam or cittam,
they see the foot prints of a bird in sky. Bird is better. They require treatment of mental eyes
called Kilpauk treatment, correction in their thinking. Advaitam alone is left out.
Karika 29
+VÉÉiÉÆ VÉÉªÉiÉä ªÉº¨ÉÉnÂù +VÉÉÊiÉ& |
ÉEÞòÊiÉºiÉiÉ&*
|ÉEÞòiÉä®úxªÉlÉÉ¦ÉÉ´É& xÉ EòlÉÆÊSÉnÂù
+VÉÉiÉÆ VÉÉªÉiÉä (<ÊiÉ ´ÉÉÊnùxÉ&
Eò±{ÉªÉÎxiÉ) ªÉº¨ÉÉnÂù +VÉÉÊiÉ& (¥ÉÀhÉ&) |
ÉEÞòÊiÉ& (¦É´ÉÊiÉ) iÉiÉ& |ÉEÞòiÉä®úxªÉlÉÉ¦ÉÉ´É&
EòlÉÆÊSÉnÂù xÉ ¦ÉÊ´É¹ªÉÊiÉ** 29**
Having dismissed all the pruvapakshis until now, from this sloka onwards Acahrya comes to
siddhanta. Our teaching. He is reiterating what is our darsanam is. It is necessary because we
discussed many darasanasm. So one may miss what is our teaching. Perception of world if it
is there is due to error of Brahman misunderstood.
That he puts in different language so that it is well assimilated. The sloka says Ajatam jayate
- Others say ajatam is born. Then they are contradicting themselves. Their idea is like that.
How does it come? Because they all say that mula karanam is infinite and birthless. Whether
it is nayyayika or anybody - they all say Lord is changeless. Sankhay will say pradhanam.
Mula karanam is changeless. If so, then nothing can come out it. So ajatam has to be
akaranam. So jayate cannot go with it. World cannot come out anything.
Why it is contradiction. He says yasmat ajatih prakritih. They all accept birhtlessness is the
very nature of the mula karanam. Prakritih is nature here. Svabhavah or innate nature or
svarupam. Once it is changeless, then can it produce a world? It is not possible because to
produce a world it has to undergo a change. It is a famous line which we have seen before.
Prakrteh anyatha bhavah + Innate nature like heat of fire. Fire never gives up its nature.
Fire may gives itself up. A changing thing will always be changing. Changeless can always be
changeless. Changing cannot become changeless and vice versa. But they contradict this
statement. One part of Lord became the world. One part is changeless and other parts are
changing. Imagine one part of your body remains same and other parts growing. Leg remains
same and other parts normal growth.
Karika 30
+xÉÉnäù®úxiÉ´Éi´ÉÆ SÉ ºÉÆºÉÉ®úºªÉ xÉ
ºÉäiºªÉÊiÉ*
+xÉxiÉiÉÉ SÉÉÊnù¨ÉiÉÉä ¨ÉÉäIÉºªÉ xÉ ¦ÉÊ
´É¹ªÉÊiÉ** 30**
+xÉÉnäù& ºÉÆºÉÉ®úºªÉ SÉ +úxiÉ´Éi´ÉÆ xÉ
ºÉäiºªÉÊiÉ* +ÉÊnù¨ÉiÉÉä ¨ÉÉäIÉºªÉ SÉ +xÉxiÉiÉÉ
xÉ ¦ÉÊ´É¹ªÉÊiÉ** 30**
Another important argument. We say samsara is due to duality. When there is duality there is
limitations and due to limitation there is mortality. Dvatia rupa samsara is not at all there in
the atma. Others say duality is real and so samsara is real. If you say dvaitam has really come,
has it got a beginning or not? He can give the answer that it is beginningless. If there is a
beginning we will ask further questions. Then we will ask what is the cause of it? So it is
anadih. Whatever is anadih will be anantam logically. This is unshaken principle. That is why
we say Brahman is anadi and so it is anantam also. If dvaitam and samsara are there from
beginningless time then there is no hope of removing samsara. All sadhanams for moskha or
samsara nivrtti. But if you say it is anadi then how can it be removed. Anadeh antavatvam
na setsyati - samsara which is anadi cannot have an end. It is called anirmoskha prasanga
doshah.
To avoid this he has to say samsara has a beginning. Of course we can put him into trouble by
asking umpteen questions. Who decided the basis of first birth and so on. We assume that
samara has beginning. Then he can say this samsara has beginning and so it will end. Anadi
will not go. It is ended by doing spiritual sadhanam and grace of lord. Acharya says it is all
nice to hear. Avicarita ramaniyam. Without thinking it is fine. If you think you will have
worse problems. Samsara went away by sadhanam. When all these ended moksha came into
being. Moksha has a beginning. Moksha cannot be there when limited body etc are real. If
moksha has a beginning that moksha will come to an end. Adimatah mokshasya a moksha
which has a beginning, anantata na bhavishayti. It cannot be eternal. Moksha cannot be
accepted as let it be not eternal. No one like moksha to be non eternal.
What do we say? We say samsara is anadi. What we mean by it is that we cannot talk about a
beginning of it because it is not at all there. We do not say it is there from anadi kalam. It is a
confusion. So we temporarily say it is there from anadi kalam. It is really meaning that it isn’t
there and so we cannot talk about a beginning. Anadi is a temporary expression. One whose
beginning cannot be talked about is called anadi. When jnanam comes we do not say samsara
goes away. If I say so, then I will be accepting that it was there until now. Then he can counter
question me. By jannam samsara goes away means you understand that there was no samara
to go away. Samsara is anadi. Second statement is samsara goes away on jnanam. For both
these statements it has a special meaning as above. So no logical defect. Moskha does not
begin for us. By jnanam I understand that I was muktah even before. I thought I was bound
and now I know I am not bound at any time.
Karika 31 & 32
+ÉnùÉ´ÉxiÉä SÉ ªÉzÉÉÎºiÉ
´ÉkÉÇ¨ÉÉxÉä%Ê{É iÉkÉlÉÉ*
Ê´ÉiÉlÉè& ºÉoù¶ÉÉ ºÉxiÉ& +Ê´ÉiÉlÉÉ <´É
™ôÊIÉiÉÉ&** 2.6
ºÉ|ÉªÉÉäVÉxÉiÉÉ iÉä¹ÉÉÆ º´É{xÉä Ê´É|
ÉÊiÉ{ÉtiÉä*
iÉº¨ÉÉnùÉtxiÉ´Éi´ÉäxÉ Ê¨ÉlªÉèä´É JÉ±ÉÖ
iÉä º¨ÉÞiÉÉ&** 2.7
Gaudapada has not changed even a word. It is repeated here. The content is clear. hat which
was not there and will not be there alter is not there in the middle also. In between we say pot
is there. He says in between also clay alone. You call by the name pot. You have changed the
name only. So too Brahman alone. From the Brahman whose nature is changelessness no
creation can come at all. Previously also there was Brahman alone. Later also Brahman only.
IN he middle also Brahman alone is. No such thing called world. World is not a new
substance born. Experience does not prove the world. It is only Brahman misunderstood. It is
due to mistake.
In the next sloka if you say pot is not there how is it that it is useful in the middle. Utility does
not prove reality. Pot is useful alright. That does not mean there is substance called pot. Nama
rupa kriya is not existing different form the clay. Exactly in sleep. Svapna padartha is useful
in dream. That does not mean it is really there.
Karika 33
ºÉ´Éæ vÉ¨ÉÉÇ ¨ÉÞ¹ÉÉ º´É{Éîä
EòÉªÉºªÉÉxiÉÌxÉnù¶ÉÇxÉÉiÉÂ*
ºÉÆ´ÉÞiÉä%Îº¨ÉxÉÂ |Énäù¶Éä ´Éè
¦ÉÚiÉÉxÉÉÆ nù¶ÉÇxÉÆ EÖòiÉ&** 33
º´É{Éîä ºÉ´Éæ vÉ¨ÉÉÇ
EòÉªÉºªÉÉxiÉÌxÉnù¶ÉÇxÉÉiÉÂ ¨ÉÞ¹ÉÉ (¦É´ÉÎxiÉ)*
ºÉÆ´ÉÞiÉä +Îº¨ÉxÉÂ |Énäù¶Éä ´Éè ¦ÉÚiÉÉxÉÉÆ
nù¶ÉÇxÉÆ EÖòiÉ&** 33
From 29th Acharya was talking about the ajati vada. Acharya does not say that he is not
accepting vyavaharika world. He only says logically the birth etc of the world cannot be
discussed. Saprayojanata also is there. He accepts that. If somebody accepts a real world, then
we will ask him questions to get logical answer. He cannot answer. We have already seen. We
have to ask them to prove the world before we can answer later questions. Like pot cannot be
proved world cannot be proved. So for practical purposes we can accept the world and
function on the basis of some working knowledge like karma etc. For fundamental questions
negate the world.
The ideas of these two slokas we have already seen in Vaithatya prakaranam first and second
slokas. There he began the chapter by proving that svapna is false. For that he gave sruti,
yukti, anubahva. Later he took svapna as example and with that he showed that jagrat also is
as false as svapna. He gave the logic for proving svapna as false. He gave two reasons for that
1) ucita desa abhavat svapna padarthas are false. Required space is not there. Because the
whole dream world is in your head. In that limited place seeing big mountains and rivers etc
are impossible. Still we have svapna world there. Vaithatyam sarva bhavanam svapna ahur
manishinah. Same idea here also.
Sarve dharmah - all dharmas are referring to jivas and objects and they are all false in
dream. Kayasya + They are seen inside the body. within the body. Antasthanat tu bahvanam
he said there. Words are different but idea is same. Asminin samvrte pradese - In this
limited space how can there be experience of all things and beings? Darsanam is
experience. It is not possible. Still we experience. So it must be false. So any object can exist
only within a required place or space. If an object exists without required space that object
must be false. This is law.
In the second sloka he gives another reasoning.
xÉ ªÉÖHÆò nù¶ÉÇxÉÆ MÉi´ÉÉ
EòÉ™ºªÉÉÊxÉªÉ¨ÉÉnÂù MÉiÉÉè*
|ÉÊiÉ¤ÉÖþrùÉ ´Éè ºÉ´ÉÇ& iÉÎº¨ÉxÉÂ
näù¶Éä xÉ Ê´ÉtiÉä** 34
MÉiÉÉè EòÉ™ºªÉÉÊxÉªÉ¨ÉÉnÂù MÉi´ÉÉ nù¶ÉÇxÉÆ
ªÉÖHÆò xÉ (¦É´ÉÊiÉ)* |ÉÊiÉ¤ÉÖþrùÉ ´Éè ºÉ´ÉÇ&
iÉÎº¨ÉxÉÂ näù¶Éä xÉ Ê´ÉtiÉä** 34
2) The second reason is that ucita kala abhavat svapna padartha is mithya. It is second sloka
there. Adirgatvacca kalasya gatva desan na pasyati. Here kalasya aniyamat. Required time is
not there. So gatva darsanam na yuktam. If you experience Bombay it cannot be real
Bombay. It is not logical. You do not have money to fly to Bombay. Joining together we get
svapna padartha are mithya ucita kala desa abhavat. This is logic. In the second line he gives
anubhava also. Anubhava is our own experience disproves or negates dream. Prati buddhasca
vai sarvah. When we wake up in the middle of Bombay visit. Where do we get up? We do not
get up in Bombay. He does not exist in that place. He does not find himself in the dream place
when he wakes up in the middle of dream. This second lien is same there also.
That means svapna is mithjya. There sruti also was given. Abhavasca rathatinam sruyate
nyaya purvakam. Here it is not given.
Karika 35
Mitradyaih saha sammantrya sambuddho na prapadyate
grhitam capi yatkincit pratibuddho na pasyati
This is not repetition. Fresh idea only. It is more explanation of anubhava pramanam. In the
previous sloka he said your experience also proves dream is false. That verse he is explaining
more elaborately. You may be conversing with your friend. In the middle of your conversation
if you wake up you do not find any of the friends around. Not only that. Suppose they gave
some gift and you wake up. What happens. The gift also has gone.
Mitradyaih saha sammantrya - Having conversed with friends and relatives. Na
prapadyate - He does not find them. Sambuddhah menas prabuddhah meaning after waking
up. After waking up he does not find friends etc with whom he had a conversation. Not only
that. Yat kincit grihitam - whatever he has received from those people tadapi pratibuddhah
na pasyati - he does not see after waking up. So it is clear that gift also is false gift. Friends
who gave the gift also is false. My receiving also is false. They talk of svpana mithyatvam.
We have to extend to jagrat also which will come later.
Karika 36
Svapne ca vastukah kayah prtaganyasya darsanat
yatha kayas tatha sarvam cittadrsyam avastukam
Until now he dismissed everything in dream. Different places are false due to ucitadesa
abhavat. Friends are false. Gift is false. At least the body that received the gift should not be
false. Our body continues to be there even after waking up. So desa and kala and vastus go
sway. But since body continues can we accept body as real. I had a body in dream and it is
there even after waking up. Achayra say - think very carefully. In dream you had a body but
that body is different from the waking body. Our experience after waking up is that the jagrat
body is different from svapna sariram with which I did all vyahavara during dream. How do
you know it? We can give any number of examples. After long running I wake up. Should I
need rest after waking up. I am gasping in dream. Leg pain is there. But waking up you do not
find it. Because running was done by dream body. Waking body did not move an inch because
bed itself is two and a half feet. I would have fallen had I moved. By experience shows that
my sense organs and body in dream are different. So what? Let there be two bodies. I have
different bodies like dresses in wardrobe. No. One cannot have more than one body. So one
must be false. Svapna sariam is mithya. Anaysya jagrat sarirasya darsanat -
Svapne in svapna. Kayah the body. Avastukakh meaning mithya. Why? Prthak anyasya
darsanat. On waking up I see a body which is other than dream body. Anyasya jagrat
sarirasya darsanat. What type of jagrat sariram? Prthak means different. Different from dream
body. Upto this is the svapna prapanca. Second line is extending it to jagrat sariram. Our
svapna experience points out that every thing we experience is mithya. The body is mithya
which contact the world. The world that is contacted also is mithya. Grahakah mithya and
grahyam is mithya. Touching body is false and touched body is false. Whatever I experience
in dream which is in the form of subject object duality is mithya. Both are experienced by me
the caitanyam. At the time of dream I never understood that it is mithya. During dream it was
taken as solidly real. We are experiencing similar duality during waking also. In the waking
also we are experiencing this duality. There is a body which is grahakam and there is a world
which is grahyam. The transactions between them also is mithya. How do we look upon this
duality. It is real. So just as dream body has made waking body unreal, so too jagrat body has
made even paramarthika advaitam unreal during waking state. On waking up the waking
sariram also is an experienced object. World also is caitnayam drsyam. So in svapna both
objects as well as body both are false. So svapna prapanca is false means svapna body also is
false.
I am emphasizing this because we want to take bodies real and the world as false. World is
unreal means how come it is disturbing the body. Since it is disturbing the body it must be
real. No, body also is unreal. Like wound in body is as unreal as svpana knife. So to make the
world unreal put the body also in the world first. Not by hand. Understand. So whatever is an
obejct of experience is false. Cittadrsyam avastukam. Here citta is not mind division. It is
ciatnayam. Yatha kayah like the dream body. Tatha sarvam + Everything which is
experienced by you is avastukam Is unreal. If lord gave darsanm his form is also unreal.
Came and went. If so there is no reality at all. No. There is one thing which is not drasyam. It
is citttam.
Everything else is object of caitanyam. Only I is not object of caitanyam. I the experiencer is
not mithya. I am satyam. Now what about Isvara? Is he satyam or mithya. We have to ask him
what is the definition of isvara? Is he drsyam or he is you yourself the cittam. If he is none
other than I the caitanyam he is satyam. Otherwise he is mithya as drsyam. So we say that
isvara as understood by other darsanakaras is mithya. So acharya makes the bold statement
here that drsyam is avastu and drik is satyam. It is not arrogance. If it is so Upanishad will not
teach it. It says mayyeva sakalam jatam etc. When Sruti talks of amanitvam it cannot teach
this. It is arrogance if I identify with body and say this it is arrogance.
Karika 37
Following the method of vaithatya prakaranam he establishes jagaritam is mithya like
svapnam. Both are mithya due to one reason. It is citta drsyatvat. Suppose someone argues
that how do you say it is false? I have strong feeling it is real. You had the same feeling in
dream also. There you felt I am the subject pointing out the dream body. Looking at the world
You said it is object. The transaction were very real. So grahya grahaka dvaitam appears real
in that particular state. Both are false because both are drsyam. This drsyatvat reason was
mentioned in vaithatya prakaranam as prasiddhena hetuna.
Grahanat jagaritavat tadhetuh svapna ishyate
tadhetutvat tu tasyaiva sanjagaritam ishyate
In the following three slokas a particular purva paksha is considered and negated. His
intention is not mentioned. The answer is given. The question we have to make it. He says
that jagaritam is the cause and svapnam is the effect. Basing on this point he wants to prove
that jagaritam is satyam. Dream may be unreal, I accept. But the dream experiences are
possible only if we have corresponding waking experiences and that waking experience must
be real only. Visihtadvatins and dvatins give this example. When we say a false snake is seen,
he will ask this question - if you have experienced a false snake, then you must have
experienced real snake. If he has not experienced real snake at all how can he say false snake.
So any false superimposition requires the experience of a real vastu. Satya vastunah
anubahvam vina mithya adhyasa is not possible. If you say the image in the mirror is mithya
unreal, an unreal mirror image requires a real person in front of the mirror. So cause must be
real and extending the same argument they say svapna objects may be my projections but if
there must be a false dream there must be a cause for that and that cause must be real which
obtains in waking.
Siddhatin will approach in two different ways. In one answer he is going to accept the cause
and effect relationship between jagrat and svapnam. And after accepting this relationship he
says that just because waking is cause of the dream it does not mean waking is real. On the
other hand I can argue because it is cause of dream so it must be exactly like dream. So if
dream is false and its cause is waking then both must be similar. Like a human child will have
human father and animal child will have animal father and so too mithya dream will have
what? Mithya father and so waking also is false. From one unreal experience you can
superimpose another unreal experience. This is first argument.
The second approach will be this. We will dismiss the karya akrana sambandha itself
between jagrat and svapnam. Of these two the first we will see in this sloka.
Why do you say jagrat is karanam and svapnam is karyam? Because of the similarity between
both. If you experienced varieties of objets in waking same are there in dream also. In jagrat
grahya grahaka dvaitam is experienced. In svapnam also it is so. So we say it is cause and that
is effect.
Jagaritvat grahanat - grahanam means experience. Not eclipse. Like what? Like waking.
Because of an experience which is similar to jagrat avastha. The similarity is grahya grahaka
dvaitam. Jagaritavat grahanat Svapna is considered to be the effect of jagartiam. Tad hetuh
means tad jagartiam hetuh yasya sah. Final meaning is tat karyam or jagartiasya karyam
svapnah. Because it is the hetu the cause, that also must have grahyaa grahaka dvaitam which
are both citta drsyam. My argument is whatever is citta drysam tat tat mtihya. Jagaritam may
be cause and svapanm is karyam. But both are citta drsyam. So drsyatvat both are mithya.
Mithya karanam has produced mithya karyam. You have not improved the situation. Earlier I
said both are mithya. Now you add one is karanam and another is karyam. So I will say
karanam is mithya and karyam is also mithya. You cannot say jagaritam is not citta drsyam.
Because svapnam is karyam and jagaritam is karanam. On what basis you say this? It is due
to similarity. It is ghrahya grahaka dviatam. The very same similarity is dis-advantageous for
you because I will use it for saying both are mithya. Both are grahya grahaka rupam and so
one is cause and another is effect. We say that is why both are mthya. tad hetutvat - because
svapnam is jagarita karyam and so tasya eva sat jagaritam ishayte. So jagaritam is
considered real only for the perceiver of the jagaritam. Since svapnam is real only for the
dreamer. So too jagartiam also is real only for the perceiver of jagaritam. That means it is
mithya. Tasya eva drashtuh eva. He feels it is real. But it is not real at all. The translation is it
is false. If real only for him means what. That it is false.
This is first type of argument where jagarita svapna accepted as having cause and effect
relationship. In the nest this relationship itself is negated.
karika 38
Utpadsya aprasiddhatvat ajam sarvam udahrtam
na ca bhutat abhutasya smabhavosti kathamcana
Here he says that all ready by dismissing satkaryvada and asatkaryvada and mahayana and
hinayana I have elaborately established that sarvam ajam and there is no karya karana bahva
anywhere. Karya karana bahva means karyam is born out of karanam. Something is born of
something else. It is called janma. Only in jati vada or srishti vada that relationship is
possible. Even in Vedas srishti is talked as a temporary device for teaching. So we have
apavada after adhyaropa. Upayah sah + The same argument holds good for svapna jagarita
karya karana bahva also. The argument is is jagaritam sat or asat? Svapnam is sat or asat? We
have seen from sat sat cannot be born and from asat also sat cannot be born. So svapnam
whether you call it sat or asat or sadasat it cannot be born.
Utpadsya aprasidhatvat - not proved or established is aprasiddhatvam. You have not at all
proved creation. So sarvam ajam udahritam. So everything is considered ajam Brahman.
previously ajam Brahman and now also it is and later also it will be. Brahman misunderstood
is world. World is another name for Brahman. Udahritam means I have already told this that
Brahman is ajati. Of these four possibilities are there. Karya karana bahva is possible among
four pairs. Sat karanam and sat karyam. Asat karanam and asat karyam. Karyam asat and
karanam asat. Karanam asat and karyam sat. In 40th sloka he will talk. In which category
jargat and svapna are there. If jagaritam is sat because elephant is there really and in svapna
things are not there and so it is asat. For visishtadvaitns dream also is real. So from sat
karanam asat karyam is born. This is purva pakshi. That is negated here. Na hi bhutat
abhutsya sambahvah asti. how can an asat svpana be born of sat jagrat. never. Asat cannot
be born of sat. Why? It is asat. You say it is not and say it is born. So the sambandha is not
possible of cause and effect between them. Since jagrat is karanam and so it is real you said.
We say it is not karanam.
Karika 39
Asat jagarite drshtva svapne pasyati tanmayah
Asat svapne api drshtva ca pratibuddho na pasyati
Purva pakshi is confused. He asks then how do you explain both jagaritam and svanpa.
Whatever I say you say it is wrong. If you are not able to explain I will tell you all that.
Svapnam is not born of jagrat. Here you have to see some practical points also. Whenever we
talk of karya and karana they must belong to same time order. If you sow seed in dream then
you can talk of that seed growing into svapna tree. So too waking seed and tree. So you
cannot expect to sow seed in dream and look for its growth in waking avastha., So kala series
is different. This is practical argument. Cause and effect requires same time series. Why do
we feel the cause and effect relationship between them. Waking experience alone is the cause
for dream. No. It is not exactly cause and effect relationship. Jagrat avastha gives you some
samskaras. Jagrat does not produce svapnam. The samskaras produce dream experience. Not
jagrat directly but through samskaras. So not direct cause and effect relationship. This is first
point. The second point is that just because waking produces samskaras do not think that it is
real. The mithya jagrat avasatha produces some samskaras in the mind and those produce
another mithya svapnah. Both are mithya because both are drsyam.
Secondly jagrat appears real in jagrat avastha and so too dream in dream avastha. In their
respective states they appear real. Suppose a magician produces unreal ghost. The vision he
creates. the existence he (the ghost) has in the magic show is unreal. One may have samskaras
of it. He can see ghost in dream. A false ghost created a false svapna ghost. Mithya jagrat
produces samskaras which produces mithya svapnam
Jagarite asat drshtva - (He is explaining svapnam) during waking state he experiences asat
padartham drshtva - seeing mithya world. It appears real in that avastha. Then what happens.
Tanmayah bhavati means tat samsaskra yuktah bahvati. he is full of those experiences in the
form of samskaras. He did like that he did like that iti. He becomes frustration personified.
Svapne pasyati - with those vasanas he sees in dream. He sees asat mithya vastu only. Asat
pasyati iti we have to supply. How do you know it is asat? Nobody says svapnam is unreal.
Svapne asat drshtva pratibuddhah na pasyati - having seen mithya vastu in dream he does
not see that on waking up. Though it appeared real we call it mithya because it is not there on
waking up. In spite of Utility it is mtihya. In the same way it is in jagrat also. Though useful
etc. Pratibuddhah na pasyati. Meaning on gaining knowledge. You need not even gain
knowledge. You need to go to sleep only. Then jagrat is gone. How can such a jagrat be taken
as real. it has only one third of existence. Reality is that which is all three periods for time.
He is frightened because Vedanta breaks all securities born of contacts or relationship. Fear of
sanyasa is fear of Vedanta or Brahman. No medicalim and insurance claim or any such thing.
Unreal jagrat prapanca created by maya and unreal svapna prapanca crated by sleep. To put it
differently unreal jagrat prapanca created by or caused by samashti ajnanam and unreal
svapanm is caused by vyashti ajnanam. One is isvara srishti and another is jiva srishti. But
the point is both are unreal. You can give any name. Asat in these karikas should be
understood as mithya
Karika 40
nastyasat hetukam asat satasaddhetukam tatha
sacca saddhetukam nasti saddhetukam asat kutah
Here praudha vada is adopted. Praudha vada is answer from ultimate angle. That is dismissing
karya karna bahva. That is clarified here. There are only four possibilities are there as said
earlier. All of them are illogical. It was discussed in 22.
Asat-hetukam asat Nasti - karanam is asat and karyam also is asat. Both are not there and so
where is sambandha. So evidently not possible. It is like akasa pushpa created by vandhya
putrah.
Sat asat-hetukam tatha - in this karanam is asat and karyam is sad. If that is possible you
can produce lot of food without raw material. You do not require any cause. Is it possible? No
logic is required for these tings.
Sat sat-hetukam nasti - In this both are sat. From existent karanam existent karyam can
come like from clay pot can be born. Our answer is we can never say that because pot and
clay are not two different things at all. They are as though two different things. So no karya
karana bahva possible.
Asat sat-hetukam kutah - Here karyam is asat and karanam is sat. That also we cannot say
as karyam is asat and how can it be born?
Can you think of fifth possibility? No. So you have to extend it to jagrat and svapna. The
discussion is these two things. There cannot be karya karana bahva between them. Previously
the context was Isvara and world. Here the same idea discussed between jagrat and svapnam.
Karika 41
viparyasat yatha jagrat acintyam bhutavat sprset
tatha svapne viparyasat dharman tatra eva pasyati
The sambandha is again negated from another angle. Any connection requires two
independent things. If two independent things are not established you cannot talk of it. For
example you can talk about sambandha between a chair and the earth. Chair is supported by
earth. They have adhara adheya sambandha. Suppose you want to talk of sambandha between
chair and wood, you cannot do so because chair is another word for wood itself in a particular
shape. New word does not mean new substance. At the same time I cannot negate that there is
something called chair which is useful. Wood is not useful but chair is useful. Because of this
you cannot say that chair etc are totally identical with wood. Because chair has utility. So
from the standpoint of name and form both exist separately. In essence they do not exist
separately. So very difficult to say whether chair is separate from wood. Neither identical nor
separate. They are called anirvacaniyam or mithya. So all karyam are acintyam. Karyam has
some functions which karanam cannot do. So not identical. Existence wise it has not separate
existence. So you cannot talk of any sambandha between them clearly as we need two
independent things.
Svapne dharman pasyati - In dream dreamer sees varieties of objects. He seems to contact
those objects and they seem to be solidly present. But this contact or relationship is because of
viparyasa or error or bhrama. Viparyasa is wrong perception. Ulta perception. Like what?
Yatha jagrat. Jagrat means jagrati. In waking state acintyan sprset. Acintyasm is mithya
vastu. Literally it means it is not catagorisable or explainable. Like he contacts them as
though they are really existent. Just as a person sees an apparent snake, mirage water etc as
though they are real. It is due to confusion. At the time of perception he does not look at them
as error. All adhyasas are anirvacaniyam. You cannot say they are bhinna or abhinna with
adhishtanam. Adhyasa is taken as example in the firs instance. So too in svapnam objects are
as though there and not really there. To sum up it means svapna vastu is really not there like
rajju sarpah. Only that much is said. So what do you get out this? If there is such a thing
called svapna vastu then you can talk of karanam of svapnam and that is jagrat and that is
real. Since it is not there how can you talk of svapna’s karanam. It is seen in 38 th karika
second line. Dharma means any object. Acintyah means unreal o rmithya. Bhuta is satyam. he
ses mithya vastu as satyam.
karika 42
Upalambat samacarat asti vastutva vadinam
jatis tu desita buddhaih ajatestrasatam sada
So karya karana bahva is not possible. If a person is not ready to understand this, for him that
bahva is there temporality. Ultimate view is that it is not there. If there is difficulty in
understanding this then we accept temporarily. Al the time we have been dealing with karya
karna bahva only. Cooking, eating etc the whole life is based on this bhava. So karya karana
samskara is so strong in our mind. So adviatam becomes difficult. It is called hetu phala
avesa. Avesa is over powering. Not only in this janma we connect but we connect to purva
karmas also. So Vedanta to get the confidence of students says clay is karanam and pot is
karyam. So we also accept it like asadu.
Astivastutva vadinam - the beginners of Vedanta are called asti vastutva vadi. They say all
objects are there. Jivas, karmas etc are there. They have a logic for their vada. It is
upalambat. The objects are experienced. Second logic is that samacarat. It is orderly
behavior. There is a niyati in the world. It is logical harmonious set up. So how can you say it
is not there. Acarah is behavior. Sam means not chaotic. So they say world is there. There is
another strong reason also. From this person’s desire also he would prefer to have a world. it
is convenient and preferable to accept a world. He does not want to prefer a nondual
Brahman. So ajateh trasatam - who are frightened of ajati vada. Between adivatam and
dvaitam what you want? Everyone say I want dviatam only. All the so called joys he
experienced through dviatam only. We want relationship all the time. Breaking all the
relationships is not a joke. I have to retain my individuality. I like that very much. I like my
ahankara. This is another force. Love for relationship, individuality and personal god all of
them to be retained requires relationship. Relationship requires dviatam. This is greatest
obstacle to advaitam. For such a person when he comes to adviatin, he is not angry with him.
He sees he is not ready for gaining the knowledge. With them you have to do what? Vedanta
cannot dismiss them. They say let there be a world and let there be god and let there be you.
Let you be his devotee. Let there be karya karana sambandha. In due course you will get
maturity and afterwards you will understand. So jati vadah is accepted until then. So buddhaih
jati desita. So creation is taught or karya karana bahva is taught by wise persons. For whom?
Astivastutva vadianam.
Karika 43
+VÉÉiÉäºjÉºÉiÉÉÆ iÉä¹ÉÉ¨ÉÂ
={É±É¨¦ÉÉnÂù Ê´ÉªÉÎxiÉ ªÉä*
VÉÉÊiÉnùÉä¹ÉÉ xÉ ºÉäiºªÉÎxiÉ
nùÉä¹ÉÉä%{ªÉ±{ÉÉä ¦ÉÊ´É¹ªÉÊiÉ** 43
={É±É¨¦ÉÉnÂù ªÉä Ê´ÉªÉÎxiÉ iÉä¹ÉÉ¨ÉÂ
+VÉÉiÉäºjÉºÉiÉÉÆ VÉÉÊiÉnùÉä¹ÉÉ xÉ ºÉäiºªÉÎxiÉ*
nùÉä¹ÉÉä%{ªÉ±{ÉÉä ¦ÉÊ´É¹ªÉÊiÉ** 43
What type of people they are ? Immature. They see insecurity in Brahman or asangatvam.
Sanyasa or Brahman is meant for security. They see insecurity in security. abhaye bhaya
darsinah.
Ajateh trasatam - they are terribly frightened of ajati Brahman. Why they are against
advatiam? Upalambat viyanti. They disagree or differ from advaitam. Vi yanti means
viruddham gacchanti. They have divergent view. why do they have it. Upalambat - because
they go by their anubhava or experience. Their experience shows dviatam. They are not subtle
enough or sharp enough to understand sastram or go by logic. So they differ from advaitam.
They are frightened. For them advatiam cannot be taught. So jati vada is taught in the
Upanishad itself.
If sastram teaches srishti for such students will he not get wrong knowledge. Will he not get
perpetuated in dvaitam and samsara. No. Since dvaitam is taught temporarily there will not be
much damage. It is like doctor wishing the wound and causing pain. It is meant to cure the
disease. So jatidoshah na setsyanti - the defects of dvaitam will not come if it is temporarily
accepted as taught by sastram. Jati is srishti or dviatam.
Even if temporary dviatam is accepted, will that not cause temporary samsara or dukham. It
will not be too much. The dosha is very little or alpah. Sastra dvaitam will cause less problem
than our dviatam. When sastram teaches dvaitam it knows that there are certain problems and
so it prescribes some parihara. They are dharma and isvara bhakti and are temporary solutions
to dviata caused problems. So do not go by purely artha and kama. These two will give
maturity and we understand from that maturity that any dviatam is samsara. At that time
sastram comes and tells that enough of dviatam and now come to adviatam.
Karika 44
={É±É¨¦ÉÉiºÉ¨ÉÉSÉÉ®úÉiÉÂ ¨ÉÉªÉÉ½þºiÉÒ
ªÉlÉÉäSªÉiÉä*
={É±É¨¦ÉÉiºÉ¨ÉÉSÉÉ®úÉnÂù +ÎºiÉ ´ÉºiÉÖ
iÉlÉÉäSªÉiÉä** 44
ªÉlÉÉ ={É±É¨¦ÉÉiºÉ¨ÉÉSÉÉ®úÉiÉÂ ¨ÉÉªÉÉ½þºiÉÒ
(+ÎºiÉ <ÊiÉ) =SªÉiÉä* iÉlÉÉ
={É±É¨¦ÉÉiºÉ¨ÉÉSÉÉ®úÉnÂù ´ÉºiÉÖ (uèùiÉ¨ÉÂ)
+ÎºiÉ <ÊiÉ =SªÉiÉä** 44
An immature person goes by experience. Mature person understands that experience is not
proof of reality. Blue sky is experience but there is no blue sky there. So experience is
misleading. So it is not valid to find out the reality. That point Gaudapada is emphasizing.
Previously the purvapakshi accepted the world for two reasons that is upalamba and
saamacara. Here acharya says these two cannot prove anything. Why? he gives example of
mayahasti. Maya does not mean our Vedanta maya. It is magician’s magic. Maya hasti means
an elephant created by or conjured up by an expert magician. What will this elephant do? It
will behave exactly like a real elephant. We will be seeing it. We will see orderly behavior. As
an elephant will do. Later we will know the whole thing is mith only. (May be mithya’s short
form). So too this world also is experienced and has harmony. But it is not really there.
Immature people will say maya hasti is there. So here asti vastu tatha ucyate. We can take
svapna example also. So experience does not prove anything is the tatparya of the sloka
Karika 45
VÉÉiªÉÉ¦ÉÉºÉÆ SÉ±ÉÉ¦ÉÉºÉÆ ´Éºi
´ÉÉ¦ÉÉºÉÆ iÉlÉè´É SÉ*
+VÉÉSÉ±É¨É´ÉºiÉÖi´ÉÆ Ê´ÉYÉÉxÉÆ
¶ÉÉxiÉ¨ÉuùªÉ¨ÉÂ** 45
+VÉÉSÉ±É¨É´ÉºiÉÖi´ÉÆ Ê´ÉYÉÉxÉ¨ÉÂ B´É
VÉÉiªÉÉ¦ÉÉºÉÆ SÉ±ÉÉ¦ÉÉºÉÆ iÉlÉÉ ´Éºi´ÉÉ¦ÉÉºÉÆ
SÉ (¦É´ÉÊiÉ)* +iÉ& iÉiÉÂ ¶ÉÉxiÉ¨ÉuùªÉÆ SÉ ¦É
´ÉÊiÉ** 45
Here he says whatever you experience is unreal. What all you experience. He categories them
into three types. 1) Jati - origination or utpatti of a thing. I see chairs are created. Clothes are
created. Constantly things and beings are coming into existence. We call it jati and he says
jati-abhasam. it is seeming birth. As though things are born. 2) Cala - The various things that
are born seem to move about doing a lot of things. Going here and there and getting lot of
tings done. We call there is motion is there. He says it is apparent movement. Seeming
movement of things. 3) Vastu - Seeming solidity is there. As though they are tangible or
materiality. I touch it. Substantiality is there. It is called vastutvam. he says that also is
abhasam. That is seeming tangibility. All these are not true. They are nothing but appearance
of one Brahman only.
What type of Brahman? Ajam meaning unborn Brahman. Acalam means it is motionless.
Avastutvam is that which is a not material thing. Such a Brahman alone falsely appears as all
these things. Ajam Brahman has jati abhasam. Unborn appears as born. Acalam Brahman has
cala abhasam. Motionless Brahman appears as though moving. A non material one appears as
a materiel one. Material will be jadam. Conscious Brahman appears as though inert in nature.
What is its nature? All that is Brahman which is consciousness. Which is ever tranquil. Which
is non-dual. You have to remember the example of pot. Pot is born means there is only clay
which was, is and will be. Birthless clay alone is there. In between it gets a shape and we
mistake as though a new substance is born. Ajati clay appears as though jati pot. Pot is solid
when you say it does not belong to not to pot but to clay. You have a feeling that it belongs to
pot. Thingness is apparent.
Sometimes Brahman is called vastu. There vastu means reality. Here we are using it
differently. Avastu means non-matter.
Karika 46
B´ÉÆ xÉ VÉÉªÉiÉä ÊSÉkÉ¨Éä´ÉÆ vÉ¨ÉÉÇ&
+VÉÉ& º¨ÉÞiÉÉ&*
B´É¨Éä´É Ê´ÉVÉÉxÉxiÉÉä xÉ {ÉiÉÎxiÉ Ê
´É{ÉªÉÇªÉä** 46
B´ÉÆ ÊSÉkÉÆ xÉ VÉÉªÉiÉä* B´ÉÆ vÉ¨ÉÉÇ&
+VÉÉ& º¨ÉÞiÉÉ&* B´É¨Éä´É Ê´ÉVÉÉxÉxiÉ& ºÉxiÉ&
Ê´É{ÉªÉÇªÉä xÉ {ÉiÉÎxiÉ (ºÉÆºÉÉ®äú +xÉÖ
´ÉiÉÇxiÉä) ** 46
Here he concluding this series of discussion. Evam cittam an jaayte. In this manner cittam is
na jayate not at all born. By this statement which particular vadi he is dismissing? Who said
caitnayma is born. Kshanika vadi said. Here he is dismissing that. Caitnayam is not born.
Eam dharmah ajah. Kshaniak vijanamm refers to subject. Now he says the objective world
also is unborn. Dharmah is objective world. It includes jivas also. Better than jivas is objects
because cittam na jayate when it is said, birth of consciousness is negated. So here birth of
inert matter is negated. Suppose somebody says I do not understand this. He says you have to
understand this. There is no choice in this. Until you understand this you have to continue to
do viacra. By this knowledge alone moskha is possible. This jnanam is not one of choice. The
very piece of mind or joy of life is linked to this knowledge.
Evam vijanantah - Knowing in this manner alone viparyaye na patanti - a person does not
fall into misfortune or sorrow. Viparyaya is viparitam. In this context it means sorrow.
Viparyaya is samsara. Even if a person is dvaita bhaktah he also look upon lord as different
from himself. He has a form. So they will have to talk of a loka. Going to loka means it is
within samsara. This they cannot bear. In right knowledge Jiva jagat isvara division are
completely wiped out. You worship acharya and then negate it next day. They are means but
end is non-division. We do not argue with them. We tell them be happy being vaikuntha yatri.
They have the pressure to argue with us.
From here onwards he will enter into the famous example of alatam, the topic of chapter. he is
going to establish Brahma satyam jagan mithya. It is from 47 to 56.
Karika 47
Upto this Acharya summarized advaita siddhanta once again. It has been established in third
chapter itself. In the fourth chapter he negated the sankhya, nayyayika etc. He comes back to
siddhanta once again and reasserts it. Form 47 to 56 we have drshtanta of alatam. Fire brand.
A stick at the end of which there is fire which is used for crossing dark places in olden days.
Because of this famous example the chapter is called alata santi prakarana.
@ñVÉÖ
´ÉGòÉÊnùEòÉ¦ÉÉºÉ¨É±ÉÉiÉº{ÉÎxnùiÉÆ
ªÉlÉÉ*
OÉ½þhÉOÉÉ½þEòÉ¦ÉÉºÉÆ Ê
´ÉYÉÉxÉº{ÉÎxnùiÉÆ iÉlÉÉ** 47**
ªÉlÉÉ @ñVÉÖ
´ÉGòÉÊnùEòÉ¦ÉÉºÉ¨É±ÉÉiÉº{ÉÎxnùiÉÆ (¦É´ÉÊiÉ)
iÉlÉÉ OÉ½þhÉOÉÉ½þEòÉ¦ÉÉºÉÆ Ê
´ÉYÉÉxÉº{ÉÎxnùiÉÆ (¦É´ÉÊiÉ)** 47**
In this example you have to imagine a dark room. Place is all dark. You are standing with the
fire brand. It can be even a agarbatti lighted up. When you look at it you see one glowing tip
which is advaitam. Suppose the person begins to move or wave this fire brand then you can
see various patterns are formed with the fire brand. Glowing patterns. The fire is one and
patterns formed are many innumerable. Circle or long line etc. When the fire brand is rotated
or moved. It is called spandanam. When the alatam is motionless, when there is santi of alata
spandanam, when it is still, there are no more patterns. Then he studies more about these
patterns. Suppose somebody asks from where do the patterns come? I am experiencing the
patterns very clearly. it is not delusion or illusion. It is solid experience. You cannot talk of the
origination of pattern. Because patterns are not things produced at all. You see plurality but
there is no plurality. So you cannot talk about srishti of patterns. You cannot talk of their
sthiti. Similarly you cannot talk about the layam of pattern. Because if you have to talk of
them you require two different things. Then you can talk of one coming out of another or
going back into it. Karyakarna sambandha you cannot talk of between alatam and aakaram.
Alatam alone appears as aakaram. No pattern other than fire brand.
In the place of alatam you have to take the glowing awareness. The fire brand is surrounded
by darkness. Similarly the caitanyam is in the presence of Maya medium. The tamoguna of
Maya or avarana sakti of Maya. When caitnayam is santam there is only ekam nondual vastu
and no plurality. This is very much experienced by us in sleep. I am not subject. If I am a
subject there must be an object. In sleep this duality of grahana grahya dviatam is not there.
On the other hand when I wake up in jagrat and svapnavastha naturally mind comes. In the
mind vrittis arises. When he vritti is pervaded by caitanyam then nirvisesha svarupa
caitnayam when it gets reflected in the vritti they become savisehsa caitanyam or virtti
jananm. This jnanam is not steady. It is changing every mement. Caitnayam is now having
spandanam. This is there in waking and dream. Dviatam is there of subject object duality.
Alata santi is advatiam and alata spandanam is divatam. There is no sambandha between
dviatam and caitnayam. Jagat is nothing but virtti jnanarupena caitnayasya spandanam. Since
caitanyam and world are not two different things we cannot say world is born of Brahman etc
we cannot say. Because there are not two different things like world and caitanyam. Jati vada
is ahdyaropa and ajati vada is apavada. Patterns going into fire brand is upacara. Ajati alone is
true.
Example will fit in only in certain aspects. Here also we are indicating two things. Pattern
does not exist separate from fire brand. You cannot talk about any relationship between
pattern and fire brand because they are not two things. Misconception of the example is that
spandanam or movement of firebrand. Because of which patterns are false. Gaudapada is
going to say that world is formed by the caitanya spandanam. In the case of fire brand real
moment is possible as fire brand is limited entity. That does not mean caitanyam movement is
there for dviatanm. Caitnayam cannot really move. It is all pervading. It is not real moment of
caitanyam, It is apparent movement here. How does it come? Vritti has motion and so it is
superimposed on caitanyam. Virtti is limited and so change is possible. Reflected caitnayam
can have the motion. Cidabhasa can have spandanam. That we talk of as for caitanyam. Like
moon reflected in water in the bowl seems to have spandanam because water is moving.
Rijuvakradika abhasaam alataspahnditam - The movement of alatam alone is riju +
abhasa is pattern here. The light patterns or glowing patterns. Riju means straight line.
Vakram is curved pattern of light. They are not really existent but it is nothing but one alatam
appearing as different diffetn pattern. In the same way grahana + the appearance of the subject
and object (grahanam is grahyam here). Grahaka is subject. Abhasa is appearance. The
appearance of subject object duality is nothing but vijnana spandanam. It is the seeming
motion of caitanyam. In the dream I am subject and I am the object also. both are nothing but
two types of thought patterns. One type projects subject and another type projects objects. It is
our own mind dividing into two types of thoughts. Cit gets divided into two types of
cidabhasa. The same thing is to be extended to jagrat also.
Kairka48
+º{Éxnù¨ÉÉxÉ¨ÉÉ±ÉÉiÉ¨ÉxÉÉ¦ÉÉºÉ¨ÉVÉÆ
ªÉlÉÉ*
+º{Éxnù¨ÉÉxÉÆ Ê´ÉYÉÉxÉ¨ÉÂ
+xÉÉ¦ÉÉºÉ¨ÉVÉÆ iÉlÉÉ** 48**
ªÉlÉÉ +º{Éxnù¨ÉÉxÉ¨ÉÉ±ÉÉiÉ¨ÉxÉÉ¦ÉÉºÉ¨ÉVÉÆ
(¦É´ÉÊiÉ) iÉlÉÉ +º{Éxnù¨ÉÉxÉÆ Ê´ÉYÉÉxÉ¨ÉÂ
+xÉÉ¦ÉÉºÉ¨ÉVÉÆ (SÉ ¦É´ÉÊiÉ)** 48**
Alata spandanam is there then divtam patterns are there. here he says when it is santam then
patterns also disappear. When alatam has come to standstill. What type it is? it is free from all
patterns. It is ajam alatam. Ajam means not karanam. In the same way when the caitanyam is
motionless, when the virttis are not rising in the mind, when the cidabahasam is also resolved
when you go to sleep, then anabhasam ajam is there. There are no duality of subject and
object. The use of I involves duality like you. No you or he and so no I also in sleep. Person
alone is and not first or second and so on. That caitanyam is ajam.
These two karikas are anvaya vyatireka kairkas. In the last karika is anvayam and in this
karika vyatireka. No movement and no patterns. It points out that patterns not independent of
alata. So too there are no world other than caitanyam.
Karika 49
+±ÉÉiÉä º{Éxnù¨ÉÉxÉä ´Éè xÉÉ%%¦ÉÉºÉÉ
+xªÉiÉÉä¦ÉÖ´É&*
xÉ iÉiÉÉä%xªÉjÉ ÊxÉº{ÉxnùÉnÂù
xÉÉ±ÉÉiÉÆ |ÉÊ´É¶ÉÎxiÉ iÉä** 49**
+±ÉÉiÉä º{Éxnù¨ÉÉxÉä (ºÉÊiÉ) ´Éè +É¦ÉÉºÉÉ
+xªÉiÉÉä¦ÉÖ´É& xÉ (¦É´ÉÎxiÉ)* ÊxÉº{ÉxnùÉnÂù
iÉiÉ& (+±ÉÉiÉÉiÉÂ) +xªÉjÉ xÉ (ÊxÉMÉÇiÉÉ&
ºÉxiÉ&)* iÉä +±ÉÉiÉÆ xÉ |ÉÊ´É¶ÉÎxiÉ ** 49**
The conclusion is given here. There is no pattern separate from firebrand. No world separate
from caitanyam. Anvaya vyatireka is based on anubahva and not logic. When fire brand is
moved it is seen. When it is stopped also it is seen. what is seen is presence of pattern and
absence of pattern. jagrat and svapnam is anvayam here and sleep is vyatirekam. Caitnayam is
still world is nil. Form this we conclude that there is no world other than caitanyam. Since
world does not exist separate from caitanyam. We cannot talk of two things. If there are no
two things then we cannot talk of samabndha. You cannot say that one has comes out of
another. Or one enters into another. To use the expression pot has come out of clay is bhranti.
Our own language binds us. Pattern is another name for firebrand itself.
Alate spandamane vai - when the firebrand is in motion, patterns do not come from
anywhere. Comes means it is thing to come. But it is not so. Similarly it does not exist also
separate from the motion of fire brand. Anyatra na tishthati. Te alatam na pravisanti - they do
not enter into fire band also. You introduced a name and you withdraw the name. Nothing has
happened there. Previously also fire brand. In motion also firebrand. when it stands till also
fire brand. In between we used the name patterns. Words were introduced and taken. Nothign
has happened at all.
Karika 50
xÉ ÊxÉMÉÇiÉÉ +™ôÉiÉÉkÉä pù´ªÉi´ÉÉ¦ÉÉ

´ÉªÉÉäMÉiÉ&*
Ê´ÉYÉÉxÉä%Ê{É iÉlÉè´É ºªÉÖ&ññ
+É¦ÉÉºÉºªÉÉÊ´É¶Éä¹ÉiÉ&** 50
pù´ªÉi´ÉÉ¦ÉÉ´ÉªÉÉäMÉiÉ& iÉä +™ôÉiÉÉiÉÂ xÉ
ÊxÉMÉÇiÉÉ& * +É¦ÉÉºÉºªÉÉÊ´É¶Éä¹ÉiÉ&
({ÉˆÉ¨ªÉlÉæ iÉÊºÉ& ½äiÉÉè {ÉˆÉ¨ÉÒ) Ê´ÉYÉÉxÉä
(Ê´ÉYÉÉxÉÊ´É¹ÉªÉä) +Ê{É iÉlÉè´É ºªÉÖ&ññ ** 50
Te alatat na nirgatah - those patterns or forms have not come out of alatam. If you use the
very coming out, a verb requires subject. Pattern cannot not be subject of a verb as it is not
there. Pattern is another name of firebrand. Firebrand also cannot come as it is already there.
In motion neither patterns come nor firebrand comes. What comes is confusion. The word
alone comes. You have to add they do not go back to firebrand also. Drvaytva abhava
yogatah. Because they are not independent substances and they do not have substantiality.
Names and forms alone are there. There is no substance in them. Substance is only in fire
brand. Extend this to vijnanam also. It is done in the next karika. In the case of caitnayam also
the same thing is true. Because abhasasya avisesahtah. The different patterns or forms alone
are formed. Here grahana grahaka is abhasah. Both are abhasa alone or appearance of one as
many. The extension is done in the next karika.
Karika 51
Ê´ÉYÉÉxÉä º{Éxnù¨ÉÉxÉä ´Éè
xÉÉ%%¦ÉÉºÉÉ +xªÉiÉÉä¦É´É&*
xÉ iÉiÉÉä%xªÉjÉ ÊxÉº{ÉxnùÉnÂù xÉ Ê
´ÉYÉÉxÉÆ |ÉÊ´É¶ÉÎxiÉ iÉä** 51**
Ê´ÉYÉÉxÉä º{Éxnù¨ÉÉxÉä (ºÉÊiÉ) ´Éè +É¦ÉÉºÉÉ
+xªÉiÉÉä¦É´É& xÉ (¦É´ÉÎxiÉ)* ÊxÉº{ÉxnùÉnÂù
iÉiÉ& (Ê´ÉYÉÉxÉÉiÉÂ) +xªÉjÉ xÉ (ÊxÉMÉÇiÉÉ&)*
iÉä Ê´ÉYÉÉxÉÆ xÉ |ÉÊ´É¶ÉÎxiÉ** 51**
Na vijnanat - whatever he said in the example now he is going to tell in the case of
caitanyam. Look at verse 49. Alate sphandamane vai there in 49 and vijannane sphandamen
vai here. Again there in 2nd line is na tato anyatra nisphandat na alatam pravisanti te. Here
also it is same. When vijnanam is in motion then duality does not come from anywhere. The
very vijnanam is known as subject and object. They do not come but they are two names for
the very same caitanyam. World of matter does not come out of caitanyam. It is name for
caitanyam. Na tato + sthiti is negated now. The world of objects do not exist separate from
caitannya sphandanam. They do not enter back to ciatanyam because they do not exist
separately to enter. Then what happens? You introduce the name and it is srishti or jagrat and
svapna and laya is withdrawing the name as in sleep. The whole thing is in your tongue.
Karika 52
From 47th onwards Acharya was establishing Ajativada through the example of alata. Three
points are highlighted here. First point is that patterns do not exist separate from firebrand.
Second point is srishti etc we cannot talk. Third point is we cannot talk of karya-karana
bhava between firebrand and patterns. This is then extended to chaitanyam and the world. In
silence it is caitnayam. it is disturbance it is world. In sleep it is caitnayam and in waking and
dream it is world. Vijnane spandamane vai - the world patterns (abhasah) have not come from
anywhere. 49 and 51 are to be read side by side. Similarly 50 and 52.
na nirgatadte vijnanat dravyatvabahvayogatah
karyakaranatabhavat yato acintays sadaiva te
World has not come from consciousness. Because world is not an independent substance. Pot
example is to be remembered. World has not come but only word has come. So no karya
karana bahva between world and Brahman. ‘I’ in spandanam is world and I in quietude is
Brahman. Caintanyam is I only.
What is world? is it there or not. I cannot say either way. It is acintyah sadaiva. World cannot
be explained. It is unthinkable or inconceivable. Prapanco yadi vidyeta nivarteta na samsayah.
Know this that 1) world is anirvacaniyah and 2) I am experiencing it. 3) It does not exist
separate from me and so 4) it cannot affect me. Anirvacaniyatvam is not a defect. Vedas also
accept that.
Karika 53
Dravyam dravyasya hetus syat anyad anyasya caiva hi
drvayatvam anyabhavo va dharmanam nopapadyate
A simple fact he tells. 1) Any relationship requires two things. If there are two separate things
then we can talk of relationship between them. Here he is using the word dravyam with
special emphasis. It is not enough that we say relationship requires two things. 2)
Relationship requires two things of the same degree of reality. Dravyam indicates
independently existent substance. Such a relationship does not exist between world and
Brahman.
Dharma means prapanca. They do not have substantiality. Anyabhavo va. Nor do they have
difference from Brahman
Karika 54
Evam na cittaja darmah cittram vapi na dharmajam
evam hetuphalajatim pravisanti manishinah
He is giving conclusion of this discussion. What do we arrive at by this? Nothing is born and
so ajativada is essence. Neither has come from the other. Brahman and world is wrong. There
is only the thing. What is Brahman for jnani’s standpoint is mistakenly called world from
ajnani’s standpoint.
Dharmah are things and beings of the world. Bhoktru bhogya prapancah. Na cittajah - they
are not born of cittam. Cittam means caitanyam. Something he has to say. Why not say the
other way? No. Caitnayam is also not born out of dharma. Any thing or being. Neither matter
is born of ciatnayam nor vice versa. Thus there is no origination of either hetu or phalam. Iti
manishinah come to such conclusion. Manisha means wisdom. One who has manisha is
manishi. Hetuphala ajatim.
Dharma can be given another meaning. Dharma means punya papam. Dharma adharma is
not born of ciantayam and vice versa. In this angle there is an advantage. Who is ciatnayam?
Jiva I. In the place of ciatnaym put aham. Then dharma adharma is not born of me nor I am
not born of dharma ahdamra. I have no punay papa. We think we are born of prarabdha and
we produce agami. I am not product of prarabdha nor I cause agami. That is going to be
talked more by acharya in the next two slokas.
Karika 55
Yavat hetu phalavesah tavat hetuphalotbhavah
kshine hetuphalvese naasti hetuphalodbhavah (samsaram na pratipadyate)
The wisdom is that there is no hetuophalaves which is real, whatever hetuphala is there it is
mithya namarupa. There is no cause effect at all. I am satyam who am different from cause
effect, who am outside the bounds of hetu phala. The moment we forget this fact and identify
with the cause effect flow, cause effect becomes real. Unreal becomes real when I identify.
Cause effect gets reality because of me, the jannam which is neither hetu nor phala. There is
nothing wrong if we can watch standing apart. But we are frightened of it. Like anxiety about
future. It is purely in our thought. After 15 years what will happen. We go on imagining or
projecting those days which are non-existent. They are all nothing but thoughts. I give life to
those thoughts. As even I think related they come alive. I can also relive the past and cry. This
is called hetuphalavesah. It is there if you think of it. Imaginations is false but tears are real.
Yavat + As long as you give life to that, so long they will also be there to disturb you. How
long the dream world will continue. As long as you dream. The continuity is in my hands. I
want to be the cause for a better life in the form of house etc so that I can become satisfied I.
Present I becomes hetu and future I becomes phala., Once you are caught up in this cycle you
are finished and struggle will continue. The future I also is dissatisfied I. You will gain make
that I hetu for a better phalam I further. The cycle is endless. Even now the struggle is going
on. When we come to religion also only our type of activities change from worldly to
religious activities. There also we are trying to do improvement into a better one. It is also the
same cycle of hetu phala. It is religious samsara. Through karma and upasanam I want to get a
better result elsewhere. As long as we do something expecting a future phala is hetu phala.
Khisne hetu + When your obsessions and anxieties and constant thinking of hetuphala is
kshinam, you die to past and future they do not exist at all. There is neither hetu nor pahalm,
When our strong samskaras associated with hetu phalam is gone, then alone we are
established in ajati. Once you are established in ajati then there is no hetu phalam.
Karika 56
Yavat hehtuphalavesah samsarastavat ayatah
kshine hetuphalavese samsaram na prapadyate
As long as one is obsessed with or completely lost in this hetu phala concept, the cause effect
thought, till then samara is there. He uses the word avesah to indicate that because of our
habit it has become so strong a vasana. Avesam means possessed. So long samsarah is ayatah
meaning extended. Prolonged. Continued. Until one drops this idea, samsara will continue. If
you say what about religious sadhanam religious hetu phala may be superior to worldly hetu
phala but that also comes under samsara only. It may be advantageous. But still it is only
bondage. Then one will ask - how to get moksha? In this statement itself there is problem. I
want to do certain things that is hetu and as a result of that thing I want to get moksha. Again
we are caught up in hetu phala. We have done something and it is hetu and I got some thing is
phalam. It is jati vada. So as long as you think moksha also is a phalam of something, then
also you are a samsari only. This is the biggest trip and never ending trip. Moskha is not a
phalam. It is beyond hetu pahlam. Then what to do? It is hetu phala avesah. This is called
avesah. Our questions will be in the same line. Nothing is to be done. Doing is hetu phalam. It
is something to be owned up. It is not phalam of something. It is not a sadhya vishaya. It is
siddham. It is a question of dropping all struggles, it is giving up the very orientation of
expectation in future.
You have to do sravana manana etc. Then he will ask will I get moksha after sravanam etc.
Sravana etc are not meant to produce moksha but meant to know that moskha is not phalam.
It is myself. We have to give up this way of thinking by making the knowledge firm. Every
time expectation comes that moksha will come in future, I am going to wrong thinking I
should remember. I have to knock of that thought every time it arises.
Yavat + When this thought is weakened by the opposite thought then samsaram also becomes
weaker. One does not come to samsara. Thereafter a jnani may continue in worldly vyavahra.
Wordily hetu phala will be there. Eating will become hetu and removal of hunger is phalam.
That is accepted. But he does not connect his purnatvam with hetu and phalam. Past present
future will continue for jnani but he will not place his I in that flow. Like past I was not good
and future I will be good and so on. Anatma has past present and future and I atma is free
from that flow. Anyatra dharmat anyatradharmat.
Karika 57
Samvrtya jayate sarvam sasvatam nasti tena vai
sadbahve nahyajam sarvam ucchedastena nasti vai
With the previous sloka alata drshtanta is over and the conclusion was given. It established
ajati vada. From 57th onwards upto 74th sloka acharya will talk of cause of samsara and the
solution. He has hinted the cause and solution in the previous sloka. Hetu phala avesa is cause
and solution is removal of hetu phala avesah. Jati vada is samsara. Coming to ajati vada is
moksha.
Sarvam samvrtya jayate - Every thing seems to be born because of ajnana alone. Samvritih
means ajnanam Covering, veiling. You should not think that things are born because of
ignorance. Things are not at all born. Because of ignorance we think that things are born.
Because of ignorance snake is born means snake seems to be born due to ignorance. We have
already established that world is not at all born. If you still say it is born it is due to ignorance.
The second meaning of samvritih is contextual. He takes it as worldly transactions.
Indicating what? Hetu phala vyavaharah. Why he takes that meaning? Because in laukika
vyavhara we are always caught up in anatma alone. Anatma is always subject to hetu pahla
division. Therefore every laukika vyavahara involves hetu phala thinking. If I do this now I
will get that later. This is called hetu phala avesa becoming stronger. Advaitam becomes very
difficult for one who is caught of in too much vyavahara. The root cause of hetu phala
vyavaahra is ajnanam only. In one laukika vyavhara covers atma svarupam. In another
ajnanam covers atma svarupam. Since context is hetu phala it is better meaning. Because of
laukika vyahvara one gets caught up in hetu phala avesah.
Sasvatam nasti tena bvai - Since it is born, it cannot be eternal. One hetu produces phalam.
It does not last longer. You go to next cylinder after one gas cylinder is over. At the same
time sadbahvena hi ajam sarvam - from the standpoint of their true nature which is sat
Brahman, sarvam - everything is birthless Brahman only. Tena nasti uccedah. So everything
is imperishable from the standpoint of true nature. What he wants to convey is that if some
one asks wave is perishable or imperishable? We should not answer, Wave is imperishable
from the standpoint of satyam water. Form the standpoint of nama rupa which is adhyasta,
wave has birth and death. jayate nasyati ca. Wave is nothing but water only. From that
essential nature of water no birth and death. So it is eternal. As wave it is perishable. As water
it is imperishable. All jivas as jivas are mortal. But as atma svarupam Brahman is immortal.
From name and form standpoint perishable; and from the standpoint of content it is
imperishable. Which standpoint is right? Wave is ajnanadrsihti. Wave is water is jnanadrsihti.
From ajnani’s drshti every thing is hetu phalatmakam or jam. Jnani drsthya every thing is hetu
phala atitam or ajam. We like jam.
Karika 58
dharma ye iti jayante jayante te na tatvatah
janma mayopamam tesham sa ca maya na vidyate
In the previous sloka he said samvritya jayate. Birth is due to laukika vyavahara or ignorance.
Here he says that what ever is born because of ajnanam is only seemingly born or apparently
born. Not really born. Ye dharmah iti + iti means thus. In this manner.. In which manner. As
said in the previous sloka. Samvrtya. Whatever is born due to ignorance as mentioned in the
previous sloka are born in what manner? Tattvatah na jayante They are not born really. Here
dharmah stand for any padartha. Whether jiva or jagat. So tesham janma mayopamam
bhavati. So their origination is like maya or magic. Here maya means magic. Indrajalam
shown by jivas. Just as a magical creation is really not there. So too the world is not really
here. This world is also born of another magic which is cosmic magic which we call Maya.
Jiva’s Maya is called magic. Isvara’s Maya is called Maya. You said everything is born
because of Maya. That means two things are there. Isvara is one and Maya is another. So he
immediately says that sa ca maya + that Maya also should not be counted as second thing.
Maya also does not have independent existence. The sat of Maya belongs to Brahman. So
Maya cannot be counted as a second thing. Do you say it is not there. I do not say it is asat
also. It has borrowed existence. It is neither sat or asat. It is mithya. Mithya Maya produces
mithya creation. So jati cannot be taken really. So ajati vada alone is correct, The second
Maya has to be extended to both. Jiva’s and isvara’s. First Maya is only magic. The second is
both magic and prakriti.
Karika 59
yatha mayamayat bijat jayate tanmayonkurah
nasau nityo na cocchedi tadvat dharmeshu yajana
Here he is explaining the same idea further looking from different angles. Yatha mayamayat
+ From a mithya or unreal or magical seed. A tree is born of that. What type of tree?
Tanmayah. It means mayamayah. mayamayat bijat mayamayah ankurah jayate. Hetu,
karanam also is mithya. Phalam, effect also is mithya. So prakriti is mithya and jagat is
mithya and purusha alone is satyam. What is the nature of this unreal creation. It can be
looked into from another angle. When we talked about pot whether it is eternal or non eternal
in 57, and we answered that pot as pot is non eternal and it has birth and death and if you look
at pot as clay we can say it is eternal. Now he gives another angle. You cannot say anything.
We cannot say it is nityam or anityam. It is anirvacaniyam.
Why he says like that? He gives a reason for everything. Suppose I use the word pot and use
any adjective for pot as pot is eternal or big and so on, it is accepting that there is thing called
pot. Any adjective can be used only if there is a noun. Use of any adjective means indirect
acceptance of the existence of a pot. In the wise person’s vision pot is only name and there is
no substance at all. If there is no substance at all, how can you ask questions like did the pot
come and what is the size of it etc. All questions can be answered only if I accept a thing
called pot. So too this snake. He is seeing it as wrongly. He wants to know whether it is cobra
or python. I will not answer. If I answer then I am accepting a snake. World is nityam or
anityam - no answer. Ask something about Brahman I can answer. Any answer will prove that
there is something called world.
Asau na nityah. Any falsely born thing cannot be said to be eternal. Asau is this mithya vastu
or jagat. Then can we say it is not eternal. No. Na ucchedi. It is not perishable nor it is
imperishable. Can the snake be destroyed? If I say yes, then I am accepting it. Garuda mantra
I chant will the snake go? No. A real snake will be driven away. Can I beat and destroy? No.
When I say it cannot be destroyed, is it eternal? No. I cannot say anytyhing because it is not
there. A snake that is not there cannot be described. In 57 one answer was given and here
another angle. Pot is perishable from one angle. It is imperishable from another angle. In the
third angle, it is neither perishable or imperishable because there is no such ting called pot. In
the dharmas also we have to extend this.
Karika 60
From 57 cause and solution of samsara is being dealt with and the cause is ignorance and so
solution is knowledge. Whatever is born of ignorance is mithya in nature. So the entire dvaita
prpanca and dvaita vyavahara is mithya being born of ignorance. Then he pointed out that the
whole prapanca being mihtya it is really not existent and so we cannot talk anything about
creation. We cannot add any adjective to it. Eternal or non-eternal is also adjective and will
imply acceptance of world. No answer. Neither nityam nor ucchedi.
najeshu sarvadharmeshu sasvata-sasvata-bhidha
yatra varna na vartante vivekastatra nocyate
We can see this in two ways. First interpretation is same as previous sloka. Sarvadharmeshu
ajeshu satsu - all things and beings are not at all born. Since not born we cannot say as either
sasvatam or asasvatam. Because it is not born. For an unborn child you cannot add any
adjective. So yatra varnah na vartante - varna lit means letter. here words. There are no
words at all to describe the world. Sannapyasanna + (VC). Isness also I cannot attribute.
Therefore tatra viveka na ucyate - since it is beyond words it is beyond comprehension or
understanding. Thoughts and words are interconnected. If you clearly comprehend you can
express by words also. Yato vaco is not proper quotation. Here we are talking about world.
There it is talking of Brahman.
Second meaning is this: Suppose you look from another angle. World is nothing but Brahman.
If you look from that angle also, world cannot be defined because world is nothing but
Brahman and Brahman cannot be defined and therefore also you cannot say anything. Why
not you describe Brahman? Here you can quote yato vaco +
So sarva dahrmeshu + Ajam we said not born. Here ajam is Brahman. When everything and
being is nothing but ajam Brahman, we cannot use sasvata or asasvata with respect to world.
How do you say? Can you not say sasvatam Brahman. Really speaking the word nityam also
cannot be used? Why? It is a description belonging to vyavaharika plane only. It is used for
student’s understanding. Nityam can be understood only as opposed to anityam. So too all
words. So they must belong to same plane. Opposites or enemies must belong to in the same
plane. If I am a waker my enemy will belong to which avastha. Waking. So at paramarhtika
planes no words can be used.
Then what about nityas sarvagatah sathanur etc Nityam is initially used to dismiss anityam.
Then nityam also has no function as it has dismissed anityam and so dismissed. Like day and
night is meaningful in world alone. Day also not there in sun. Because night is dismissed
there. The word truth has no existence in a world where all people speak truth. They do not
know what is lie. It is amatrah caturthah avyavahryah. Silence. So sat and asat were also
dismissed in 13th chapter. These words are like thorn. One is used to remove the other. Both
are thrown. Yatra varnah va vartante. Tatra vivekah nasti vai - The distinction is not
possible. In the first one adjective is not possible because noun is not possible. Here adjective
is not possible for Brahma also because adjective is used to distinguish from a second thing.
There is no second thing. I ask you bring the pen form the table. If more than one I have to
use adjective. It is called vyavartakam. World is indescribable as world as well as Brahman.
In Apoaorskhanubhuti Sankara says : Jnanis observe maunam because neither world nor
Brahman cannot be talked about. Knowing this if one keeps silence it is called maunam.
Karika 61 & 62
yatha svapne dvayabahsam cittam calati mayaya
tatha jagrat dvayabahsam cittam calati mayaya
advayam ca dvayabahsanm cittam svapne na samsayah
advayam ca dvayabahsanm tatha jagrat na samsayah
Here he points out that world is mithya being born of ignorance. For this he gives the example
of svapna. These two slokas are very similar to two slokas 29, 30 occurring in third chapter.
There 29th sloka said spandate mayaya manah. Cittam is manah and spandate is calati. In 30 th
sloka also cittam here and manah there.
The essence of these two sloka is that mind in motion alone is svapna avastha. Similarly in
mind in motion alone is jagradavastha also. The difference may be that in svapna it is
projection of individual mind whereas in waking state it is projection of samasthi mind or
totality. One may be called jiva srishti and another isvara srishti. Both are projections.
So there is svpna prapanca different from the mind. Dvayabhasam advayam cittam eva.
Duality is not separate from advayam manah in dream. So too in waking. Final conclusion is
world is false like dream. Cittam is mind itself in both slokas.
Karika 63 & 64
svpnadrik pracaran svapne dikshu vai dasasu sthitan
andajan svetajan vapi jivan pasyati yan sada.
svapnadrk-cittadrsyaste na vidyante tatah prthak
tatha tad-drsyam evedam svapna drik cittam ishyate.
Here also he shows jagrat prpanca is mithya with the help of svapna drshtantah. In both these
svpana example is given. These two are examples and darshtanta will come in the next two
slokas. Yad drsyam tat sarvam mtihya is vyapti. Logic is drsyam cannot prove its existence
without the help of drik. So objects are mtihya. subject can prove its existence without object.
Is it not so? No students are there, am I there - this doubt is not there for me. But drsyam is of
two category.
In svapne we have dream physical body and objects also like table. sariram also is drsyam and
table also is drsyam. What is the difference between them. One is intimately experienced or
identified drsyam. So it has ahankara. It is ahankarayogya drsyam. We say it is I not this.
Table is also drsyam but I call it this or my. Both are drsyam only So both are mtihya. Here he
is talking about the very mind or thought. You should be highly imaginative. In dream there is
a tiger suppose. If I should experience a dream tiger corresponding to dream tiger there must
be a thought of tiger. Vyaghrakara vritti. Acarya says that there is no tiger separate from tiger
thought. Cittam means vyagra vritti. Gaudapada says vyagra vritti also is a drsyam. it is also
known to me. Drsyam to me the ciatnayam. Extending the same rule, drsya cittam also does
not exist separate from caitnayam. Vyaghra - vraghra virtti - caitanyam. Tiger is resolved in
thought and thought is resolved in drik caitanyam. When you wake up both object and vritti
are resolved in waker.
Svapna drik is word number 1. svapna-drik cittam is second. svapna drik citta drsyam is third.
Drik is caitanyam and cittam is thought in the dream and drsyam is objects in the dream
world. Number three is resolved in two. Then two is resolved in first. Svapan drik, dreamer
consciousness moving about in dream, he sees many living beings in all ten directions. Up in
sky and down in ocean. What type of beings? All types. It is divided into our types. Andajan
etc. Moisture born is svetaja. Jarayuja and udbhijja we have to add. Womb born and earth
born. They are svapandrik drsyas. Case is introduced. Conclusion he wants to make is in next
sloka. The svapan drik citta drsyas. All those beings are called objects of mind of dreamer.
Jivan is in 63 and they are named as drsyas in 64. The status of them is that they are not
separate from the cittam. tatah refers to cittam. Objects do not exist separate from thoughts.
Next is thoughts do not exist separate from consciousness. Similarly svapna drik cittam also is
a drsyam existing not separately from drik. Tatha ishyate. what is real? Drik alone.
Consciousness alone. This is extended to waking.
Karika 65 & 66
With the help of svapna drshtatantah he wants to establish that jagrat prapanca also is mithya.
First svapna example is dealt with in 63, and 64. It is extended to jagrat. The main reasoning
adopted here is that yat yat drsyam tad tad mithya. We have applied this arguments before in
the 36th sloka but there body of the dream is falsified with that logic and the same logic is
used here for falsifying mind. To understand this you must remember three factors. 1)
Consciousness 2) thoughts 3) objects. Approach is like this: Initially we take object and
thought and when we take that pair which is drik and which is drsyam. Thought is drik and
object beocmes drsyam. When I say thought thought with consciousness or cidabhasa.
Sabhhasa vritti is thought here. There is no object sperate from thought he says. No object
separate from seer. In different context it is given different names. Pramata and prameya.
Mind and object also okay. Mind becomes seer, pramata and object becomes seen, prameyam.
Having established prameyam is not different from pramata. Now we take thought
consciousness pair. Now mind has become drsyam and consciousness is drik. Pramata has
become drsyam and sakshi caitanyam is drik. Sakhsi drikeva na tu drsyate. In this our aim is
to prove that drsyam does not exist separate from drik and so drsyam is mithya.
In the first stage we establish object is mithya because it does not exist separate from mind
and then mind also is mithya because mind does not exist separate from sakshi. It is
interesting to know how experiences take place. I am sakshi and mind is drsyam. I do what? I
lend consciousness to mind which is called cidabhasa. When I lend cidabhasa to mind mind
gets a new status called drik. With borrowed caitanyam mind has become drik. That drik
becomes the knower of all external world. I illumine the mind and with borrowed light mind
illumines the world. Like what? Like mirror. Mirror has reflected light. Mirror is capable of
illumining the darkroom. I am sun. Mind mirror. World is illumined by mind. The difference
is sun illumines the mirror directly. When mirror is illumining darkroom, it is also illumined
by sun only but not directly but indirectly through mirror. Mirror also is illumined. Inside also
illumined. One directly and another indirectly. Sakhsi illumines mind directly. So it is called
sakhsi bhasyam. sakshi illumines world also. But not directly. It illumines the world through
mind which it illumines. Ultimately result is both of them are drsyam. So citta drsyam sarvam
api avastu eva.
This logic is to be extended to jagrat avastha also. In dream there is no object other than
thought it is easy to accept. So it is taken as example. The same is true with jagrat prapanca
also.
Caran jagarite jagrat dikshu vai dasashu sthitan
andajan svedajan va api jivan pasyati yan sada.
jagrat citte kshaniyaste na vidyante tatah prhak
tatha tad drsyamevedam jagratascittam ishyate
Argument is similar as applied to jagrat avastha. Here also three factors are there. 1) Here
Jagrat drik, waking state seer, 2) Jagrat drik cittam, waking world mind. 3) Jagrat drik citta
drsyam or waking world objects
The slokas are very similar to previous set. 63 and 65 and 64 and 66. The waker
consciousness moving about in the waking state experiences varieties of living beings in ten
directions. All of them are jagrat drik citta drsyam. In 66 th he comes to the conclusion. What is
it? All these objects are nothing but jagrat citta drsyam. The drik is jagrat cittam. We
established there is no drsyam other than drik. There are no objects separate from the mind.
Then the next step is even though the mind is drik with respect to the object, mind itself is
drsyam to the jagrat drik or caitanyam. Jagratah cittam is also tad drsyam, is an object for
sakshi caitanyam. It is also tatha means it does not have separate existence or independent
existence. So what? So it is mithya. Pramata is either visva or taijasa. Both ar false. Sthula
sukshma prapanca also is false. What si real? Tuiryam is alone real. Visva taijasa prajna
comes under three types of mind. Extrovert, introvert and resolved minds. All the three are
false. So too three types of worlds. So adhishtan caitanyam alone is real.
One question may come. In the dream, you may say there is no object other than thought.
That is first step of argument. I can accept that in dream. Dream nayagara falls is okay. But
Nayagara falls in Canada how can it be said to be not separate from my thought. If I turn my
mind to another object, Nayagara falls should disappear. People see the Naygara Falls. So we
answer that this falls does not exist separate from samshti mind. In dream it is vyashti mind.
Samashti mind is Isvara mind. Jagrat prapanca does not exist separate from Isvara’s mind.
With respect to dream world jiva also isvara only. The whole world is born out of me
sustained by me and goes back to me. Since we talk of jagrat avastha stand point, we say the
distinction of jiva mind and samashti mind. Either way it is mithya. It is only small and big
mithya. Gradation is made for our transactions. Extending the same logic isvara’s mind is
drsyam or not? It is also drsyam to Isvara caitanyam. Similarly jiva’s mind also drsyam.
Vayshti mind as well as samshti mind both are mithya. So too vyashti and samashti world.
Tatha tad drsyameva. Jagrat cittam is said to be mithya only.
The word drsyam is replaced by ishaniyam.
Karika 67
Ubha hyanyonya drsye te kim tadastiti nocyate
lakshanasunyamubhayam tan mate naiva grhyate
Here a very subtle point he points to show that both object and thought are mithya or mind
and object are mithya or pramata and prameyam are mithya. He says that it is very difficult to
point out which one of these two is proved by which one of the two. Because of this is that or
that is because of this - if you analyze it is very difficult to find answer. This is famous idea
which Ramana Maharshi loves to discuss to dismiss ahamkara. Is the world because of
ahmakara or ahankara is because of the world. In sat darsanam it is discussed in many verses.
It looks as though ahamkara or I or pramata seems to prove prameyam. But we find that when
we go to sleep state and when all prameyams are resolved we find ahamkara the pramata also
is resolved. From that angle we find prameya proves pramata, when objects are ahamkara is
and when objects are resolved ahamkara is resolved. Ahamkara is because of the world it
appears. So the conclusion of Vedanta is that both are interdependent. One cannot be without
the other. How do you prove that? Our own very experience proves. In waking and dream
both of them are together there. In sleep both of them are together not there. Dhiya saha udeti
dhiyastameti. Along with aham budhdi world arises and also resolves. I alone individuality
alone without the world you cannot experience. In meditation when you dissolve or withdraw
from everything, you as individual also not able to survive. You find there is no I notion or
idam virtti. Therefore what? Both of them are mithya. If so then there must be something
which is other than both of them which is satyam which is distinct from I and this or pramata-
prameya or citta caitya vilakshanam.
Ube hi anyonya drsye - Both mind and object are mutually perceived because of the other
one. One is dependent on other. because of one other is seen and because of the other one is
seen. Dismiss the world you will go to sleep. You wake up, the world will come up. There
fore kim tad asti? If someone asks whether they are really existent, the answer is na iti
ucyate. They are not really existent being interdependent. This is mithya. That is also mithya.
Why they are nonexistent. Ubhayam lakshanasunya - both of them are indefinable. Like we
saw karanam and karyam are not existent. Because of pramata ptameyam is there. From that
angle pramata becomes proover or sadhakam and prameyam is proved or sadhyam. From the
other angle, pramata itself is proved because of prameyam. Prameyam becomes proover and
pramata the proved. Or we can use the word supporter or supported. Whether cup is supporter
or ghee is supporter. It proves neither. So both are indefinable. Tanmatenaiva grhyate - each
one is grasped or understood because of the perception of the other. With this svapna
drshtanta topic is over (63-67). The conclusion is that of the three consciousness alone is real
and thought and objects are false.
68-70
yatha svapnamayo jivah jayate mriyatepica
tatha jiva amee srave bhavanti na bhavanti ca
yatha mayamayo jivah jayate mriyatepica
yatha nirmitako jivah jayate mriyatepica
In all three slokas he wants to confirm the same idea that all jivas and jagat are mithya only.
Here the logic is different. Previously the logic was drsyatvat mithya. All objects are mithya
and subject alone is satyam. Here whatever is temporarily existent is mithya. Famous
reasoning in Vaithatya prakaranam. Adavante ca yannasit + Pot was not before, will not be
later and so in the middle also not. The word alone is there. We will say it is. First and last all
will agree.
Second line is same in all three slokas. Sarve Amee jivah - all these living beings bhavanti -
they appear. na bhavanti - they disappear. In between we have all transactions. Very
important life. I achieved this. I went there. One day in newspaper in obituary column with
left side one date and right side another date and a small photo appears. Attained svargam.
People read. Some tears they shed. Then they drink the next coffee and forget that. Like
mushroom jivas are born and gone. Even when we are reading the obituary column we think
we are going to be permanently there. We forget we are also in the same category. We also
will be in that place. We are sitting amidst the columns of pillars. One day will be there in that
column. But we do not want to see that fact. When it has a temporary existence, can the
existence be intrinsic to them. Whatever enjoys temporary existence does not enjoy its own
existence. If it had its own existence it will be permanently there. So it has borrowed
existence. For this he gives three examples. In 68, svapna jivas. Dream individuals bhavanti -
in the night they all come and when you wake up they all disappear. In 69, illusory or
magician created jivas = bhavanti na bhavanti. Jayate and mriyate. In 70 nirmitako jivah -
nirmitakah means one which is materialized by a yogi or by a person of powers. Like
Visvamitra srishti. Myaamaya and nirmitakah. It is only illusion created. Here it is created by
yoga powers. Urvasi was created from the thigh. So yogi and magician we may not
distinguish. But vendatin is not concerned because both of them are mithya. The conclusion is
in second line. The jivas of waking world are also like. Isvara also is like that. He is ruler as
long as jivas are there. When all jivas go into pralaya where is isvaratvam? Isvaratvam also
comes and goes. So it is also not intrinsic. When jivas are mithya isvartavam is also mithya.
karika 71
na kascit jayate jivah sambahvo asya na vidyate
etat taduttamam satyam yatra kincit na jayate
The conclusion is that therefore nothing is born. Ajati vada alone is proper. This sloka has
already occurred before in the third chapter last verse. (48) The essence is that no jivas are
born because there is no karanam for jivas. the reason is the karanam has to be Brahman alone
but we have found Brahman cannot be karanam for anything else. So We cannot accept
something else also as karanam because other than Brahman there is nothing else. So karana
abahvat karya abahvah. So etat tatuttamam satyam - this alone is the highest truth.
paramarthikam satyam.
karika72
citta spanditam evedam grahya grahakavad dvayam
citttam nirvishayam nityam asangam tena kirtitam
If there is no jiva at all born how do you account for our experiences of jiva and jagat. Bhokta
and bhogyam. Pramanam and prameyam. Gaudapada answers that both are nothing but
Brahma itself. Ciatnayam itself is appearing bhokta jiva and bhogya prapanca. When the
caitanyam appears as mind, cittam it becomes bhokta and when it appears as objects, citta
drsyasm it becomes bhogyam. How do they appear as both. It is nothing but citta spandanam.
It is caitnayam here. Caitanya spandanam alone is both.
How can mind be bhokta and objects be bhogyam since both are inert in nature. Even though
mind is matter it enjoys cidabhasa and object is matter without cidabhasa and so bhogyam.
Both are mithya appearances of one caitnayam alone. Caitanyam by itself is neither.
Cittam spanditam eva - caitanya spandanam he says because the drshtanta was alata. Real
vibration is not there. It is apparent caused by maya. Maya janya mithya spandanat we have
the appearance of bhokta and bhogya. Here he does not use bhokta and bhogyam. Grahakam
and grayam. Mind with cidabahsa is grahakam and object is grahyam. Cittam and citta
drsyam both are drsyam to drik, atma. Then we may wonder there are two things again. One
is two drsyams and another is drik, atma. Drik in spandanam alone is drsyam. So no two
things. No drsyam at all. Ultimately cittam or caitanyam is free from all vishayasm. Vishya
refers to both types of drsyams.
When is this? Is it before srishti? At that time alone mind and objects are not there. During
pralayam also both are not there. So one will think so. It is not so. Objects and mind are not
there at all times. So nityam nirvishayam. I am experiencing subject and object. In dream also
you experience it and you know it is your own mental projection. So your experience now
also is mithya. Tena therfore meaning because; cittam is nirvishayam, caitanyam does not
have any sanga or relationship. If there is an object all relationships will begin. First is
subject-object relationship. I see an object means subject-object relationship is established. He
is a third person you may say. He has become seen. Then you say I like it. Then liker-liked
relationship comes. In Brahman no grahya grahaka sambandha and so no other relationships.
Karika 73
yaasti kalpita samvrtya parmarthena nastyasau
paratrantrabhisamvrtya syan nasti parmarthatah
In previous sloka he said no grahya grahaka duality. Some body may question how can
advatin say there is no grahya grahaka dvaitam. The very statement is made by teacher to
student. Both are pointing out duality. He answers again though he said before. The doubt
comes again and again. Kalpita samvrtya asti. Advaitin is involved in dvaita vyavaharam for
the sake of teaching. Samvritih means vyavaharam. The transaction of teaching. For the sake
of teaching he has to accept dvaitam. He does not accept it as reality. It is kalpitam,
Temporarily assumed. Like X in maths. At the end X has to be determined. Answer is not X.
If the teacher says so then we have to pout another X. It means wrong. Everything is kalpita
vyavahara. We do not accept any of them. Sastram sasta and sishya as well as Isvara. It is
called adhyaropa. You understand there is apavada. Tatra vedah avedah bhavanti. Pita apita
bhavati. Yah means whatever duality like guru and sishya is asti accepted. It is due to
assumed for vyavahara. Samvriti is sastra vyavahra. Paramarthena asau nasti. From
ultimate standpoint all these are not there. na nirodho na cotpattih.. (2.26)
Paratantra abhisamvrtya - there may be duality from the standpoint of other darsanams.
Tantra is philosophy. Para means other. Abhisamvriti means their vyavahra or teaching. If
you go to dviatam, they will start with three. Jiva jagat and isvara. Syat - there may be these
differences. Like guru and sishya. We say to them. Paramarthatah nasti. You are right.
Duality is there. But it is from vyavahra drishti. From absolute standpoint you should not talk
about it. Add one word vyavaharakale. We accept sankhya theory. Sometimes
opruvamimasakas. But we add vyavahara kale.
Karika 74
Ajah kalpita samvrtya paraamrthena napyajah
paratantrabhinishpatya samvrtya jayate tu sah
Purvpakshi says : You say everything is mithya. Sastram sasta etc. Then ajam also must be
mithya?. Yes, we do agree it is mithya. We did not say it is satyam. The word ajam also is a
transaction and so mithya. Ajam Brahman is not an object of transaction. In sleep you do not
have the word ajam, but ajam Brahman is there. So ajam etc all words revealing Brahman are
also mithya.
Why do we use these words?. The opposite ideas are there. Dvyam, gunam, jati etc. We
negate these words by advayam etc. Then we need not use the word ajati also. The words are
also adhyaropa only. When do I sue the word adhishtanam. because I see wrong or false
snake. After the dismissal of the snake is the rope adhishtanam. If adhishthanam, then
adhishthanam of what? So no word can be used for Brahman. Even the word sat, cit and
ananda are words used by us for transaction. We experience asat, acit, and dukham. So to
negate that. It is amatram.
In 2nd chapter 33rd verse the idea came. The only difference is that there he negated the word
advaaitam. Here he negates the use of the word ajam. Ajah is due to kalpita samvriti. The
word ajah is used only from the standpoint of an assumed teaching. For temporary teaching
vyavaraha. Paramrthena napi ajah. From the absolute standpoint you cannot call ajah also.
Why do you temporarily use the word ajah. For that he gives no answer. Because the other
philosophers are talking about janma. So I have to negate them. Paratantra abhisamvrtya -
from the standpoint of teaching arising out of other philosophies. Abhuinshpatti means arising
out of. Sah jayate. It is supposed to have born as the universe. The negation of snake is as
real as the snake. As much real is srishti so much is the real of negation so srishti. So it is also
mithya.
You say world is unreal. Is that statement true or untrue. If the world is unreal is untrue then
the world becomes real. If it is true then two truths. Brahman and the statement that world is
unreal. Are you talking from relative standpoint or ultimate standpoint. From paramartha
drsihti I have no answer. I am talking form vyavaharika drishit then I will say it is true. It is
vyavaahrika truth.
Karika 75
abhutabhinivesosti dvayam tatra na vidyate
dvayabhavam sa budhvaiva nirnmimitto na jayate
That particular topic of cause of samsara is over. It started from 57 th sloka. Now solution from
75 onwards upto 86. The solution is thus. As long as you are accepting the problem, you are
giving existence to duality. That itself is the problem. And we are accepting the problem every
time we are struggling to find a solution. So by its very acceptance we have given it reality to
the problem. Once you give reality to the problem again you have to look for solution,. Then
again you are giving further reality to problem. Thus problem becomes very strong. Form
advatiic standpoint every time we feel a problem, we should not work for a solution to the
problem, The very solution is seeing that there is no problem. Questioning the problem itself
like mortality and so on. They say that problem is not to be solved but it should be dissolved.
You need a liquid or dissolvent. it is jnanam liquid. You are seeing problem and giving reality
to it. There is a no other ;problem.
Abhuta abhinivesah - That which is not at all born or existent, in such a thing we have a
strong involvement or strong notion regarding its existence. This fellow thinks he has
problem. If you imagine certain things it will become reality. It is called hypochondria. -
Dvayam tatra na vidyate. There is no duality or samsara at all to create the problem. Dvaya
abhavam budhva eva - by knowing that there is no samsara to be solved. Nirnimittah - he
becomes free form all causes of worries. Nimittam is cause. Cause of our problems. Dvaitam
is nimittam for samsara. Dvaita nimitta nase naimittika samara nasah. His condition is na
jayate. He becomes birthless brahman
Karika 76
The solution to samsara is giving up the idea that there is a samsara to be solved. The more
one struggles the more reality he gives and it becomes a visicious circle. The more forgetful
he becomes of atma due to more thinking of anatma. The more anatma thinking the more
forgetful he becomes atma. So Brahma mithya jagat satyam will become his vision. Brahman
is anandam. Ananda seems to be not at all there. Only duhkham and fear of mortality and so
on. So many wonderful things are happening in the world and we read few items on the first
page of newspaper and we get pessimistic as they become reality. Others we do not think at
all and they are as good as not there. This he calls abhuta abhinivesah. Giving or loading with
reality by constant thinking. Through knowledge he starts questioning the problem and on
inquiry he finds that there is no second thing at all to cause the problem. Nirnimittah become
free from nimitta which is cause of samsara he is birthless.
This next sloka explains more
Yada na labhate hetun uttamadhamamadhyaman
tada na jayate cittam hetvabhave phalam kutah
How the whole process of samsara takes place and how it is avoided is beautifully pointed.
The idea is this: Really speaking I am the ajam cittam or caitanyam. Other than me all the
other things are mithya being citta drsyam. What are they? They are mind and objects of
mind. What happens? Once I do not know this fact that mind is mithya then I identify with
that mind because of ignorance and from the standpoint of mind I, who is akarta and abhokta,
have become a jivah or karta bhokta. World then automatically becomes bhogyam. Both
bhokta and bhogyam are mithya from the standpoint of caitanyam. If I do not know this and
disown my caitanya svarupam they become real. Vyavaharikam becomes paramarthikam if
paramarhtikam is forgotten. It is like svapna prapanca. When vyahavakarikam is away
pratibahsikam in svapnam becomes pararmthikam. I look at myself going through very bad
prarabdha. My rahu and ketu are in very wrong place. Let me do some good karma like some
ganga sandman. I want to get some punyam and papa. So karma comes. Then I get three types
of karma phalam. Uttama madhyama and adhama are the three types. Uttamam means
predominantly punyam and less of papam. Madhyamam 50-50 More or less equal. Adhamam
is other way around. Each one stands for different lokas. Urdhavam gacchanati sattvasthah.
Go to svarga. Madhya is manushya lokam. I continue to be born again. Again do karma.
How to put an end. By doing different karmas we cannot put an end. We are struggling to do
that only. A viveki withdraws form the whole identification. In his vision mind and world both
are mithya. Bhokta bhogyam also mithya. I am na jayate +
Yada uttama…hetun na labhate - When a person does not see at all. What? The three causes
of birth. Meaning punya papa and mishra . Tada cittam na jayate. He is then nothing but
consciousness which is birthless. Abhasa let it go anywhere. I am adhishthana cit. Gaudapada
gives a beautiful logic here. Hetvabhave phalabhavah+ when there is no cause how can
there be phalam. Janma is effect. Punya papa is hetu.
karika 77
Animittasya cittasya yanutpattissamadvaya
ajatasyaiva sarvasya cittadrsyam hi tat yatah
Ya anutpattih sa sama bahvati. yatah hi tat ajatasya savasya eva cittadrsyam bahvati.
In the previous sloka Gaudapada said when a jnani does not see the three types of pahlam
then he is free from janma. This statement may confuse as our mind is always running in
cause and effect. So moksha also is a result of something. When it is said that a jnani does not
find punya-papa-mishram, then he becomes free from janma that means because of this, that.
That means before that he had janma. Birthlessness is something that will happen after
jnanam. This misconception is possible. that will lead to moksha being a result of jnanam.
Then hetu phala bhava is there and moksha will end. So in this sloka he says that birthlessness
is not the result of jnanam. Birthlessness is the result of what? It is not a result at all. It is an
eternal fact. It is our nature at all time. Result of knowledge is the cognition of this fact that I
am always birthless. To put it in another language, before the knowledge there was a false
thought that I was born and mortal. The result of knowledge is removal of this false thinking.
Knowledge removes false notions of mortality but does not give immortality.
Cittasya anutpattih sama advaya. Cittam means caitanyam. Caitanyasya anutpatti means
ajatih. Birthlessness is sama - is always same. Advaya. Means nondual. Meaning absolute. it
is not relative that : that goes, this comes. Even at the time of samsara also svarupam is
moksha only.
What type of caitanyam. That is beautifully explained here. It is animittam. It does not have
any cause for birth. janmahetuh. What is the cause of birth. Uttma madhyama and adhama.
Consciousness does not have punya papa karma phalam. Karmaphalam belongs to karta and
consciousness is akarta. So animittasya. So ajatsya. Which is therefore birthless. Sarvasya -
which is in the form everything. Sarvatmaksya cittasya anutpattih sama. I had birth till now. I
do sankalpa in avani avittam. Until now what you call birth is mithya birth. It will not affect
your real birthlessness. Dream poverty will not affect your waking riches. Birth is mithya. It
cannot affect ajam. Because jaatih is citta drsyam hi. Birth is caitanya vishayam. He uses for
mithya. It is technical word. Cittam is satyam.
Karika 78
Buddhvaanimittatam satyam hetum prthak anapnuvan
vitasokam tatha kamam abhayam padam asnute.
Almost the same idea is put in a different language. He said jnani is birthless. If you say that
you become immortal through Vedanta one may say I do not want immortality. You have to
put in a language that every body want it. So immortality is another word for purnatva,
Purnatvam is another word for santi. Ajati is alone purnatvam and santi.
What happens to jnani. Animittatam satyam buddhva - animittata is free form the causes of
janma. Cause of janma, those three types of results. This is the fact. If punya papa is not there
but something else may cause janma. If you negate the world the only thing left is Brahman.
That Brahman cannot be the cause of janma. So hetum prtahk anapnuvan. Not seeing any
other cause. Other means other than punya papa mishram. Therefore ajah aham asmi. Since
no mortality he is free from other five vikaras including maranam. So what? So vitasokam.
He is free form sokam. It is definition of moksha. Moskha is free form all sorrows. Akamam
is free form all desires. All desires are to change myself. We want to change something means
we want to see a corresponding change for better in us and that is called desire. Jnani does not
want to improve as it is best status. Akamatavam is atma triptih. If this goes away what will
happen? It should not be disturbed, that worry is there. Problems we want to get out of it. If
no problem then our worry is that no new problems should come. So bhayam will continue if
we depend on them. Here jnani is not dependent on any false external factor. Fearlessness - na
bhibeti. So he becomes abhayah. Padam asnute. Such a padam which is free from sorrow
desire and fear. This is called jivnamutki. Gita is best for this description of jivanmukti. 2nd,
12th and 14th (sthitaprajna, parabhaktah and gunatitah)
Karika 79
abhutabhuinivesad hi sadrse tat pravartate
vastavabahvam sa bhudhvaiva nisasangam vinivartate
Jnani is talked about again in this sloka. He is free from all struggles. he becomes nivrittah.
All pravritti ends. I want this, I want that I have to do this - all pursuits ends. If at all he is
engaged in pravritti it is loka sangrahartham. It is no more a struggle. It is play for him. Why
there is a pravritti for ajnani and nivrtti for jnani. Pravrtti requires a second thing. Whether
you want to possess something or dispose off something it is all something other than me a
second thing. When there is no second thing at all how can a jnani have a pravritti. Pravritti
towards what? Aheyam anupadeyam Brahman. Taking and removing is whole life. For jnani
no second thing is there. Will he not see anything at all? It does not mean he will not see a
second thing. Second real thing is not there. If no second person in the front or in front of an
unreal second person also no vyavhara. Like your friend is in the TV you cannot ask him how
are you. If you want to plan something and is planning a rehearsal. You want to call him and
argue with him. Sometimes you think of his coming and think of what you should talk and
what he will talk, because of your involvement that imaginary person becomes real and you
begin to talk aloud also. How? The second imaginary person becomes real. I have given
reality. How many people cry over something happened in the past. I can bring back the
incident and shed tears. It is called abhuta abhinivesah. All our samsara struggle is due to our
attributing reality to the world because of our abhinivesah.
Abhuta abhinivesat - The whole problem is due to a strong notion of existence in regard to
non-existents. In the case of a jnani I am the only reality. Everything else other than me is
vyavaharikam. So world has a lower reality. TV world is a lower reality. When will I begin to
take the transactions seriously? When I give the world also paramarthika satyatvam. I raise
the world to paramarthiak revile or I lower down myself to vyavahrika level and fight with
the shadows which become real. Sadrse means in a field which has same degree of reality.
Pravartate - he engages. First line talks of ajnani. Swcond line talks of jnani. When the very
same ajnani becomes jnani. Vastvabhavam buddhva He recognizes the absence of a (real)
second thing. There is no world which has same reality as myself. Then what happens?
Nissagam - he becomes detached from the world. How can I get attached to a false thing. It
does not evoke raga or dvesha. Vinivartate - He withdraws from all struggles.
In these verses he is talking of solution for samsara. The cause according to him is a strong
feeling that there is dvaitam. He calls it as abhuta abhinivesah. What is not there is dvaitam
which is abhuta. It becomes real due to two things. I give reality to mind and I become
pramata and when I give reality to world it becomes prameyam. I alone create pramata and
prameyam. For mind I give sat and cit and for the world I give sat. Not knowing that I am
alone is sustaining both of them but I consider them to be separate realities independent of
me. Ajait is then gone. The desa, kala comes and activity comes. karma pahlam comes. Hetu
phala chain is produced. I become a part of this by being a pramata. As pramata I look for
something in future including moksha. Sangam cannot then be avoided with prameyam.
Being pramata you have to respond. If you smile one relationship comes. If no smile another
relationship will be there. He becomes apramata.
Karika 80
Nivrttasya apravrttasya niscala hi tada sthitih
vishayah sa hi buddhanam tat samyam ajam advayam
Here he talks about the nature of such a jnani. He is nivrttah. Nivrttasya - One who is
withdrawn from dvaitam. Dvaitam is pramatru prameya dvaitam. Cittam and citta drsyam. He
is only drk svarupam. Jnani has withdrawn from both. Apravrttasya. Having withdrawn from
dvaitam once, he is not again caught up. Some people so wonderful that they again and again
get caught up in same kind of problem. Why? Ignorance once gone cannot come back again.
It has only got nasah but it does not have janma. So jnani is niscala hi tada sthitih. Tada
when he is established in atma the turiyam. He is niscala meaning undisturbed. All
disturbances come where? Within cause effect chain. Every object is disturbed by this chain.
Object has a cause and it produces an effect also. It is like a log of wood in the ocean. It
cannot remain steady there. Waves are going to constantly lash at it. As pramata I can never
be shtirah. Even keeping quiet will be problem. You cannot pacify all people. Turiyam is
neither karanam nor karyam and so it is niscala. It should not be literally interpreted. If jnani
is ever steady like this means he should sit in nirvikalpa samadhi. jnani does not get caught up
in this dvaitam means he should sit in samadhi or sleep. Withdrawal is not giving satyatvam.
If you give reality involvement is strong. It is playing a game. Nowadays sports are no more
sports. Lot of money is invested in it. So jnani has dvaita mithyatva niscayah.
No stopping of vyavahara. It is in and through vyavahara. Pasyan +
This is for whom? sah buddhanam vishayah. Such a state or niscalatvam is accessible to or
available or within the scope of (vishayah) buddhanam for wise people only. Be a wise
person. Buddho bahva. tat samyam ajam advayam. This alone is sama bahvah. This
niscalatvam alone is ajam and advayam.
Karika 81
Ajam anidram asvapnam prabhatam bahvati svayam
sakritvibhato hyevaisha dharmo dhatusvabahvatah
In these verses you will see a peculiarity. Acharya is describing moksha and Brahman
simultaneously. Description is about both. Moksha is something we are going to get and
Brahman is reality. It is some kind of ananda which will slowly descent. Here we find acharya
mixing both. It is to indicate that moksha is very nature of Brahman. Brahman is the very
nature or svarupam of moksha. Moksha itself is ajam Brahman. Here also he is describing
Brahman which is description of moksha also. They talk of difference between Lord and
moksha. God is one and moksha is an incidence when you go to God. It is a coming event and
Lord is always there. He is eternal. When we own up Brahma we own up moksha. We do not
get moksha. Moskha and Brahma are both eternal for us.
So in this sloka he is describing Brahma while he is talking about Brahman. Ajam anidram
asvapnam It has come before. That which is birthless, sleepless and dreamless. Janma is from
the standpoint of sthula sariram. Not from any other standpoint. Even subtle body is not
created from mother’s womb. It was already there. Karana sariram also was not created. Atma
of course is not created. Three things are unborn when I say a child is born. Only physical
body is born. At the time of death also only sthula sariram is gone. When you say Brahman is
janma rahitam, it si sthula sarira rahitam. Svapna is from the standpoint of subtle body. So
dreamless means sukshma sarira rahitam. Anidram means karana sarira rahitam. Nantah
prajnam etc it is. The who am I? Svayam prabhatam bhavati. I am self effulgent turiya
ciatnayam. When do I shine? sakrit vibahtah. I am ever effulgent. Other instruments are
effulgent at a time. In waking state mind and senses are effulgent because of me. In dream
mind is effulgent but not senses. In sleep both are not effulgent. how did atma get this power?
When you become jnani atma gets this power. Is it so? No. dhatusvabhavatah. By its very
nature. Dhatu means vastu. Dhatu svabhavatah because of its very nature it is ajam etc.
What? esha dharmah. Dharmah is tiruya atma. Being this atma alone is called moksha. What
to do for this. Nothing. If at all something is to be done avoiding any thoughts that obstruct
this vision. Tomorrow I will be fine - if this thought comes I should not allow this to come
and stay. Constant monitoring of thought is necessary.
kairka 82
sukham avriyate nityam duhkham vivriyate sada
yasya jkasya ca dharmasya grahena bhagavan asau
Here acharya gives a warning indicating the necessity of constant alertness. That is hwy it was
said in Katha that khsurasya dhara… It is like walking on razor’s edge. There is a difference
between waking up from dream and waking up from this dream. In the other waking up,
dream will disappear. Here world will continue to appear after waking to jnanam also. After
videha mukti alone that also will go. I have to continue to interact with prameyam. So in one
khsanam a prameyam can become satyam and turn the tables on. All the consequences will
follow. World becomes overwhelming. I know everything. aham atma. sthula sukshma karana
sarirat vyatiiktah avstahtraya sakshi pancakosavilakshanah san saccidananda svarupah yas
tishthati sa atma, with one hand on the head with problems. I have slipped down unknowingly
quietly and I have attributed reality to what is mithya. I lose myself and I disown myself as
turiyam. Visva becomes all powerful. A coup has taken. I want to be there all the time as ruler.
Turiyam has been dethroned. There is no problem-less visva. Even Rama comes down
dropping turiyam as it were he also has to face problems as Visva. Giving them reality is
called slipping.
Asau bahgavan sukham avriyate - bhagavan means turiya atma. This tuirya atma gets easily
covered. Sukham is adverb. Not happiness. It is easily covered nityam. Nityam means at any
moment. At any moment it can happen. And the atma becomes evident is recognized with
difficulty. Duhkham vivriyate. It is difficult to come back to normalcy. Once you slip down
it is difficult to get up. Over weight we are. How does this slipping happens.
Yasya kasya ca dharmasya grahanena - If you take anything in the world as real. Other
than me. Any other thing you attribute reality. A small pin you like and give reality. That is
enough to pin you down to samsara and make you upset for days together if you miss. You
need not miss a kingdom to get upset. Ordinary useless things are enough. What about
accepting god. Even god other than me if it is accepted that also will create problems. Even
dharma accepted as reality other than me will create problem. One may be golden bond. By
any dharma asau bahvgavan avriyate.
Once you come again you have to be again extremely alert. How long this struggle? Until
nishtha. In vyavahara we should not use mithya. All things should be given due importance or
vyavaharika reality. I am not at all affected - you need not show. Other person requires your
love and accommodation. He behaves like saktah. Turiyam is only when you are alone or
when you are teaching. In the stage you are visva.
Karika 83
Gaudapada is talking about the means of crossing the samsara from verse 75 to 86. The means
is nothing but knowing that pramatru-prameya dvaitam is mithya. Not only one should know
it is mithya he should always be alert to this fact. If a person is careless even for a second any
object in the world can trap him. The moment he is attached to the object or he is hating the
object the prameyam has become satyam. Or if pramata is taken as reality prameyam becomes
real. He comes under their sway. That is called samsara. Both pramata and prameyam should
not catch me.
astinastyasti nastiti nasti nastiti va punah
chalasthiro bhayabahbvai Avrnotyeva balisah
In the previous sloka he pointed out how an ordinary person gets caught up in samsara. New
dhoti caught got some where and torn. I am upset for five days. Ordinary people get caught
up in ordinary problems. Here he points out how great philosophers are also caught up in
samsara. Anabhyasta vidyah. Here panditah. They are also trapped. How they are trapped. he
says: For them worldly things are not a problem. They are absorbed philosophers. They do
not get concerned with little more salt in the food or little less sugar in coffee. Their own
intellectual concepts about atma becomes a bondage for them. Sankhya tells such and such is
ultimate truth. So too others. Bhaktas say Lord Vishnu is ultimate truth. Lord Vishnu is
prameyam. The moment they form the concepts each one becomes prameyam. They become
pramata. Advaitin says I never conceive the truth. For me truth is myself. I never become
pramata. Here Acharya divides the philosophers into four categories based on their concept of
truth
1) Some say asti. What is truth? It is something existent. It is temporary existent that they talk
of. It is opposed to non-existent. Pot is existent sometime and sometimes it is not. Asti when
nasti cannot be used. Nasti when asti cannot be used. So it is opposed to each other. So here is
asti is as opposed to nasti.
2) Someone else says it is nasti. It is non-existent. Deha vyatirikta atma is not there. Nothing
remains after death. No soul is there seen by anybody travelling any where. Priestly people
imagines for their livelihood. Carvaka says.
3) Third done says. Let us not take sides. Let us have compromise. Let us accept both. For
sometime truth is. Srishti kale asti. Pralaya kale nasti.
4) These people say nasti-nasti. It is not temporary nonexistent. It is totally non-existent.
Atyanta abhava.
All these are views and concepts. So prameyam and pramata comes. Pramata will get angry.
In these different ways balisah, asadus, avivekis. These people. balisah mean childish. Balah
iva acarati iti balisah. What does he do? He is completely covering the truth because the
moment a concept comes prameyam comes and I become pramata (visva or taijasa). then I
miss turiyam. Turiyam is covered. How does he cover?
He covers in four different ways. Each concept covers the truth in a different way. Asti is
connected to cala. nasti is connected to sthira. Astinasti is connected to ubahya and nastinasti
is connected to abhava. When the concept is asti - calanam will come. The moment a child is,
child is growing. Calanam is dharma of every object that is asti. He covers the truth through
calanam. When nasti is darsanam, sthira rupena he covers. In nasti there is no change. What is
not there has no calanam. Astinasti - this view covers the truth in the form of ubhayam. Calam
and sthiram in both form. When it is (during srishti), cala bhavam. In pralayam when it is not,
sthira bhavena. Nasti nasti person covers the truth by abahva. Through total nonexistent. We
have no calam or sthiram. Any view of truth covers truth. Yam neti neti vacanai nigama
avocan. We negate any view. Any experience is negated. Swamiji emphasizes that we should
not use the word philosophy for advaitam. Nor it is a school of thought. He is extra ordinary
samsari. Graduate fool and post graduate fool. His philosophy is negation of all philosophies.
Karika 84
kotyascatasra etastu grahai yasam sadavrtah
bhagavan abhih asprshtah yena drshtah sa sarvadrik
Here he says most of the people get into one of these four traps. Human mind always tries to
think of truth. How it is. Adresyam I try to picturise. Like even I describe Badrinath. We are
used to that method. So Brahman also we try to imagine some idea. The teacher wants to
knock of all ideas. Student forms one more idea. Gaudapada says that etah kotyah catasrah -
koti means view. These are the four types of views. Koti means corner. Yasam grahaih - by
holding to one of these four views. How does it happen? For some time he will seriously try
to conceive atma. He begins with asti. Failing to conceive, he will say then it is not there.
Ramanuja does not accept nirgunam Brahman at all. Then he does not have courage. We
should be astikas. So out of fear he will say for you asti. You are all exalted beings. For me it
is nasti. One of the se traps he gets caught. By clinging on to one of these four concepts, sada
avrtah - turiya atma is always covered / missed. I will always remain as visva taijasa and
prajna. Tired of arguments you go to prajnah. Tuiryam is eternally missed.
Now when I come down to visva etc level, what happens to turiyam? I may be originally
turiyam. But when I slopped to visva taisja level, turiyam became dirty. I have to cleanse my
self. No. Even when all these mistakes are committed, Turiyam is not affected by anything.
Bhagavan is turiya atma aham. He is asprishtah - untouched. Even when I say I am visvah I
am turiyam only. Rope is rope even when mistaken as snake. Abhih - by these meaning by
these kotibhih.
Then you may get a doubt. How do you say that different views are held by other
philosophers. Advaitin also seems to hold a view. He says Brahman is sat. Asti means it is
existent. Advaitain also is holding one of the four views. Astityevopalabdhvyah. For that we
say - if at all we use the word sat even that word sat is only temporarily used. It is an
adhyaropa by us to negate the concept of asat. Once the concept of asat is negated, the
concept of sat or the word sat also will go away. Brahman is na sat na asat. So these views
cannot affect satya turiyam.
Yena drshtah sa sarvadrik. Yena drsthah - One who understands this fact that no view
belongs to Brahman and no view can affect Brahman, Brahman is unaffected by any number
of views, thus one who understands, sah sarva drik - he is omniscient. He is seer of all. her is
jnani.
Karika 85
prapya sarvajnatam krtsnam brahmanyam padamadvayam
anapannadimadhyantam kimatah paramihate.
Frist knowledge is mentioned and then phalam. Sarvajnatam kritsnam prapya - when a
person becomes sarvajnah. Meaning omniscient. sarvadrik it was said. That sarvadrik is here
sarvajnah. Having becomes sarvajnah as described in the previous sloka. So it does not mean
one should know everything. Yogic siddhis are construed as sarvajnatvam. It is knowing that I
am turiyam unaffected by anything happening in pramata prameya vyavahra. Krtsnam means
totally meaning without doubt or vaguely. No perhaps in saying I am Brahman. He is clear of
the above fact. Then what happens. Brahmanyam padam. Upanishad says only when a
person knows this he can be called a Brahmin. Every one is born as sudra only. By karma or
upanayana samskara etc he becomes Dvijah. By Veda patha be becomes viprah. Brahmano
brahmavedanat. When he knows I am Brahman then alone he can be called Brahmin. Until
then it is only pseudo name. In Br. Up - yo va asmat lokat + yah etat askharam viditva asmat
lokat praiti sah brahmanah. So brahmanyam padam - status of Brahmin. How does he attain
that? By gaining sarvajnata.
What is that padam? It is same as status of Brahman. it is identical with Brahma padam. How
do you say so? The undercurrent or inner meaning we have to understand. When a person has
become Brahmin what does he say? He does not say I am Brahmin, Others may call him. He
says I am Brahman. So wise person is equal to Brahman. So brahmanah is Brahman. So
description of Brahmin is description of Brahman. Description of Brahman and wise person
are mixed up here. Sarvajnata and brahmanyam padam are description of Brahmin or wise
person. The next words are description of Brahman. Advayam is nondual.
Anapannadimadhyantam - which is free from beginning, middle and end. Anapannam
means rahitam. Having attained the status of sarvajanh, a Brahmin, nonduality and
purnatvam. The pahlam is - Kim ihate atah param what else will a wise person desire or do
there afterwards. After the above things. Nothing. Aksheparthe kim. Some desires we drop
because we cannot afford. Not that kind of dropping.
Karika 86
vipranam vinayo hyeshah samah prakrtah ucyate
damah prakriti dantatvat evam vidvan samam vrajet
Again the phalm is continued. Upanishad says that this wise person enjoys samah, damah etc
naturally. He enjoys total peace. Here again a very subtle point is conveyed. A person even at
the sadhaka level should enjoy some peace or santi even for sravanam. Amanitvadi values or
deivi sampatti or sadhana catushtaya sampatti were therefore prescribed. A certain calm mind
is necessary in relative measure for sravanam etc. Here he says that a wise person also enjoys
santi. The difference between his santi and the santi of a sadhaka is this: One is absolute and
the other is relative. What is the logic behind that?
Sadhaka’s peace is a mental condition. He being ajnani he is identified with mind and so
when his mind enjoys relative peace then he says I am peaceful. His peace therefore is
dependent on condition of his mind. It can never be absolute peace as mind is subject to
disturbance. Sattva has rajas and tamas in some measure. So for a jnanai also this is the
situation. When the wise person says I am peaceful, he is referring not to mind’s condition. It
is his own nature. Mental condition belongs to mind. Let there be a great tragedy for visva.
He is not disturbed.
Eshah viparanam vianyah - Humility of the vipras or Brahmins. Meaning sarvajnah. It is
prakritih ucyate - their natural abidance in atma. Samah also is not mental condition but
their very nature of atma. Jnani has manah santi or not? Even as sadhaka he has enjoyed it. So
he definitely has it. But it can never be absolute. He enjoys both relative and absolute peace.
Similarly damah - he enjoys damah also. Why? Because atma by its nary nature is
dantasvrupah. Not going out. Evem vidvan samam vrajet. In this manner the wise person
enjoys samah or peace. The phalam topic is over (75-86).
Karika 87
Savastusopalambam ca dvayam laukikam ishyate
avastusopalambam ca suddham laukikam ishyate
He sums up avastha trayaviveka which is central theme of Mandukya. Mandukya is
introducing visva taijasa and prajna through three avasthas. Upanishad talks of turiyam
through these which is avastha traya sakshi and vilakshana. Before occluding he wants to talk
about them once again. Here he presents them in a concise and beautiful language. it is
borrowed form Buddhist terminology. In the first line jagradavstha and second line
svpanavastha is defined. jagradvastha he calls by the name lUKIKm. Sudhdam laukikam
means svapvastha. The difference between them is that in jagrad avastha experience is there
and corresponding to every experience there is an object in front. Upalamba and vastu both
are there. So it is called savastu and sopalambam. It is a state in which there is an object
corresponding to every experience. In svapna I experience a pot but corresponding to
experience there is no pot outside. So in svapna avastu sopalambah.
Karika 88
This defines sleep
avastvanupalambam ca lokottram iti svmritam
jnanam jneyam vijneyam ca sada buddahih prakirttitam
First line is defining sleep. He uses buddhist terminology here also. Sleep is called
lokottaram. Beyond loka we go. Vritti and vishaya prapancam are not there. A state in which
both are not there. Now he talks of turiyam in the second line. Jnanam jneyam and
vijneyam - these three factors are to be known. Jnanam means the objective knowledge
obtaining in the three avasthas. Ghata knowledge etc. In all the three avasthas we have a
varieties of jnanams which are sagunam or savisesham. Corresponding to them we have
corresponding jneyam. Jneyam of ghata jnanam is ghata. We have a pair in each of the two
avasthas - vritti and vishaya, vastu and upalambam. Beyond these we have vijneyam. It is
turiyam. It is nirgunam and nirvisesham. It is objectless consciousness. These three are talked
of by wise person all the time. Ignorant talk of only two viz. Jnanam and jneyam. Wise person
see vijneyam as satyam. Other two as mithya.
Karika 88 (Contd)
In 87-89 Avastyhas traya viveka is done as a concluding item. For this purpose he defines the
three avasthas first. Object plus experience is jagrat. Experience without object is svapnam
and Objectless expereinceless state is sleep. Then he pointed out that in all three avasthas
there is a pair of jnanam and jneyam. Virtti jnanam and vritti vishayah. Thus pair is common
to all the three avasthas. The third is vijneyam other than these two. It is nothing but Turiyam.
Wise person knows all the three and knows the first two as mithya and the third is satyam.
Ignorant knows jnanam and jneyam only.
Karika 89
jnane ca trividhe jneye kramena vidite svayam
sarvjanta hi sarvatra bhavtiha mahadhiyah
Of this, knowledge about turiya atma makes him sarvjnah. This is essence of sloka. Turiya
jnani becomes sarvjnah. Even though this is fact, to come to turiya jnanam he has to go
through this jnanam and jneyam. They are stepping stones for going to vijneyam. This jnanam
jneyam pair belongs to each avastha in one sthulam and in another sukshmam. In sleep they
are in karana avastha. So he says trividhe jnane and trividhe jneye. There are three types of
jnanam (savisesham) and jneyam. Trividhe we have to add twice. Kramena vidite. When
they are known step by step. First we have to know sthulam jnanam and jneyam, then
sukshmam and then karanam. This is adopted by Upanishad also. Visva is introduced first by
Upanishad, Then second pada viz. sukshmam. Then anandabhuk that is karana. So he says
kramena. Similar to kosa viveka. First annamaya and then prana maya and so on.
Then what will happen? He will recognize fourth pada. Svayam. Turiye (vijneye) ca svayam
vidite. We have to add fourth pada. Vijneyam is the word for it. Svayam means you need not
require any pramana to illumine. It is svayam prakasah. Then sarvtra savjanta bahvati. Then
he will be omniscient. He knows the essence of everything. That is tuiryam. 1) By adhishtana
jnanam sarvam adhyaropitam jnatam iva bhavati. 2) Thirst for further jnanam is gone. Yat
jnatva neha + We want purnatvam at three levels. That comes by no other science. In this
knowledge alone it is there. For whom? For mahadhiyah. For one of great intelligence.
When it will come? Is it after death and going through sukla gati? Iha bhavati. Iha means here
and now. This is phalam of avastha traya viveka jnanam or turiya jnanam.
Karika 90
Heya-jneyapyapakyani vakyani vijneyani agrayanatah
tesham anyatra vijenyat upalambastrihsu smrtah
The avastha traya vivke is over. Acharya emphasises here certain qualifications or sadhana
necessary for seeker. It has to be emphasized because if an unqualified studies, he will not get
any benefit and he will dismiss Vedanta. Vedanta can never be blamed as it has blessed many
over generations. It is pramatru dosha and not pramana (given by Lord) or prameya dosha
(Brahman is nirdosham). The preparation is sadhana catushtaya sampatti. Only the
presentation is different. You have to know four things clearly. Vijneyani means you should
know. Agrayani means in the first instance or beginning itself.
1) Heyam - that which is to be rejected
2) Jneyam - that which is to be taken or known.
3) Apyam - that which is to be acquired or gained.
4) Pakyam - that which is to be roasted.
Heyam is visva, taijasa and prajna and their properties. I have a problem means I is either
visva or taijasa. It has to be given up. Rejection is mithyatva niscayah. Visva can never have
freedom. I accept them but see it as mithya. Some other meaning also we can take. Heyam
can be all aasuri sampath. All negatives I have to give up. Jneyma means Turiyam which is to
be ultimately known and owned. One who has given up turiyam is greatest tyagi. It is 13 th
chapter of Gita. Jneyam yat tat+ Apyam means that which is to be acquired. It is sadhana
catusdhtaya sampatti. Deivi sampath. Amanitvadi jnanam. It is called virtues. Pakyam - It is
based on the example of seeds roasted which is there for our perception but which cannot
sprout again. Similarly there are certain characteristics in us which can not be destroyed but
which can be rendered ineffective. They are raga and dvesha. They can be roasted so that it
cannot bind me. In vivekam fire you roast. The clue is in Gita. Indriyasya + Raga dvesha at
all things. In class, in subject, in food etc. Not being bound by this ragadvesha. It is called
pakyam. What are to be heyam etc he does not say. We fill it up. We must know these four in
the beginning itself. Otherwise we will be acquiring that which is to be given up. That means
there is duality. Out of these four three are mithya. Tesham trishu upalambah smritah -
among those four three of them are considered to be upalambah or mithya or mere experience
and does not have. Which three is mithya? He says vijneyat anyatra. So of the four vijneyam
or jneyam is the satyam. If the three are mithya why then acquire? I have not acquired and so
I need not. If you see samsara as false then it is okay. Say both are false or both are real. So
sampatti has to be acquired by an ajnani who is in samsara. The essence is oen should acquire
sadhana catusdhtaya sampatti.
Karika 91
prakrtyakasavat jneyah sarve dharma anadayah
vidyate na hi nanatvam tesham kvacana kincana
In the previous one sloka sadhana was talked about. From 91 onwards upto the end of this
chapter he sums up and concludes the whole prakaranam. Portion of upasamahra or winding
up. Here the main content is this: Whatever we want to achieve in life, that is already our very
nature. We want santi peace, it is our nature,. Ananda we want. Anada is our nature. Anything
that we want is our nature. So by jnanam we do not acquire them. By jnanam we know the
santi that is already existent. So too purnatvam etc. This is very important because if we say
that jnanam gives them, then mukti will become a phalam of jnanam. Let it be. Then it will go
also. Phalam is that which comes in time. It is therefore perishable. We may relatively say it is
jnana phalam. Jnanam removes the ignorance of this fact that it is already acquired. Jnanam is
prakasakam Na tu utpadakam. It does not produce the fact. Light only reveals what is. This is
the essence of all these slokas.
Jnanam which destroys the ignorance, that jnanam is satyam or mithya? Mithya.
Vyavaharikam. The reasons are any number. 1) Jnanam is produced by sastra vicara. So it is
janyam. 2) Jnanam is vritti jnanam. It is a vritti in the mind. So it is vyavaharika satyam and
so mithya. Ignorance that is destroyed is also vyavahrikam mithya. Yakshnurupa balih.
Naivedyam is always according to deity. Tamasic deity and so on have to be given bali etc. So
jnanam which destroys avdiya has to be vyavahrika. If so then who will destroy vyavaharika
jnanam. You have to bring in ajnanam back! Paramrthikam cannot destroy anything. It
sustains everything. Vyavaharika jnanam is falsified by itself. When I dismiss dvaitam as
mtihya I will know that the very knowledge which dismisses that is also mithya only. Jnanam
is such that. Jalam kathaka-renuvat. Powder itself will it become impurity? It will remove the
impurity and that by itself will settle down. It commits suicide. After jnanam I am neither
jnani or ajnani. Both belong to vayavaharika mind.
Prakritya akasavat jneyah - all jivas are Brahman by their very nature (prakritya). Prakirti is
nto maya. Prakriti means svarupatah. By our very prakriti we are poornam. Example is like
space. Akasa is one and so too Brahman is ekam. Akasa is asangam and Brahman too is
niranjanam. Akasa is sarvagatam. So all jivas are space like Brahman by their very nature.
Sarve Dharmas mean all jivas. Also anadayah beginningless. So endless also. It is a matter
of owning. If you know today then today you gain. All jivas are Brahman means ‘all’ is
accepted and so dvaitam. In the second line he takes care of that. Vidyate nahi nanatvam. In
fact there is no plurality among jivas. Kvacana means at any time. Kincana means even a
little bit difference. Then if there is no plurality among jivas why does he say all jivas are
Brahman only. Ignorant person thinks that there are many jivas. So form his standpoint he
says all jivas. It is for communication purpose and it is not in his vision. No all jvas in fact.
karika 92
Adi buddha prakrityaiva sarve dharmas suniscitah
yasyaivam bhavati kshantih somrtatvaya kalpate
Here he makes an interesting statement. Self knowledge we are not gaining at all. It is there
for all jivas from beginningless time. Atma jnanam api na sampadyate. It is there for all jivas.
From when? Adi buddhah - right from the beignningless time or always all jivas have self
knowledge. It is contradicting the previous sloka? it seems. We are only recognizing a fact we
said. Here we say even self recognition we are not getting at all. it is there form beginningless
time. How do you say so? If all jivas are muktas, then no work for guru. No work for sastram.
So many questions will come. Why does he say that self knowledge is always there. Because
self is self effulgent. Atmanah svayam prakasa rupatvat. So atma jnanam is there for all. So
sarve adi buddhah. Prakritya eva - because of their very nature of caitanyam. So we say
nitya buddhah. Suniscitah - atma jnanam is very firm. That I am is doubtless. Whether that
person came for the class or not. Doubt may be there because not noticed. Did I come for the
class - nobody doubts.
Then comes fundamental question. If it is there for al people then what is the role of sastram?
Does it give atma jnanam or not? Sastram only negates atma dharma adhyasah. I am
caitnayam is equal to I am jnanam. We do not put full stop after I am. I am fat is adhyasa. I
am visva is adhyasa. After negation of all these for which sruti is there and what is left out is I
which is adibuddhah. Sruti does not reveal. Sruti itself is revealed by caitanyam. This is called
vritti vyapti and phalavyapti. That is why self knowledge is not an event or incident.
Yasya evam kshantih bhavati - One who is calm without expectation. Khantih is non-
expectation of new self knowledge. Atmabodha nirapekshata means not expecting for it to
happen. He does not expect because evam means with this knowledge that it is already there.
Knowledge is to put full stop after I am. Sah amrtatvaya kalpate. One who stops struggling
for self knowledge. He is the person fit for immorality.
Karika 93
Adisanta hyajo anutpannah prakrityaiva sunivrtah
sarve dahrmas samah abhinnah ajam samyam visaradam.
Here he says prakritya eva santah. By their very nature sarve dharmah adisantah. All jivas
are peace right from the beginning. If santi comes from tomorrow onwards it can go also any
day. Svarupam of atma is santih. So anutpannah means it is beginningless. Sukshma sariram
itself is not born. After knowledge when the body falls it is resolved in five elements. Birth
and birhtlessness when we talk it refers to sukshma sariram it is relative birth and
birthlessness. When I say I am birthless after knowledge I am referring to atma’s
birthlessness. Whatever happens to sukshma is not my concern. Anutpannah is atma’s
birthlessness. Sunirvrtah - totally tranquil. Free from janma and maranam. Santi is talked
from two angles - one is manasatih and another atma svaurpa santih. Absolute manah santih is
not there. During sadhaka avastha by acquiring sadhana catushtya sampatii we are making it
predominantly peaceful through increase of sattva guna. It is necessary for sravanadi. After
srvanadi I do not depend on this manas santi. Then I am santah if I say I am referring to atma
santi. Condition of mind is that relative peace will continue. But it does not matter. I am not
going to take it as my svarupam. Adi santah refers to svarupa santih. I have no punarjanma is
wrong. I already have one iti it will mean. I have no birth at all. Sukshma sariram will merge
in HG or not it is sastram’s concern.
Sarve dharmas samah - all the jvias are the same. Break the word as sama and abhinnah.
Sagunatvam will have vishamatvam. Here the turiya atma is nirgunam and so samah. So
abhinnah. It does not differ form one another. Divisionless. Why all jivas are one? Because
they are identical with Brahman. Brahmasvasrupatvat all are abhiannah. Why type of
Brahman? Ajam samaym visaradam. Birthless, ever the same (meaning nirgunam) and is
suddham.
Karika 94
vaisaradyam tu vai nasti bhede vicaratam sada
bheda nimnah prthak vadah tasmat te kripanah smritah
Here he condemns those people who do not recognize this fact of non-difference. Who are
holding on to behda, differences. Sada bhede vicratam - for those people who always talk
about bheda differences, tesham vaisaradyam nasti - they can never enjoy purity. They are
in impurity and in samsara. They talk of bheda of all varieties like dviatam. Dvaitins say five
bhedas among three viz. jiva and isvara, jiva and jagat, jagat and isvara, jiva and jiva, jagat
(one part of jagat) and jagat (another part of jagat). There is no question of advatiam at all or
abheda at all. Go to temple, jiva isvara bheda. Come home jiva jiva bheda, go out into the
world, jiva jagat bheda. Because of sleep for some time they enjoy some abheda. That is the
only peace time. Sada bheda vicaratam jananam. For them no purity at all indicating they
always will have raga dvesha etc. Except advaitain all are vishnu svarupam. So much hatred
in all of them. Advaitin has purity as he has no raga dvesha. Mrtyoh sa mrityum +
Who are talking about bheda? Prthak vadah bheda nimnah - Prthak vadah means dualists.
They are always inclined to bheda or differences. Nimnah means tending towards or inclined.
Bhavanti iti sesha. Yathodakam durge vrstham parvateshu vidhavati. Evam dharman prthak
pasyan taneva anuvidhavati. They disappear and perish. So what?
Tasmat te kripanah smritah - therefore those behda vadis are unfortunate ones. Bheda
buddhi is common to all animals. We also have got bheda buddhi. We have an unique
opportunity to transcend bheda buddhi. And even after human birth if it does not go we are
similar to animals only. Those who come to abheda buddhi they are called Brahmins. Yo va +
What is the tatparya of this karika? Our aim is not to condemn dvaitins. So in bheda buddhi
there is samara and so we should give up bheda budhdi. Abheda stutyartham bheda ninda.
Karika 95
Aje samye tu ye kecit bhavishyanti suniscitah
te hi loke mahajnanah taccha loko na gahate.
In these concluding verses he is emphasizing the essence of teaching that we have got
nothing to achieve in life. Whatever we seek in life is our very nature.
Here abheda stutih and previously bheda ninda. To be precise bheda vadi ninda before and
here abheda vadi stuti.
Ye kecit janah suniscitah bhavanti - whichever person gets the firm knowledge. Suniscitah
means drdha jnaninah, niscitajnanavantah. Who have got atma nishtha. Regarding what? Aje
samye - in regards to Brahman which is birthless and uniform of nirgunam. It is Brahman.
Here ajam indicates abehda. In the previous bheda was said. Ajam means ajati vada. From
there negate srsihti and come to abheda. Simple looking word of ajam. Sankara adds
striyadayah api. No gender differences in self knowledge. In karma it is possible. I am
Brahman and so I have no gender or varna and why not I do all karmas. Once you come to
Brahman then where is karma. Te hi loke mahajnanah. Such people are great wise persons.
Mahat jnanam yesham te. They have got rajavidya. What is the unfortunate thing? Tat ca
lokah na gahate. But people do not know the greatness of such jnanis. There is no physical
difference. Or atleast some miracle if they do, they will be considered great. Jnanam is not
miracle. He looks like ordinary person and talks like ordinary person. He eats like ordinary
person. Fools they do not know. They take yogi as jnanai and it is mistake. Jnani looks like
ordinary person. His jnanam is not visible to others. Let not jnani expect other people to
understand his glory. If the world does not understand it is natural. Let him move about like
an ordinary person. A jnani does not worry about people not understanding him or her.
Karika 96
Ajeshvajam asankratnam dharmeshu jnanam ishyate
yato na kramate jnanam asangam tena kirtitam
Any word to describe a jnani can create a doubt. Previously he was called maha jnanah.
Purvapakshi may come to a conclusion. He has got great jnanam. He is jnani. That means he
is jnata. There is something jneyam. His jnanam travels through senses like beam of light
going from torch light and illumining objects and at that time I say janami. So plurality is
there. Jnanm travels from jnanta to jneyam. That is how he becomes a jnani. That is negated
here.
Jnanam the Caitanyam never travels. This is the essence of sloka. It never comes in contact
with another jneya vastu. Ajeshu dharmeshu - In all jivas. Dharma means jivas. In all jivas
who are ajas, birthless caitanyam. Jnanm asamkrantam ishyate - the caitanyam is free from
any relationship with another object. Asamkrantam means does not travel and get related to
another object. Sam kram means to shift from one place to another place. Samkrantih means
shifting of the earth. Purvapakshi things that when jannam takes place, the ciatnayam form
jnata shifts to jneyam and that transfer of caitanyam is knowledge. Like torch light. Jnanam
na samkrantam - it never shifts from one place to another place. Why? Because the caitanyam
cannot move to any place. Why? It is all pervading. Since it is all pervading there is no
question of it going from one place to another place and illuming. Then how do we talk of
jnata, jnanam and jneyam. Caitnayam is adhishthanam where there is no triputi and no
vyavahara. Then what happens? Upon the caitanyam there are two unreal entities. Adhaysta
vastus. One is cittam the mind which is unreal and there is citta drsyam, another unreal. Both
are jada vastu and mihtya. Of this, cittam contains cidabahsa. Cittam becomes pramata and
citta drsyam becomes prameyam. It is this cidabahsa which can travel from one place to
another place. It is this cidabahsa which pervades the objects and which illumines the objects.
Cidabahsa samkramate. Cidabhasah drsyam vyapnoti and vishayikaroti. It is mithya. So jnata
jnanam triputi is mithya. I am neither jnata nor jneyam nor jnanam. Yatah jnanam na
kramate. Asangam tena kirtitam. Tena means therefore. Because jnanam does not move and
relate Or pramatr praman prameyadianam mithyatvat. Pramata means mind which has
cidabahsa. I am neither of the triputi.
Why do you not say caitanyam travels to the mind and is associated with mind? Caitanyam
should pervade the mind to get cidabhasa. No. Caitanyam never travels to the mind.
Ciatnayam is all pervading All minds are existing in caitnayam only. Caitnayma may not
shift but associated with mind. It is forming cidabahsam. Why not you talk of sambandha or
samyoga. Even that sambandha we do not accept as mind is unreal and so sambandha also is
unreal.
karika 97
anumatre api vaidharme jayamane vipascitah
asangata sada nasti kimutavaranscyutih
Here he says that aangatvam must always be remembered. Even a second you forget you
straightway fall into samsara. It is not slow process. From asamsari you become full samsari.
Asangatvam is that I am asanga caitanyam and all vyavahara is what? In me there is a mind
called cidabhasa and in me there is an object which does not have cidabahsa and object
without cidabhasa is prameyam and mind with cidabahsa is pramata (both are jadam only).
Mind also is Mithya matter and world also is mithya matter. All interactions like sufferings
insults, glorification, is vyavahara between mithya mind pramata and mithya world
prameyam. Aham naiva kincit karomi. This must always be remembered. He says
If this is forgotten for samsara you do not require a big world but even one anu is enough to
disturb you if you give reality to that. Other than myself nothing is real. Anu matre api. Even
a small bit of vaidharmye jayamane - vaidharmyma is a different object. Different from me,
other than me. Even the division of looking upon lord as separate me. Jayamane - if it comes
to existence. Then asangata nasti. The first casualty is asangatvam. I am no more +ºÉƒó
I have ended up in +ÉºÉƒó. I will get related to object either positively or negatively.
Initially you like or dislike and the same object turns out to be dislike or like like a song you
do not like is blaring and unconsciously you repeat that tune. Or the person you disliked you
start talking to him slowly and becomes an object of like and vice versa. What is that person?
He is avipasictah - Asangatvam is not there for him who is aviveki. What type of vivekam he
does not have? No Satyam mithya viveka or turiya visva etc viveka. When I am asangah I am
Turiyam. Once I make sanga I have fallen to visva etc. Kimuta avarana cyutih. Then what
to talk of removal of ignorance? Ajnana nasah how can it take place? It can never take place.
Indicating that every sangha solidifies ajnanam. Ajnanam is well nourished by every sangha
we have. Visva becomes fatter and fatter. Vedanta teacher tries to say you are turiyam and
visva is overpowering. Visva has to be starved of sanga and then only uapdesa succeeds.
Karika 98
Alabdavaranas sarve dharma prakriti nirmalah
adau buddhas tatha muktah buddhyanta iti nayakah.
Any word we use in Vedanta can create a doubt. The main reason is that he always shifts
between form vyahavarika drishti and paramrthika drishti. Unless the student is alert he can
get a doubt. He will jump from one level to another. When he says that you should know it
with the help teacher is vyavahrika drishti. Previously he said there is no duality at all. it is
form paramarthiak drsihti. Every sentence is like that. Before he said ajnani has this
avaranam. How can this avaranam ajanam go away when he has sangha? That means there is
something called caitnayam and it is covered by ajanam. So dvaitam agatam. Avrtam is one
and avaranam is second. So from paramarthika dirshtya is ekam. Ajnanam is vyavahariaka
drsihtya. Teacher is in paramarthika drishti. Student is in vyaharika plane. So he comes down
and says there is avaranam etc. What is paramarthikam? From that drshti no ajnanam etc.
Avidya is translated as na vidyate. That which does not really exist. Vid to exist. Sarve
dharmah alabda avaranah - all jivas are free from ajnanam or cover. Prakriti nirmalah -
Naturally pure. All jivas are ever enlightened. It was already said. Teaching is not to reveal
atma but to negate the anatma and anatma dharams as mithya. Adau buddhah - Right from the
beginning they are buddhas. Tatha muktah - adau eva muktah. Everybody is free form
beginningless time. But nayakah buddhyante iti vadanti - But the wise people say
figuratively. Not really. That these people know the self is a statement secondarily made. Like
we say station has come. We have come to the station. Not station has come. Our movement
is superimposed on station. So knowledge has come means adhyasa has been removed. It is
like the necklace on the neck is got. Nayakah here means vedantic teachers. Nayati iti
nayakah. He leads the student from darkness to light, ignorance to knowledge. Iti indicates
that figurative expression.
Karika 99
kramate na hi buddhasya jnanam dharmeshu tayinah
sarve dharmas tatha jnanam naitat buddhena bhashitam
Everything we want to achieve is our nature. This is the theme in these concluding karikas.
Jada prapnca is mithya. Caitanyam is satyam. Finally acahrya said that this is not only in the
case of jnanis. Sarve dharmah are jnanis. If one accepts facts he can enjoy the fact. If he
rejects or disowns he cannot enjoy purnatvam. He has to suffer apurnatvam. Fact is a fact.
Asangatvam of jnanam is once again emphasised here. Caitanyam never contacts any jada
vastu or jiva. Jnanam dharmeshu na kramate - Svaurpa Caitanyam never comes in contact
with, never forms relationship with any beings or objects. Here dharma can include both.
Cetana acetana divison is not accepted. There is no jada vastu other than Caitanyam. It is
Caitanyam with name and form. So he says jnanam never contacts matter because there is no
matter at all. Whose jnanam? Buddhasya. The Caitanyam of the enlightened person Buddhah
is jnani. Who is that buddhah? Tayinah. Or tapinah. Tapi is one who is tapasvi. Mahaditam
tapah. Tayi means one who is all pervading. Tanoti iti tayi. Caitanyam of a wise person who is
none other than all pervading consciousness dose not come into contact with any vastu. Is it
so only of wise person? Acahrya says sarve dharmah tatha. Infact the Caitanyam of all jivas
are so. Are asangah. Why did you say jnani’s Caitanyam? Because jnani knows this fact.
Ajnani does not claim this fact. All are asangah. Some know and some do not know. He
concludes the teaching here. I am adibuddha etc. Acharya adds an important line. Etat
buddhena na bhshtiam. Etat jnanam beddhena na bahshitam. This particular knowledge is
not given by Gautama buddha. Why Acharya writes like that? He borrows lot of words form
their philosophy. Like laukikam etc. Many argue that Vedanta is Buddhist teaching. They
argue that Sanakracharya is buddha in a different form. Buddhism negates Veda pramanam,
isvara (in relative plane), Caitanyam and so on. Aja gajanta difference is there.
From 91-99 Gaudapada summed up the central teaching of mandukya up as well as all
Upanishads in general. Alata drshtanta is relevant here. Jada prapanca is mitya like patterns of
alata are mihtya. Satyam cannot contact prapancha which is mithya as mtihya does not exist
separately. This is fact whether dvaitins accept it or not. We totally differ from Buddhism and
condemn it more than dvaitam because Buddhism does not accept Veda as pramanam.
Buddhism can go every where but not in it sown land because it negates Veda. Dvaitins
accept Veda and so we do not criticize them more except saying it is wrong.
Karika 100
He concludes the teaching with a prayer to Brahman. He gave a prayer at the beginning of
fourth chapter also. A prayer to Lord Vishnu and sastram itself. Here it is a prayer to the truth
or nrigunam Brahman
Durdarsan ati gambhiram ajam samyam visradam
buddhava padam ananatvam namskurmo yathabaalam
We prostrate to that advaitasm Brahman. The turiyam Brahman revealed in the seventh
mantra. It is durdarsam - duhkhena darsanam yasya. That which is extremely difficult to see.
Incomprehensible. Unknowable. The reason you know that it is avishaya. If it has been
prameya vastu one pramana or other would have revealed. Aprameyatvat it is sarva pramana
agocaram. So even sabda pramanasyapi agocaram. So sabdah nishedharupena bodhati. Tam
durdarsam + (Katha) Atigambhitam - that which is extremely sutble. Lit it means deep. Here
it means subtle. It is inner most self. sarvantarah. Subtlety also due to sarva karanatvat. Sarva
guna rahitatvat. Ajam samyam visaradam. (93). Ajam means here akaranam. Not a cause.
Nothing has come from it. Samyam. It is ever the same. Nissamanya visesha. It is free from
common and uncommon things. Visaradam means pure. Prapanca upasamam it is. So no
impurity in it. Padam - Padyate sarvaih mumukshubhih iti padam. Ultimate goal of all
seekers. Ananatvam - that which is free form duality or plurality. Such a Brahman we
prostrate.
How can we prostrate Brahman? If we have to prostrate Brahman there must be duality.
Buddhava namaskurmah - Our salutation is through knowledge. What knowledge? Such a
Brahman I alone am. It is aikya jnanam only. So prostration is in the form of removing the
differences. Greatest bhakti is therefore jnanalakshana bahkti. Caturvdihah +
How is the salutation? Yatha balam. According to our capacity. Why he says so? Because if
somebody is unfit of this knowledge. For him also prostration is to be done. So you give a
form to Brahman and convert him to Isvara and you convert yourself as bhaktah and do
salutation. So yathabalam. Give hands and legs to Brahman and also to yourself. According to
adhiakritvam. With this the fourth chapter is over.
¥ÉÀ xÉ¨ÉºEòÉ®ú&
+VÉ¨ÉÊ{É VÉÊxÉªÉÉäMÉÆ |
ÉÉ{Énèù·ÉªÉÇªÉÉäMÉÉiÉÂ
+MÉÊiÉ SÉ MÉÊiÉ¨ÉkÉÉÆ |ÉÉ{ÉnäùEÆò
ÁxÉäEò¨ÉÂ*
Ê´ÉÊ´ÉvÉÊ
´É¹ÉªÉvÉ¨ÉÇOÉÉÊ½þ¨ÉÖMvÉäIÉhÉÉxÉÉÆ
|ÉhÉiÉ¦ÉªÉÊ´É½þxiÉÞ ¥ÉÀ
ªÉkÉzÉiÉÉä%Îº¨É** 1
(ªÉiÉÂ) +VÉ¨ÉÊ{É Bä·ÉªÉÇªÉÉäMÉÉiÉÂ
VÉÊxÉªÉÉäMÉÆ |ÉÉ{ÉnÂù, +MÉÊiÉ (+Ê{É)
MÉÊiÉ¨ÉkÉÉÆ SÉ |ÉÉ{ÉnÂù, BEò¨ÉÂ (+Ê{É) Ê´ÉÊ
´ÉvÉÊ´É¹ÉªÉvÉ¨ÉÇOÉÉÊ½þ¨ÉÖMvÉäIÉhÉÉxÉÉÆ
+xÉäEò¨ÉÂ Ê½þ (¦É´ÉÊiÉ) ªÉiÉÂ |ÉhÉiÉ¦ÉªÉÊ
´É½þxiÉÞ iÉiÉÂ ¥ÉÀ xÉiÉÉä%Îº¨É** 1
iÉiÉÂ ¥ÉÀ xÉiÉÉä%Îº¨É* EòÒoù¶ÉÆ iÉnÂù¥ÉÀ*
±ÉIÉhÉÆ B´É =SªÉiÉä* ¥ÉÀhÉ& *
(ªÉiÉÂ) +VÉ¨ÉÊ{É Bä·ÉªÉÇªÉÉäMÉÉiÉÂ
VÉÊxÉªÉÉäMÉÆ |ÉÉ{ÉnÂù +VÉÉä%Ê{É ºÉxÉÂ +
´ªÉªÉÉi¨ÉÉ ..* Bä·ÉªÉÈ xÉÉ¨É ¨ÉÉªÉÉ*
¨ÉÉªÉÉºÉÆ¤ÉxvÉÉiÉÂ VÉx¨ÉºÉÆ¤ÉxvÉÆ VÉÒ
´ÉVÉMÉnÂù <Ç·É®ú°ü{ÉähÉ VÉÊxÉªÉÉäMÉÆ |
ÉÉ{ÉiÉÂ |ÉÉ{iÉ´ÉiÉÂÂ* +É{ÉÂ ±ÉÖRÂó - |
ÉÉ{xÉÉäiÉÂ* B´É¨ÉÂ +MÉÊiÉ (+Ê{É)
MÉÊiÉ¨ÉkÉÉÆ SÉ |ÉÉ{ÉnÂù - +MÉÊiÉ SÉ Even though
motionless iÉiÉÂ Bä·ÉªÉÇªÉÉäMÉÉiÉÂ
¨ÉÉªÉÉºÉÆ¤ÉxvÉÉiÉÂ MÉÊiÉ{ÉkÉÉÆ The status of being a
moving one. |ÉÉ{ÉiÉÂ* MÉÊiÉ& +ºªÉ +ÎºiÉ <ÊiÉ
MÉÊiÉ¨ÉiÉÂ* iÉÉÆ MÉÊiÉ¨ÉkÉÉ¨ÉÂ* |ÉÉ{ÉiÉÂ*
BEò¨ÉÂ (+Ê{É) Ê´ÉÊ´ÉvÉÊ
´É¹ÉªÉvÉ¨ÉÇOÉÉÊ½þ¨ÉÖMvÉäIÉhÉÉxÉÉÆ
+xÉäEò¨ÉÂ Ê½þ (¦É´ÉÊiÉ) - Even though it is one Ê´ÉÊ
´ÉvÉÊ´É¹ÉªÉvÉ¨ÉÇOÉÉÊ½þ¨ÉÖMvÉäIÉhÉÉxÉÉÆ
VÉÒ´ÉÉxÉÉ¨ÉÂ* +xÉäEò¨ÉÂ Ê½þ (¦É´ÉÊiÉ) It appears as
many for ajnanis. He gives big title to ajnanis. Ê´É¹ÉªÉÉhÉÉÆ vÉ¨ÉÉÇ&
Ê´É¹ÉªÉvÉ¨ÉÉÇ& Ê´ÉÊ´ÉvÉÉ& Ê´É¹ÉªÉvÉ¨ÉÉÇ& Ê
´ÉÊ´ÉvÉÊ´É¹ÉªÉvÉ¨ÉÉÇ&* MÉÞºhÉÉÊiÉ {É¶ªÉÊiÉ
<ÊiÉ OÉÉ½þÒ* One who feels properties and divisions Endowed with eyes
which sees plurality of properties and eyes which are deluded - deluded vison. Plural
perceving vision those who have got. iÉä¹ÉÉ¨ÉÂ +xÉäEò¨ÉÂ Ê½þ (¦É
´ÉÊiÉ)
ªÉiÉÂ |ÉhÉiÉ¦ÉªÉÊ´É½þxiÉÞ iÉiÉÂ ¥ÉÀ
xÉiÉÉä%Îº¨É* |ÉhÉiÉ& |É{ÉzÉÉ&* Who have surrendered.
iÉä¹ÉÉ¨ÉÂ ¦ÉªÉÆ ºÉÆºÉÉ®ú¦ÉªÉÆ* Ê´É½þxiÉÞ -
xÉÉ¶ÉÊªÉiÉÞ The destroyer.* vÉÉiÉÞ¶É¤nù´ÉiÉÂ*
MÉÉèb÷{ÉÉnùÉSÉÉªÉÇxÉ¨ÉºEòÉ®ú&
|ÉYÉÉ´Éè¶ÉÉJÉ´ÉävÉIÉÖÊ¦ÉiÉVÉ±ÉÊxÉvÉä
´ÉænùxÉÉ¨xÉÉä%xiÉ®úºlÉ¨ÉÂ
¦ÉÚiÉÉxªÉÉ±ÉÉäCªÉ ¨ÉMxÉÉxªÉÊ
´É®úiÉVÉxÉxÉOÉÉ½þPÉÉä®äú ºÉ¨ÉÖpäù*
EòÉ¯ûhªÉÉnÖùqùvÉÉ®úÉ¨ÉÞiÉÊ¨Énù¨É¨É®
èúnÖÇù±ÉÇ¦ÉÆ ¦ÉÚiÉ½äþiÉÉä&
ªÉºiÉÆ {ÉÚVªÉÉÊ¦É{ÉÚVªÉÆ
{É®ú¨ÉMÉÖ¯û¨É¨ÉÖÆ
{ÉÉnù{ÉÉiÉèxÉÇiÉÉä%Îº¨É** 2
+Ê´É®úiÉVÉxÉxÉOÉÉ½þPÉÉä®äú ºÉ¨ÉÖpäù
¨ÉMxÉÉÊxÉ ¦ÉÚiÉÉÊxÉ +É±ÉÉäCªÉ ªÉ& |ÉYÉÉ
´Éè¶ÉÉJÉ´ÉävÉIÉÖÊ¦ÉiÉVÉ±ÉÊxÉvÉä
´ÉænùxÉÉ¨xÉ& +xiÉ®úºlÉ¨ÉÂ
+¨É®èúnÖÇù±ÉÇ¦ÉÆ <nù¨ÉÂ +¨ÉÞiÉ¨ÉÂ
¦ÉÚiÉ½äþiÉÉä& EòÉ¯ûhªÉÉnÖùqùvÉÉ®ú ªÉºiÉÆ
{ÉÚVªÉÉÊ¦É{ÉÚVªÉÆ {É®ú¨ÉMÉÖ¯û¨É¨ÉÖÆ
{ÉÉnù{ÉÉiÉèxÉÇiÉÉä%Îº¨É** 2
{ÉÚVªÉÉÊ¦É{ÉÚVªÉÆ {É®ú¨ÉMÉÖ¯û¨É¨ÉÖÆ
+½Æþ xÉiÉÉä%Îº¨É* MÉÖ¯ûMÉÉäÊ´Éxnù{ÉÉnùºªÉ
MÉÖ¯û& {É®ú¨ÉMÉÖ¯û&* {ÉÉnäù {ÉÉiÉ&*
{ÉÉnùªÉÉä& {ÉÉiÉ& ´ÉÉ*
ºÉÉ¹]õÉRÂóMÉxÉ¨ÉºEòÉ®èú& <iªÉlÉÇ&*
ºÉÉ®ú& |ÉlÉ¨É¨ÉÂ* +ªÉÆ ºÉ´ÉÉÇÊhÉ ¦ÉÚiÉÉÊxÉ ºÉ
´ÉÉÇxÉÂ ¨ÉxÉÖ¹ªÉÉxÉÂ ºÉÆºÉÉ®úVÉ±ÉvÉÉè
ÊxÉ¨ÉMxÉ´ÉÉxÉÂ +{É¶ªÉiÉÂ* ºÉ´Éæ VÉÒ´ÉÉ&
+YÉÉxÉÉiÉÂ ºÉÆºÉÉ®ú VÉ±ÉvÉÉè
ºÉÆºÉÉ®úºÉ¨ÉÖpäù ÊxÉ¨ÉMxÉÉ ºÉÎxiÉ*
¨ÉiªÉÇ¦ÉªÉÆ ºÉ´Éæ¹ÉÉÆ ´ÉkÉÇiÉä B´É* iÉjÉ
¨ÉiªÉÇ¦ÉªÉÉiÉÂ =qùÉ®úhÉÉlÉÈ ÊEò¨É{ÉäÊIÉiÉ¨ÉÂ*
+¨ÉÞiÉÆ +{ÉÉäÊIÉiÉ¨ÉÂ* <nÆù +¨ÉÞiÉÆ EòlÉÆ
±É¦ªÉiÉäò* +¨ÉÞiÉÆ ºÉ¨ÉÖpù¨ÉlÉxÉäxÉ ±É¦ªÉiÉä*
iÉº¨ÉÉiÉÂ ºÉ¨ÉÖpù¨ÉlÉxÉÆ EòkÉÖÈ <¹]õ´ÉÉxÉÂ
+ÉSÉÉªÉÇ&* iÉjÉ EòÒoù¶É& ºÉ¨ÉÖpù& º
´ÉÒEÞòiÉ&* ´ÉänùºÉ¨ÉÖpù& B´É º´ÉÒEÞòiÉ
´ÉÉxÉÂ* iÉjÉ ´ÉänùºÉ¨ÉÖpäù ¨ÉlÉxÉÉlÉÈ
¨ÉlÉxÉnùhb÷& +{ÉäÊIÉiÉ&* iÉjÉ {ÉÖ®úÉhÉä¹ÉÖ
¨ÉxlÉ®ú{É´ÉÇiÉ& B´É nùhb÷i´ÉäxÉ º´ÉÒEÞòiÉ&
={ÉªÉÖHò&* iÉjÉ ´ÉänùºÉ¨ÉÖpù¨ÉlÉxÉÉlÉÈ Eò&
nùhf& ={ÉªÉÉäHò´ªÉ& <ÊiÉ SÉäiÉÂ |ÉYÉÉ
¤ÉÖÊrù& B´É ¨ÉlÉxÉnùhb÷&* iÉÆ ¨ÉlÉxÉnùhbÆ÷
´ÉänùºÉ¨ÉÖpùºªÉ +xiÉ& ºlÉÉ{ªÉ {ÉÖxÉ& {ÉÖxÉ&
¨ÉÊlÉi´ÉÉ iÉnù¨ÉÞiÉÆ =qùvÉÉ®ú* >ðv´ÉÈ +ÉæþiÉ
´ÉÉxÉÂ* ÊEò¨ÉlÉÈ B´ÉÆ ºÉ´ÉÈ Eò¹]Æõ
+xÉÖ¦ÉÚiÉ¨ÉÂ +ÉSÉÉªÉæhÉ* EòÉ¯ûhªÉÉiÉÂ*
+½þäiÉÖEònùªÉªÉÉ ¦ÉÚiÉ½äþiÉÉä&*
+Ê´É®úiÉVÉxÉxÉOÉÉ½þPÉÉä®äú ºÉ¨ÉÖpäù
¨ÉMxÉÉÊxÉ ¦ÉÚiÉÉÊxÉ - EòÒoù¶ÉÆ ºÉ¨ÉÖpù¨ÉÂ*
+Ê´É®úiÉÆ ÊxÉ®úxiÉ®ú¨ÉÂ ºÉ´ÉÇnùÉ* VÉxÉxÉÆ
VÉx¨É* {ÉÖxÉ& {ÉÖxÉ& VÉx¨É <iªÉlÉÇ&*
iÉÉoù¶ÉVÉx¨É B´É OÉÉ½þ& that which is terrible with crocodiles in
the form of rebirth. * {ÉÖxÉ& {ÉÖxÉ& VÉx¨ÉÉCªÉè&
OÉÉ½èþ& OÉÉ½þPÉÉä®ú& Crocodiles which are countless in
number.* iÉÉoù¶Éä ºÉ¨ÉÖpäù ¦ÉÚiÉÉÊxÉ ¨ÉMxÉÉÊxÉ
+É±ÉÉäCªÉ*
|ÉYÉÉ´Éè¶ÉÉJÉ´ÉävÉIÉÖÊ¦ÉiÉVÉ±ÉÊxÉvÉä
´ÉænùxÉÉ¨xÉ& +xiÉ®úºlÉ¨ÉÂ - ´ÉänùxÉÉ¨xÉ&
VÉ±ÉÊxÉvÉä& +xiÉ®úºlÉ¨ÉÂ* Obtaining in the Vedas that is
compared to ocean. What type of ocean? |ÉYÉÉ´Éè¶ÉÉJÉ
´ÉävÉIÉÖÊ¦ÉiÉVÉ±ÉÊxÉÊvÉ&* ´Éè¶ÉÉJÉÉä xÉÉ¨É
¨ÉlÉxÉnùhb÷&* ¨ÉlÉÂ 9 =.¦É ¨ÉlÉxÉnùhb÷& xÉÉ¨É
´Éè¶ÉÉJÉ& iÉºªÉ ´ÉävÉ& +xiÉººlÉÉ{ÉxÉ¨ÉÂ Placing the
churning rod called buddhi in that ocean and churning. * iÉäxÉ IÉÖÊ¦ÉiÉ¨ÉÂ*
+É±ÉÉäb÷xÉ¨ÉÂ* IÉÖÊ¦ÉiÉVÉ±ÉÊxÉÊvÉ&*
¤ÉÖnÂùvªÉÉJªÉ¨ÉlÉxÉnùhbä÷xÉ
IÉÖÊ¦ÉiÉVÉ±ÉÊxÉÊvÉ& ´ÉkÉÇiÉä* iÉºªÉ ºÉ¨ÉÖpùºªÉ
xÉÉ¨É ´Éänù&* iÉºªÉ +xiÉ®úºlÉ¨ÉÂ +¨ÉÞiÉ¨ÉÂ*
EòÒoù¶É¨ÉÂ +¨ÉÞiÉ¨ÉÂ* +¨É®èú& nÖù±ÉÇ¦É¨ÉÂ*
Not availabele even iÉä¹ÉÉ¨É¨ÉÞiÉÆ
for devas. iÉÖ
+É{ÉäÊIÉEò¨ÉÂ +¨ÉÞiÉ¨ÉÂ* näù´Éè& +jÉÉÊ{É Ê
´ÉÊSÉÊEòÎiºÉiÉ¨ÉÂ* (Eò`ö)*
iÉ¨ÉÂ +¨ÉÞiÉÆ ¦ÉÚiÉÉlÉÈ +YÉÉÊxÉVÉÒ´ÉÉlÉÈ
EòÉ¯ûhªÉÉnÂù =qùvÉÉ®ú* =nÂù vÉÞ Out of compassion he
brought out.
ªÉ& MÉÉèb÷{ÉÉnù& B´ÉÆ EÞò÷iÉ´ÉÉxÉÂ iÉÆ ..
+¨ÉÖÆ {ÉÉnù{ÉÉiÉè& xÉiÉ& +Îº¨É*
MÉÉäÊ´Éxnù{ÉÉnùÉSÉÉªÉÇxÉ¨ÉºEòÉ®ú&
ªÉi|ÉYÉÉ±ÉÉäEò¦ÉÉºÉÉ |
ÉÊiÉ½þÊiÉ¨ÉMÉ¨ÉiÉÂ º
´ÉÉxiÉ¨ÉÉä½þÉxvÉEòÉ®úÉä
¨ÉVVÉÉäx¨ÉVVÉSSÉ PÉÉä®äú
ÁºÉEÞònÖù{ÉVÉxÉÉänùx´ÉÊiÉjÉÉºÉxÉä
¨Éä*
ªÉi{ÉÉnùÉ´ÉÉÊ¸ÉiÉÉxÉÉÆ ¸ÉÖÊiÉ¶É¨ÉÊ
´ÉxÉªÉ|ÉÉÎ{iÉ®úOªÉÉ Á¨ÉÉäPÉÉ
iÉi{ÉÉnùÉè {ÉÉ´ÉxÉÒªÉÉè ¦É´É¦ÉªÉÊ
´ÉxÉÖnùÉè ºÉ´ÉÇ¦ÉÉ´ÉèxÉÇ¨ÉºªÉä** 3
ªÉi|ÉYÉÉ±ÉÉäEò¦ÉÉºÉÉ PÉÉä®äú jÉÉºÉxÉä
ÁºÉEÞònÖù{ÉVÉxÉÉänùx´ÉÊiÉ
¨ÉVVÉÉäx¨ÉVVÉSSÉ ¨Éä º
´ÉÉxiÉ¨ÉÉä½þÉxvÉEòÉ®ú& |
ÉÊiÉ½þÊiÉ¨ÉMÉ¨ÉiÉÂ* ªÉi{ÉÉnùÉ´ÉÉÊ¸ÉiÉÉxÉÉÆ
+OªÉÉ Á¨ÉÉäPÉÉ ¸ÉÖÊiÉ¶É¨ÉÊ´ÉxÉªÉ|ÉÉÎ{iÉ& (¦É
´ÉÊiÉ) iÉi{ÉÉnùÉè {ÉÉ´ÉxÉÒªÉÉè ¦É´É¦ÉªÉÊ
´ÉxÉÖnùÉè ºÉ´ÉÇ¦ÉÉ´ÉèxÉÇ¨ÉºªÉä** 3
iÉi{ÉÉnùÉè {ÉÉ´ÉxÉÒªÉÉè ¦É´É¦ÉªÉÊ
´ÉxÉÖnùÉè - iÉi{ÉÉnùÉè - MÉÉäÊ´Éxnù¦ÉMÉ
´Éi{ÉÉn{ÉÉnùùÉè +iÉÒ´É{ÉÉ´ÉxÉÉè* ¦É
´É¦ÉªÉxÉÖnùÉè - xÉÖnÂù xÉÖnùÊiÉ xÉÉ¶ÉªÉÊiÉ*
ºÉÖæþiÉÂ¶Éý¤nù´ÉiÉÂ* ºÉÆºÉÉ®ú¦ÉªÉºªÉ
xÉÉ¶ÉEòÉè* ºÉ´ÉÇ¦ÉÉ´Éè& ºÉ´ÉÇ|ÉEòÉ®äúhÉ
xÉ¨ÉºªÉä xÉ¨ÉºEòÉ®Æú Eò®úÉäÊ¨É*
ªÉi|ÉYÉÉ±ÉÉäEò¦ÉÉºÉÉ ¨Éä º
´ÉÉxiÉ¨ÉÉä½þÉxvÉEòÉ®ú& |
ÉÊiÉ½þÊiÉ¨ÉMÉ¨ÉiÉÂ - ªÉºªÉ +ÉSÉÉªÉÇºªÉ
¤ÉÖÊrù& |ÉYÉÉ +É±ÉÉäEò&ñ VªÉÉäÊiÉ&ñ iÉºÉªÉ
¦ÉÉºÉÉ The effulgence of light coming from the buddhi, compared to the light of a lamp,
of which acharya. Pratihati means destruction. Moham or ajnanam is compared to darkness. It
EòºªÉ +xvÉEòÉ®ú& xÉÉ¶É¨ÉÂ
is destroyed by that light.
+MÉ¨ÉiÉÂ* ¨Éä* ¨É¨É* EòÒoù¶É& ¨É¨É*
¨ÉVVÉÉäx¨ÉVVÉSSÉ* ¨ÉVVÉiÉ& =x¨ÉVVÉiÉ& SÉ
¨É¨É +xvÉEòÉ®ú&* One who is sunk and again coming out. Where is he
sinking?
ÁºÉEÞònÖù{ÉVÉxÉÉänùx´ÉÊiÉ PÉÉä®äú
jÉÉºÉxÉä - =nùx´ÉÉxÉÂ ºÉ¨ÉÖpù&* ¤É½Öþ
´ÉÉ®Æú VÉx¨É {ÉÖxÉ& {ÉÖxÉ& VÉx¨É +ºÉEÞòiÉÂ
VÉx¨É B´É ºÉ¨ÉÖpù&* iÉÎº¨ÉxÉÂ jÉÉºÉxÉä
¦ÉªÉ½äþiÉÉä& PÉÉä®äú ºÉ¨ÉÖpäù ¨ÉVVÉiÉ&
=x¨ÉVVÉiÉ& SÉ ¨É¨É +xvÉEòÉ®ú& xÉÉºÉÆ
+MÉ¨ÉiÉÂ*
ªÉi{ÉÉnùÉ´ÉÉÊ¸ÉiÉÉxÉÉÆ ¸ÉÖÊiÉ¶É¨ÉÊ´ÉxÉªÉ|
ÉÉÎ{iÉ& +OªÉÉ Á¨ÉÉäPÉÉ (¦É´ÉÊiÉ) - ªÉºªÉ
{ÉÉnùÉè +É¸ÉÒiÉÉxÉÉÆ ¦ÉHòÉxÉÉÆ ¸ÉÖÊiÉ& ¸É
´ÉhÉVÉxªÉiÉYÉÉxÉÆ ¶É¨É& Ê´ÉxÉªÉ& SÉ iÉä¹ÉÉÆ
¸ÉÖÊiÉ¶É¨ÉÊ´ÉxÉªÉÉxÉÉÆ |ÉÉÎ{iÉ& +OªÉÉ ¸Éä¹`öÉ
In fullest measure ¦É´ÉÊiÉ +¨ÉÉäPÉÉ SÉ ºÉ|ÉªÉÉäVÉxÉÆ
SÉ* By resorting to whose feet these people will get fullest and successful peace and
humility and so on.
SUMMARY
Before studying this chapter we have to remember the background of the discussion. Acharya
wanted to give out the clear teaching of mandukya Upanishad, We have to keep the
Upanishad in the mind when we read karikas. Having given a simple analysis of Upanishad in
the first chapter called agama prakaranam, in the second and third chapters alone gaudapada
gave full implication of the teaching which is based on two crucial words, prapanca
upasamam and advaitam which occurs in the seventh mantra. The word prapanaca upasamam
indicates jaganmithya. The word advaitam indicating Brahma satyam or atma / aham satyam.
Jiva falls in which of the two. Sankaracharya that is why said jiva Brahma eva. First three
padas are mithya and fourth is satyam. Of this jaganmithyatvam he elaborately established in
second chapter called Vaitathya prakaranm with the help of the svapna example. Brahma
satyatvam he established elaborately in the third chapter titled Advaita prakranam. Here alone
he established ajati vadah. Etat tat uttamam satyam yatra kincit na jayate. In fact the complete
teaching is over with third chapter. When we come to fourth chapter we will wonder what is
the purpose of this chapter at all. Sankara Acharya said the primary purpose of the 4th chapter
is negation of all those systems which are against this teaching. Incidentally having negated
all of them once again he reminds the main teaching also. It is only repetition. Because for
negating we will study various pruva pakhsas. After studying them we may forget what
advaita said. So reassertion of Siddhanta is also there. This is the background of the fourth
chapter.
The important topics discussed here are as follows
1 and 2 are prayer verses. Salutation to Lord Vishnu and sastram is done. tam vande dvipadam
varam. Asparsayogah he said for sastram. Having done this, from 3rd to 9th sloka he talked
about different systems of philosophy or vadis. how they have different opinions. Each one
rivals with other. What are all their main defects were indicated. The main point is that they
all talk of a creation. Without knowing the consequences of accepting a creation they talk of
creation. Once you accept a creation karanam has to be told and karanam is subject to change.
That itself must be born of another karanam. Thus generally he pointed out the defects of
them.
From 10th to 23rd sloka is the negation of Sankhya vada or sat karya vadam. I had reminded
that since Gaudapada’s main vada is ajati vada, here he is discussing all different systems only
from the standpoint of srishti. There are other differences which is not our concern. Sankhya
accepts srishti and so that alone is taken up. Karyam exists in potential form. That is negated
to establish akarya vada. Various arguments are given. The primary defect in sat karya vada is
that karyam will be in the karanam in the potential form which means karanam also is subject
to modification which means karanam also must have janma. It must have its karanam and
infinite regress. Parallel to satkarya vadi is another one. They are asat karya vadis. Nyaya
philosophers. Gaudapada did not negate. But it was negated by satkarya vada.
From 24 to 28 we have Buddha mata khandanam. The previous two comes under astika
darsanam. This one is nastika darsanam as they do not accept Veda pramanam. Here he talks
of two types of people. One is hinayana and another is mahayana. Hina yana accepts there is
an external world. Mahayana does not accept an external world but ciatnaym is kshanikam.
So caitanya janma they talk of. Neither jadam is karyam nor caitanyam is karyam. Both jada
karyatva and caitanya karyatva nishedha is done. With this para-mata khandanam was done.
Three were negated.
From 29 to 74 He comes back to our siddhanta itself. Reasserting our siddhanta. Here we do
not find any new idea. it is taken form second and third chapters only. Even slokas were
repeated. Svapna drshtanta was given once again. The only new thing is alata drshtatanta
between 47 to 56. Fire brand is compared to satyam Brahma. Patterns were compared to
mithya jagat. it is because of this example alone the chapter got the name.
From 75 to 86 samsara karanam and parihara was talked. Here normally we say samara
karanam is ajanam and parihara is jnanam. Here he says that the vyavahara is the cause of
samsara and vyavahara with satyatva buddhi is cause of samsara. As long as we live we have
to be in vyavahara. As long as we have vyavahara is involved there will be duality. For
vyavahara I should become a pramata. Contacting constantly a prameya prapanca. I cannot be
in turiya in vyavahara. So vyavahara involves the triputi. Can this vyavahara disturb turiyam.
It cannot disturb. But the moment we forget the asangatvam of turiyam vyavahara becomes
satyam. Once vyavahara becomes satyam samsara is inevitable. So vyavahara satyatva buddhi
is samsara karanam. Even great philosophers get caught up in various concepts of philosophy
and they are also in duality. Every concept is a prameyam and there will be pramata and
bheda will come. So the problem is vyavahara satyatva buddhi. The solution is vyavahara
mithyatva bdudhi.
From 87 to 90 Gaudapada summed up avasthatraya viveka and mentioned some sadhanas. He
used technical words here for three avasthas and defined them. He pointed out sadhanam as
heyam etc.
From 91 to 100 Gaudapada gave the essence of the whole teaching. And that essence is that
whatever I seek in life is already my very nature. Os seeking makes the life miserable.
Dropping the seeking by owning the very nature. Adi buddhah and adi santah are our
svarupam. He condemned those who do not accept this and glorified abehdavadi. It is not
what buddha said. He made namaskarah to the tatvam which means knowing I am brahman.

Mandukya Upanishad Alatasanti Prakaranam

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Mandukya Upanishad Alatasanti Prakaranam

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Prakaranam

Uotoi 35 sanskrit done

¦ÉÚiÉºªÉ VÉÉÊiÉÊ¨ÉSUÊôxiÉ ´ÉÉÊnùxÉ&

+VÉÉuèù VÉÉªÉiÉä ªÉºªÉ oùŸõÉxiÉºiÉºªÉ

½äþiÉÖxÉÇ VÉÉªÉiÉä%xÉÉnäù& ¡ò™Æô

|ÉYÉ”Éä& ºÉÊxÉÊ¨ÉkÉi´É¨ÉÂ +xªÉlÉÉ

xÉ ÊxÉMÉÇiÉÉ +™ôÉiÉÉkÉä pù´ªÉi´ÉÉ¦ÉÉ

S-ar putea să vă placă și