BY
KRISHNA SASTRI
ALIAS
JANAMEJAYAN
This book is dedicated to two of my great students of Vedanta
JYOTI KOUL
and
DEEPTI NAGARAJA
CHAPTER – 1
DOUBTS OF THE SISHYA
What does every being want in life? It is SUKHAM, is it not?
Therefore sukham is called MUKHYAM or primary.
If sukham is the objective in life then the being strives to achieve it, that is when the ‘want’ is completed.
This means of achieving sukham is therefore called GOWNAM secondary.
When you look at sukham you see them as of two sorts: NITHYAM or permanent and ANITHYAM or impermanent.
Likewise, the means of achieving them are also of two kinds: ADHRISHTAM or invisible and DRISHTAM or visible.
Now let us ponder on Sukham again. we understood it to be either nithyam or anithyam. Which is nithyam and which is anithyam?
You covet a mango, for example. This coveting is kaamam. It could be a mango or a boyfriend. The objects in the case of kaamam are variable. What is variable does not last long for example when you covet a mango it lasts only as long as you pay attention to it and it fails to exist for you the moment you change your attention to your boyfriend. Thus when it is variable, naturally it is anithyam. In this part of the world they change partners like they change shirts!
GowNam is naturally a fit means employed in respect of kaamam. You make an effort and you get it and it does not last long. We also observe that the means and end in respect of anithya sukham is visible or Drishtam.
Two major categories of anithya sukham are Artha or wealth and Kaamam or pleasure.
Sukham is generally referred only to the permanent happiness for anithya sukham ends in unhappiness. Therefore that which is permanent is Mukhyam. A person may strive to achieve Sukham, the permanent one, but the means seem to become less and less visible. When the Permanent Sukham is achieved the object is totally invisible (Adrishtam). Mukhyam is always one of adrishtam only.
Again there are two categories of Nithya Sukham and they are Dharma and Moksha. Even though Dharma is gowNam it is important because Moksha cannot be achieved without coforming to Dharma, therefore we consider Dharma as mukhyam only.
Moksha is the Nithya Sukham where one is free and have no rules to be observed or flouted as they do not exist. Thus you can say Dharma ends in Moksha. In Moksha there is neither dharma or adharma exist. In Moksha you have nothing to conform to, there is neither effort nor karma. It is beyond that you have ever known as a jeeva. Your being is completely secure and free.
Thus Moksham is called PARAMA PURUSHARTHAM. It is NIRADHISAYA ANANTAP PRAAPTI. Our Vedanta calls it ब्रह्मात्मैक्य ज्ञानं.
What is the nature of Brahman? What is the swaroopam of Aatma? Does the world really exist? What causes this world. These are the wonderments of a mumukshu.
One becomes a Mumukshu because of his many puNya karmas in the past many janmas and because of the anugraham of the Lord by his Upasana.
One such mumukshu equipped with vivekam (which really means having the capacity to discern the real from the unreal) and also vairaagyam (the indifference of dispassion) gets a yearning to know, to understand the moot question that has arisen in his mind. The mumukshu has read about the Maha vaakyas and those that teach Jeeva-Brahma Aikyam and has done sporadically the sravaNa, manana and Nidhidhyasana. He/she needs Upadesa and clarity and therefore is in the look out for a Guru who is rooted in the BRAHMA BHAAVA. He/she is now ripe for upadesa and by the maturity of his/her poorva punya the Satguru appears and the mumukshu falls at his feet and requests him to remove his/her doubts.
Why does the mumukshu do that?
Brahma Sutra says: ॐ आवृत्तिः असकृदुपदेशात् ॐ ॥ meaning “repeatedly think about it, as has been taught (in the upanishads).
The great Satguru Vidyaranya had said: “until the Maha vaakya ‘अहं ब्रह्मास्मि’ gets sunk in, the mumukshu should continue with his sravana, manana and nidhidhyasana. Vidyaranya also said that this inquiry should be about jeeva, jagat and Paramaatma.
Thus when the opportunity arose, the mumukshu asked of the Guru “Bhagavan, What is the nature of Brahman? What is the swaroopam of Aatma? Does the world really exist? What causes this world?”
And the Guru said patiently, “My dear child, ब्रह्म सत्यं जगन्मिथ्या जीवो ब्रह्मैव नापरः।” Do I have to translate this?
As soon as he/she heard this the mumukshu had so many thoughts of the opposite view that he had heard before and begins to narrate to the Satguru and asks to be enlightened.
Nireeswara vaadhins such as Jains deny the existence of Easwara; Soonya vadhins like the Bouddhas contend that there is only emptiness; Saankhyas say that ‘pradhaanam’ or primary particle cause the universe; Vaiseshikas hold that ‘paramaaNu’ cause the universe; The dwaitins say that Brahman and Jeeva are different; naana jeeva vadhins contend that there are many jeevas; the other dwaitins hold that the jagat does exist and so on.
There is a nyaaya that says that ‘a pillar to be posted should be shaken well to be made firm’. With this in view the mumukshu decides to express all his doubts at once to get a firm understanding from the Guru.
So what did the mumukshu ask of his (hereafter I am using ‘his’ as a common gender) Guru?
O Guro! A view does not become true by declaring it to be so. It has been told about Brahman as follows:
i. Brahman is the Truth;
ii. It is not a content of any proposition;
iii. It is neither big nor small;
iv. It is devoid of qualities;
v. It is unreachable by mind, speech etc.
How can we say that Brahman is Truth, it is SAT and it is knowable? I do not see any proof by which we can establish these to be so.
On the contrary, jagat is concluded to exist, to be seen by perceptible tools such as eyes, ears etc. Therefore how can we call it to be false. There is no standard or device by which we can prove it as mithya.
In the same way I am clearly known as Jeeva limited by space. I have pride such as ‘I’ and ‘mine’. I have the thought that I am the karta and bhokta, I am a resident of of the karmas paapam, punyam and misram. I am the enjoyer of their results (of karmas) such as sukham and dhukkam.
I am the owner of the life of samsaara consisting of wife, children, home, land, wealth, servants etc. Having encumberances I am a baddhan and getting release from these I am a mukhtan.
I am still subject to birth and death, which is against the nature of Brahman and so how can I be one with Him? Thus Jeeva is Brahman only makes no sense.
This is how the mumukshu put forth his reasonable arguments to the Guru.
CHAPTER – 2
MEANING OF THE WORD ‘TAT’
TAT is generally understood as ‘that’. It also means ‘pure’ or that which is combined with ‘MAAYA’ (or CHAPALA menaing shaking, trembling, unsteady or wavering),
The following series of lessons can be an elaborate explanation of the word ‘TAT’.
On hearing the doubts of the sishya the Satguru began his explanation of SAT as follows:
It is One;
It is non-dual;
It is pure;
It has no qualities (Gunaa);
It is doubtless;
It cannot be defined by words;
It cannot be set by any standards;
It is unpolluted;
It is birthless and deathless;
It is beyond opposites;
It is devoid of PRAPANCHAM (i.e. Maaya and its effects are not to be found in It.
It cannot be limited by space (Desa) and Kaala (time);
It is kootastham (i.e. It is changeless-immoveable-ever existant);
It is Avikriyam (It does not transform into another, not created);
It is peaceful;
It is auspicious;
It is known by Its existence;
It is the essence of all knowledge;
It is known by oneself (the Jeeva);
It is not destroyed in all three states;
It knows of no unhappiness;
It is faultless;
It is undivided;
It is unconnected;
It is SAT-CIT-ANANDA yet of Ekarasam.
Even though unknown by mind (as the mind does not exist in deep sleep so as to know) and unreached by words (for no explanation could complete its swaroopam) yet by eliminating everything as ‘neti’ ‘neti’, the Sruti teaches us the existence of this SAT.
Adi Sankara has said: “Vedanta vaakyas, by direct explanations (Vidhi vaakyas) and by negation (Nisheda vaakyas) of that which It is not, teaches the knowledge of Brahman.
For instance Mandukya Upanishad (7) says:
नान्तःप्रज्ञं न बहिःप्रज्ञं नोभयतःप्रज्ञं न प्रज्ञानघनं न प्रज्ञं नाप्रज्ञम् | अदृश्यमव्यवहार्यमग्राह्यमलक्षणमचिन्त्यमव्यपदेश्यमेकात्मप्रत्ययसारं प्रपञ्चोपशमं शान्तं शिवमद्वैतं चतुर्थं मन्यन्ते स आत्मा स विज्ञेयः || 7 ||
He remains unaware of external, internal and intermediate worlds; He lies beyond both consciousness and unconciousness; where sight cannot penetrate, nor thought, which is indescribeable, bearing no relation to anything; He is pure awareness, peace, bliss and non-duality; He is the Aatman; He is knowable.”
यत्तदद्रेश्यमग्राह्यमगोत्रमवर्णमचक्षुःश्रोत्रं तदपाणिपादम् ।
नित्यं विभुं सर्वगतं सुसूक्ष्मं तदव्ययं यद्भूतयोनिं परिपश्यन्ति धीराः ॥ ६ ॥
The wise (धीराः) sees and experiences. What is it?
That which cannot be perceived, which cannot be seized, which has no origin, which has no properties, which has neither ear nor eye, which has neither hands nor feet, which is eternal, diversely manifested, all-pervading, extremely subtle, and undecaying, which the intelligent cognized as the source of the Bhutas. (6)
We are now reflecting on the many doubts the sishya had in his mind coming as it did from disparate knowledge systems.
First we take up Sunya vaada. Its contention is that there was a vaccuum or nothingness before the creation.
In this connection let us consider some Sruti Vaakyas:
अन्यत्र धर्मादन्यत्राधर्मा-
दन्यत्रास्मात्कृताकृतात् ।
अन्यत्र भूताच्च भव्याच्च
यत्तत्पश्यसि तद्वद ॥ (Kathopanishad 1.2.14)
(Nachiketa asks of Yama) “Tell me about That which you see as different from Dharma and adharma, cause and effect and past and future.”
नैव वाचा न मनसा प्राप्तुं शक्यो न चक्षुषा ।
अस्तीति ब्रुवतोऽन्यत्र कथं तदुपलभ्यते ॥ (Kathopanishad 2.3.12)
“The Aatman cannot be reached by speech, nor by the eyes nor even by the mind.”
न तत्र चक्षुर्गच्छति न वाग्गच्छति नो मनः ।
न विद्मो न विजानीमो यथैतदनुशिष्यात् ॥ (Kenopanishad 1.3)
“The eyes does not go There, nor the speech, nor the mind.”
न तत्र सूर्यो भाति न चन्द्रतारकं
नेमा विद्युतो भान्ति कुतोऽयमग्निः ।
तमेव भान्तमनुभाति सर्वं
तस्य भासा सर्वमिदं विभाति ॥ (Kathopanishad 2.2.15)
“The light of the sun does not go there, nor of the moon, stars or lightning, least of all fire. When He shines, everything shines. By His light all this is lit. “
तदेजति तन्नैजति तद्दूरे तद्वन्तिके ।
तदन्तरस्य सर्वस्य तदु सर्वस्यास्य बाह्यतः ॥ (Ishavasyopanishad 5)
“It moves, it is motionless. It is distant, it is near. It is within all, it is without all this.”
निष्कलं निष्क्रियं शान्तं निरवद्यं निरञ्जनम् ।
अमृतस्य परं सेतुं दग्धेन्दनमिवानलम् ॥ (Shvetashvatara Upanishad 6.19)
“He is undivided, free from activities, quiet, without defect, spotless…”
तद्धैक आहुरसदेवेदमग्र आसीदेकमेवाद्वितीयं तस्मादसतः सज्जायत ॥ (Chandogya Upanishad 6.2.1) “Sowmya, only SAT was there before creation; It is One and non-dual”
ॐ आत्मा वा इदमेक एवाग्र आसीन्नान्यत्किञ्चन मिषत् । (Aithareya Upanishad 1.1.1) “Truly, at the beginning only Aatma was there; none else.”
सत्यं ज्ञानमनन्तं ब्रह्म । (Taitiriya Upanishad 2.1)
Quoting the above Veda Vaakyas as pramaaNams, Satguru continued.
“These srutis teach the unqualified eternal existence known as ‘SAT’, the Brahman. How can it then be taken that Brahman does not exist or it is only suunya (vaccuum)? No one has ever taught that by knowing of abhaava (non-existence) or suunya that one attains Mukti? Can you say that you reached non-existence and thus attained Mukti? Abhaava has no real nature (swaroopa satta), none at all! Also Sruti says that only from Brahman that has existence as its form (satroopam) and Maaya (illusion) as its condition that jagat was created. No one can say that jagat came from abhaava or suunya, that is, no one has dared to say that the world came from nothing.”
The sishya continues with his query by raising an objection: “Don’t some people contend that there was only ‘asat’ before creation; it was one and undivided. Only from ‘asat’ that ‘sat’ emerged. Is this not what Chandogyopanishad say?”
The satguru firmly says no to this and reiterated what the Sruti said as follows:
कुतस्तु खलु सोम्यैवंस्यादिति होवाच कथमसतः सज्जायेतेति। सत्त्वेव सोम्येदमग्र आसीदेकमेवाद्वितीयम् ॥ ६.२.२ ॥
‘O Somya, what proof is there for this – that from nothing something has emerged? Rather, before this world came into being, O Somya, there was only existence, one without a second’.
He continued his quotation from Chandogyopanishad.
तदैक्षत बहु स्यां प्रजायेयेति तत्तेजोऽसृजत तत्तेज ऐक्षत बहु स्यां प्रजायेयेति तदपोऽसृजत । तस्माद्यत्र क्वच शोचति स्वेदते वा पुरुषस्तेजस एव तदध्यापो जायन्ते ॥ ६.२.३ ॥
That Existence decided: ‘I shall be many. I shall be born.’ He then created fire (heat). That fire also decided: ‘I shall be many. I shall be born.’ Then fire produced water. That is why whenever or wherever a person mourns or perspires, he produces water.
Thus the Sruti says of the wishful beginning (samkalpapoorvam) and visible beginning (eakshaNapoorvam) of jagat. Also if suunya is the the cause then the effect must also be suunya. But we find that all these effects (jagat) has ‘Sat’ or existence as its substance.
All these are ‘sat’ only declares the Sruti. On these conclusion therefore the following inferences are stated:
A:–that suunya cannot be the adhishtanam (basis) of jagat;
B:–That this ‘jagat’ (under discussion) cannot have suunya as its cause (standing next to it or adhishtaanam);
Reason: Jagat has form. Whichever effect has form has in turn that which has form as the cause.
Reason: Pot has clay has its cause and they both have form.
After this explanation the sishya comes up with an argument as follows:
“So be that the jagat did not come out of suunya. May be we could take that jagat dissolves (laya) into suunya. When things get destroyed (पतम् = collapse), they seem to end in suunya. At the time of ‘pralaya’ (universal dissolution), nothing is left at all. Also in deep sleep the world comes to naught.
The Satguru replied: “This is not correct. In the dissolution of any object at its end (अवधि = end of the term) a ‘sat’ object is seen, For instance, if we say that in the ground we see the अभाव of the pot, it seems that the अवधि of अभाव of pot is in the ground.
“In accordance with the nyaaya that the पतम् or destruction of an object that was formed, is in its अधिष्ठानं (basis or precedence) as its residue. So we infer the following.
“the लय of प्रपञ्च is in its अधिष्ठानं viz, ब्रह्मण – the सत् , the Existence because प्रपञ्चं – that which appears (प्रपञ्चं also means that which reverses) – came from ब्रह्मण (its अधिष्ठानं). The effect ends in its own cause – like the pot in the clay.”
“Nowhere, on the example of deep sleep given by the sunyavaadhin, it has to be pointed out that the sleep state is Brahman with ignorance as its condition and therefore Brahman is the basis of all the three states of experience, viz. waking, dream and deep sleep. Since both waking world and dream world have their layam in sleep (as also the deep sleep), the worlds of experience have their layam in Brahman only and not in suunya.”
“Also, it is not correct to say that a thing that has one thing as its cause and a different one as its layam for such a thing is not seen in nature. Can the pot that has mud as its cause can have yarn as its layam?”
“Thus, jagat that has Brahman (Sat) as its cause, does not have suunya as its layam.”, concluded the Satguru.
The Satguru continued: “the view that abhava is the source of jagat is not correct. If bhaava or forms could come out of abhaava then a barren woman could deliver a son or hare could have horn as both the son of barren woman and the horn of hare do not exist in nature as we cannot point out to anything as a son of a barren worman or as a horn of hare.
Thus the contention that abhaava is the source of creation is absurd.
न तत्र सूर्यो भाति न चन्द्रतारकं
नेमा विद्युतो भान्ति कुतोऽयमग्निः।
तमेव भान्तमनुभाति सर्वं
तस्य भासा सर्वमिदं विभाति॥ says Kathopanishad
“Neither does the sun shine there, nor the moon with all the stars, nor does this lightning shine. What to say of this fire? Everything shines after him who alone shines. By His light all this shines variously.”
Here the Sruti puts the Brahma Chaitanyam first and announced all this jagat comes from that light only. If the Brahman is not accepted as the basis of jagat where is light (consciousness) by which it could be known to senses? Therefore it should be accepted that without Brahman the whole jagat will be lost in darknes to our senses.
In this way, by rejecting suunya vaadham and abhaava vaadham that do not accept Brahman, we come to the conclusion by means of arguments and by the standards of the Sruti, that Brahman exists os Existence-Knowledge, as unchanging and eternal.
In the next segment we take up samkhya view of the world and then refute it.
Sri Satguru said: “Because only Brahman as SAT-CIT (Existence-Consciousness) is the अधिष्ठानम् (basis) of Maaya, we would now show that only Brahman has the cause factor of jagat and we would prove it by means of तटस्थ लक्षणं (meaning ‘property distinct from the nature of the body and yet that by which it is known’ is called तटस्थ लक्षणं which is variously known as an indication, definition, unique landmark etc.
Let me explain more. The dharma that differentiates one thing from another is called लक्षणं . This dharma is of two kinds. One that of the dharma in a particular thing all the time. This dharma is called स्वरूप लक्षणं . Another is a लक्षणं which even though not a real dharma of that particular thing, it makes this particular thing to stand aloof from that dharma. This stand-aloof dharma which is secondary and temporary in nature is known as तटस्थ लक्षणं.
SAT-CIT-AANANDA is Brahman’s स्वरूप लक्षणं. Being cause of jagat is its तटस्थ लक्षणं for, in reality, Brahman does not cause anything. Because of association of Maaya, this cause factor of jagat happens to it.)
The following quotes from प्रस्थानत्रय gives out the tenor upon which the samkhya view is rejected.
एष सर्वेश्वरः एष सर्वज्ञ एषोऽन्तर्याम्येष योनिः सर्वस्य प्रभवाप्ययौ हि भूतानाम् ॥ ६॥ (Maandookyopanishad) “He is the Lord of all, Knower of all, Indweller of all, and creator and destroyer of all.”
अहं सर्वस्य प्रभवो मत्त: सर्वं प्रवर्तते | इति मत्वा भजन्ते मां बुधा भावसमन्विता: || 8|| (Bhagavat Gita 10.8) “I am the origin of all creation. Everything proceeds from Me. The wise who know this perfectly worship Me with great faith and devotion.”
ॐ जन्माद्यस्य यतः ॐ ॥ १.१.२॥ (Brahma Sutra 1.1.2) “From whom birth etc. of this jagat…”
The sishya comes to know from Satguru’s arguments and proof that Brahman is Sat-Cit roopam and it cannot be denied. However having known the samkhya view that ‘pradhaanam (primary or unevolved matter of nature) is the cause of the jagat raised the following doubts:
“Let Brahman be of Sat-Cit roopam, be unchanging and eternal. Yet it cannot be the cause of jagat. I say this because, Brahman, while being devoid of any quality (निर्गुणम्) memberless (निवर्ग्यम्) devoid of doership (अकर्त्रुत्वम् ) changeless (अविकारत्वं) unconnected with anything (निसङ्गत्वम्) helpless (निस्सहायत्वम्) unevolving (अपरिणामत्वम् ) etc., at the same time contrary to all these has the cause factor for the jagat. If Brahman with these characteristics, is taken to be the cause of jagat, then we must conclude that it has other dharmas different from those described above. That is not acceptable because that will be negation of such statements of Sruti as निर्गुणम् , निरवियम् etc. Therefore it is right to take something other than Brahman as the cause of jagat. What can be suitable cause? We have to take samkhyas ‘pradhaanam’ that which is made up of three guNas–satvam, rajas and thamas–and that has liberty of its own (स्वतन्त्रम्). To it there is the help of the three guNas, its swaroopa lakshaNam, to evolve etc. An inert cause to an inert effect indeed! It has the nyaaya ‘effect must have the same nature as its cause’. In the world we find that the inert pot has come from the inert clay. Therefore we should take pradhaanam as the cause of jagat.”
Sri Satguru said:
What you say is totally incorrect. The ‘pradhaanam’ of samkhyas cannot be the cause of the jagat for the simple reason that the Srutis have not said so. What do the Srutis say? The Srutis say that the jagat was created by a conscious person with his resolve as its beginning (सङ्कल्पपूर्वम्) ,
सदेव सोम्येदमग्र आसीदेकमेवाद्वितीयम् । (Chandogyopanishad 6.2.1) “Sowmya, SAT alone was before creation..”
कुतस्तु खलु सोम्यैवंस्यादिति होवाच कथमसतः सज्जायेतेति। सत्त्वेव सोम्येदमग्र आसीदेकमेवाद्वितीयम् ॥ (Chandogyopanishad 6.2.2) “O Somya, what proof is there for this—that from nothing something has emerged? Rather, before this world came into being, O Somya, there was only existence, one without a second”.
आत्मा वा इदमेक एवाग्र आसीन्नान्यत्किञ्चचन । स ईक्षत लोकान्नु सृजा इति ॥ (Aithareyopanishad 1.1.1.) “In the beginning verily (all) this Atman one alone was. Any other acting as a rival was not. He (the Self) thought, “Let me now create the worlds.”
स इमाँल्लोकानसृजत । अम्भो मरीचीर्मापोऽदोऽम्भः परेण दिवं द्यौः प्रतिष्ठाऽन्तरिक्षं मरीचयः । पृथिवी मरो या अधस्तात्त आपः ॥ (Aithareyopanishad 1.1.2.) “Whatever he created is seen. If it is not seen it would not be born out of him. The creation has to be seen as different from him. It is possible only when he sees so. This is called EakshaNa Poorvam. Thus he felt happy that he created. What did he create?”
यः सर्वज्ञः सर्वविद्यस्य ज्ञानमयं तापः । तस्मादेतद्ब्रह्म नाम रूपमन्नं च जायाते ॥ (Mundakopanishad 1.1.9) “From the Brahman who knows all and everything of all and whose tapas is in the nature of knowledge, this Brahma, name, form and food are produced”.
“From the Sruti vaakyas we learn that jagat arose out of the resolve of an omniscient, omnipotent Paramaatma who is all pervading Consciousness who knows the karta, karma, vipaakam (ripening of action) and phala. Therefore, it cannot be imagined that creation took place from an anaatma (inert being).”
The sishya continued his narration of samkhya philosophy to elicit clarification from the Satguru.
“At a time when the three gunas of pradhaana are held in equipoise which is known as ‘saamya avastha’, the hightened state known as ‘utkarsham’ of satguna gives rise to knowledge, says Geeta. Therefore the nature of consciousness fits pradhaana. From this consciousness, we could say, by way of courtesy (upachaaram), that ‘it resolved’ (to create); taking pradhaanam’s capability to create, we would call it omnipotent; and considering pradhaanam’s capacity to cause jagat, attrinbuting omniscience is just a courtersy and is akin to saying ‘Badrasenan is my Aatma’ and it is correct in terms of the rules of GowNam (attribution).”
Here I wish to explain what the sishya has referred to as ‘Badrasenan is my Aatma’. Knowing two things as two different things, yet attributing one’s dharma as that of the other is called ‘upachaaram’. This is also called GowNam. A lord, when speaking of a person by name Badrasenan who is most trustworthy and a very dear friend as ‘Badrasenan is my Aatma’, it is clear that the lord calls Badrasenan as his own self because of his deep affection for him, even though that Badrasenan is a different person from himself. Also when saying this man is a lion, similar attribution of a lion to a man is made because of his valor. This is the rule of Gownam.
The Satguru who is a siddhaanti (holder of the established view) would answer the sishya as follows:
“This logic is not correct. Utkarsham does not take place at saamya avasta, because if one guNa increases, that would naturally upset the equilibrium; it would upset the saamya (balanced) state thus removing the swaroopam of pradhaanam. Also there is another big fault that lies in there. When pradhaanam attains the quality of evolution, by changing itself into its own effect viz. prapancham or jagat, it suffers destruction to its previous state just like the milk would when it underwent a change to curd. If it is argued that only one part of the pradhaanam suffered destruction, then it would mean that pradhaanam is not a whole by itself but made up of parts and those parts would then be preceding pradhaanam thus automatically losing its claim to be the cause of all creation. If pradhaanam is given the omniscience in consideration of the superiority of sat-guNa, and since sat-guNa in the saamya state is not away from the other two guNas viz. rajas and thamas, the superiority of rajas and thamas also takes place (to maintain the equipoise) thereby increasing the narrow-mindedness, stupidity etc. So much so, the omniscience does not take place and consequently the practice of upachara and its gowNam (attribution) of a resolution (to create) does not take place.
“The Sruti has spoken of that which has caused jagat as Aatma in the primary sense (mukhyam). Aatma is sentience. Therefore to the inert pradhaanam, the practice of upachaaram – to attribute Aatma to the inert pradhaanam – is unfitting.
“Moreover, the jeeva is of the nature of sentience in the condition of its release, according to many Sruti vaakyas such as “…in this way rising from this body he attains the sentient form which is his swaroopam and shines with it. He is Purushotthama.; “…Sowmya, at that moment, he becomes one with SAT…”; and “..He is completely enveloped by the omniscient sentience…” (My salutations to Citrupi who help my hand and transported me to Mukti avastha.)
“If we give the cause of jagat to pradhaanam, then during the state of liberation called ‘mukti avastha’ the sentient jeeva has to become inert to be one with the insentient pradhaanam. This is illogical from the point of one’s own goal. It is not desireable for any sentient being to lose itself to become an insentient matter.
The samkhyas may plead:
“Just as the iron ball gets the ability to emit heat when associated with fire, can not pradhaanam have the power of resolution in the presence of a sentient being in the manner of gowNam i.e. attribution?
As Siddhanti my objection is: “This is suitable as an argument. Tell me why that Purusha, in whose presence pradhaanam is said to attain the power of resolution by attribution, that sentient being who happens to be omniscient – who knows the doer, the action, the samskaara (the preparation), phala (the fruit of action), the place and time etc. – who is omnipotent himself, why that very Aatma itself cannot be the cause of jagat? Why unnecessarily attribute the cause of jagat to that pradhaanam which is inert, non-luminous and anaatma? Moreover, all the Veda Vaakyas find unity of thought (gathi saamaanyam) on this Brahmaatmaikya swaroopam as the SAT, CIT and ‘Abinna-nimitta-upaadhaanam (the efficient and material cause that undergoes no change.
तदेतत् सत्यं यथा सुदीप्तात् पावकाद्विस्फुलिङ्गाः सहस्रशः प्रभवन्ते सरूपाः । तथाऽक्षराद्विविधाः सोम्य भावाः प्रजायन्ते तत्र चैवापि यन्ति ॥ १॥ (Mundakopanishad 2.1) “This is the Truth: As from a blazing fire, sparks essentially akin to it fly forth by the thousand, so also, my good friend, do various beings (like the shining ones – Devas and the not so shining ones – lokas) come forth from the imperishable Brahman and unto Him again return. “
तस्माद्वा एतस्मादात्मन आकाशः सम्भूतः । आकाशाद्वायुः । वायोरग्निः । अग्नेरापः । अद्भ्यः पृथिवी । पृथिव्या ओषधयः । ओषधीभ्योन्नम् । अन्नात्पुरुषः । स वा एष पुरुषोऽन्नरसमयः । तस्येदमेव शिरः । अयं दक्षिणः पक्षः । अयमुत्तरः पक्षः ।
अयमात्मा । इदं पुच्छं प्रतिष्ठा । तदप्येष श्लोको भवति ॥ १॥ इति प्रथमोऽनुवाकः ॥ (Taittiriyopanishad 2.1) “From That, verily,—from This Self—is aakaasa (ether) born; from aakaasa, the air; from the air, fire; from fire, water; from water, earth; from earth, plants; from plants, food: from food, man. He, verily, is this man, formed of food-essence. This itself is his head; this is the right wing, this is the left wing, this is the self, this is the tail, the support. On that, too, there is this verse:”
“In other words, the upanishad says that all these are from Aatma only.
“Even though pradhaanam is imperceptible, it has no sentience such as luminosity. Again pradhaanam is perishable, only Brahman is imperishable (aksharam). To quote the Sruti again:
यो वा एतदक्षरं गार्ग्यविदित्वास्मिँल्लोके जुहोति यजते तपस्तप्यते बहूनि वर्षसहस्राण्यन्तवदेवास्य तद्भवति यो वा एतदक्षरं गार्ग्यविदित्वास्माल्लोकात्प्रैति स कृपणोऽथ य एतदक्षरं गार्गि विदित्वास्माल्लोकात्प्रैति स ब्राह्मणः ॥ १० ॥ (Brihadhaaranyakopanishad 3.8.10) “Hey, O Gaargi, who in this world, without knowing this Immutable, offers oblations in the fire, performs sacrifices and undergoes austerities even for many thousand years, finds all such acts but perishable; he, O Gaargi, who departs from this world without knowing this Immutable, is miserable. But hey, O Gaargi, who departs from this world after knowing this Immutable, is a knower of Brahman.”
“The upanishad says that only Brahman is aksharam (imperishable) and did not indicate that pradhaanam is aksharam. Also because pradhaanam has been explained as the Maaya with three guNas, it is not called ‘Aja’ (unborn).
“To say that it is incongruent for Brahman that is memberless, helpless, unevolving and alone, to have the material and efficient cause, is incorrect because, in association with Maaya, it occurs to Brahman these material and efficient causes. The Sruti vaakyas say: क्षरं प्रधानममृताक्षरं हरः क्षरात्मानावीशते देव एकः । तस्याभिध्यानाद्योजनात्तत्त्व – भावात् भूयश्चान्ते विश्वमायानिवृत्तिः ॥ १० ॥ (Svethashvataropanishad 4-10) “It should be known that prakrti is Maaya and Easwara weilds Maaya. This whole world is filled with the bodies of his creatures. “
छन्दांसि यज्ञाः क्रतवो व्रतानि भूतं भव्यं यच्च वेदा वदन्ति । अस्मान् मायी सृजते विश्वमेतत्तस्मिंश्चान्यो मायया सन्निरुद्धः ॥ ९॥ (Svethashvataropanishad 4-9) “That Maayi, Easwara creates this world..”
न तस्य कार्यं करणं च विद्यते न तत्समश्चाभ्यधिकश्च दृश्यते । परास्य शक्तिर्विविधैव श्रूयते स्वाभाविकी ज्ञानबलक्रिया च ॥ ८॥ (Svethashvataropanishad 6-8) “He is without a body or organs; none like unto Him is seen, or better than He. The Vedas speak of His exalted power, which is innate and capable of producing diverse effects and also of His omniscience and might.”
न तस्य कश्चित् पतिरस्ति लोके न चेशिता नैव च तस्य लिङ्गम् । स कारणं करणाधिपाधिपो न चास्य कश्चिज्जनिता न चाधिपः ॥ ९॥ (Svethashvataropanishad 6-9) “He has no master in the world, no ruler, nor is there even a sign of Him by which He can be inferred. He is the cause, the Lord of the lord of the organs; and He is without progenitor or controller.”
अपाणिपादो जवनो ग्रहीता पश्यत्यचक्षुः स शृणोत्यकर्णः । स वेत्ति वेद्यं न च तस्यास्ति वेत्ता तमाहुरग्र्यं पुरुषं महान्तम् ॥ १९॥ (Svethashvataropanishad 6-19) “Grasping without hands, hasting without feet, It sees without eyes, It hears without ears. It knows what is to be known, but no one knows It. They call It the First, the Great, the Full. They say he is the Chief, the extraordinary supreme Being.
The sishya who was ever alert raised the following objection:
“There is a nyaaya that cause and effect must have the same factor. But Brahman and jagat are different in nature. How, therefore, can these two have the cause and effect factors respectively?”
The Satguru patiently explained as follows:
“This fault can also be attributed to pradhaanam. Pradhaanam is memberless, imperceptible and inert whereas jagat is composed of parts, visible and a mixture of sentience and insentience. So much so, how can you attribute cause-effect factors to these?
“Therefore on the basis of Sruti and proof that even though Brahman is unchanging (vilakshaNam) it is said to be the cause of the jagat brought about by avidya.
“Pradhaanam which is based not by any standards nor by the determination (or basis) of Sruti, cannot have the cause factor of jagat. Therefore the samkhyas’ view based on ignorance cannot be accepted.”, so concluded Satguru.
We will take up another objection and refute it but before that I have mentioned “Abinna Nimittha Upaadhaanam” and I will explain this first.
“Abinna Nimittha Upaadhaanam”
In order for something to take place, there could be numerous causes. For the pot to come out of clay, we need the potter, the clay, wheel, a stick etc. The one who has the desire (iccha) and the ability (kriya) become its efficient cause which is known as nimittham. Thus for the pot the efficient cause is the potter, for the cloth, the weaver, for ornaments the goldsmith and so on. A certain thing is the cause of something and that something is called the effect or kaaryam. So clay is the cause and the pot is the effect. Suppose there is no clay then there is no cause and certainly there won’t be a pot the effect. Such a thing that is the cause of something that becomes effect, then that thing which stands as the cause is called material cause or upaadhaanam. Thus the material cause for the pot is the clay, for the cloth, the cotton, for the ornament it would be gold and so on. In most cases the cause is destroyed (binnam) in causing its effect as in the case of curd that destroyed its cause viz. the milk. If there is an effect for which both efficient cause and the material cause are one and the same and such cause is not destroyed in the causation of the effect, such a cause is called ‘Abinna Nimittha Upaadhaanam’. For example, for the spider’s net the spider itself is both the efficient cause and the material cause while the spider remains unaffected in the causation.
We now take up the rejection of ‘Nyaaya’ view of creation.
The sishya said: “I am fully satisfied with your rejection of the samkhya view. However, the Naiyayikas are very adept in logic. Unless we reject their view too, our siddhaanta cannot be a sound one. Pray, give me your reasoned negation.”
We thus take up the rejection of ‘Nyaaya’ view of creation.
“The view of the Naiyayikas, has to be rejected in the same way as that of samkhyas. In fact, there is no need for any special effort for doing so because the paramaanu is as inert as pradhaanam. There is also a contradiction with their own view that the qualities of the cause get to the effect. It is true that the whiteness of the yarn is seen in the cloth it produced but where is the particleness or the minuteness of the paramanu in the jagat? Their own view is affected by their own law! Moreover their view that both material and efficient causes cannot happen to one and the same thing is incorrect. In their example, because the material cause viz. clay is inert, the efficient cause had to be the sentient potter. But Parameswara is a big Maayaavi, sentient form Himself and omniscient. His being the efficient and material cause is shown with the example by the Sruti itself.
यस्तन्तुनाभ इव तन्तुभिः प्रधानजैः स्वभावतः । देव एकः स्वमावृणोति स नो दधातु ब्रह्माप्ययम् ॥ (Svethashvataropanishad 6-10)
May the non-dual Lord, who, by the power of His maya, covered Himself, like a spider, with threads drawn from primal matter, merge us in Brahman!
यदेतद् अक्षरम् एतदमृतम् अभयं तत्प्रविश्य देवा अमृता अभया अभवन्। (Chandogya Upanishad: 1/4/) “(O! Sowmya!) From that Aksharam many forms arise and in Him they have their laya.”
आनन्दो ब्रह्मेति व्यजानात् । (Taittiriya Upanishad – Bhrigu Valli – 3-6) “All creatures rose from Aananda only…”
अहं सर्वस्य प्रभवो मत्त: सर्वं प्रवर्तते | (Bhagavat Gita 10.8) “I am the cause of all and of their destruction.”
The ज्ञानि who knows that Doubtless, Eternal, Causeless, none like Him, unknowable by the mind and beginningless attains Mukti says our upanishads.
“Thus it is clear, that Brahman, that cannot be known by any ‘pramaaNam’ (standard) such as evidence, inference etc. can only be known by Vedanta.
Here, let me explain what ‘pramaanam’ (standard) is. It is an instrument by which wisdom is attained. Every religion accepts standards according to their views. Vedantins hold on to six standards viz. ‘prathyaksham’ (perception, evidence), ‘anumaanam’ (inference), ‘sabdham’ (verbal authority viz. Veda), ‘upamaanam’ (analogy, example), ‘arthaapatti’ (presumption) and ‘anupalabdhi’ (non-recognition or non-perception). Brahman that cannot be the object of senses, can be known, according to vedantins, only by the sabdhappramana viz. Vedas. (प्रमाणम् बीजमव्ययम् – This standard is the root that is imperishable).
Now back to out our exegetes. Because (a) that ‘paramaanu’ cannot be objectified, (b) that the ‘logic’ as such is based on infirm ground, (c) that Nyaaya (Vaiseshika) view is not held in esteem by elders and above all, (d) that they are not based on Sruti, therefore, it is wise to reject these ideas.
The sishya said: “O! Guro! O! Bhagavan! I agree that we should give up the baseless view of Samkhyas and Vaiseshikas. But the poorva mimamsaka’s view is based on Vedas and therefore seems to be held on firm ground. Unless this view is satisfactorily rejected our siddhaantam will not be considered faultless.”
Sri Guru said: “The poorva mimamsakas say that Aatma is the karta, sentient, independent and beginningless. Because of his karma he creates the jagat. Because of the variety of karmas, strange and variegated effects take place. They quote the Sabhdaanna Braahmana: यत्सप्तान्नानि मेधया तपसाजनयत्पिता । (Brihadhaaranyakopanishad 1:5) “…who by his widom and tapas creates the seven ‘annaas’ and becomes father…”
विज्ञानं यज्ञं तनुते । कर्माणि तनुतेऽपि च । विज्ञानं देवाः सर्वे । ब्रह्म ज्येष्ठमुपासते । विज्ञानं ब्रह्म चेद्वेद । तस्माच्चेन्न प्रमाद्यति । (Taithiriyopanishad 2:5) “The intelligent one does the sacrifice; also other karmas. Devas worship the Brahman as the priordial intelligence.”
“Thus they try to show that there is no Easwara apart from the aatma who is the karta. All the vedangas are there, according to them, only to worship this aatma that is the karta.
“We will now show how this view is wrong.
“Even though this aatma as karta has sentience, by becoming jeeva due to avidya
whereas
–he has the pride of being, in association with the ignorance born body, senses, praaNa, mind and intellect;
–he has the condition of age (vayovastha); (Vayovastha are four in number: (a) baalyam, (b) koumaaram, (c) Yowvanam and (d) jara (old age))
–he has the pride of possession such as varNa, creed, lineage, relationship, cattle, wealth, home, land etc.;
–he has imagination such as karta, bhokta, sukhi, dhukki, birth, death etc.;
–he considers himself stupid, dependent and just another matter in the jagat and conditioned etc.
the jagat from space to body and in between and in a widely different manner that is difficult to comprehend by the mind, manifests as
–gross and subtle;
–a whole composed of independent parts and a whole composed of parts that are consubstantially the same as the whole;
–and past and present; and
–as sukham and dhukkam etc.,
and with these disqualifications how can the jeevaatma be the karta of jagat? Therefore, substantiated neither by evidence nor by inference, jeevaatma cannot be the karta of jagat”
Now it is the turn of the sishya who raises this objection: “The kartaatma who has no beginning by observing the karmas and worships prescribed by the Vedas, and consequently by the fruits of such observances, creates such positions as Hiranyagarbha etc. By occupying these positions, he enjoys the fruits of his karma. This view is based on the Sruti and so how can the opposition of evidence, inference etc. can be brought in?”
The Satguru answered: “It is not right to say so. The kartaatman is subservient to another. As Paramaatma urges, so does he act by being a slave to his karma. Antharyaami Brahmana says: यो विज्ञाने तिष्ठन्विज्ञानादन्तरो यं विज्ञानं न वेद यस्य विज्ञानं शरीरं यो विज्ञानमन्तरो यमयत्येष त आत्मान्तर्याम्यमृतः ॥ (Brihadhaaranyakopanishad 3:7:22) “Whoever is in intelligence, whoever is different from intelligence, whom intelligence could not know, to whom intelligence is body, whoever stays inside intelligence and activates it, know him to be your Aatma; He is the Self; He is eternal.”
Another Sruti says: “..entering into all, He rules them.”
And Krishna says: ईश्वर: सर्वभूतानां हृद्देशेऽर्जुन तिष्ठति | भ्रामयन्सर्वभूतानि यन्त्रारूढानि मायया || “Arjuna, Easwara stays in the hearts of all beings. Like working a machine, he moves all bodies by the power of his Maaya.”
“Thus according to Sruti and Smriti, jeeva has liberty of its own to either do the karma or to enjoy the fruits as it pleases. When such is the case, how can he be the creator of the variegated world?
Thus when the nireeswara meemaamsa that does not accept Easwara got rejected, the followers of seswara mimaamsa – those who accept Easwara – came up with the following objection.
“The Sruti says ‘Tattvamasi’ to mean jeeva is no different from Easwara. This view is accepted by Vedantins. Then how can you say that only Easwara has the power of creation and not jeeva?
The Vedanti answered: “When you say ‘thou’, do you indicate to mean in an expressed sense (vaachyaartham) or the jeeva in the indicated sense (lakshyaartham)? Since vaachyaartha jeeva has upaadi (conditioning or limitation) it cannot be said to be non-different from Easwara. To quote the Sruti, द्वा सु॑प॒र्णा स॒युजा॒ सखा॑या समा॒नं वृ॒क्षं परि॑ षस्वजाते । तयो॑र॒न्यः पिप्प॑लं स्वा॒द्वत्त्यन॑श्नन्न॒न्यो अ॒भि चा॑कशीति ॥ (Rig Veda 1.164.20) “Two birds (jeeva and Paramaatma) united with firm friendship rest on the same tree (body); One of them (jeeva) eats the fruits (of karma) of the tree (body) while the other looks on without eating.”
“Therefore, it does not befall on the jeeva to create the jagat. Whereas the lakshyaartha jeeva has no upaadi, and thus having been separated from anaatma, remains Brahman Itself. Actually this lakshyaartha jeeva has no charactristic of jeeva at all and in such case how can the cause of jagat be attributed to jeeva? Jagat kaaryam is impossible for the limited and small minded jeeva. This view is more clearly dealt with in my later writing dealing with the meaning of the word ‘Thou’.
Now, the view of the Yoga saastra is dealt with and appropriately rejected.
Patanjali, the author of Yoga Sastra holds Easwara to be of Cit Roopa and sentient supreme Purusha and attributes to him the efficient cause of jagat. And Patanjali hold pradhaanam composed of the three gunAs as the material cause.
Since the inappropriateness of pradhaanam as the material cause has already been dealt with earlier in the Samkhya and Nyaaya views, no new attempt is made here to negate this view. Brahma Sutra too rejected this view in verse 2.1.3. (एतेन योगः प्रत्युक्तः ).
In the same way, Maheswara’s view that holds Easwara as the efficient cause and Narada Pancharaatra’ ‘Agama’ that gives out jagat srishti in four ‘vyoogas’ or formations are held in opposition to Sruti, and, as we have already seen, the creation did not take place in the manner that they describe and so their views are rejected. Sri Sankara has elaborately condemned these views in his Brahma Sutra Bhaashya.
Now we are going to take up the ‘swabhaava’ view and reject it.
The ‘swabhaavists’ prattle as follows:
“Jagat arose of its own accord and nobody created it. From the semen of a man comes a man; from buffalo comes a buffalo and from a horse comes a horse. Likewise, jagat full of sentient and insentient things come from their respective causes and after a while they get dissolved. In this way, from time immemorial, like a river that flows, these kind of things keep happening. No one person is cause of them. Neither anybody is seen to organize and rule them. The followers of sastras vainly search for their origin.”
This view is rejected as follows:
Siddhaanti: How do you come to know of ‘swabhaava’ (inherent nature) in the semen?
The contestant: It is perceptibly semen.
Siddhaanti: How?
The contestant: In the copulation of a man and a woman, the semen gets impregnated and the consequent production of the young one is known to all. In no other way does this take place. Since this is perceptibly evident no inference is required.
Siddhaanti: This is not so. If it is contended that by swabhaava of the semen that an offspring takes place, then during every copulation an offspring has to be born. That is not how it happens. Sometimes copulation is unproductive. Moreover, your argument that from man comes man, from horse comes horse etc. is not seen to be universally happening at all places and at all times. Sometimes a different creature is seen to be born from a parent of the same sort. People say such happening is a ‘bad mark’. Therefore ‘veerya swabhaava’ stemps from a fallacious argument (kutarka).
Thus, from Samkhya to Swabhaava views and in addition to Arhatha, Bouddha etc. views stem from avidya and based on fear etc.
We have to accept jagat as the creation of Brahman ‘to remove the non-conformity to प्रधिज्ञै-दृष्टान्तं says Brahma Sutra. प्रधिज्ञै दृष्टान्तं means ‘acknowledgement by illustration. In Chaandogyopanishad the discussion between Uddaalaka AaruNi and his son Swetakethu happens to prove the Truth of Brahman and mithya (falsehood) of jagat. To Swetakethu who has just completed his education in Gurukula his father puts the question: “Have you known that, knowing of which everything else is known?” His son replies in the negative. By knowing the clay, all that are made of clay (like pots) can be known. All those causes (things) that have transformed are names only. (The pot has transformed from clay but it is still a clay in a different form, therefore the transformation is a change in name only). Therefore only those things that are causes are real (such as the clay in this instance as opposed to its product the pot). This way the entire universe is the effect of Brahman only. By the example of clay and pot, we could know that the jagat is mithya and its cause Brahman (is Satyam) knowing of which the entire universe is known. This is called प्रधिज्ञ. This view is given in Brahma Sutra.
What is this प्रधिज्ञ (acknowledgement)?
In Chandogyopanishad, Swethakethu asked, “Through which the unheard of becomes heard, the unthought of becomes thought of, the unknown becomes known, O! Venerable sir, in what way is that instruction imparted?”
The father replied, “O! Sowmya, as by knowing a lump of earth, all things made of earth becomes known; all transformations have speech as their basis, and they are names only. Earth as such is the reality.
“O! Sowmya, as by knowing a lump of gold, all things made of gold becomes known; all transformations have speech as their basis, and they are names only. Gold as such is the reality.
“O! Sowmya, as by knowing a nail-cutter all things made of iron becomes known; all transformations have speech as their basis, and they are names only. Iron as such is the reality. Sowmya, this is that instruction.”
This is प्रधिज्ञ and it hold good only when jagat was caused by Brahman so it could be known by knowing Brahman. Knowing of paramaanu or pradhaanam would not lead to knowing of jagat and thus, it is emphasised, प्रधिज्ञ cannot materialize in these cases.
More over, not only that Parameswara is the cause of jagat, He also causes everything to shine after Him. He also is the cause of the sastras and vedas such as Rik, Vedangas, smritis, puraanaas, ithihaasaas etc. that gives out such divisions as the VarNa, aasrama etc. The following Srutis testify to this:
स यथार्द्रैधाग्नेरभ्याहितात्पृथग्धूमा विनिश्चरन्त्येवं वा अरेऽस्य महतो भूतस्य निश्वसितमेतद्यदृग्वेदो यजुर्वेदः सामवेदोऽथर्वाङ्गिरस इतिहासः पुराणं विद्या उपनिषदः श्लोकाः सूत्राण्यनुव्याख्यानानि व्याख्यानान्यस्यैवैतानि निश्वसितानि ॥ (Brihadhaaranyakopanishad 2:4:10) “As from a fire kindled with wet faggot diverse kinds of smoke issue, even so, my dear (Maithreyi), the Rig-Veda, Yajur-Veda, Saama-Veda, Atharvaangirasa, history, mythology, arts, Upanishads, verses, aphorisms, elucidations and explanations are (like) the breath of this infinite Reality. They are like the breath of this (Supreme Self) alone.”
ॐ शास्त्रयोनित्वात् ॐ ॥ (Brahma Sutra 1.1.3) “Because it is the cause of the sastras.”
If that powerful veda that brings to light, every object, itself is like breath, then who could deny the consciousness of Brahman?
How is that vedas are the springsource of Parameswara? Because only by Vedas could Brahman be known. To quote the Sruti and smriti:
Atmanopanishad asks: “I ask about the Purusha described in the Upanishads?”
वेदैश्च सर्वैरहमेव वेद्यो वेदान्तकृद्वेदविदेव चाहम् || ( Gita 15.15) “I am the only one to be known by all Vedas”
It further says: “About whom all Vedas speak of…”
These Sruti and smriti statements prove without doubt that Brahman is the basis of jagat and Vedas.
Now the Poorva Mimaamsi raises an objection. He contends that all the Vedas deal only with duties dealing with rites and not about existing things such as Brahman.
We say that Vedantas instruct on Brahman, not just kriya. There are portions in Vedas that say of existing things such as, “He performs Homa with curd.”
Meemaamsavaadhi: “This is not correct. These sentences consisting of references to existing things are corollary to sentences that instruct on kriya. These sentences extol the virtues of karthaatma and therefore to be taken as referring to kriya and not existing things.”
Vedanti: The sentences such as “Tattvamasi” are not meant to praise the karthaatma or aid in the kriya. These sentences are meant to instruct on Brahmaathmaikyam and not to praise the karthaatma who is a samsaari. By the Sruti vaakya, “..मेतं वेदानुवचनेन ब्राह्मणा विविदिषन्ति यज्ञेन दानेन तपसानाशकेनैतमेव विदित्वा मुनिर्भवति । ” (Bri. Up. IV.4.22) “..By studying the vedas, by yagnas, by giving gifts and by thapas that is not cruel, the Brahmanas wish to know.”
It is known that by the observation of such karmas as yagnas that are done without expecting returns, the karma-phala is such that one’s mind is purified and becomes desireous of attaining ज्ञान. Therefore, these statements as ‘Tatvamasi’ on the other hand, directly instructs brahmaatmaikyam and serve their purpose. Therefore, how can one contend that Vedanta helps kriya? Moreover, vedanta is entirely a different topic whose purpose is not aiding kriya. The Poorva Mimaamsa opens up saying “Now the inquiry is regarding Dharma” whereas, Uttara Mimaamsa (Vedanta) begins with, “Now, therefore, the inquiry is about Brahman.” Thus, these two are meant differently and how can vedanta be held to aid kriya?
In respect of the qualifications (adhikaaram) of the one who weilds the authority (adhikaari) also, vedanta cannot be said to aid kriya.
The qualifier (adhikaari) according to poorva mimaamsa, is the one who is desirous of returns for his actions, who has the ability and power to act, who is intelligent and who is not forbidden by sastras, whereas, according to uttara mimaamsa, he has the four accomplishments such as the discrimination between aatma and anaatma etc. What are these accomplishments?
Vivekam: Knowledge and discrimination between the real and the unreal, permanent and impermanent and so on.
Vairaagyam: To refuse the pleasures of this world and the next.
Shat Sampath: The six qualities such as sama (impartiality), dama (self-restraint), uparati (abstaining from indiscriminate sexual enjoyment; in case of sanyasi this abstaining is total), thithikshai (endurance), samaadhaanam (contemplation on the Self) and shraddha (faith, composure of mind) and Mumukshutvam: Having ardent desire for liberation.
Between the two sastras, there is difference in the object of the sastras. Poorva Mimaamsa speak of such objects of pleasures as swarga whereas, uttara mimaamsa speaks of unity of Brahman and aatman (Brahmaatmaikyam).
Again between these two sastras, there is difference in the end product (phala). That is, that which was not there before and then have appeared उद्पत्यम् (product or produce); that was already there and obtained later as is called आप्यम् . That which undergoes change because of cleansing called सम्स्कार्यम् and that which transforms from one state to another called विकार्यम् . These four — उद्पत्यम्, आप्यम् , सम्स्कार्यम् and विकार्यम् — are the क्रियाफल taught by the poorva mimaamsa. These are obtained by doing karma. These are unpossessed before but obtained later by doing karma.
The phala in uttara mimaasa are: siddham (that which is), Ekham (that which is undivided), kevalam (alone, unaffected by Maya), kootastham (unchanging), niradhisayam (superior to anything) and moksham (liberation state). This moksham is non-different from swaroopam. When it shines it need no help of karma. Therefore, it is completely different from the four sorts of karma-phala like उद्पत्यम्.
When we find such grave differences between karma kaandam and ज्ञानकाण्डं how can we say that vedanta is an aid to karma? But however, the karma portion gives the adhikaari a clear mind and impels him to seek knowledge of Aatma step by step and thus, we can dare say, that karma kaandam is an aid to uttara mimaamsa sastra. This is only apt and not otherwise.
Now mimaasavaadhi raises this objection: “All right. Let us concede that vedanta does not aid the karma bhaagas. But we must accept that they complement those part of the Vedas that speak of upaasana (worship). Is it not a fact that upanishads, here and there, speaks of such upaasanas as praaNa etc. in great detail?
Vedanthi’s reply: This is not correct. Such upaasanas as praaNa that are talked about are only to unite the mind so as to help attainment of ज्ञान and not otherwise.
Mimaamsavaadhi’s objection: Karmas and Upaasanas are described variously and their phala, therefore, ought to be various and so how can it be claimed to help ज्ञान ?
Reply: True. To those who perform karma with various desires get various phala but a mumukshu performing a nishkaama karma and worship, surrendering everything to Easwara, gets his mind united and thus enables himself in the attainment of ज्ञान .
Bhagavan says in Geeta, “Arjuna, all karmas end up in ज्ञान only.
To determine the purpose of a book there are six marks of identifications. They are:
a) Upakrama Upasamhaaram;
b) Abhyaasam;
c) Apoorvatha (newness, things extra-ordinary)
d) Phalam;
e) Artha Vaadam (declaration of purpose) and
f) Upapatthi (Demostrated conclusion).
These are called ‘Thaatparya Lingas’ or marks of purpose. By the use of these ‘thaatparya lingas’ all vedas either directly or step by step, teach the knowledge of Brahman. These Veda vaakyas, unlike what mimaamsis think, do not teach karma alone. The same view is explained in detail in successive chapters of Brahma Sutra by Bhagavat Poojyapaada (Vyaasa).
Thus it has been proved without giving room for debate, that for Parameswara who is the Maayaavi is the cause of jagat as well as Veda. The Parameswara Himself, residing inside and out is the mover. Proof to this is the Antharyaami Brahmana of Brihadaranyakopanishad (3.7.3) यः पृथिव्यां तिष्ठन्पृथिव्या अन्तरः, यं पृथिवी न वेद, यस्य पृथिवी शरीरं, यः पृथिवीमन्तरो यमयति, एष त आत्मान्तर्याम्यमृतः ॥ “He who inhabits the earth but is within it, whom the earth does not know, whose body is the earth, and who controls the earth from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.”
Thus many statements say of Easwara being the indweller and inner controller.
Another Sruti in Brihadhaaranyakopanishad say: “He enters into them and rules over people.” Also there are statements that speak of Easwara and moving things from without:
ब्रह्मानन्दमीमांसा भीषाऽस्माद्वातः पवते । भीषोदेति सूर्यः । भीषाऽस्मादग्निश्चेन्द्रश्च । मृत्युर्धावति पञ्चम इति । सैषाऽऽनन्दस्य मीमाꣳसा भवति । युवा स्यात्साधुयुवाऽध्यायकः । आशिष्ठो दृढिष्ठो बलिष्ठः । तस्येयं पृथिवी सर्वा वित्तस्य पूर्णा स्यात् । स एको मानुष आनन्दः । ते ये शतं मानुषा आनन्दाः ॥ (Taittiriya Upanishad – Brahmananda Valli – 2-8-1) “Out of fear for Him the wind blows, through fear of Him the sun rises, through fear of Him Agni, Indra and Death, the fifth the speed?”
एतस्य वा अक्षरस्य प्रशासने गार्गि सूर्याचन्द्रमसौ विधृतौ तिष्ठत एतस्य वा अक्षरस्य प्रशासने गार्गि द्यावापृथिव्यौ विधृते तिष्ठत एतस्य वा अक्षरस्य प्रशासने गार्गि निमेषा मुहूर्ता अहोरात्राण्यर्धमासा मासा ऋतवः संवत्सरा इति विधृतास्तिष्ठन्त्येतस्य वा अक्षरस्य प्रशासने गार्गि प्राच्योऽन्या नद्यः स्यन्दन्ते श्वेतेभ्यः पर्वतेभ्यः प्रतीच्योऽन्या यां यां च दिशमन्वेतस्य वा अक्षरस्य प्रशासने गार्गि ददतो मनुष्याः प्रशंसन्ति यजमानं देवा दर्वीं पितरोऽन्वायत्ताः ॥ Brihadaranyakopanishad (3.8.9) “..Under the rule of this very Absolute O! Gargi! the sun and the moon are held in their own course..”
ईश्वर: सर्वभूतानां हृद्देशेऽर्जुन तिष्ठति | भ्रामयन्सर्वभूतानि यन्त्रारूढानि मायया || (Bhagavad Gita: 18: 61) “The Supreme Lord dwells in the hearts of all living beings, O Arjuna. According to their karmas, He directs the wanderings of the souls, who are seated on a machine made of material energy.”
Also retribution for all karmas are attributed to Easwara. To quote again from Sruti and smriti in support:
ॐ फलमत उपपत्तेः ॐ (Brahma Sutra 3.2.38) “Therefore, giving out karmaphala belongs to Him”
बुद्धिर्ज्ञानमसम्मोह: क्षमा सत्यं दम: शम: |
सुखं दु:खं भवोऽभावो भयं चाभयमेव च || 4||
अहिंसा समता तुष्टिस्तपो दानं यशोऽयश: |
भवन्ति भावा भूतानां मत्त एव पृथग्विधा: || 5|| (Bhagavad Gita: Chapter 10 verses 4,5)
“From Me alone arise the varieties of qualities in humans, such as intellect, knowledge, clarity of thought, forgiveness, truthfulness, control over the senses and mind, joy and sorrow, birth and death, fear and courage, non-violence, equanimity, contentment, austerity, charity, fame, and infamy.”
Poorva Mimaamsi’s objection: Karmas alone have the ability to give karmaphala. How can it then be attributed to Easwara? Only to karmas that are different can karmaphala that are equally different can fit. If we agree to Easwara the power of retribution, we may have to put up with bias and cruelty.
Vedanti’s answer: The inert karma has built-in destruction and if we attribute karmaphala to it, then at a point of time karma will be devoid of power of retribution (as the karma per se would have ceased by then. How can a non-existent one give phala?). Only the sentient Easwara who is eternal and who knows the kartha, karma, phala, desa, purpose etc. and who like the king of subjects, can have the power of retribution. Since he has no desire of his own, no bias or cruelty can be attributed to him. Therefore, the power to make one to perform the karma and the power to distribute respective karmaphala to that karmi belongs to Him only.
Moreover, destroying the entire jagat is also the work of Easwara. To quote Prasthanathrayam in support:
यस्य ब्रह्म च क्षत्रं च उभे भवत ओदनः । मृत्युर्यस्योपसेचनं क इत्था वेद यत्र सः ॥ २५॥ इति काठकोपनिषदि प्रथमाध्याये द्वितीया वल्ली ॥ (Katha Upanishad 1.2.25) “Of whom, the Brahma and the Kshatriya dharmas are the food, and Death but pickles (to supplement it); how can one thus know where that atman is.”
श्रीभगवानुवाच | कालोऽस्मि लोकक्षयकृत्प्रवृद्धो लोकान्समाहर्तुमिह प्रवृत्त: | ऋतेऽपि त्वां न भविष्यन्ति सर्वे येऽवस्थिता: प्रत्यनीकेषु योधा: || (Bhagavad Gita 11.32) “I am mighty Time, the source of destruction that comes forth to annihilate the worlds. Even without your participation, the warriors arrayed in the opposing army shall cease to exist.”
Thus the potent meaning of the word “TAT” is Brahman that is existence, and that is devoid of qualities, that is alone, that is sentient, that is bliss, that is oneness and pure, was supposed by the rejection of atheistic philosophies. This is सम्भावना.
(सम्भावना is reflection. By rejecting the atheistic philosophy we come to the understanding (by way of reflection) that there is a cause of jagat that is Brahman, even before the determination of the nature of such a cause. This is called सम्भावना.)
Thus, by rejecting such propositions as pradhaanams etc. as the cause of jagat, it was proved without an iota of doubt that Brahman the sentience, is the cause of jagat as well as Vedas, and as the basis of Maaya which is beginningless (anaadhi), which is inexplicable (anirvacaneeya) and which is of the three guNas. To that sentience alone, that indwelling in all, the ability to give karmaphala and the power to destroy all worlds, were attributed. Moreover, as mentioned before of the three topics of Brahman, jeeva and jagat, the sishya’s first objection regarding the truth of Brahman was thus explained in great detail by SatGuru by means of inquiry into the word “TAT”.
CHAPTER – 3
NATURE OF JAGAT
The sishya, happy and encouraged at the explanation he received from Satguru to the word “TAT”, prostrated before him and again asked:
“O, Bhagavan! I had great doubts about Brahman before. These doubts have been cleared by your explanation based on Sruti, smriti and logic. Now, I have doubts about your contention that jagat is mithya. Since jagat is the effect of the Reality that is Brahman and since jagat can easily be found by direct knowledge, that it has the qualifications to be dealt with, (so I get the impression that it is real, and therefore,) how can you hold it to be false? Please remove this doubt.”
Having been requested by the sishya thus, Sri Satguru replied as follows:
“In order to know the real nature of jagat, I have to explain the order of its creation. Earlier, we dealt with the meaning of the word “TAT” by means of inquiry. Later we will deal with the meaning of the word “TVAM” by means of inquiry. Earlier I have said briefly that from Brahman, which cannot be known as an object, this creation took place with samkalpa poorvam and eakshaNa poorvam. Thus this inquiry about the jagat remains part of the inquiry into the meaning of “TAT”.
“Taitiriyopanishad began describing Brahman as ‘Existence-Knowledge-Infinitude’ (सत्यं ज्ञानमनन्तं ब्रह्म ।), as pervading the wide open cave (of space) and went on describing the creation as follows: तस्माद्वा एतस्मादात्मन आकाशः सम्भूतः । आकाशाद्वायुः । वायोरग्निः । अग्नेरापः । अद्भ्यः पृथिवी । पृथिव्या ओषधयः । ओषधीभ्योन्नम् । अन्नात्पुरुषः । (Taitiriyopanishad 2.1) “From that very Aatma is aakaasa (ether) born; from aakaasa, the air; from the air, fire; from fire, water; from water, earth; from earth, vegetation; from vegetation, food: from food, man came into existence.”
“Thus, beginning with space and ending with body, Sruti described the order of creation. Here from pure Existence combined with the Maaya (of an opinion ie. samkalpa as the condition), the space was created; this Sentience, now having space as Its condition, creates air; from air as its condition, creates fire; and so on. Thus as each condition is pervaded by the Sentience, the entire jagat is pervaded by Brahma Chaitanyam only. If the pervading of Sentience is not accepted, we would be unable to infer the creation from the inert space, air etc., as even in the world, without the potter no pot comes into existence of its own accord from the clay. Thus the all pervading Sentience is hilited here.
The order of creation (from beginning to end) is given here. First five subtle bodies called “Thanmaatras” were created. Then by Parameswara’s resolve, these five thanmaatras by a process known as PANCHEEKARANAM mixed with one another and became five gross bodies. From these gross bodies, fourteen worlds such as Brahmaanda etc., with their confederations and federations (व्यष्टि and समष्टि) arose. From the remaining unmixed subtle bodies arose the linga sareeras. I will get into this process after expaining to you PANCHEEKARANAM and the fourteen worlds.
PANCHEEKARANAM literally means making of five. The five gross bodies came from the five subtle bodies called Thanmaatras by means of what is known as PancheekaraNam. The process is: first, the five subtle bodies, each can separately, divided into two equal parts. From each of these subtle bodies thus divided one part remained undivided while the other part again divided, this time into four and mixed with the other four subdivided parts. Now the new composition of each Tanmaatra is, half of its own and the other half composed of one-eighth of each of space, air, fire, water and matter thanmaatras. Thus for example, the space thanmaatra is half space, plus one-eigth of air, fire, water and matter thanmaatras; the air thanmaatra is half air, one-eighth of each of space, fire, water and matter thanmaatras and so on. As each of the subtle bodies divide into five parts and get recomposed by five elements forming gross bodies, this process got its name ‘pancheekaraNam’. This set of new compositions, as yet dominated by their respective elements for eg. air thanmaatra is one half of air in it.
Now let me explain the fourteen worlds which starts from the surface of the earth as Bhoolokam, and then going up in order as Bhuva:, Suva:, Maha:, Jana:, Thapa: and Satyalokam also known as Brahmaanda. And seven lokas below the earth goes in as Athala, Vithala, Sutala, Rasaathala, Thalaathala, Mahaathala and Paathaala in that order.
Now let us pick up the linga sareera that we left before expalining PancheekaraNam, and explain its process of division. From the ‘sat’ portion of the separate five subtle bodies, rose five ज्ञान indriyas which are organs of knowledge. They are श्रोत्रम् or the ear, त्वक् or the body (literally skin) सक्षुस् or eye, रसनम् or mouth, घ्राणम् or nose with abilities to know smell शब्दम् (hearing, sound) स्पर्शम् (touch, sensaation)रूपम् (sight, form), रसम् (taste) and गन्धम् (smell) respectively.
From the ‘sat’ portion of the combination of five subtle bodies, rose ‘अन्तःकरणम् ‘ (internal organ or manas). On rising, this internal organ divided into mind (also called manas) and intellect (buddhi). Chittam (memory) and ahamkaara (ego) were contained in manas and buddhi respectively.
From the ‘rajas’ portion of the SEPARATE five subtle bodies rose five karma indriyas which are the organs of action. They are ‘vaak’ (वाक् = tongue), ‘paani’ (पाणि = hand), paadam (पादं = leg), ‘gudas’ (गुदस् = anus) ‘upastham’ (उपस्थम् = penis, organ of procreation) with abilities for speech, lifting, moving, excretion and enjoyment respectively.
From the ‘rajas’ portion of the COMBINATION of five subtle bodies rose ‘praaNa’ that vital organ of breathing. Even though this praaNa is one only, by its functions, it is known variously as praaNa, apaana, vyaana, udhaana and samaana.
ताभ्यः पुरुषमानयत्ता अब्रुवन् सुकृतं बतेति पुरुषो वाव सुकृतम् । ता अब्रवीद्यथायतनं प्रविशतेति ॥ अग्निर्वाग्भूत्वा मुखं प्राविशद्वायुः प्राणो भूत्वा नासिके प्राविशदादित्यश्चक्षुर्भूत्वाऽक्षिणी प्राविशद्दिशः श्रोत्रं भूत्वा कर्णौ प्राविशन्नोषधिवनस्पतयो लोमानि भूत्वा त्वचं प्राविशंश्चन्द्रमा मनो भूत्वा हृदयं प्राविशन्मृत्युरपानो भूत्वा नाभिं प्राविशदापो रेतो भूत्वा शिश्नं प्राविशन् ॥ तमशनायापिपासे अब्रूतामावाभ्यामभिप्रजानीहीति ते अब्रवीदेतास्वेव वां देवतास्वाभजाम्येतासु भागिन्यौ करोमीति । तस्माद्यस्यै कस्यै च देवतायै हविर्गृह्यते भागिन्यावेवास्यामशनायापिपासे भवतः ॥ ५ ॥ “He brought for them the form of a man. Seeing that they exclaimed in joy! ‘ Well done.’ And therefore man is indeed well-done. He said to them: “Do enter according to your places.” Then fire, having turned to speech, entered the mouth. Air, having become scent, entered the nostrils; sun, having become sight, entered the eyes. The deities of the quarters, having become hearing, entered the ears. The deities of the plants and trees, having become hairs, entered the skin. The moon, having become mind, entered the heart. The god of death, having become down-breathing, entered into navel. The god of waters, having become seed, entered the generative organ. Hunger and thirst said to Him: “Assign a place for us.” He told them: To these deities “I assign you, and I make you sharers in them.” Therefore to whatsoever god an offering is made, hunger and thirst become partners in it.
“Fire becoming speech entered the mouth; Air becoming Prana entered the nostrils; the Sun becoming sight entered the eyes; the Cardinal Points becoming sound entered the ear; Herbs and Lords of the forests becoming hair entered the skin; the Moon becoming mind entered the heart; Death becoming Apana entered the navel; Water becoming semen entered the generative organ.
“Hunger and Thirst said to him. “Allot to us a station.” To them he replied “I assign you a place in these deities and make you sharers with them. Therefore when oblations are offered to any deity whomsoever, Hunger and Thirst become sharers therein. (Aithareyopanidhad 3.5)
Each ज्ञानेन्द्रिय and कर्मेन्द्रिय has its own respective devaamsa given as follows:
Ear – Dhik (directions)
Body (skin) – Vaayu (wind)
Eye – Arka (Sun)
Mouth – VaruNa (water)
Tongue – Agni (fire)
Hand – Indra (Lord of Heavens)
Leg – Upendra (Indra’s brother, Vishnu)
Organ of excretion – Mrithyu (Lord of death)
Genital Organ – Prajapathi (Progenitor)
Thus rose the subtle body known as ‘linga sareera’ made of the composition of the seventeen organs i.e. the five ज्ञानेन्द्रिय five कर्मेन्द्रिय. five praaNas, manas and buddhi.
Now, Parameswara, from His own Self, created, beginning from space to gross and subtle bodies and combining four elements viz. air, fire, water and earth, brought out strange and wonderful forms with their own names that comprised the jagat. And in order that this inert world come to function, He Himself entered it in the form of jeeva.
स एतमेव सीमानं विदर्यैतया द्वारा प्रापद्यत । (Aithareyopanishad – 3.12) “Having cut over the skull, He entered the body through that door.” “He created it and then entered it.” says Taitiriyopanishad.
What is the nature of the jagat thus created? Is it real or unreal. This will now be discussed.
Naiyaayikas or the followers of Nyaaya contend that jagat was not there before creation (in any form) and it becomes non-existant at dissolution. This view of Naiyaayikas, known as ‘असत्कार्यवादम्’ is really untenable. We have already contended that nothing could come out of non-existence as it is devoid of the nature of existence that is seen in jagat and therefore no creation is possible from non-existence. Also the existence could not be held to become non-existence.
Before we proceed further let me explain असत्कार्यवादम्. About the nature of the effect from the cause, different religions have different views. The effect lies in its cause in a subtle state and then manifests later. A tree lies in the seed in a subtle form, and then comes out, is one view that is held by the Samkhyas. This view is called “सत्कार्यवादम्” Against this view is the असत्कार्यवादम् that holds that the effect is caused by a combination of causes. This view also known as आरम्भवादम् is held by the Naiyaayikas. Different from these two views, is the “विवर्तवादम् ” of Advaitins. विवर्त means altered condition or state. Advaitins hold that the effect is an apparent or illusory form, an unreal appearance caused by avidya or human error. Thus to them, the whole world is an unreal illusory appearance, while the Brahman is the only real entity–as a serpant (sarpa) is a vivarta of a rope (rajju)–so is the world a vivarta of the real entity, and the illusion is removed by vidya or true knowledge.
Naiyaayikaas accept four kinds of ‘abhaavas’ or non-existence. In प्रध्वंस अभाव (pradhwamsa abhaava) they accept non-creation while the deny the same non-creation to प्राङ् अभाव (praang abhaava) thus contradicting themselves.
Bhagavan Krishna has said in his Bhagavat Geeta (2.16):
नासतो विद्यते भावो नाभावो विद्यते सत: | उभयोरपि दृष्टोऽन्तस्त्वनयोस्तत्त्वदर्शिभि: || “Of the transient there is no endurance, and of the eternal there is no cessation. This has verily been observed and concluded by the seers of the Truth, after studying the nature of both.”
In simple words, ‘asat’ has no existence and ‘Sat’ never ceases to be. The truth about both has been realized by seers.
Thus the existence for unreal and non-existence for Real are particularly denied. So much so, the view of the asatkaaryavaadhis are considered unfit. Therefore the Buddhist view that ‘non-existence is the cause’ and the Naiyaayikas view that before creation ‘there was only non-existence’ are unacceptable. Also we have already repudiated the view that non-existence is the cause.
OK, let me explain the philosophical term अभाव which means non-existence or nullility. It is supposed to be the seventh category of ‘पदार्थ’ of Kaanada. It is of two principal kinds: संसर्ग अभाव and अन्योन्य अभाव. संसर्ग अभाव comprises three varieties: प्राङ् अभाव , प्रध्वंस अभाव and अत्यन्त अभाव.
Before the pot was created, the non-existence of the pot lies in the clay and is termed प्राङ् अभाव (prior non-existence). This प्राङ् अभाव that has no beginning, comes to an end when the pot was created. When the pot was broken, the non-existence of the pot is later to the existence of the pot and is termed as प्रध्वंस अभाव . This प्रध्वंस अभाव has a beginning but no end. In a piece of cloth the non-existence of the pot is termed as अन्योन्य अभाव . This अन्योन्य अभाव as in अत्यन्त अभाव has no beginning and no end.
Now we give out the siddhanta view that has Veda as the standard. It is: ‘Jagat in terms of its cause is of the nature of Real; and held by itself is unreal’.
Inference: Jagat in its basis is of the form of ‘Sat’ like the pot in its basis is non-different from clay. And jagat taken apart from its basis has no reality such as the pot viewed without the clay with which it was made of. The supporting Srutis are:
आत्मा वा इदमेक एवाग्र आसीन्नान्यत्किञ्चचन । (Aithareyopanishad 1.1) “In the beginning verily (all) this Atman one alone was. Any other acting as a rival was not.”
सदेव सोम्येदमग्र आसीदेकमेवाद्वितीयम् । (Chandogyopanishad 6.2.1) “Somya, before this world was manifest there was only existence, one without a second.”
By these Sruti vaakyas, we come to know that this jagat known by the word ‘idam’ was ‘Sat’–that is of the form of Brahmaatma.
In the present also, this jagat is of Brahmaroopa as given in the following vaakyas.
“These are all Atma.”
“This is the form of Sat-Cit-Ananda.”
“All these are Sat only.”
“All these shine as Cit.”
“The Lord pervades all these.”
“To the superior universe, Amritham (Brahman) is in the front; Brahman is in the back; Brahman is in the South, the north, above, below and pervading on all sides.”
The Sruti tells us that the jagat as the form of Brahman in the three tenses also.
सर्वं खल्विदं ब्रह्म तज्जलानिति शान्त उपासीत । (Chandogya Upanishad – 3-14-1) “Are they not Brahman – as they arise, live and dissolve into Brahman?”
सोम्येमाः सर्वाः प्रजाः सदायतनाः सत्प्रतिष्ठा यथा तु खलु सोम्येमास्तिस्रो देवताः पुरुषं प्राप्य त्रिवृत्त्रिवृदेकैका भवति तदुक्तं पुरस्तादेव भवत्यस्य सोम्य पुरुषस्य प्रयतो वाङ्मनसि सम्पद्यते मनः प्राणे प्राणस्तेजसि तेजः परस्यां देवतायाम् ॥ (Chandogya Upanishad – 6.8.6) “O Somya, as this person is dying, his speech merges into the mind, his mind into praaNa, his praaNa into fire, and then fire merges into Brahman, the Supreme Deity.
सोऽन्तवेलायामेतत्त्रयं प्रतिपद्येताक्षितमस्यच्युतमसि प्राणसंशितमसीति (Chandogya Upanishad – 3.17.6) “You never decay, you never change, and you are the essence of life.”
Also,
आनन्देन जातानि जीवन्ति । आनन्दं प्रयन्त्यभिसंविशन्तीति । (Thaitiriyopanishad) “All these worlds rose from Ananda; they live in Ananda and disappear in Ananda..”
एतद्योनीनि भूतानि सर्वाणीत्युपधारय |
अहं कृत्स्नस्य जगत: प्रभव: प्रलयस्तथा || (Geeta 7.6)
मत्त: परतरं नान्यत्किञ्चिदस्ति धनञ्जय |
मयि सर्वमिदं प्रोतं सूत्रे मणिगणा इव || (Geeta 7.7)
“I am the origin and dissolution of the Universe. O Dhananjaya! there is nothing whatsoever higher than me.”
And the smrithis goes on to say:
“That which is, thaty which shines (viz. that which is seen) is the form of Aatma and nothing else. And nothing else really shines. Only this Aatma shines; therefore the known and the knower are only false and imaginary. (Neither you nor what you see are real because they are relative. The real YOU – the Aatma – is the subject and it has no relatives. Realise this”. said Vasishta to Rama.)
“This world that is seen is as real as Gandharvanagara (the city in the clouds), as the waters of the mirage seen in the desert.”
“The whole wide world rise and fall into Aatma like clouds that appear and disappear in the space.
” ‘Chit’ alone is all the creatures; Cit is the three worlds and I have understood it; I am ‘Cit’ only.”
“From the Fullness came Fullness and remains full only. Therefore the worlds did not arise. That which is seen to have appeared is fullness only.”
All the above from Yoga Vasishta.
Now Brahma Geeta and Sutha Samhita says: “It is Shiva who shines as microcosm and macrocosm.”
ॐ न विलक्षणत्वादस्य तथात्वं च शब्दात् ॐ ॥ (Brahma Sutra 2.1.4.) “(The Vedas say) the jagat is non-different from Brahman.”
Thus we clearly understand by means of Sruti, Smriti and logic and by the nyaaya known as ‘बाधायाम् सामानादिकारणं that all these worlds, in all three times, are of the form of Brahman only.
What is ‘बाधायाम् सामानादिकारणं ? Let me explain.
A word has a reason for being used in a particular detonation and it is called ‘प्रवृत्ति निमित्तं’ If words have different ‘प्रवृत्ति निमित्तं come to denate a single object, the connection between these words is called ‘समानाधिकरणम्’ or being in the same situation (or predicament). A sentence that means the non-difference between two things that are of the same form and essence and are non-different in their nature, such sentence is said to have ‘मुख्य समानाधिकरणम्’ . In a sentence such as ‘He is the Devadatta” the व्यक्ति or the manifestation of the two words ‘he’ and ‘that’ are meant the same by that sentence and therefore that sentence is in मुख्य समानाधिकरणम्. A sentence giving out the oneness of two things that have different purposes, is said to have ‘बाधायां समानाधिकरण्यम्’ . The one word gives out the destruction of an event while the other word means to cause the destruction. Therefore, such sentence would have बाधायां समानाधिकरण्यम् . Consider the sentence ‘That thief is only a pillar.’ (where someone has mistakenly taken a pillar in the twilight as a thief). This sentence that put the thief and the pillar in the same situation, gives out the destruction of the idea of thief at the rising of the idea of the pillar. Therefore this sentence has बाधायां समानाधिकरण्यम्. In the sentence that which appears as jagat is Brahman only, the apprehension of Brahman causes the destruction of jagat just as in the sentence ‘the thief is pillar only’ (what was considered as a thief was found to be pillar and upon finding the idea of thief gets destroyed.), the thief is destroyed by the pillar.
The sishya raises this objection: “In saying ‘All these are Brahman only, both ‘all’ and ‘Brahman’ end in the same विभक्ति or separation and should be considered ‘मुख्य समानाधिकरणम्’ and not बाधायां समानाधिकरण्यम् .
To this the Satguru replied: “It is not correct to say so, for not only मुख्य समानाधिकरणम् has not taken place but also this has been rejected by Sruti. It has already been determined Brahman alone is knowledge, oneness, without attribute, remainder to all destructions and which is not destroyed in all three times, whereas it is our direct knowledge that jagat exists variously and gets into destruction. When such is the contradiction, how could मुख्य समानाधिकरण्यम् take place between that which gets destroyed and that which has no destruction at all? Sruti denies variety to Brahman as in ‘there is no manyness in There’, ‘whoever sees many Here moves from fear to fear!’ (मृत्योः स मृत्युमाप्नोति य इह नानेव पश्यति ॥ Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 4.4.19). By the three words, ‘Ekam’, ‘Eva’, ‘Advitheeya’, Brahman is said to be devoid of ‘सजातीय, विजातीय, स्वगत’ भेदम्’ Thus only बाधायां समानाधिकरण्यम् applies to jagat and not मुख्य समानाधिकरणम्.
Before proceeding further, let me expain ‘सजातीय, विजातीय, स्वगत’ भेदम्’
The differences between things are of three kinds. The difference (bedham) between, say, a mango tree and those of completely different class (jaathi) such as stone, mud etc. is called ‘विजातीय भेदम्’ ; the difference between a mango tree and apple tree etc. is termed as ‘सजातीय भेदम्’ ; and within a tree the difference between a branch, a flower, fruit etc. is called ‘स्वगत भेदम्’.
Now let me continue.
Also, in that thing that are enjoyed, are contained (a) asti (existence), (b) bhaati (light or its ability to be known), (c) priyam (ability to be liked), (d) naamam (name) and (e) roopam (form). Elders say that the first three belong to Brahman (Sat-Cit-Aanandam) while the last two to jagat. An in the first three again, remain the last two as ideas.
“यथा सोम्यैकेन मृत्पिण्डेन सर्वं मृन्मयं विज्ञातं स्याद्वाचारम्भणं विकारो नामधेयं मृत्तिकेत्येव सत्यम् ॥ (Chandogyopanishad 6.4.1) All (transformations) have speech as their basis and (each one) in name only.”
Thus all the names we have in the business of the world have the nature of asti, bhaati and priyam. Without this mixture, names by themselves do not exist. Therefore it is advised to omit the names inside and out (of everything) and to look for in them for Brahman that is ‘Sat-Cit-Aanandam).
In Bhagavat Geeta (15. 3-4) Bhagavan states as follows:
न रूपमस्येह तथोपलभ्यते
नान्तो न चादिर्न च सम्प्रतिष्ठा |
अश्वत्थमेनं सुविरूढमूल
मसङ्गशस्त्रेण दृढेन छित्त्वा || 3||
तत: पदं तत्परिमार्गितव्यं
यस्मिन्गता न निवर्तन्ति भूय: |
तमेव चाद्यं पुरुषं प्रपद्ये
यत: प्रवृत्ति: प्रसृता पुराणी || 4||
“The real form of this tree is not perceived in this world, neither its beginning nor end, nor its continued existence. But this deep-rooted ashvatth tree must be cut down with a strong axe of detachment. Then one must search out the base of the tree, which is the Supreme Lord, from whom streamed forth the activity of the universe a long time ago. Upon taking refuge in Him, one will not return to this world again.”
“This prapancam is the effect of ‘Cit’, therefore, O Friend, how can it bring unhappiness?”
“This strange creeper of samsaara, seems to give opposite fruits to those who are caught in it. To those whose minds are turned inwards, it offers Moksha and to those whose minds are turned outwards, it offers ‘bandha’ (encumberance).”
“To the ignorant, this is the ocean of misery. To the wise, this jagat is Ananda. To the blind, this world is darkness. To the one with sight, this world has light.”
“Nothing stands to reason without the concept of Brahman. All are Brahman only in the all-encompassing Truth.”
“All are Brahman only. That itself is Aatma. There is nothing apart from the Shine of ‘Sat’.
“This jagat that is now assumed and now rejected is not ‘Sat’. It is like a dream (with such contradictory nature).”
“There is neither encumberance nor release. There is never a difference or a contradiction. The eternal light is and remains as Maheswara in the form of the universe.”
The author of Vaartika (Sureshwaraacharya) says:
“Without depending on the all embracing Reality, no phenomenal existence is seen. Therefore, everything is rooted in Reality and remains as appearance only.”
This way, the non-existence of jagat (by itself) and existence only by its basis (where jagat is not seen as jagat) have been explained in great detail by inference and by standards of Sruti. Therefore it is clear that this prapancham is only a form and it has no separate existence (apart from Brahman),
The contention of Sruti that ‘all these are works of Maaya’, happens to indicate that the prapancam by itself is devoid of the nature of existence (sattaaspoorti). The word ‘Maaya’ has meanings such as false, lie, trick, fraud etc. Maaya never meant anything that has a free existence.
Another fault happens to take place. When saying that the world is Maaya and the world is Brahman, there happens two adhishtaanams viz. Maaya and Brahman. But in Sruti, Smriti and logic, no two bases are indicated. It is widely held that Brahman alone is the basis of jagat. Therefore, it must be taken that by the word Maaya, the falsehood of jagat is indicated.
Because Sruti has repeated that ‘Aatman is only all’, ‘Brahman is only all’, the word sarvam indicates completeness, not-manyness. If the word ‘only’ could mean manyness then the word ‘only’ is meaningless. (Only means one only, not more than one. It is wrong to use the word only for more than one as it is illogical.)
Therefore, jagat appears as a modification of Brahman, as a snake on a rope, as the silver on a shell and as a mirage on a desert. Jagat is not (as the Samkhyas would have us believe,) an evolution of Brahman nor is it (as Aarambavaada of Vaiseshikas suggest,) the effect from its cause. The evolution is of the same order as having the same essence as the material cause but with a different form — just like clay and pot. As Maaya and its effect have the same essence, so the evolution is the effect of Maaya. Since Brahman and its perceived effect do not have the same essence, its different forms are only modifications. Since the basic essence (Brahma satta) is hidden, jagat is said to have ‘अज्ञात सत्तागत्वम् . Therefore prapanca is only a modification of Brahman.
What is ‘अज्ञात सत्तागत्वम् ‘ ?
When a thing has been hidden due to ignorance and later known by knowledge, then such a thing is said to have ‘अज्ञात सत्तागत्वम् ‘ (ignorance as basis of existence) ie. that thing has remained unknown before and known later. A pot for instance, was unknown to us and came to light when brought before us. Thus all things in the daily business of the world have ‘अज्ञात सत्तागत्वम् ‘. On the contrary, the rope that is seen as a snake (rajjusarpam) exists as a snake ie. these illusory objects exist as appearances only and that too only during the time they are known to be so. Therefore they have only ‘ज्ञात सत्तागत्वम् ‘ or knowledge as the basis of existence. In other words, their existence is admitted only when it is known. In दृष्टि-सृष्टि वाद there is no अज्ञात सत्तागत्वम् for prapancam as the prapancam is only a form, a making (kalpitham). Therefore it has only ज्ञात सत्तागत्वम् .
So, the evolutionary theory of the Samkhyas that advocates the discarding of the original form and entering newer ones, are therefore faulty. So also, the Aaramba vaada of Vaiseshikas that advocates the separation of cause and effect that in fact suggests dual causes, is equally faulty. Both these theories remain opposed to Sruti, smriti and nyaaya. Therefore these two theories are not worthy of support.
In Vivartha Vaada, there is no fault or blemish to be seen. All fashioned things have unreality (mithya) in the beginning, middle and end. That which was not there before the beginning and that which will not be there after the end does not exist in the middlen is the nyaaya. I will explain this with an illustration. When a rope remains in its own form, unknowing the rope, there arise such doubts as a snake, a waterflow or a necklace. Later knowing it from a friend that it is really a rope, such confusion as knowledge of a snake, waterflow or a necklace etc. are given up. In this way the lonely Chaitanyam remains the basis all the time, yet by the confusion wrought by avidya, jagat raises its appearance. A learned man knows, through the Guru, that the basis of jagat is ‘Satroopam’ by means of such standards as Sruti and on knowing this Adhishtaanam that has asti, bhaati and priyam (Sat-Cit-Aananda) gives up the false idea that this is ‘jagat’. There is no need for any more explanation for this word jagat.
CHAPTER – 4
Meaning of the word ‘Tvam’
I am not the gross body nor the
subtle body, not a conglomeration
of sense organs nor ignorance,
but a witness who is the form
of pure Existence.
Having heard from Sri Satguru about the falsehood of jagat so elaborately and thus completely satisfied, the sishya again requested as follows:
“O! Bhagavan! I understand very well from you that the jagat is none other than Brahman Himself. Now I am desireous of knowing the swaroopam of jeeva. The various contenders argue differently on the nature of jeeva’s swaroopam that I am unable to know it exactly. Since it has profound meaning, I wish you would explain it to me.
Jeeva, as already noted, seems to be of such dharmas as karthrthwam etc. He evidently experiences such states as ‘I am the doer, enjoyer, sukhi, dhukki’ etc. How can he be one with Brahman which has no dharma to observe? Your earlier contention that ‘jeeva is Brahman only and nothing else’, seems to be contradictory statement. Therefore, please kindly give me due explanations with proper arguments and citations. Again you alone can help me out.”
Sri Guru replied: O! Child! You asked me an important question. You are very intelligent. The question you have raised is very subtle one and so not easily understood (when explained). Therefore, listen to me attentively. We shall enquire this by means अध्यारोप and अपवाद (superimposition and refutation), that this Brahman has no dharma of prapanca (निष्प्रपञ्च ब्रह्मण् ). Earlier we inquired the word ‘Tat’. Now we shall inquire the word ‘Tvam’.
Before we proceed further, let me explain to you what is अध्यारोप and अपवाद . After superimposing the dual prapanca on the non-dual Brahman, by imagination, and then by removing this dual prapanca in order to Bring home the truth of Brahman, is a means used by Sruti and is called अध्यारोप अपवादम्. To impute everything from ego (ahamkaaram) to body (deham) on indwelling self (pratyagaatman) is called अध्यारोपम् or superimposition. अपवादम् or refutation is to remove the suffering inflicted on everything from ego to body by the five sheaths (pancakosam) and the three states of existence (avastatrayam). In the same way, to superimpose everything from space to matter on Brahman who is unconnected with prapanca is called अध्यारोपम् . This is the best means observed by the Sruti to impart the knowledge of the subtle nature of Brahman.
Now back to the explanation of jeeva. First conditions of jeeva are explained. That Sri Brahman which is alone, pure and fullness, That which was before creation, itself because of the entry of the inexplicable and beginningless Maaya, is said to acquire Lordship, Omniscience, creatorship, Indwellership etc. And this was explained in great detail before. Also we recounted earlier of the creation of the physical and material world comprising everything from ether to gross and subtle bodies from out of that changeless Parameswara, that अभिन्न निमित्त उपाधानम् who brought about the world with a wishful and visible beginning.
The prakrti called Maaya is the condition of Easwara’s existence and this Maaya itself becomes avidya (ignorance). The upanishad also says, of prakrti, that it happens to be both Maaya and avidya. The reflection of the sentience of Brahman in this impure avidya is the jeeva or the individual soul. Both the jeeva conditioned by avidya and Easwara conditioned by Maaya, are reflections of pure Brahma Chaitanyam. The Sruti says, “Maaya (reflecting the Chaitanyam) creates Easwara and Jeeva. When this condition (upaadhi) is removed, it is said, by way of upachaara, that the jeeva ‘becomes’ pure Brahma Chaitanyam. The Smriti vouchsafes “कार्योपाधिरयं जीवः कारणोपाधिरीश्वरः ” (See explanation below). When the cause and effect are removed only fullness remains.
Bhagavan Ramana said in His Upadesa Saaram: ईशजीवयोर्वेषधीभिदा । सत्स्वभावतो वस्तु केवलम् ॥ The meaning of it is that one person says ‘I am Easwara’ and another person says: ‘I am Jeeva’. These are guises only. When the vesham is removed there shines only that Brahman that is imperishable.
“कार्योपाधिरयं जीवः कारणोपाधिरीश्वरः ” : अज्ञान or ignorance is कारणोपाधि (causal condition) and caused by this ignorance and it is the antahkaraNa or internal organ as the mind is called. This antahkarana is called कार्योपाधि (effective condition). The Chaitanyam with कारणोपाधि is Easwara and the Chaitanyam in कार्योपाधि is jeeva.
Thus, this Brahma Chaitanyam that is pure and unmoving, is said to have FOUR STATES OF EXISTENCE due its contions of individuality and collectiveness (व्यष्टि and समष्टि) .
What are the four states of existence?
The FOUR STATES OF EXISTENCE of microcosm (व्यष्टि) are विश्व, तैजस, प्राज्ञ and तुरीय and the corresponding states of macrocosm (समष्टि) are विराट, हिरण्यगर्भ , ईश्वर and ब्रह्मण्.
How does the Sruti explain this concept?
सर्वं ह्येतद् ब्रह्मायमात्मा ब्रह्म सोयमात्मा चतुष्पात् (Maandukyopanishad – mantra 2) “This Aatma is Brahman. This Aatma has four legs.”
–He is in waking state; He is awareness of external things; He has seven limbs and nineteen faces and enjoy visible things. He is the first aspect called ‘वैश्वानर’. (It literlly refers to the common man or all men indistinctly);
–He is in a dream state; He is awareness of internal things; He has seven limbs and nineteen faces and enjoys subtle things; He is the second aspect called ‘तैजस . (तैजस refers to being passionate, a bhokta swaroopam);
–He is in deep sleep state that lies beyond desire and awareness of both gross and subtle things; He has attained oneness in sushupti (sleep) with Chit as his one face; He enjoys bliss; He is the third aspect called ‘प्राज्ञ’. (प्राज्ञ’ is a reference to being wise, the one who does not get involved with others.)
The following are quotations from Aatma PuraaNa restating the above upanishadic views: “I shall tell you of what detailed books say: That Maaya which causes you to say “I am ignorant”, also causes this visible jagat. This vision itself is seen as both gross and subtle bodies. Jaagrat state comprises all the physical and material bodies and their deities who with their bodies conduct their business. When the subtle body go about its business, then it is swapna (dream) state. When ignorance alone remains (to the absence of everything else) it is sushupti state. All these three states must be eliminated.
That which lies beyond these three states, is called ‘Turiya’ (for fourth state). Vedantins divide this into four and speak of them. One who has given up the body-consciousness inside out and knows this world as Brahman only, then he is in the first stage called ‘Odham’. One who has eliminated the world-consciousness and has given up meditating on any object and knows his own self as Brahman, then he is in the second state called ‘अनुज्ञाता’ . On who has meditated on the self-luminous Aatma as his Self and then gives up the attitude of difference (as subject and object that arise in meditation) and stays in self-awareness, then he is in the third stage called ‘अनुज्ञा’. One who has burnt the vaasanas that are the cause of dhukkam by the fire of Brahman-Consciousness, who has become indifferent to that ‘Chit swaroopam’ that he has attained, who is unaware of himself as living or otherwise or as knowing differently or otherwise of none but that blissful, non-dual, self-luminous Parameswara, he is in the ‘avikalpa’ state called ‘tureeturiya’. (Bhagavan Ramana attained this state.) You would therefore avoid the three states of difference such as jaagrat and also the other three stages such as ‘Odham’ etc. (and attain avikalpa state).”
{This avikalpa state is known as एकाकी or loneliness. This is BrahmaN. When it comes to Maaya it will be described comprising the opposites. For example in Lalitha Sahasranamam She is described as एकाकिनी भूमरूपा (loneliness as also multitude) निर्द्वैता द्वैतवर्जिता}
IT SHOULD BE MADE CLEAR IN ONE”S MIND THAT
THE CHAITHANYAM THAT IS DIVIDED INTO FOUR
BY THE CONDITIONS (UPAADHI) OF INDIVIDUALITY
AND COLLECTIVENESS (VYASHTI AND SAMASHTI) IS
NEVER DIVISIBLE AND IS ACTUALLY ONE ONLY.
In this world, both Easwara and jeeva are seen as creators.
OBJECTION: Sruti, Smriti and Puranaas say only Easwara is the creator. How can you say then that the jeeva is creator too?
REPLY: Listen then. It is common knowledge that Easwara is the creator. Brihadaranyakopanishad says jeeva also is the creator.
यत्सप्तान्नानि मेधया तपसाजनयत्पिता । एकमस्य साधारणम्, द्वे देवानभाजयत् ॥ त्रीण्यात्मनेऽकुरुत, पशुभ्य एकं प्रायच्छत् । तस्मिन्सर्वम् प्रतिष्ठितम् यच्च प्राणिति यच्च न ॥ कस्मात्तानि न क्षीयन्तेऽद्यमानानि सर्वदा । यो वैतामक्षितिम् वेद सोऽन्नमत्ति प्रतीकेन ॥ स देवानपिगच्छति, स ऊर्जमुपजीवति ॥ इति श्लोकाः ॥ (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 1.5.1) “That the father produced seven kinds of food through meditation and rites (I shall disclose). One is common to all eaters. Two he apportioned to the gods. Three he designed for himself. And one he gave to the animals. On it rests everything—what lives and what does not. Why are they not exhausted, although they are always being eaten? He who knows this cause of their permanence eats food with Pratīka (pre-eminence). He attains (identity with) the gods and lives on nectar. These are the verses.”
Swamy Vidyaaranya gave the reply to the question: “If so, who created what?”
“From the visible beginning to the entry into jeeva, were Easwara’s creations. From the waking state to final release, are jeeva’s creations.”
The Parameswara Himself is the weilder of Maaya, with which He created four bodies from whose conditions came the four forms of births called ‘Jaraayujam, Andajam, Udhbijjam and Swedajam’.
What are they?
On earth, the births are of four kinds. The uterous born offsprings such as humans, cows etc. are called Jaraayujam. Those who come out of eggs such as chicken, snakes etc. are called Andajam. Those that sprout from earth such as plants are known as Udhbijjam. The insects that are otherwise born, out of vapour such as bacteria, worms etc are called Swedajam (literally out of sweat).
Parameswara then entered these births commencing from the primeval Hiranyagarbha to the slimy worms that comprised all the stationery vegetations to every moving creature. He entered these births, that are both past and future, because of the beginningless ignorance. Entering as he does, as his own reflection just as the sun reflects on water, he is jeeva. As jeeva, by his intelligence, he created names and forms of gross and subtle bodies. In their individual and collective conditions, He is known as Viswa-Vaiswanara, Thaijasa-Hiranyagarbha and प्राज्ञ्य -Easwara. And because of the respective named bodies coupled with their concomitant phenomenal materials and of the corresponding knowledge of such phenomena (known as मिथ्यज्ञान), he acquires such false attribution (adhyaasa) as ‘I’ and ‘mine’. According to the respective bodies that he has assumed, he attains doership and enjoyership and in turn suffers or enjoys many pains or pleasures, encumberances or release, as the case may be. Particularly in human birth, he performs desire-born worships (kaama-upaasana), observes rules that are commanded and avoids those that are forbidden. As merits of such actions and as fruits of kaama-upaasana, he attains variously, the world of devas, humans, animals, birds, plants, ghosts and goblins and enjoys pleasures or suffers pains. The Sruti in support of this is quoted below:
स्वप्ने स जीवः सुखदुःखभोक्ता स्वमायया कल्पितजीवलोके । सुषुप्तिकाले सकले विलीने तमोऽभिभूतः सुखरूपमेति ॥ (Kaivalya Upanishad -13) “The dream state is the experience in consciousness of living within ones own Creation of events and phenomena. This individual, this deluded jiva-consciousness, suffers the same results of his delusions in the dream state as he does in the waking state, due to both states being as a dream, (as Maya), merely a projection of the higher Consciousness of Reality. This is due to the dream state being the creation of that same consciousness and knowledge limited by the delusion of duality with its resultant desires. During the state of deep sleep (sushupti) the jiva is divested of attributes such as delusion, ignorance, individuality, desires and so forth. In deep sleep, overtaken by thamas, one seems as that One Alone, free from desiring and apparently blissful. Because of the fruits of past karmas, he wakes up again into jaagrat (waking) state. Thus whosoever crowns himself in these states of jaagrat, swapna and sushupti, that person is known as jeeva. Only from him all these variegated world of samsaara arose.”
We have so far learnt, to that Chaitanyam (which is again, one only) arises, because of the association of the same body, four different states of being viz. Viswa, Thaijasa, प्राज्ञ्य and pratyagaatma. Now the differences among these states are detailed below:
The Chidaatma in a state of its reflection in buddhi is termed (विज्ञानात्मा ) and to him happens the business of involvement in both the gross and subtle bodies. the ‘aatmabhaava’ (feeling of ‘I’) that arises when involved with the gross body in association with subtle body in jaagrat state, is the ‘विज्ञानात्मा ‘ called ‘viswa’. When he changes his ‘aatmabhaava’ from gross body to the subtle body in the dream state then he is called ‘thaijasa’. This विज्ञानात्मा ‘ as resident of both bodies and both states, gets involved in the business of things relating to his past births and the future ones; He involved in works that have scriptural injunctions or otherwise, and he gets involved in businesses that encumbers and releases him. From such karmas he gets endowed with their fruits. Particularly that विज्ञानात्मा who is born with a human body into the first three varNams alone has the obligation and qualification to perform spiritual tasks. No such duties or qualifications are prescribed for others, and their births are meant only to enjoy life. In the sushupti state called ignorance, he has causal body and the one who has the proud possession of it is called ‘प्राज्ञानात्मा’ . He is unrelated to the gross or subtle body. Both these bodies, with their relative merits and demerits, rest in this causal body (remain unmanifest) like a seed. Both viswa and thaijasa have ‘swaroopa agrahanam, anyataa-grahanam’ because of the affliction of the aspects of ‘aavaraNa shakti’ (veiling power) and ‘viskepa shakti’ (projecting power) of Maaya.
What is ‘swaroopa agrahanam, anyataa-grahanam’?
A person get frightened by mistaking a rope (in twilight) for a snake. There are two aspects to the rope seen as a snake. The aspect of the rope not appearing as a rope is called ‘aavaraNam’. Only this aspect of the rope not appearing as a rope becomes the cause (हेतु} of the rope appearing as a snake. When the rope is seen as a snake, that aspect is called ‘vikshepam’ In this way, if we compare Aatma in the three states, we find the jeeva mistaking himself as doer (कर्ता ) and enjoyer (भोक्ता ) in the jaagrat and swapna state. Making one’s own self differently is called ‘anyataa-grahanam’. In sushupti state, he does not even know himself. This is called ‘swaroopa agrahanam’ (non-realizing one’s self).
Because the projecting power is missing in deep sleep, प्राज्ञ has no anyataa-grahanam. Because he has only the hiding aspect of ignorance (aavaraNa-shakti) he has only swaroopa-agrahaNam. When the indwelling Self is in the fourth state called ‘तुरीय’ he is alone; he is of the form of the basis of other three states; he is the witness; he is not mixed with Maaya; and he is the subject experiencing the Truth. Because he is non-dual there is no mistaking of himself for anything else (he has no anyataa-grahanam). Because he is in constant realization of his Self, he has no swaroopa agrahanam.
Thus while the word ‘Tvam’ has the dual meaning ie. in the literal sense as jeeva as well as the indicated sense as Brahman, the word aatma is liberally used at every functional difference. (Remember this: the pot is clay, the clay is clay; there is no pot without the clay but there is clay without the pot.)
The indiscriminate usage has led some ignorant ones to preach out their creation of false images. They even misquote Sruti to prove their wrong ideas. Therefore, in order to determine the swaroopam of the indwelling pure ‘Cit’ and to refute the invalid ideas of alien views, some of their views are enumerated below with appropriate arguments against them quoting from Sruti where necessary.
The Charvakas say that this gross body alone is ‘aatma’ as the Sruti says, ‘That Purusha is made of the essence of food; it is the cause of all happenings; only this gross body with the head, limbs etc. should be taken as ‘aatma’ as it is evidently experienced; moreover, they say, nothing else is seen as aatma.
We refuse to accept their contention that the gross body qualifies to be aatma, because it is faulty in many ways. This body is created by the sexual intercourse between man and woman; it grows up in the hell-hole of a woman’s womb and comes out through her vagina; it consists of such dirty things as bone, flesh, skin, urine, bile, mucus and excretions. He also undergoes six types of transformations (विकार) such as asti (he be), jaayate (born), vartate (grows), vipariNamate (gets distorted), अभक्षीयते (shrinks) and finally विनश्यति (gets destroyed). Thus he is seen with vikaaras. Thus at times he is inert, at times he is visible, at times he is disliked and shunned, at times he is deplorable. So how this body is proudly held to be one’s aatma? If body is held to be the aatma then there are two faults seen. How did it not exist before it was born? Was there a karma that was the cause of its birth? To hold that which was unseen and that had no cause to be born, then there arises a fault called अक्रुताभ्यकमम् (causeless, inexplicable occurance). In the same way when this body dies the Charvakas view that the body was born without reason comes to play and thus it will not be reborn. In such an eventuality, those good and bad karmas that were performed by the body would not follow him/it upon death and thus the effect of karma gets destroyed by the eventuality of none to enjoy or suffer it. By this we encounter the second fault of कृत विप्रनाशम् (destruction by non-enjoyment of the fruit of karma). Also the very Sruti quoted to assert that body is aatma has also said that PraaNa is aatma by which you could say that the Sruti that you rely on becomes self-contradictory.
Now let me explain the concept of अक्रुताभ्यकमम् कृत विप्रनाशम् .
There is a fruit of karma for every karma performed. This conforms logically to the concept of cause and effect. Punya karma yeilds sukham and paapa karma brings dhukkam. This is certain. By this very logic every karma creates samsaara and the resident in it enjoys the sukham and dhukkam there. The basket that contained the flowers will continue to throw the sweet smell of the flowers even after the flowers were removed. This is how a man who performed a karma would repeat it even after he had enjoyed/suffered the karma that he had performed. This is known as samskaara or latent memory. This is how the vedantis infer that a man attains punarjanma after death. If this does not happen thenअक्रुत अभ्यकमम् results. Likewise a person could die before he could enjoy the fruits of his karma. If it does not follow him into his next life then the event called कृत विप्रनाशम् takes place contradicting the law of cause and effect.
If one knows his aatma as different then such a guy is a thief committing the worst paapam of aatmahati (आत्म हति). Sruti vaakyam also refutes the idea of body as aatma by saying that such a knowledge is equal to the paapam of induling in a crore of pasuvadam.
The sishya wants to know how Indriyavaadi’s views are refuted. Indriyavaadi agrees that the body is inert and involved with many faults and therefore it is right to say that it is anaatma. We have therefore, to consider that the indriyas (organs) be declared to be the aatma for reason that they are sentient beings. Every behaviour such as ‘I see, I hear, I talk etc.’ are of the indriyas only. Their sentience is talked in Sruti while dealing with the praaNa. Therefore indriyas are the aatma.
Satguru said: “This view won’t fit for the reason indriyas are also jadam (inert). The Sruti reference with regard to these indriyas as being sentient is a case of self-conceit with regard to these indriyas because of their association with the devatas that occupy them. Indriyas are effected by panca bhootas and their acts are adheenam (subordinate) to praaNa which is again inert only. Thus indriyas do not qualify to be aatma because aatma is declared to be the eye of the eye, ear of the ear etc. The Sruti points to the aatma as that with which one acquires the ability to see, hear, talk etc.
The sishya quotes that the followers of Hiranyagarbha that PraaNa qualifies as Aatma for it has the ability to breath. Without praaNa any association with the body is not practicable as there is no possibility of motion of the body or its indriyas. In praaNa samvaada (discourse on praaNa) the Srutis hilites the importance of PraaNa such as saying that there is an entity greater than annarasamayan (food sheath) that is PraaNa. They eulogise it as PraaNa is the father, PraaNa is the mother indicating its importance of being sarvaatma. Everyone thus know that life is being a praaNi and when praaNa leaves then life comes to an end. Thus they contend that praaNa is the aatma.
Sri Satguru denied praaNa to be the aatma for the simple reason it is the instrument of five works. It should be understood that anything that works is merely an inert instrument. It has the dharma such as hunger and thirst which are cravings and aatma can neither be a jadam or त्रुष्णि (one who has craving). Besides, by praaNa or apaana a person who is bound to die would not live. He would only migrate to another body. That which moves from one body to another cannot be aatma which is one only.
A Upaasaka who holds that manas to be the aatma states his case as follows: He quotes the Sruti:
तस्माद्वा एतस्मात् प्राणमयात् । अन्योऽन्तर आत्मा मनोमयः । तेनैष पूर्णः । स वा एष पुरुषविध एव । तस्य पुरुषविधताम् । अन्वयं पुरुषविधः । तस्य यजुरेव शिरः । ऋग्दक्षिणः पक्षः । सामोत्तरः पक्षः । आदेश आत्मा । अथर्वाङ्गिरसः पुच्छं प्रतिष्ठा । तदप्येष श्लोको भवति ॥ (Taitiriyopanishad 2.1) It says, He knew “manas to be aatma; and from this manas all bhootas arose…”
Sri Satguru refuted this suggestion in the following words. “Manas cannot be aatma for the simple reason it tends to expand itself.
‘त्रीण्यात्मनेऽकुरुत’ इति मनो वाचं प्राणं, तान्यात्मनेऽकुरुत; ‘अन्यत्रमना अभूवम्, नादर्शम्,’ ‘अन्यत्रमना अभूवम्, नाश्रौषम्’ इति, मनसा ह्येव पश्यति, मनसा सृणोति । कामः संकल्पो विचिकित्सा श्रद्धाऽश्रद्धा धृतिरधृतिर्ह्रीर्धीर्भीरित्येतद्सर्वं मन एव; तस्मादपि पृष्ठत उपस्पृष्टो मनसा विजानाति; यः कश्च शब्दो वागेव सा । एषा ह्यन्तमायत्ता, एषा हि न; प्राणोऽपानो व्यान उदानः समनोऽन इत्येतत्सर्वं प्राण एव; एतन्मयो वा अयमात्मा, वाङ्मयो मनोमयः प्राणमयः ॥ (BrihadaaraNyakopanishad 1.5.3) ‘Three he designed for himself’ means: The mind, the organ of speech and the vital force; these he designed for himself. (They say), ‘I was absent-minded, I did not see it,’ ‘I was absent-minded, I did not hear it.’ It is through the mind that one sees and hears. Desire, resolve, doubt, faith, want of faith, steadiness, unsteadiness, shame, intelligence and fear—all these are but the mind. Even if one is touched from behind, one knows it through the mind; therefore (the mind exists). And any kind of sound is but the organ of speech, for it serves to determine a thing. but it cannot itself be revealed. PraaNa, Apaana, Vyaana, Udaana, Samaana and Ana—all these are but the vital force. This body is identified with these—with the organ of speech, the mind and the vital force.’
Manam it the reason that a man gets involved in such vyavaharas (accords) such as bandham and moksham; it plays the role of an organ that it apprehends and loses knowledge. Thus it is subject to destruction. Therefore it cannot be aatma.
क्षणिकवादि bouddhan (one who claims that everything is momentary) prattles as follows:
क्षणिकविज्ञानम् (science of momentariness) is the aatma as nothing else is seen beyond it. विज्ञान aatma that is inside that comes out and puravishayas shine. विज्ञान aatma has the capacity to expand and like the burning forest fire or gushing water of the river in spate it creates in every moment innumerable aatmas. The evidence for this momentary aatma is in the Sruti itself which says that the aatma is विज्ञानमयकोश.
Sri Satguru refutes this idea of क्षणिकविज्ञानम् by questioning how can one claim worldly affairs that he deals with in such saying as ‘my father’, ‘my son’ or in such detection (प्रत्यभिज्ञान) as ‘that one we talked about is him’ (He is that guy). क्षणिकविज्ञानम् kills the aatma momenrarily (in क्षणम्). क्षणिकम् prevents प्रत्यभिज्ञानम् from taking place. Besides that क्षणिकविज्ञानम् is noting but चित्ताभास (reflection of cit in the mind). Since you are a क्षणिकवादि then your words and contentions too are transcient and cannot be relied upon. In the world the experiences are recalled by the memory called प्रत्यभिज्ञानम् and if an aatma can be robbed that faculty then to contend that क्षणिकविज्ञानम् is the nature then aatma would defy that which is naturally observed. Even if we agree to the permanance of knowledge discovery (आलय विज्ञानम् that is translated as science), if aatma is impermenant the the carrier of such a knowedge will not exist. Besides this science is jadam and your claim of aatma as transcient, then that aatma loses its ability to transact any affair of the world. Thus क्षणिकविज्ञानम् is nothing but भ्रान्ति (false, perplex).
Now comes the संघातकन् who claims the combination of everything as aatma. He says, the body, praaNan, mind, intellect are inert so they are unable to be aatma when they stand alone. But when they are combined together then they acquire the ability to be aatma. For example if you eat betel leafs, betel nuts, lime, clove you have their own ruci which is not appreciated but when you combine them then you get the special ruci and color that satisfy you. This is how when the body parts are combined you get the chaitanyam.
Sri Satguru replied: “This view has already been refuted. All the faults attributed to the gross body applies to its several parts. Besides, since they are jadam per se, they have no ability to join together and need the help of a chaitanyam to join. Just as a house is a place for one to live this body becomes a residence for the jeeva to reside. Aatma can never become the GuNa of any object let alone the body or its parts because Aatma is citrupam and requires no help from any quarters.
Next the sishya quotes ‘Anandamayakosavaadi’ saying Anandamayan is aatma because Sruti says that there is a Anandamayan inside of विज्ञानमयन्.
Sri Satguru refutes this also. This Anandamayan is a sareera-roopan. All sareeras have attachment (to other kosas such as annamaya kosa), pride and such other अज्ञान as also has the sushupti avasta as its swaroopam with which he is an enjoyer of aananda which occurs as a result of its being the refection of Citaatma. Sruti also talks of crossing this Anandamayakosa, so much so this kosa is negatable like other kosas. Therefore Anandamayan is not aatma.
When all this contra-indication to aatma were rejected the sisya wondered if there is aatma existing at all. To this Sri Satguru asserted its existence quoting the upanishadic statement “ब्रह्मपुच्छं प्रदिष्टं” (all the five kosas as fixed on hindpart of brahmaN). Thus being the end part of all the kosas this aatma is realized as being non-different from Brahman.
Sishya asks of Satguru: What actually is the swaroopam of aatma? What is its parimaaNam (measure of any kind)? How do different contenders determine these?
Sri Satguru patiently explains: Those who have not seen it contend as follows: Aatma is made of stuffs (द्रव्यरूपन् ) ; he is an authority for ज्ञान; it is unique to every sareeraam; he is an intellectual; he is permanent; etc.
Some say aatma is possed of buddhi, sukham, dhukkam, desire, hatred, having efforts, dharmaadhikaari, he is capable of indulging in adharma also, has memory–such are his qualities. He is considered kartha and bhokta. These qualities, they say, remain permanent with Easwara but transitory with jeeva.
To this Vedanti replies: He who is authority for ज्ञान cannot be द्रव्यरूपन् because such a concept contradicts sruti vaakya.
स यथा सैन्धवघनोऽनन्तरोऽबाह्यः कृत्स्नो रसघन एव, एवं वा अरेऽयमात्मानन्तरोऽबाह्यः कृत्स्नः प्रज्ञानघन एव; एतेभ्यो भूतेभ्यः समुत्थाय तान्येवानुविनयष्यतिति, न प्रेत्य संज्ञास्तीत्यरे ब्रवीमीति होवाच याज्ञवल्क्यः ॥ (Brihadaranyakopanishad 4.5.13) “As a lump of salt is without interior or exterior, entire, and purely saline in taste, even so is the Self without interior or exterior, entire, and Pure Intelligence alone. (The self) comes out (as a separate entity) from these elements, and (this separateness) is destroyed with them. After attaining (this oneness) it has no more (particular) consciousness. This is what I say, my dear, said याज्ञावल्क्य .
In this way hundreds of sruti vaakyas uniformally declare that aatma as chaitanya roopan. As Aatma happens to be NirguNan such faculties as buddhi cannot be its characteristic.
Also Bhagavan says in his bhagavat geeta that desire etc. belongs to the kshetram and not the क्षेत्रज्ञन्,
इच्छा द्वेष: सुखं दु:खं सङ्घातश्चेतना धृति: | एतत्क्षेत्रं समासेन सविकारमुदाहृतम् || (B.G. 13.7) “Desire and aversion, happiness and misery, the body-consciousness, and the will-—all these comprise the field and its modifications.”
‘Such ichcha guNa dharmas, being kartha and boktha cannot belong to the aatma.’, ‘the one who is the aatma of all the boothas appear as various beings.’, ‘the one who is in this purusha and the one who is in the sun are the same one aatma only’ are some of the expressions contained in the smritis.
क्षेत्रज्ञं चापि मां विद्धि सर्वक्षेत्रेषु भारत |
क्षेत्रक्षेत्रज्ञयोर्ज्ञानं यत्तज्ज्ञानं मतं मम || (B.G. 13.3)
“…Know me as the क्षेत्रज्ञन् of all kshetras….” (The actual translation is: ‘O scion of Bharat, I am also the knower of all the individual fields of activity. The understanding of the body as the field of activities, and the soul and God as the knowers of the field, this I hold to be my view.’)
All Maaya is (agreed to be) one in all sastras and this Maaya had caused the One aatma to appear as many, says Brihadaaranyakopanishad, इन्द्रो मायाभिः पुरुरूप ईयते, युक्ता ह्यस्य हरयः शता दश ॥ (2.5.19). The idea of all Maaya in plural in indicative of its plural effect and not indicative that there are many Maayas. Also this one Maaya can create many could cause many Easwaras and that is not a fault but as pointed out in the verse of Bhagavat Geeta quoted above, the aatma of all the bodies is one only.
In jeeva bhaava difference alone is its fit because such uniqueness that differentiates each other is the swaroopa lakshaNam of the jeeva. If this swaroopa lakshaNam be non-different then it will be impossible to differentiate one jeeva from another. Easwara using his power of Maaya created many and entered them so they can appear as many. He lent his existence and shine to the many says the Veda: अजायमानो बहुधा विजायते.
A man can lose his eye sight however his aatma being the eye of the eye does not perish. Consider this paragraph from Brihadaranyakopanishad (4.1.4). यदेव ते कश्चिदब्रवीत्तच्छृणवामेति; अब्रवीन्मे बर्कुर्वार्ष्णः, चक्शुर्वै ब्रह्मेति; यथा मातृमान्पितृमानाचार्यवान् ब्रूयात्, तथा तद्वार्ष्णोऽब्रवीच्चक्शुर्वै ब्रह्मेति, अपश्यतो हि किं स्यादिति; अब्रवीत्तु ते तस्यायतनं प्रतिष्ठां? न मेऽब्रवीदिति; एकपाद्वा एतत्सम्राडिति; स वै नो ब्रूहि याज्ञवल्क्य; चक्शुरेवायतनम्, आकाशः प्रतिष्ठा, सत्यमित्येतदुपासीत; का सत्यता याज्ञवल्क्य? चक्शुरेव सम्राडिति होवाच, चक्शुषा वै सम्राट् पश्यन्तमाहुरद्राक्शीरिति, स आहाद्राक्शमिति, तत्सत्यं भवति; चक्शुर्वै सम्राट् परमं ब्रह्म; नैनं चक्शुर्जहाति, सर्वाण्येनं भूतान्यभिक्शरन्ति, देवो भूत्वा देवानप्येति, य एवं विद्वानेतदुपास्ते; हस्त्यृषभं सहस्रं ददामीति होवाच जनको वैदेहः; स होवाच , पिता मेऽमन्यत नाननुशिष्य हरेतेति ॥ ४ ॥ ‘Let me hear whatever any one may have told you.’ ‘Barku, the son of Vrshna, has told me that the eye (sun) is Brahman.’ ‘As one who has a mother, father and teacher should say, so has the son of Vrshna said this—that the eye is Brahman. For what can a person have who cannot see? But did he tell you about its abode and support?’ ‘No, he did not.’ ‘This Brahman is only one-footed, O Emperor.’ ‘Then you tell us, याज्ञवल्क्य.’ ‘The eye is its abode, and the ether (the Undifferentiated) its support. It should be meditated upon as truth.’ ’What is truth, याज्ञवल्क्य?’ ‘The eye itself, O Emperor,’ said याज्ञवल्क्य, ’ if a person, O Emperor, says to one who has seen with the eyes, “Have you seen?” and one answers, “Yes, I have,” then it is true. The eye, O Emperor, is the Supreme Brahman. The eye never leaves him who knowing thus meditates upon it; all beings eagerly come to him; and being a god, he attains the gods,’ ‘I give you a thousand cows with a bull like an elephant,’ said Emperor Janaka. याज्ञवल्क्य replied, ‘My father was of opinion that one should not accept (wealth) from a disciple without fully instructing him.’
Again in the same upanishad it is more direct. यद्वै तन्न पश्यति पश्यन्वै तन्न पश्यति, न हि द्रष्टुर्दृष्टेर्विपरिलोपो विद्यतेऽविनाशित्वान् । न तु तद्द्वितीयमस्ति ततोऽन्यद्विभक्तं यत्पश्येत् ॥ २३ ॥ (B.U. 2.5.13) “That it does not see in that state is because, although seeing then, it does not see; for the vision of the witness can never be lost, because it is immortal. But there is not that second thing separate from it which it can see.”
Praacheena meemaamsakas (poorva meemamsakas) contend that aatma has both the qualities of Cit and acit. They show the reason for it. In jaagrat state and swapna state aatma remains citrupi and enjoys being so. In sushupti, when he realizess ‘I do not know’, then his state contains the characteristic of being acit. Like a firefly, he is exhibiting the characteristics of both cit and acit.
Sri Satguru replied: “A vastu (a thing) cannot possess cit and acit together because they both are contradictory in nature. Sruti affirms that cit never ceases to be. I have quoted this verse from Brihadaranyakopanishad (4.3.23) already. Adi Sankara amplifies this with the following statement:
“That it does not see in that state of profound sleep is because, although seeing then, it does not see. You think that it does not see in the state of profound sleep; but do not think so. Why? Because it is seeing then.” It is for this reason you are able to recall later that you had a pleasant sleep.
Now let us take up the Saamkyas. Such great saints among them as Kapila, Pancashika, Patanjali et al have described the Purusha to be many and describe them as follows:
“Purusha is anaadhi. He is subtle. He is all-pervading. He is chetanan. He is NirguNi. He is Nityan. He is the abode of knowledge. He is bhokta. He is akarta. He is क्षेत्रज्ञन् . He is suddhan (pure). He is unborn. He is involved with sukham, dhukkam, moham, samskaaram (experiencing), visuddhi (free from sin and vice). He is subject to birth and death. For all these reasons he must be considered as many. Also he is spread among the four varNas that manke him many. If Purusha is one, then when he is enjoying then everyone will enjoy; when he is dhukki then everyone will be dhukki. When he is a mooda, then everyone will be mooda; when he gets dirty, then everyone will get dirty; when he is active then everyone will be active; when he is born then everyone will be born at the same time; when he is dead it will cause everyone’s death. But such things are not happening, also because of his appearance, his place of birth and residence, his differing forms are many, therefore, he is anekan.”
Vedanti’s reply: “The contentions of Saamkhyas are denied. You should recall here the arguments I have advanced against the doctrine of many aatmas. Association with indriyas and manas is impossible for the aatman who is कूटस्थन् (unchangeable) and who is kevalan (alone). Maandukya Upanishad (3.1.1) says: द्वा सुपर्णा सयुजा सखाया समानं वृक्षं परिषस्वजाते । तयोरन्यः पिप्पलं स्वाद्वत्त्यनश्नन्नन्यो अभिचाकशीति ॥ “Two birds, inseparable companions, perch on the same tree, one eats the fruit, the other looks on. The first bird is our individual self feeding on the pleasures and pains of this world; The other is the universal Self, silently witnessing all.”
From this it is clearly stated in the upanishad that the realized one has no need to covet the fruit of karma and only the bound ones (with buddhi and indriyas) indulge in seeking the fruit and fall into samsaara exhibiting differing behaviour in this prakrti of changing nature caused by Maaya, while those पारमार्थिक (truthful) entities remain merely as witness ever unchanged. Also in swapnaavasta the many purushas seen have a fleeting nature and the aatman which undergoes this swapnaavasta realizes that the world he witnessed is unreal.
Thus it has been explained of the nature of aatma as the lonely swaroopan is of the roopam of Sat-Cit-Aanandan and unconnected with any upaadhis.
Now we inquire into its parimaaNa (magnitude). Some say it has no parimaaNa, while others say it has a definite size. Yet others say that it can expand and contract. Let us consider these contentions.
Some say that the jeevaatma is as minute as an atom. They quote from the Upanishad that the devas went to Prajapati and asked him “Please explain to us that which is like an atom even to an atom that is the aatma called Omkara.” For this the prajapati replied: बालाग्रशतभागस्य शतधा कल्पितस्य च । भागो जीवः स विज्ञेयः स चानन्त्याय कल्पते ॥ (shvetashvatara upanishad 5.9) “That individual soul is as subtle as the hundredth part of the point of a hair divided a hundred times. Yet He is in essence infinite. He has to be known.”
Sri Satguru said: If aatma happens to be of the infinitely small size of an atom he could not be all pervading. He could not be the knower of sukham and dhukkam, Besides the Upanishad does not refer to aatma to the size of an atom but its subtleness.
The same upanishad continues: नैव स्त्री न पुमानेष न चैवायं नपुंसकः । यद्यच्छरीरमादत्ते तेने तेने स युज्यते ॥ (5.10) “He is neither female, nor male, nor neutral. Whatever body He takes, with that he becomes identified or joined or connected.”
सङ्कल्पनस्पर्शनदृष्टिमोहैर्ग्रासाम्बुवृष्ट्यात्मविवृद्धिजन्म । कर्मानुगान्यनुक्रमेण देही स्थानेषु रूपाण्यभिसम्प्रपद्यते ॥ (5.11)
By means of thoughts, contact, sight and delusion, the embodied soul assumes successively various forms in various places, in accordance with its actions, just as the body grows by the use of food and drink.
स्थूलानि सूक्ष्माणि बहूनि चैव रूपाणि देही स्वगुणैर्वृणोति । क्रियागुणैरात्मगुणैश्च तेषां संयोगहेतुरपरोऽपि दृष्टः ॥ (5.12) “The individual soul chooses or assumes many forms, gross and subtle, according to its own qualities, the qualities of its actions and the qualities of its mind. The cause of union with those forms is found to be still another.
These vaakyas go to show a determined size of aatma would be able to assume the form of an elephant and it would be too big to assume that of an ant.
In this way having denied any physical form to the aatma, Sri Satguru asserted that aatma is citrupan and a witness (pratyakroopan), vibhu (all pervading), (nityan) permanent, asangan (immobile), nirlepan (uncomparable), one who is devoid of hunger and thirst, akarta (one who need not work to exist), abhokta (one who needs no need for enjoyment of an anya vastu), who is devoid of paapam and punyam, he never gets old and remain ever fresh, he is deathless, he is not an avastatrayan, this ever pure aatma is one and alone.
Thus concludes Sri Satguru on his exposition of the Tvam padaartham of aatma.
CHAPTER – 5
MAHAA VAAKYAARTHAM
“That which is beyond the pancha kosas, that which are based on Brahman (ब्रह्मपुच्छं प्रदिष्टं) that niraalamban (fixed one) and that is pure parama thatvam is me.”
Sri Satguru said: “In previous chapters we came to know of ‘Tat’ and ‘Tvam’ by means of inquiry. Now I will tell you the complete meaning of the maxim ‘तत् त्वं असि ‘.
“We knew by proof the vaachyaartam and lakshyartam of the words ‘tat’ and ‘tvam’. Between these what was seen as vaachya roopaam as that had maaya and avidya as their upaadhi (उपाधि), their mithyaroopam (मिथ्यारूपं ) while the lakshya swaroopam is पारमार्थिक सत्यम्.”
Realizing that तत् त्वं असि (That Thou Art) is one yet Sri Satguru is attempting to explain it, the sishya intervenes and expresses the following: “Swamy, you have removed my doubts on the philosophical words ‘Tat’ and ‘Tvam’ by clearly stating that their lakshyaartham. However by the usage of the two words they seem to indicate two different entities. Does that not go against the doctrine of non-dualism (advaita)?”
Sri Satguru said: “the प्रसक्ति (occurance) of dwaitam cannot happen because by the word ‘असि’ it happens to be the same lakdhyaartha of both the words ‘tat’ and ‘tvam’ as the Chaitanya Swaroopam.
प्रतिज्ञै (statement): प्रत्यगात्मन् remains as Brahman.
हेतु (reason): It has the characteristics of Brahman.
दृष्टान्तं (exempli gratia) : It is like Brahman in comparison.
In Tat-Tvam-Asi mahaa vaakyam, it was instructed that tvam padam (aatma) has the natural characteristic of Brahman. No other opinion was offered. Like the sentence: “That Devadatta is he”. Just like in this case the words ‘that’ and ‘he’ where desa and kaala that were applied/indicated were merely sacrificed to arrive at Devadatta’s form, in the same way we sacrifice the vaachyaartham of the words ‘tat’ and ‘tvam’ that have upaadhi in their vaachyaartha mode (बागलक्षण) and take up only the uncontradicted अंश (part) of their chaitanyam. This is the instruction of the Sruti.
Let us now understand that in considering the meaning of the mahaa vaakyam why did we include बागलक्षण (known as जहल्-अजहल्). लक्षणै are of three kinds. जहल् लक्षण, अजहल् लक्षण and जहल्-अजहल् लक्षण. First two लक्षणै will not fit. Let me explain. In the first, सञ्ज्ञार्थम् (direct understanding of the vaachyaartham) of जहल् लक्षणै will not fit the mahaa vaakya. For example the sentence ‘shepard of ganga’ includes the place where the shepard lives. Only the word shepard attains importance as the word Ganga is the सञ्ज्ञार्थम् or used for the sake of reference and so it is given up. In the sentence ‘cackling of the geese’ the sound refers to that of the geese and the identification of the particular sound is not given up. This is अजहल् लक्षणै. In both instances something other than what is involved is mentioned. While referring to Aatma is Brahman other reference play no importance and such लक्षण or indication is known as जहल्-अजहल् लक्षण as in the example ‘That Devadatta is this Devadatta’ where there are no two devadattas in spite of difference in time and place.
(Let me give you more explanation on this word लक्षणै. Veda also known as शब्द by its power indicates a thing as सक्यार्थम् and वाच्यार्थं . If a word does not refer to सक्यार्थम् , however refers something related to it is known as लक्ष्यार्थम् . Thus words are expressed in two ways as वाच्यार्थं and लक्ष्यार्थम्. The word लक्ष्यार्थम् is also branched in three ways –(a)जहल्लक्षणा (particular identification or वाच्यार्थम् apprehending of which there is the rejection of the lieteral sense as in the ‘hut on the ganges’ which actually refers to the hut on the bank of the river ganges.), (b) अजहल्लक्षणा (here वाच्यार्थम् is only partially given up. It not only indicates वाच्यार्थम् but includes its lakshyaartham) and (c) जहल-अजहल्लक्षन (this is भागलक्षणा that insinuates or intimates a part as in the case of ‘that Devadatta is this Devadatta where we talk not of that Devadatta but this Devadatta. In other words the meaning of ‘that Devadatta’ is completely given up). Tat Tvam Asi belongs to this category of जहल-अजहल्लक्षन .)
Moreover, such संसर्ग (association) as in blue lotus where blueness is added to the lotus by association of blueness, or in the phrase ‘that devadatta with a walking stick’ where the association of the walking stick to Devadatta (these are) not indicated in the Mahaa Vaakya. संसर्ग means when things are of different nature causing विशेषण-विशेष्य (attributive-distinguishing) characteristic yet remaining together (तादात्म्य) as in a ‘creeper on a tree’ where you could see the creeper and ignore the tree and vice versa. But the Sruti says that ‘Brahman and Aatma’ are one and the same and thus they do not have विशेषण-विशेष्य तादात्म्यम् .
(My beloved students, please ask questions, if you do not understand!)
Thus the following can be said:
प्रतिज्ञै: Whatsoever विशेषण-विशेष्य तादात्म्यम् can take place between Brahman and Aatman;
हेतु: Because Brahman and Aatma have the same characteristics;
दृष्टान्तं (examples): aakaasa in the pot and aakaasa in the room where the pot is kept (are one and the same).
The difference that is seen between Brahman and Aatma is due to conditions (upaadhi) caused by delusion. This is the reason you are unable to see that the pot and the clay are one or a ring and the gold are one. Yet the truth they are one and same is unaffected by the delusion. So the wise ones do not accept सम्सर्गम् (association) or विशिष्टं (particularity) in things at large but see only the undividedness (अखण्डम् ) and oneness (एकम्) of things distorted by vaachyaartham.
To quote Adi Sankara’s Vaakya Vritti:
संसर्गो वा विशिष्टो वा वाक्यार्थो नात्र संमतः। अखण्डैकरसत्वेन वाक्यार्थो विदुषां मतः।।38।। “What is meant by the sentence (commandment ‘That thou art’) is not arrived at, either through its ‘sequence-of meaning’ or as ‘qualified-by-something’. An indivisible Being, consisting of Bliss only – this alone is the meaning of the sentence, according to the wise.”
“This is the Truth. Aatma is Brahman. Brahman is Aatma. There is no room to find any difference here.”
“It has no birth; It has no fear; what upanishads teach is completely known/understood /assimilated. It shines like no other. It is non-dual.”
“He is me; I am Him. (सोऽहं हंस: हंस्सस्सोहं).”
इदं वै तन्मधु दध्यङ्ङाथर्वणोऽश्विभ्यामुवाच । तदेतदृषिः पश्यन्नवोचत् । पुरश्चक्रे द्विपदः, पुरश्चक्रे चतुष्पदः । पुरः स पक्षी भूत्वा पुरः पुरुष आविशत् ॥ इति । स वा अयं पुरुषः सर्वासु पूर्सु पुरिशयः; नैनेन किंचनानावृतम्, नैनेन किंचनासंवृतम् ॥ (Brihadaaranyakopanishad – 2.5.18) “This is that meditation on things mutually helpful which Dadhyac, versed in the Atharva-Veda, taught the Ashvins. Perceiving this the Rsi said, ‘ He made bodies with two feet and bodies with four feet. That Supreme Being first entered the bodies as a bird (the subtle body). ‘ He on account of his dwelling in all bodies is called the Purusha. There is nothing that is not covered by him, nothing that is not pervaded by Him.”
In other words, He is Brahman; He has no beginning; He has no end; He is alone with no guNa whatsoever; there is none apart from Him. This Aatma is Brahman; He enjoys all.”
“This Aatma that is ParaBrahman has taken names and forms.”
“That is Brahman; That is Amrutham; That is Aatma.”
“This Aatma of yours is the ParaBrahmam.”
In Itereyopanishad it says: “स एतमेव पुरुषं ब्रह्म ततममपश्यत् । इदमदर्शनमिती ॥” Whichever jeevatma that I am, that one is Paramaatma. That Paramaatma is I”
यत्परं ब्रह्म सर्वात्मा विश्वस्यायतनं महत् । सूक्ष्मात्सूक्ष्मतरं नित्यं तत्त्वमेव त्वमेव तत् ॥ (Kaivalya Upanishad 16) “That which is the Supreme Self, the soul of all, the great support of the universe, subtler than the subtle, and eternal – that is thyself, and thou art That.”
स परमहंसो नाम परमहंसो नामेति ॥ (Jaabalopanishad) “O Mahatva Devata! You are me! Is not me (that) you (are)?!”
स होवाचोषस्तश्चाक्रायणः, यथा विब्रूयात्, असौ गौः, असावश्व इति, एवमेवैतद्व्यपदिष्टं भवति; यदेव साक्शादपरोक्शाद्ब्रह्म, य आत्मा सर्वान्तरः, तं मे व्याचक्श्वेति; एष त आत्मा सर्वान्तरः; कतमो याज्ञवल्क्य सर्वान्तरः ? न दृष्टेर्द्रष्टारं पश्येः, न श्रुतेः श्रोतारं शृणुयात्, न मतेर्मन्तारं मन्वीथाः, न विज्ञातेर्विज्ञातारं विजानीयाः । एष त आत्मा सर्वान्तरः, अतोऽन्यदार्तं । ततो होषस्तस्चाक्रायण उपरराम ॥ २ ॥ इति चतुर्थं ब्राह्मणम् ॥ (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad – 3.4.2) “Ushasta, the son of Cakra, said, ‘You have indicated it as one may say that a cow is such and such, or a horse is such and such. Explain to me the Brahman that is immediate and direct—the self that is within all.’ ‘This is your self that is within all.’ ‘Which is within all, याज्ञवल्क्य?’ ‘You cannot see that which is the witness of vision; you cannot hear that which is the hearer of hearing; you cannot think that which is the thinker of thought; you cannot know that which is the knower of knowledge. This is your self that is within all; everything else but this is perishable.’ Thereupon Ushasta, the son of Cakra, kept silent.”
In this, it is stated as Aatma’s attribute (विशेषण) as visible (अपरोक्ष) and Aatma’s sarvaatma characteristic is imputed as pratyagaatma’s विशेषण. Thus only when Aatma and BrahmaN has the characteristic of dharma that will fit their being ekam. In no other way can this happen. So much so the Sruti keep asserting that all these are Aatma, all these are Brahman. It is only because of this the two sabda’s of Aatma and Brahman are interchangeably used.
In Sruti, smriti and puraaNas there are vacanas that decry the bheda vaakyas between Brahman and Aatman.
“Whenever one tries to find even a small difference between Brahman and Aatma, instantly he is afflicted with fear.”
“Fear arises from the second vastu. But really there is no second vastu. Therefore fear is mere bhraanti.”
“Whoever worships a devata as different from himself, he does not understand the tatva. He becomes a pasu (a servant) to that devata.”
Brahman casts him aside, when one he sees Brahman as different from him. He is a fool. He is cursed with fear.”
In Yoga Vasishta, the sage advises Sri Rama that bheda buddhi is the result of avidya and therefore he should give up avidya.
In Vishnu PuraaNam, Bhagavan says: “I am Hari. All these are janardhana only. Due to karma they appear different from me. You are Janardhana; I am Janardhana. That Hari is the Aatmaswaroopam of all the Janardhanas. Thus give up the delusion of bhedam. Those who see bhedam are afflicted with moham caused by avidya.”
For another reason you need to know the oneness of Brahmam and Aatma. That which is not separated from anything, that which is not connected by anything, being one and never two, unbound by desa and kaala, always remaining undivided (अखण्डम् ), being full (पूर्णम्), openly revealed (प्रसिद्धम्) by vedanta is this Brahman and if it is different from aatma, it attains the characteristic of being a dwaitan and thus loses its characteristic (विशेषणम्) of being Brahman. Those प्रस्थानत्रयम् that shine upon and reflect (प्रतिभातिकम्) loses its roopam as our sastra and become waste. In the same way what is stated as the aatma chetana is called out to be different from Brahman then Brahma is left out to be inert (jadam) and becomes an object (विषय). Thus what is taught in Kenopanishad (3) as न तत्र चक्षुर्गच्छति न वाग्गच्छति नो मनो न विद्मो न विजानीमो यथैतदनुशिष्यादन्यदेव तद्विदितादथो अविदितादधि | “The eye does not go there, nor speech, nor mind. We do not know That. We do not know how to instruct one about It.” becomes meaningless. This is not something to be liked. It could not be considered for argument (युक्ति) as given in the sruti “..that which is not connected by anything, being one and never two, unbound by desa and kaala, always remaining undivided (अखण्डम्), being full (पूर्णम्), openly revealed (प्रसिद्धम्) by vedanta is this Brahman..” Smriti too says of aatma as “that which pervades all, have all in its grasp, that which devours and that which has a life beyond comprehension.” From this we have to accept that Brahman and aatma have the character of being one (ekam).
ॐ अवस्थितेरिति काशकृत्स्नः ॐ ॥ (Brahma Sutra 1.4.22) “Kasakritsna thinks (the statement about the identity in the beginning of the text is in order) because of the existence of the supreme Self as the individual soul.” Here Kasakritsna is emphatic that the निर्विकार Brahman is the Parameswara and the individual soul. This is immortality (अमृतत्वं). If jeeva is to end up with विकारम् which happens to be the origin of prakrti, then pralayam will be its result. Knowing such prakrti as destruction as its very objective will not get you amritatvam.
As we come to the concluding portion we arrive at the conclusion. What is it?
Sri Satguru said: “In the beginning we restate the three प्रतिज्ञै (assertions) viz.
a) ब्रह्म सत्यं
b) जगन्मिथ्या
c) जीवो ब्रह्मैव नापरः
“In the second chapter we proved the प्रतिज्ञै of ब्रह्म सत्यं quoting Sruti, smriti and nyaaya. In the same context we stated that caused by the beginningless, anirvacaneeya अज्ञानम् jagat was created. In the thrid chapter we stated that the jagat imagined in Brahman whose adhishtaanam became the basis of its appearance and took up its lack of satta (independent exisence) and spoorthi (स्फूर्ति, volition) and proved that jagat is mithya (false). We also stated due to beginningless avidya Brahman attained jeeva status and we proved its mithyaness too. With the aid of upanishadic thaatparya we proved that when avidya was given up jeeva swabhaavam is same as that of Brahman. This was given in the third chapter. By means of vichara, knowing the thaatparyam of the upanishads, jeeva’s avidya gets removed and then on the basis of swabhava the jeeva concludes that he is none other than Brahman. This was hilited in the third and fourth chapters.
By these proofs what were the conclusions derived?
The तात्पर्यम् is this. By these explanations, that Brahmam is known as being devoid of the characteristics of prapancha such as change or the bhedas such as sajaadeeyam etc. or being bound up by desa and kaala. Further, what more is known is that It has the lakshaNam of Sat-Cit-Ananda, It is akhandam, It is ekham. Also there is no other vastu in all the three kaalams apart from Brahman. We also point to the fact that all the vastus have no existence and only Brahman has existence. This Brahman remains as the residue of all the swaroopams. All these were brought out clearing all the doubts about them.
न निरोधो न चोत्पत्तिर्न बद्धो न च साधकः । न मुमुक्षुर्न वै मुक्त इत्येषा परमार्थता ॥ (Maandukya Kaarika 2.32) “There is no dissolution (pralayam), no birth, none in bondage, none aspiring for wisdom, no seeker of liberation and none liberated. This is the absolute truth.”
यस्मात् परं नापरमस्ति किञ्चिद्यस्मान्नणीयो न ज्यायोऽस्ति कश्चित् । वृक्ष इव स्तब्धो दिवि तिष्ठत्येकस्तेनेदं पूर्णं पुरुषेण सर्वम् ॥ (Shvetashvatara Upanishad 3.9) “There is nothing higher than or different from Him, nothing greater or more minute than He. He alone stands in the heaven like a tree, one without a second, and immovable. The whole world is filled by that Being.
मंदरं प्रययुः सर्वे मम प्रियतरं गिरिम् । स्तुत्वा प्राञ्जलयो देवा मां तदा पुरतः स्थिताः ॥ ८॥ तान्दृष्ट्वाथ मया देवान् लीलाकुलितचेतसः । तेषामपहृतं ज्ञानं ब्रह्मादीनां दिवौकसाम् ॥ ९॥ अथ तेऽपहृतज्ञाना मामाहुः को भवानिति ।
अथाब्रुवमहं देवानहमेव पुरातनः ॥ (Shiva Geeta 10) “Devas went to Swarga. There they saw Shiva. They asked him ‘Who are you?’ Shiva replied: ‘I was all alone. At present and in future there is none other than me’.”
एवं यः सर्वभूतेषु पश्यत्यात्मानमात्मना । स सर्वसमतामेत्य ब्रह्माभ्येति परं पदम् ॥ (Manu Smriti 12.125) “He who thus recognizes in his individual soul (Self, Atman), the universal soul that exists in all beings, becomes equal-minded towards all, and enters the highest state, Brahman.”
These are some of the upadesas from Smriti and sruti. They all declare that in all three times only the Aatma remains.
These verses obviate the सन्देह विपरीत (false conclusions led by doubts) and teach अपरोक्ष ब्रह्मात्मैक्य ज्ञानम् (manifest knowledge that says Brahma and Aatma are one,)
Thus the aavaraNa shakti of avidya is destroyed by this sacred knowledge that makes one to realize himeself as स्वस्थ सिद्धन् or comfortable being which is the state of Aananda.
This is the end of Chapter 5.
CHAPTER – 6
SWAROOPAM OF MOKSHA
Sri Guru said: “I remain as Advaitan, as ParaBrahman who is Moksha swaroopi. I have no change in my swaroopam. Thus I remain as One, I remain ever the same, I remain as Aanandi, I remain as PoorNan and undiminished, like a shoreless samudhram yet not a ripple in my being. This is my characteristics of being NirvaaNan. Let me tell you more of my being.
“At the end of the fifth chapter I have said that by the firm ज्ञान of Brahmaatma aikyam as swaadhasiddan that you already are, your Moksha swaroopam is realized as ‘I am that’. Here the sishya jumps in and inquires “Guro! You are saying this Moksha swaroopam is what I already had as swadhasiddhan. Please explain to me how this process takes place.”
Sri Guru said: “The bodham that is the Moksha swaroopam remains in you naturally, but being hidden by avidya it made you think that you are not Moksha swaroopan and later by instructions given to you of the ज्ञान of Brahmaatma aikyam that avidya is removed and Moksha swaroopam is made clear. This is upachaaram. It happens to you just the way when you forgot your gold chain round your neck and by just touching it realize that your have it, this Moksha swaroopam is realized when reminded by the Guru. Thus there is no fault in saying that Moksham happens. The Srutis says, “He who is Brahman attains Brahman.” “By Vidya one attains Brahman.” etc.
Here the contenders’ views are narrated and refuted. Saankyas say that by differentiating between prakrti and Purusha one attains Moksha. There is no need for Brahmaatmaikya ज्ञानं. This idea is unsuitable. In Saankya philosophy both prakrti and Purusha are permanent and therefore the layam of prakrti never takes place. Thus with unending and permanent relationship Moksham does not take place by mere differentiation. However they counter it by saying that our siddhaantam too accepts differentiation and thus we too are at fault. But this is not correct. It is due to avidya that the relationship between Purusha and prakrti took place accidentally (आगन्तुकम्), that when that sambandham due to kalpitam is removed what was your natural Moksha swabhaava is restored.
The logicians (nyaayavaadis) says that “Moksha is obtained in a different way. They say Moksha is अपवर्गं (absolution). This अपवर्गं is the liberation from twentyone types of dhukkam. There is one type that belongs to the sareeram. There are six types that belong to indriyas. There are six types that belong to vishayas. There are six types that belong to knowledge. Sukham and dhukkam also constitute two (!). These are considered in two ways: secondary (गौणम् ) and primary (मुख्यं) as dhukkam is coincidental (अनुषम्) in both and so both must be considered as dhukkam only, Just as the poison mixed in a pleasant drink is considered as poison only. This is the conveyed treatment (upachaara vazhakku as we say in Tamil). How does this अपवर्गम् (absolution) takes place? By understanding the meaning of the words of sastras and knowing their errors (दोषं) the mumukshu liberates himself by the maturity (परिपाकं) of his concentration of attention (ध्यानम् ), he arrives at faultless aatma saakshatkaaram. When he does so he observes (अनुष्टानं) nishkarma and karma that would prevent him from obtaining dharmaadharmas that causes rebirth; by (enjoys and suffers) and exhaust them; thus having been liberated from praapta karmas when the present sareeram dies there occurs no future sareeram for him to occupy; thus having eiminated the 21 types of dhukkam this purusha atains the अपवर्गं of Moksham.” This is the precise view of the thaarkikas. He compares this with the vedanti’s view that by ज्ञान one attains kaivalyam and hold the view that the vedanti cannot disagree with him.
Now, poorva mimaamsikas say the following: “Moksham that is caused by the destruction of अज्ञानम् by the rise of ज्ञान could not take place because this Moksha sambhaavam can take place only by karma. This is how it takes place. One who desires Moksha will not attain swarga by non-performance of kaamya karmas; he will not attain narakavaasa. By doing nithya karmas he exhausts all the previous karmaphalas; by bhoga he eliminates the praapta karmas. This moksham that the siddhantis claim is not attainable by Brahmaatmaikyam.”
This view is denied. The idea of attaining Moksha by karmaanushtam suggested by the meemaasakas are faulty. Even by those of very discriminative intellect it is not possible to overcome performance of kaamya karmas driven by the power of GuNa. In all karmas we discern this happening either by our awareness or otherwise, or by carelessness or by intangible means (सूक्ष्मम्); this way people perform kaamya karmas. People also perform nishiddha karmas by their bodies, vaak, by mind and harm worms and insects by natural process that cannot be avoided. Thus by observing nithya karmaas the accumulated karmaphalas of the previous janmas cannot be exhausted in one janma. It is mere imagination to assert that all the combined sanchita karmaas can be exhaused in this janma. Moreover, even if you exhaust the dhukkam earned in poorva karma by the performance of nithya karmas you still have to enjoy those punya karmas earned in poorva janmas and this cannot be avoided. They cannot be lumped together in any case as the enjoyment from each punya karma of the past and present janma will vary and lumping them would contradict the character of each fruit of each punya karma. By this yoga if one contends that the praapti of praarabda karmas can be avoided is a ridiculous claim. Moreover such paapam as Brahmahatti (killing of Brahmana) will have to be suffered in many births says our sastras. A man committing Brahmahatti gets to be born as a dog, camel, an ox, a sheep, a bird and a chandala in many successive births and how can these be lumped together by mere anushtaanam of nithya karma? Also the smriti says that a man having dharshan of Swamy Skanda in the month of Krithika on the day of Krithika nakshatra will become a dhanavaan and vedavidwan in seven births. Can this be avoided by nithya karma?
Besides. the Sruti denies moksha sambhavam as a result of karmaanushtam. न कर्मणा न प्रजया धनेन त्यागेनैके अमृतत्वमानशुः says कैवल्योपनिषद् – Verse 3.
परीक्ष्य लोकान्कर्मचितान्ब्राह्मणो निर्वेदमायान्नास्त्यकृतः कृतेन । (Mundakopanishad 1.2.12) Let a Brahmin having examined the worlds produced by karma be free from desires, thinking, ‘there is nothing eternal produced by karma.
Whatever is created attains destruction says Nyaaya. Both aversion to karma and the faults in its performance lead to rebirth says karma.
प्लवा ह्येते अदृढा यज्ञरूपा अष्टादशोक्तमवरं येषु कर्म । एतच्छ्रेयो येऽभिनंदन्ति मूढा जरामृत्युं ते पुनरेवापि यन्ति ॥ (Mundaka Upanishad – 1.2.7) “The eighteen persons necessary for the performance of sacrifice are transitory and not permanent and karma in its nature inferior, has been stated as resting upon these. Those ignorant persons who delight in this, as leading to bliss, again fall into decay and death.” Adi Sankara commented on this as follows: “This karma, devoid of knowledge, bears but this much fruit and being accomplished by ignorance, desire and action, is sapless and is the source of misery. Therefore it is condemned. “Plava” means ‘ephemeral’ because these are adridha, i.e., not permanent. यज्ञरूपा, the forms of sacrifice, is necessary for the performance of the sacrifice. Eighteen in number, consisting of the sixteen Ritviks, the sacrificer and his wife. Karma stated in the sastras depends on these. Avaramkarma, i.e., mere karma devoid of knowledge; and as the performance of karma which is inferior depends on these eighteen who are not permanent. The karma done by them and its fruit are ephemeral, as, when the pot is destroyed, the destruction of milk, curd, etc., in it, follows. This being so, those ignorant persons who delight in this karma as the means of bliss, fall again into decay and death, after staying some time in Heaven.”
दूरेण ह्यवरं कर्म बुद्धियोगाद्धनञ्जय । बुद्धौ शरणमन्विच्छ कृपणाः फलहेतवः ॥ (Bhagavat Geeta – 2.49) “Work impelled by the desire for the fruit is indeed far inferior. Evenness of mind is far above it. O Arjuna! Take refuge in the evenness of intelligence. Pitiful are those impeded by the desire for the fruits of work.”
In Sukhaanusaasanam it is said that by karma a jeeva gets bound to its fruits. By vidya he attains liberation. That is the only reason sanyasis do not perform karma.
Work impelled by the desire causes birth and death Because it is set forth only by that rebirth can you be able to reap these fruits. By karmas a jeeva attains pithru loka or swarga loka and on exhausting their sojourn they return to bhuloka which is karma bhumi. Resorting to the Yoga of evenness of intelligence is Samkhya which is much more mature than pursuit of desire-born karma.
Ultimately, “Seek refuge in the knowledge of the supreme Reality” is the idea. Those who pursue inferior desire-born work are pitiful.
‘यो वा एतदक्षरं गार्ग्यविदित्वास्माल्लोकात्प्रैति स कृपणः’ (बृ. उ. ३-८-१०) इति श्रुतेः ॥ “Gargi! Pitiful is he who departs from this world before knowing that imperishable Aaatman” (BU.3.8.10)
Thus the Srutis keep harping that by karmas a jeeva does not attain moksha. Thus meemamsakas contention is completely invalid.
OK, if Moksha cannot be obtained by karma, it is fine. How about obtaining it through Upasana, asks the philosopher indulging in hyperbole. He adds, in many Vedantas and Upanishads upaasanas are advocated. To such contention from a man of confusion the Siddhanti replies as follows:
“One does not attain Moksha through upaasana. Upaasanaas are various and their fruits are also various. It is vidya and not ज्ञान. Specific fruit of devaloka is indicated in all our sastras for those upasakas.”
The hyperbolists does not give up and changes his argument as follows: Let us accept that by the performance of both karmas as also upasanas moksha cannot be obtained. We would say that by onservance of a combination of both ज्ञान and karma one can attain Moksha. It is not right to say that Moksha is attained by ज्ञान alone. Just like a bird flies using both the wings ज्ञान and karma become the tools for attaining Moksha.
The Sat Guru denies this contention. He says that it is not possible to combine ज्ञान and karma for both give contradictory results. ज्ञान and karma do not have the same character. They are like light and darkness in character and they cannot combine. Using many instruments and karta as abhimaanan one performs karma. On the contrary one has to abandon all wealth, wife and children and go in search of ज्ञान if not physically but in maanaseeka way. This is how the character differn between ज्ञान and karma. When such is the case how can anyone even attempt to combine these two? If you claim that one can be mukhyam and the other can be gowNam, then you would realize karma cannot be pradhaanam and gowNam as its ancilliary for the simple reason karma is inferior to ज्ञान which is the pursuit. Only by ज्ञान, one attains kaivalyam whereas karma leads to its opposite such as putra, poutra bhaagyas, Indra, pitru lokas etc. which do not have the character of being kaivalya. Only ज्ञान can destroy avidya and can become Moksha saadhanam.
Karma on the contrary has the sambhavam due to अज्ञान, and अज्ञान cannot bring about ज्ञान. अज्ञान has both cause and effect and when such is the case, how can it self-destruct? It has no such ability. By nishkaama karma you surrender to Parameswara and do your worship and by this process one’s bhuddhi attains detachment from all that lead him to samsaara and attains pakvam (maturity) to receive the ज्ञान. This cannot happen by pursuing karma.
स वा एष महानज आत्मा योऽयं विज्ञानमयः प्राणेषु य एषोऽन्तर्हृदय आकाशस्तस्मिञ्छेते, सर्वस्य वशी सर्वस्येशानः सर्वस्याधिपतिः; स न साधुना कर्मणा भूयान्, नो एवासाधुना कनीयान्; एष सर्वेश्वरः; एष भूताधिपतिः, एष भूतपालः, एष सेतुर्विधरण एषां लोकानामसंभेदाय; तमेतं वेदानुवचनेन ब्राह्मणा विविदिषन्ति यज्ञेन दानेन तपसाऽनाशकेन; एतमेव विदित्वा मुनिर्भवति । एतमेव प्रव्राजिनो लोकमिच्छन्तः प्रव्रजन्ति । एतद्ध स्म वै तत् पूर्वे विद्वांसः प्रजां न कामयन्ते, किं प्रजया करिष्यामो येषां नोऽयमात्मायं लोक इति; ते ह स्म पुत्रैषणायाश्च वित्तैषणायाश्च लोकैषणायाश्च व्युत्थायाथ भिक्शाचर्यं चरन्ति; या ह्येव पुत्रैषणा सा वित्तैषणा, या वित्तैषणा सा लोकैषणा, उभे ह्येते एषणे एव भवतः । स एष नेति नेत्यात्मा, अगृह्यो नहि गृह्यते, अशीर्यो नहि शीर्यते, असङ्गो नहि सज्यते, असितो न व्यथते, न रिष्यति; एतमु हैवैते न तरत इति—अतः पापमकरवमिति, अतः कल्याणमकरवमिति; उभे उ हैवैष एते तरति, नैनं कृताकृते तपतः ॥ २२ ॥ (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad – 4.4.22) “That great, birthless Self which is identified with the intellect and is in the midst of the organs, lies in the ether that is within the heart. It is the controller of all, the lord of all, the ruler of all. It does not become better through good work nor worse through bad work. It is the lord of all, It is the ruler of all beings, It is the protector of all beings. It is the bank that serves as the boundary to keep the different worlds apart. The Braahmanaas seek to know It through the study of the Vedas, sacrifices, charity, and austerity consisting in a dispassionate enjoyment of sense-objects. Knowing It alone one becomes a sage. Desiring this world (the Self) alone monks renounce their homes. This is (the reason for it): The ancient sages, it is said, did not desire children (thinking), ‘What shall we achieve through children, we who have attained this Self, this world (result).’ They, it is said, renounced their desire for sons, for wealth and for the worlds, and lived a mendicant life. That which is the desire for sons is the desire for wealth, and that which is the desire for wealth is the desire for the worlds, for both these are but desires. This self is That which has been described as ‘Not this, not this.’ It is imperceptible, for It is never perceived; undecaying, for It never decays; unattached, for It is never attached; unfettered—It never feels pain, and never suffers injury. (It is but proper) that the sage is never overtaken by these two thoughts, ‘I did an evil act for this,’ and ‘I did a good act for this.’ He conquers both of them. Things done or not done do not trouble him.”
Adi Sankara amplified it, inter alia, as follows: “By recapitulating the topic of Self-knowledge with its results in the way it has been dealt with in this chapter, it is sought to show that the entire Vedas, except the portion treating of ceremonies having material ends, are applicable to this. Hence the words, ‘That great,’ etc., recapitulating what has been stated. That refers to something already mentioned. What is it? It is pointed out by the words, ‘Which is identified with the intellect,’ etc., which are intended to preclude any reference to the Self. Which one is meant then? The answer is: Which is identified with the intellect and is in the midst of the organs. The passage is quoted for settling the doubt, for at the beginning of Janaka’s questions it has been stated, ‘Which is the self?—This (infinite entity) that is identified with the intellect and is in the midst of the organs,’ etc. The idea is this: By the demonstration of desire, work and ignorance as attributes of the non-Self, the self-effulgent Aaatman that has been set forth in the passage in question is here freed from them and transformed into the Supreme Self, and it is emphatically stated, ‘It is the Supreme Self, and nothing else’; it is directly spoken of as the great, birthless Self. The words, ‘Which is identified with the intellect and is in the midst of the organs,’ have been already explained and have the same meaning here. Lies in the ether that is within the lotus of the heart, the ether (aakaasha) that is the seat of the intellect. The Aaatman lives in that ether containing the intellect. Or the meaning may be that the individual self in the state of profound sleep dwells in that unconditioned Supreme Self, called aakaasha, which is its very nature. This has been explained in the second chapter by way of answer to the question, ‘Where was it then?’
(The intellect (not the Aaatman) is the cause for Jeeva’s karma the fruit of which he enjoys and suffers. In many upanishads this intellect is described as a cave in which Aaatman resides. The intellect must free itself of the desires which takes him in the realm of karma. And by such freeing or detachment the jeeva realizes his Aaatman.)
ॐ सर्वापेक्षा च यज्ञादिश्रुतेः अश्ववत् ॐ ॥ (Brahma Sutra 3.4.26) ” On the strength of the Upanishadic sanction of sacrifices etc., all religious activities as well are necessary. This is the same as in the case of a horse in its (adequacy of) usage.”
Karmas are visible achievements and upasanas are antaranga or invisible achievements. Upasana is thus known as dahara karma or subtle karma that leads one to Brahmaloka. Thus both karma and upasana lead one to different lokas and not to liberation. That is why Sri Krishna says that all karmas end only in ज्ञान meaning without attaining ज्ञान karmas will never end.
So what is Vedanti’s contention?
It can be briefly stated as follows: In the view of the Vedanti, prapancham exists in the three kaalas of past, present and future; in this mithya prapancham true knowledge does never exist; what is known by the jeeva is his mithya ज्ञानं (अज्ञानं) that causes the guNa which in turn causes dharma, adharma, kartrutvam, bhoktrutvam, sukhitvam, dhukkitvam, birth, death etc. that forms the bandham or attachment; in order to overcome this bandham an inquirer (जिज्ञासु) equipped with the knowledge of the four well known mahaa-vaakyas turns himself into a mumukshu (one who desires to know the tatva), abandons all karmas, deliberately sticks to equanimity of mind and surrenders to a Guru; from him he studies the prasthanatrayi and by his blessings meditates on them by sravaNa, manana and nidhidhyaasana and by strict abhyasana of them attains determination (para vairaagyam) to pursue the state of samaadhi; he overcomes असम्भावना (impossibility to comprehend), विपरीतभावन (false concept) etc. arising from mithya ज्ञानं; attains the bright saakshaatkaaram of Brahmaatmaikya ज्ञानाग्नि; from such attainment he burns down the root अज्ञानं and its effects of this prapancham therby causing the burning down of all bandham as all vishayas cease to exist for him; this is his advaita moksham which is the swaroopam of a ज्ञानि where he neither acquires or gives up anything. This state is saaswatham, brilliant and svaanubhuti.
What is the nature of Samaadhi?
यच्छेद्वाङ्मनसी प्राज्ञस्तद्यच्छेज्ज्ञान आत्मनि । ज्ञानमात्मनि महति नियच्छेत्तद्यच्छेच्छान्त आत्मनि ॥ १३ ॥ (Katha Upanishad – 1.3.13) “Let the intelligent man sink speech into mind, let him sink the mind into that into intelligence and sink that intelligence into the great aatman that is the witness and then sink that great witness into the peaceful Aatman.”
पराञ्चि खानि व्यतृणत्स्वयम्भूस्तस्मात्पराङ्पश्यति नान्तरात्मन् । कश्चिद्धीरः प्रत्यगात्मानमैक्षदावृत्तचक्शुरमृतत्वमिच्छन् ॥ १ ॥ (Katha Upanishad – 2.1.1) “The self-existent created the senses out-going: therefore, one sees outside and not the atman within. Intelligent man, on the other hand, with his senses turned away, (from their object), desirous of immortality, sees the atman within.
त्रिरुन्नतं स्थाप्य समं शरीरं हृदीन्द्रियाणि मनसा सन्निवेश्य । ब्रह्मोडुपेन प्रतरेत विद्वान् स्रोतांसि सर्वाणि भयानकानि ॥ ८॥ “The wise man should hold his body steady, with the three upper parts erect, turn his senses, with the help of the mind, toward the heart and by means of the raft of Brahman cross the fearful torrents of the world.” (Svetasvatara Upanisad – 2.8)
These two upanishads explain at length the practice of this yoga.
धनुर् गृहीत्वौपनिषदं महास्त्रं शरं ह्युपासा निशितं सन्धयीत । आयम्य तद्भावगतेन चेतसा लक्ष्यं तदेवाक्षरं सोम्य विद्धि ॥ ३॥ (Mundaka Upanishad 2.2.3) “Take the Upanishad as the bow, and place upon it your aatman as the arrow sharpened by meditation. Then, having drawn it back with a mind directed to the thought of Brahman, strike that mark, O my good friend-that which is the Imperishable (ॐ).
Bhagavat Geeta, in chapters 4, 6 and 8 Samaadhi Yoga is described in great detail. Great Patanjali of Yoga Sutra says: :योगश्चित्तवृत्तिनिरोधः॥२॥” “Yoga is the suppression of the modifications of mind.”
Adi Sankara imparts his ‘Raja Yoga’ in 15 parts in his Aparokshanubhuti.
त्रिपञ्चाङ्गान्यथो वक्ष्ये पूर्वोक्तस्यैव सिद्धये। तैश्च सर्वैः सदा कार्यं निदिध्यासनमेव तु।।100।। “Now, for the attainment of the aforesaid (knowledge), I shall expound the fifteen steps by the help of which one should practice profound meditation at all times.”
नित्याभ्यासादृते प्राप्तिर्न भवेत्सच्चिदात्मनः। तस्माद्ब्रह्म निदिध्यासेज्जिज्ञासुः श्रेयसे चिरम्।।101।। “The Atman that is absolute existence and knowledge cannot be realized without constant practice. So one seeking after knowledge should long meditate upon Brahman for the attainment of the desired goal.”
यमो हि नियमस्त्यागो मौनं देशश्च कालतः। आसनं मूलबन्धश्च देहसाम्यं च दृक्स्थितिः।।102।। प्राणसंयमनं चैव प्रत्याहारश्च धारणा। आत्मध्यानं समाधिश्च प्रोक्तान्यङ्गानि वै क्रमात्।।103।। “The steps, in order, are described as follows: the control of the senses, the control of the mind, renunciation, silence, space, time, posture, the restraining root (Mulabandha), the equipoise of the body, the firmness of vision, the control of the vital forces, the withdrawal of the mind, concentration, self-contemplation and complete absorption.”
सर्वं ब्रह्मेति विज्ञानादिन्द्रियग्रामसंयमः। यमोऽयमिति संप्रोक्तोऽभ्यसनीयो मुहुर्मुहुः।।104।। “The restraint of all the senses by means of such knowledge as “All this is Brahman” is rightly called Yama, which should be practiced again and again.”
सजातीयप्रवाहश्च विजातीयतिरस्कृतिः। नियमो हि परानन्दो नियमात्क्रियते बुधैः।।105।। ” The continuous flow of only one kind of thought to the exclusion of all other thoughts, is called Niyama, which is verily the supreme bliss and is regularly practiced by the wise.”
त्यागः प्रपञ्चरूपस्य चिदात्मत्वावलोकनात्। त्यागो हि महतां पूज्यः सद्यो मोक्षमयो यतः।।106।। “The abandonment of the illusory universe by realizing it as the all-conscious Atman is the real renunciation honored by the great, since it is of the nature of immediate liberation.”
यतो वाचो निवर्तन्ते अप्राप्य मनसा सह। यन्मौनं योगिभिर्गम्यं तद्भजेत्सर्वदा बुधः।।107।। ” The wise should always be one with that silence wherefrom words together with the mind turn back without reaching it, but which is attainable by the Yogins.”
वाचो यस्मान्निवर्तन्ते तद्वक्तुं केन शक्यते। प्रपञ्चो यदि वक्तव्यः सोऽपि शब्दविवर्जितः।।108।। इति वा तद्भवेन्मौनं सतां सहजसंज्ञितम्। गिरा मौनं तु बालानां प्रयुक्तं ब्रह्मवादिभिः।।109।। “Who can describe That (i.e., Brahman) from where words turn away ? (So silence is inevitable while describing Brahman). Or if the phenomenal world were it to be described, even that is beyond words. This, to give an alternate definition, may also be termed silence known among the sages as congenital. The observance of silence by restraining speech, on the other hand, is ordained by the teachers of Brahman for the ignorant.”
आदावन्ते च मध्ये च जनो यस्मिन्न विद्यते। येनेदं सततं व्याप्तं स देशो विजनः स्मृतः।।110।। “That solitude is known as space, wherein the universe does not exist in the beginning, end or middle, but whereby it is pervaded at all times.”
कलनात्सर्वभूतानां ब्रह्मादीनां निमेषतः। कालशब्देन निर्दिष्टो ह्यखण्डानन्द अद्वयः।।111।। “The non-dual (Brahman) that is bliss indivisible is denoted by the word ’time’, since it brings into existence, in the twinkling of an eye all beings from Brahman downwards.”
सुखेनैव भवेद्यस्मिन्नजस्रं ब्रह्मचिन्तनम्। आसनं तद्विजानीयान्नेतरत्सुखनाशनम्।।112।। “One should know that as real posture in which the meditation on Brahman flows spontaneously and unceasingly, and not any other that destroys one’s happiness.”
सिद्धं यत्सर्वभूतादि विश्वाधिष्ठानमव्ययम्। यस्मिन्सिद्धाः समाविष्टास्तद्वै सिद्धासनं विदुः।।113।। “That which is well known as the origin of all beings and the support of the whole universe, which is immutable and in which the enlightened are completely merged, that alone is known as Siddhasana (eternal Brahman).
यन्मूलं सर्वभूतानां यन्मूलं चित्तबन्धनम्। मूलबन्धः सदा सेव्यो योगोऽसौ राजयोगिनाम्।।114।। “That (Brahman) which is the root of all existence and on which the restraint of the mind is based is called the restraining root (Mulabandha) which should always be adopted since it is fit for Raja-yogins.”
अङ्गानां समतां विद्यात्समे ब्रह्मणि लीयते। नो चेन्नैव समानत्वमृजुत्वं शुष्कवृक्षवत्।।115।। “Absorption in the uniform Brahman should be known as the equipoise of the limbs (Dehasamya). Otherwise mere straightening of the body like that of a dried-up tree is no equipoise.”
दृष्टिं ज्ञानमयीं कृत्वा पश्येद्ब्रह्ममयं जगत्। सा दृष्टिः परमोदारा न नासाग्रावलोकनी।।116।। “Converting the ordinary vision into one of knowledge one should view the world as Brahman itself. That is the noblest vision, and not that which is directed to the tip of the nose.”
द्रष्टृदर्शनदृश्यानां विरामो यत्र वा भवेत्। दृष्टिस्तत्रैव कर्तव्या न नासाग्रावलोकनी।।117।। “Or, one should direct one’s vision to That alone where all distinction of the seer, sight, and the seen ceases and not to the tip of the nose.”
निषेधनं प्रपञ्चस्य रेचकाख्यः समीरणः। ब्रह्मैवास्मीति या वृत्तिः पूरको वायुरीरितः।।119।। ततस्तद्वृत्तिनैश्चल्यं कुम्भकः प्राणसंयमः। चापि प्रबुद्धानामज्ञानां घ्राणपीडनम्।।120।। “The negation of the phenomenal world is known as Rechaka (breathing out), the thought, “I am verily Brahman”, is called Puraka (breathing in), and the steadiness of that thought thereafter is called Kumbhaka (restraining the breath). This is the real course of Pranayama for the enlightened, whereas the ignorant only torture the nose.”
विषयेष्वात्मतां दृष्ट्वा मनसश्चिति मज्जनम्। प्रत्याहारः स विज्ञेयोऽभ्यसनीयो मुमुक्षुभिः।।121।। “The absorption of the mind in the Supreme Consciousness by realizing Atman in all objects is known as Pratyahara (withdrawal of the mind) which should be practiced by the seekers after liberation.”
यत्र यत्र मनो याति ब्रह्मणस्तत्र दर्शनात्। मनसो धारणायैव धारणा सा परा मता।।122।। “The steadiness of the mind through realization of Brahman wherever the mind goes, is known as the supreme Dharana (concentration).”
ब्रह्मैवास्मीति सद्वृत्त्या निरालम्बतया स्थितिः। ध्यानशब्देन विख्याता परमानन्ददायिनी।।123।। “Remaining independent of everything as a result of the unassailable thought, “I am verily Brahman”, is well known by the word Dhyana (meditation), and is productive of supreme bliss.”
निर्विकारतया वृत्त्या ब्रह्माकारतया पुनः। वृत्तिविस्मरणं सम्यक्समाधिर्ज्ञानसंज्ञकः।।124।। “The complete forgetfulness of all thought by first making it changeless and then identifying it with Brahman is called Samadhi known also as knowledge.”
एवं चाकृत्रिमानन्दं तावत्साधु समभ्यसेत्। वश्यो यावत्क्षणात्पुंसः प्रयुक्तः स भेवत्स्वयम्।।125।। ” The aspirant should carefully practice this (meditation) that reveals his natural bliss until, being under his full control, it arises spontaneously, in an instant when called into action.”
Sage Vasishta told Rama, “Hey Rama, in order to perform citta-naasam there are two ways — by yoga and by ज्ञान. ज्ञान is the realization of the Truth. For some the pursuit of yoga is not possible. For others pursuit of ज्ञान is certainly impossible. Knowing this Lord Shiva taught both.
Knowing this tattva enables one to burn the straws of desires still clinging to oneself. The stilling the citta, being a nithya thruptan, one whose awareness is poised on paaraamaarthika swaroopam alone is said to be in Samaadhi.
In Yoga Vasishta it is said that one should completely put down the expansion of the mind and keep his jeevathwam merged in Paramaatma is the Yoga of greatest in शब्द called Samadhi is indicated here. Being in तूष्णीम् state (in Tamil we say ‘summa iru’) is not meant to be in samaadhi.
Bhagavat PaadaaL also says that when one completely loses dehaatma buddhi and attains Paramaatma swaroopam, he attains samaadhi wherever his mind clutches.
The above mentioned samaadhi roopam is of two kinds – one is nirodha roopam, another is ज्ञानरूपं. The saadhana state in which one attains it is said to be in Nirodha Samaadhi. When he is completely possessed of the fruit of knowledge then he is in ज्ञान समाधि.
Those who know this yoga tatva say the following: “vishya thyaagam is durbalam (slender chance of abandoning possessions); tatva dharshanam is still more durbalam; Extremely difficult would be to remain in sahaja samaadhi when the mind is not burnt down.”
That one who refuses to hold on to the objects that are seen and attains such drishti that is completely devoid of objects, whose praaNa functions with no efforts in complete abandonment (you remember I used to say ‘grave abandon’!) whose citta never enters the domain of objects to be entanged such a person becomes a true Yogi, he becomes a Guru and he is fit to be adored.
Sruti says that Aatma is unthinkable (अगोचरम्). How can you meditate on the Aatma that is unseen, beyond the pale of drishti? This is the question poorva meemasakas raise. They continue, ‘you say that mumukshu sacrifices all karmas to do vedanta sravaNam. This is not fit. Even grihasta is an adhikaari to do sravaNam of Vedanta. Moreover, Sruti imposes this on only 3 ashramas. It also says that as long as life last one should do यज्ञ on full moon days. कुर्वन्नेवेह कर्माणि जिजीविषेच्छतं समाः । एवं त्वयि नान्यथेतोऽस्ति न कर्म लिप्यते नरे ॥ (Ishavasya Upanishad 2) “Should one wish to live a hundred years on this earth, he should live doing Karma. While thus, (as) man, you live, there is no way other than this by which Karma will not cling to you.”. These struti vaakyas impose karma on the jeeva and therefore he need not take up sanyasa. What Lord Krishna says in Bhagavat Geeta is “whoever does karma without seeking its fruit he becomes a sanyasi; he becomes a yogi. This way it is said that in Geeta that sanyasa yoga can be considered performed even without abandoning karma (sarva karma sanyasam), so why do you insist?”
Siddhaanti’s समादानम् (reconciliation): It is not right to say so. Even though the Grihasta has a right to do sravaNam on vedanta, even if he is able to attain ज्ञान, having his mind in grihasthaasrama it attains the quality of vikshepa (wavering) it becomes difficult for him to earn a firm position on ज्ञान. He is unable to attain निष्ठा (perfection) in ज्ञान. This prevents him from being in unqualified, nondual state of aananda swaroopa. In order to obviate it the grihasta is enthused by the Sruti to abandon karmas and embrace sanyasa. If there is strong obstruction (प्रतिबन्दम्) to taking up sanyasa he has to endure all the troubles of the grihasthasra that he is unable to abandon. In order to obtain perfection (निष्टै) one needs sincere and great effort and courage. Once he has taken sanyasa those waverings (vikshepa) coming from outside cease, he will be left with removing the vikshepa that arise in his mind only. Thus it is not easy to earn the निष्टै of sanyasa aashrama. In the sastra also if you say, it talks of three dharma skandas (subject areas) it is to point out the punyalokas that the grihastas would attain for the purpose of enthusing him, however the rest of the sentence does talk of the state of BrahmaN and its character of being Amrita that other lokas do not have.
अनुपनीतशतमेकमेकेनोपनीतेन तत्सममुपनीतशतमेकमेकेन गृहस्थेन तत्समं गृहस्थशतमेकमेकेन वानप्रस्थेन तत्समं वानप्रस्थशतमेकेमेकेन यतिना तत्समं यतीनां तु शतं पूर्णमेकमेकेन रुद्रजापकेन तत्समं रुद्रजापकशतमेकेमेकेन अथर्वशिरः शिखाध्यापकेन तत्सममथर्वशिरः शाखाध्यापकशतमेकमेकेन बृहज्जाबालोपनिषदध्यापकेन तत्समं तद्वा एतत्परंधाम बृहज्जबालोपनीषज्जपशीलस्य यत्र न सूर्यस्तपति यत्र न वायुर्वाति यत्र न चन्द्रमा भाति यत्र न नक्षत्राणि भान्ति यत्र नाग्निर्दहति यत्र न मृत्युः प्रविशति यत्र न दुःखानि प्रविशन्ति सदानन्दं परमानन्दं शान्तं शाश्वतं सदाशिवं ब्रह्मादिवन्दितं योगिध्येयं परं पदं यत्र गत्वा न निवर्तन्ते योगिनस्तदेतदृचाभ्युक्तम् । तद्विष्णोः परमं पदं सदा पश्यन्ति सूरयः । (Jaabaala Upanishad)
(Yanjavalkya replied:) “Having observed the rules of Brahmacharya, one should become a householder. From the stage of the householder, he should become a Vanaprastha (forest-dweller). Next he should renounce the world (and become a Sanyasi). One can take up Sanyasa either from Brahmacharya, or from the stage of the householder or from that of Vanaprastha.
“Whether one be a fulfiller of the vows or not (in the Brahmacharya stage), or whether he has completed the spiritual instructions given by the preceptor or not (in the stage of the householder), or whether he be one who has not maintained the sacred fire, and whether he be one who is not entitled to keep the sacred fire, [The first three means the followers of the three asramas and the fourth, the fourth class who are not entitled by birth to worship the sacred fire.] he should renounce the world the very moment he becomes disgusted with it.
‘(As preparatory to Sanyasa) some perform the Prajapatya ceremony. This should not be done. Agneyi ceremony should be observed. Agni is verily Prana. By performing this, he verily propitiates the Prana.
“Next, he should perform the Traidhaturiya ceremony. By this he propitiates the three Dhatus, namely, Satva, Rajas, and Tamas.
“(Next) he should smell the sacred fire when chanting the mantra. “This is thy source (Prana) of sacrifices. Taking the birth out of it thou shinest well. Knowing it, O fire, Thou goest (to thy source). Next increase our prosperity.” This is verily the birth place of fire which is Prana. The mantra says, ‘go (O fire) to Prana, Svaha’ (प्राणाय स्वाहा । अपानाय स्वाहा । व्यानाय स्वाहा । उदानाय स्वाहा ।
समानाय स्वाहा । ).
“Thus, one should take up (sanyasa) by observing the Vedic ceremony, and worship the Brahman.”
Now I am going to take up Vaakya Sudha by Adi Sankara. (Swami Vidyaranya called it दृग्दृश्यविवेकः) I am going to quote him completely. This is the most conscise view of Advaita Vedanta propounded by Adi Sankara. I am putting down the translation of the 46 slokas and please meditate on them.
SEER AND SEEN
रूपं दृश्यं लोचनं दृक् तद्दृश्यं दृक्तु मानसम् ।
दृश्या धीवृत्तयः साक्षी दृगेव न तु दृश्यते ॥ १॥
1.The form is seen, the eye is seer; the mind is both seen and seer. The changing moods of mind are seen, but the witnessing Self, the seer, is never seen.
नीलपीतस्थूलसूक्ष्मह्रस्वदीर्घादिभेदतः ।
नानाविधानि रूपाणि पश्येल्लोचनमेकधा ॥ २॥
2. The eye, remaining one, beholds varying forms; as, blue and yellow, coarse and fine, short and long; and differences such as these.
आन्ध्यमान्द्यपटुत्वेषु नेत्रधर्मेषु चैकधा ।
संकल्पयेन्मनः श्रोत्रत्वगादौ योज्यतामिदम् ॥ ३॥
3. The mind, remaining one, forms definite intentions, even while the character of the eye varies, as in blindness, dullness, or keen-sightedness; and this holds also of hearing and touch.
कामः संकल्पसन्देहौ श्रद्धाऽश्रद्धे धृतीतरे ।
ह्रीर्धीर्भीरित्येवमादीन् भासयत्येकधा चितिः ॥ ४॥
4. The conscious Self, remaining one, shines on all the moods of mind: on desire, determination, doubt, faith, unfaith, firmness and the lack of it, shame, insight, fear, and such as these.
नोदेति नास्तमेत्येषा न वृद्धिं याति न क्षयम् ।
स्वयं विभात्यथानन्यानि भासयेत् साधनं विना ॥ ५॥
5. This conscious Self rises not, nor has its setting, nor does it come to wax or wane; unhelped, it shines itself, and illumines others also.
THE PERSONAL IDEA (छायाहंकारयोरैक्यम्)
चिच्च्हायाऽऽवेशतो बुदौ भानं धीस्तु द्विधा स्थिता ।
एकाहंकृतिरन्या स्यादन्तःकरणरूपिणी ॥ ६॥
6. This illumining comes when the ray of consciousness enters the thinking mind; and the thinking mind itself is of twofold nature. The one part of it is the personal idea; the other part is mental action.
छायाऽहंकारयोरैक्यं तप्तायःपिण्डवन्मतम् ।
तदहंकारतादात्म्यद्देहश्चेतनतामगात् ॥ ७॥
7. The ray of consciousness and the personal idea are blended together, like the heat and the hot iron ball. As the personal idea identifies itself with the body, it brings that also a sense of consciousness.
अहंकारस्य तादात्म्यं चिच्च्हायादेहसाक्षिभिः ।
सहजं कर्मजं भ्रान्तिजन्यं च त्रिविधं क्रमात् ॥ ८॥
8. The personal idea is blended with the ray of consciousness, the body, and the witnessing Self, respectively — through the action of innate necessity, of works, and of delusion.
संबन्धिनोः सतोर्नास्ति निवृत्तिः सहजस्य तु ।
कर्मक्षयात् प्रबोधाच्च निवर्तेते क्रमादुभे ॥ ९॥
9. Since the two are bound up together, the innate blending of the personal idea with the ray of consciousness never ceases; but its blending with the body ceases, when the works wear out; and with the witnessing Self, through illumination.
अहंकारलये सुप्तौ भवेद्देहोऽप्यचेतनः ।
अहंकारविकासार्धः स्वप्नः सर्वस्तु जागरः ॥ १०॥
10. When the personal idea melts away in deep sleep, the body also loses its sense of consciousness. The personal idea is only half expanded in dream, while in waking it is complete.
अन्तःकरणवृत्तिश्च चितिच्चच्हायैक्यमागता ।
वासनाः कल्पयेत् स्वप्ने बोधेऽक्षैर्विषयान् बहिः ॥ ११॥
11. The power of mental action, when the ray of consciousness has entered into union with it, builds up mind-images in the dream-state; and external objects, in the waking state.
मनोऽहंकृत्युपादानं लिङ्गमेकं जडात्मकम् ।
अवस्थात्रयमन्वेति जायते म्रियते तथा ॥ १२॥
12. The personal form, thus brought into being by the personal idea and mental action, is of itself quite lifeless. It appears in the three modes of consciousness; it is born, and so also dies.
THE POWER OF MAYA
शक्तिद्वयं हि मायाया विक्षेपावृत्तिरूपकम् ।
विक्षेपशक्तिर्लिङ्गादिब्रह्माण्डान्तं जगत् सृजेत् ॥ १३॥
13. For the Maya has two powers — extension and limitation, or enveloping. The power of extension brings into manifestation the whole world, from the personal form to the universal cosmos.
सृष्टिर्नाम ब्रह्मरूपे सच्चिदानन्दवस्तुनि ।
अब्धौ फेनादिवत् सर्वनामरूपप्रसारणा ॥ १४॥
14. This manifesting is an attributing of name and form to the Reality — which is Being, Consciousness, Bliss, the Eternal; it is like foam on the water.
अन्तर्दृग्दृश्ययोर्भेदं बहिश्च ब्रह्मसत्गयोः ।
आवृणोत्यपरा शक्तिः सा संसारस्य कारणम् ॥ १५॥
15. The inner division between the seer and the seen, and the outer division between the Eternal and the world, are concealed by the other power, limitation; and this also is the cause of the cycle of birth and death.
साक्षिणः पुरतो भाति लिङ्गं देहेन संयुतम् ।
चितिच्च्हायासमावेशाज्जीवः स्याद्व्यावहारिकः ॥ १६॥
16. The light of the witnessing Self is united with the personal form; from this entering in of the ray of consciousness arises the habitual life — the ordinary self.
अस्य जीवत्वमारोपात् साक्षिण्यप्यवभासते ।
आवृतौ तु विनष्टायां भेदे भातेऽपयाति तत् ॥ १७॥
17. The isolated existence of the ordinary self is attributed to the witnessing Self, and appears to belong to it; but when the power of limitation is destroyed, and the difference appears, the sense of isolation in the Self vanishes away.
तथा सर्गब्रह्मणोश्च भेदमावृत्य तिष्ठति ।
या शक्तिस्तद्वशाद्ब्रह्म विकृतत्वेन भासते ॥ १८॥
18. It is the same power which conceals the difference between the Eternal and the visible world; and, by its power, the Eternal appears subject to change.
अत्राप्यावृतिनाशेन विभाति ब्रह्मसर्गयोः ।
भेदस्तयोर्विकारः स्यात् सर्गे न ब्रह्मणि क्वचित् ॥ १९॥
19. But when this power of limitation is destroyed, the difference between the Eternal and the visible world becomes clear; change belongs to the visible world, and by no means to the Eternal.
अस्ति भाति प्रियं रूपं नाम चेत्यंशपञ्चकम् ।
आद्यत्रयं ब्रह्मरूपं जगद्रूपं ततो द्वयम् ॥ २०॥
20. The five elements of existence are these: being, shining, enjoying, form and name; the three first belong to the nature of the Eternal; the last two, to the nature of the visible world.
खवाय्वग्निजलोर्वीषु देवतिर्यङ्नरादिषु ।
अभिन्नाः सच्चिदानन्दाः भिद्यते रूपनामनि ॥ २१॥
21. In the elements — ether, air, fire, water, earth; in creatures — gods, animals, and men, Being, Consciousness, Bliss are undivided; the division is only of name and form.
SIX STEPS TO आत्मसाक्षात्कारम्
उपेक्ष्य नामरूपे द्वे सच्चिदानन्दतत्परः ।
समाधिं सर्वदा कुर्याद्धृतये वाऽथवा बहिः ॥ २२॥
22. Therefore setting aside this division through name and form, and concentrating himself on Being, Consciousness, Bliss, which are undivided, let him follow after soul-vision (आत्मसाक्षात्कारम्) perpetually, first inwardly in the heart, and then in outward things also.
सविकल्पो निर्विकल्पः समाधिर्द्विविधो हृदि ।
दृश्यशब्दानुवेधेन सविकल्पः पुनर्द्विधा ॥ २३॥
23. Soul-vision is either fluctuating or unwavering; this is its two-fold division in the heart. Fluctuating soul-vision is again two-fold; it may consist either in things seen or heard (द्रिस्यानुवित्तं/(शब्दानुवित्तं) .
कामाद्याश्चित्तगा दृश्यास्तत्साक्षित्वेन चेतनम् ।
ध्यायेद्दृश्यानुविद्धोऽयं समाधिः सविकल्पकः ॥ २४॥
24. This is the fluctuating soul-vision which consists in things seen: a meditating on consciousness as being merely the witness of the desires and passions that fill the mind (केवलं स्पुरण रूपं).
असंगः सच्चिदानन्दः स्वप्रभो द्वैतवर्जितः ।
अस्मीति शब्दविद्धोऽयं समाधिः सविकल्पकः ॥ २५॥
25. This is the fluctuating soul-vision which consists in things heard: the constant thought that “I am the self, which is unattached, Being, Consciousness, Bliss, self-shining, secondless.”
स्वानुभूतिरसावेशाद्दृश्यशब्दावुपेक्ष्य तु ।
निर्विकल्पः समाधिः स्यान्निवातस्थितदीपवत् ॥ २६॥
26. The forgetting of all images and words, through entering into the bliss of direct experience — this is unwavering soul-vision, like a lamp set in a windless place.
हृदीव बाह्यदेशेऽपि यस्मिन् कस्मिंश्च वस्तुनि ।
समाधिराद्यः सन्मात्रान्नामरूपपृथक्कृतिः ॥ २७॥
27. Then, corresponding to the first, there is the soul-vision which strips off name and form from the element of pure Being, in everything whatever; now accomplished outwardly, as it was before, in the heart.
अखण्डैकरसं वस्तु सच्चिदानन्दलक्षणम् ।
इत्यविच्च्हिन्नचिन्तेयं समाधिर्मध्यमो भवेत् ॥ २८॥
28. And, corresponding to the second is the soul-vision which consists in the unbroken thought, that the Real is a single undivided Essence, whose character is Being, Consciousness, Bliss.
स्तब्धीभावोरसास्वादात्तृतीयः पूर्ववन्मतः ।
एतैः समाधिभिः षड्भिर्नयेत् कालं निरन्तरम् ॥ २९॥
29. Corresponding to the former third, is that steady being, is the tasting of this Essence for oneself. Let him fill the time by following out these, the six stages of soul-vision.
देहाभिमाने गलिते विज्ञाते परमात्मनि ।
यत्र यत्र मनो याति तत्र तत्र समाधयः ॥ ३०॥
30. When the false conceit, that the body is the Self, falls away; when the Self supreme is known then, whithersoever the mind is directed, there will the powers of soul-vision arise.
भिद्यते हृदयग्रन्थिश्च्हिद्यन्ते सर्वसंशयाः ।
क्षीयन्ते चास्य कर्माणि तस्मिन् दृष्टे परावरे ॥ ३१॥
31. The knot of the heart is loosed; all doubts are cut; all bondage to works wither away — when That is known, which is the first and the last.
THE THREE SELVES
अवच्च्हिन्नश्चिदाभासस्तृतीयः स्वप्नकल्पितः ।
विज्ञेयस्त्रिविधो जीवस्तत्राद्यः पारमार्थिकः ॥ ३२॥
32. The individual self appears in three degrees: as a limitation of the Self; as a ray of the conscious Self; and, thirdly, as the self imagined in dreams. The first alone is real.
अवच्च्हेदः कल्पितः स्यादवच्च्हेद्यं तु वास्तवम् ।
तस्मिन् जीवत्वमारोपाद्ब्रह्मत्वं तु स्वभावतः ॥ ३३॥
33. For the limitation in the individual self is a mere imagination; and that which is supposed to be limited is the Reality. The idea of isolation in the individual self is only an error; but its identity with the Eternal is its real nature.
अवच्च्हिन्नस्य जीवस्य पूर्णेन ब्रह्मणैकताम् ।
तत्त्वमस्यादिवाक्यानि जगुर्नेतरजीवयोः ॥ ३४॥
34. And that song they sang of “That thou art” is for the first of these three selves alone; it only is one with the perfect Eternal, not the other selves.
ब्रह्मण्यवस्थिता माया विक्षेपावृतिरूपिणी ।
आवृत्यखण्डतां तस्मिन् जगज्जीवौ प्रकल्पयेत् ॥ ३५॥
35. The power of Maya existing in the Eternal, has two potencies: extension and limitation. Through the power of limitation, Maya hides the undivided nature of the Eternal, and so builds up the images of the individual self and the world.
जीवो धीस्थचिदाभासो भवेद्भोक्ता हि कर्मकृत् ।
भोग्यरूपमिदं सर्वं जगत् स्याद्भूतभौतिकम् ॥ ३६॥
36. The individual self which comes into being when the ray of consciousness enters the thinking mind, is the self that gains experience and performs works. The whole world, with all its elements and beings, is the object of its experience.
अनादिकालमारभ्य मोक्षात् पूर्वमिदं द्वयम् ।
व्यवहारे स्थितं तस्मादुभयं व्यावहारिकम् ॥ ३७॥
37. These two, the individual self and its world, were before time began; they last till Freedom comes, making up our habitual life. Hence they are called the habitual self and world.
चिदाभासस्थिता निद्रा विक्षेपावृतिरूपिणी ।
आवृत्य जीवजगती पूर्वे नूत्ने तु कल्पयेत् ॥ ३८॥
38. In this ray of consciousness, the dream-power exists, with its two potencies of extension and limitation. Through the power of limitation, it hides the former self and world, and so builds up a new self and a new world.
प्रतीतिकाल एवैते स्थितत्वात् प्रातिभासिके ।
न हि स्वप्नप्रबुद्धस्य पुनः स्वप्ने स्थितिस्तयोः ॥ ३९॥
39. As this new self and world are real only so long as their appearance lasts, they are called the imaginary self and the imaginary world. For, when one has awakened from the dream, the dream existence never comes back again.
प्रातिभासिकजीवो यस्तज्जगत् प्रातिभासिकम् ।
वास्तवं मन्यतेऽन्यस्तु मिथ्येति व्यावहारिकः ॥ ४०॥
40. The imaginary self believes its imaginary world to be real; but the habitual self knows that world to be only mythical, as also is the imaginary self.
व्यावहारिकजीवो यस्तज्जगद्व्यावहारिकम् ।
सत्यं प्रत्येति मिथ्येति मन्यते पारमार्थिकः ॥ ४१॥
41. The habitual self looks on its habitual world as real; but the real Self knows that the habitual world is only mythical, as also is the habitual self.
पारमार्थिकजीवस्तु ब्रह्मैक्यं पारमार्थिकम् ।
प्रत्येति वीक्षते नान्यद्वीक्षते त्वनृतात्मना ॥ ४२॥
42. The real Self knows its real oneness with the Eternal; it sees nothing but the Eternal, yet sees that what seemed the unreal is also the Self.
FREEDOM AND FINAL PEACE
माधुर्यद्रवशैत्यानि नीरधर्मास्तरङ्गके ।
अनुगम्याथ तन्निष्टे फेनेऽप्यनुगता यथा ॥ ४३॥
43. As the sweetness, the flowing, and the coldness, that are the characteristics of the water, reappear in the wave, and so in the foam that crests the wave;
साक्षिस्थाः सच्चिदानन्दाः संबन्धाद्व्यावहारिके ।
तद्द्वारेणानुगच्च्हन्ति तथैव प्रातिभासिके ॥ ४४॥
44. So, verily, the Being, Consciousness, and Bliss of the witnessing Self enter into the habitual self that is bound up with it; and, by the door of the habitual self, enter into the imaginary self also.
लये फेनस्य तद्धर्मा द्रवाद्याः स्युस्तरङ्गके ।
तस्यापि विलये नीरे निष्ठन्त्येते यथा पुरा ॥ ४५॥
45. But when the foam melts away, its flowing, sweetness, coldness, all sink back into the wave; and when the wave itself comes to rest, they sink back to the sea.
प्रातिभासिकजीवस्य लये स्युर्व्यावहारिके ।
तल्लये सच्चिदानन्दाः पर्यवस्यन्ति साक्षिणि ॥ ४६॥
46. When the imaginary self melts away, its Being, Consciousness, Bliss sink back into the habitual self; and, when the habitual self comes to rest, they return to the Self supreme, the witness of all.
Let me continue with the rebuttal of poorva meemamsaka’s view by the Vedanti. Sri Sat Guru said: “By the very शब्द sanyasa is indicated as a Moksha saadhana. असक्तबुद्धि: सर्वत्र जितात्मा विगतस्पृह: | नैष्कर्म्यसिद्धिं परमां सन्न्यासेनाधिगच्छति || (Bhagavat Geeta – 18.49) “Those whose intellect is unattached everywhere, who have mastered the mind, and are free from desires by the practice of renunciation, attain the highest perfection of freedom from action.”
श्रीभगवानुवाच | लोकेऽस्मिन्द्विविधा निष्ठा पुरा प्रोक्ता मयानघ | ज्ञानयोगेन साङ्ख्यानां कर्मयोगेन योगिनाम् || (Bhagavat Geeta – 3.3) The Lord said: O sinless one, the two paths leading to enlightenment were previously explained by Me: the path of knowledge, for those inclined toward contemplation, and the path of work for those inclined toward action.
One who seeks Moksha when he abandons karma along with the instruments of their performance surely is able to see Paramathma. The sanyasi’s manifest appearance coming as it does from his abandonment of action is a great state of adoration for all. The vaakyam ‘Do the यज्ञ are directed at those who have not attained virakti (indifference to wordly affairs). Therefore these people are denied the right to sanyasa.
Meemamsaka continues with his objection: “The Mumukshu who attained virakti even if he did thyaagam of his karma, if he removes his शिका and यज्ञोपवीतम् he would lose his brahminhood. These are required for Vedaadyayanam and he cannot abandon them. This is because the one who abandons Veda automatically becomes a sudhra. Thus the smritis insist on not losing his brahminhood. Such acts brings dhosham resulting in his committing a paapam. So a mumukshu should never lose his brahminhood.”
To this Sri Satguru replies: “This is not correct. One who seeking Moksha pursues paravairaagyam, such a one losing his शिका, यज्ञोपवीतम् , swaadhyaayam are ordained in Sruti and smriti. Therefore he is not at fault. The Sruti and smriti says as follows:
“The seeker should lose his शिका and lose the sutras that are बाह्यम् (obsolete). He should hereafter consider the paraBrahman as ekaaksharam and continually meditate on it.”
“That which was communicated (सूचि) is said to be सूत्रंम् (aphorism). In fact सूचि means needle and सूत्रंम् is thread. They work together and be useful. Ekaakshara सूत्रंम् is Moksha Swaroopam. He who knows this become a Brahmin who has fully understood the Veda.”
“Like the beads collected in a सूत्र, he who knows that which is connecting and pervading this prapancha becomes a knower of yoga and tatva and becomes a yogi.”
“One who delights in this yoga should reject the obsolete sutras that have become बाह्यम्. Whoever knows the real sutra called Ekaakshara he is the knower of Truth.”
“knowing that sutra will not result in fault or cause impurity (असूचि) the Yogis who know the Ekakshara sootram becomes wearer of this very ज्ञान as their यज्ञोपवीतम् and thus they become यज्ञोपवीती. ज्ञान becomes their शिका. There is no greater pavitram than this ज्ञान. “
“One who has removed his केशाः wears agni as his शिका. His kaavi cloth cover his head in the form of a flaming fire. “
Brhmopanishad says: “यज्ञोपवीतं परमं पवित्रं प्रजापतेर्यत्सहजं पुरस्तात्। आयुष्यमग्रयं प्रतिमुञ्च शुभ्रं यज्ञोपवीतं बलमस्तु तेजः ॥ सशिखं वपनं कृत्वा बहिःसूत्रं त्यजेद्बुधः || “Knowledge is the incomparable means of self purification, the state of purity, the means of purification. The Brahmin is engaged in Vedic duties wearing the hair tuft and the external sacred thread then doing the ritual works, but it is the one who wears knowledge as his hair tuft and internal sacred thread is the true state of Brahmin should discard the same.
More over Sruti says: “A yati should roam abandoning all aashramas and their dharmas and cross all vedic impositions. All the worlds and the vedas arose out of अज्ञान. One who has understood aatma tatva realizes that this prapancham is false.”
In Bhagvatam (Krishna) stated: “One should do karmas that are of nivrti roopa. He should have bhakti in Me and abandon all karmas that are of pravrti roopa. The moment he is inclined to know the tatva he should abandon all the vidhi that belong to karma. Without this thyaga none reaches Moksha. Without sacrifice no one can abandon fear. Therefore abandon everything and attain sukham.”
Therefore a vidwan and the one having deep desire for ज्ञान will be considered faultless when he abandons शिखा, sutra, Veda and karma. By this I maintain that it refers to the karma kaanda only as one cannot abandon the ज्ञान kaanda as the sage would much need it to teach the mumukshus. None of these views apply to the liberated ones who has already become a jeevan mukta.
Sruti also says that a yati should not be samsaari but one who makes no claim to anything by which he can have अभिमान that would make him say ‘mine’ and who immerses himself in pure unwavering dhyaana, leaving aside both subha and asubha kaaryas and embrace sanyasa. He is called Paramahamsan.
Sruti says: “One should investigate all parts of Aaranya (kaanda) and Upanishads. To such an investigator sanyasa is a must.”
(The contention of Poorva Mimamsaka that) only a grihasta who does nishkaama karma is a fit candidate for Sanyasa and Yoga is incorrect. In Geeta such statements are given extolling the nishkaama karma and not about the fitness of his candidature of Sanyasa or Yoga. Sanyaasitvam is an attribute to one who does phala thyaagam and not a qualification because he does not posess those qualifications as abandoning everything and to follow sanyasa dharma alone. Thus a yati should abandon all encumberances and pursue Vedantic sravaNam, mananam and nidhidhyaasanam.
Sarva karma sanyaasam is a vidhi given in Sruti to enable the mumukshu to inquire into the padaarrtham of ‘Tat’ and ‘Tvam’. One who does not inquire into these padaas are considered fallen (पतितन्) therefore the Srutis insist on taking Sanyasa and be in the company of his Guru. Such a person does Vedanta sravaNam on a daily basis while doing Guru seva with bhakti and sraddha and thus attains the fruits of keeping his Guru in peace. Thus with Sanyasa as aid he attains the knowledge of Brahmaatmaikya sarvaatmam. Not by any other means. Sruti, smriti and nyaaya testifies to this. I will quote some of them.
“He attains ParaBrahmam when he sees his own self (i.e. they being non-different from him) in all bhootas (objects) and sees all the bhootas in his own self. There is no other way.”
“He leaves sarva bandham when he realizes that the prapancham he encounters in jaagrat, swapna and sushupti shines because of that ParaBrahmam which is his own Self.”
“He who knows that Brahmam which is undiminished, which is nirvikalpa (undoubted) and faultless attains that Brahmam as his own self. This is Brahma bhaavam.”
“He attains liberation by knowing that Brahmam which is anaadhi, doubtless, ever the same, that which has no cause and that which can never be cited as an example.”
“He has not aversion when he sees all bhootas as his own self and and sees his own self in all bhootas.”
“To that ज्ञानि to whom all bhootas have become his own self and sees them so how can he ever be bewitched of anything or be distressed by anything?”
“By adyaatma yoga a dheera by realizing the ParamporuL abandons both happiness and unhappiness.” (They don’t stir him!)
“He who realizes the permenent entity that occupies the impermanent body never feels sad.”
“By knowing that ParamporuL he is liberated from all traps (पाश). His grief wanes that enabling him to overcome birth and death.”
“By knowing that ParamporuL he passes death. There is no other way for release.” “Eh! Kaargi! whoever knows this Brahman as imperishable (अक्षर) is a Braahmanan.” “Two vidyas have to be known. They are Sabda Brahma and ParaBrahma. One who becomes a master in Sabda Brahma attains that ParaBrahma.” “A knower of BrahmaN becomes BrahmaN himself.” “A knower of aatma knows all and becomes BrahmaN.”
“The knot in the spiritual heart is the avidya known as Hrudaya granti. One who loosens this knot crosses the misery and paapa of the samsaara saagaram and by this He reaches amrita bhaavam.”
There are thousands of Sruti vaakyas that say: “that which is not mixed with karma or upasana, that which is alone in ज्ञान being apart from all, that which is निराधिशय (independent and supportless) is the Aananda that exists as swaatma roopa and has the characteristics of Moksha and it is attained when that aavaraNa shakti known as avidya is removed (torn apart). Here the jeeva attains Moksha and enjoys the same eternally.” This is not said in soliticitous pretence (उपचार). It cannot be considered as Srutivaada or something that makes meaning to the mind. It is being enjoyed and felt by the being (not an experience of the body or the mind). It should neither be considered as praiseworthy or meaningful. There is no doubt in it nor anything fortuitous (विपरिधम्) happening. Bhagavat Geeta says: अपि चेदसि पापेभ्यः सर्वेभ्यः पापकृत्तमः । सर्वं ज्ञानप्लवेनैव वृजिनं सन्तरिष्यसि ॥ (B.G. 4.36) “Even if you be the worst sinner among all sinners, you will still cross over all sin with the raft of knowledge alone.” यथैधांसि समिद्धोऽग्निर्भस्मसात्कुरुतेऽर्जुन । ज्ञानाग्निः सर्वकर्माणि भस्मसात्कुरुते तथा ॥ (B.G. 4.37) “As a blazing fire reduces all fuel to ashes, so Arjuna! the fire of knowledge reduces all actions (कर्मा) to ashes.” न हि ज्ञानेन सदृशं पवित्रमिह विद्यते । तत्स्वयं योगसंसिद्धः कालेनात्मनि विन्दति ॥ (B.G. 4.38) “Nothing exists here as purifying as the Knowledge. He that is perfected in Yoga realizes in his own heart in due time.” भक्त्या मामभिजानाति यावान्यश्चास्मि तत्त्वत: । ततो मां तत्त्वतो ज्ञात्वा विशते तदनन्तरम् ॥ (B.G. 18.55) “One can understand Me as I am, as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, only by devotional service. And when one is in full consciousness of Me by such devotion, he enters into Me, the kingdom of God.”
(Brahma created Vasishta who married Arundhati. Their son was Shakti. Shakti’s son was Parashara and Parasara fathered Vyasa after marrying the fisherwoman matsyagandhi who then became Sugandhagandhi. She later married Shantanu, the Kaurava king. From Shantanu Sugandhagandhi gave birth to Dhridarashtra, Pandu and Vidura. The sons of Dhridarashtra and Pandu fought with each other that resulted in the great Mahabharata war. Vyasa’s father Parashara had authored what is known as Parashara Smriti which is supposed to be the law book for Kali Yuga.There is a PuraNa known as Parashara PuraNa in which Parashara Smrithi forms a part.)
Parashara says: “The huge forest that is a dump of paapa can be burnt only by ज्ञान and should leave no stones unturned to earn this ज्ञानाग्नि . The moment he acquires it the huge forest of paapa would be burnt down to ashes in split second.”
Manu says: एवं यः सर्वभूतेषु पश्यत्यात्मानमात्मना । स सर्वसमतामेत्य ब्रह्माभ्येति परं पदम् ॥ “He who thus perceives the Self through the Self, in all beings, becomes equal towards all and attains the highest state, Brahman.”
Brihadaranyaka Upanishad says: इति नु कामयमानः; अथाकामयमानः—योऽकामो निष्काम आप्तकाम आत्मकामो न तस्य प्राणा उत्क्रामन्ति, ब्रह्मैव सन्ब्रह्माप्येति ॥ “But the man who does not desire (never transmigrates). Of him who is without desires, who is free from desires, the objects of whose desire have been attained, and to whom all objects of desire are but the Self—the organs do not depart. Being but Brahman, he is merged in Brahman.”
Bhagavat Geeta (7.18) says: उदारा: सर्व एवैते ज्ञानी त्वात्मैव मे मतम् | आस्थित: स हि युक्तात्मा मामेवानुत्तमां गतिम् || “All those who are devoted to Me are indeed noble. But those in knowledge, who are of steadfast mind, whose intellect is merged in Me, and who have made Me alone as their supreme goal, I consider as My very self.”
Also Bhagavan says: :तेषां ज्ञानी नित्ययुक्त एकभक्तिर्विशिष्यते | प्रियो हि ज्ञानिनोऽत्यर्थमहं स च मम प्रिय: || “I consider these rarest to be the highest, who worship Me with knowledge, and are steadfastly and exclusively devoted to Me. I am very dear to them and they are very dear to Me.”
In this way Sruti, smriti and Puranas have spoken in निन्दन of those who have not known the Aatma.
ईशोपनिषत् says: असुर्या नाम ते लोका अन्धेन तमसावृताः । तांस्ते प्रेत्याभिगच्छन्ति ये के चात्महनो जनाः ॥ “Those births partake of the nature of the Asuras and are enveloped in blind darkness. After leaving the body they who kill their Atman attain them.”
Kenopanishad says: “इह चेदवेदीदथ सत्यमस्ति न चेदिहावेदीन्महती विनष्टिः ।” ” If one knows (That) here, then there is truth. If one knows not (That) here, there will be great loss.”
Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (3.8.10) says: यो वा एतदक्शरं गार्ग्यविदित्वास्मिंल्लोके जुहोति यजते तपस्तप्यते बहूनि वर्षसहस्राणि, अन्तवदेवास्य तद्भवति; यो वा एतदक्शरं गार्ग्यविदित्वास्माल्लोकात्प्रैति स कृपणः; अथ य एतदक्शरं गार्गि विदित्वास्माल्लोकात्प्रैति स ब्राह्मणः ॥ “Hey, O Gaargi, who in this world, without knowing this Immutable, offers oblations in the fire, performs sacrifices and undergoes austerities even for many thousand years, finds all such acts but perishable; he, O Gaargi, who departs from this world without knowing this Immutable, is miserable. But he, O Gaargi, who departs from this world after knowing this Immutable, is a knower of Brahman.”
In Mahabharatam, Vyasa says: “A knower of Aatma different from what it is, tell me which paapa he has not committed? (menaing he is an absolute paapi.)
Says Smriti: “At seeing the one who had attained advaita bhaavana but decides to decline it and treads the dwaita path, the pitris exclaim in horror, “Ha! What a loss? He has fallen back.” The PuraNa says: “Moodas without realizing the Aatma within reach mountains and caves.” Vaasishtam also laments: “(they pursue) Kaalam, यज्ञं, tapas, dhaanam, theertham, devaarchanam and so on of ब्रम (affliction of a giddy person) they suffer from manovyaadhi and live like animals…”
“One who has been chanting the vedas without realizing its import is equal to the one who rises the barren cow.”
For sarva उत्कृष्ट (outstanding) sarvaatma ज्ञान alone is the direct route to Moksha. This will not shine to him to be seen without the anugraha of his Acharya.
The sishya wanted to know if a buddhimaan can realize the Self from the saastras where is the need for an aachaarya. To this Sri Satguru replied as follows:
Without Satguru’s upadesam one does not attain ऐक्य अपरोक्ष ज्ञानं (manifest knowledge of identity) just by the study of the saastras. Why? Because it was not declared in our saastras as such. Here let me tell you a story from Chandogyopanishad. Narada who is the son of Brahma was an expert in sarva vidyas but he was wanting in aatma ज्ञानं . He was sad and upset and surrendered to Sage Sanatkumara who gave him the upadesa of that sukham that is devoid of anxiety, that abundant aatma that became manifest to Narada and thus he lost all ideas of dhukkam for ever.
In the same Upanishad an episode of Svetaketu is narrated. He had studied the Vedas in the gurukula knowing its meaning and application and had returned home with tremendous pride at his knowledge which he did not conceal to his father. However his father was unimpressed and asked him if he knew of his self and that very question tripped him. He then pleaded with his father Uddalaka Aruni to teach him the knowledge of the Self. Then his father teaches him with the famous phrase “स य एषोऽणिमैतदात्म्यमिदँ सर्वं तत्सत्यँ स आत्मा तत्त्वमसि श्वेतकेतो”. Thus having learnt the knowledge of the Self devoid of all doubts Svetaketu obtains ब्रह्मात्मैक्य ज्ञानं and attains sukha roopam.
Again in the same upanishad it is said Devendra approached the Grandsire Brahma four times and learnt Aatma vidya.
In Katopanishad Yama as Mrithyu and Vaivasvata Bhagavan taught Brahma Vidya to Nachikethas.
In Mundakopanishad Bhagavan Brahma taught Brahma Vidya to his jyeshta putra atharvan. This vidya was retransmitted in his parampara.
In Brihadhaaranyakopanishad it was elaborately described that Videha Raja and maha medhaavi who is a ज्ञानि himself received the knowledge that his swatma is Brahmam itself from Brahmanishta Sriman याजवाल्क्या.
From the above examples of sruti samvaadha we understand that Brahma saakshaatkaaram does not happen from sabda ज्ञानं alone. The Sruti also details the means of attaining the ज्ञानं of Brahmaatmaikyam.
In Mundaka Upanishad (2.12) it says: “परीक्ष्य लोकान् कर्मचितान् ब्राह्मणो निर्वेदमायान्नास्त्यकृतः कृतेन । तद्विज्ञानार्थं स गुरुमेवाभिगच्छेत् समित्पाणिः श्रोत्रियं ब्रह्मनिष्ठम् ॥ meaning “Let a brahmin, after having examined all these worlds that are gained by works, acquire freedom from desires: nothing that is eternal can be produced by what is not eternal. In order that he may understand that Eternal, let him, fuel in hand, approach a guru who is well versed in the Vedas and always devoted to Brahman.”
In Chandogya Upanishad 4.9.3 says: “श्रुतंह्येव मे भगवद्दृशेभ्य आचार्याद्धैव विद्या विदिता साधिष्ठं प्रापतीति तस्मै हैतदेवोवाचात्र ह न किंचन वीयायेति वीयायेति ॥ ” meaning :”[Satyakaama said,] ‘I have heard from revered ones like you that a person learns best when he learns from a competent teacher.’ The teacher then, taught Satyakaama everything. Nothing was left out.
The Katha Upanishad (1.2.23) says: “नायमात्मा प्रवचनेन लभ्यो न मेधया न बहुना श्रुतेन । यमेवैष वृणुते तेन लभ्यस्तस्यैष आत्मा विवृणुते तनूँ स्वाम् ॥ ‘ meaning “This atman is not to be attained by a study of the Vedas, nor by intelligence, nor by much hearing, but the atman can be attained, only by him who seeks to know it. To him, this atman reveals its true nature.”
Katha Upanishad (1.2.7) says: “श्रवणायापि बहुभिर्यो न लभ्यः शृण्वन्तोऽपि बहवो यं न विद्युः ।आश्चर्यो वक्ता कुशलोऽस्य लब्धा आश्चर्यो ज्ञाता कुशलानुशिष्टः ॥” meaning “Many there are who do not even hear of Atman; though hearing of Him, many do not comprehend. Wonderful is the expounder and rare the hearer; rare indeed is the experiencer of Atman taught by an able preceptor.
This upanishad further says:”न नरेणावरेण प्रोक्त एष सुविज्ञेयो बहुधा चिन्त्यमानः। अनन्यप्रोक्ते गतिरत्र नास्ति अणीयान् ह्यतर्क्यमणुप्रमाणात् ॥” meaning Atman, when taught by an inferior person, is not easily comprehended, because It is diversely regarded by disputants. But when It is taught by him who has become one with Atman, there can remain no more doubt about It. Atman is subtler than the subtlest and not to be known through argument.”
The Kena Upanishad (1.3) says: : “न तत्र चक्षुर्गच्छति न वाग्गच्छति नो मनो न विद्मो न विजानीमो यथैतदनुशिष्यादन्यदेव तद्विदितादथो अविदितादधि |इति शुश्रुम पूर्वेषां ये नस्तद्व्याचचक्षिरे ॥” meaning “The eye does not go there, nor speech, nor mind. We do not know That. We do not know how to instruct one about It. It is distinct from the known and above the unknown. We have heard it so stated by preceptors who taught us that.”
This is satyam. This contention is correct. However this Guru who is srotriya and Brahmanishta has the unthinkable shakti of Parameswara and he has the ability to teach to the sishya the above mentioned lakshaNa of Swaatma Aikya Brahmam. With that shakti firmly residing in his feet he teaches the sishya. Sruti also says: “Mauna Vyaakyaana Prakatitham..”. In the same manner sishya also exhibits the lakshaNas given in the saastras for his ability to acquire the knowledge, and he becomes a recepient of that upadesa not as a vishaya but of swaatmarupa and of अपरोक्ष ज्ञान .
तदेतदृचाभ्युक्तम् । एष नित्यो महिमा ब्राह्मणस्य न वर्धते कर्मणा नो कनीयान् । तस्यैव स्यात्पदवित्, तं विदित्वा न लिप्यते कर्मणा पापकेन ॥ इति । तस्मादेवंविच्छान्तो दान्त उपरतस्तितिक्शुः समाहितो भूत्वात्मन्येवात्मानं पश्यति, सर्वमात्मानं पश्यति; नैनं पाप्मा तरति, सर्वं पाप्मानं तरति; नैनं पाप्मा तपति, सर्वं पाप्मानं तपति; विपापो विरजोऽविचिकित्सो ब्राह्मणो भवति; एष ब्रह्मलोकः सम्राड्, एनं प्रापितोऽसीति होवाच याज्ञवल्क्यः; सोऽहं भगवते विदेहान् ददामि, मां चापि सह दास्यायेति ॥ (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad – 4.4.23) “This has been expressed by the following hymn: This is the eternal glory of a knower of Brahman: it neither increases nor decreases through work. (Therefore) one should know the nature of that alone. Knowing it one is not touched by evil action. Therefore he who knows it as such becomes self-controlled, calm, withdrawn into himself, enduring and concentrated, and sees the Self in his own self (body); he sees all as the Self. Evil does not overtake him, but he transcends all evil. Evil does not trouble him, (but) he consumes all evil. He becomes sinless, taintless, free from doubts, and Braahmana (knower of Brahman). This is the world of Brahman, O Emperor, and you have attained it—said याज्ञवाल्क्य . ‘I give you, sir, the empire of Videha, and myself too with it, to wait upon you.’ said King Janaka, the sage among kings.
Our great Bhagavat PaadaaL admired of the great Guru thus: “What a great surprise! Under the Banyan tree amidst so many sages who became his sishya this young Sanat Kumara was describing to them of the glorious nature of Brahman in his inimical silence! The दृष्टान्ततम् (allegory) for this is: How it is seen that agni being created in a pure stone called Suryakaantam and it is attributed to Surya; how it is seen that amritabindu being created in a pure stone called Somakaantam and it is attributed to Chandra; how that shakti makes it possible to make a tortoise to satisfy its offsprings by its mere looks, in the same way the teacher by his karuNa kataaksham saves the sishya from drowning in the sea of samsaara. Such सामर्थ्यम् (ability) cannot be found in ordinary persons. It is because Satguru is known with two words strotriyan and brahmanishtan. If a sishya happens to be like the stones of somakaantam or suryakaantam, if he happens to be of versatile abilities, if he happens to be a bhaktimaan, if he firmly adhere to sraddha, then that sisya is capable of assimilating the teachings of Satguru. This capacity would not belong to unqualified and impure people.”
Vasishta said: “O Rama! Upadesa is a kramam (system) that is given to save and regulate (व्यवस्त) the devotee. But to feel and assimilate belongs to the devotee’s discrimination (प्राज्ञा). Moreover only he who has gurubakti can permanently benefit from such vidya. Not for anyone else” Sruti also confirms this view as below.
यस्य देवे परा भक्तिः यथा देवे तथा गुरौ । तस्यैते कथिता ह्यर्थाः प्रकाशन्ते महात्मनः ॥ (Shvetashvatara Upanishad 6.23) meaning if these truths have been told to a high-minded person who feels the highest devotion for God and for his guru as for God, and then he will surely shine forth as inner experiencer – then, indeed, he will shine forth.
तद्विद्धि प्रणिपातेन परिप्रश्नेन सेवया । उपदेक्ष्यन्ति ते ज्ञानं ज्ञानिनस्तत्त्वदर्शिनः ॥ (B.G. 4.34) “Acquire that through prostration, searching questions and service. The wise one who has realized will impart the knowledge to you.”
Suta Samhita (which is a section in Skanda PuraNa written by Vedavyasa for which Swamy Vidyaranya has written a Tika) also gives various verses in this respect. From an English translation that I have I am quoting some excerpts.
“Know me as your teacher. Never denigrate. Do not treat as an ordinary human and show dislike (असुसै). Guru comes in many roopams, actually he is the swaroopam of many devatas.”
“By yaaga or by prajaa, or by tapas, or by self-restraint, in whatever manner I, who is sarva bhoodaatman, attain तृप्ति by doing Guruseva, and I dare say I do not get satisfaction by any other means.”
“To whom he was saakshaat Bhagavan himself, that Guru who gave ज्ञान, if a person consider him as another ordinary person he meets on the road and ignore, to him all that he heard from the Guru will become the शौचं of an elephant (the mahout labours hard to clean the elephant in the river and the elephant immediately on coming out takes many handfuls of dust and spreads them on its body). Ignorant man wastes his knowledge which was hard to come by.”
“Therefore let the one who seeks ज्ञान surrender to a Guru in order to obtain the sreyas.”
In Bhagavatam also it is said, “One who has completely understood sabda brahman and ParaBrahman automatically reaches Brahma Nishta.”
“Determining all that looks like satyam as asatyam, and differentiating that aatma that is the witness to all as his own self – whoever teaches this auspicious truth as his sentient being, know him as the great Satguru and none else.”
“Whoever educates you that which is manifestly seen as दृशयम् but its essence is one (as) दृक् know him to be the Satguru and not anyone else.”
“It is without doubt that He is Shiva, who gives you by his very kindness that great advaita ज्ञान, know him as the Guru of gurus. Realize that you are the blessed one.”
“The one who shines as Surya to the lotus called Vedanta, to that Desika treat him well and obtain the best of his teaching!”
Suta Samhita says: “Saakshaat Paramasiva roams on this earth in an unseen manner looking for competent sishyas who can assimilate his teachings fo Advaita.”
“Only with Guru’s anugraham those kriyas that were commenced bear fruits of bhoga and moksha. Therefore with focussed mind prostrate to him always.”
“No good kaaryam should be commenced without doing nivedanam to that auspicious Guru. Abandoning everything live with that Guru as his shadow.”
“The discipline imposed by the Guru should not be violated. To do seva to Guru is the highest Dharma.”
“No word that would be apriyam to Guru should be uttered even if Guru would say or do something that may be considered hurtful.”
“He is considered a superior sishya who would bear the cussing and insulting words coming out of the Guru.”
In Sivarahasya Vyasa says: “A sishya who insults the Guru or argues with him just to prove he is wrong (Ramanuja of Visishtadvaita comes to mind!) will be born as Brahmaraakshasa for sixty thousand years.”
“If Shiva gets angry Guru will save you. If Guru gets angry even Shiva cannot save you. This tells you that you should never make Guru angry.”
“This is Shiva’s edict. There is no tatva greater than that of the Guru.”
“Never do nor say nor even think that which is apriyam to the Guru. In order to get his wishes fulfilled the mumukshu must always conduct himself with priyam and bhakti to Guru.”
गुरुर्ब्रह्मा गुरुर्विष्णुः गुरुर्देवो महेश्वरः । गुरुरेव परं ब्रह्म तस्मै श्री गुरवे नमः॥ “Guru Himself is Brahma. He is Vishnu. He is Maheswara. He is indeed thw ParaBrahman itself. Therefore Guru is to be adored all the time, says Guru Geeta.”
The reason for such elaborate rendition on the glory of the Guru is the dire need of the Guru in both the matters of lokayata and in attaining realization. I have emphasized that without Guru’s Parameswara’s anugraha on what mind cannot reach, on what is subtle, that which is extremely logical and scientific and above all on the paramaatmaikya tatva a person would be drowned in misery in this samsaara saagara. Tatva is not easily understood without, purity of mind, discipline and guidance of the Guru.
उत्तिष्ठत जाग्रत प्राप्य वरान्निबोधत । क्षुरस्य धारा निशिता दुरत्यया दुर्गं पथस्तत्कवयो वदन्ति ॥ (Katha Upanishad – 1.3.14) “Arise! Awake! Approach the great and learn. Like the sharp edge of a razor is that path, so the wise say-hard to tread and difficult to cross. “
Vasishta has said: “So long as there is no anugraham of Satguru or even his connection then there will never be an opportunity for anyone even to come near sat-saastra.
“To abandon material possession is दुर्लभम् (difficult to attain). To obtain the consiousness of tattva is दुर्लभम् , To reach the sahaja state of tattva is also दुर्लभम् , You need the karuNa of Satguru to obtain all the above.”
By elaborately describing the Guru Mahaatmyam in this way, both in our worldy activity as also in obtaining the paramaartha ज्ञान one must be conscious of the fact of the necessity of the guidance of Guru. This cannot be gainsaid. When such is the case for even the worldly vyavahara to run smoothly, without the guidance of a Guru how can one be conscious of that Brahmaatma tatvam which is very subtle, beyond the reach of the mind, that which cannot be contradicted by any logic? Thus Guru’s instructions and Easwara’s anugraham are essential for release from this samsaara.
Satguru tells the sishya that a कृतकृत्य ज्ञानि who is satisfied with realization of his Self is a Yogi who has no need to perform karma.
Having understood the importance of the role of Guru the sishya reverts back to question of abandoning karma for the release. Thus he asks Satguru, “is it not a fact that even those who have attained Brahmaatmaikya moksham such as emperor Janaka?”
Satguru replied: “Even when it is of no use to himself a jeevan mukta continues to do what he was doing for the benefit of the world and there is no contradiction in it. As long as he carries the body that lives due to प्रारब्ध karma he keeps it clean and sustains it by begging etc and makes use of it by imparting the prcious divine knowledge to those deserving ones. However he is not bound by dharma that is imposed on the unlearned because he never knows of doing a karma at all. That belongs to the body that he has no identity with. Skanda Purana says, “In whichever body one attains अपरोक्ष ज्ञानं (manifest Conciousness) that body keeps seeing the samsaara until it ceases to exist. A ज्ञानि is not connected to that body. In reality there was no manifesst samsaara before at all and how can he even feel it after the realization? However this Brahmaatmaikya ज्ञानं happens because of this body and he shines from his release from it.”
यतो वाचो निवर्तन्ते । अप्राप्य मनसा सह । आनन्दं ब्रह्मणो विद्वान् । न बिभेति कुतश्चनेति । एतꣳह वाव न तपति । किमहꣳसाधु नाकरवम् । किमहं पापमकरवमिति । स य एवं विद्वानेते आत्मान स्पृणुते । उभे ह्येवैष एते आत्मान स्पृणुते । (Taittiriya Upanishad – Brahmananda Valli – 2-9) “He who knows the Bliss of Brahman from which all words return without reaching, It, together with the mind, is no more afraid of anything. Such thoughts ‘Why have I not done what is good? Why have I committed a sin,’ do not certainly come to distress a man of experience of the Truth. He who knows thus, regards both these as the Atman. Verily, both these are regarded by him who knows thus as only Atman.
आत्मानं चेद्विजानीयादयमस्मीति पूरुषः । किमिच्छन्कस्य कामाय शरीरमनुसंज्वरेत् ॥ (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 4.4.12) “ If a man knows the Self as ‘I am this,’ then desiring what and for whose sake will he suffer in the wake of the body?”
The Sruti also says: “The ज्ञानि does not think ‘I did this paapa karma or I did this subha karma. He has crossed such ideas. His mahima is permenant. His karma neither increases nor decreases his fullness.”
Sri Satguru continued: “The one who has known himself is saantan, totally disciplined one, he has titiksha (forbearance). He sees everything as his own self.”
स वा एष महानज आत्मा योऽयं विज्ञानमयः प्राणेषु य एषोऽन्तर्हृदय आकाशस्तस्मिञ्छेते, सर्वस्य वशी सर्वस्येशानः सर्वस्याधिपतिः; स न साधुना कर्मणा भूयान्, नो एवासाधुना कनीयान्; एष सर्वेश्वरः; एष भूताधिपतिः, एष भूतपालः, एष सेतुर्विधरण एषां लोकानामसंभेदाय; तमेतं वेदानुवचनेन ब्राह्मणा विविदिषन्ति यज्ञेन दानेन तपसाऽनाशकेन; एतमेव विदित्वा मुनिर्भवति । एतमेव प्रव्राजिनो लोकमिच्छन्तः प्रव्रजन्ति । एतद्ध स्म वै तत् पूर्वे विद्वांसः प्रजां न कामयन्ते, किं प्रजया करिष्यामो येषां नोऽयमात्मायं लोक इति; ते ह स्म पुत्रैषणायाश्च वित्तैषणायाश्च लोकैषणायाश्च व्युत्थायाथ भिक्शाचर्यं चरन्ति; या ह्येव पुत्रैषणा सा वित्तैषणा, या वित्तैषणा सा लोकैषणा, उभे ह्येते एषणे एव भवतः । स एष नेति नेत्यात्मा, अगृह्यो नहि गृह्यते, अशीर्यो नहि शीर्यते, असङ्गो नहि सज्यते, असितो न व्यथते, न रिष्यति; एतमु हैवैते न तरत इति—अतः पापमकरवमिति, अतः कल्याणमकरवमिति; उभे उ हैवैष एते तरति, नैनं कृताकृते तपतः ॥ (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 4.4.22) “That great, birthless Self which is identified with the intellect and is in the midst of the organs, lies in the ether that is within the heart. It is the controller of all, the lord of all, the ruler of all. It does not become better through good work nor worse through bad work. It is the lord of all, It is the ruler of all beings, It is the protector of all beings. It is the bank that serves as the boundary to keep the different worlds apart. The Braahmanas seek to know It through the study of the Vedas, sacrifices, charity, and austerity consisting in a dispassionate enjoyment of sense-objects. Knowing It alone one becomes a sage. Desiring this world (the Self) alone monks renounce their homes. This is (the reason for it): The ancient sages, it is said, did not desire children (thinking), ‘What shall we achieve through children, we who have attained this Self, this world (result).’ They, it is said, renounced their desire for sons, for wealth and for the worlds, and lived a mendicant life. That which is the desire for sons is the desire for wealth, and that which is the desire for wealth is the desire for the worlds, for both these are but desires. This self is That which has been described as ‘Not this, not this.’ It is imperceptible, for It is never perceived; undecaying, for It never decays; unattached, for It is never attached; unfettered—It never feels pain, and never suffers injury. (It is but proper) that the sage is never overtaken by these two thoughts, ‘I did an evil act for this,’ and ‘I did a good act for this.’ He conquers both of them. Things done or not done do not trouble him.”
तदेतदृचाभ्युक्तम् । एष नित्यो महिमा ब्राह्मणस्य न वर्धते कर्मणा नो कनीयान् । तस्यैव स्यात्पदवित्, तं विदित्वा न लिप्यते कर्मणा पापकेन ॥ इति । तस्मादेवंविच्छान्तो दान्त उपरतस्तितिक्शुः समाहितो भूत्वात्मन्येवात्मानं पश्यति, सर्वमात्मानं पश्यति; नैनं पाप्मा तरति, सर्वं पाप्मानं तरति; नैनं पाप्मा तपति, सर्वं पाप्मानं तपति; विपापो विरजोऽविचिकित्सो ब्राह्मणो भवति; एष ब्रह्मलोकः सम्राड्, एनं प्रापितोऽसीति होवाच याज्ञवल्क्यः; सोऽहं भगवते विदेहान् ददामि, मां चापि सह दास्यायेति ॥ (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 4.4.23) “This has been expressed by the following hymn: This is the eternal glory of a knower of Brahman: it neither increases nor decreases through work. (Therefore) one should know the nature of that alone. Knowing it one is not touched by evil action. Therefore he who knows it as such becomes self-controlled, calm, withdrawn into himself, enduring and concentrated, and sees the Self in his own self (body); he sees all as the Self. Evil does not overtake him, but he transcends all evil. Evil does not trouble him, (but) he consumes all evil. He becomes sinless, taintless, free from doubts, and becomes a Braahmana (knower of Brahman). This is the world of Brahman, O Emperor, and you have attained it—said याज्ञवल्क्य. ‘I give you, sir, the empire of Videha, and myself too with it, to wait upon you.’ said the emperor.”
These and other hundreds of sruti texts explain to us that a ज्ञानि who is a jeevam mukta though seen to be constantly drowning in samsaara saagaram, in him there is seen no mental distortions that he has neither a commitment of paapam nor punyam, that which is prescribed karma nor prohibited ones and any doubts arising about them,nor any anxiety about them on what has been done nor what was omitted to be done. Vasishta tells Rama, ‘in the same way that animals do not approach the burning mountains, doshas do not approach a ज्ञानि .
In Bhagavat Geeta (14,22-23) श्रीभगवानुवाच | प्रकाशं च प्रवृत्तिं च मोहमेव च पाण्डव | न द्वेष्टि सम्प्रवृत्तानि न निवृत्तानि काङ् क्षति || उदासीनवदासीनो गुणैर्यो न विचाल्यते | गुणा वर्तन्त इत्येवं योऽवतिष्ठति नेङ्गते || “Bhagavan said: O Arjuna, The persons who are transcendental to the three guṇas neither hate illumination (which is born of sattva), nor activity (which is born of rajas), nor even delusion (which is born of tamas), when these are abundantly present, nor do they long for them when they are absent. They remain neutral to the modes of nature and are not disturbed by them. Knowing it is only the gunas that act, they stay established in the self, without wavering.”
Sastras say: “just as the seeds that were burnt, the destroyed vaasanas do not raise in a ज्ञानि .”
“In the same way that that the ghee that was prepared out of milk does not go back to the milk even when mixed, a ज्ञानि does not mix with the samsaara from which he has been liberated.”
“O the best one! tell me how the darkness that is inherent in the four varnas can even appear before the Sun which has crossed aatma-anaatma viveka shines brilliantly?”
Sri Satguru further explained, “Only to those with such affection (अभिमानम्) all vidhi (impositions) and prohibitions (निषेध) apply. To the one who has separated himself from all conditionings or limitations (उपाधि), who remains as a witness to everything by his being concious of his Chaitanya, how can those karmas that are considered subham and asubham reach? How can that saakshi completely separated from all connections and see himself as aatma-brahman be bound by karmas? Thus the ब्रह्मात्मा विज्ञानम् swallows the अज्ञान . With that it swallows the karma and its fruit caused by अज्ञान. There can be no doubt about it. The best प्रायश्चित्त or atonement for all paapas is ज्ञान only. O, Brahmana! The superior ज्ञान swallows अज्ञान. Thereafter all दृश्यं that arise and appear due to अज्ञान is swallowed by the दृक् of the Aatma. This prapancha which is the kaaryam of अज्ञान even when swallowed by the Aatma until the praapta karma ends this prapancham will continue to be seen like a substanceless shadow at which time the body dies. That is when the vidwan attains mukti. He is never born thereafter. Whether he sees or do not see the jagat, the jeevan mukta is conscious of himself. It is like keeping awake in the sleep state. There you do not see (the body or the world) or think of anything but is aware of the Self in a state of swastham. This happens because अज्ञान that is the cause of the jagat has been destroyed. Thus in order to cross the samsaara seek shelter (आश्रय) in ज्ञान only. Remove all karmas that facilitates the rising of अज्ञान. Because there can be no karma that is subham or asubham after ज्ञान has been attained.”
If there is something else apart from one’s swaroopam, a man with such a knowledge is equal to a pasu, a faithfully serving beast. In truth for yogis there is nothing apart from aatma. It is only because of the unexhausted praarabhda karma that he sees the world as shining. Whenever this praarabhda karma yields its fruit that the jeeva has to suffer then the world seems to him as different and shines. However this phenomenon gets exhausted quickly and he returns to aatma swaroopam. Even when the yogi sees the world as different, his real knowledge that the jagat is none other than himself sustains causing him to get backs to swastham. He then sees Shiva the auspiciousness everywhere and thus he shines one with Shiva. (मनोबुद्ध्यहङ्कार चित्तानि नाहं न च श्रोत्रजिह्वे न च घ्राणनेत्रे । न च व्योम भूमिर्न तेजो न वायु चिदानन्दरूपः शिवोऽहम् शिवोऽहम् ॥). When he by his experience he remain a Shivaroopi that is when this muktan remains as prakaasa roopi. When that Mahaatma experiences sivaroopam then NirvaaNam happens to him. He attains visraanti (contentment and relaxation) when he feels that he is mahaavyaapi, nirvaaNaswaroopi and swaatmavastu. He is now Paradevata. Visranti is attained because the svayam prakaasam shines unceasingly. At that time that one who is conscious of his tatvam he shines that tatvam knowing ब्रह्म सत्यं , जगन् मिथ्य.
All these (जगन्) are seen by observers each seeing it differently from one another (and such an event is known as दृश्यं. The one who sees the essence of all these is ब्रह्मन् alone is the witness. This event of seeing the one is called दृक्. ब्रह्म सत्यं , जगन् मिथ्य has to be understood very clearly.
Even though we often say that the knower of Brahman is Brahman, because one cannot exist without knowing himself yet that is not really a fact for another reason. You can explain Brahman in thousand different ways, yet such an effort is showing what you ‘know’. Why do I say so? It is because Brahman is beyond knowledge and ignorance (which is the domain of the mind). You will know this clearly in दृग्दृश्यविवेक explained earlier.
Paraasara Purana says: “No matter whether it is परोक्ष (indirect) or अपरोक्ष (direct) knowledge Advaita ज्ञानं alone can remove all paapas. When such is the case you should seek Advaita ज्ञानं only. If ordinary science is lauded so much who can say anything is equal to Advaita ज्ञानं ? So I am saying that ignorance which is the cause of all paapas cannot be remedied by ordinary science. By the revealation from the Sruti and by the fruits of punya karmas, by the Guru’s prasadam and Shiva’s prasaadam one who seeks this suddha विज्ञानं of Advaita is sure to cross the dhukka saagaram. All these gods including Kesava are Shiva only. In the same way, you and I are Shiva only. What a happy surprise! This Sankara is the one who is seen as bound, who is seen as released, who is seen as Guru and who is seen as sishya. This jagat that is seen as drusya roopa is Him only. All that I have told you so far is satyam and satyam only.”
Therefore by the being firm in the अपरोक्ष ज्ञानं a jeeva who has sarvaatma dharisanam is a Mukta, says the Sruti, smriti and puranas. He is now Parameswara who is not bound by any command of any scriptures.
ब्रह्म वा इदमग्र आसीत्, तदात्मानमेवावेत्, अहम् ब्रह्मास्मीति । तस्मात्तत्सर्वमभवत्; तद्यो यो देवानाम् प्रत्यबुभ्यत स एव तदभवत्, तथार्षीणाम्, तथा मनुष्याणाम्; तद्धैतत्पश्यन्नृषिर्वामदेवः प्रतिपेदे, अहम् मनुरभवं सूर्यश्चेति । तदिदमप्येतर्हि य एवं वेद, अहम् ब्रह्मास्मीति, स इदं सर्वम् भवति, तस्य ह न देवाश्चनाभूत्या ईशते, आत्मा ह्येषां स भवति; अथ योऽन्यां देवतामुपास्ते, अन्योऽसावन्योऽहमस्मीति, न स वेद, यथा पशुरेवम् स देवानाम् । यथा ह वै बहवः पशवो मनुष्यम् भुञ्ज्युः, एवमेकैकः पुरुषो देवान् भुनक्ति; एकस्मिन्नेव पशावादीयमानेऽप्रियम् भवति, किंउ बहुषु? तस्मादेषाम् तन्न प्रियम् यदेतन्मनुष्याविद्युः ॥ (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 1.4.10) “ This Self was indeed brahman in the beginning. It knew only I as. ‘I am Brahman.’ Therefore It became all. And whoever among the gods knew It all became That; and the same with sages and so on. The sage Vaamadeva, while realising this Self as That, knew, ‘I was Manu’. And to this day whoever in like manner knows It as, ‘I am Brahman,’ becomes all this. Even the gods cannot prevail against him, for he becomes their self. While who worships another thinking, ‘He is one, and I am another,’ does not know. He is like an animal to the gods. As many animals serve a man, so does each man serve the gods. Even if one animal is taken away, it causes anguish, what should one do by losing so many animals? Therefore it is not liked by them that men should know this.
Sruti says: “Whoever becomes conscious of the fact ‘I am Brahman’ he becomes all. He is not commanded by Devas because he becomes thier aatma.”
कर्मजं बुद्धियुक्ता हि फलं त्यक्त्वा मनीषिण: | जन्मबन्धविनिर्मुक्ता: पदं गच्छन्त्यनामयम् || (B.G 2.51) “The wise, that is a Jeevan Mukta, endowed with equanimity of intellect, abandons attachment to the fruits of actions, which bind one to the cycle of life and death. By working in such consciousness, he attains the state beyond all suffering.”
अद्वेष्टा सर्वभूतानां मैत्र: करुण एव च | निर्ममो निरहङ्कार: समदु:खसुख: क्षमी (B.G.12. 13) सन्तुष्ट: सततं योगी यतात्मा दृढनिश्चय: | मय्यर्पितमनोबुद्धिर्यो मद्भक्त: स मे प्रिय: || (B.G.12. 14) “Those devotees are very dear to Me who are free from malice toward all living beings, who are friendly, and compassionate. They are free from attachment to possessions and egotism, equipoised in happiness and distress, and ever-forgiving. They are ever-content, steadily united with Me in devotion, self-controlled, of firm resolve, and dedicated to Me in mind and intellect.”
नान्यं गुणेभ्य: कर्तारं यदा द्रष्टानुपश्यति | गुणेभ्यश्च परं वेत्ति मद्भावं सोऽधिगच्छति || (B.G.14.19) “When the Jeevan Mukta sees that in all work there is no agent of action other than the three gunas, and then he knows Me to be transcendental to these gunas, he attains My divine nature.”
In Suta Samhita it variously describes a Jeevan Mukta as ‘Parameswara calls him as ativarNasrami, स्थितप्रज्ञन् (one who is contented, calm and firm in judgement), Bhagavat Baktan, GuNaadheethan, adhyaasrami etc.
Vasishta said (in Yoga Vasishta) इमां सप्तपदां ज्ञानभूमिमाकर्णयानघ । नानया ज्ञातया भूयो मोहपङ्के निमज्जसि ॥ “O sinless Rama, attend now to the sevenfold stages of cogniscence, by the knowledge of which you will no more plunge into the mire of ignorance.” अवबोधं विदुर्ज्ञानं तदिदं सप्तभूमिकम् । मुक्तिस्तु ज्ञेयमित्युक्तं भूमिकासप्तकात्परम् ॥ “Knowledge is understanding, which consists in knowing these seven stages only; but liberation—mukti, which is the object of knowledge (ज्ञान), transcends the acquaintance of these septuple stages. The seven stages are शुभेच्छा (the desire of becoming good), विचारणा (discretion or reasoning), तनुमानसा (purity of mind), असंसक्ति (self reliance as the true refuge), पदार्थाभावनी (worldly apathy) and तुर्यगा (turya-gati or generalization of all in one). The first three bhumis are saadhana bhumis of sravaNam, mananam and nidhidyasanam. The next three bhumis differentiate the differing firmness of a jeevan mukta. The last one describes the Siddha who has attaineed satvaapatti. He is not born again because his moola अज्ञानं is completely removed and thus he attained saakshaat apraroksha Brahmaatmaikya ज्ञानं. (I have told you the story of someone to whom Bhagavan occupied his self for a split second and left him that very moment with his ego. The beneficiary thought he lost everything in life at that moment!).
This jeevan mukta is different from videha mukta in the sense the jeevan mukta is still left with the buddhi thereby enjoys the sukha-dhukkas as ordained by the praarabhda karma. He however knows that sukha-dhukkas are as empty as the shadows.
The drishti of ज्ञानि is of two kinds. One is seeing Brahmaswaroopam everywhere. The other is vyatirekadrishti. Sometimes he feels ‘I am all’ and that sukha-dhukkas are not apart from him (anyam). Sri Krishna says in Bhagavat Geeta: अहमात्मा गुडाकेश सर्वभूताशयस्थित: | अहमादिश्च मध्यं च भूतानामन्त एव च || “O Arjuna, I am seated in the heart of all living entities. I am the beginning, middle, and end of all beings.”
Suta Samhita also comfirms this view, “I am all, no names or forms are proveable as other than me. This is God’s highest state. My own experience is also so. There is no doubt about it.”
Sometimes he sees that sukha-dhukkas are kalpitam of Aatma and turns himself as a saakshi to them. Always immesed in a state of vichara, which is a samaadhi, he becomes a Samaahita Siddhan (one who is anchored in the state of samaadhi). It is not easy to find such person in this world.
Vasishta says: “Whoever wins the fourth bhumi and attains aparoksha swaropa saakshaatkaara, and would embark on winning the remaining three bhumis such a one has to be known as having attained the fruit of a great thapas (such as Viswamitra who was also present in the discourse).
“He becomes a jeevan mukta because of his aatma ज्ञान. Saastras say that he becomes Videha Mukta (upon his death). Jeevan Mukta is described as one whose chitta remains in unmoving visraanti in his aatma and delights (रमि) in that state.”
Vasishta further stated: “To the ज्ञानि dhyana (profound contemplation) happens automatically (svayam) such as those mountains that have lost their wings staying stationary.” (The PuraaNa says that once upon a time the mountains had wings and they were flying at will and descend in places where the humans and animals were living thus crushing them in the act. Indra then cut off their wings with his thunderbolt.)”
Let me quote more from Yoga Vasishta. “He has the bhaavana that the entire jagat is only citaakasa and remains as upasaanthan. This ज्ञानि is a sukhi wearing Brahmakavacam.” “He acts like a bhakta to a bhakta; He is a ruffiant to a ruffiant; He is a child to a child and to a old man he is a old man; He is a dheera among warriors; a youth among youth and a dhukki among dhukkis.”
“Because he has the mind of a dheera he is affectionate and loveable; because he is a sareeri he becomes a dhukki and sukhi.” “Dheeras with no desires act as if they have no vivekam; in the same way an अज्ञानि acts during vyavaharas that same way panditas too (ज्ञानि) acts. Only because of vasana that difference is seen between bandham and moksham.” “A jeevan mukta does not act in giving शाप, giving vara, travel aross the sky like a bird etc. They do not become his lakshaNa. Thapasvis who are moorkas to attain siddhis. A jeevan mukta does not behove abandoning vyavaharas. There are thousands of moorkas who have abandoned vyavaharas. A passionate man because of his dhukkam wishes to abandon samsaara. On the contrary a dispassionate man removes his dhukkam and avoids suffering.”
“Who attains a place in samaadhi?
Those who are always awake in their mind (so avoiding ignorance and imagination) with true adhereance to bodhas, who even while doing jagat kriyas remain in aatma nishta are those who have attained a place in samaadhi. Even while doing jagat kriyas they engage themselves in aatma tatva nishta and remain in samaadhi. They are firm in their conviction in advaita and completely devoid of the dwatic world view and yet these yogis perform karmas seeing the world as a world of dream that vanishes when awake.”
“Let him not be in Samaadhi or not be doing karmas; if in his hrydhayam if he remains devoid of all desires he is a Mukta, yes he is surely a Mukta. He is uttaman.”
“One who is prasaantan (a man of tranquil mind), one who is adrisyan (having removed all thoughts of the world), one who remains a nirmalan like the aakasa he is the one who has no worries and is a mukta equal to Parameswara.”
“This samaadhi is called पराप्रज्ञा (highest consciousness) wherein he is of the firm mind, who sees only ‘paramaartha tatvam’.”
“He is samaahitasiddhan who sees himself as beyond all objects or as the self of all objects.”
The above are few quotes on the Jeevan Mukta from Yoga Vasishta.
The sishya raised the objection that ahamkaaram in worldly affairs and in things related to saastra is seen among ज्ञानी as is seen among अज्ञानी . If this is equally seen between them then how you can say a vidwan is muktan and an avidvaan as baddhan?
Sri Satguru said: “Only a muktan can be known by another muktan and they do not find themselves as different from each other. However it is the trait of an avidvaan to find fault in the other even as he would not know the other is a muktan or not.
“Even while staying in this whirlwind known as samsaara that is filled with aadi (beginning), vyaadhi (diseases), a तत्वज्ञानि stands unshaken like a kalpa vriksham. Let the storms of the end of the kalpa blow hard, let all the oceans join together and rise, let the twelve aadhityas join together and suffer the oppressive heat, no harm takes place to this nirmanasthan.”
The the sishya raises the question that the muktan does not seem to enjoy in such horrible state. What is the pramaaNam for saying that this is the state of mukti?
Sri Satguru replied: “It is an experience such as enjoying the taste of ghee. There cannot be a pramaaNam for it. A person knows it by himself. Such state is as impossible as trying to describe tasting a sweet. When the body falls off in time, this jeevan mukta would not experience the horror of whirlwind and at the moment of death he attains videha mukti.
“There is no lakshaNam attributable to a ज्ञानि. One may look passionate. Another may show himself to be a viraktan. One may be a very angry person or even stupid and another may be a shaantan. (I have a Guru whom others think so!) The only lakshaNam of a ज्ञानि is his/her being a bodharupi. AruNagiri says: “போத கந்தரு கோவே நமோநம” meaning ‘O King, you are giving me knowledge. Many many namaskaarams to you.’
“It is easy to ignore such a God. One day such ignorance will end when the world is understood to be mithya.”
“When a person knows ‘sarvam Brahma mayam’, then that person comes face to face with Brahman and merges himself. This is Vasishta vaakya. Vasishta further says, a person who even after knowing that this is not a snake, continue to shake with the fear of this as a sarpa. In the same way even after the moham has left the ज्ञानि moha kaaryams do not seem to leave a jeevan mukta.
“The one who sees all boothas as his own aatma has no identity of his own self, he is seen by devas and they fall in love with him.
A ज्ञानि has no death so when उत्क्रान्ति (dying) happens his praaNa does not leave his body to go anywhere for there is no margam for him. At that very place he remains a Videhan. His body in a sitting position is then put in a pit of camphor and the pit closed with earth and a linga pradhishta takes place at that place giving it his name he has chosen before the body fell.
Some people say that no moksha can be achieved without maargam and utkramaNam. Their argument is that Brahmam is beyond the seven aavaraNas where it remains unhidden. To reach it one has to do severe penance by achieving ashta siddhis like aNima, Garima etc. With that yoga bala one breaks past the brahmaanda and get over the seven aavarNas. Without any effort, without gati and without utkraanti, just by dying one attains ज्ञान mukti is an unacceptable proposition. This proposition militates against Sruti, smriti and nyaaya, is their contention.
Sri Satguru question such avering. So he quoted from the Sruti. तदेष श्लोको भवति । यदा सर्वे प्रमुच्यन्ते कामा येऽस्य हृदि श्रिताः । अथ मर्त्योऽमृतो भवत्यत्र ब्रह्म समश्नुत ॥ इति । तद्यथाहिनिर्व्लयनी वल्मीके मृता प्रत्यस्ता शयीत, एवमेवेदं शरीरं शेते, अथायमशरीरोऽमृतः प्राणो ब्रह्मैव तेज एव; सोऽहं भगवते सहस्रं ददामीति होवाच जनको वैदेहः ॥ (Brihadaranyakopanishad 4.4.7). “Regarding this there is this verse: ‘When all the desires that dwell in his heart (mind) are gone, then he, having been mortal, becomes immortal, and attains Brahman in this very body.’ Just as the lifeless slough of a snake is cast off and lies in the ant-hill, so does this body lie. Then the self becomes disembodied and immortal, (becomes) the PraaNa (Supreme Self), Brahman, the Light. ‘I give you a thousand (cows), sir,’ said Janaka, Emperor of Videha.”
भिद्यते हृदयग्रन्थिश्छिद्यन्ते सर्वसंशयाः । क्षीयन्ते चास्य कर्माणि तस्मिन् दृष्टे परावरे ॥ (Mundaka Upanishad 2.8) “The fetters of the heart are broken, all doubts are resolved and all works cease to bear fruit, when He is beheld who is both high and low.”
तदेष श्लोको न पश्यो मृत्युं पश्यति न रोगं नोत दुःखतां सर्वं ह पश्यः पश्यति सर्वमाप्नोति सर्वश इति स एकधा भवति त्रिधा भवति पञ्चधा सप्तधा नवधा चैव पुनश्चैकादशः स्मृतः शतं च दश चैकश्च सहस्राणि च विंशतिराहारशुद्धौ सत्त्वशुद्धौ ध्रुवा स्मृतिः स्मृतिलम्भे सर्वग्रन्थीनां विप्रमोक्षस्तस्मै मृदितकषायाय तमसस्पारं दर्शयति भगवान्सनत्कुमारस्तं स्कन्द इत्याचक्षते तं स्कन्द इत्याचक्षते ॥ (Chandogyopanishad 7.26.2) “To this effect, there is the following Verse:—‘One who sees this sees not death, nor disease, nor even pain; he who sees this sees all things; and obtains all things in all ways; he, being one, becomes three, five, seven and nine; and then he is said to be eleven, a hundred and ten, and a thousand and twenty. On the purity of objective cognition, follows the purity of the inner nature; on the purity of the inner nature, Memory becomes strong; and on the strengthening of Memory follows freedom from all ties. After all his impurities had been washed out, the Blessed Sanatkumaara showed Naarada beyond darkness.—They call him Skanda,—yea, they call him Skanda.”
Yoga Vasishta says: “He may cast off his body at Kashi or in the house of a debased person who eats dog’s meat. He, the desireless one, is liberated at the very moment he attains knowledge of Brahman.”
“Moksha is not behind the aakasa, nor in patala nor on the surface of bhuloka. Whenever chittam is destroyed when all desires cease at that very moment he gets liberated.” This is from Shiva Geeta.
In Bhagavat Geeta Bhagavan asks of Arjuna: कच्चिदेतच्छ्रुतं पार्थ त्वयैकाग्रेण चेतसा | कच्चिदज्ञानसम्मोह: प्रनष्टस्ते धनञ्जय || “O Arjun, have you heard Me with a concentrated mind? Have your ignorance and delusion been destroyed?” To this Arjuna replies: अर्जुन उवाच | नष्टो मोह: स्मृतिर्लब्धा त्वत्प्रसादान्मयाच्युत | स्थितोऽस्मि गतसन्देह: करिष्ये वचनं तव || (B.G.18.73) “Arjun said: O Infallible One, by Your grace my illusion has been dispelled, and I am situated in knowledge. I am now free from doubts, and I shall act according to Your instructions.”
Sri Satguru continued: “Thus Sruti and smriti quoted by me should clear your doubts. The Brahmam which is of nityamukta swaroopan reveals itself as paripoorNan, nityasiddan, jeeva’s paaramaartika roopan, showed itself as being hidden by avidya and revealed by vidya now shines like the resplendent sun. So get rid of such ideas that it is somewhere beyond the brahmaanda and you have to travel to it in ions of time to reach. It does not belong to the mind to be understood in any way. ‘You are that’ needs no mind to know.
Vasishta tells this story of Kacha (son of Brihaspati) to Rama. “Once Kacha with a happy mind waking up from his samaadhi said in wonderment ‘What would I do? Where would I go? What will I take? Which one will I discord? Like the water that abounds at the end of mahaakalpa aatma is filled everywhere. Aatma is inside the body and outside, above and below and in all directions. This jagat itself is aatma only. If there is a thing then I am that thing. If anything is to be possessed then that possession is me only. What is there that I would want? What would that be the one that I prefer. Whatever I seek is already with me. Everything is consciousness (संविद् ) only. In the all-pervading flood of pure BrahmaN the mountains are like foams. In front of the resplendent sun of aatma this jagat looks like a mirage.” (Yoga Vasishta).”
A NirguNi who is a Brahmaatmaikya ज्ञानि is totally free. He has no conditional (upaadi) existence. His cit-acit ग्रन्थि has broken. His linga sareeram has left him. He is Ekan, Advideeyan, ParipoorNan. He is Brahmaatma. To him there is no coming and going at the end of his praarabdha karma. Jeevan Mukta’s deham, indriyam are mere आभासम् (appearance) to the deluded. Jeevan Mukta’s does not see them. मनो-बुद्धि-अहंकार चित्तादि नाहं , न च श्रोत्र-जिह्वे न च घ्राण-नेत्रे । न च व्योम-भूमी न तेजो न वायु ,चिदानंद-रूपं शिवो-हं शिवो-हं ॥
This ends my final instructions which I call as ‘Advaitaamruta Sudha’
CHAPTER – 7
NAMASKAARAM (Acknowlegement)
Namaskaarm to Omkaaram. Shivoham. I am advaya aananda roopan who has lost avidya like the mist before the sun. I am the samvid that is the Paramaatma. I am Nityan, Satyan, Ekan, PoorNan. Namaskaaram to you, namaskaaram to me. My timeless namaskaaram to you who is none other than me. To that swaroopam which is saantham, all-pervading, poorNam, Brahmaatmam, Advideeyam.
To my Liberator whom I claim as my Guru Bhagavan Sri Ramana’s paadaaravidam, my anantakoti namaskaaram. May he be pleased with me for taking his message to my sishyas.
OM TAT SAT
Janamejayan's धर्म जिज्ञासा 