gaudapada

Gaudapada’s commentary on Mandukya Upanishad with further comments by Tom Das – Chapter 1

~ Tom Das ~ Leave a comment

Tom: Here are most of the verses from Chapter 1 of Gaudapada’s commentary on the Mandukya Upanishad, as translated by Swami Nikhilananda. I have made comments on some of these verses in italicised red. See here for the full text of Gaudapada’s commentary on the Mandukya Upanishad.

See here for my translation of Shankara’s Introduction to this great work.

Translation by Swami Nikhilananda

The Mandukya Upanishad is 12 verses on AUM Mantra. It is often cited as the most important of the Upanishads. Gaudapada’s Karika is a commentary relating to those 12 verses and is one of the most important and authoritative texts in the Advaita Vedanta tradition.

Chapter I [of Gaudapada’s Karika] – Agama Prakarana (The Chapter based on Vedic Testimony)

Mandukya Upanishad – Verses I-VI:

I: Harih Aum! AUM, the word, is all this, the whole universe. A clear explanation of it is as follows: All that is past, present and future is, indeed, AUM. And whatever else there is, beyond the threefold division of time—that also is truly AUM.

Tom: all there is is AUM

II: All this is, indeed, Brahman. This Atman is Brahman. This same Atman has four quarters.

Tom: AUM is Brahman, they are one and the same. Brahman is Atman. It has 4 parts – we will see later that 3 of these 4 parts do not actually exist at all

III: The first quarter is called Vaisvanara (Tom: the waker), whose sphere of activity is the waking state, who is conscious of external objects, who has seven limbs and nineteen mouths and who is the experiencer of gross objects.

IV: The second quarter is Taijasa (Tom: the dreamer), whose sphere of activity is the dream state, who is conscious of internal objects, who is endowed with seven limbs and nineteen mouths and who is the experiencer of subtle objects.

V: That is the state of deep sleep wherein one asleep neither desires any object nor sees any dream. The third quarter is Prajna (Tom: the sleeper), whose sphere is deep sleep, in whom all experiences become unified, who is, verily, a mass of consciousness, who is full of bliss and experiences bliss and who is the door leading to the knowledge of dreaming and waking.

VI: He is the Lord of all. He is the knower of all. He is the inner controller. He is the source of all; for from him all beings originate and in him they finally disappear.

Tom: note that Prajna, or the sleeper or deep sleep, here is characterised as being the source of all maya, the seed of ignorance from which arises all manifestation/duality – ‘He is the source of all; for from him all beings originate and in him they finally disappear.’

Gaudapada’s Karika

1 Visva is all—pervading, the experiencer of external objects. Taijasa is the cognizer of internal objects. Prajna is a mass of consciousness. It is one alone that is thus known in the three states.

Tom: Vivsa is the waker – that which experiences the waking state, taijasa is the dreamer – that which experiences the dream state, and prajna is the sleeper – that which experiences the deep sleep state

2 Visva is the cognizer through the right eye; Taijasa is the cognizer through the mind within; Prajna is the akasa in the heart. Therefore the one Atman is perceived threefold in the same body.

3—4 Visva experiences the gross; Taijasa, the subtle; and Prajna, the blissful. Know these to be the threefold experience. The gross object satisfies Visva; the subtle, Taijasa; and the blissful, Prajna. Know these to be the threefold satisfaction.

5 The experiencer and the objects of experience associated with the three states have been described. He who knows these both does not become attached to objects though enjoying them.

6 Surely a coming into existence must be predicated of all positive entities that exist. Prana manifests all inanimate objects. The Purusha manifests the conscious beings in their manifold forms.

7 Some of those who contemplate the process of creation regard it as the manifestation of God’s powers; others imagine creation to be like dreams and illusions.

8 Those who are convinced about the reality of manifested objects ascribe the manifestation solely to God’s will, while those who speculate about time regard time as the creator of things.

9 Some say that the manifestation is or the purpose of God’s enjoyment, while others attribute it to His division. But it is the very nature of the effulgent Being. What desire is possible for Him who is the fulfillment of all desires?

Mandukya Upanishad Verse VII:

VII: Turiya is not that which is conscious of the inner (subjective) world, nor that which is conscious of the outer (objective) world, nor that which is conscious of both, nor that which is a mass of consciousness. It is not simple consciousness nor is It unconsciousness. It is unperceived, unrelated, incomprehensible, uninferable, unthinkable and indescribable. The essence of the Consciousness manifesting as the self in the three states, It is the cessation of all phenomena; It is all peace, all bliss and non—dual. This is what is known as the Fourth (Turiya). This is Atman and this has to be realized.

Tom: Turiya is here being equated with the Self, Atman, and it is this Turiya that is to be realised: ‘This is what is known as the Fourth (Turiya). This is Atman and this has to be realized’. This Atman is not conscious of the waking, dream or deep sleep state, nor is it mere ordinary consciousness – it is indescribable and it contains no phenomena within it, so states the Upanishad: ‘Turiya is not that which is conscious of the inner (subjective) world, nor that which is conscious of the outer (objective) world, nor that which is conscious of both…It is not simple consciousness…It is the cessation of all phenomena‘

 Gaudapada’s Karika continued

10 Turiya, the changeless Ruler, is capable of destroying all miseries. All other entities being unreal, the non—dual Turiya alone is known as effulgent and all—pervading.

Tom: Turiya ends all suffering, everything other than turiya is unreal

11 Visva and Taijasa are conditioned by cause and effect. Prajna is conditioned by cause alone. Neither cause nor effect exists in Turiya.

Tom: there is no cause or effect in Turiya

12 Prajna does not know anything of self or non—self, of truth or untruth. But Turiya is ever existent and all—seeing.

13 Non—cognition of duality is common to both Prajna and Turiya. But Prajna is associated with sleep in the form of cause and this sleep does not exist in Turiya.

Tom: In both deep sleep and Turiya there is no cognition of duality or cognition of objects – we can see that Gaudapada equates perception of objects with perception of duality. However in deep sleep the Self is not known as there is a cause or seed of ignorance present (the Sanskrit word ‘bija’ used in this verse means both cause or seed). In Turiya this sleep-seed of ignorance is not present.

14 The first two, Visva and Taijasa, are associated with dreaming and sleep respectively; Prajna, with Sleep bereft of dreams. Knowers of Brahman see neither sleep nor dreams in Turiya.

Tom: in Turiya (or for the knower of Brahman or the one who is Self-realised), there is no perception or arising of waking, dream or deep sleep

15 Dreaming is the wrong cognition and sleep the non—cognition, of Reality. When the erroneous knowledge in these two is destroyed, Turiya is realized.

16 When the jiva, asleep under the influence of beginningless maya, is awakened, it then realizes birthless, sleepless and dreamless Non—duality.

Tom: the reality (ie. Self or Turiya) is without birth (objects arising), without sleep, and without dream. ie. the waking, dream and deep sleep states are not present, nor do they arise in reality. So, do they disappear in self-realisation? Let us see…

17 If the phenomenal universe were real, then certainly it would disappear. The universe of duality which is cognized is mere illusion (maya); Non—duality alone is the Supreme Reality.

Tom: this verse is often quoted by itself without the preceding verses, and so misinterpreted. We can see in context that it is saying the following: if the phenomenal universe ever appeared, then it would certainly disappear. However, since the universe is maya, it (paradoxically to the mind) never actually appeared at all. There was only the non-dual Turiya or Self, nothing else. See here for more on this teaching.

18 If anyone imagines illusory ideas such as the teacher, the taught and the scriptures, then they will disappear. These ideas are for the purpose of instruction. Duality ceases to exist when Reality is known.

Tom: The same point is being made again – ie. in truth duality or maya or appearances never actually ever came about. Note that Gaudapada here, like elsewhere, equates appearances with duality.

Mandukya Upanishad – Verses VIII-XI:

VIII: The same Atman explained before as being endowed with four quarters is now described from the standpoint of the syllable AUM. AUM, too, divided into parts, is viewed from the standpoint of letters. The quarters of Atman are the same as the letters of AUM and the letters are the same as the quarters. The letters are A, U and M.

IX: Vaisvanara Atman, whose sphere of activity is the waking state, is A, the first letter of AUM, on account of his all— pervasiveness or on account of his being the first. He who knows this obtains all desires and becomes first among the great.

X: Taijasa Atman, whose sphere of activity is the dream state, is U, the second letter of AUM, on account of his superiority or intermediateness. He who knows this attains a superior knowledge, receives equal treatment from all and finds in his family no one ignorant of Brahman.

XI: Prajna Atman, whose sphere is deep sleep, is M, the third letter of AUM, because both are the measure and also because in them all become one. He who knows this is able to measure all and also comprehends all within himself.

Gaudapada’s Karika continued

19 When it is desired to describe the identity of Visva and the letter A, the chief ground given is the fact that each is the first in its respective sphere. Another reason for this identity is the all—pervasiveness of each.

20 The clear ground for realizing Taijasa as of the same nature as the letter U is the common feature of superiority. Another plain reason for such identity is their being in the middle.

21 The indisputable reason given for the identity of Prajna and M is the common feature that both are the measure. The other reason for such identity is another common feature, namely, that both represent the state of mergence.

22 He who knows for certain the similarity of the three states and the three letters of AUM, based upon their common features, is worshipped and adored by all beings and also is a great sage.

23 Through meditation on A the seeker attains Visva; through meditation on U, Taijasa; and through meditation on M, Prajna. Meditation on the “soundless” brings no attainment.

Mandukya Upanishad – Verse XII:

XII: The Fourth (Turiya) is without parts and without relationship; It is the cessation of phenomena; It is all good and non—dual. This AUM is verily Atman. He who knows this merges his self in Atman—yea, he who knows this.

Tom: like in verse 7, Turiya is again equated with Atman and AUM – it is without any parts, meaning there are no objects that can arise in it, again emphasised by stating it is without relationship – meaning there is no relative ‘truth’ present and it has no relation to objects or phenomena. This is further emphasised when it states ‘It is the cessation of phenomena’, as per verse 7 which states the same. It is all good, meaning it is pure positivity without any negativity whatsoever, without any opposite. It is non-dual, meaning without any time, space, people or objects. It is what you are. Aum Tat Sat. This will be further explained and elaborated upon in the following verses. See here for more on this teaching.

See here for the full text of Gaudapada’s commentary on the Mandukya Upanishad.

Shankara explains some fundamentals of Advaita Vedanta teachings in his introduction to his commentary on the Mandukya Upanishad | Do objects/does the world continue to appear in liberation? Gaudapada

~ Tom Das ~ 23 Comments

Tom: Here in Shankara’s introduction to his commentary on the Mandukya Upanishad and his commentary on Sri Gaudapada’s Karika (ie. Sri Gaudapadas commentary on the same Mandukya Upanishad), Shankara explains some fundamental teachings of vedanta which may (or may not) suprise you!

Throughout, Shankara’s writings are in black whilst my comments are in italicised red.

Shankara gives these same teachings throughout his commentaries, eg. in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad but also in many other places too. However these teachings are often missed, glossed over or re-interpreted by many current so-called traditional teachers of Vedanta.

The following translation is my own, and I have simplified the language to aid understanding. Below I have also provided the PDF of a more literal translation of this commentary by Shankara on the Mandukya Upanishad from Swami Gambhirananda of Advaita Ashrama (this is the translation that I recommend as it is the most literal of the available translations in English, and so has the smallest amount of distortion and re-interpretation according to the prior beliefs and prejudices of the translator) which you can also read, which states the same as my translation but perhaps using more complex and at times archaic language.

Shankara’s Introduction to his commentary on Mandukya Upanishad

Translated by Tom Das

Invocatory Mantra

Om! O gods, may we hear auspicious words with
the ears; while engaged in sacrifices, may we see
auspicious things with the eyes; while praising the
gods with steady limbs, may we enjoy a life that is
beneficial to the gods.

May Indra of ancient fame be auspicious to us;
may the supremely rich and all-knowing Pisa, god
of the earth, be propitious to us; may Garuda, the
destroyer of evil, be well disposed towards us; may
Brihashpati ensure our welfare.

Om! Shanti! Shanti! Shanti!
(Om! May there be peace! May there be peace! May there be peace!)

Tom: Some say that the Mandukya Upanishad, which is the smallest of the Upanishads consisting only of 12 verses, has no mention of God within it. They clearly have not read the invocatory verses above! Devotion and worship has always been a part of the nondual tradition of Vedanta. Below Shankara will provide 2 more invocatory verses that he has written:

Invocation by Shankara

I bow to that Brahman,
which after having enjoyed the gross objects [in the waking state],
by pervading all the worldly objects through a diffusion of Its rays of unchanging consciousness that embraces all that moves or does not move;
Which after having ‘drunk’ [during the dream state] all the variety of objects, produced by desire and lighted up by the intellect,
And sleeps [in the deep sleep state] while enjoying bliss
and making us enjoy through Maya;
and which is [in liberation] counted as the Fourth from the point of view of Maya,
and is supreme, immortal, and birthless.

Tom: Shankara in his first invocatory verses states that liberation, or Turiya, is called the Fourth state, but that this is only from the point of view of Maya (or ignorance), which admits of the 3 states. In true liberation, the 3 states, which are superimpositions on the Self, do not exist in any way shape or form, so Turiya is actually the Singular Reality and not the Forth state at all. This is explained in more detail later in the text by both Shankara and Gaudapada, and Shankara also explains this in more detail here in the text he wrote called Upadesa Sahasri.

The structure of Shankara’s invocatory verses also mimics the structure of the actual Mandukya Upanishad, which first explains the nature of the 3 states of waking, dream and deep dreamless sleep, before lastly explaining the nature of liberation (see verse 7 of the Mandukya Upanishad here), also known as the Self or Turiya, Turiya literally meaning ‘the fourth’ in Sanskrit. Let us continue with Shankara’s second invocatory verse:

May that Fourth one protect us which,
after having [in the waking state] identified Itself with the universe,
enjoys the gross objects created by the merits (and demerits) of past deeds;
After having [in the dream state] experienced through its own light the subtle objects of enjoyment that are called up by its own intellect;
Which [in deep sleep] withdraws promptly all these into Itself;
and which lastly [in liberation] becomes free from all attributes,
by discarding every distinction and difference [ie. by discarding all phenomenal appearances/objects].

Tom: the implication is that in liberation, there are no appearances of any objects, for these have been cast out, and that the appearance of any objects is tantamount to duality. This is further explained below. Let us read Shankara’s introduction to both the Mandukya Upanishad and to Gaudapada’s Karika:

Introduction to the text by Shankara

The word [or letter] Om is everything [idam sarvam, literally meaning ‘all this’ or ‘all things’]. This will all be explained in the rest of this following text.

The four chapters of Sri Gaudapada’s commentary on the Mandukya Upanishad, that sum up the quintessence of Vedanta, starts with the phrase ‘The word Om is everything…’. Because Gaudapada starts with this phrase, the stated aim and purpose of this text, which we would usually state at the start of any text on Vedanta, should be obvious and need not be stated here. Clearly the aim and purpose of the text is the unfolding of Vedanta.

However, as I am giving a commentary here, I should briefly state the purpose of the text. The text, as it explains the spiritual disciplines that lead to a desired goal, will naturally have an aim and subject matter.

What is the aim of the text? Let me explain: just as a healthy person afflicted by disease will seek a cure for the disease in order to regain the natural state of health, the natural state of being the Self, when afflicted by suffering, will be returned to its ‘natural state of health’ through the cessation of the phenomenal universe of duality.

The aim therefore is the realisation of non-duality. Since the phenomenal world of duality is a creation of ignorance, it can be eradicated through knowledge.

Hence this text aims to reveal the knowledge of Brahman.

Tom: Shankara here is stating that the entire phenomenal world is a creation of ignorance, and that it needs to be eradicated for liberation to occur. This eradication of the phenomenal world can be attained through knowledge of Brahman, which is the same as liberation. The exact nature of knowledge of Brahman is explained later in this commentary here and how to attain this knowledge is explained by Gaudapada here and here.

Compare to Sri Ramana Maharshi when he says in the text Guru Vachaka Kovai in the following verses:

23. The Realised, who do not know anything as being other than Self, which is absolute Consciousness, will not say that the world, which has no existence in the view of the Supreme Brahman, is real.

28. O aspirants who hide yourselves away fearing this world, nothing such as a world exists! Fearing this false world which appears to exist, is like fearing the false snake which appears in a rope.

35. Since this world of dyads [knower-known] and triads [perceiver-perceiving-perceived] appears only in the mind, like the illusory ring of fire formed [in darkness] by whirling the single point of a glowing rope-end, it is false, and it does not exist in the clear sight of Self.

[Tom: The illusory ring of fire is a metaphor that Gaudapada himself uses throughout Chapter 4 of Gaudapada’s Karika].

87. Self appearing as the world is just like a rope seeing itself as a snake; just as the snake is, on scrutiny, found to be ever non-existent, so is the world found to be ever non-existent, even as an appearance.

Also compare also to Sri Ramana Maharshi when he writes in the beginning few paragraphs of his work entitled ‘Who Am I?’:

Q. When will the realization of the Self be gained?
A. When the world which is what-is-seen has been removed, there will be realization of the Self which is the seer.

Q. Will there not be realization of the Self even while the world is there?
A. There will not be.

Shankara will now justify his assertions by quoting from the highest scriptural authority in Vedanta, the Upanishads, let us see:

This fact is established by such Vedic texts as:

‘Because when there is duality, as it were, then one-smells something, one sees something…’ and so on (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad II. iv. 14);

‘When there is something else, as it were, then one can see something, on can know something’ (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad IV. iii. 31);

‘But when to the knower of Brahman everything has become the Self, then what should one see and through what? What should one know and through what?” (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad II. iv. 14).

Tom: we can see that Shankara is providing 3 quotes from the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad to back up this assertion, namely that appearances in the world, or perceiving things (apparently) through the senses, is the same as duality, and that all perceptions of the sense organs and all knowledge in the mind ceases with liberation. Now Shankara will summarise the contents of the 4 chapters of Gaudapa’s Karika (commentary) on the Mandukya Upanishad:

That being so, the first chapter explains the meaning of Om based on the traditional teachings [of Vedanta] and helps us to attain the reality that is the Self.

The second chapter aims to rationally prove the unreality of that phenomenal world of duality, on the cessation of which non-duality is attained, just as the reality of the rope is known on the elimination of the illusion of a snake imagined on it.

Tom: Shankara is again stating that non-duality or liberation is attained upon the cessation of the phenomenal world, which is duality, and Shankara gives the example of the rope and snake to justify his claim. We will only see the rope when the wrong-seeing or illusion of the snake (which causes fear and suffering) goes. Compare with Sri Ramana Maharshi when he writes in ‘Who Am I?’:

‘Just as the knowledge of the rope, which is the base, will not be obtained unless the knowledge of the snake, the superimposition, goes, so the realization of Self, which is the base, will not be obtained unless the perception of the world, which is a superimposition, ceases.’

Shankara continues to summarise the contents of the last 2 chapters of Gaudapa’s Karika, and thus ends Shankara’s introduction to the Mandukya Upanishad. If you wish, you can compare my translation of Shankara’s introduction to this wonderful text to the more scholarly translation below by Swami Gambhirananda:

The third chapter aims to rationally establish the truth of non-duality, and to prevent it too from being negated by a similar process of argument.

The fourth chapter seeks to logically refute all the non-Vedic points of view, which are counterproductive to attaining of the truth of non-duality, and which remain concerned with this unreal duality.

Tom: we can see that in the last sentence of his introduction, Shankara is stating that the false teachings, ie. the teachings that do not lead to liberation, keep on coming back to the unreal duality, ie. false teachings keep on wanting to come back to the world of names and form, also known as maya. There is no Maya in the Self, and in truth there never was. This is the doctrine of ajata vada (no creation or no birth) that is famously explained in Gaudapada’s commentary on this Mandukya Upanishad.

The two main ways that the truly liberating teaching is distorted is firstly by stating that we do not need to turn within in order to realise the self, and secondly by stating that once the self has been realised we must turn back towards the world and integrate our newly-found non-dual understanding/ knowledge/ realisation with the world of phenomenal appearances.

Click here to a PDF of the full text as translated by Swami Gambhirananda of Ramakrishna Mission (Advaita Ashrama)

Advaita Vedanta: Is samadhi required for Self-Realisation according to Shankara and the Upanishads?

~ Tom Das ~ 1 Comment

There are several views on this topic, but in this post we will see what the Advaita scriptures say and what Shankara has written on this in his commentaries.

In some texts that are attributed to Shankara, such as Vivekachudamani, the case is clearly presented – these texts clearly state that Samadhi is definitely required for Self-Realisation to occur. Whilst this is the most widely held view, and by far the dominant traditional view for at least the last one thousand years and more, and also the view of the four Shankara Mathas that have been entrusted with handing down Shankara’s Advaita Vedanta tradition to each generation, there are a minority who state that Vivekachudamani is not a genuine work of Shankara.

Therefore in this post we will look at what was written by Shankara in his commentaries, the authorship of which is not in doubt:

Please see this link here to read the discussion of this topic.

Gaudapada & Shankara: The Self is Attainable by ‘Samadhi’ | What is Samadhi according to Advaita Vedanta | Vedantic Samadhi

~ Tom Das ~ 14 Comments

According to Advaita Vedanta, what is meant by Samadhi? And is this Samadhi necessary for Self-Realisation?

If you read the following carefully, you will see that Sri Gaudapada (in his Mandukya Karika) and Sri Shankara (in his commentary upon the Mandukya Karika) are both stating the following:

  1. The Self is realisable through Samadhi
  2. In Samadhi there are no thoughts present
  3. In Samadhi there are no gross or subtle objects present
  4. This Samadhi is not a state of mind, for the mind (and other objects) are not present in Samadhi
  5. This Samadhi leads to Jnana (Knowledge)

Whilst this is clearly explained in texts such as Shankara’s Vivekachudamani (see here for the series of verses in Vivekachudamani that emphasise the need for Samadhi) and many other Advaita texts, there are a minority who dispute the authorship of these texts saying it was not the original Shankara but a later Shankara that wrote these other texts. So here I will quote from Gaudapada’s Karika (Gaudapada’s commentary on the Mandukya Upanishad) and Shankara’s commentary on this.

Both Gaudapada and Shankara are considered authorities in Advaita Vedanta and in the case of these texts there is no dispute in the authorship – ie. everyone agrees that Gaudapada authored the Mandukya Karika and that Shankara’s commentary on this was actually authored by Shankara – so we can be clear this is the correct teaching that represents their views. Let us see:

1. The Self is realisable through Samadhi

The Self (Atman) is beyond all expression by words beyond all acts of mind; It is absolutely peaceful, it is eternal effulgence free from activity and fear and it is attainable by Samadhi.

~ Gaudapada, Mandukya Upanishad Karika 3.37

Some people translate the last phrase differently, but when we look at Shankara’s commentary on the verse, we can see the meaning is made clear, ie. the above translation is the correct one – the Self is attainable by Samadhi. In fact Shankara goes further, he states the Self is only realised through Samadhi:

Shankara’s commentary from the above verse from Gaudapada 3.37 states:
…The Self (Atman) is denoted by the word Samadhi as it can be realised only by the knowledge arising out of the deepest concentration (on its essence), Samadhi. Or the Self (Atman) is denoted by Samadhi because it is the object of concentration, the Jiva concentrates his mind on the Self (Atman)…

[Edit: since writing this article it has been pointed out to the me that the underlined word ‘only’ does not appear in the original Sanskrit, but this was an overzealous addition by the translator of this verse, Swami Nikhilananda, when he translated the commentary into English]

2. In Samadhi no thoughts are present

Now others will say that Samadhi doesn’t mean that all thoughts should cease, as that is yogic samadhi, and vedanta samadhi is something different in which thoughts and objects of perception can be present. However, what do Gaudapada and Shankara say? If we read carefully and slowly we will see that this question is also clarified:

In the next verse Gaudapada writes in verse 3.38 of his Mandukya Karika that all thoughts have stopped and that this leads to Jnana (Knowledge). Note that this verse is a continuation following on from the previous verse which has just stated the Self can be realised by Samadhi:

There can be no acceptance or rejection where all mentation stops. Then knowledge is established in the Self and is unborn, and it becomes homogenous

~Gaudapada, Mandukya Karika 3.38

We can see the emphasis is on cessation of all thoughts (‘all mentation stops’), implying this is what will happen in Samadhi. Then self-knowledge is established, the verse goes on to say, ie. once all mentation has stopped, then self-knowledge is established. Shanakra states this Self-Knowledge is unborn, meaning it was never created and is not subject to birth and death. This self-knowledge is also homogenous, meaning there are no differences in it whatsoever. This is another way of stating there are no objects perceived, for the presence of objects would make it heterogenous, not homogenous. Note that thoughts are also objects.

Again, some state this is not the correct interpretation of the verse, and that homogenous does not mean there are no objects present, but let us see what Shankara has to say in his commentary on the above verse:

Shankara’s commentary on this verse 3.38 is as follows:

…therefore there is no rejection or acceptance in It, where thought does not exist. That is to say, how can there be rejection or acceptance where no mentation is possible in the absence of the mind? As soon as there comes the realisation of the Truth that is the Self, then, in the absence of any object, knowledge (Jnanam) is established in the Self, like the heat of fire in fire. It is then birthless (ajati) and becomes homogenous.

Again, we can see that Shankara is clear that there are no thoughts, and therefore no mind (as mind is just the presence of thoughts, or the movement of thinking).

3. In Samadhi there are no gross or subtle objects present

Shankara also states clearly that Jnana (Self-Knowledge) arises in the absence of any objects being present in the above quote, the commentary on verse 3.38.

Later on we see this same theme being repeated, ie. that there are no objects or appearances present in this Samadhi which leads to Brahman-Realisation (ie. Liberation):

‘…when the mind becomes quiescent and does not give rise to appearances, it verily becomes Brahman’
~ Gaudapada, Mandukya Upanishad Karika 3.46

Shankara clarifies this further in his commentary on Mandukya Karika 3.46:

‘When the mind brought under discipline by the above-mentioned methods, does not fall into the oblivion of deep sleep, nor is distracted by external objects, that is to say, when the mind becomes quiescent like the flame of a light kept in a windless place; or when the mind does not appear in the form of an object – when the mind is endowed with these characteristics, it verily becomes one with Brahman.’

~ Shankara in his commentary on Gaudapada’s Mandukya Karika 3.46

We can see that Shankara is stating in Samadhi, which was earlier advocated as the means to liberation, is devoid of objective phenomena when he writes ‘the mind does not appear in the form of an object’ above. We can also see that he is stating there are no thoughts in Samadhi, when he writes ‘when the mind becomes quiescent’.

Anandagiri, a 13th century commentator on Shankara’s works, confirms this in his comments on Karika 3.46:
‘The external objects are nothing but the activities of the mind itself.’

So we can see that mind activity and external objects are one and the same, and that samadhi is devoid of both

4. This Samadhi is not a state of mind, for the mind (and other objects) are not present in Samadhi

So we can see that Samadhi is not simply a state of mind – Shankara states it is the absense of mind and thought and objects. How can samadhi be a state of mind if there is no mind present in Samadhi? Samadhi is beyond the mind. Samadhi is the Self.

States of mind come and go, and the mind, being an object, is a part of Maya. However Samadhi is to abide as Self.

This is the meaning of nididhyasana – to abide as Self, the pure Consciousness that we already are. It is explained in detail in traditional advaita texts like Vivekachudamani and Advaita Bodha Deepika, and Sri Ramana Maharshi’s teachings point us unwaveringly to this same teaching too.

5. This Samadhi leads to Jnana (Knowledge)

Well I have no further quotes for you in this section – you should hopefully already be able to see from the quotes given above that Jnana arises from Samadhi, and this Samadhi is devoid of thoughts and objects. However, in this section I will re-present the above quotes with the emphasis on Samadhi leading to Jnana. In order to do this I have abbreviated some of the quotes (as indicated by ‘…’), the unabbreviated versions being present above:

Eg. here Gaudapada states the Atman can be attained through Samadhi.

‘The Self (Atman)…is attainable by Samadhi.’ ~ Gaudapada, Mandukya Upanishad Karika 3.37

Shankara goes further and states that Samadhi leads to Knolwedge in his commentary on the above verse:

‘…The Self (Atman)…can be realised only by the knowledge arising out of…Samadhi.’

Then Gaudapada also states that when all thought ceases Knowledge arises:

‘…where all mentation stops. Then knowledge is established in the Self…’ ~Gaudapada, Mandukya Karika 3.38

Shankara’s commentary on this above verse 3.38 unsurprisingly states the same:

…in the absence of any object, knowledge (Jnanam) is established in the Self…’

Conclusion

So hopefully we can now clearly see that, according to Gaudapada and Shankara:

  1. The Self is realisable through Samadhi
  2. In Samadhi there are no thoughts present
  3. In Samadhi there are no gross or subtle objects present
  4. This Samadhi is not a state of mind that comes and goes, for the mind (and other objects) are not present in Samadhi
  5. It is this Samadhi that leads to Jnana (Knowledge)

I hope the above verses are of help for you. The above is just one of a series of articles I have written on this topic – please see below for some of the other posts that discuss this further.

Namaste

Tom

Also see:

The need for nirvikalpa samadhi according to Advaita Vedanta – Swami Advayananda | Swami Chinmayananada

HOW SWAMI SATCHITANANDENDRA SARASWATI (SSS) DEFINES NIDIDHYASANA (VEDANTIC MEDITATION)

Shankara: How to Meditate for Self-Realisation |Nididhyasana | Samadhi

Advaita Vedanta: Gaudapada’s Method (Mandukya Upanishad Karika)

Recommended Reading: Books for Enlightenment, Liberation and Self-Realisation

What exactly is Jnana (knowledge) according to Shankara and Gaudapada and the scriptures?

Shankara: how to Realise the Self (Shankara’s commentary on the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad)

The Waking State is another Dream | Shankara, Gaudapada, Upanishads | Advaita Vedanta | Sri Ramana Maharshi

~ Tom Das ~ 3 Comments

Here we will see, using quotes from Gaudapada, Shankara, the Upanishads and Sri Ramana Maharshi that the same essential teaching is taught regarding the reality of the waking and dream states – namely that they are both equally unreal, that both waking and dream are dream!

Gaudapada

Tom: Here is verse 1 from chapter 2 of Gaudapada’s Mandukya Karika (Gaudapada’s four chapter commentary on the Mandukya Upanishad – you can read the full text here), my comments are in red:

2.1. Harih Aum. The wise declare the unreality of all entities seen in dreams, because they are located within the body and the space therein is confined.

Tom: Gaudapada is essentially stating something we already know, namely that we dream of many things, but all these things we dream of are not actually real. They are all projections of the mind, which is what Gaudapa means by ‘located within the body and the space therein is confined’

2.2. The dreamer, on account of the shortness of the time involved, cannot go out of the body and see the dream objects. Nor does he, when awakened, find himself in the places seen in the dream.

Tom: Again, Gaudapada is stating what we already know about dreams. Shankara in his commentary on this verse explains this means that if we dream of going to a far away land many hundreds of miles away that would take several months to travel to, there is not enough time in dream, which only lasts a few hours, to actually travel there. Similarly, when we wake from the dream, we do not find ourself in this dream location far away.

2.3. Scripture, on rational grounds, declares the non-existence of the chariots etc. perceived in dreams. Therefore the wise say that the unreality established by reason is proclaimed by scripture.

Tom: Gaudapada in verses 2.1 and 2.2 has shown that the many things perceived in dreams are not real on the basis of our own experience. Now he is stating the same based on scripture, referring to Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 4.3.10, which states, referring to a dream about chariots:

‘There are no chariots, nor animals to be yoked to them, nor roads there, but he creates the chariots, animals and roads. There are no pleasures, joys, or delights there, but he creates the pleasures, joys and delights. There are no pools, tanks, or rivers there, but he creates the pools, tanks and rivers. For he is the agent’.

The idea from Gaudapada is that if we dream of a chariot, that chariot is not real, as confirmed by scripture. Note that the teaching that is given in the next two verses is essentially the same as the teaching given in Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 4.3 (please see this link for more).

2.4. The different objects seen in the confined space of dreams are unreal on account of their being perceived. For the same reason, ie. on account of their being perceived, the objects seen in the waking state are also unreal. The same condition ie. the state of being perceived exists in both waking and dreaming. The only difference is the limitation of space associated with dream objects.

Tom: Gaudapada is now equating the dream and waking states, stating that just as dream objects are perceived but not real, the same is with the waking state objects – they are also perceived yet utterly unreal. Does this mean we are to consider the waking state as unreal as a dream? The answer is yes, let us see:

2.5. Thoughtful persons speak of the sameness of the waking and dream states on account of the similarity of the objects perceived in both states on the grounds already mentioned.

Tom: The translation used thus far is that of Swami Nikhilanananda of the Ramakrishna Order. Swami Gambhirananda, also of the Ramakrishna Order, translates the last line of verse 2.5 as ‘the wise say that the dream and the waking states are one’.

Shankara

In his commentary on Gaudapada Karika verse 2.5 (above) Shankara states ‘…therefore discriminating people speak of the sameness of the states of waking and dream.’

We can see that Gaudapada and Shankara are both explicitly stating that the waking state is another form of the dream state, and whilst we often distinguish between waking and sleep, they are actually both dream states, and all that is perceived within waking and dream are equally unreal.

Again, note that this teaching is also given in Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 4.3

We see the same teaching given much more concisely in Shankara’s masterpiece, Vivekachudamani:

170. In dreams, when there is no actual contact with the external world, the mind alone creates the whole universe consisting of the experiencer etc. Similarly in the waking state also; there is no difference. Therefore all this (phenomenal universe) is the projection of the mind.

Tom: We can see that Shankara is saying that the mind projects both the dream state and the waking state. Note that this is essentially equating the mind with maya. Shankara goes on to reiterate this view in subsequent verses:

171. In dreamless sleep, when the mind is reduced to its causal state, there exists nothing (for the person asleep), as is evident from universal experience. Hence man’s relative existence is simply the creation of his mind, and has no objective reality.

177. The mind continually produces for the experiencer all sense-objects without exception, whether perceived as gross or fine, the differences of body, caste, order of life, and tribe, as well as the varieties of qualification, action, means and results.

Tom: Above we can see that Shankara has equated Mind with Maya. Now he will equate Mind with Ignorance. We can deduce that all three, Mind-Maya-Ignorance, are just three names for the same phenomenon:

180. Hence sages who have fathomed its secret have designated the mind as Avidya or ignorance, by which alone the universe is moved to and fro, like masses of clouds by the wind.

Sri Ramana Maharshi

Like Shankara and Gaudapada, Sri Ramana also equates ignorance and maya, and he further says the same phenomenon is also called ego, jiva, conceit, and impurity – ie. all these various words mean the same thing, and that this ignorance is essentially the ‘I am the body idea’ – see here, taken from the text Vichara Sangraham (Self-Enquiry) in the answer to question 3:

Sri Ramana Maharshi:…Therefore, the ‘I-consciousness’ which at first arises in respect of the body is referred to variously as self-conceit (tarbodham), egoity (ahankara), nescience (avidya), maya, impurity (mala), and individual soul (jiva).

In question 10 of the same text, Vichara Sangraham (Self Enquiry), Sri Ramana says the following:

Question: If the entire universe is of the form of mind, then does it not follow that the universe is an illusion? If that be the case, why is the creation of the universe mentioned in the Vedas?

Sri Ramana Maharshi: There is no doubt whatsoever that the universe is the merest illusion. The principal purport of the Vedas is to make known the true Brahman, after showing the apparent universe to be false. It is for this purpose that the Vedas admit thecreation of the world and not for any other reason…this world arose like a dream on account of one’s own thoughts induced by the defect of not knowing oneself as the Self…That the world is illusory, everyone can directly know in the state of Realisation which is in the form of experience of one’s bliss-nature.

In the text Nan Yar? (Who Am I?), Sri Ramana writes:

Sri Ramana Maharshi:…The world should be considered like a dream.

Question: Is there no difference between waking and dream?

Sri Ramana Maharshi: Waking is long and a dream short; other than this there is no difference. Just as waking happenings seem real while awake, so do those in a dream while dreaming.

So, what now? Now we must put the teachings into practice to realise the truth of them:

Also see:

Shankara: How to Meditate for Self-Realisation| Vivekachudamani | Nididhyasana |

Advaita Vedanta: Gaudapada’s Method (Mandukya Upanishad Karika)

Ramana Maharshi: how to abide as the Self, the world is not real, attend to yourself

What exactly is Jnana (knowledge) according to Shankara and Gaudapada and the scriptures? | Advaita Vedanta | Mandukya Upanishad and Karika

~ Tom Das ~ 14 Comments

It is said that the suffering can only end when the Self is realised, and that the Self can only be realised through Jnana, which means ‘knowledge’ or in this context ‘self-knowledge’. This ‘knowledge’ is tantamount to and synonymous with liberation itself. So, what is this Jnana? Often the word is not clearly defined in Vedanta scriptures so the exact meaning of the word is lost. Many people think that jnana refers to knowledge in the intellect or mind, but this is an incorrect understanding, as the scriptures themselves say and as we will see shortly.

For those of you who are familiar with the teachings of Sri Ramana Maharshi, you will know that Sri Ramana makes the meaning clear for us: Jnana is just another word for the Self. The Self ‘knows’ itself by Its-Self. Jnana just means being the Self, devoid of objects or any arising phenomena.

In Ulladu Narpadu verse 12, Sri Ramana Maharshi writes:

True Knowledge is Being, devoid of knowledge as well as ignorance of objects. Knowledge of objects is not true knowledge. Since the Self shines self-luminous, with nothing else for It to know, with nothing else to know It, the Self is Knowledge. Nescience [ignorance] It is not.

In Upadesa Saram verse 27, Sri Ramana Maharshi writes:

That is true knowledge which transcends
Both knowledge and ignorance,
For in pure knowledge
Is no object to be known.

Sri Ramana Maharshi translated the entirely of Shankara’s Vivekachudamani from Sanskrit into Tamil and then wrote an introduction to his translation of the text which states the following:

‘…the natural and changeless state of Nirvikalpa samadhi is produced by unswerving vigilant concentration on the Self, ceaseless like the unbroken flow of oil. This readily and spontaneously yields that direct, immediate, unobstructed, and Universal perception of Brahman, which is at once knowledge and experience and which transcends time and space. This perception is Self-realisation.’

Of course Jnana or liberation is beyond knowledge, experience, realisation and perception, all these being words used to indicate that which is beyond words.

However, what do the traditional scriptures say? Well, as usual, they same the same as Sri Ramana. Jnana just means Being Self, devoid of all arising phenomenal objects. In Gaudapada’s masterpiece, his commentary on the Mandukya Upanishad also known as Mandukya Karika or Gaudapada Karika, the entirety of Vedanta is unfolded and explained. We also have Shankara’s commentary on Gaudapada’s writing to guide us further.

Gaudapada’s Karika and Shankara’s commentary on Gaudapada

One other advantage about using Shankara’s commentary on Gaudapada’ Karika is that whilst the same teachings are often given in shorter simpler texts written by Shankara (ie. the prakarana granthas or ‘instruction manuals’), some people (usually those who disagree with the teachings of these shorter texts!) debate whether or not Shankara actually wrote the shorter texts. Whilst most scholars still think that it is highly likley that Shankara did write these prakarana granthas, there is enough of a minority who disagree.

However this is not the case with Shankara’s commentary on Gaudapada Karika – there is almost universal agreement that this is clearly an authentic work of Shankara’s. In the quotes below I have used the translation from Swami Gambhirananda taken from the book ‘Eight Upanishads with the commentary of Sankaracarya’, which is one of the more literal translations available. This does make it slightly harder to read at times, but it means the meaning, once deciphered, is generally clearer.

Gaudapada’s Karika is composed of four chapters. In the first two chapters Gaudapada relentlessly drives home the point that all phenomenal arisings in the waking state are utterly illusory, just like in a dream all objects in the waking state are projected imaginings, and are a product of Maya. This includes all subtle objects such as knowledge in the intellect, which is said to be more Maya. ie. knowledge in the intellect and ignorance are both ignorance and illusion. In Shankara’s commentary he agrees with this and further supplements Gaudapada’s reasoning (see chapter 2 verses 1-19 and verses 31-36 of Gaudapada’s Karika and Shankara’s commentary for this).

In fact in verse 2.5 Gaudapada encourages the seeker to consider the waking and dream states to be a single dream state rather that two distinct states called waking and dream, with Shankara again agreeing in his commentary on this verse. This is why the Self is said to be beyond both knowledge and ignorance.

Knowledge vs experience

Note that some people contrast intellectual knowledge with experience, stating that intellectual knowledge is what is needed rather than experiences, which come and go. However, note that according to Gaudapada’s framework, intellectual knowledge is just a subtype or class of experience, as it too comes and goes and is subject to change, hence all intellectual knowledge ultimately is just maya or dream-like illusion. It should be obvious to us if we discern – what is ordinarily called knowledge, ie. knowledge in the mind or intellect, is actually just a form or type of experience!

As Sri Ramana Maharshi writes, indicating that knowledge is not thoughts in the mind:

Cease all talk of ‘I’ and search with inward diving mind whence the thought of ‘I’ springs up. This is the way of knowledge. To think, instead, ‘I am not this, but That I am,’ is helpful in the search, but it is not the search itself.

Sri Ramana Maharshi, Ulladu Narpadu (Forty Verses on Reality), Verse 29

When the Vedas have declared, ‘Thou art That’ – not to seek and find the nature of the Self and abide in It, but to think ‘I am That, not This’ is want of strength. Because, That abides forever as the Self.

Sri Ramana Maharshi, Ulladu Narpadu (Forty Verses on Reality), Verse 32

Jnana defined

So back to Jnana. How does Gaudapada define this? How does Shankara define this? We see a definition in Chapter 3 verse 33, as follows:

33. They say that the non-conceptual knowledge (Jnanam), which is birthless, is non-different from the knowable (Brahman). The knowledge that has Brahman for its content is birthless and everlasting. The Birthless is known by the Birthless.

Shankara starts his commentary on this verse as follows:

The knowers of Brahman say that absolute Jnanam, knowledge, which is akalpakam, devoid of all imagination (non-conceptual), and is therefore ajam, birthless…

We can see that here both Gaudapada and Shankara are stating that the nature of Jnana is basically the same as the Self, as follows:

-It is non-conceptual, ie. not of the intellect or mind. The work Gaudapada uses is akalpakam, which means without kalpas or without thought/concepts/imaginings. Earlier in Gaudapada Karika Gaudapada has in several successive verses driven home the point that the entire waking state is born of imagination (kalpa), so to state that Jnana is akalpalkam means that is it without any dream or waking state objects whatsoever. Shankara in his commentary has taken this meaning of the word kalpa to mean ‘imaginings’ in this sense.

-It is birthless and everlasting; and what is birthless and everlasting apart from the Self?

-It is known by itself (the birthless is known by the birthless), ie. it is the Self that ‘knows’ the Self by Its-Self. Here I have put the word ‘know’ in quotes as it is not knowledge in the normal sense, as knowledge in the mind is necessarily conceptual, but here we are speaking of or pointing to a non-conceptual ‘knowledge’, the word ‘knowledge’ being used for want of a better word to describe something that is essentially beyond description.

Later in his commentary on the same verse Shankara writes:

By that unborn knowledge, which is the very nature of the Self, is known – It knows by Itself – the birthless reality, which is the Self. The idea being conveyed is that the Self being ever a homogenous mass of Consciousness, like the sun that is by nature a constant light, does not depend on any other knowledge (for Its revelation).

Again, we can see that idea is that the nature of Self is Knowledge/Jnana, in the same way the nature of the sun is to shine.

The word ‘homogenous’ means without any variation whatsoever, ie. without any subtle or gross objects arising in the consciousness.

No phenomenal arisings in the Self/in Jnana

Shankara continues his commentary on Gaudapada’s Karika verse 3.33, commenting that with Self-realisation all ideation has been driven out of the mind, and that there are no external objects of perception present either. The mind becomes still, and the still mind is no-mind – it is verily the Self, Jnana:

It has been said that when the mind is divested of ideation by virtue of the realisation of Truth that is Brahman, and when there is an absence of external objects (of perception), it becomes tranquil, controlled, and withdrawn, like fire that has no fuel. And it has further been said that when the mind thus ceases to be mind, duality also disappears.

Gaudapada and Shankara have already stated that Jnana is akalpakam. Shankara explains in his commentary that this word akalpakam means that it is devoid of all imagination. It should be noted that in Chapter 2 Gaudapada has said that everything that arises in both the waking and dream states is due to imagination (kalpa), eg. in verses 2.10-2.12, so it should be clear that by stating Jnana is akalpakam it means it is without any objects.

In his commentary on verse 3.33 above, Shankara is stating that realisation occurs when the phenomenal arisings, gross and subtle, have all ceased to arise, duality disappears, ie. Jnana is attained, or the Self has been realised. He is building on the previous two verses from Gaudapada, 3.31 and 3.32 which have already established this:

3.31 All this that there is – together with all that move or does not move – is perceived by the mind (and therefore all is is but the mind); for when the mind ceases to be the mind, duality is no longer perceived.

3.32 When the Truth of Atman has been realised, the mind ceases to think; then the mind attains the state of not being the mind. In the absence of things to be perceived, it becomes a non-perceiver.

You will also see that Jnana is being equated with a still mind – a mind that is no longer active – and a still mind that never moves again is no longer the mind – it is the Self. Again, for those of you who are familiar with Sri Ramana Maharshi’s teaching, he has already made all of this clear to us. For those of you who are not convinced, we have Shankara’s commentary on these verses to make it all the clearer for us:

Shankara’s commentary on verse 3.31:

This duality as a whole, that is mano-drsyam, perceived by the mind; is nothing but the mind, which is itself imagined – this is the proposition [Tom: ie. meaning of the verse]. For duality endures so long as the mind does, and disappears with the disappearance of the mind.

For when the mind ceases to be mind when, like the illusory snake disappearing in the rope, the mind’s activity stops through the practice of discriminating insight and detachment, or when the mind gets absorbed in the state of sleep, duality is not perceived. From this non-existence is proved the unreality of duality. This is the purport. How does the mind cease to be the mind? This is being answered [in the next verse and commentary]:

We can see that Shankara is equating the mind with Maya and with ignorance , something that is commonly done in vedanta texts – eg. in Shankara’s Vivekachudamani. If we carefully read the Shankara’s commentary above we can see that Shankara is saying that:

  1. ‘Duality’ is ‘mano-drysam’. Shankara explains that mano-drysam means everything that is perceived or seen by the mind, ie. everything that is seen by the mind is duality; that is he equates duality with perception of the world.
  2. It is the mind that projects all of duality (as per Chapter’s 1 and 2 of Gaudapada’s Karika which states the same), that is the mind projects all of the phenomenal universe. Again this is equating mind with maya.
  3. Everything that is seen by the mind is the mind, ie. the entire field of phenomena that are perceived, that is the gross and subtle objects – all of these are projected by the mind and they are mind
  4. This mind is duality, and that duality ceases when the mind ceases. i.e. all objects of perception, both gross objects and subtle objects, are projections of the mind and they are mind, and that the perception of objects is also duality.
  5. Shankara states that through discrimination (viveka) and detachment (vairagya) the mind’s activity stops, and so it is the still or unmoving mind that is the result of viveka and vairagya, which is exactly the teachings of Sri Ramana Maharshi. When the mind is no longer active, duality, that is the entire field of gross and subtle phenomenal objects, is not perceived, Shankara’s states, like in deep sleep.

Shankara’s commentary on verse 3.32:

The Truth that is Self…The Truth of the Self which follows from the instruction of the scriptures and teacher, when as a consequence of that, there remains nothing to be thought of, and the mind does not think – as fire does not burn in the absence of combustible things. At that time it attains the state of ceasing to be the mind. In the absence of things to be perceived, that mind becomes free from all illusion of perceptions. This is the idea.

Again, we see that Shankara is stating that the practice of viveka and vairagya (discrimination and renunciation) leads to the mind becoming still and this gives rise to realisation of Truth that is Self. Thereafter the mind stops thinking ‘as fire does not burn in the absence of combustible things’. When the mind stops thinking, it ‘attains the state of ceasing to be the mind’.

He, like Ramana, states that the mind feeds on sense objects or ‘things perceived’. In the ‘absence of things to be perceived‘, the mind no longer has any food or fuel and so burns out. This gives us the imagery of the flame of mind/egotism being extinguished, ie. nirvana, which literally means extinguishment (of a flame or fire).

Deep Sleep vs Stillness of Mind (Samadhi)

We have already covered 3.33 above. The next two verses, verse 3.34 and 3.35 explain the difference between the still or controlled mind and Deep Sleep – it is important note this only has to be done as Gaudapada has explained (and Shankara has agreed) that there are no gross or subtle objects present when the mind is stilled/controlled.

The natural question is therefore what is the difference between the Still Mind and Deep Sleep? If there were objects present when the mind is still, why the need to point out the difference between the Still Mind and Deep Sleep? Or surely the response would simply be that when the mind is controlled, objects are still or can still be present. However this is not the explaination given by Gaudapada, and Shankara is even stronger in his commentary.

I will not go into these verses here, as we are straying from the essence of this post, but you are welcome to look them up yourself. Sri Ramana Maharshi has given his own explanation of the difference between the still mind and deep sleep which you can read here if you wish, and you will find that it is essentially the same explanation given by both Gaudapada and Shankara.

A Practical Method for Self-Realisation

Thereafter next few verses carry on along similar lines reiterating similar points – you can find some of them here.

Finally Gaudapada ends chapter three in a marvellous crescendo by describing a practical method to attain liberation for those who remain stuck in Maya (Shankara in his commentary states that the method is for those who remain unliberated and fearful), which you can read on this link below.

You will see that Gaudapada is stating that the means to liberation is to control, or make still, the mind. We can infer that this is also the way to Jnana. He then outlines a method on how to still the mind, pointing out what the still mind is and what it isn’t:

Advaita Vedanta: Gaudapada’s Method (Mandukya Upanishad Karika)

Another definition of Jnana by Shankara

The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, verse 4.4.20, states the following:

20. It [Brahman] should be realised in one form only, (for) It is unknowable and eternal. The Self is taintless, beyond the (subtle) ether, birthless, infinite and constant.

Here we can see that the Upanishad is stating that Brahman is unknowable. So what of Self-Knowledge or knowledge of Brahman that is so often spoken about? Shankara explains this contradiction in his commentary on this verse:

The knowledge of Brahman too means only the cessation of the identification with extraneous things (such as the body). The relation of identity with It [Brahman] has not to be directly established, for it is already there. Everybody always has that identity with It, but it appears to be related to something else. Therefore the scriptures do not enjoin that identity with Brahman should be established, but that the false identification with things other than That should stop. When the identification with other things is gone, that identity with one’s own Self which is natural, becomes isolated; this is expressed by the statement that the Self is known. In Itself It is unknowable – not comprehended through any means. Hence both statements are consistent.

We can see that Shankara is stating that Brahman is indeed unknowable, and that Jnana, or knowledge, only signifies the cessation of identification with extraneous things, ie. loss of identification with objects, specifically the body-mind. Jnana is not of the mind and is not for the jiva or individual.

We do not need to affirm our identity as Brahman, as we already are and always have been and always will be Brahman. Any affirmation of Brahman would simply be on the level of thought or concepts, and so it would be Maya, or more ignorance. But once the false identification has been removed, then the Self naturally shines as itself, and this lack of wrong-knowledge, or lack of wrongly identifying as the body-mind, is what is called ‘Jnana’ or ‘knowledge’.

In Ulladu Narpadu verse 12, Sri Ramana Maharshi writes:

True Knowledge is Being, devoid of knowledge as well as ignorance of objects. Knowledge of objects is not true knowledge. Since the Self shines self-luminous, with nothing else for It to know, with nothing else to know It, the Self is Knowledge. Nescience It is not.

In Upadesa Saram verse 27, Sri Ramana Maharshi writes:

That is true knowledge which transcends
Both knowledge and ignorance,
For in pure knowledge
Is no object to be known.

Knowledge / Jnana defined in the Upanishads

In the Amritabindu Upanishad Jnana is defined as follows in verse 5:

The mind severed from all connection with sensual objects, and prevented from functioning out, awakes into the light of the heart, and finds the highest condition. The mind should be prevented from functioning, until it dissolves itself in the heart. This is Jnana, this is Dhyana, the rest is all mere concoction of untruth.

Note that this above verse was also quoted by Swami Vidyaranya (1296-1386), author of the wonderful Advaita Vedanta text Panchadasi and Shankaracharya (head monk) of Sringeri Math, in his work Jivanmukti Viveka, in order to make this point clear.

Click on the link to the text above for more on Jnana, where Swami Vidyaranya explains how thoughts must end and the mind must be completely destroyed for Jnana to arise, just as Shankara, Gaudapada and Sri Ramana have explained above.

🙏🙏🙏

Do we need to turn away from the world of objects to realise the Self? | The need to turn within according to Advaita Vedanta | Sri Ramana Maharshi | Upanishads | Shankara | Gaudapada

~ Tom Das ~ 23 Comments

ramana-eyes

Also see:

Ramana Maharshi: how to abide as the Self

Shankara: How to Meditate for Self-Realisation

Shankara: How to realise the Self (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad Commentary)

The entire path explained: the Path of Sri Ramana

Turn Within? Really? Isn’t this dualistic and doesn’t this just strengthen the ego?

If God is everywhere, why do we have to turn within? Why can’t we see God in the World? Sri Ramana Maharshi

Here is what the Vedanta scriptures, such as the Upanishads and the writings of Sri Shankara and Sri Gaudapada say, together with quotes from Sri Ramana Maharshi:

The Lord created the senses out-going: therefore, one sees outside and not the Self within. Some intelligent man, with his senses turned away (from their objects), desirous of immortality, sees the Self within.
~ Katha Upanishad 2.1.1

In his commentary on this above verse (Katha Upanishad 2.1.1), Shankara writes:

‘…the perceiver sees the external objects which are not-Self/not the Atman, such as sound, etc., and not the Self within. Though this is the nature of the world, some (rare) discerning man, like turning back/ reversing the current of a river, sees the Self within…The group of sense organs, beginning with the ear, should be turned away from all sense-objects. Such a one, who is purified thus, sees the indwelling self. For it is not possible for the same person to be engaged in the thought of sense-objects and to have the vision of the Self as well.‘

Dwelling on external objects will only increase evil propensities, so wisely recognising this fact, one should abandon external objects and and constantly attend to one’s true nature within, the Atman [the Self].
~ Shankara, Vivekachudamani

(Note, there are so many quotes from Shankara’s Vivekachudamani which advocate turning within/away from objects that they would ovewhelm this post, but you can find some of these quotes compiled together here in a separate post.)

The knot of the ignorance in the heart is broken completely only when one sees his Self as secondless through Nirvikalpa Samadhi

~Adhyatama Upanishad 1.17

By expelling (from the mind) without any remainder all objects which are superimposed on one’s Atma, one becomes himself Parabrahman the full, the secondless and the actionless

~Adhyatma Upanishad 1.21

Turiya is not that which is conscious of the inner (subjective) world, nor that which is conscious of the outer (objective) world, nor that which is conscious of both…It is the cessation of all phenomena…This is what is known as the Fourth (Turiya). This is Atman and this has to be realised. ~Mandukya Upanishad

In Shankara’s commentary on the Mandukya Upanishad, in his introduction to the text he writes:

Just as the normal state of a man, afflicted by disease, consists in his getting cured of the disease, similarly the normalcy of the Self, stricken with identification with misery, is regained through the cessation of the phenomenal universe of duality…since the phenomenal world of duality is a creation of ignorance, it can be eradicated through knowledge…

In his commentary on Katha Upanishad verse 1.2.20 Sri Shankara writes:

‘…One whose intellect has been withdrawn from all objects, gross and subtle, when this takes place, this is known as ‘inactivity of the sense organs’. Though this ‘inactivity of the sense organs’ one sees that glory of the Self. ‘Sees’ means he directly realises the Self as ‘I am the Self’ as thereby becomes free from suffering’

When the mind…remains unshakable and does not give rise to appearances, it verily becomes Brahman.
~ Gaudapada, Mandukya Upanishad Karika

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

The mind severed from all connection with sensual objects, and prevented from functioning out, awakes into the light of the heart, and finds the highest condition. The mind should be prevented from functioning, until it dissolves itself in the heart. This is Jnana, this is Dhyana, the rest is all mere concoction of untruth.
~ Amritabindu Upanishad

As long as the objective universe is perceived one does not realise the Self.
~ Yoga Vasishta

The Self (Atman) is beyond all expression by words beyond all acts of mind; It is absolutely peaceful, it is eternal effulgence free from activity and fear and it is attainable by Samadhi
~ Gaudapada, Mandukya Upanishad Karika 3.37

Shankara’s commentary from the above verse from Gaudapada 3.37 states:

…The Self (Atman) is denoted by the word Samadhi as it can be realised only by the knowledge arising out of the deepest concentration (on its essence), Samadhi. Or the Self (Atman) is denoted by Samadhi because it is the object of concentration, the Jiva concentrates his mind on the Self (Atman)…

In the next verse Gaudapada writes in verse 3.38 of his Mandukya Karika:

There can be no acceptance or rejection where all mentation stops. Then knowledge is established in the Self and is unborn, and it becomes homogenous

Shankara’s commentary on this verse 3.38 is as follows:

…therefore there is no rejection or acceptance in It, where thought does not exist. That is to say, how can there be rejection or acceptance where no mentation is possible in the absence of the mind? As soon as there comes the realisation of the Truth that is the Self, then, in the absence of any object, knowledge (Jnanam) is established in the Self, like the heat of fire in fire. It is then birthless (ajati) and becomes homogenous.

In his commentary on the Katha Upanishad, verse 2.1.2, Shankara writes:

‘The natural tendency to see external objects, which are not-Self, is the cause of ignorance, the obstacle to the realisation of the Self. The desire of external/outward enjoyments pertaining to this world and the next, which are presented by ignorance, is another obstacle. The realisation of the Self being impeded by these two, ignorance and desire, men with little intelligence pursue only external objects of desire….This being so, the intelligent, knowing the certain immortality of concentration in the inner Self…

When the five organs of perception become still, together with the mind, and the intellect ceases to be active: that is called the Supreme State [Brahma-Vidya or Self Knowledge]
~Katha Upanishad 2.3.10

Shankara’s commentary on this above verse (Katha Upanishad, verse 2.3.10) states the following:

‘At the time when the five senses…, together with the mind…, which is now no longer functioning and thinking, are at rest in the Self alone, after turning away from objects, and with the intellect…no longer engaging with its functioning, that they call the highest state [Brahma-Vidya or Self-Knowledge].’

That which is not seen, though within us, is called the eternal and indestructible Self.
~ Yoga Vasishta

After knowing that by which you know this world, turn the mind inward, and then you will realise the effulgence of the Self.
~ Yoga Vasishta

Strenuously withdrawing all thoughts from sense objects, one should remain fixed in steady, non-objective [ie. subjective] enquiry. This, in brief, is the means of knowing one’s own real nature; this effort alone bring about the sublime inner vision.
~ Sri Ramana Maharshi, Sri Ramana Gita

If, on the contrary, you withdraw your mind completely from the world and turn it within and abide thus, that is, if you keep awake always to the Self, which is the substratum of all experience, you will find the world, of which alone you are now aware, just as unreal as the world in which you lived in your dream.
~ Sri Ramana Maharshi, Maharshi’s Gospel

So long as all objects are not renounced, the Self is not won. What remains after the renunciation of the entire objective manifold is said to be the Self. Therefore, in order to realize the Self, renounce everything. Having cast off all (objects), assimilate yourself to that which remains.

~ Annapurna Upanishad 1.45-1.46

Q. When will the realization of the Self be gained?
Sri Ramana: When the world which is what-is-seen [ie. objects] has been removed, there will be realization of the Self which is the seer.
Q. Will there not be realization of the Self even while the world is there?
Sri Ramana: There will not be.
~ Sri Ramana Maharshi, Who Am I?

When the mind, which is the cause of all cognition’s and of all actions, becomes quiescent, the world will disappear…All the texts say that in order to gain release one should render the mind quiescent; therefore teaching is that the mind should be rendered quiescent.
~ Sri Ramana Maharshi, Who Am I?

Therefore, when the world appears, the Self does not appear; and when the Self appears the world does not appear.
~ Sri Ramana Maharshi, Who Am I?

When the mind comes out of the Self, the world appears.
~ Sri Ramana Maharshi, Who Am I?

When the mind that is subtle goes out through the brain and the sense organs, the gross names and forms appear; when it stays in the heart, the names and forms disappear. Not letting the mind go out, but retaining it in the Heart is what is called “inwardness” (antarmukha). Letting the mind go out of the Heart is known as “externalisation” (bahir-mukha). Thus, when the mind stays in the Heart, the ‘I’ which is the source of all thoughts will go, and the Self which ever exists will shine.
~ Sri Ramana Maharshi, Who Am I?

Desirelessness is wisdom. The two are not different; they are the same. Desirelessness is refraining from turning the mind towards any object. Wisdom [Jnana] means the appearance of no object.
~ Sri Ramana Maharshi, Who Am I?

Q. How long should inquiry be practised?
Sri Ramana Maharshi: As long as there are impressions of objects in the mind, so long the inquiry “Who am I?” is required
~ Sri Ramana Maharshi, Who Am I?

According to Sri Ramana Ashram, the text Guru Vachaka Kovai ‘provides the most precise, systematic and authoritative exposition of Sri Bhagavan’s [Ramana Maharshi’s] teaching‘, and here is a definitive teaching given in verse 291:

291. If one wants to be saved, one is given the following true and essential advice: just as the tortoise draws all its five limbs within its shell, so one should draw the five senses within and turn one’s mind Selfward. This alone is happiness.

Compare with Bhagavad Gita 2.58:

‘One who is able to fully withdraw the senses from their objects, just as a tortoise withdraws its limbs into its shell, is established in Divine Knowledge’.

Here, once again, the method to attain Self-Realisation, which is perfect infinite eternal Happiness, is made clear by Sri Ramana Maharshi in verse 293 of Guru Vachaka Kovai:

293. Having known for certain that everything which is seen, without the least exception, is merely a dream, and that it [the seen] does not exist without the seer, turn only towards Self – Sat-Chit-Ananda – without attending to the world of names and forms, which is only a mental conception.

Also see: The Essential Teachings of Sri Ramana Maharshi: how to abide as the Self, the world is not real, attend to yourself

How to attain Brahman according to Advaita Vedanta (Sri Gaudapada’s Mandukya Karika)

~ Tom Das ~ 2 Comments
The following summarises the spiritual method advised by Sri Gaudapada, the great-guru of the more famous Sri Shankara. It is taken from Chapter 3 of Gaudapada’s Karika (Gaudapada’s commentary on the Mandukya Upanishad),  one of the earliest, most authoritative and most-influential of Advaita Vedanta Scriptures.
om1
42. The mind distracted by desires and enjoyments should be brought under control by proper means; so also the mind enjoying pleasure in inactivity (laya). For the state of inactivity is as harmful as the state of desires.
43. Turn back the mind from the enjoyment of desires, remembering that they beget only misery. Do not see the created objects, remembering that all this is the unborn Atman.
44. If the mind becomes inactive, arouse it from laya [inactivity]; if distracted, make it tranquil. Understand the nature of the mind when it contains the seed of attachment. When the mind has attained sameness, do not disturb it again.
45. The yogi must not taste the happiness arising from samadhi; he should detach himself from it by the exercise of discrimination. If his mind, after attaining steadiness, again seeks external objects, he should make it one with Atman through great effort.
46. When the mind does not lapse into inactivity [laya] and is not distracted by desires, that is to say, when it remains unshakable and does not give rise to appearances, it verily becomes Brahman.
I have written a short commentary on the above verses entitled Advaita Vedanta: Gaudapada’s Method which further explains the above verses.
You can read the entire text of Gaudapada’s Karika here: Mandukya Upanishad with Gaudapada’s Karika

Shankara: the highest truth

~ Tom Das ~ 1 Comment

Right at the end of his masterpiece entitled Vivekachudamani (which essentially means ‘The Highest or Supreme Wisdom’), Shankara makes a series of radical and emphatic non-dual declarations which he states is the highest or ultimate truth.

In his usual style, he reinforces the point he wishes to make in successive verses, building up to a crescendo which culminates in verse 574, the most famous of these verses.

This well-known verse was actually copied by Shankara from The Upanishads and is also found in the works of Sri Gaudapada, Shankara’s guru’s guru.

Om and blessings!

🕉

Shankara the scriptures will never allow duality

Shankara bondage is mere thought

Shankara bondage is a mirage

Shankara no seeker no liberation

The Ultimate or Highest Truth according to the Upanishads

~ Tom Das ~ 13 Comments

There is a famous verse in the Upanishads that explicitly and specifically proclaims to hold the highest truth.

This verse was considered important enough that it was also incorporated into Shankara’s masterpiece Vivekachudamani and also Gaudapada‘s main work, his commentary on the Mandukya Upanishad (the Mandukya Karika).

In fact it is the only verse that I know of that is repeated not only in more than one Upanishad, but is also repeated by the two greatest traditional exponents of Advaita Vedanta (ie. Shankara and Gaudapada) in their subsequent works. Sri Ramana Maharshi also wrote a version of this verse.

Here is the verse:

‘There is neither destruction (Nirodha) nor creation (Utpatti), none in bondage (Bandha) and none practicing disciplines (Sadhaka). There is none seeking Liberation (Mumukshu) and none liberated (Mukta). This is the ultimate or highest truth (Paramartha).’

As I said above, this verse is found repeated in the Amritabindu Upanishad in verse 10, in the Atma Upanishad in verse 2.31. It was later incorporated by both Gaudapada (Mandukya Karika 2.32) and Shankara (Vivekachudamani verse 574) in their writings. Sri Ramana Maharshi also wrote a version of this verse himself which can be found as verse B28 in the text Guru Vachaka Kovai.

What do you think of this verse?