Location: India

Tuesday, January 02, 2007

Sloka 63 and 64

Hari OM,


jagadvilakshaNaM brahma brahmaNo.anyanna ki.nchana .
brahmaanyad.hbhaati chenmithyaa yathaa marumariichikaa .. 63..

Pada artha:
Jagat vilakshanam: which is other than the universe
Brahma: the Brahman
Brahmanaha: apart from the Brahman
Anyat: other
Na: not
Kinchin: a little
Brahma anyam: other than the Brahman
Bhaati: shines
Chet: if
Mithyaa: unreal
Yatha: just as
Marumareecikaa: the mirage

Brahman is other than this, the universe. There exists nothing that is not Brahman. If any object other than Brahman appears to exist, it is unreal like the mirage.

In the previous slokas, Acharya explained that Brahman is the substratum of the entire creation, here in this sloka we learn that the Brahman is ever uncontaminated by the world as the world is illusory and Brahman is ever existent.

Acharya is here explaining that Brahman is that which is different from this word, but it is not to be taken that the world and Brahman exist differently, Difference is pointed out only w.r.t their existence, i.e. world is unreal and Brahman is real, hence Brahman is different from the illusory world; it is its very substratum. Hence Acharya immediately follows that whatever exists is but Brahman alone and there is nothing apart from Brahman. Thus the world that is perceived has to be illusory, like a mirage in desert.

The absoluteness of Brahman is explained in shruti is different ways. As chandogya Upanishad explains this in 6th chapter as

sadeva somyedamagra aasiidekamevaadvitiiyam.h
taddhaika aahurasadevedamagra aasiidekamevaadvitiiyaM
tasmaadasataH sajjaayata 6\.2\.1

‘In the beginning, dear boy, this was Being alone, one only, without a second. Some say that, in the beginning, this was Non-being alone, one only, without a second. From that Non-being arose Being.’

Brihadaranyaka upaniahad also explains this in 4.3.23 as:

yad vai tan na paśyati, paśyan vai tan na paśyati; na hi dra..ur viparilopo
vidyate, avin.śitv.t; na tu tad dvitiyam asti, tato’nyad vibhaktam yat paśyet.

That it does not see in that state is because, though seeing then, it does not see; for the vision of the witness can never be lost, because it is imperishable. But there is not that second thing separate from it which it can see.

Just as how the waters of mirage do not wet the sands of desert, similarly, the world of duality consisting of various names and forms can never affect or change the absolute consciousness. It is only the ignorant who mistake the water and assume it to be really existing while the wise ones know only the substratum as real and all the duality as only an illusion. A deluded mind alone sees the waters in a desert and apprehends them to be real, similarly it is only due to the ignorance that one sees the duality in the ever existent Self.

The nature of this duality as an illusion is explained by various Acharyas and different shrutis very beautifully.

Katha upaniahad explains this in 2.1.17 as:
manasaivedamaaptavyaM neha naanaa.asti ki.nchana .
mR^ityoH sa mR^ityuM gachchhati ya iha naaneva pashyati .. 11..

By mind alone is this attainable; there is no difference here whatsoever. Whoso here sees as though different, passes from death to death.

Thus all duality perceived has to be known as an illusion alone. This sloka can be beautifully summarized by Acharya Gaudapada’s Mandukaya Karaika’s sloka 1.17 as:

prapaJNcho yadi vidyeta nivarteta na sa.nshayaH
maayaamaatramidaM dvaitamadvaitaM paramaarthataH 17

If a phenomenal world were to exist, it should, no doubt, cease to be. This duality is but an illusion; in reality it is non-dual.


dR^ishyate shruuyate yadyad.hbrahmaNo.ayanna tad.hbhavet.h .
tattvaGYaanaachcha tad.hbrahma sachchidaanandamadvayam.h .. 64..

Pada artha:
Drushyate: which is perceived
Shrooyate: which is heard
Yad yat: all that
Brahmana anyam: apart from Brahman
Na: not
Tat: that
Bhavet: can be
Tatva jnaanat: from the knowledge of the reality
Tad brahma: that Brahman
Sat chit anandam: which is existence knowledge Bliss absolute
Adwayam: non dual

All that is perceived, or heard, is Brahman and nothing else. Attaining the knowledge of the Reality, one sees the Universe as the non-dual Brahman, Existence-Knowledge-Bliss-Absolute.

In the last sloka we learnt that there is nothing apart from Brahman and all the dualities are just like a mirage in a desert. Acharya continues to explain the same in this sloka also. When all that exists is but Brahman, whatever is heard, seen or perceived through sense organs cannot be anything other than Brahman. One who knows this sees oneness everywhere and the entire universe is known as Brahman alone.

Mahanaraayanopanishad verse 13.5 says this beautifully as:
yachcha kiJNchijjagatyasmin dR^ishyate shruuyate.api vaa .antarbahishcha tatsarva.n vyaapya naaraayaNaH sthitaH .. 5..

Whatsoever there is in this world known through perception (because of their proximity) or known through report (because of their distance), all that is pervaded by Narayana within and without.

Just as whatever one sees in dream, state cannot be other than ones own waking state mind, all the objects cannot be different from the consciousness due to which all the activities of perception, thinking etc. are illumined. Hence the objects of world which we sense cannot have any existence apart from the consciousness. When all that exists in the body or mind or intellect or in the outer created are realized to be manifestations of Brahman alone, nothing else is seen nor perceived and all the differences dissolve. All that exists is known as Existence-consciousness-Bliss alone.

As Isha Upanishad explains,
yasminsarvaaNi bhuutaanyaatmaivaabhuudvijaanataH .
tatra ko mohaH kaH shoka ekatvamanupashyataH .. 7..
When a man realises that all beings are but the Self, what delusion is there, what grief, to that perceiver of oneness?

When a man realises that all beings are but the Self, what delusion is there, what grief, to that perceiver of oneness?

Hari OM

With regards,
Mallika R
What you have is God's gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift to God


Blogger vedanta said...


Prostrations to all.

We have to progress further from just mere quotations to analyze whether proper and apt quotations have been used. The Brihadaranyaka quote is quite out of context in this mail (at least the link between the quote and as to why it is referred is missing here).

Na tu tad dviteeyam asthi tatah anyad vibhaktham yad pashyet
There is nothing dual other than Brahman and hence what to see???

If we analyze the above quote, it occurs in jyotir brahmana where yajnavalkya is explaining the avasthas to janaka. This explanation above is not of the normal state but of the sushupthi avasthaa. Thus what is applicable in sushupthi avasthaa cannot be taken for granted (automatically) in all avasthas or in general. Therefore the quote is out of context in proving that there is nothing apart from Brahman.

Yes, Mallika has mentioned this quote because many acharyas and postings also mention the same for substantiating advaita or dvaita varjithatva. But just because acharyas have mentioned it doesn't mean we can blindly use it. We have to do vimarshanam (analyze) as Krishna mentions in the end of Gita.

This particular quote which speaks about sushupthi can be extended to turiya as well -- because there are many similarities between sushupthi and turiya -- sushupthi doesn't have any worldly experience of objects & turiya also doesn't have any worldly experience -- sushupthi does involve momentary bliss which is present even in turiya avastha. More than extending sushupthi experience to turiya, we could easily extend it to all the other avasthaas. Sushupthi doesn't have duality but the other two avasthas which arise out of sushupthi has duality. This means duality is not there in sushupthi but afterwards is created. Thus the "created-duality" is not real and permanent but only temporary. This clearly proves that the sleeper in sushupthi (who is Brahman because the bliss experienced in sushupthi is that of Brahman only) is none other than Brahman and who alone exists (as duality whiuch is not there in sushupthi and is created after that is only temporary.

This is how the sushupthi quote clearly proves that there is nothing apart from Brahman. Unless we mention the link between sushupthi not having duality and brahman alone existing (which here is that sushupthi doesn't have duality and other two avasthas created out of sushupthi has duality), the quote is quite out of context.

Neha nana asthi kinchana is an apt quote which doesn't need any explanation or twisting in it.

Prapancho yadi vidhyeta is a controversial quoting where Sankara's commentary is attacked by the dvaitins and as far as I have tried to find out explanations, there are very few available to counter the attack -- will not enter into the same as it is quite too logical to be analyzed.

Prostrations to all.


Let a moment not pass by without remembering God

7:28 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home