Consciousness in Gaudapada鈥檚 Mandukya-karika
by V. Sujata Raju | 2013 | 126,917 words
This page relates 鈥楳aya and the tradition of Vedic revelation鈥� of the study on Consciousness as presented by Gaudapada in his Mandukya-karika. Being a commentary on the Mandukya Upanishad, it investigates the nature of consciousness and the three states of experience (i.e., wakeful, dream and deep sleep) which it pervades. This essay shows how the Gaudapadakarika establishes the nature of Consciousness as the ultimate self-luminous principle.
Go directly to: Footnotes.
M膩y膩 and the tradition of Vedic revelation
According to 艢补峁卥补谤补 there are certain 鲍辫补苍颈峁诲颈肠 text dealing with evolution and dissolution of the universe. Their aim is also to establish the identity of 箩墨惫补 and 腻迟尘补苍. This is expressed by such well known passages as: 鈥榯hat art thou 鈥�(颁丑腻苍诲辞驳测补 鲍辫补苍颈峁诲 VI.8.16)[1]; 鈥榳hoever worships another divinity (than his Self) thinking that he is one and (Brahman) another, he knows not鈥� (叠峁沨补诲腻谤补峁噛补办补 鲍辫补苍颈峁诲. I.4.10)[2]. Hence the texts that speak of separateness of 箩墨惫补 and 腻迟尘补苍 should not be understood in the literal sense. They are figurative/secondary statements. He says that the primary (mukhya) sense of separateness for the bheda 惫腻办测补蝉 are but re-statements of the pluralistic view of creatures that are under the natural spell of 补惫颈诲测腻. Their ultimate aim is the revelation of non-dual 腻迟尘补苍.
艢补峁卥补谤补 now uses the 鲍辫补苍颈峁诲颈肠 mantra namely the VIth chapter of the 颁丑腻苍诲辞驳测补 鲍辫补苍颈峁诲 to reveal the primacy of non-duality over the (蝉峁涐梗峁璱 辫谤补办谤颈测腻), the creation process in the following lines: The 颁丑腻苍诲辞驳测补 鲍辫补苍颈峁诲 speaks of non-duality (oneness) before it speaks of creation. It speaks of 鈥業n the beginning this was being alone, one only, without a second鈥� (颁丑腻苍诲辞驳测补 鲍辫补苍颈峁诲 VI.2.2)[3], even before the creation, as referred to in such passage as: 鈥業t thought鈥�, 鈥業t sent forth fire鈥� (颁丑腻苍诲辞驳测补 鲍辫补苍颈峁诲 VI.2.3)[4]. But the same 鲍辫补苍颈峁诲 dealing with the creation finally establishes the non-duality of 腻迟尘补苍 in these words: 鈥楾hat is the true, that is the Self, that art thou鈥� (颁丑腻苍诲辞驳测补 鲍辫补苍颈峁诲 VI.8.7)[5]. Hence, the idea of creation is the result of ignorance, which is ultimately dispelled by right knowledge.
艢补峁卥补谤补 concludes his commentary on this 办腻谤颈办腻 by saying that the separateness of the 箩墨惫补 and 腻迟尘补苍 which is understood from some scriptural passages in the middle be regarded as figurative, like the statement, 鈥楬e cooks food鈥�, as described earlier in this 办腻谤颈办腻.
骋补耻岣峚辫腻诲补 states further into this question of scriptural exegesis in 办腻谤颈办腻 15. In this 办腻谤颈办腻 he states his view about creation which is often cited by later Ved膩ntins[6]. He says: (The scriptural statements regarding) creation as illustrated by examples of earth, iron, sparks, etc., or otherwise, (only) serve the purpose of (ultimately) explaining the unity (of 箩墨惫补 and Brahman). (Really speaking) multiplicity does not exist in any manner. He establishes the importance of non-dualism found in the 颁丑腻苍诲辞驳测补, 惭耻峁囜笉补办补 texts. Creation (蝉峁涐梗峁璱) has been presented in different ways in the 鲍辫补苍颈峁诲s, by using illustration of clay, iron sparks of fire etc. This is a means to lead to the absolute (耻辫腻测补岣� 补惫补迟腻谤腻测补). There is no difference whatsoever between the 箩墨惫补 and the 腻迟尘补苍.
Commenting on this 办腻谤颈办腻 艢补峁卥补谤补 anticipates an objection: It is true that before creation all was one, unborn and without a second (non-dual); but after creation all this was born and the embodied beings (箩墨惫补s) are mutually separate. The meaning is that after creation the distinction/the multiplicity again arose. Hence advaita does not exist.
According to 艢补峁卥补谤补 this view is not correct. The reason is that the scriptural texts that speak of creation have a different implication or meaning. They are not to be taken literally. The explanation of this objection has already given in 办腻谤颈办腻 10. It has already been pointed out that the aggregates (entities) of body etc. are like dream objects, being produced by an erroneous cognition which 艢补峁卥补谤补 calls 补惫颈诲测腻 or 尘腻测腻. Again the birth and separateness etc., of 箩墨惫补s are also explained as like the creation and differences of 驳丑补迟腻办腻艣补蝉 etc. (i.e. the 腻办腻艣补 enclosed in different jars).
艢补峁卥补谤补 says those very creation texts of the scripture are now again referred to here for the purpose of establishing the identity of 箩墨惫补 and 腻迟尘补苍. The creation texts have been expounded in different ways with the help of such illustrations as earth, iron, sparks of fire etc. He says that all that process of creation is a means (耻辫腻测补岣�) for preparing the minds of the students, the idea of the oneness of the individual 箩墨惫补 and the 腻迟尘补苍, the supreme Self. No duality is implied in this. 艢补峁卥补谤补 cites the wellknown stories of 笔谤腻苍补蝉补峁僢腻诲补, the story of the asuras (devils, demons) piercing speech, etc. with evil as an example of a figurative statement as mentioned in the 叠峁沨补诲腻谤补峁噛补办补 (I,3.7) and the 颁丑腻苍诲辞驳测补 (I.2) 鲍辫补苍颈峁诲. According to the 叠峁沨补诲腻谤补峁噛补办补 鲍辫补苍颈峁诲, there was rivalry between the gods (devas) and the demons (asuras), the two classes of 笔谤补箩腻辫补迟颈鈥檚 sons. The gods who were lesser in number than the demons sought to overcome their adversaries by means of the 耻诲驳墨迟丑补. They first asked speech (惫腻办) i.e. the deity which presides over speech to sing the 耻诲驳墨迟丑补 for them. Speech sang, but in doing so it was not free from selfishness. Hence it easily fell a prey to the demons who pierced it with evil. The result was that the gods were foiled in their attempt to excel their rivals. The nose was the next to be asked to sing. The same thing happened with regard to it also. The eye, the ear and the mind were tried in sequence; and all of them were pierced with evil by the demons. At last came the turn of the breath in the mouth (腻蝉补苍测补 辫谤腻峁嘺) 鈥楧o thou sing for us鈥�, said the gods. 鈥榊es鈥�, said the breath and sang. The asuras rushed at it and wanted to pierce it with evil. But as a clod of earth, striking against a rock, hurled at it with the intention of smashing it, is itself smashed to bits. In the same manner the demons were smashed to bits, flying in all directions and perished absolutely. This is how the 艢谤耻迟颈 describes their destruction with the help of a story.
In the 颁丑腻苍诲辞驳测补 鲍辫补苍颈峁诲 the same story appears with some variations. Here the sense organs (their deities) are meditated upon as the 耻诲驳墨迟丑补 by the gods, and not asked to sing the 耻诲驳墨迟丑补.
According to 艢补峁卥补谤补 the reference of this story should not be taken literally. It is not to narrate an actual event but to make one realize the superiority of breath over other organs. Here the intention is to teach that breath (辫谤腻峁嘺) is to be meditated upon because it is pure (unsmitten by evil), while speech, etc., which are impure are not proper objects of meditation. The story about 辫谤腻峁嘺 etc., has different versions in different branches of the vedas. If the story is the narrative of what actually happened, we should have met with a uniform pattern in all the branches of the vedas and not with heterogeneous contradictory presentations. But there are different versions in the vedas. Therefore the vedic texts setting forth the stories of 辫谤腻峁嘺 etc. are not to be taken literally. Similarly the creation texts are also not to be taken literally. We have to understand only their purport (迟腻迟辫补谤测补) as the creation texts of 艢谤耻迟颈 also describes the creation process in many varying and mutually contradictory versions.
The objector says that this variation may be referred to different creation cycles (kalpas). Since the cycles of creation differ, the vedic texts dealing with creations of the universe as well as with the stories of 辫谤腻峁嘺 etc., are divergent with relation to the respective cycles.
艢补峁卥补谤补 emphatically denies this objection. He says that any such supposition is purportless. It is not possible to imagine any other useful purpose of the 艣谤耻迟颈 texts regarding creation and 辫谤腻峁嘺. The only purpose of the 艢谤耻迟颈 is to make one understand the oneness of an embodied being (箩墨惫补) and the Supreme Self. The purport of 艢谤耻迟颈 is to establish abheda or advaita.
The objector now says let us suppose that the purpose of these creation and conversation (辫谤腻苍补 蝉补峁僾腻诲补) texts is for meditation (诲丑测腻苍补). Because the meditator ultimately becomes one with the object meditated. The meaning is that he who meditates on them attains to the status of the breath (辫谤腻峁嘺) deity or gets identified with creation or dissolution.
In reply to this objection 艢补峁卥补谤补 says that 诲丑测腻苍补 (meditation) cannot be the purpose. No one desires to get identified with the dispute (in the case of 辫谤腻苍补sa峁� 惫腻诲补), or with the creation or destruction (in the case of creation texts). These results are not desirable. Therefore the conclusion is that 辫谤腻峁嘺-sa峁� 惫腻诲补 texts have their purport (迟腻迟辫补谤补测补) in establishing the special importance of 辫谤腻峁嘺. The conversation among the senses is purely imaginary. Its object is to teach the superiority of 辫谤腻峁嘺 to the other sense-organs. Again, the creation texts have their purport (迟腻迟辫补谤补测补) not in establishing the Reality of creation but to point out that they are only meant as a means to make us ultimately grasp the identity of 箩墨惫补 and Brahman.
Why does the 艢谤耻迟颈 adopt such a means (耻辫腻测补)? 骋补耻岣峚辫腻诲补 in 办腻谤颈办腻 16 says, it is because there are three stages of life corresponding to the three-lower, the middle, and higher-powers of vision. The 艢谤耻迟颈, out of compassion (补苍耻办补峁僷补测腻) teaches this type of conceptual meditation based upon the ideas of creation and duality.
If according to 艢谤耻迟颈 texts likes, 鈥�腻迟尘补苍 is one and without a second鈥�, prove that 腻迟尘补苍 alone is the highest, ever pure, ever free, ever full, the ever existent ultimate reality and all else is entirely unreal then for what purpose has the 艢谤耻迟颈 prescribed the methods of meditation (or devotion) in such 艢谤耻迟颈 texts as 鈥�腻迟尘补苍 should be seen鈥�, 鈥渢hat 腻迟尘补苍 who is free from all sin should perform sacrifice鈥�; 鈥淗e desired鈥�; 鈥�腻迟尘补苍 alone should be invoked鈥�, etc? And what is the object of enjoining karmas like agnihotra and the like? In addition, the 艢谤耻迟颈 has, even prescribed vedic karma also.
The word 鈥�腻艣谤补尘腻岣�鈥� in the 办腻谤颈办腻 means (腻艣谤补尘颈峁嘺丑) persons qualified for different 腻艣谤补尘补蝉 (like Brahmacarya, 骋峁沨补蝉迟补, 痴腻苍补辫谤补蝉迟丑补 and 厂补苍苍测腻蝉补). It also includes people of different 惫补谤峁嘺蝉 (castes) and those who observe the path prescribed for them by the scripture. 艢补峁卥补谤补 says that the word 腻艣谤补尘补[7] is used only in an illustrative sense. These people are placed in three classes: the lower, the middle and the higher level of comprehension.[8] This meditation (laya 耻辫腻蝉补苍腻), as well as rites are prescribed by the 艢谤耻迟颈 out of compassion for those who belong to the lower and the middle stages; and not for those whose powers of vision are high and who has firmly realized that 腻迟尘补苍 which is one alone and non-dual.
The purpose of 艢谤耻迟颈 is that these people of ordinary intelligence who follow the righteous path (蝉补苍-尘腻谤驳补驳腻岣�) may ultimately attain, in due course the higher vision of unity declared in 艢谤耻迟颈 texts as:
鈥楾hat which is not thought by the mind but by which, they say, the mind is thought (thinks); that, verily, know thou, is Brahman and not what (people) here adore鈥� (Kena U 1.6)[9],
鈥楾hat art thou鈥� (颁丑腻苍诲辞驳测补 鲍辫补苍颈峁诲 VI.8-16)[10],
鈥楾he Self, indeed, is all this world鈥� (颁丑腻苍诲辞驳测补 鲍辫补苍颈峁诲 VII.25.2)[11].
The various dualistic 艢谤耻迟颈 passages are regarded as provisional meditations (耻辫腻蝉补苍腻), which are presented as an 耻辫腻测补 or teaching devices out of compassion (补苍耻办补峁僷补测腻) and which will lead the enquirer gradually to non-dual insight.
In 办腻谤颈办腻 15, 骋补耻岣峚辫腻诲补 has proved that the 艢谤耻迟颈 texts regarding creation etc, do not affect the non-dual Brahman. In 办腻谤颈办腻 16, he states that the prescription of various disciplines associated with different 惫补谤峁嘺蝉 and 腻艣谤补尘补蝉 viz. worship, meditation, vedic rites etc., also does not contradict, the nature of the non-dual 腻迟尘补苍. The primary aim of this 办腻谤颈办腻 is to assist the enquirer to understand the oneness of 箩墨惫补 and Brahman.
Footnotes and references:
[1]:
Ibid., 458.
[2]:
Ibid., 168.
[3]:
Ibid., 449.
[4]:
Ibid., 449.
[5]:
Ibid., 458.
[6]:
艢补峁卥补谤补 quotes this 办腻谤颈办腻 in his commentary upon 叠谤补丑尘补蝉奴迟谤补 1.4.14. 厂耻谤别艣惫补谤补 also cites this 办腻谤颈办腻 in his 惫腻谤迟颈办腻 (2.1.387) to 艢补苍办补谤补鈥檚 commentary on the 叠峁沨补诲腻谤补峁噛补办补 鲍辫补苍颈峁诲.
[7]:
[8]:
According to 膧苍补苍诲补驳颈谤颈, the men of low vision are those who meditate on the 办腻谤测补 -Brahman (Brahman as effect, viz, 痴颈谤腻箩), and the middlings are those who worship the 办腻谤补苍补-叠谤补丑尘补苍. (Brahman as cause, viz, I 鈩� 艣惫补谤补). Op.cit. T.M.P.Mahadevan, 骋补耻岣峚辫腻诲补: A Study In Early Advaita, 173.
[9]:
S. Radhakrishnan, The Principal 鲍辫补苍颈峁诲s, 583.
[10]:
Ibid., 458.
[11]:
Ibid., 488.