1. Mandukya Upanisad Karika of Gaudapada Karika Manilal Nabhubhai Dvivedi 1909

THE

MÅNDÛKYOPANISHAD

WITH

GAUDAPÂDA'S KARIKÂS

AND THE

BHASHYA OF S'ANKARA.

TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH

BY

MANILAL N. DVIVEDI.

PRINTED FOR THE BOMBAY THEOSOPHICAL PUBLICATION FUND.

BY

RAJARAM TUKARAM.

Price One Rupee and Half.

Bomban: PRINTED AT THE " TATVA-VEVECHAKA " PRESS.

PREFACE.

EARLY in 1890, Col. H. S. Olcott, President of the Theoso- phical Society and Mr. Bertram Keightley, General Secretary of the Indian Section of the Theosophical Society, requested me to nndertake the following translation of the Mândukya and the several commentaries accompanying the same. Dewan Bahadur S. Snbramania Iyer of the Madras High Court had offered a haudsome amount towards meeting the expenses of this work, aud as I found that this gentlemian as well as my friends Col. Olcott and Mr. Keightley were desirous that I should undertake the translation, I closed with the offer. I have nsed the Mandukya, Bhashya and Karikas as published in Mr. Apte's A'nandasrama Series, as the text of my translation. The Upanishad alone has been translated before by abler hands, but so far as I know the Bhashya of S'ankara and the Karikas of Gandapâda have not before been rendered into English. I am sure the Mândûkya will be much better understood in the light of these commentaries, and it will be proved ere long that the generous gentleman who conceived the idea of accomplishing this work has rendered valuuble service to the cause of literature and philo- sophy in general.

BARODA, 21st May 1894. M. N. DVIVEDI.

ŚRÎ MANDÛKYOPANISHAD.

THE COMMENTATOR'S BENEDICTION.

Bow to ecernal Brahman.

I bow to that Brahman which, after having expe- rienced the gross by pervading throughout all objects with its rays-all immutable sentiency-ever present in the variety of the movable and immovable universe; and after having, again, digested within itself all creations of the internal organ of knowledge propelled by karma and avidya ; sleeps ever sweetly, yet causing fruition to us through illusion; and which is the Fourth ( wherein the three-gross, subtile and causal- are held together), though ever one, all bliss and with- out beginning.

May that which is the Fourth, and which, having as the virt experienced the mighty results of igno- rance and attachment, and then also the subtile ones called into being by the internal organ of knowledge, and enlightened by its own light; and, lastly having drawn all these by degrees within itself; (may this which) is one, limitless, distinctionless, and character- less, protect us.

7

THE TEXT OF THE MANDUKYA.

I.

Aum is the word, all this is an explanation of its (meaning and power) past, present and future. All, indeed, is Aum; even all that is beyond the triple conception of time.

SANKARA'S COMMENTARY.

From " Aum is the word," etc., is commenced this treatise of four chapters, embodying within itself the substance of the essence of the Vedanta. It is for this reason that a prelimi- nary statement of objects and reasons is dispensed with. They are the same as those for the general subject of the Vedânta. However, one desirous of explaining this compen- dium ought not to pass them over. This compendium indirectly finds its specific relation, subject and object, in that it itself has an object in consequence of its being connected with the subject explaining the means of proper realisation ( of atman. )* The object is, however, thus clearly explained. As a sick man recovers the eqnilibrium of his health on the disappearance of the canse of disease, so dtman being free from its (supposed ) misery-the illasion of duality-will find its

• Before any subject is expounded it is customary in Sanskrit writers to set forth the subject, object and relation of the work, as also to point out the elass of readers to whom it is addressed. These four things in the present case are the same, generally speaking, as for all works on the philosophy of the Advaita. But the specific object of such a treatise is obvious, says the commentator, from the fact that the whole of this work treats of a subject closely connected with the means whereby proper realisation of atman ensues.

S'ANKARA'S COMMENTARY. 8

own equilibrium : the realisation of unity. The illusion of duality being the result of ignorance, will be dispelled by pro- per knowledge; and this at once explains the why and wherefore of this treatise. For, well says the S'ruti : "there alone one sees or kuows another where there is anything like duality or the sense of separateness, but where all is dtman, who should see whom, know whom ?" etc.

The first chapter here, which deals chiefly with Vedic texts, and is undertaken for an explanation of the meaning of the word Aum, is useful as pointing the way to the proper realisa- tion of atman. The second chapter demonstrates the futility of that illusion of duality on the dispelling whereof is realised the real unit, as the rope is realised on the spell of illasion which presents it as a snake being destroyed. The third establishes the substantiality of the Unit, disposing of all arguments to the contrary. The last chapter is devoted to showing the Advaita in its real form, by bringing into promi- nence the mutnal opposition and conseqnent refutation of those schools of thought which maintain aught to the contrary.

How an explanation of Aum can help to the realisation of dtman is now explained, "Aum is this ;" "This is the support ;" "One of pure desires should concentrate his mind upon âtman throngh Aum which is atman ;" " Aum is Brahman ; " "The word- Aum-is all ;" these and a number of other texts clearly point oat the usefnlness of Aum in the process of realising atman, inasmnch as they declare that Aum, and Brahman or atman are one and the same. As the Unit-âtman-is the substratum of prâna and other illusions of that kind, like the rope that is the substratum of the snake and other illusions of its kind, so is Aum the substratum or cause of the whole of the illusion of speech, produced by the illnsions of prana etc. And this Aum

4 MANDUKYOPANISHAD.

is thas the same as atman, for it is the word for atman. The illasion of pranz, etc., subsisting in atman, can never exist unless it finds expression in some manner; and this is possible only through words derived from Aum. And, indeed, the Sruti itself declares the impossibility of the existence of anything apart from verbal expression, for it says : " All is mere play of words ;" " All this is of It, and is held together thronghont by the string of speech or even by the cord of specific names;" "All is rendered possible in experience only by words," and the like. Hence well says our text: " All is the word," etc. The whole universe of experience, the thing requiring to be described by a name, can never exist except throngh being named, and as this naming can never proceed independently of Aum, all is Aum." Even the highest-Brahman-is realised by means of names, and is, therefore, the same as Aum. This treatise is, therefore, an explanation of this Aum which is none other than para-as well as apara-Brahman. The construction in the text is elliptical, and the whole sentence should be understood as having this meaning: that Aum being nearest Brahman, is the way to its realisation ; and it being so, this explanation, which is a clear exposition of the meaning of Aum, is well begun with that object. Everything conditioned ordi- narily by the triple conditions of time, is all Brahman for

• That things cannot exist except throngh being named, is not to be nnderstood in the sense of knowledge of things being rendered possible through the knowledge of their names. The idealist position looks npon everything as only the manifestation of an idea having no content apart from the one Idea-atman-the All. Whence the Upanishads constantly say all effects are nothing but mere names, thus precluding all idea of duality. The Advaita maintains the identity of cause and effect and regards the difference between the two as merely nominal. Names, too, cannot exist ont of Aum which is Brahman, hence it is said names cannot exist apart from Aum, and also that Brahman is one with Aum. It is hopeless to expect precision of language in idealistic writings.

B'ANKARA'S OOMMENTARY. 5

reasons already explained. And even whatever else is be- yond the limit of time, and yet present in consciousness through its effects, sach as the avyâkrta, etc., which are ever uncondi- tioned by time, is also not apart from Aum.

IJ

For all this is Brahman, this atman is Brahman, and this dtman has four quartere (padas ).

Though the name and the thing named are one, the preced- ing text has given prominence to the name alone. "All is the word Aum" is said with reference to the name as the more important of the two. Bnt the way in which prominence has here been given to the thing named, shows that the name and the object named are not separable, i. e., are one. If this were not said, the circumstance that knowledge of a thing is dependent on the name of the thing, would appear to suggest that the one-ness of names and object is only metaphorical. The object of establishing the unity of things and names is none other than the possibility of doing away with both of them, by a single effort, thus simultaneously realising Brah- man as distinct from both. The same is expressed by saying further on, " the padas are the letters ( of the word Aum ) and the letters are the padas." With all this in view the text says, " for all this is Brahman." That is to say, all thatis declared to be Aum is Brahman. This Brahman is, however, described as inferentially possible, and the text therefore proceeds to say definitely that it is not at all inferentially existent, but directly present in all our cognitions. Hence it is observed "this atman is Brahman," meaning by "this" that which is described as with four quarters, and shown

6 MÂNDUKYOPANISHAD.

to be present in the very Ego, by accompanying the state- ment "this atman is Brahman" with the significant gesture of placing the hand on the breast. This atman called Aum is para as well as apara, and has four quarters, four feet, not indeed like those of a cow, bnt like the fractions of the coin called karshapana. The fonrth is realised by merging the other three in it, in the order of the lower in the higher; and the word quarter shonld, therefore, be understood as meaning only something serving as an instrument for the realisation of the fourth. Or the word foot (quarter) may be understood as something instrumental to the act, in the sense of that by which motion* is rendered possible.

III.

The first quarter (foot) is Vaisvanara whose sphere is the state of waking, who is cognisant of the objective, who has seven members, and nineteen mouths, and whose fruition consists of the gross. The text now begins to explain how Aum is made up of four qnarters. Cognisant of the objective, i. e., conscious only of the objective, by the power of avidyâ. Seven members: the S'ruti says of this atman, the vuisvanara, that " the effulgent region is his head, the all-enlightening sun his eye, the wind blowing in all directions his breath, the all-embracing akasa his middle, water nourishing the production of corn, etc, his urinary organ, and the earth his feet." As this descrip- tion, however, is intended to complete a personification of the agnihôtra, it may be added that the ahava-

• For let it be rememhered that the word for "quarter" in the Sankrit text is pâda, which means "foot."

S'ANKARA'S COMMENTARY. 7

niya agni is his mouth. These are the seven members. The nineteen mouths : the five buddhindriyas (internal senses), plas the five karmendriyas (external senses), plus the five breaths called prâna, etc., and manas, buddhi, chitta and ahan- kara. These are the nineteen mouths, that is to say, the avenues of knowledge and experience. The vaisvanara has its experience limited to the gross plane, and its fruition, there- fore, consists of gross objects. It is called vaisvânara becanse it leads (nara) all (visva) in the same direction, viz., enjoyment of the gross ; or becanse it means all (visva) beings (nara); meaning that which is a collective name for all beings on the gross plane. Visvanara is the same as vaisvanara only with more emphasis. As it is one with being, it is the first quarter. As all the other quarters are approached only through this, it is called the first." It may be asked how, while speuking of the subjective self (" this âtman is Brah- man " ) as made up of four quarters, the text has wandered into a description of the effulgent regions, etc., as his head, eyes, and so forth ? This, however, is no mistake, for the whole of the universe, including the subjective ( adhyatmika ) as well as the superphysical (adhidaivika), is referred to as made up of four quarters, beginning with this virat, the first. In other words, the difference of subjective and objective is merely verbal, and therefore the unity of the whole is implied in this manner. And, indeed, in this way alone could the Unit be realised, on the disappearance of the illusion of duality ; and the sense of the texts saying " atman is one in all " ; "all is in the one'"; "he who sees all in the Self"; etc., may also be thus fully jasti-

• This quarter is called first from the stand-point of experience and not in the order of evolution. Our unenlightened intelligence is cognisant at first of the gross, and then ascends by a process of strict analysis to the subtile and the causal.

8 * MANDÛKYOPANISHAD.

fied. Otherwise, the word atman will be understood only in the sense of that which is present in the subjective conscionsness of the Ego in every beiug, and thus room will be made for the thesis of the Sankhya, which will not admit of the possibi- lity of the unity declared by the S'rutis. And it is an admit- ted fact that the Upanishads point, in a body, to the unity of atman throughont the universe. For this reason the identity of the subjective self with the mrat, meant to be demonstrated by declaring the effulgent regions, etc., as the head and other parts, is most necessary, and the words "seven members," eto., are introduced clearly with this object. The S'ruti, too, implies this in the text, "Thy head shall fall" (if thou worshippest aught as separate from the All, and as complete in itself ). That vaisoanara is said to be one with virat is only with the object of implying similar unity of hiranyagarbha and taijasa on the subtile ( sukshma ) plane, and of avyâkrta and prajna on the causal (karana) plane. This unity of all is declared in the Madhu-brahmana as well; for it is said there: "This is that which in the earth is the têjomaya., the amrtamaya purusha, as well as also the subjective Ego," ete." This is all very true, but it may be asked how the avyâkrta is the same as the prajna ? This need not pazzle us, inasmuch as sleep (on the microcosmic plane) is the same as the avyakrta (on the macrocosmic plane), for there is nothing to distinguish the one from the other. Thus, then, it is clear that the illusion of duality being over, unity is easily realised.

• It is implied that by the cognition : "This is that", predicable of virât, taijasa, prâjna, the unity of the the three, i. e., of atman, is at once established.

S'ANKARA'S COMMENTARY. 9

IV.

The second quarter is the Taijasa whose region is dream, who is cognizant only of the subjective, who has seven members and nineteen months, and whose fruition consists of the subtile. That whose sphere is dream is the one cognizant of dream. The intellect during the waking condition being assisted by numerous means, appears cognizant of objects as if external to itself, though essentially nothing else but mere play of the mind ; and stamps its corresponding impressions (derived from this experience) on the mind. The mind full of these im pressions like a variegated piece of cloth, re-enacts the whole of its wak- ing life (in dream) without the help of any external means, and entirely under the control of avidyd and kama (ignorance and imagination). The Brhadâranyaka says the same thing : "(He sleeps fall of the impressions produced by the supremely varied experience of the waking condition (and experiences dreams)." And the Atharvana also lays down, with reference to the mind and its creations being all the objects cognized by the ever-present cognizer, that "all this in the mind (is cogni- zed by) the highest ever-effulgent;" and adds "here the ever- effulgent experiences its greatness." As the mind, in relation to the external senses, is the internal organ of percep- tion, its act of cognizing through intellect consisting of vâsanâ (the potentiality of impressions) is well des- cribed in the text calling the second quarter " cognizant only of the subjective." (The experiencer of the state of dream) is called taijasa, because, it being entirely of the essence of light, becomes the cognizer of the mind (consisting entirely of vasand and projecting itself into various shapes) irrespective of the objective. Visva (or virdt) being cognizant of the objec-

10 NÅNDUKYOPANISHAD.

tive, the mind externalizing itself as gross objects, is the object of fruition ; whereas here it is the object of fruition only in the form of vasanas. The experience of this condition is therefore rightly called experience of the subtile. The rest is common to this with the first quarter just described. This is the second quarter called taijasa.

V.

That is the state of deep sleep wherein the sleeper does not imagine anything, and does not see any dream. The third quarter therefore is the Prajna, whose sphere is (this) deep sleep, in whom all melts into one, who is a mass all sentiency, who is all bliss, whose fruition is of bliss, and who is the way of sentiency (to the objective).

The clauses "does not imagine anything, and does not see any dream", are put in for the parpose of defining the state of deep sleep as distinctly apart from that of waking and dreaming; from which two, sleep, in the sense of not being awake to the Truth, is not absent. Or the intention of the clanses may be to simply mark ont the condition of deep sleep from the other two, sleep in the sense of not being awake to the Truth, being common to all three. Wherein, that is to say, in which con- dition, or time, the sleeper does not indulge himself in any kind of imagination, nor see any dream, And it should indeed be so, for in deep sleep there is no possibility, as in the other two states, of dream or imagination in the form of taking a thing for what it is not. He who is cognizant only of the re- gion covered by deep sleep is one whose "'sphere is deep sleep." The whole of the phenomenon of duality, born simply of the action of the mind, is proper to the other two conditions.

S'ANEAR'S COMMENTARY. 11

(And these two become welded in one, that is to say, are merged in their fontal source, without losing their respective individua- lity), as the day with the whole of its variety, is said, on the power of discrimination being snspended, to be lost in the darkness of night, without the said variety being at all obli- terated. (It need not be doubted that this state cannot be described as a mass all sentiency) for, this condition is so described on account of its being one of entire distinctionless- ness, and produced by the mingling together of that variety of consciousness which is present in the two states of waking and dream consisting solely of pure imaginations of the mind. As at night all becomes, as it were, one indiscriminate mass nnder the pall of darkness, so even is the prajna "& mass all sentiency." The word " all " appropriately exclades the possibility of any other kind of consciousness. This third state is farther described as "all bliss," for, the mind being free from the trouble consequent on its action of imagining the variety of subject, and object, is, so far, in bliss. We say "so far," for, this bliss is not absolute; it is like that negative condition of happiness which implies freedom from unhappi- ness. This condition is entirely free from trouble, and is there- fore one in which "fruition is of bliss." The S'ruti also says "this is the highest bliss."

The prajna is further called " the way of sentiency (to the objective)," becanse it is the way to a cognition of the experi- ence of dream and waking. Or, as it is sentiency or thoughtalone that enables the prajna to experience the other two states, it is indeed the vehicle of sentiency in its so-called act of cognizing the different conditions. The prajna is called prajna, because it knows the past and future as well ; and it is fitly called all- knowing, even while asleep, in consequence of its being snch before. For the word prajna may mean that whose form

12 MANDUR YOPANISHAD.

is all sentiency pure and simple, as distinguished from that of the other two which anmits of variety. This prajna is the third quarter.

VI. This is the Lord of all, this is all-knowing, this is the antaryamin, this is the source of all -- the origin and final resort of all beings. This in its native form (i. e., sentiency pure and simple- chaitanya) is the Lord of all (Is'vara), that is to say, the gover- nor of the whole of the.physical and superphysical universe. Isvara, in any other form than this, as others maintain, is not possible .* The S'ruti too lays down the same when it says "Oh good one ! Sentient being is being because of sat." This (pare prajna as Is'vara) is the knower of all, being in all beings and all conditions. Hence he is called all- knowing. He is antaryamin, i. e., the governor of all beings from within. He it is that is the source of all, for from him proceeds the varied universe, as described before. This being so, he is also the origin as well as the final resort of all beings. Trans. Note. The first six s'lokas of the Upanishad form a distinct section upon which Gandapada then comments as a whole.

GAUDAPÂDA-KÁRIKÂ. 1. Vis'va is he who is all-pervading and cognizant of the objective; Taijasa is he who is cognizant of the subjective ; and Prajna is he who is a mass all sentiency ;- it is indeed the One that is thus conditioned into three.

. Says Anandagiri, the commentator on Sankara's Bhashya : If l'vara were possible in any form other than this, he conld not be free; and the extra-cosmic natare of Is'vara set up by Nyaya and Vais'eshika is not tenable being refuted by S'ankara in his comments on the Sutra " The Lord being irrelevant"; as also by other arguments showing the injustice and cruelty of the government of such a god.

S'ANKARA'S COMMENTARY. 13

2. The Vais'vanara is the cogniter in the right eye", and the Taijasa in the mind within; whereas the Prajna is present in the dkas'a of the heart,-thus the One is threefold in the ( same ) body.

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS ON GAUDAPÂDA. In explanation of the preceding part of the text (of the Mandukya) there are these (and the following) s'lokas. It is implied that as the same Unit is in three places, in succession, and as unity is warranted by the experience of all, consisting of the form of memory in the phrase " I am that", the Unit independent of the three conditions, is ever one, pure, and absolute. The S'ruti corroborates this by the illastration of the great fish.t This stanza is meant to demonstrate the experience of all the three conditions in one and the same waking condition, (and thus to prove the unity of them all). The vais'vanara etc., means that the vais'vanara is the real cogniser of the variety of objective beings seen by the eye. The S'ruti also corroborates this, in that it says " the purusha in the right eye is the enlightener." That is to say, the vais'vanara which enlightens, so to speak, the objective, and which is called the virdj present in the Sun, is one with that cognized in the sye. A doubt may here be raised. The hiranyagarbha (w'io is known as present in the San) is quite apart from the kshetrajna (the soul), the

• The late Mr. T. Subba Row explained this phrase "the right eye," as meaning the mental eye of the highest intellection, by means of which we apprehend the loftiest spiritual ideal conceivable by man on the physical plane. t A powerful fish goes from this bank of a river to that, and back, withont being carried away by the force of the current, or being affected by any- hing pertaining to the bank or the stream. So, indeed is atman, ever One ni Unaffected, thongh conditioned by the three states

14 MÅNDUKYOPANISHAD.

director of and cognizer in the right eye, and the general governor of the body. It being so how can these two, so entirely different, be said to be one ? This doubt is groundless, for, in reality, we recognize no distinction; and the S'ruti also bears us out : "One all effulgence is embedded in all beings," which is farther endorsed by the smrti: " O Bharata, know me (Brahman) to be the soul (kshetrajna) in all beings (kshetras)"; "thongh ever unconditioned, (It) subsists in all conditions, through being." It is needless also to ask, all organs of sense being as good vehicles of the cognizer (kshetra- jna or vais'vanara) as the eye, why should the latter alone be marked out as the vehicle? For, though there is no differ- ence in this respect, the right eye being the principal organ of sight and perception, it is singled out by way of perference as the vehicle of the seer.

If the vais'vanara having seen the variety of forms while in the right eye, closes it, retaining memory of all that is seen, he sees the very same (forms) called into being by vúsana, over again in the mind, as if in a dream. Who sees the forms of waking conscionsness sees those of vasand as well. Hence the taijasa cognizant of the mind is the same as the vis'va (vais'vânara) in the eye. When memory is at rest, the seer is, as it were, unified with the prajna, in the akas'a of the heart ; and becomes a " mass all sentiency." The fanction of the mind having ceased, and cognition and memory, the acts of the mind, being at rest, prana is indistinguishably concentrated in the heart, for the S'ruti says : " prana alone draws all (within)." (As vais'- vånara and viraj are one, so) taijasa is the same as hiranyagarbha, for it is the seer in the cosmic mind. The mind (macro- and micro-cosmic, being one) is the link between the two; and this is borne out by the S'ruti : " this purusha is manomaya (all mind)." Prâna is differenced or distinguishable in sleep, for then (as the Sruti has it) all organs of sense are fused into it; how then,

S'ANKARA'S COMMENTARY. 15

is it called indistinguishable or undifferenced? This is no mis- take, for that is undifferenced (avyakrta) which is not condi- tioned by time and space. Though in the case of those who relate their individuality to prana, it is not in the undifferenced condition, still in sleep it is in that condition, becaase the ego born of the accident of body is fused, then, in it. As the prana of those who speak of it as belonging to them, is in the undif- ferenced condition, at the time of death ; so the condition of the prana of those who relate their ego to it (in the waking state) ought to be similar under similar circumstances (sleep) ; and this prana shonld (on the individual plane) be similarly the source of all, like the (avyakrta on the cosmic plane). The cognizer of the two states is also one-the avyakrta. The cognizer of the conditioned (vis'va and taijasa) is one with this (avyakrta prajna on account of the seer of all conditions being one) ; and the qualifications "unified," "mass all sen- tiency" &c., become appropriately applicable to it. How indeed is the avyakrta called prana (the breath) ? The S'ruti " the mind is bound to prana" authorizes this usage. But this text considered in its proper place and coutext is not concerned with avyakrta or prana, but sat ; for it begins " O good one, all this was sat in the beginning," and ought therefore to mean sat, i. e., Brahman, by the word prana and not the mind. This discrepancy need not trouble us, for sat is admittedly the source of all. Thongh sat, i.e., Brahman, may be meant by the word prana in the said text, still it should not be forgotten that it is described as such, and also as prâna, only because it is, for the time, snpposed to be the source of all beings ; for otherwise if Brahman, the unconditioned absolute, were ment, the expressions used would have been something like the follow- ing, viz., "not that, not that," "wherefrom speech turns back baffled," " other than both the known and the unknown," etc. The smrti also enjoins the same course inasmuch as it says "It is neither sat nor asat." If by sat in the text in question were meant the unconditioned, it were impossible for those immersed in sat, as in sleep and pralaya, to rise again ; and moreover (if it be assumed that though so immersed in sat,

16 MÂNDUKYOPANISHAD.

beings in sleep and pralaya could rise again) the muktas (the liberated, i. e., unified with sat) will have to re-incarnute themselves. If it be urged that the latter contingency will never come to pass, inasmuch as the cause of such re-incarnation is absent, we reply, the absence of the canse, in both conditions (sleep and mukti), is the same. If it were urged that absence of caase means absence of any thing that could be done away with by gnosis (jnanz), the so-much-praised gnosis itself would be of no use. Therefore the word sat, in the text under consideration, should be taken to mean the po- tential cause, prana, described as the cause in all Srutis. It being so, the real qnconditioned sat is described as "that which is above the undifferenced," "that which is unborn either as cause or effect," "that from which speech turns back baffled," " that which is not this, not that," etc. This, the Fourth, ever unconditioned state of the prâjna, free from all relation with cause and effect, the reality of realities, is therefore separately described. The condition of being the canse is clearly experinced, on waking, in the form of a blank memory of the time of sleep. Hence it is well said, all three conditions are ex perienced in one and the same body, and the one is therefore threefold in every individaal.

GAUDAPADA-KARIKA-(continved.)

3. Fruition of the Vis'va, Taijasa and Prajna, consists severally of the gross, the subtile, and the blissful. This is the three-fold fruition. 4. The gross satisfies the Vis'va, the subtile the Taijasa, and the blissful the Prajna. This is the threefold satisfaction.

• Which is a reductio ad absurdum : for mukti means entire cessation of re-incarnation (at least for a halpa or manvantara), whence sat in the text in question must mean prâna.

S'ANKARA'S COMNENTARY. 17

5. He who knows the object of fruition, as well as the subject thereof, in each of the above, is not affected by the fruition. 6. It is quite plain that all beings become manifest from previous ( unmanifest) existence; the purusha, in the form of prana, sends forth all the various centres of consciousness. 7. Some trying to analys. this process of formation, regard it as the work (of an extra-cosmic God ), whereas others regard it as of a class with dream and illusion. 8. Others maintain that it is simply an act of the will of God, while those who rely on time declare that everything proceeds from Time. 9. Some declare it an act of fruition or of diversion ; but it is the very nature of the effulgent, and how could he who is at the point of the highest desire, kave any desire? S'ANKARA'S GLOSS ON GAUDAPADA-( continued.) Verses three and four have been already explained. (5). In all three conditions, viz., waking, etc., the object of fruition consisting of the gross, etc., is the same objeet in three different aspects. The subject of this frnition, whether viśva, taijasa, or prâjna, is also one, as inferred from the unity of consciousness implied in the form of the cognition " I am That ", common to all conditions ; as also from the circumstance of all three being the same as the subject or cognizer. He who knows this variety of the sabject and object of fruition as being, each, one in itself, though appearing as many, is never affected by the act of fruition; for the object in the absolute is experienced by the subject in the absolute. Nor is it possible for any relative acts of fruition to modify in any way the subject of such act, just as in the case of fire consnming a variety of fuel to ashes. (6). From previous existence, that is, from antecedent yet unmanifest existence, all beings, that is, vis'va, tarjasa, prâjna, become as such, by assuming name and form, as mani- 9

18 MÂNDUKYOPANISHAD.

fert object, through the action of avidya. This is thas explained. A barren woman cannot be said to give birth to a child either in reality or in illnsion. For if things did come out of nothing, the whole of the world of experience onght to become nothing, a circamstance which will tend to render Brahman itself, whose existence is inferred from experience, a mere void. This, however, cannot be, for the snake, etc., that & rope is mistaken for, on account of the action of mâya (illusion), are not simply nothing but are already pre-existent in the form of the rope. The rope, the snake, or the mirage are nowhere experienced or seen, by any one, withont a suitable substratum. Just as the snake is in the rope even before it appears in being, so indeed are all beings existent in the very form of prana, the cause, even before manifestation in existence. The same is declared by the text "All this was Brahman in the beginning"; "All was atman," etc. Prâna sends forth all the centres of consciousness as repersented by the various forms of gods, men, animals, etc., comprised under prajna, taijasa and vis'va. They are so many parts, as it were, of the all-conscious purusha, like so many reflections in water of one and the same sun, or like so many rays of the sun. They are all evolved from purusha, the prâna, as cause, in forms independent of one another, by their varying capacities for fruition, etc., bat always like their source, and therefore like so many reflections of the sun, or like so many sparks of oue fire, being all called jivas, etc. Another apt illustration, in point, is that of the spider who spins his web out of himself. Even the S'ruti itself lays down " As sparks from fire," etc. . (7). Work, i. e., creation of God. This is the opinion of those who attach importance to an analysis of the cosmos, for indeed there are those who do not care at all about the matter. The S'ruti also dismisses the subject with the remark " Indra becomes manifold by maya." A jnggler throws the end of a thread np in the sky, and climbing by the help of the thread disappears with all his accoutrements. His body begins to fall to the ground in pieces which unite anon into the self-

S'ANKARA'S OOMMENTARY. 19

same jaggler. Now those who witness this illusion do not care to look into its essence and meaning. In the same manner the series of the states of sleep, dream, and waking, is like the throwing up of the thread, and prjna taijasa, etc., are like the juggler who appears to climb up the thread,- the real director of the whole illusion being ever entirely aloof from the thread as well as from him who climbs up the thread. As this man stands all the while on the ground, entirely anseen on account of the power of illusion so even stands for ever the Reality of realities-the Absolute, Eternal, Trath. Hence those desirous of moksha think only of this last, and not of the panorama of illusion that sapervenes. The opinion hinted at in the text is therefore, that of those who are misled by this illusion. (8). As ideas in the divine mind are always real, the nniverse is regarded by many as an act of real divine ideation like ear- then pots, etc., which are not other than the idea in the potter's mind. There are, however, others who regard Time as the cause of the universe. (9). Others take it that the object of the universe (evolved in any manner) is either fruition or diversion. The writer now refutes all these theories by the single assertion that he who stands at the highest point of desire cannot possibly have any desire either for fruition or diversion, and that therefore there being no motive, he can never move himself with a view to creation in any of the aforesaid manners. The cause of ( the semblance ) of evolution is none other than the very nature ( of the absolute ), for in the case of the rope mistaken for a snake, the canse of the latter is to be sought nowhere but in the nature of original avidya.

TEXT OF THE MANDUKYA -- ( continued.) VII. The Fourth is that which is not conscious of the subjective, nor that which is conscious of the objective nor that which is conscious of both, nor that which

. 20 MANBOKYOPANIBHAD.

is simple consciousness, nor that which is a mass all sentiency, nor that which is all darkness. It is un- seen, transcendent, unapprehensible, uninferable, un- thinkable, indescribable, the sole essence of the consciousness of self, the negative of all illusion, the ever peaceful, all bliss, the One Unit ;- this indeed is atman, it should be known.

S'ANKARA'S COMMENTARY-( continued. ) The fourth quarter is now described in its place. This is done in the words " The Fourth is that, etc." It is not possible to describe this, the Fourth, by words, hence it is described simply by predicating of it the negative of all possible attributes. Is it then, mere negation? No. For, imagination must always have something to stand upon. The (false) ideas of silver, a man, or the mirage can never arise bnt with mother -o'-pearl, a post, or a piece of saltish land, as their respective bases. If it were so, the Fourth were the snbstratum of all ideas and forms snch as prâna, etc., and ought to be expressible, like jars, etc-, which are the snbstratnm of water, etc., in words ; and ought not to be described by predicating of it, simple negation of all possible attributes. This is not so. For, ideas such as prana, etc., (supposed to subsist in the Fourth ) are as entirely unsubstantial as the idea of silver, etc., in mother-o'-pearl, etc .; and the substantial is never known to have any relation to the unsubstantial. And first, the possessive relation cannot be good, for it is that no- thing which cannot be the subject of speech. Nor could it be the subject of any other instrument of knowledge, like the cow, etc., on account of its pecnliar natnre, for âtman is ever free from all accident. Nor can it be said to be that which is

W'ANKARA'S COMMENTARY. 21

describable by its generic property, like the cow, etc., for, it being one without a second, can have no generic or specifie mark. Nor is it that which acts like a cook, etc., for it is always known to be without action. Tc lay hold of any of its properties and define it as the blue, etc., is ont of place inasmach as it has no properties whatever. Hence it can never be positively described by a name in any manner. Then it ought to belong to the category of "the horns of a hare." No. For, knowledge of the fourth as one with åtman destroys all desire for anâtman, just as the delu- sion of silver is distroyed by right discriminition of its substra- tam. It is not at all possible that identification of the fourth with dtman can bring in its train vidyd and the brood of its evils such as desire, etc. Nor is there any cogent reason why the fourth shonld not be regarded as dtman, for all upanis'ads agree in saying the same thing ; as observe, "Thou art that," "This self (atman) is Brahman," "That is the fourth," " It is âtman," "That which is present in direct cognition is Brahman," " It is the eternal cause and effect," " All this is atman " etc., This atman, the totality of the real and the unreal, is supposed to be made ap of four quarters. The unreal portion of it is that which is marked off by avidy ; it is like the snake imagined in place of a rope, and consists of the three quarters described before as the seed and the growth. Hence- forth it is intended to deseribe the unconditioned sabstance cor- responding to the rope in the illastration just quoted, by nega- tiving of it the three quarters corresponding to the snake of the same illustration, in the words "not conscious of the subjective, etc." It may be asked why the fourth is described by simple nigation of the other three? For its existence is already implied when three of the four querters of atman have been described This need not be so. For, it is only meant that dtman with

22 MANDUKYOPANISRAD.

its three quarters is itself the fourth when it is not any of the three, just as the rope is the rope when it is not the snake, etc. This is meant to be implied in the same manner as the unity of "Thou" and "that" in the s'ruti "Thou art that." If the fourth were anything other than âtman qualified by the other quarters, all teaching would be to no pnrpose; and there wcald be every possibility of our being driven to the only alternative of an absolute negation as the substantial, on account of a fourth such as is meant to be conceived being not cognizable by any instrument of knowledge. When like the rope taken for a snake or a garland, or any similar thing, the one âtman is taken to be any of the three quarters, according to circum- stances, the absolute negation of the variety of experience in atman is established by the very same instrument of know- ledge which demonstrates that. It is not that which is conscious of the subjective, nor that which is conscious of the objective, nor that which is a mass all sentiency. That is to say no additional effort, or no fresh act of knowledge, is necessary for conscious realization of the Fourth; (the simple negation of its being the other three being anfficient. )*

The same happens in our properly understanding the nature of the rope; for at the very moment proper dis- crimination reveals to know the true nature of the snake, we realize the rope as well ;- in other words knowledge of the rope is simultaneous with ( is in fact the same as ) knowledge of the illusive character of the snake, etc. But there are those

• The advaita holds that libcration is the very natnre of the universe, it is neither a thing to be obtained nor state to be brought about. What is to be done consists of getting rid of the illusion which creates the sense of duality and prevents proper realization of the Unit. Hence it is well said no fresh effect of knowledge is necessary for realization of the fourth, other than the one for realizing the absence of illusion-the imaginary three.

B'ANKARA'S COMMENTARY. 23

who maintain that an instrument of knowledge helps not only the removal of the obstruction (illasion ), as darkness, etc., in the case of knowing a jar ( by direct cognition ), bat it enables the object also to reveal itself. If this, however, were correct the act of cutting something onght, in their opi- nion, to accomplish something over and above the severance of the part from the main body. But if, in the case of cognizing the jar, in the illustration, enveloped in darkness, the instrument of knowledge did nothing more than disperse the darkness, which is not the object onght to be cognized (the action of the instrument onght to be regarded as com- plete ) ;- like the act of cutting directed to the severance of the part being complete with the accomplishment of the severance ;- and the knowledge of the jar which follows im- mediately and necessarily must not be said to be any result accomplished by the instrument of knowledge. In the same manner the instrament of knowledge, viz., the negation of all possible predicates, employed with a view to proper dis- crimination of the conscious-of-the-subjective and others which the atman is, at times, illusively taken to be, will not be able to cognize the Fourth unless it negatived of it, the conscious-of-the-subjective and others, not meant to be cognized. For the distinction between the employers of the instrument, the instrument itself, and the object meant to be accomplished by that instrument, will be annihilated with the establishing of the said negation. The same is expressed in "gnosis accomplished, duality is nowhere." Gnosis does not wait even for the moment im- mediately next the annihilation of duality, for if it did there wonld be a regressus in infinitum of gnosis after gnosis, and duality will not at all be annihilated. Therefore it is esta- blished that the annihilation of the illusion of Taijasa, ete ..

24 MANDUKYOPANISHAD.

anbsisting in dtman, is simaltaneous with the result accompli- shed by the instrament of knowledge, viz., the negation if all possible predicates.

It is not "that which is conscious of the subjective" i. e. It is not Taijasa ; nor is it the Vaisvânara, inasmuch as it is not that which is conscious of the objective. By saying that it is not that which is conscious of either, it is denied that it corresponds with the condition between dream and waking. By saying that it is not simple consciousness, it is shown to be other than the condi- tion of sleep which is the condition of that indiscrimi- nation which makes it the cause. It is denied to be that which is a mass all sentiency, to imply that it is not that which cognizes all things by a single act of knowledge. And it is shown to be other than dead matter by predicating of it the negation of darkness. A donbt might here snggest itself. Taijasa and others are demonstrated as existent in âtman ; how could they then, by simple negation, disappear from âtman like the snake, etc., from the rope? This could be in this wise. Though they are of the form of thought, they, like the snake, etc., which the rope is mistaken for, are not mutually exclusive of one another. The essence of thought is the truth, on ac- count of being exclusive of everything. If it be urged that it is non-exclusive of deep sleep, we say that it is not so, for sleep is capable of being experienced; and the śruti also says " the cognition of the cognized is not annihilated." Hence the fourth is described as " unseen "; and it is not the subject of experience becanse it is " unseen." It is also not capable of being apprehended by the senses, and therefore transcendent. It is "uninferable" i. e. not possible to prove as existing by making a middle term of anything belonging to it. Hence it

8'ANKARA'S COMMENTARY. 25

is " unthinkable," and therefore " indescribable." It is " the sole essence of the consciousness of self" on acconnt of the nnity of the snbject implied in the conscions experience " I am that " common to all three conditions, waking, dream and sleep. Or " the sole essence of the consciousness of self " may mean that " consciousness of self ( ego)" is the sole instrn- ment of knowing the Fourth, and the Fourth is therefore the supreme essence, result, ground of the consciousness of self. For, the sruti also declares "this should be adored as the Self." By the negation of "that which is conscions of the subjective" etc., the connection with the Fourth of any adjuncts of the conditioned, is negatived; and by describing the Fourth as "the negation of all illasion" it is declared to be void of properties which make up conditions. Hence it is " the ever peacefnl" and " all bliss." As it is the Unit, one without a second, free from all and every distinction, it is the Fourth, as distinguished from the other quarters generally seen and experienced. "This indeed is atman, it should be known " is added by way of explaining the meaning of the sruti "Thou art that," in the same manner as the rope is indicated as an independent thing by itself apart from the imaginary snake, stick, etc. Atman is the unseen seer, and it should be known as described in the s'ruti "the sight of the seer is never lost ;" that is to say, known only relatively to its previons unknown condition, for in reality when gnosis arises, duality (in the form of knower, known, and knowledge ) is nowhere. KÂRIKÂS. 10. The Fourth is that which is capable of destroying all evils, ever changeless, of all beings the one without a second, efulgent and all-pervading. 10

26 KÂNDUK YOPANISHAD.

11. Vis'va and Taijasa are conditioned as cause or effect, Prajna as cause alone; but neither the one nor the other has any relation with the Fourth. 12. Prajna knows not self or non-self, nor truth or false- hood, but the Fourth is ever all-seeing. 13. Noncognition of duality is common to Prajna and Turya ( the Fourth ), but the difference consists in the former being with sleep in the form of cause, and the latter being entirely free from it. 14. The first two are accompanied by dream and sleep, the third by dreamless sleep, but those who are firm in the Fourth experience neither dream nor sleep. 15. Dream is the condition of him who takes things in the contrary manner, and sleep of him who is ignorant of reality. Light being thrown on the nature of this inversion, the Fourth is realized. 16. When the Jiva is awakened from the sleep of that de- lusion which has no beginning, it realizes (in itself) the unborn, ever awake, dreamless, one without a second. 17. If the variety of experience were real it certainly ought to disappear ( some time ) ; but thc whole of duality is mere illusion, the reality being the Unit. 18. If any one can be supposed as possibly imagining the various ideas, these might be supposed to cease. The idea ( of duality implied in the distinction of teacher, taught, and teach- ing ) is imagined possible because of the teaching, but in gnosis there can be no duality. S'ANKARA'S GLOSS ON GAUDAPADA-( continued. ) (10.) As all evil existing in the very forms-Prajna, Taijasa, Vis'va,-is destroyed by proper realization of the Fourth, it is said to be the destroyer of all evils. It is, in fact, described as capable of so destroying them, inasmuch as the disappear- ance of evil is consequent on realization of the Foarth. It is ever changeless, that is to say never subject to any change (from within or without ). And why ? Because all entities

8'ANKARA'S COMMENTARY. 27

being unreal like the snake, etc., imagined in place of the rope, it alone is of all beings the sole unchangeable Unit, one without a second. And it is also effulgent, that is, the cause which makes all beings what they are, which is the very essence of being ; whence it is all-pervading as well. 2 (11) The generic and specific characters of. Vis'va and others are here described with a view to clearly explain the nature of the Fourth. Effect means that which is the fruit, the result; and cause that which acts, in other words that which is the condition of the effect in embryo. Vis'va and Taijasa are conditioned by cause and effect, in the sense res- pectively of ignorance of reality and inverted cognition. Prajna is conditioned by cause alone for causality in the sense of ignorance of reality is its only condition. Hence these two, canse and effect, or ignorance of reality and inverted cogni- tion, are not possible in the unique Fourtb.

(12.) How is Prajna said to be conditioned by causality alone, and how again are the two, ignorance of reality and inverted cognition, not possible in the Fourth ? As Prajna does not, like Vis'va and Taijasa, cognize anything of the duality born of avidyâ, and is other than âtman, it is conditioned only by that which is the canse of inverted cognition, viz., by causality in the form of ignorance of reality (avidya). As the Fourth is ever conscioas of all this, on account of the impossibility of anything yet transcendent, it is ever all-seeing. As it is all-seeing, causality in the form of ignorance of reality can- not exist in it, and consequently the result of that causality -inverted cognition-as well. For, in the sun, all light, the contrary of light viz., darkness, and any light other than his native effalgence, are never possible. The sruti too says " The sight of the seer is never lost." Or the Fourth is ever all-seeing because it is the cause whence all beings derive their being, and is, as such, present in all, whether in dream waking or sleep. The s'ruti supports this when it says "There is no cognizer other than this."

28 MÅNDUKYOPANISHAD.

.(13.) This s'loka is meant to solve a difficulty. The non- cognition of duality is common both to the Prajna and the Fourth ; why should the former alone be regarded as condi- tioned by cansality ? That alone should be so regarded be- canse it is with canse in the form of sleep which is the same as ignorance of reality. This is the cause of all specific wak- ing cognitions. This is called the sleep that is the cause, and condition of the Prâjna. This kind of sleep is not possible in the Fourth, like the snake in the rope, on account of its being ever all-seeing. Hence the condition of causality cannot exist in it. (14.) Dream is inverted cognition like that of the snake in place of the rope. Sleep is already defined as that dark- ness, which is ignorance of reality. Vis'va and Taijasa are accompained by dream and sleep in this sense ; and they are therefore described as conditioned by canse and effect. As darkness is never seen in the sun, so do those who are firm in the Fourth, never see either the cause or the effect, for in either instance the thing seen would be contrary to the very nature of the place where it is meant to be seen. Hence the Fourth is the absolutely unconditioned, (15.) It is now explained when one becomes firm in the Fourth. Of the two, dream and sleep, one who cognizes the reality in an inverted or some other form, like the cognition of a snake in place of the rope, experiences dream; and one who is entirely ignorant of reality experiences sleep which, however, is common to all three ( vis'va, etc., ). As dream and sleep are common to Vis'va and Taijasa, and as inverted cognition is predominent in both, they fall under the same class. Sleep, in this class, being subordinate to inverted cognition, the inversion which is the characteristic of this class is described simply as dream. In the third-Prâjna (which forms the second class implied in the text which speaks only of dream and sleep)-sleep alone, in the form of ignorance of reality, constitutes the inversion. Thus then, when this inversion viz., ignorance of reality and inverted

'ANKARA'S COMMENTARY. 29

cognition which respectively are the conditions of cause and effect, is destroyed, on knowing the essence of reality, the Fourth is immediately realized. One who does not see these two conditions becomes firm in the Fourth ( for it is that light wherein no darkness exists and which, as the substratum of the conditions, is beyond them ). (16.) By force of the cause in the form of ignorance of reality, as well as by force of the dream in the form of invert- ed cognition, called illusion (maya ) without beginning, the jiva experiences dream ; and imagines itself for the time to receive impressions such as this is my father, this is my son or grandson, this is my property, these are my animals, I am the master of these, I am happy, miserable, this has injured me, that has done me good, and so on. When the jiva is awakened by the kindness of a teacher who has himself re- alized the truth of the Vedanta, with the words " thon art uot any of all that thou imaginest related to thee as canse or effect, but "Thou art that "; it realizes its true nature. It (âtman) has neither inside nor outside, nor birth (nor the other five stages leading to decay); and it is hence called the unborn, i. e. free from all changes external or internal, incidental to existence. As sleep, the cause, in the form of the darkness of avidya is not present, it is called the ever awake. And the Fourth is dreamless also, because it is all awake, and is not subject to inverted cognition. As it is ever awake, and dream- less, it is unborn and one without a second. This is realized as the self. (17.) If this kind of realization follows only upon removal of illusion, how can it be said that all is one without a second, while illusion in the form of experience subsists ? This is thus explained. All could not possibly be one without a second, if the illasion were real. It is, however, not real, being only imagination, like that of the snake for the rope. If it were real it were possible to think of its subsequent removal. But the snake for which the rope is taken, only through simple mistake, is not actually effaced from existence, by proper

30 MAND UKYOPANISHAD.

discrimination. Nor similarly is the illusion, spread out by a juggler, withdrawn like a real tangible thing, on the eyes of the spectators being freed from the spell cast by him. The same is true ofthe Duality of mdya, called illasion, the advaita (Unit) being the rope or the jaggler of the illastration. It is the reality where, in trath, no illusion appears or disappears (be- cause illusion does not exist, being void of substantiality). (18.) (We may grant this, but) how could the duality implied in the very idea of teacher, taught, and the teach- ing, be done away with ? This is not difficult to explain. If the idea subsists in the mind of any one, it is possible to think of its obliteration. Just as the whole of the illusion of experience is like the illusion cast by a juggler, or of the form of the snake, so indeed is the idea of teacher, tanght, and teaching. The idea has some existence only as the cause of teaching, and it is therefore relatively true only till the teaching bears fruit. This frait -- gnosis-having been brought about, no variety, no duality, is possible.

TEXT OF THE MANDUKYA-( Continued. ) VIII. This is that dtman even with regard to the letters (of the word aum); it is the aumkâra with its parts. The quarters are the parts, and the parts the quarters the former being a, u, m. The word aum, the object of this discourse, described as atman made up of four qnarters, is the same as dtman even by its four parts corresponding to the four quarters. What are these parts? The parts make up the whole word aum. This word aum analysed into its component parts is called the aumkâra with parts. How could these two ( aum and âtman ) be one? They are one because the parts are the quarters and the quarters are the parts. The parts are A, U, M.

B'ANKARA'S COMMENTARY. 31

IX.

The first part A is vaisvanara whose sphere is the condition of waking, on account of all-pervasiveness, or on account of being the first. He who knows this has all his desires fulfilled, and is the first ( of all ).

This general statement of identity is now explained in particular. Vuis'vanara whose sphere is the condition of waking is the first part of the word aum, viz., the letter A. What ground is there for this identity ? The first is all-per- vasiveness, that is, being present in all, for the letter A is present thronghont speech ( i. e. in all letters, consonants ). For, the s'ruti says. " The letter A is the whole of speech." In the same manner is Vais'vanara present thronghont the whole of the nniverse, for says the s'ruti " of this atman, the head of Vais'vanara is the effalgence, etc."; and we maintain the unity of names and objects. There is also a second ground of this identity. It is the circumstance of being first for, as the letter A is the first of all letters, Vais'vanara is the first of all the four quarters. Now is described the merit of know- ing this identity. He who knows it has all his desires ful- filled. He becomes the first of the great.

X.

The second part U is Taijasa whose sphere is the condition of dream, on account of superiority, or on account of being in the middle. He who knows this has his knowledge refined to the highest point of superiority, he finds no cause of difference with anyone, nor is any one ignorant of Brahman born in his family.

Taijasa whose sphere is the state of dream is the second part, the letter U. What is the ground of this identity ? The ground

32 MANDUKYOPANISHAD.

is that the letter U is, as it were, snperior to the letter A ; and taijasa too is superior to vis'va. Or there is yet another ground. As the letter U is in the middle, being between the letters. A and M, so is Taijasa in the middle of vis'va and prajna. Now is described the merit of knowing this identity. He who knows this has his knowledge refined up to the highest point of superiority, i. e. his powers of knowing increase considerably. He finds no canse of difference with anyone, that is to say, he is regarded in the same light both by enemies and friends; nor is anyone ignorant of Brahman born in his family.

XI.

The third part M is Prajna whose sphere is the condition of sleep, on account of its being the measure, or on account of its being that wherein everything loses its identity. He who knows this is able to measure all and to comprehend all within himself. Prjâna whose sphere is the condition of sleep is the third part of aumkara, the letter M. What is the gronnd of this iden- tity ? The ground may be thus explained. As a heap of barley is measured by a prastha ( a kind of measure ), part by part, so are vis'va and taijasa as it were, measured in pralaya ( involntion ), and utpatti ( evolntion ) by prajna. In the same manner, if the word aum were repeated immediately after one repetition, its two letters A and U appear, as it were to first merge in, and then emerge from, its last letter M. This is the ground called "measure" in the text. The next groand is that in the Prajna all things lose their identity. This is plain in the event of an immediate second repetition of the word aum, for, then the letters A and U appear to merge themselves entirely in the letter M; and cis'va aud

S'ANKARA'S COMMENTARY. 33

taijasa are known to merge in prajna during sleep. Hence the identity of prajna with the lettor M. Now is described. the merit of knowing this. One Inowing this is able to mea- sure all, that is to say, he is able to penetrate into the nature of the universe. He is also able to comprehend all within himself, î. e., to be the cause of all. The attaching so much merit to each of these acts of knowing is meant as an explana- tion to help knowledge of the principal thing in view.

KÂRIKAS-( continued ). (19.) The plain ground of the identity of Vis'va and the letter A, is the circumstance of cach being first, as also the fact of the all-pervasiveness of each. (20.) Of recognizing the identity of Taijasa and the letter U, the ground, in both cases, is superiority, as well as the being in the middle. (21.) Of the identity of Prajna and the letter M, the ground is measure, as well as the fact that therein everything loses its identity. (22.) He who positively knows that which is the ground of identity in all three conditions is the worshipped and re- spected of all, and the greatest of sages. (23.) The letter A puts one in communication with Vis'va, U with Taijasa, and M with Prajna ; no action being possible in that which has no parts.

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS ON GAUDAPADA-( continued. ) (19.) When Vis'va is meant to be identified with the letter A, the plain ground is being first, as described in the text or the Upanishad just discussed. The second ground, all- pervasiveness, also is explained under the text corresponding to this verse. (20.) Of the identity of Taijasa and the letter U, the grounds are "superiority " and "being in the middle." These should be understood as before. 11

34 MANDUKYOPANISHAD.

: (21.) That is to say, in taking Prâjna as identical with .the letter M, the grounds are " measure," and the fact that in them, all things " lose their identity." (22.) He who has a conviction, in its full sense, of the grounds of identity in all the three cases, receives the wor- ship and respect of all. He, in fact, is Brahmavit ( the knower of Brahman ). (23.) Having identified the quarters of atman with the parts or letters ( of the word aum) on the grounds already described, and having thus realized the true meaning and nature of aumkara, it is now explained what is the true import of the merit assigned to a knowdge of the grounds of each identity. If one meditates on the first, he is carried to the visna ; in other words, if one meditates on the first part of aumkara he is identified with the Vaisvanara. In the same manner the letter U leads to identification with the Taijasa, and M with the Prajna. The letter M too being wiped ont of the mind, the condition of cansality entirely ceases, and the residue is the aumkara-with-no-parts (herein there is no action incidental to any condition whether of cause or effect ).

TEXT OF THE MANDUKYA .- (continued.)

XII.

That which has no parts is the Fourth, indescribable, free from the illusion of experience, all bliss, one with- out a second. This is aumkara. He who realizes âtman in himself, loses self in the Self.

That which has no parts is called amatra, and amatra aumkara is the Fourth (quarter) i.e., pure atman. As mind and speech, the instruments of naming, are not able to compre- hend It, It is called indescribable. When in this manner the illusion of the variety implied in experience is reduced to nothing. It is necessarily all bliss, and therefore one without a

S'ANKARA'S COMMENTARY. 35

second, Aumkara, as thus understood, is the same as that which is with three parts, and also as that which is with three quarters. He who knows this loses himself in the Self, i. e., atman. Those who realize the reality are one with atman, having reduced to naught all conditions of cause and effect ; and hence they never retarn, for the Fourth is the unconditioned Absolute. For, the snake which has merged in the rope, on proper discrimination of the snake and its substratum, is never. capable of coming to life again, by any feat of the mind, in the case of those whose knowledge never fades. To those, however, whose power of discrimination is, as yet, in the middle or initial stage, and who consequently are mere students of this philosophy; or to those who quitting the world walk in the path of virtue with the aim of mastering the truths of this teaching, knowledge of the grounds of identity of the quarters and the parts will, on their applying themselves to proper meditation of the word, aumkara, prove itself of invalu- able help towards the final realization of Brahman. The same is expressed in the text "The three inferior stages of life, etc."

KÂRIKÂs-( continued.) (24.) The aumkara should be known as one with the quarters, the quarters being its parts. Having known the word with its parts ( quarters) nothing else should be thought of. (25.) The mind should be absorbed in the word ( aum), for it is Brahman, the ever-fearless; one so absorbed has no fear whatever. (26.) The "word of glory" (the pranava-aum) is the lower as well as higher Brahman; it is transcendent, unequalled, having nothing without itself, unrelated to any effect, and changeless.

36 KANDUKYOPANISHAD.

27. The " word of glory " is the beginning, middle and end of all ; having known it in this manner one enjoys ( the peace of eternal unity ). 28, The " word of glory" is the Is'vara present in the heart of all; the wise man knowing aumkara to be all-pervad- ing, never finds cause for misery. 29. He who has hnown the amtra-aumkara, the anantama- tra, the substratum in which all illusion dissolves itself, all bliss, is the only sage, and none other.

s'ANKARA'S GLOSS ON GAUDAPADA -- ( continued) (24.) There are these s'lokas on the text as before. On account of the grounds of identity described before, the quar- ters are the parts, and the parts the quarters. Hence it is well put, aumkara should be known as one with the quarters." One who has thus known the word aum, should not, on account of all his desires being fulfilled, think of anything seen or unseen. (25.) The mind should be absorbed in, that is to say, nnified with, the real essence of the Word, viz., aum, as ex- plained before. For, the "word of glory " is the ever-fearless Brahman. One centred in It has no fear whatever, for, says the S'ruti, "one knowing does not fear." (26.) The "word of glory" is the lower as well as higher Brahman. That is to say, the parts and the quarters being all abandoned, the residne is pure atman, the highest Brahman. That which has nothing corresponding to it in experience, in the form of canse (or effect ), or any thing, or circumstance, is here called transcendent. The other attributes are self- evident. The ever-unborn comprising within itself all re- lations of canse and effect, is like the salt ever present in the waters of the ocean. (27.) The " word of glory" is the beginning, middle, and end, vis., the source, existence, and disappearance of all that is, that is to say, the whole of the concrete world beginning from âkâs'a, and produced after the manner of the illusive elephant, the rope-snake, the mirage, etc. ; all having for their

S'ANKAR'S COMMENTARY. 37

respective causes the illusionist and the like. The meaning is that one who knows "the word of glory," âtman, to be in place of the illusionist or the rope in the illustration, is instantaneonsly unified with it ( atman ). (28). The "word of glory" should be known as the Isvarz (antaryâmin) present in the heart, that is to say, in the place which performs the functions of memory, and knowing in general, of all beings. The wise having known aumkara to be all-pervading like âkas'a, never find cause for misery, for duality, the cause of misery or happiness, is nowhere. The S'ruti also says "he who has realized atman has crossed the ocean of evil." (29). The amatra ( with no parts ) is the Fonrth, and that too is aumkara. Matra means measure, and that which is a measure of the highest inconceivable magnitude is the anantamatra. In other words, it is that whose extent and dimensions are indeterminable. ( The amâtra aumkara being atman, is the same as the anantamatra. ) It is all bliss, because in it duality does not exist. He who has realized aumkara in the manner described is the real sage, and no one else, even if he be learned in all the sciences.

CHAPTER II.

( GAUDAPÂDA'S-KÂRIKÂ.) OF ILLUSION.

1. The wise declare the unsubstantiality of all that is seen in dream, it being all within the body, on account of its partak- ing of the subtile.

S'ANKARARA'S GLOSS. Aum. It has already been said, knowledge ( gnôsis ) hav- ing arisen, duality does not exist, and this has been borne out by the S'rutis, such as "The Unit is ever one," etc. This, however, is established only on the authority of the word of holy writ.

38 M ÂNDUKYOPANISHAD.

But it is possible also to show the unsnbstantiality of the objec. tive even from pure reasoning, and this second chapter is under- taken for that parpose. It begins with "The wise," etc. Un- snbstantiality is the fact of being unsubstantial, that is to say, false, illnsive. The unsubstantiality of what ? Of all objects, whether things or ideas seen in dream. The wise, that is to say, those who derive knowledge by proper use of the instru- ments of knowledge, declare the said unsubstantiality. The text proceeds to describe the cause of the falsity of objects. They are unreal because they are seen within the body (in dream ) for, without it, monntains, elephants and the like. exist not. Hence all sights deserve to be regarded as futile. It may be objected that "being within" is not a valid middle term to infer ftility from ; for jars, etc., which are "within" any cover, say a cloth, are in no way futile. To obviate this difficulty the text adds "on account of its partaking of the subtile." The whole taken together means that inasmuch as they are within the body in a subtile condition, ( they are certainly non-existent as tangible objects, but are mere futile ideas.) In the subtility prevailing in the nerves within, there certainly can never exist mountains, elephants, etc., for, in. the first place, they are not in the body itself. 2. Nor does the seer of the dream see distant places by going out to them, for the time taken up does in no way appear to be long (nor is there any relation with space); nor does the dreamer, on being awake, find himself in the place (of his dream.)

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS. That the objects seen in dream are only in a subtile condi- tion within is not correct ; for one sleeping in the east ex- periences dreams in the north. With this objection in view the text answers that the experiencer of a dream does not go out of the body to see things at a distance, or away from the place where he sleeps. The reason for this is obvious. The time between going to sleep and beginning to dream of things separated by thousands of miles, and capable otherwise of being reached only by travels extending over months, is not at all

S'ANKARA'S COMMENTARY. 39

appreciable. Nor is the time taken in returning from snch places at all perceived or felt. Hence as the time taken in the act does not in any way appear to be long, it follows that. the seer of the dream does not see distant places by going out to them. Moreover, on being awake, the dreamer does not find himself at the place he dreamt of. If it be supposed that the dreamer does go out to the place he dreamt of, then certainly he onght to find himself ir that place on being awake. But this does not happen. One, in bed, at night, sees visions of the day and meets many persons ; ( bnt if this meeting were real) he ought to have been seen by those whom he meets. This, however, never happens, for if it did, those who saw him ought to recoguise him as the one they saw at a particular place aud time. This too never happens .* Therefore, the dreamer does not go out to any place in dream. 3. Moreover, reason bears out the unsubstantiality of chariots, etc., (in dream), whence their futility thus established is declared by the wise to be laid down is the Sruti as well.

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS. Objects seen in dream are false, for this reason, that their unsubstantiality is demonstrated by reason. And this is borne ont by the S'ruti as well. The S'ruti runs "there are neither chariots, nor horses," etc., and snggests the fntility of objects seen in dream, on the ground of these being within the body in a subtile condition. This same fntility thus indirectly suggested is declared by the wise, that is, by the knowers of Brahman to be clearly laid down in the S'ruti demonstrating the self-cognizability of the Absolute. 4. As in dream, so in waking, the objects seen are unsub- stanial, though the two ( conditions ) differ by the one being internal and subtile, and the other external and gross. * There are cases on record of the recognition of persons as those seen in dream. This would appear to go against S'ankara's statement, that the dreamer does not go out, &c. The dreamer is called Svapnadik-the seer of the dream, i.e., the real seer who certainly never goes out, whereas the subtile body may. It is a mistake to understand. the subtile body the " dreamer."

40 MÅNDUKYOPANISHAD.

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS. . The proposition to be proved is this. Objects seen in the waking condition are unreal. Tbe ground for such inference is their capability of being seen. The illustration (to corro- borate the general induction-all that is capable of being seen as object is false) is the phenomenon of dream. The capabili- ty of being seen, which proves the futility of objects seen in the condition of dream, is found also in objects cognized during the waking condition. Thus is established a relation between the middle term and the minor. The conclusion follows that objects seen in the wakeful condition are false. Though, on account of being internal and in a subtile condition, the phe- nomena of dream are different from those of waking, the fact of being presented as object, and the consequent futility of presentation, are common to both. 5. The wise regard the wakeful as well as the dreaming condition as one, in consequence of the similarity of objective experience in either, on grounds already described.

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS. "Already described," becanse cognition of objects is in every way similar in both conditions which, therefore, deserve to be similar. The wise, that is to say, those who are able to analyse and understand the truth. This verse only ennnciates what has already been proved by the foregoing inference. 6. That which is naught at the beginning and is so also at the end, does necessarily not erist in the middle. Objects are like the illusions we see, still they are regarded as if real.

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS. The objects of waking experience are false for the reason that they are known to have no beginning and no end, and that which is naught at its beginning and end is naught also at the middle, for instance, the mirage, etc. This is the general rule of experience. The objects of waking experience are of

S'ANKARA'S COMMENTARY. 41

the same class, i. e., the mirage, etc., which are nanght in themselves on account of their being naught at their beginning as well as end; and are, therefore, quite unsubstantial in themselves. Though they are in reality illusive, the ignorant regard them as real. 7. The being used as means to some end, of the objects of waking experience, comes to naught in dream ; hence on account cf being with beginning and end they are certainty false and no more.

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS. That the objects of waking experience are false like the phenomena of dream, is not correct, for, the former consisting of food, drink, etc., are used as tangible means to tangible ends, whereas the latter are not such. Therefore the futility of the objects of waking experience assumed from their similarity to the phenomena of dream, breaks down. This argument is not correct. For, the being used as a means to an end becomes naught in dream, inasmuch as a man going to bed and experiencing a dream, immediately after having satis- fied his hunger by a full meal, and having quenched his thirst by a fnll draught of water, finds himself hungry or afflicted with thirst, for many months past. And the contrary also holds equally good; for, one awakened from a dream wherein he has regaled himself with food, drink, etc., finds himself qnite hungry or afflicted with thirst. Hence it is clear that 'the being used as a means to an end,' which is pnt forth as a test of reality, is not true of the same objects only on another plane. Thus, therefore, the futility of the objects of waking ex- perience deduced from their similarity to the phenomeana of dream, stands well demonstrated. The being with beginning and end ( if it should be set np as a ground of difference be- tween phenomena of the two conditions, may be accepted by us as ) common to both, in which case too, the said futility of objects stands doubly unshuken. 8. That the phenomena of dream transcend the limits of erpe- rience, is only a rcsult of the condition of the cognizer, as in the 12

42 MÅNDUKYOPANISHAD.

case of those residing in heaven. The cognizer being so condition- ed sees the various objects, even like one well-instructed here.

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS. The fntility of the objects of waking experience deduced from their similarity to the phenomena of dream, is not well proved, inasmuch as the illustration does not agree with the thing to be illustrated. The objects of dream are not copies of the objects of waking experience. In dream one sees ob- jects transcending the limits of experience, and finds himself even with eight hands, sitting on an elephant with four tnsks, and the like. All such things are not like anythilg nnreal, and are therefore real in themselves. Hence the objection that the illustration does not agree ; and it does not follow that waking experience is false like the phenomena of dream. The whole of this discnssion is based on a pure misunderstand- ing. That which is supposed to transcend the limits of experience in dream, is not an absolute reality in itself, but is only a condition of the cognizer conditioned by that state. ( In other words, it is a mode of manifestation of the cognizer, brought about by the condition of that state, and not an in- herent power of it. ) As those living in heaven, such as Indra and others, have a thousand eyes ( by the very conditions of their existence), so the transcending the limits of experience is the very condition of the cognizer in dream. It is no ab- solute property forming part of the absolute natnre of the seer. The cognizer of dream sees, by the power of that state, objects of this description, consisting only of subjective ideas transcending the limits of experience. As here, in this world of experience, any well-instructed person going from one place to another by any known path, sees the variety of objects belonging to the place he goes to, so does the cognizer see in the present instance. Hence, as the rope, the serpent, the mirage, etc., being merely the conditions of the cognizer, are unreal, so the transcendent phenomena of drear, are only a result of the condition of the cognizer, and, therefore, unreal. Hence the illustration does not at all disagree.

S'ANKARA'S COMMENTARY. 43

9 .- 10. Even in dream that which is subjective imagination is unreal, whereas that which is objectively existent is real ; whereus in truth both are unreal. So in waking experience, though that which is subjective imagination is unreal, and that which is objectively existent is real, in fact, both ought to be unreal.

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS. Having solved the difficulty based on the natare of the objects of dream transcending experience, the text proceeds to again poigt out the likeness of waking experience to the phe- nomena of dream. Even in dream that which is simple mental imagination is unreal, inasmuch as it is not seen the moment next after its existence. In the same manner, objects imagined to be cognized by the external senses, such as jars, etc., cognized by the eye, etc., are snpposed to be real. Thus, though the whole of the phenomena of dream are known to be unreal, the facts arrange themselves under reality and unreality. In the same manner, all objects, whether regarded as real or unreal, seen in waking experience, deserve to be unreal, notwithstanding their apparent opposition among themselves as real and unreal. The reason for this is the same as that for believing the unreality of the experience of dream, viz., the circumstance of being cognized by (the external or internal ) senses. 11. If in both conditions experience reduces itself to illu- sion, who is the cognizer of experience ; who creates it ?

s'ANKARA'S GLOSS. This is what the opponent asks. If experience in both the conditions,dream and waking,were an illusion pure and simple, who is the cognizer of the whole of subjectivity and objectivity? Who is it that creates them ? In short, what is the substratum of knowledge and memory ? If you say-none, the conclusion mast force itself npon you that there is nothing like atman.

44 MÂNDÛKYOPANISHAD.

,12. The atman, all light, imagines himself by himself, through the power of his Maya; he alone cognizes the objects s0 sent forth. This is the last word of the Vedanta on the subject.

s'ANKARA'S GLOSS. The atman, all light, that is, self-cognizing, calls forth by himself, the variety of experience to be hereafter described ; it subsists also in himself, through the power of Maya ; just like the snake, ete., seen in place of the rope. This is the conclasion of the Vedânta on this matter. There is no other substratum of knowledge and memory ; nor are knowledge and memory admitted to be possible, as the Nihilistsmmaintain, without a substratum. 13. The Lord manipulates the variety of subjective experi- ence, as well as that of objective experience, while cognizant of the subjective and the objective respectively.

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS. It is now shown in what manner dtman imagines out the whole of experience. The word " manipulates" is used to indicate a dividing of âtman within himself. Atman mani- palates himself as the variety of objective experiences, such as words, etc., as also the vâsanâs existing on the subjec- tive plane. In other words, he forms vasands ( by a process of divine ideation ), while cognizant of the subjective. And while cognizant of the objective, he imagines them as the variety of objective experiences. The Lord means atman. ( A'nandagiri adds an apt illustration. The potter forms an idea of the jar he wants to fashion and objectively realizes t he idea by a process of externalization. Cosmic, or atmic, ideation proceeds in the same manner up to the point of self- realization. ) 14. Those that subsist within only with the mind, and those that answer to two points in time without, are all mere illusion; for, the difference between them is not based on any other ground.

S'ANKARA'S OOMMENTARY. 45

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS. That everything is mere imagination like dreem is now questioned ; for external objects cognized by one another are unlike mere imaginations of the mind, and are grasped by the mind. This is no sound objection. Such objects as cannot relate themselves to any point in time other than that wherein the mind exists, are those " that subsist within only with the mind. " that is to say, such chjects are those which only ap- pear to exist on account of their being cognized. Those things that answer to two points in time, are such as are cognizable by others existing at some other point of time and cognizing the latter in their turn. Hence they are mutually cognizant of one another from different points in time. To illustrate: If we say 'he sits till the milking of the cow,' we mean that the cow is milked dnring his stay, and also that his stay is prolonged till the cow is milked. Other instances of the same kind are such expressions as 'this is so much :' 'he is so and so,' etc. Those objects that are in this manner mutnally cognizant are said to answer to two points in time. Objects which subsist within, only so long as the conceiving mind is present. as well as external objects, which (by being indepen- dent of the mind ) answer to two points in time, are all mere illusion. For, the answering to two points in time, the peculiarity of external objects, is not derived from any cause other than 'being imagined,'( which is the cause also of the phenomena of dream ). It being so, the illustration of dream, applies here also in its full meaning (and points to the illu- siveness of objective experience. ) 15. Those that are in a subtile condition within, as well as those that are manifest without, in a gross condition, are alt mere imagination, the difference lying only in the merns of cognition.

s'ANKARÂ'S GLOSS. Though objects produced merely by mental vasana are unmanifest and subtile within, and though objects without are manifest and gross, the difference between the two is caused

46 MÅNDUKYOPANISHAD.

only by the instrument of cognizing, such as the eye, etc, and not by anything substantial in the nature of the things them- selves. For, the phenomena of dream are, for the time, as real as those of waking. Hence the difference being based only on a difference in the instruments of cognition, waking expe- rience is as much an illusion as that of dream. 16. The first result of ideation is Jiva, whence the various ontities, objective and subjective ; for its knowledge must cor- respond to its memory.

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS. What is the source of the imagination of objects, subjective and objective, related as cause and effect to one another ? This is proposed for explanation. This is Jiva, whose very nature is bound up with the idea of cause and effect, as evidenced by such daily experience as " I do this." "this hap- piness, or that misery, is mine,' and the like. Atman is absolutely free from any such idea, but in it is seen, like the snake in place of the rope, the idea of Jiva. Through it are evolved, by constituting the ideas of action, actor and act, as the ground of division, the varions things, prana,etc.,-subjective and objective. The cause of this ideation is thus explained. The self-evolved Jiva having power to give shape to any idea, has its memory guided by its inherent knowledge. That is to say, from a knowledge of the idea of cause follows knowledge of the idea of effect ; then follows memory of the two ; then again knowledge and the variety of knowledge in the form of actor, act, and actions. From knowledge rises memory and from memory, knowledge, and this endless series continues without end, giving rise to various subjective and objective things. 17. As the rope whose nature is not known, is, in the dark, imagined variously to be a snake, a line of water, etc,, so is âtman ( imagined to be the variety of experience ).

S'ANKAKA'S GLOSS. It is laid down that experience begins with the idea of Jiva. Now it is proposed toclearly explain this position by an

s'ANKARA'S COMMENTARY. 47

illustration. A rope not known as such, is mistaken, in hazy darkness, for a snake, a line of water, a stick, or any one of nnmerous similar things. The cause of all these is none other than absence of previous knowledge of the rope ; for, if the rope were known beforehand, there would be no room, as in the case of things such as the fingers of the hand already well known, for the series of imaginings snch as the snake, etc. This case well illustrates the point in question. As âtman is not known in its native absoluteness as all purity, alf thought, and one without a second, in contradistinction to the variety of expe- rience consisting of causality and the ideas of good evil, etc., it comes to be conceived as manifold in the form of Jiva, Prana, etc. This is the clearest declaration of the Upanishads. 18. As complete knowledge of the rope dispels all illusion, and the one changeless conviction arises that it is nothing else but the rope, so indeed is confirmed the right knowledge of atman.

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS. On the conviction being gained that the thing appearing as so many things, is nothing but the rope, all illusion vanishes, and the knowledge so acquired subsists for all time. In the same mauner is confirmed the right knowledge that all is one- atman ; in other words, atman is realized in the full light of the lamp of knowledge lighted by the S'ustras, which proclaim the nature of atman in such texts as "Not this, not that;" "All this is atman ;" "It transcends experience, being not other, not distant, not withont, ever without and within, unborn, undecay- ing, undying, immortal, secure, one, and unique." 19. It is imagined as Prana and the variety of numberless visible objects,-this is the power of illusion inseparable from the ever luminous, who is ( as it were ) shaded off by it.

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS. If atman were one, how could it be imagined as Prana and the variety of objects making up the world of experience? This is explained by saying that all this is merely the result

48 MÂNDUK YOPANISHAD.

of the power of illnsion inherent in the ever-luminous atman. Just as the illusion spread forth by a jaggler would. show the sky blooming with flowery trees and plauts, so does this power of illusion of the ever-luminous atman. It covers from view even its very substratum, âtman. (The Smrti declares ) "my illusion is intransgressible." 20. Those acquainted with Prana call it Prana ; those with the Bhutas, Bhuta ; those conversant with the Gunas call it Gura ; those with the Tatvas, Tatoa.

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS. Prana, Prajna, Bijatmâ, aud the rest ending with sthiti ( enumerated in verses 20-28 ), are some of the varieties of numberless objects produced by illusion. These and others of their kind, imagined by all descriptions of beings, are like the snake in place of the rope. The substance is that they are all produced by avidya, on account of the absence of right knowledge in the ever free and distinctionless atman. It is of no material use to define and discuss each of the things called Prâna, etc. 21 .- 28. Those lenowing the quarters, call it the quar- ters ; those immersed in objects of sense, call it those objects; those having their eye upon the Lokas, call it the Lokas ; those thinking of the Devas, see it as a Deva. Those knowing the Veda, describe it as the Veda; those understanding Yajña, call it Yajña; those realizing it as the enjoyer of every- thing, describe it as such ; those seeing it as objects enjoyed, see it in the objects, The knowers of the subtile call it the subtile; the knowers of the gross call it the gross ; those familiar with personality, call it the persona' being ; those having no faith in anything, describe it as pure void. The kenowers of time call it time ; the knowers of space cull it space ; those versed in dis- putation, call it the problem in dispute ; those knowing the world, describe it as the world. Those who are coynizant of the mind, call it the mind ; those resting themselves in the sense of supreme discrimination, call it discrimination ( buddhi ) ;

S'ANKARA'S COMMENTARY. 49

those who can reach only to Chitta, call il Chitta ; those familiar with Dharma and Adharma, call it one or the other. Some conceive of it as twenty-five, others as twenty-six, while there are others who conceive of it as thirty-one, or even manifod. Those whose ken is bounded by Heaven call it Heaven ; those who are bound to the Asramas, call it the Asramas ; the gram- marians regard it as male, female, or neither ; others call it Para, Apara. Those convinc dof creation, call it creation those sure of destruction, cail it destruction, whereas those positive about the present, call it pure subsistence. Thus all describe it as all and everything they like it to be at any time. 29. That idea which is pressed on one, is perceived by him as the sole essence. It protects him, taking on the form of that idea, and allows him to be convinced that this is the sole essence.

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS. There is no use in this kind of description withont end. Whoever is told by his teacher, or any trastworthy person, that any one of the many things, prâna, ete., or the like, is the sole essence ( âtman), perceives that very idea to be the real atman. And indeed such conception of utman, through the power of such faith and conviction, takes the form of that very conception and protects the devotee in accordance with his desires, and surrounds him with itself in every way. And the devotee also having full faith that this is the reality, believes that the absolute is of the form of that idea. 30. This ( âtman ) ever inseparable from these, ( things ) is imagined as separate.' He who understands the truth in its Julness is at liberty to imagine atman as of any form he likes.

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS. Âtman is ever inseparable from the variety of things de- scribed as pruna, etc. Though it is so, it is imagined by the ignorant as something separate and apart from the thing seen, like the snake, etc., from the rope. But to the illuminated, 13

50 MANDUKYOPANISHAD.

prana and others are none of them apart from atman, like the ideas of snake, etc., which are ever in and of the rope. For, the Sruti also lays down 'All this is atman." Thus he who knows the truth in its fulness ; that is to say, in its full import as shown in the Veda, as also in its clear form as demonstrated by reason, vis., everything is atman and is as illnsive withont âtman as the ideas of snake, etc., without the rope; is at liberty to construe the texts of the Veda after any idea that best pleases his fancy. For, none but one fully conversant with this spiritual truth is able to explain what a particular text refers to, or to know the Veda in its full import. "None who is not familiar with the spiritual is able to derive any fruit from his acts," says Manu. 31. As are dream and illusion or a castlesin-the-air, so, say the wise the Vedantas declare this cosmos to be.

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS. The fatility of duality demonstrated by reason is now shown to be deduced from the Vedântas as well. Dream and illu- sion are in themselves entirely unreal, still they are regarded as real by the ignorant. As a castle-in-the-air seen full of people-males and females, all moving about, among rows of well-furnished shops, houses or palaces, on varions errands, is entirely obliterated from view, in a moment ; and as dream aud illnsion are entirely unreal though actnally perceived; so is the cosmos an illusion of unreality, thongh experienced as real. Where is this tanght? The text replies, in the Vedantas. "There is no variety here" ; "Indra becomes many by his power of illusion "; "This was sole atman in the beginning" ; "This was Brahman alone, at first "; " All danger rises from dnality"; "This duality does not exist"; "When all has become atman who can see whom by what?" In these and a number of other texts of like import, the wise, that is, those who can see through things, declare the futility of all. So indeed says also the Vyâsa Smrti "( Duality is seen by the wise) to be like a hole iu the wall of thick darkness, or like the bubbles

a'ANKARA'S COMMENTARY. 51

that froth over fresh rain-water, ever being dissolved, ever away from bliss, and ever reducing themselves to naught after dissolation." 32. There is no dissolution, no creation, none in bondage, no pupilage, none desirous of liberation, none liberated ; this is the absolute truth.

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS. This verse is meant as a conclading summary of the preced- ing discourse. When daality is all illasion and âtman alone is the reality, it follows that all that forms the subject of experience, whether derived from ordinary intercoarse or from sacred texts, is mere illasion. It being so there is no dissolution, that is to say, destruction, in the absolnte sense of the word. Creation means prodaction, evolution, birth ; and the being in bondage is the condition of jiva. Papilage is the condition of one trying to realize moksha. One desirous of liberation is he who feels the necessity of liberation, and the liberated is one who has already realized it. The absolute trath is that there being no dissolution and no creation, the being in bondage, etc., cannot at all be possible. It may be qnestioned-how can we say there is nothing like creation or dissolution? We say this because of the entire absence of duality, and this is borne out by such texts of the S'ruti as "where there is duality there is danger"; "who sees any- thing like dnality in this (passes from death to death )"; "all this is atman alone"; "this is sole Brahman"; "all this is one without a second"; and the like. Creation and dissolution are possible only of that which exists, not of that which, like the horns of the hare, does not exist at any time. The advaita is neither produced nor destroyed. That it should be one without a second, and should, at the same time, have a beginning and end, is a simple contradiction in terms. It has already been described that experience which depends on the notion of dnality is mere imagination of the form of Prang, etc.,

52 MÂNDÛKYOPANISHAD.

having atman for its substratum, lixe the imaginary snake. etc., which have the rope for their substratum. The snake, etc., seen in place of the rope as a result of snbjective imagination, are neither prodnced from, nor dissolved in, the rope, nor are they produced from, or dissolved in, the mind, nor even in both (the rope and the mind). Thus duality being like any of these things which are mere subjective imaginations (it can have no real beginning or end ). Nor is duality at all present in the mind immersed in trance or sleep. Hence is clear that duality is nothing bat mere subjective imagination, and therefore it is well said- the absolute is the negation of dissolution, etc. If it were so, the object of all teaching onght to tend towards inculcating the negation of dnality and not towards establishing the position of the advaita, for there is apparent absurdity (in employing that which proves a negation, to establish a position ). If this were admitted there wonld remain nothing to substantiate the positive existence of the advaita ; and the whole argument must of necessity terminate in the establishment of pure Nihilism, for even duality has been demonstrated to be nothing. This objection does not stand. It is no use reverting to a point already raised and discussed before, that the imaginary snake, etc., cannot subsist without a substratum ( the ripe). The objector may advance that the illustration of the rope will not do, inasmnch as the rope, the substratum of the imaginations, ought, like the latter, to be no more than mere imagination. This we say is not right. For, on the disappearance of the imagina- tions, the nnimagined residuum that persists, is for that very persistence, not an imagination, but the reality. It is not correct to say that that also is as much imagination as the snake, for, even before knowledge of the unreality of the snake, it is entirely real, being never like the imagined rope, the subject of imagination. Moreover the existence of the person imagining, must be antecedent to the imagination, and ought therefore to be admitted as absolntely real. This ought to be sufficient to show the incorrectness of the argument

S'ANKARA'S COMMENTARY. 53

which requires that the substratum also onght to be unreal. It is, however, asked how, when (as shown above) the real nature ( of atman ) transcends all instruments of knowledge, conld teaching be of nse in patting down the idea of duality. This is no difficulty. For, the whole of duality is merely imagined in atman, like the snake, etc., in the rope. How again is this to be made good? Obviously by observing that cognitions of the form " I m happy " ; " I am miserable " ; "I am ignorant " ; " I am born, dead, old, with body, seen, unseen, the doer, the receiver, united, disunited, decayed, or any similar thing"; "this is mine," etc., are all merely imaginary in dtman. Åtman is the common substratum of all, for its presence everywhere and anywhere, like that of the rope in all such imaginings as snake, line of water, and the like, is no deviation from its ( unconditioned ) nature. The opponent again suggests that this being so, specific knowledge of atman is self-evident ; what more has teaching to accomplish? Teaching is always expected to accomplish something not accomplished, and is nseless if it repeats what has already been accomplished. Our reply here is as follows : Atman is not realized in its native condition because of the obstruction created by such imaginations as happiness, etc., illusively created by avidyâ. And indeed we do not take any thing other than realization of the native condition (of âtman) as final beatitude. Now then teaching puts down duality by producing full conscionsness of the not-happy nature of dtman, after the manner of the S'rutis "not this," " not that," leading thus to a clear idea of its native condition. Non- happiness not a characeteristic (of atman ) present in all ideas such as of being happy and the like, for if it were so there were no apparent specific difference produced by the illasive ideas of being happy, etc .; in the same manner as in fire which is naturally hot, no specifice difference is created by its being supposed to be cold. Therefore âtman is purely characterless, and ideas like being happy, etc., are attributed to it by mere illusion. It is now clear that the teaching which Jays down the being not-happy as an attribnte of atman,

54 MANDUKYOPANISHAD.

means only to imply that It is free from all attributes and relations, whether of happiness, misery, or any other thing. In this connection here is 'an aphorism of those who know the agamas, to the effect that " It is proved on account of its responding to negation." 33. The absolute Advaita imagines itself to be the many ; all objects are through It; hence the happiest thing is the condition of the absolute.

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS.

The grounds of the proposition laid down in the previous text are now explained.As in the instance of the rope, through the imaginary forms snake, etc., it is the rope, the real thing, that imagines itself to be the snake, etc .; in the same manner, through forms such as Prana and others with- out number, substantially unreal, ( âtman, as it were, imagines itself to be those things). For, indeed, no perception is possible without mental action, and action of all kind is foreign to atman; objects are cognized by a subject in action not by one in simple subsistence. Therefore throngh notions such as prana, etc., substantially nnreal, the ever real and one âtman, the rope-like substratum of all imaginations, imagines itself as divided into many forms. And this notwithstanding its one and nniqe character. The meaning is this. No imagination can stand upon nothing, it mnst have a substratum to rest upon. Hence on account of atman being the substratnm of all imaginations, and on account of its being ever inseparable and one, the condition of the absolute (atman) is the happiest thing imaginable. That which is unhappy or miserable are only the imaginations themselves, for they are the cause of fear, etc., like the rope-snake. The condition of the absolute is free from fear and hence is the only happy thing possible. 34. The existence of the variety ( of experience) cannot be said to be identical with atman, nor in any way standing

B'ANKARA'S COMMENTARY. 55

independent by itself ;- nothing is separate or incorporate, thus say the knowers of the essence of things.

S'ANEARA'S GLOSS. Why is the condition of the absolute called the happiest ? The sense of nnhappiness is present only where experience exists in the form of individuality, as seen in the exclusive existence of things by themselves. For, in atman-ever one and absolute existence, the whole of the phenomenal consisting of prâna,etc., together with the whole of the variety of experience, when examined by the light of the absolute, does not exist ; just as the rope when examined with the help of a light is not what it appeared to be, viz., the snake, etc. Nor is the pheno- menal existent by itself, for it is ever imaginary like the snake seen in place of the rope. Moreover things .like prana, etc., are not mutually exclasive like horse and buffalo. Hence on account of being unreal, nothing exists either separate, by itself, or incorporate, one in the other. Thus say the knowers of the essence of things, i. e., the Brahmanas. It is implied in this manner, that on account of not being the cause of the unhappy, the condition of the absolute is the happiest. 35. By the sages free from attachment, fear, anger, and well-versed in the secrets of the Veda, this ever one, the nega- tion of the phenomenal, is regarded as the pure unconditioned ( essence ).

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS. This right knowledge is now extolled. The sages, that is to say, those who ever devote themselves to contemplation, being free from all evils such as attachment, spite, fear, anger, etc., and therefore able to properly discriminate right from wrong ; and who know all secrets of the Veda, being fnlly enlightened, declare from their knowledge and stndy of the Vedantas that atman is ever free from all imaginations

56 MÂNDÚKYOPANISHAD.

and is never in relation to any condition. Atman is also the negation of the phenomenal; that is to say, the phenomenal consisting of the mutually exclasive units which make np duality, does not exist in it which, therefore, is ever one. The implication is that those alone who are free from all evil, and ever absorbed in meditation on the meaning and substance of the Veda, and are sanyasins, can realize atman ; and not those whose mind is snbject to the tempest of passions, or inclined like the Tarkikas and others, towards upholding their own creeds and opinions. 36. Therefore knowing It to be such, the mind should constantly be directed to the Advaita, having realized which ( the enlightened ) should walk the world like a block of (dead) mutter.

s'ANKARA'S GLOSS. As the advaita is the only happy condition, being that in which no evil is possible, the enlightened one should realize it as such by unifying his memory solely with it. In other words, he should constantly nse his memory io the end of impressing, up to final and full realization, the idea of the absolute ( âtman ) on the mind. Having kuown the advaita., having been confirmed in consciousness of the advaita, in the form of the cognition " I am Brahman," and having thus realized atman as above enjoyment and acquisition, unborn, and transcendent, the wise man should walk the world like a block of dead matter ; that is to say, without ( relating him- self to dnality by ) declaring in any manner what he is, or what he has become. *. 37. The ascetic should place himself above praise, above the formality of salutation, above the rites consumated with the use of the word Svadha, and should abndon himself entirely to circumstances, being above the mutable as well as the immutable.

S'ANKARA'S COMMENTABY. 57

s'ANKARA'S GLOSS. How should the ascetic walk the world? He should be above the pleasure of praise, or the anxiety of securing that good-will which accrues from careful observance of forms, social and religious, and all similar conventionalities .* In other words, he should free himself from all cares, and take up the life of a completely retired paramahamsa ; for, says the s'ruti, "knowing this dtman, etc."; to which the smrti adds " ( the ascetic should have his) mind ever unified with it, ever one with it, ever in it, ever devoted to it, etc." The futile is the body, for it changes every moment. The firm is atman. He has the fatile for his abode when, on account of intercourse necessary for purposes of eating, etc., he is obliged to temporarily forget himself, ever immovable like ákasa, and relate himself to the sense of egoism. Thus he has the futile for his abode in this sense, and not in the sense of being related to external objects of sense. Being so he should leave himself entirely to circumstances, that is to say, he should leave his being provided with food, etc., merely to circumstances. 38. Having realized the nature of the essence within and without, one should become the essence, should ever rest in it, and should be firm in it.

S'ANKARARA'S GLOSS. The essence within consists of the elements prthvi, etc., and the essence withont is the body, etc.,-all then are entirely unreal, like the rope-snake or like dream or illasion. For, says the sruti, " concrete things are mere play of words, being empty names," etc. ; " âtman is everywhere within as well as without, unborn, transcendent, undivided, having no within or

• The word Svadha in the text refers to the ceremonies known as Srâddhas. Every offering in that ceremony is accompanied by the utterance of that word. The sense is that the ascetic should renounce even these rites which are connected with the dead. 14

58 MÅNDUKYOPANISHAD.

without, entire whole, all-pervading like akasa, snbtile, immovable, characterless, without parts, without action," etc ; " It is the truth,-atman"; "Thou art that." Having thus realized the true essence ( i, e., having known all within and without to be atman), one should become it and should rest in it, and not, like those ignorant of dtman, in mere objects of sense. The object of saying that he should be firm in it is this. There are some who take the mind to be dtman, and believe it to be affected by its action. They delude themselves into the belief that action of the mind assimilates dtman with the body, and that concentration of the mind allows it to rebecome itself-thus feeling vainly despondent or joyful for the one idea or the other. Those who are real knowers of the essence should, however, not commit this mistake, for dtman is ever changeless, and therefore not open to any chance of being dislodged from its native condition. The wise should be so firm and resolute as to be convinced that they are always Brahman, ever in and of it. In other words, the consciousness of the self-realization of âtman should never cease even for a momeut. Well says the smrti " (the wise shonld look with equal eye whether upon a dog or a chandala ) they should be equal to all."

CHAPTER III.

( GAUDAPÂDA'S-KÂRIKÂ.) OF THE ADVAITA.

1. The Jiva betaking itself to devotion, believing all to be the result of evolution from Brahman, and therefore unchang- ing and unborn even before such evolution, is said to be of narrow intellect, inasmuch as it so believes.

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS. Aum. The word Aum is fully explained even by simply enunciating the proposition " Atman is the negation of the

S'ANKARA'S COMMENTARY. 59

phenomental, blissfal, and ever one without a second "; as also by the other proposition " It being known duality does not exist." Duality has been shown to be mere illusion in the preceding chapter, by illastrations of dream, illusion, castle-in- the-air, etc., and also by reasoning based on grounds such as "the capability of being seen," " the being finite," and the like. It is asked whether the Advaita is to be taken as proved only on the evidence of the S'ruti, and whether no reason can possibly demonstrate it? This chapter, therefore, shows how the Advaita can be demonstrated by reason. The last chapter ends with the conclusion that all difference of whatever kind implied in acts of devotion, is mere illusion, and the only reality is atman, the advaita. This is perfectly correct. Jiva is any individual, here referring to one trying to obtain liberation. This Jioa betakes itself to devotion as a means to the end, viz., moksha, and believes the relation between itself and Brahman to be one of devotee and the object of devotion. It under- stands that by the help of this devotion, it, subsisting in the present only or being evolved from Brahman, shall, in future, that is-after death, become Brahman. For, as before evolntion it, as well as all other things, was unborn, all, inclnding itself, must become that which they were before evolution, by force of the said devotion. Such a Jiva inasmuch as it regards Brahman as conditioned in this manner and therefore other than the absolute, is called of narrow intellect, that is to say, with intellect limited by ignorance, by those who are acquaint- ed with the absolute reality. The Upanishad of the Talavakâra s'akha has it " that which is not shaped by speech, but that by which speech is shaped, is Brahman, and not what thou worshippest." 2. Therefore, I begin to describe that which is infinite limitlessness of thought ( sentiency? ), which is ever unborn, and which is equal everywhere; thus showing how, though appearing to give birth (to this variety of things ) on all sides, it is not at all affected by any such thing.

60 MANDOKYOPANISHAD.

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS. As one nnable to realize atma as ever unborn and present within and withont, and therefore believing it to be limited by avidya, thinks " I am born"; " I subsist becanse Brahman has evolved me ont of itself"; I shall become Brahman by devotion to It"; and thus remains in stnpid narrowness of mind ; I begin to describe Brahman which in reality is in- finite limitlessness, etc. Narrowness of mind accompanies knowledge of duality, for there where one sees another, hears another, narrowness or limitedness arises. This is born out by the s'ruti declaring all to the mere name, etc. Brahman called bhuma, the unconditioned infinite, is that which is opposed to this. That is the infinite limitlessness of thonght, realization whereof destroys all narrowness of mind born of avidya. The source of the nnconditioned infinite is not known and it is therefore called the ever unborn. It is also equal everywhere, for there is in it nothing like ineqnality or unevenness caused by any variety in the form of parts, etc .; for, that which has parts is said to be uneven in itself. But this ( Brahman ) is without parts, and is therefore eqnal every- where, being not marked by any part being bronght into prominence. It is now proposed to show how this Brahman is not at all affected by any change, though ever appearing in different shapes like the rope in forms such as the snake, etc. 3. Atman is likened to akâsa ; being the totality of all Jivas put together like so many ghatâkâs'a, and being in- clusive of the ghatas as well. This is the fittest illustration of evolution ( from Brahman, if any ).

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS. Brahman is ever nnborn and is the infinite limitlessness of thought. This position is now substantiated by reasons and illustrations. As âtman is the highest and the infinite, it is likened to âkâs'a, for it is like it without parts and all-pervad- ing. It is also like each ghatâkâs'a ( the portion of âkâs'a in- tercepted in a jar ), each Jiva being the ghatakas'a (and the

BANKARA'S COMMENTARY. 61

totality of all being atman, the mahakasa). Each ghatakasa when lost in the mahakasa', is all âkâs'a. The same applies to Jiva and atman. Or the first half may at once be construed in this manner. As âkas'a is the totality of all ghatakâs'as, that is to say, is, as it were, made np of them, so is the absolute made up of the variety of Jivas. The substance is that the prodnction or evolution of Jiva from atman, heard of in the Vedantas, is only after the manner of ghatakas'a produced from mahakas'a. As from the same akas'a are produced all the ghatas as well (akas'a being that space which gives form to the jar-ghata ), so from the absolnte, the akâs'a of the illas- tration, are prodnced, after the same manner, all the elements such as prthvi and others, gross or subtile, in fact all that is snbject to cansality, being all mere imagination like the rope- snake, and answering to the ghata of the illustration. Hence the text says " being inclusive of the ghatas as well." When the s'ruti, with a view to enlighten the ignorant, speaks of the production of Jiva from atman, the production should be understood only after the manner of the production of ghatas and ghatakas'as, from akas'a, i. e., mahakâs'a. 4. As on the dissolution of ghata, the ghatakas'a is merged in akas'a, 80 Jiva is merged in atman in the same manner.

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS. As the prodnction of ghatakas'a is consequent on that of the gkata, and as on the dissolution of the latter, the disappearance of the former ensues, so, in the same manner, are the Jivas produced on the formation of the body and similar limitating conditions, and dissolved in atman on their disappearance. In other words, the production or dissolution of Jiva is not real in itself, but is merely imaginary in the manner described. 5. As on any one portion of akâs'a intercepted in a jar, being soiled, so to speak, with dust, smoke, ctc., all such inter- cepted portions are not soiled or affected, so the misery or kappiness of one Jiva is not the misery or happiness of all.

62 MÂNDUKYOPANISHAD.

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS. This verse is an answer to the argument of the dualists to the effect that dtman being one in all, it must follow that the birth, death, or misery of one, ought to be the birth, death or misery of all ; and further that this being the case, there caunot be any just or possible adjastment of cause and effect. The answer is as follows. As on one ghatakas'a being soiled with dust, etc., all ghatakas'as are not soiled, so all Jivas are not affected by the happiness or misery of one. The objector asks- do you admit the unity of atman or not ? We reply-yes, and add whether the objector has not heard what we said ere long on this point, likening atman to akas'a, and thus showing its unity. Then, retorts the objector, âtman being one, nothing conld pre- vent the said unity of experience. This difficulty raised by the Sankhyas does not hold. The Sankhyas do not postulate stman 'as capable of being affected by happiness, misery,etc.,but declare that these ( happiness, etc., ) belong inseparably to buddhi (the mind). And besides this, there is no anthority or argument for regarding atman, the transcendent essence of consciousness, as apart (from experience). You need not say that in the latter case (not regarding tman as apart from experience), the "being for another " of the action of pradhana, will not be borne out ; for whatever the pradhâna may be supposed to accomplish by itself "for another," has no inseparable relation with atman. If bond- age or liberation accomplished by the pradhana were possibly related in an inseparable manner, to purushz, ever apart, then indeed will the "being for another" of the action of pradhana, not be compatible with the unity of âtman, and the multiplicity of âtman (purusha in Sânkhya phraseology) will deserve to be upheld. Bnt the Sankhyas do not regard bondage or liberation as being in inseparable relation with atman ( purusha) for purushas are regarded as centres of simple conscionsness, ever free from all variety. Hence "being for another" of the action of pradhana is rendered perfectly possible by the mere being of purusha, and the assumption of the multiplicity of purushas is simply redundant. In other words, the "being for another " of the action of pradhana cannot be strained to serve as a demonstration

S'ANKARA'S COMMENTARY. 63

of the multiplicity of purushas. And the :Sankhyas have nothing further to put forth in support of this theory of multiplicity. The pradhâna takes on itself bondage and liberation only through the nominal instrumentality of the mere being of another (the purusha). This another is the cause of the action of pradhana only by the very fact of his being, and not on account of being with any additional attributes ( as in the theory of those -- Patanjali and others-who posit an Is'vara over the purusha of the Sankhyas ). Hence the as- sumption of the multiplicity of purushas betrays sheer ignorance, and is wide of the sense and import of holy writ. Even that which the Vais'eshikas and others put forth, viz., that desire ( and eight other attributes ) are in inseparable relation with atman, is not correct. For, impressions* producing memory cannot, in the first place, be in inseparable relation with dtman which has no parts and no magnitude. Moreover, memory being only a result of the contact of mind with âtman, the rule of memory (that memory cannot accompany perception ) will not hold, as memory will be continuons and simnltaneons. Even the said contact of utman with mind is hypothetical, for âtman belongs to a class other than that of mind, and is entirely void of touch. And the Vais'eshikas do not allow that gunat ( property or attribute ), karma ( action ), sâmanya (generic mark) and vis'eska (differentia) can exist independent of dravya (substance or substratum )-átman in the pre- sent instance. For if they can be independent of substance, desire, etc., must also be so in the case ot âtman, and both in the one case as in the other their connection with substance ought to be wholly impossible. If again you say, that in the case of substances and attributes which are inseparably one, such inseparable relation (samavâya ) is perfectly possible, we say it is not, for it is impossible to prove inseparable relation of

• Impression being one of the nine attributes of âtman in the Vais'eshika theory. t The contact (Samyoga) whose possibility is just denied, is a guna accord- ing to this theory and hence the argument to corroborate the denial.

64 MANDUKYOPANISHAD.

desire, etc., inasmuch as the substratum-âtman, ever per- manent, is antecedent to them, they being quite impermanent. If, however, this inseparableness of desire, etc., and âtman, were granted, the former ought to be as permanent as di- mension, etc., which accompany the latter-a reductio ad absurdum. Moreover, there will be no room for liberation as such. If inseparable relation were something in itself other than its substratum,-the snbstance,-the relation between it and the substance must be something beyond itself, as in the case of attribute and substance .. If you say that inssparable relation is a constant inseparable relation, and nothing exter- nal, everything related by this relation ought to be inseparably constant. Or if substance and attributes be still separate, the possessive used to indicate the possession by the former of the latter, would be meaningless. Atman too must of necessity become impermanent, being with attribntes incon- stant in themselves, as proved by their coming and going. Moreover the being with parts, and the being subject to change, as in the case of the body, will be another set of arguments against the constant character of âtman. As âkâs'a is regarded, on account of the illusion of avidya, to be soiled with dust, smoke, and the like, in the same manner, when atman is regarded as happy or miserable on acconnt of the accident of the mind born of the illnsion of avidya, bondage, liberation, etc., are rendered relatively possible for it. For, dispntants at variance as to the nature of the absolute are all perfectly agreed as to the illusive and avidya-born character of the realm of relativity and experience. Hence it follows that the theory of the multiplicity of âtmans ( to justify which the objection at the beginning has been raised) set up by the tarkikas, is superfluous and useless. 6. Form, capacity, name, differ here, there, and everywhere ; but that is not sufficient to imply any difference in akas'a ;- and the illustrution may fully apply to Jiva.

B'ANKARA'S COMMENTARY. 65

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS. How is it possible that experience which proceeds with the multiplicity of atmans as its very bases, should be justified by mere avidya, on the theory of the unity of atman? This is thus explained. In the case of dks'a we see quite a number of the variety of its forms, large, small, mediocre as seen in the form of a jar, a piece of hail, or a blanket ; as also a cor- responding variety of capacities such as fetching water, preserv- ing water, serving as a cover, etc .; and lastly a variety of corresponding names such as jar, piece of hail, blanket, etc. This we see here, there, and everywhere, in fact throughout the world of relativity and experience. This experience is created only by the said variety of form, etc., and has no connection with the real thing ; for, in reality, akas'a is never with variety, being ever one and changeless. As this experience therefore implies no variety in the âkâs'a itself, but only in certain external accidents, so in the case of Jiva, answering to the ghatâkâs'a of the illustration, variety in âtman produces them, the variety itself being a result of the accident of body born of avidya. This is the conclusion at which the wise have arrived. 7. As âkasa portioned off by a jar, is neither a part nor an evolved effect of âkâs'a, so is Jiva never a part or an evolved effect of atman.

s'ANKARA'S GLOSS. It may be argued that the variety of formas such as gat- âkas'a, etc., is in itself, real. This cannot be. For, ghatâkas'a is not something formed ont of dkas'a like ear-rings from gold, or bubbles, foam, etc., from water; nor is it, like the branches of a tree, a distinct part of it. Similarly Jiva, the ghatâkas'a of the illustration, is neither a part nor an evolved form of atman, the mahakas'a of the illnstration. Hence experience based on the multiplicity of atman is entirely baseless. 8 As akas'a becomes soiled in the eye of the inexperienced, s0 does atman become soiled in the eye of the ignorant.

15

66 MÂNDÛK YOPANISHAD.

B'ANKARA'S GLOBS. As experience of death, birth, etc., is concomitant with individuality in the form of Jiva produced by the accident of the body, like the experience of form, action etc., consequent on individualization as seen in the case of ghatakasa,-the being-affected by misery, action, results, and the like, of &tman is only casual, i. e., caused by the false idea of individuality, and not at all real. This is now shown by an illustration. As in the world, the inexperienced, that is, those not able to judge and discriminate, imagine the âkâsa (i. e., the visible âkâs'a, the sky in this instance ) to be overcast with clouds or soiled with dust, smoke, etc., whereas those able to judge for themselves know for certain that the sky is not at all touched by any of these ; so âtman the transcendent essence of subjec- tive consciousness, appears to be affected by misery, action etc., only to those who are ignorant, who in fact have not the power of judgment necessary to know the trnth. Bat those who have this power are not at all deluded into any such belief. As saltish land, the substratum of the mirage, is never with the foam, bubbles, waves, etc., which those afflicted with thirst see on it, so is âtman never in even the least manner connected with the evils, etc., which the ignorant attribute to it. 9. Death, birth, motion, rest, position ; in all these, as regards all Jivas, it is the same as in the case of akas'a.

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS. The point just explained is further developed. The apparent death, birth, etc., of atman, as seen in all Jivas, are just the same as those of ghatakas'a. In short these are mere illusion in the one case as in the other. 10. All entities ( Jivas ) are mere dream, being sent forth by the power of illusion in atman, and nothing can show their reality whether they be all equal, superior, or inferior ( to one another ).

S'ANKARA'S COMMENTARY. 67

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS. The entities such as bodies, etc., which answer to the ghata of the illustration, are like entities seen in dream, or like the body created by an illusionist. They are sent forth by the power of illusion in atman. This power of utman is called avidya ; the entities are all evolved from it and are therefore unreal. If their relative inferiority or superiority, as in the case of birds, gods, etc., or if even their equality (could be made to serve as an argument to establish their reality it is replied that ), their existence in itself is difficult to prove. Hence they are born only of avidya and cannot be real. 11. That which makes the sheaths, Rasa and others, as described in the Taittiriyaka, what they are, is the highest Jiva, fully described after the illustration of akas'a.

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS. Now are adduced statements from the S'rutis to corroborate what has already been said in regard to the distinctionlessness of the absolute âtman, free from birth, etc. Rasa, etc., are the five annamaya, prânamaya (and manomaya, vijmamaya, ânandamaya ) kos'as, being each like a sheath, the first of the second, the second of the third, and so on in order, as described in the. Taittiriyaka, that is to say, the Tattiriyasakhopanishad. That which makes the kos'as what they are, is Jiva, being the cause of their being. What is Jiva? It is the highest âtman, described before as the only entity, all thonght, and endless, called Brahman. The said sheaths exist through the power of illusion of âtman ; being described as issuing forth in the order of âkâs'a, etc., like pictures in the panorama of dream or illusion. This atman has been described after the illustration of akas'a in the previous verses. It does not answer to the description given of it by the tarkikas, who say that it is an imagining Jiva within the reach of human reason. 12. In the pairs described in the chapter on Madhujnana, the substance is the imparting knowledge of the absolute ( as

68 MÂNDUKYOPANISHAD.

the ultimate fact of being ), just as is the object in describing akas'a as being under ground as well as in the stomach.

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS. Moreover, in the words "that which is super-physical ( adhidaivz ) as well as corporeal ( adhyatma ) ; that which is tejomaya and amrtamaya purusha ; that which is the knower within all such as prthvî, etc .. is the highest atman ;- all is Brah- man," though the pairs (adhidaiva and adhyatma, tejomaya and amrtamaya, etc.,) are pnt forth, the object is only to deseribe the absolute, Brahman, up to the limit where dnality or relativity disappears. It is also indicated when this is to be found ; for it is said that it is found there where the nectar of Brahma- vidya is tasted. This nectar is the highest bliss, is in fact the madhu (honey or nectar) jnana, set forth in the Madhubrâhmana. It is there that this is so described. The meaning is further developed by a reference to the illustration of âkâsa, which is one in all pairs such as the earth and stomach, and the like. 13. The oneness of Jiva and atman in unity is praised, whereas variety or separateness is censured, which shows that this is the truth.

s'ANKARA'S GLOSS, That the S'astras as well as sages like Vyasa and others should extol the unity of Jiva and âtman, demonstrated by reason, and borne out by scripture ; and that the idea of sepa- rateness or variety supposed to be natural as within the general experience of all, and advanced therefore by those perverse theorizers who have no iusight into the real meaning of the S'astras, shonld be censured by the knowers of Brah- man, in such texts as "It has no second" ; " He experiences danger who finds even the smallest difference"; " All this is âtman" ; " He goes from death to death who here perceives anything like distinction," and many more of the same import; that all this should be so, shows that this is the truth,

S'ANKARA'S COMMENTARY. 69

easy of comprehension, and in accord with reason. The false theories pat forth by the tarkikas are not of easy comprehen- sion, that is to say, are not such as can be accepted, on exami- nation, to be in accord with reason. 14. The assumed separateness of Jiva and âtmin before evolution, is only metaphorical, with a view to ( describe what is to ) be, and does not at all deserve to be real.

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS. The phrase " before evolntion " must be nnderstood to mean 'in that part of the Upanishad which speaks of evolution, i.e., in the karmakanda.' The separateness of Jiva and atman is described in the said part ( karmakanda ), in various ways varying with the object of desire, in such texts as " Desirous of this"; " Desirons of that"; " He, the highest, supported heaven and earth ", etc. This being so, the question is asked how, when the words of the Jnanakanda conflict with those of the karma- kanda, the former alone are taken to be in accord with truth and reason ? The reply is as follows. The separateness described in the karmakanda, anterior to such texts of the Upanishad as "That wherefrom all beings emanate "; " As small sparks from fire "; " From this atman came forth akasa "; " It saw "; " It created light "; which all speak of evolntion, is not real. If not, what is it ? It is only metaphorical, and the separateness implied is like that between mahakasa and ghatâkása, or like the present tense nsed in the phrase " he cooks rice ", said in regard to somebody cooking rice in future. Moreover texts in sapport of separateness cannot be shown to uphold real separateness as such, for, texts speaking of the real separate- ness of atman are empty statements in accord with the general run of the experience of those who being imbued with avidya labour under a sense of separateness. Whereas in texts speaking of evolution, destruction etc., it is the unity, oneness, of Jiva and utman that is clearly sought to be established, as in the texts "Thou art that "; "He does not know who knows"; "He is another" ; " I am another ", etc. Hence having in view the

70 MANDUKYOPANISHAD.

nnity to be subsequently demonstrated in the Upanishads, texts in accord with the idea of separateness seen in general expe- rience, must be only metaphorical. Or such texts as " It saw"; " It evolved forth light," etc., imply that before evolntion there was one sole unity. And if, having in view the future circum- .stance of the demonstration of this same unity in such texts as "That is the trath"; "That is dtman"; "Thou art that, " etc., the separateness of Jiva and atman were found enunciated in some place (as a preliminary to begin with), it must necessarily be held that this separateness is simply metaphorical like the present tense in the phrase " he cooks rice." 15. Evolution as described by illustrations of earth, iron, sparks of fire, has another implication, for they are only means to the realization of the absolute ; there being nothing like distinction.

s'ANKAKA'S GLOSS. It is trne that before evolution all was one withont a second; but Jivas being produced, with evolution, distinction is intro- duced. This is not correct ; for those texts that speak of evolation have a different implication or meaning. The diffi- culty raised here has been solved even before, in that it has been shown that all entities ( Jivas) are like dream, being evolved from the power of illusion of atman ; as also that the birth, etc., of Jivas are like those of ghatakas'a. The question is here re-opened taking into consideration the snbstance of these very texts which speak of evolution, distinction, etc., only with a view to determine the real meaning. Evolution describ- ed by the illustrations of earth, iron, and sparks of fire, has an entirely different meaning; for such illastrations are only meant as means to assist the true realization of atman. As in the chapter on the dispute between the pranas, anecdotes about Vach, Asura, Pâpma, Vedhâ. are conceived only for assisting the mind to grasp the superiority of Prâna, so is the import of all texts about evolution, etc., which should therefore be simi- larly understood. If it be said that the meaning assigned to the said anecdotes is not correct, we say it is, for in different

S'ANKARA'S COMMENTARY. 71

s'akhas we have the same dispute described in different forms, which could not be if the dispute were understood in its literal sense. The fact of the existence of different versions of the same dispute clearly shows that the dispute is not to be taken in a literal sense. If it be urged that the fact of crea- tions being different in different kalpas, will justify the diver- gence between descriptions of.the said dispute in different places, as also of the diferent evolutions described in different texts, we emphatically say-no. For any such suppo- sition is simply aimless. It is not possible to find out for texts speaking of the dispute or the evolution, any use other than that of serving as a means to assist the mind in grasping the truth just described. If it be urged that it is possible to find out sach use, inasmuch as they might be supposed to assist concen- tration leading to that end, we say-no. For concentration on despair, evolution, destruction will only lead to identification with one of them (and not with the absolute ). Hence texts speaking of evolution, etc., are to be understood metaphorically as helps to assist the mind in grasping the unity of âtman, and in no other sense whatever. It being so, there is nothing like destruction, etc., implied by the said evolntion, etc. 16. There are three grades (as'ramas) corresponding to three-lower, middle, and higher-powers of vision. This phase of devotion is taugkt for their use.

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS. If such texts as " all is one without a second," prove that atman alone is the highest, ever pure, all thonght, ever free, ever full, the ever existent, and all else is entirely false, what, it is asked, conld be the use of devotion such as is taught in texts like " Atman should be seen"; "That atman who has wiped off all sin should perform sacrifice"; " Atman alone should be invoked," etc. And what is the object of enjoining karmas like agnihotra and the like? The reason for all this is as follows. The word as'rama in the text means those who belong to the as'ramas ; as also those who belong to

MANDUKYOPANISHAD.

the ( varnas) and observe prescribed scriptural usages and rites. The use of the word as'rama at once implies that the first three classed ( varnas ) are meant, and those are possessed of lower, higher, and middle powers of vision, that is to say, endowed respectively with low, ordinary, or high powers of intellect, Devotion and karma are enjoined by the Veda out of pure sympathy, to indicate the road that leads by degrees to realization of the absolute. But this only for those who are possessed of ordinary and low powers of intellect ; and not for those whose powers of vision are high, and who therefore know dtman already as one without a second, as described in the S'rutis "that which is not thought of by the mind but that whereby mind is able to think at all, is Brahman, and not that which is worshipped," "thou art that"; "all this is âtman, " etc. 17. The advocates of duality, obstinate each in their own conviction, conflict mith one another, whereas this conflicts with none, not even with them.

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS.

The advaita is the trnth demonstrated by reason and sanc. tioned by scripture, and all else foreign to it is false and ima- ginary. But the philosophy of dnality is false for this addi- tional reason, that it is eaten np at core, by conflicts within its own fold. How is this? It is as plain as anything. The followers of Kapila (Sankhya), Kanada (Vars'eshika), Buddha ( Buddhist schools), Jina (Jainas), all dualists, are obstinate- ly firm each in their individnal convictions, that is to say, are so depraved and perverse as to hold that trath in its entirety must be of this form and this alone. It being so they naturally hate whomsoever they regard as their opponent. Being thus affected with sympathy and aversion, they conflict with one another for the sake of their individual conviction. With these thus conflicting among themselves, our view of the unity of âtman, teaching the non-separableness of all, is not at all in

8'ANKARA'S : COMMENTARY. .73

conflict, like one not in conflict with one's own hand and feet. Hence not being open to sympathy or aversion, the idea of the unity of all is the truth. 18. The reality is the advaita, duality is only its part. The dualists regard duality as real either way, whence this position of ours is not antithctical.

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS.

It is now explained how the advaita is not antithetical to the Dvaita, the philosophy of duality. The advaita is the reality, and duality, that is to say, variety, is only a part of it; in other words, only a result, an effect of it, borne ont by the texts " all is one without a second" ; "It evolved light," etc. Reason also adds its evidence to this, for in the absence of the activity of the mind, in samâdhi or trance as also in swoon and sleep, quality is not at all present. Hence duality is only a result of unity. The dnalists hold that either way, that is to say, in reality as well as by way of illusion, duality is the truth. As this conviction, in their case, is a result of sheer ignorance, the advaita known to us, the enlightened ones, and enunciated in snch texts as " Indra becomes mani- fold through illusion "; "there is no second," etc., is not in conflict with their idea. This is like one who seated upon a mad elephant, does not, out of his sense of general non-opposi- tion, urge the beast upon a mad man who, though on the ground, maintains that he too is seated on a similar elephant, and that the man seated on the elephant should drive his beast at him. Therefore knowledge of the advaita Brahman is the very self, the very light, of the dnalists ; and for this very reason this our theory is not at all antithetical to theirs. 19. This the ever unborn appears as if with distinction only on account of maya, and for no other reason, for, if distinction were real the immortal would become mortal.

16

MÅNDÛKYOPANISHAD.

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS. If duality were an effect of the advaita it ought to be as real and substantial as its cause. With this objection in mind it is said that the advaita which is the only absolute reality, appears manifold on account of maya, like the one moon appearing as two to one afflicted with deficient sight, or like the rope appearing as a snake, a line of water, a garland, etc. This however is all nothing in reality, for âtman has no parts and no magnitude. That alone admits of distinction which has parts, for change in the relative posi- tion of the parts may lead to a variety of aspects, like pots, ete., which the clay differentiates itself into. Hence the ever unborn which is without parts, admits of no distinction, in any manner whatever, other than the one described viz., illasion (maya ). For if it really did admit of distinction, the immortal, the unborn, the ever one withont a second, and the essence of being, would become mortal; ( a reversal of its nature which will be ) equal to that of fire becming naturally cold. And this change to a condition which is the opposite of that which belongs to one by nature, most inconsistent, for, it contradicts all modes of reasoning. Therefore the reality, atman, ever unborn, and withont parts, appears as if with distinction, only through maya. Whence it follows that duality is unsubstantial. 20. Of that being which is ever unborn, birth is predicated by some, but it is impossible that the unborn and the immortal could ever partake of the mortal.

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS.

If those interpreters of Brahman, who, expounding the doctrine of the Upanishad without properly weighing the words, say that dtman, the, by its very nature, unborn and immortal, really passes into birth ( as the forms of objects which make up experience ), were correct, âtman by the very fact of its having passed through birth ought to be subject to

B'ANKARA'S COMMENTARY. 75

death as well. But how is it possible to imagine that atman which by its very nature is unborn, immortal, and the very essence of being, should become mortal, and nothing ? That is to say, it will in no manner become mortal, become some- thing opposed to its very nature. 21. The immortal does not become mortal, or vice vers'a ; for in no way is it possible that a thing can be changed into something quite the opposite.

S'ANKARA'S GLOSE As in experience the immortal never becomes mortal nor the mortal immortal, the becoming otherwise of the natare of a thing, that is to say, its being changed into something entirely opposite, as in the illastration of fire given before, is never possible. 22. How can he who believes that the naturally immortal becomes mortal, maintain that substance remains immortal, though passing through birth, and stands ever changeless ?

s'ANKARA'S GLOSS. For the dispntant who maintains that the immortal sub- stance does become mortal by passing through birth, it is idle to hold that substance is immortal before birth. How then can the substance be said to be immortal though passing through birth ? And how again can that which passes through birth be said to stand changeless? This cannot be justified in any manner. Hence he who holds that the âtman passes into birth can never say that it is immortal, inasmuch as to him all is mortal. And all being mortal there is in this theory no room for anything like liberation ( i. e., permanence ). 23. The import of the sacred terts on the subject of passing into birth, whether in reality or unreality, is the same through- out ; that alone is possible which is sanctioned by S'ruti and demonstrated by reason.

76 MANDUKYOPANISHAD.

s'ANKARA'S GLOSS. It is objected that in the case of those who maintain that the absolute never admits of any change, it will be difficult to reconcile texts which speak of evolution. We reply there are indeed such texts, but their meaning is not what it appers to be, for it has already been explained that all such texts serve only as helps to the mind in the act of grasping the - absolute. Though thus disposed of, the qnestion is re-opened with a view to allay all doubt in regard to the favourableness or otherwise of these texts, to the main point at issue. Whether we take the evolution of things as real or as mere illusion spread forth by an illusionist, the fate of texts speak- ing of evolution, remains unaffected. It may be urged in this connection, that when choice has to be made between the metaphorical and the actual sense of words, the latter ought to prevail. We say-no. For, evolution in any sense ( other than illusion ) is not known to us, and is superfluous even if demonstrated. All evolution whether supposed to be actual or metaphorical refers only to illusive evolution through the power of avidya, and not to anything real. The S'ruti also chimes in "within and without all is the unborn." Hence that which the S'ruti declares one without a second, unborn, immortal, and reason demonstrates to be the same, is what has already been enunciated in the preceding pages. This is the sense of the S'rutis in question, and none other. 24. By the text " There is no variety here," as also "Indra, by maya, etc.," (it is plainly implied that) the ever unborn be- comes many only through maya.

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS. How can it be said that this alone is the import of the said texts? It is rdplied that if evolution were absolutely real, the variety of experience must necessarily be real, and there ought to appear no texts speaking to the contrary about experience. Bnt in fact we have quite a host of texts speaking of the unreality of experience, to wit, "there is absolutely no variety

B'ANKARA'S COMMENTARY. 77

here," etc. Therefore the evolation spoken of in these textą, only as means for a clear understanding of âtman, is simply imaginary. And this is farther borne out by the use of the word maya to indicate the act of evolution in the text " Indra becomes manifold through maya." It may be argued the word maya means the mind, and we say yes to this. But as know- ledge produced in the mind through the senses is all avidya, it is not wrong to say that mayd means illusion. For, the said text would, with the special meaning assigned to the word maya, mean that Indra becomes many through knowledge produced by the senses, that is, in other words, through avidya; for the S'ruti also has it that "The unborn is born manifold" implying that the birth is only through illusion. The word "only " in the original text emphasizes the fact of this birth being pure illusion ; for, the being and not being born as many, are two statements contrary to each other and are like the simnltaneous predication of heat and cold in the case of fire. The realization of the unity of atman has a very important object in view as described in the text " when could there be even the least idea of delusion or misery to him who realizes Unity ? or, as implied in the text censuring the sense of duality: " he passes from death to death " etc. This, therefore, is the one determined sense of the S'ruti in question. 25. Moreover, by the negation of sambhuti, the whole of the effects are negatived, and by the words ' who can cause it to pass into birth' is denied the whole of causality.

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS. " Those who worship sambhuti ( Hiranya-garbha ) enter the region of thick darkness." This text exclading sambhûti from worship, excludes the whole of the effects ( inasmnch as it is the highest of them). If this ( sambhuti ) were absolately real its exclusion in this manner would never be possible. ( There- fore it as well as all effects are unreal). It may be urged here that the negation of worship in the case of sambhûti is meant only to point to the co-ordination of sambhuti with the

78 NÅNDÛKYOPAMISHAD.

karma called vinas'a, in the same manner as the negation of worship in the case of avidya, in the text " those who worship aridya enter the region of darkness " (is meant to point to the co-ordination of vidya and avidya i. e., karma.) Yes, it is indeed true that the exclusion of sambhuti is really meant to assert the co-ordination of devotion to God ( Hiranya-garbha ) implied in sambhuti, and the karma called vinas'a. Still it should not be forgotten that as the karma called vinas'a has as its result, freedom from death in the form of the result consequent on inborn ignorance, so the co-ordination of devotion to God ( with the said karma called vinas'a ) meant for reforming the performer, and of the form of action pro- duced by desire for some resnlt, must have as its result freedom from death in the form of the dual impulse of end and means. Thus then it follows that as one freed from the impurity known as death of the form of the dual impnlse of end and means, becomes entirely pure, avidya of the form of the co-ordination of devotion and karma has freedom from death as its end. (As here, so in the text instanced to corro- borate the fact of such co-ordination ) co-ordination of (two opposites like ) avidya (karma ) and vidya is reconciled by the fact that, as one free from the death of avidyd consisting of impulses, and therefore free from all attachment, obtains immediate realization of the unity of the absolnte, on applica- tion to the Upanishads; the said co-ordination of avidya and vidya in the same person is easy of explanation by their succession in time. This being (the import of the difficulty suggested by the exclusion being made to mean co-ordination), it follows that the sense being other than that suggested by the words, the censure implied in the exclusion of sambhuti from worship, is, having regard to the immortality obtainable by Brahmajnana, sufficiently well deserved. Even though devotion ( to sambhûti) is of use, by being the means of de- stroying impurity, ( still ) not being the way to the immorta- lity ( of Brahmojnâna, it deserves to be regarded us inferior and nnreal. Hence sambhuti being thus negatived, its reality is only relative; for having regard to the absolute nnity of

L'ANKARA'S COMMENTARY. 79

dtman, the tendency of effects towards any other kind of immortality ( is of no use ), and is therefore declared unreal- In the same manner, J?va, the creation of illasion, the result of avidya, reverts to its native form, on the disappearance of avidya. It being so, it is impossible to say whence it is born. No one can reproduce the snake seen in place of a rope by force of avidya, after it is entirely destroyed by proper discri- mination. In the same manner no one can produce the Jiva. In the interrogative form of the phrase " who can cause it to pass into birth ?" is implied the emphatic negation of causality. That is to say, there is nothing which can act as a canse to produce something which being mere illusion ( avidya), is subsequently destroyed. The S'ruti also has it " this is from nowhere and has not been born of any. " 26. " It is not this, not that." As this explanation nega- tives every thing of it, employing pure incomprehensibility as reason, ( it follows that ) the ever unborn ever subsists self- luminous.

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS. The S'ruti, believing that atman, though demonstrated by the negation of all distinction or character in the words "hence this is the conclnsion ;" " It is not this, not that," is difficult to understand ; and being therefore anxious to des- cribe it by all possible means at its command, proceeds to negative all positive predicates of atman. In other words, the Sruti denying of atman all that is comprehensible, in fact, all that can be the subject of the idea of being born; and thus showing the invisibleness of atman in the words " it is not this, not that," desires to negative everything positive that can be attributed to it, by employing incomprehensibility as a reason, in this sense that one not knowing the entire snbordination of all means whatever to the end to be achieved, should not take the means themselves to be as real as the end (âtman). Hence one knowing the means to be inseparable from the end

80 MÅNDUKYOPANISHAD.

and the end to be ever one and changeless, the ever unborn atman which within, without, and everywhere is revealed of itself, in all its native light. 27. That which is, may appear to pass into birth, only through illusion, and not of itself; he who maintains the reality of this birth, must maintain also that the born is born again ( and so on without end ).

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS. It is determined by numerous texts that dtman which is everywhere, ever unborn, is the only one without a second, and nothing beside it possibly exist. The same conclu- sion is now demonstrated by reason. It may be urged if âtman is ever incomprehensible, it may be something unreal. This cannot be, for, we see its effects as plain as anything. As we infer the existence of the illusionist from effects such as the production of different forms, etc., brought about by the existent worker of the illusion, so visible effects such as the birth of worlds, etc., must lead us to infer the existence of the absolutely real atman, the substratum of the whole of illusion as spread out in the variety of forms, etc. For, the birth of worlds, like that of the elephants, etc., of the illusionist, is possible through the power of illusion only, dependent on a cause really existent and not non-existent. It is, however, not possible to say that anything is actaally born of atman. The words " of itself" in the text may be taken with the words "through illusion " and the first half of the verse may be made to mean ' the existent may be supposed to give birth to things, like the rope to the snake, etc., only through illusion and not of itself, that is, not in reality.' In other words, though the ever existent is incomprehensible it appears to give birth to many things or to take many forms, only through illusion. like the rope appearing as a snake, etc. That philo- sopher who, however, holds that âtman, the absolute existence, ever unborn, converts itself into the variety of the cosmos, cannot say so on account of the contradiction implied in the

S'ANKARA'S COMMENTARY. 81

very words unborn and born. If he continues to maintain that atman does convert itself into the word of experience, he must admit that what is once born will be born again and so on ad infinitum (precluding all possibility of absolution ). Thus it is plain that atman is ever unborn and one. 28. The non-esse never passess into birth either in reality ur in illusion, for the son of a barren woman is born neither in reality nor in illusion.

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS. There are some who postulate non-esse as the source of everything. It is, however, impossible for them to show that anything can come out of nothing, either in reality or illusion. For there is nothing in experience to corroborate the idea. The son of a barren woman is an empty concept, never realizable either in reality or in illusion. Hence this theory is entirely untenable and false. 29. As in dream the mind acts as if dual in character, through the power of maya, so in the waking condition also it acts in the same manner through the same cause.

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS. How do we say that the becoming of being is only through illusion? As the snake is pure being when seen as the rope, the mind is all being when seen as âtman by the help of true knowledge. The mind though single appears dual in dream, in the form of cognizer and cognized, through the power of illusion, like the rope appearing as a snake. In the waking condition also, the mind appears dual in the same manner, through the same cause. 30. The mind though one appears as dual in dream, so also in the waking condition it, though single, appears dual through illusion.

17

88 MÂNDÛKYOPANISHAD.

s'ANKARA'S GLOSS. The mind thongh in reality one with atman, like the snake is one with the rope, appears as if it were itself dual, in dream. For, in dream there exists not the cognized of the form of elephants, etc., nor the cognizer of the form of the eye, etc., independent of the perceiving agent (the mind ). As in dream so in waking, there being nothing independent of the perceiver. 31. The whole of duality, of whatever form, is simply a phenomenon of the mind, for it is never experienced when the mind is naught.

s'ANKARA'S GLOSS. It may be asked what is the ground for saying that duality is all a phenomenon of the mind, even like the imagination of a snake in place of the rope. This is here shown on the strength of an inference. Phenomenon of the mind means result of the imaginings of the mind ; and the conclusion to be established is this, that ' All duality is of the mind ' in this sense. The reason for such conclusion is that it (duality ) stands or falls with it (mind ). When the mind is naught, when it is no mind, all its imaginings being withdrawn into itself like the snake in the rope, by the constant exercise of proper discrimination and non-attachment, or even in sleep, duality is not experienced. Hence on account of the absence of duality in experience, it follows that is does not exist. 32. When it ceases from imagining, by a knowledge of the truth of Atman, it becomes naught, and remains at rest for want of things to cognize.

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS. It is here explained how the mind conld be reduced to naught. The truth of atman means the truth that dtman alone is real, like earth in the text " all evolution is mere play of words, earth alone ( in the case of pots, etc., which are

S'ANKARA'S COMMENTARY. 88

forms of it ) is the truth." Knowledge of the truth of atman means realization of the truth as here explained by the S'ruti and its interpretation. This truth being realized there remains nothing to cognize, and the mind having nothing to act upon remains at rest, like fire for want of fuel. This is followed by that condition wherein the mind is naught. 33. Thought is declared ever free from all imaginings, unborn, inseparable from the knowable, and Brahman is the sole object of this thought,-the unborn knows the unborn.

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS. If duality is a chimera, who is it that grasps âtman? This is now explained. It ( atman ) is described by those who know it as free from all imaginings, that is to say, as not imagining anything, and therefore without distraction. It is unborn for the same reason. It is all thonght ( sentiency ) and is inse- parable from the knowable i. e., Brahman, the absolute. For, says the S'ruti, " the power of knowledge, of that which knows, never fails like the hcat of fire"; " Brahman is all thonght and bliss"; " Brahman is the absolute trath, eternal thonght, the ever endless." That which is an object of knowledge to Brahman is itself and nothing else, it being inseparable from everything that can be the subject of knowledge, like heat from fire. Hence the unborn atman ( Brahman ), like the ever-effulgent ( self-illnminating ) sun, is self-cognitive. That is to say, in either instance no extraneous light is required, they themselves being all the immutable and constant essence of light and thought respectively. 34. The condition of the mind in trance, and therefore free from imaginings, and all light, should be carefully distinguish- ed from sleep, for, it is not like it.

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS. It was said before that the mind, free from imagination, on account of the knowledge of the truth of âtman, becomes, for want of things to cognize, entirely tranqnil, like fire not fed by fael ; and thus falls into the condition of trance (samadhi).

84 MANDUKYOPANISHAD.

It is also said that the mind being thus at rest, duality vanishes. The condition of the mind when it has realized this knowledge, that is to say, when it is free from imaginings, and is all light, being in a trance, shonld be understood with some care by the practitioner of yoga. It may be said that there is nothing to take note of in this ; inasmuch as absence of distinctive knowledge being the common character of both, the condition of the mind cannot be other than that of deep sleep. This is not at all true. For, the condition of the mind immersed, during sleep, in the torpidity of avidya, and still full of the potential impressions of the canse of experience, is quite distinct from that absolntely independent and perfect- ly tranquil condition of trance, all light. The seeds of avidya in the form of the potential tendency to act, lying imbedded in the mind, are all burnt to ashes when it is immersed in this condition. The fire that so burns is the fire of the know- ledge of âtman. Hence the two conditions cannot be similar, and the distinction should be carefully noted. 35. In sleep the mind is simply overpowered, not so in trance, for then it has become fearless Brahman, all effulgence.

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS. The cause of the said distinction is thus described. The mind is simply overpowered in sleep, that is to say, it, with all the impressions and seeds of avidya, is reduced to that seed-like condition of potentiality, which is all darkness and admits of no perception. When, however, the mind is entranc- ed, nothing of this kind happens, that is to say, it is not im- mersed in darkness, because the condition of trance is one all thought and light. Hence the distinction between trance and sleep is well-defined, and well-marked. When thus free from the evil of duality of the form of avidya present in the distinction of cognizer and cognized, the mind itself is abso- lute Brahman, and is therefore beyond all fear ; for duality, the cause of fear, is nowhere. " Brahman is tranquility and fearlessness " ; "he who knows it is beyond "; says the S'ruti.

s'ANKARA'S COMMENTARY. 85

The same is amplified by saying that it is all effalgence. Effalgence is here employed as a symbol of thought (jnana- gnosis ). Thought is the very nature of atman, and Brahman too is that whose nature is the light of thought; in other words, whose nature is all thought, immutable, and one. The word " all " in the text. further implies that this ' thought is all pervading like âkasa. 36. It is unborn, free from sleep and dream, without name and form, ever-effulgent, all thought; no form is necessary (for it ).

s'ANKARA'S GLOSS. In consequence of the absence of all cause of birth, it is, within and without, ever unborn ; for birth is a result of avidya like the snake of (the illusion prevailing in regard to) the rope; and this avidya is destroyed by knowledge of the truth of atman. It is without sleep because it is unborn, for being the ever-wak- ing advaita it is free from sleep, and for the same reason, from dream as well. Name and form seen in it are creations of mere ignorance, and they are destroyed, like the rope-snake, on the rise of knowledge. It is withont name and form, for, it is not possible to describe it ( Brahman) by name, or de- fine it as of any form whatever. The S'ruti also says " From it speech turns back baffled." Moveover, it is ever-effulgent, that is to say, always of the form of effulgence, thought, being free from the evolution and involution implied respectively in knowing in the wrong manner and not knowing at all. The knowing and not knowing are like day and night, and the dark- ness of avidya is the canse of the constant absence of light. On account of the absence of this darkness, and on account of being itself constant, unchangeable thonght-effnlgence-it is well called ever-effulgent. Hence also it is all thonght, all knowledge. For a realization of Brahman, thus described, no form whatever is necessary to be observed, such as samadhi, etc., which those ignorant of atman set snpreme value upon, and attempt to carry out. In other words, avidya being

86 MÅNDUKYOPANISHAD.

destroyed, there is no room for doing anything, Brahman being ever pure, all thought, and ever free. 37. It is beyond all kind of expression, free from all con- ception, all peace, eternal light, the highest trance, ever im- moveable, and above fear.

S'ANKAKA'S GLOSS. The cause of its being without name is further explained. The word expression is intended for the instrument of expres- sion, that whereby one expresses, viz., speech ; and Brahman is beyond speech. The word speech too is used only metony- mically, for the sense is that it is not burdened with any external instrument of knowledge, viz., the external senses. It is free from conception in a similar sense. Conception here means the instrument of conceiving, vix., the mind; hence Brakman is free from, that is to suy, is without the mind. For the Sruti declares " It is without prana, without mind, the ever effulgent"; " It is higher than that which is beyond aks'ara." Because it is without distinction and character it is all peace. It is ever-effulgent in the sense of being all thought, all knowledge. It is the highest trance inasmuch as its realization brings about that condition of the mind which is the highest trance; or it is so called because in it the mind finds the highest happiness and rest. It is immoveable, that is, beyond change, aad therefore above fear as well. 38. In that where no concepts arise there is nothing to apprehend or give up. Then thought is centred in atman -- thought, formless and all peace.

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS. As it is said, It is the higest trance, immoveable, and above fear, there is no possibility of there being anything in it to apprehend or give up. For apprehension and abandonment are possible only where there is change or the possibility of change, both of which are impossible in Brahman. For,

S'ANKARA'S OOMMENTARY. 87

duality or being with parts, which is the cause of change, is nowhere in Brahman. Moreover, where there is no room for the rise of any concept, apprehension and abandonment are simply out of question. When knowledge of the truth of âtman ensues, thought, on acconnt of the absence of everything else to rest upon, is centred in atman, like the heat of fire centred in the fire ( for want of fuel). This thought is formless, and all peace, that is to say, without even the least variety. Thus is wound up, by proper demonstration and by quoting texts from the S'rutis to corroborate that demonstration, what was begun with the words " Therefore I begin to describe that infinite limitlessness of mind," etc. The words ' formless' and 'all peace' suggest that everything other than knowledge of atman is simple narrowness of mind, for the S'ruti, also says : " O Gargi ! whoever leaves this world withoui knowing the immutable is indeed a wretch of narrow mind," implying that all who realize Brahman become fully satisfied and desire nothing. 39. That yoga is the real one which is ( absolute, being ) not in touch with anything ; it is difficult to be approached by ( so-called ) yogins, for they shrink back from it, imagining fear where there is none.

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS. The absolute which is of this nature, is described in the Upanishads as that yoga which is not in touch with anything. That is to say, which is free from all relation ( to any imagin- able thing or state ). It is difficult to be approached by so- called yogins, because these go by that name while ignorant of that real knowledge ( which is called absolute yoga ) in the Vedantas. In other words, that yoga which is not in touch with anything is realized only through knowledge of atman. The yogins, meaning so-called yogins, shrink back from this absolute yoga, in the fear that it will annihilate the very self on which they fondly depend, thus imagining the greatest fear where there really is none.

88 MÅNDUKYOPANISHAD.

40. To a yogin, are dependent on control of mind, fear- lessness, destruction of misery, the light of knowledge, and eternal peace.

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS. Those who know that the mind as well as the senses are all imaginary, like the snake seen in place of a rope, and not existing apart from atman or by themselves ;- those who in fact are thus Brahman, experience entire freedom from all fear, and eternal peace. In other words, they experience moksha, and that not through anyone or by any means, but quite of itself. Whereas those yogins who, being of inferior or middling powers of vision, and being ignorant of the knowledge of the truth of âtman, believe that mind and the rest are all independent of âtman, and only related to it, can experience the said fearlessness and peace only if they can exercise control over their mind. Not only this but complete destruction of misery also will be one, of the results. The ignorant, however, can never experience this, for in their case, misery follows every act of the mind which stands only in some relation to atman. The being awakened to real knowledge is also dependent on control of the mind; and so also is moksha, eternal peace. 41. The mind can be controlled by untiring perseverence, equal to ( that of one engaged in) emptying the ocean, drop by drop, with the tip of a straw of kus'a-grass.

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS. As one who applies himself with perseverence and patience, without being at all tired, discouraged, or disconcerted may accomplish even the emptying of the ocean, removing drop after drop, on the tip of a straw of kus'a-grass ; so the same good qualities adhered to with resolution may enable the yogin to establish full control over the mind. 42. The mind diffused in the enjoyments of imagination, or lost in oblivious ease, should be brought back (to atman) by the

S'ANKARA'S COMMENTARY. 89

proper means, for imagination and oblivion are both equally dangerous.

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS. Is persevering application the only remedy for controlling the mind? No. One who works with perseverence and appli- cation, shonld bring the mind, by remedies to be shortly described, back to âtman, when it diffases itself in the enjoy- ments of imagination ( called up by desire ). Oblivion is that condition wherein it becomes oblivious, in other words, sleep ; and the mind, though at perfect ease, in such oblivion, should be awakened from it and brought back to dtman. Why should it be brought back if it is at ease? Because this condition of oblivious ease is as dangerous as that of imagination. Hence the mind should be kept from imagina- tion and oblivion. 43. It should be turned back from imagination and enjoy- ment by a memory of misery ;- it sees not the born on remember- ing all to be unborn.

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS. What is the remedy ? The mind diffused in the enjoyments of imagination, should be bronght back by impressing upon it the memory of all duality born of avidya being nothing but misery; in other words, by strongly impressing on it the sense of complete non-attachment. If it recollects what it has learnt from books and teachers, that all is the unborn, it does not need the born i. e., duality, for then it itself does not exist. 44. The mind immersed in oblivion should be simply awaken- ed; and when diffused in imagination, should be brought back (to atman). The intermediate condition should be known as that in which attachment exists in a potential form. When it has gained the condition of proper equilibrium it should not be disturbed.

18

90 MÂNDUKYOPANISHAD.

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS. The mind should bs awakened by constant practice of knowledge, and of the habit of non-attachment, if it has a tendency to fall into oblivion, that is, sleep. By awakening is meant its being turned towards dtman by proper discrimi- nation. The word used in the text for manas (mind) is chitta (the objectivising power of the mind), but both here mean the same thing. If it has diffused itself in enjoyments of imagi- nation, it should be pacified and brought back to âtman. The mind of one thns trying repeatedly to control it, and therefore on its way back from enjoyment as well as oblivion, is, if it has not gained the condition of equilibrinm, in a coudition wherein both the enjoyment and the oblivion exist in a poten- tial form. It should not therefore be left to droop half-way but should be carried, with effort, to the condition of equili- briam. When it has gained this last condition it should not be disturbed, that is to say, it should not be allowed to relate itself to objects of enjoyment. 45. It should not be allowed to indulge in the happiness ( even ) of that condition ; but ( the ascetic ) should free himself from all attachment by proper discrimination. If the mind thus brought to a point should try to externalize itself, it should be unified with atman.

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS. The ascetic nearing the condition of samadhi ( called the condition of eguilibrium in the preceding verse ) experiences a degree of happiness, which continnes even in that condition. But the mind should not be allowed to attach itself even to this happiness. How should the ascetic then stand? He should understand by discrimination that whatever is of the form of happiness is born of avidya, and is therefore fatile ; and he should in this manner free himself of all attachment or relation, by turning the mind away even from that supreme moment of bliss. When, however, the mind, after being thus brought to a point, tries to externalize itself, tries in fact to

S'ANKARA'S COMMENTARY. 91

indalge in a world of external objects called into being by itself, it should be controlled by the remedies described before, and should be nnified with atman, that is to say, should be reduced to mere being as implied in the very form of pure thought. 46. When the mind falls not into oblivion, nor is distracted by enjoyment, it is itself Brahman, being without action, and beyond relativity.

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS. When the mind controlled in the manner described, does not fall into oblivion and is not distracted by enjoyment, and is therefore without action, that is, as firm as the flame of a lamp in a place protected from the slightest breeze; and is also beyond relativity created either by its own actions or those of another, then indeed it has become Brahman. 47. That happiness is described as centred in itself, all peace, containing liberation within itself, indescribable, the most sublime, the one unborn, ( not apart from ) the cognized, ever unborn, in its turn, and itself that which is all thought ( Brahman ).

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS. The happiness just described as the resnlt of the knowledge of the truth of atman, is centred in itself ; all peace, that is to say, free from all evil ; containing liberation in itself, that is to say, equal to, or more than kaivalya itself; and indescrib- able, because of being entirely unlike, and unconnected with anything. It is also the most sublime, inasmuch as it is cognizable only by ascetics ; and it is unbron, because it is not born or produced like anything resalting from sensible objects. It is not apart, in the form of being ever sat (being), from the cognized, which also, in its turn, is in reality ever unborn, and all being so, is Brahman by its very nature (thonght). This happiness is so described by those who know Brahman.

92 MÂNDUKYOPANISHAD.

48. No Jiva is born, nor is its cause ascertained ;- this indced is the highest truth that " nothing is born."

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS. All this talk about controlling the mind, and abont evolu- tion resembling the evolution of varions forms from a piece of iron or a lump of clay, and also about devotion, etc., is a mere means to the end, viz., realization of the absolute ; and has in itself no meaning whatever. The real truth therefore is this that no Jiva is ever produced, nor is any actor, any experiencer of frnition, in any way, ever prodnced. Hence it is natnral that It, the ever unborn and sole âtman, has no ascertainable cause, which fact in itself corroborates the first statement (for Jiva and âtman are not different). This truth that in, and of Brahman, the unconditioned absolute, nothing is born (in fact the whole of experience is not a reality and is never produced), is the highest truth, and the varions traths given before were but as means to the realization of this end.

CHAPTER IV.

(GAUDAPÂDA'S-KÁRIKÂ.) OF QUENCHING THE FIRE-BRAND.

1. I bow to that best of men who knew the akasa-like at- tributes as inseparable from the knowable, by knowledge re- sembling akasa.

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS. With the declaration "this is the highest truth " is well and finally established the position of the advaita, undertaken for demonstration on the occasion of an examination of sacred texts to determine the sense of the word Aum, clearly defined by showing the futility of duality and distinction implied in the possibility of experience, and lastly perceptibly presented

SANKARA'S COMMENTARY. 98

to the mind in the chapter styled " Of the advaita," on the authority both of scripture and reason. And a hint has been thrown out in the concluding part of the preceding chapter that the philosophy of duahty and nihilism, opposed to the advaita established by a concensus of all sacred texts, is entire- ly false, being torn asunder by internal and mutual opposition, brought about by partiality to individual opinions and jealousy of, and aversion to those of others. Moreover the advaita nas been praised as the true philosophy, being non-antithetical in its nature. Hence it is proposed in this chapter styled " Of quenching the fire-brand," ( following that rule of induction which allows of the affirmation of a universal positive relation between the two terms of a proposition, only after examining and refuting all possible opposition between them) to complete the examination of the truth of the advaita by accentaating the internal mutual apposition of the various schools, and by thus showing their utter futility. This first verse is meant as a salutation to the promulgator of the advaita philosophy conceiving him as nothing apart from the advaita. The worship of the teacher is useful as a means to bring this undertaking to a successful issue. Knowledge resembling akasa, means knowledge all-pervading like âkas'a. What is done by such knowledge ? The attributes of atman are known. These attributes too are akas'a-like, that is to say, resembling akas'a. The knowledge by which these attributes are known is again not separate from the knowable, i. e., the attributes themselves, inasmuch as knowledge and the known are, like heat and fire or light and the sun, not separable. He who knew by knowledge inseparable from the attributes, the very form of atman, the known or knowable, is indeed Is'vara, called Nârâyana, and to him I bow. He is the best of men, ( purushas) and is therefore called purushottama. In thus saluting the teacher it is implied that the philosophy of the advaita-which teaches the unity of knower, known, and know- ledge, is to be demonstrated in this chapter, through a refutation of all opposite theories.

94 MÂNDUKYOPANISHAD.

2. I salute him who taught the yoga called asparsa ( that which is not in touch with anything, i. e, absolute ), which conduces to the well-being of all, which is beneficent, free from dispute, and non-antithetical.

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS. Now is a salutation directed to the yoga tanght by the advaita philosophy with the object of showing its supe- riority over all others. Spars'a means touch, relation, and that which is not in touch with anything, which is beyond relativity, is called aspars'a, in other words, the absolute Brahman ; the yoga of those who are one with Brahman being so called. It conduces to the well-being of all, ( because it is different from all other kinds of yoga involving more or less of pain and trouble). There are certain forms of yoga such as the performance of austerities, etc., which, thongh tending to the greatest happiness, partake largely of the form of misery. This yoga is not of this kind, but is throughout conducive to the happiness of all. But, it may be argued, even enjoyments of the senses are such. True, so they no doubt appear, but such en- joyment can hardly be beneficent as well. And this yoga is eqnally pleasant and beneficent, for it is, by nature, ever im- mutable. Moreover it is free from dispute, that is to say, it is that which is not the subject of disputation in the form of arguments pro and con advanced by two oppenents. Why so? Because it is non-antithetical, that is to say, not opposed, in its nature, to any theory of belief. I salate that teaching which has tanght me this yoga. 3. Some philosophers postulatc evolution of being, others are proud in their conviction, of non-being, thus disputing each the conclusion of the other.

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS It is shown fow the upholders of duality quarrel among themselves. Some philosophers, that is to say, not all, but the Sankhyas alone, maintain that things are already in being before

S'ANKARA'S .COMMENTARY. 95

they appear as things. There are others, the Vaikeshikas and the Niyayikas, who, prond of their intelligence, hold that things are produced of nothing. Thus they dispnte with each other, and try to become each the superior of the other. 4. That which is, cannot not be, as that mhich is not, cannot also be; thus disputing they dritt to the advaita and ( uncon- sciously ) imply that ajati (absolute non-evolution) is the truth.

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS. It is now shown what these, disputing each other's conclu- sions, tend to establish. That which is or has been, needs not to be produced, for it, like atman, already is. Thus argue the supporters of the theory of evolution from non-ens, refnting the opposite theory of the Sankhyas. These, however, in their turn, say that it is perfectly absurd to imagine something coming out of nothing ; and thns show the falsity of the theory of evolntion from non-ens. Thus refuting each other these dnalists tend to the advaita, and setting aside both being and non-being, accept the advaita theory of absolute non-being or non-evolution as the real trnth.

5. We gladly say yes to the absolute non-evolution that they thus tend to establish ; and see no use in arguing with them. Know this then to be that which is free from all dispute.

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS.

We simply accept as good the absolnte non-evolution that they thus (iudirectly ) establish, and do not care to argue the point with them by espousing like them one issue or other. Hence know, ye pupils, that this is the real trnth often and often declared by us, as in this manner, free from all dis- pnte. 6. Of that being which is ever unborn, birth is predicated by some ; but it is impossible that the unborn and the immortal, could ever partake of the mortal.

96 MANDUK YOPANISHAD.

7. The immortal does not become mortal, nor vice versa ; for in no way is it possible that a thing can be changed into something quite the opposite. 8. How can he who believes that the naturally immortal becomes mortal, maintain that substance remains immortal though passing through birth, and stands ever changeless.

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS. These have been explained before ( chapter II. 20-21-22 ). They are repeated here only with the view of bringing into pro- minent relief the opposition of the schools of dualistic thonght. 9. By the nature of a thing is understovd that which is complete in itself, that which is its very condition, that which is inborn, that which is not artificial, or that which does not cease to be itself.

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS. As the natnre of a thing is not known even in ordinary experience to be subject to change, it is proposed to define what is meant by the natnre of a thing. " Complete in itself" means complete on acconnt of its being well formed, in thut shape, frora the beginning. An illustration of this kind of natnre is the occult powers or siddhis-animd and others, accru- ing to the yogins, and never changing in any of the three conditions of time. So also is that the nature of a thing which is its very coudition, such as heat and light of fire, never apart from fire either in time or space. That which is inborn, that is to say, born with the thing to which it belongs, is also the nature of a thing, as the power of flight in birds. Anything else not artificially superindnced, as the nature of water to seek a downward course, is the nature of a thing. And lastly anything which never ceases to be itself, in any condition, is also the nature of a thing. If in mere imagin- ary things which make up ordinary experience, nature means that something which never alters, what should it mean when

s'ANKARA'S COMMENTARY. 97

referring to things eternally real? In other words, the natur of things absolutely real, viz., absolute immortality, cau never be sabject to even the least change. 10. All jivas are by nature free from decrepitude and decay, the very thought of these in any of the jivas believing themselves subject to them, is equal to an abandonment of their nature.

S'ANKAKA'S GLOSS. What is that substratnm of what is called nature in the pre- ceding verse, which is regarded as snbject to change by certain theorizers ; or what is the ffaw in such a theory ? This point is now enlarged npon. "Free from decrepitnde and decay" means free from all change of every description. What is meant by the expression "all jivas"? It means jivas which, being really atman, are free by their very nature. It being so, if these jivus should imagine themselves subject to decrepitde and decay,i.e., to change in their native form,-âtman-like the imagination of a snake in place of the rope, they would desert their nature by the very act of such imagination. ( And this is absurd. ) 11. Those who regard the cause itself as the effect, admit the transformation of the cause into the effect. How could that ichich can be transformed into something be called unborn; or how can that which admits even of partial change be called permanent ?

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS. The Vaiseshika shows how the Sankhyas in their theory of being involve themselves in contradiction. Those philoso- phers who regard the cause, meaning the material cause like clay, etc., of pots, ete .. as the effect; who, in other words, say that the cause is transformed, like milk (into curds), into the effect, imply that the ever-existent and unborn pradhana, the canse, passes into birth in the form of effects such as mahat, etc. If then the ever-unborn pradhâna passes into birth, and transforms itself into mahat, etc., how conld it he said to be unborn ? To say that it is unborn, i. e., immutable, 19

98 MÂNDÛKYOPANISHAD.

and born, i. e., passing into change, is in itself an obvious contradiction ; moreover it is held that the pradhâna is permanent, but if it admits of change, say even partially, how can it be said to be permanent? For even ordinarily a jar which admits of being broken on one of its sides is never called permanent. The contradiction is thus twofold: the cause is ever unborn and yet born ; it is permanent and yet capable of being partially cut off. 12. If it be explained that the inseparableness of the efect from the cause is all that is meant, then indeed the effect also ought to be as unborn as the cause ; or if it be urged that the inseparableness of the cause from the effect is the meaning, how about the permanence of the cause .!

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS. This verse is meant to amplify the preceding. If the Sankhyas should explain that the canse is the effect in the sense that the effect is inseparable from the cause, the effect should be as unborn as the cause, which circumstance contradicts all experience inasmuch as it maintains that a thing is an effect and is yet unborn. If then it were put forth that the cause is the effect in that the cause is inseparable from the effect, it would be entirely impossible to say that the canse has permanence, for one part of a hen cannot be cooked while the other is in the act of laying eggs. 13. There is no illustration to support the statement of those who say that effects are born of the unborn; and as to their being born of the born reconciliation is very difficult.

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS. Moreover there is no illustration to support the theory of those who say that effects are born of a cause which itself is not born of anything. And as there is no illustration, the pro- position stands that nothing is born of the unborn. If it be said that effects are born of a cause itself born of something

S'ANKARA'S COMMENTARY. 09

else, it is impossible to avoid a regressus in infinitam in regard to the last cause. Hence this theory also cannot be reconciled to reason. 14. How can those who say that effect is the cause of the cause, and vice versa, maintain that either the cause or the efect is without beginning ?

S'ANKAKA'S GLOSS, The S'ruti declares the entire absence of duality in the realm of the absolute, in the words "when all has become âtman, etc." The argument in this verse is from the point of this text. The cause, i.e ,dharma(merit) and adharma (demerit)has for its cause the effect,vis.,the body,etc., which too,in their turn, have for their cause the same dharma and adharma. Those who postulate this kind of interdependence of cause and effect and accept a specific beginning of each, cannot, without obvious contradiction, maintain that canse and effect are with- out beginning. In short, the immutable and firm dtman can never become either canse or effect. 15. Those who maintain that the effect is the cause of the cause, and vice versâ, would assert evolution after the manner of the birth of the father from the son.

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS. The contradiction is forther explained. The contradiction in which those who maintain the production of the cause from the effect born of that cause, involve themselves, is just the same as that implied in one's speaking of the possibility of the birth of the father from the son. 16. You must determine the order in which cause and effect succced each other, for if they be simultaneous they cannot be related to each other, like the two horns ( of an animal ).

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS. If yon say that the contradiction just pointed out is not logi- cal, it is for you to show in what order are canse and effect pro- duced. For if they are simultaneous it is not possible to speak

100 MANDÛKYOPANISHAD.

of any relation between them, as it is impossible to speak of any between the two horns of a bull produced simultaneously. 17. The cause being produced the effect will not be definite; and an indefinite causc cannot produce any effeet.

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS. It is shown how it is not possible to speak of a relation of cause and effect, between the two simultaneonsly produced. The cause being produced from the effect which itself is not yet definitely produced, will not be definite, i. e., will be non- existent like something produced from the horns of a hare. And the cause itself being a mere horn of the hare ean never produce the effect. Two things thus dependent on each for the production of the other, can never, like the two horns of a hare, come to be related as cause and effect, or even as anything else ( i. e., as the container and contained, etc.). 18. If the cause is produced from the effect and the effect from the cause, which of the two, dependent each on the other, is prior to the other ?

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS. If even after showing the impossibility of causality as con- ceived by the duality, they should maintain that it is possible for cause and effect to beget each other, we ask-which of the two is antccedent to the other, so that it may be, at least rela- tively, seen as the canse of its consequent. 19. The reply must lie in inability (to explain), or in ignorance ( of the matter altogether ) or in entire unjustifiability of the order of succession; in all which the learned only shed additional light on our theory of absolute non-evolution.

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS. If you say that this cannot be explained, this inability is in itself a clear confession of ignorance of the matter, i. e., of that which is the absolute truth of the matter. Or if yon try to

S'ANKARA'S COMMENTARY. 101

explain the order of succession, the one already pointed out by you is not at all justifiable, is in fact not consistent with logic. Thas the relation of cause and effect being shown to be im- possible, the theory of absolute non-evolution is brought to greater prominence, in this indirect manner, by the learned of each of the dualist opponents. 20. The illustration of seed and tree is itself matter of proof; anything which belongs to the same class as the thing of which something is to be proved, cannot be used as middle term in establishing that something of the thing in question.

s'ANKARA'S GLOSS. The opponents say "we have maintained the relation of cause and effect between an antecedent and its consequent, and you have raised mere verbal difficulties to show this posi- tion as absurd as that of the birth of the father from the son ; or as deficient in any possible relation between antecedent and consequent as the two horns of a bull. But in fact we have never maintained the production of the effect from a cause not already existent, or of the cause from effects not snfficient in themselves." To this we ask-what then have the opponents been maintaining all the while? It is replied that the relation of cause and effect is analogous to that of the seed and the tree. This position we now proceed to analyse. This position is tantamount to saying that the illustration of seed and tree is an instance of the kind of relation to be demonstrated. It may be asked whether the apparent relation of cause and effect be- tween the seed and the tree, is without beginning ? We suppose not, for all antecedents must be with beginning like their consequents. As a tree produced this moment is with begin- ning, the seed prodnced from another tree (existing in the past) is, by the very succession implied in the act of production necessarily with beginning. Thus all antecedent trees and seeds must be with beginning ; and this being applicable to all cases, and everything born of the seed or the tree being with beginning, nothing can be said to be withont beginning. The

102 MÂNDUKYOPANISHAD

same applies to cause and effect. If it be maintained that each of the series of seeds and trees is without beginning, we demur to any such thing, for it is difficult to establish the continuous unity of any such series. Each of the series can- not be conceived. by the upholders of the beginninglessness of the series, as anything existing in entire independence of the seed or the tree; nor could each of the series of cause and effect be conceived as existing independent of individual causes and effects. Hence it is well explained how the beginninglessness of cause and effect can be maintained. Thus this as well as every thing else of the kind urged by us against the beginningless theory of causality, is not all of the form of verbal difficulty. Moreover even in the world, those who are versed in the art of logical dednction, are not known to use anything which is yet matter of proof, as a middle term to establish relation between the major and minor terms of a syllogism. The word middle term is used here more in the sense of illustration, for it is the illustration that leads to the minor premiss and throngh it to the conclusion ; and the case in question is not a middle term but an illustration. 21. The absence of the knowledge of antecedence and conse- yuence brings into relief the theory of absolute non-evolution for if a thing is said to be consequent it is absurd to say that its antecedent is unknowable.

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS. It is explained how more light is shed by the learned on the theory of absolute non-evolution. The absence of the know- ledge of antecedence and conseqnence, in regard to cause and effect, is itself sufficient to bring into relief the doctrine of absolute non-evolution. That which is a consequent is of course definitely known, and if that is definitely known, why should its cause not be known as its antecedent; for one who knows an effect as such, ought necessarily to know its cause, the relation of cause and effect being inseparably one. Hence this ignorance plainly illustrates the theory of absolute non-evelution.

S'ANKARA'S COMMENTARY. 103

22. Nothing is produced either of itself or of another, nor is anything in fact produced, whether it be being, non-being, 'or either.

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS. Nothing is born of anything for the reason that whatever is supposed to be born (produced) is not born of itself, of another, or both of another and of itself; nor is it being, non-being, or either. In fact the being prodnced of something is impossible to establish in any manner. Nothing is born of itself i. e., from its own form, not sufficient in itself. Nothing can re- produce itself, as a jar, a jar. Nor is anything prodaced from something else, as cloth from a jar ; and another cloth from the first. And thirdly nothing can be born both of itself and another, for obvious reasons ; for example, a jar and a cloth cannot together produce either the one or the other. It may here be urged that we always see the production of jars from clay, and of children from parents. This is all very true, for the ignorant have no doubt a subjective consciousness of birth (and the relation it is supposed to involve) and the corres- ponding expression to denote the idea. Bnt it is the business of the wise to analyse these very subjective impressions, and the words used to express them, and determine the truth they contain. It turns out that all objective foundation of these subjective impressious, and verbal expressions, is nothing more than a name. the Sruti also confirming the conclusion in the words " all effects are mere words and names." Again if the objects of experience are ever-existent like clay or parents, you need not suppose their superflnous production. If they are non-existent like the horns of a hare, they cannot, by their very nature, be ever prodnced. And lastly if they are both existent and non-existent, they will, by the very contradiction in their natnre, be destructive of each other, and will produce nothing. Hence it stands to reason that nothing is produced ; those, how- ever, who, by postnlating the presentation of an object as a result of prodnction, maintain the unity of action, actor, and act, side by side with the transitory nature of objects, set up

104 MÂNDUKYOPANISHAD.

something entirely removed from reason and experience. For things do not exist in the moment next to their presentation, and there being no cognition, memory is impossible (a circum- stance which upsets the very possibility of experience, the thing to be explained ). 23. From that which is without beginning, the cause cannot derive its birth, nor the effect, of itself ; that which is known as causeless is without beginning as well.

s'ANKARA'S GLOSS. Moreover in accepting the beginninglessness of canse and effect you necessarily accept their being not prodnced. Thus of an effect without beginning no cause can take its birth, for yon don't admit that an effect without beginning can produce anything. Nor can yon say that an effect is prodnced of itself, that is, withont an external canse, or from a canse without beginning and unborn. Therefore in accepting the beginning- lessness of cause and effect you accept their being never produced. The rule of experience also dictates that what is without a canse is without a beginning ; for that only has a beginning which has a canse; and not that which has none. 24. Subjective impressions must have an objectine cause, otherwise both ought to be non-existent. For this reason, as also on account of the presence of cvil, the rcality of objective experience accepted by philosophers ( at variance with the advaita ) is forced on all.

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS. A doubt is raised in order to fortify by its solution, the position already taken. Snbjective impressions consist of the variety of mental presentations accompanied by corresponding words to express them. These must have a cause in the existence of objects without the cognizing subject. It is impossible that impressions and words shonld exist without corresponding objects, for they must have a canse corresponding to their form. If words and ideas have nothing objective to

S'ANKARA'S COMMENTARY. 105

rest npon, the variety of impressions such as sound, tonch, colour, and the like, must all be naught along with the ideas corresponding to then, and absolate non-existence must reign supreme. But this conflicts with experience. Hence because snbjective impressions and their variety both exist in experi- ence, it is necessary to explain them by the theory of the opposite school which holds to the reality of objects. It is not possible to explain away the variety of experience, by positing in place of an ohjective canse with colour, tonch, etc., mere variety in the subject, all thought, throngh some action in, and of itself. In other words, variety in the subject is impossible, as in a pure crystal, without its being in touch with something external. Hence follows the reality of objects existing outside the subject, as maintained by others. Moreover, evil in the form of pain caused by burns, pricks, etc., does exist, which onght not to be, if fire or thorns the cause of the burn or the prick, were not a something inde- pendent and outside of the subject. But evil in this form is always present in experience, which fact also is an additional proof of the reality of the objective. 25. It is true that reason must assign a cause to subjective impressions ; but arguments drawn from the nature of things point to the causelessness of the cause.

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS. The preceding is now refuted. It is true that subjective impressions must have a cause, becanse of the coutingency of absolute non-existence, and on account of the presence of evil. You are perfectly welcome to your reason for accepting the existence of things as they appear to exist ; but if you ask what we have to say against such conception-here it is. Jars, etc., which you take as the objective canse of subjective impressions, have themselves no canse, nothing to rest npon ; and they are therefore not the canse of subjective impressions. This con- clusion is forced on us by the very nature of things. For, the jar, after its real nature-clay, bas been understood, does not 20

106 MANDUKYOPANISHAD.

exist apart from the clay, as exists a buffalo in entire in- dependence of a horse. Bnt the jar does not so exist in entire in- dependence of clay, and so also do not exist a cloth apart from its threads, or the threads themselves in their turn apart from their parts. Going thus deeper and deeper into the very na -. ture of things, even till language itself fails, we do not light up- on any thing which can become the cause of another thing. Or the words in the text interpreted as " from the nature of things," may be interpreted as "from the unreality of appear- ances"; and the futility of everything supposed to be objective may be dednced from the fact of all appearance being unreal like that of a snake in the rope. And even the cause itself wonld be no-canse, being only conceived as such through illusion; for it mnst cease to be canse when the illusion disappears. Experience accords with this, inasmnch as in sleep, trance, or liberation, nothing external to âtman is cognized, on account of the entire absence of illnsion. 'It being so, that which is set up as the truth by the delnded cannot be accepted as snch by those whose mind has not lost its balance. Thus are refuted the arguments drawn from the contingency of absolute non-exist- ence and the presence of evil. 26. The mind does not relate itself to objects, nor does it allow them to reflect themselves in itself ; for objects are unreal and their reflection is not apart from the mind.

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS. Becanse there is nothing external the mind does not relate itself to external objects. It is not also a reflector of them, be- cause its activity is similar to its action in dream. External objects are, even in the waking condition, as unreal as the phe- nomena of dream, for reasons given more than once. Nor is the reflection of objects anything apart from the mind, in other words, it is the mind itself that externalizes itself as objects. 27. The mind is never in relation to the cause, in any of the three periods of time ; and it is nol easy to see how it could conceive or receive false impressions without a cause.

S'ANKARA'S COMMENTARY. 107

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS. Then we must say it is false knowledge-the reflection in the mind, of jars, etc., which do not exist in reality. If this were so, something must be found out wherein there is no such false knowledge, and in reference to which we pronounce this know- ledge to be fulse. Let us examine the facts. The mind never relates itself to the cause-external objects-in any of the three periods of time, past, present, future. If it can be shown that it does relate itself to external objects in some moment of time, that in itself wonld constitnte the reality in reference to which the other impressions of the mind may be called false. But such reality is nowhere, whence the assumption that false know- ledge is the canse of the impressious in the mind, falls to the ground,there being no cause for such hypothesis. In other words, the theory of false knowledge ( anyath-akhyâti ) does not hold water. This is the very form of the mind, that it should con- tinue to take on the form of jars, etc., their non-existence in reality notwithstanding. 28. HIence not only are objects cogninsed by the mind not produced, but also the mind that is supposed to cognize them. Those who regard it as produced, are gazing for a foot-mark in the sky.

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS. The disenssion beginning from verse 24 contains the argn- ments of the Vijñanavâdins ( subjective idealists ), a sect of the Buddhists,which are advanced against those who maintain the reality of objectivity. The teacher ( advaitin) gladly accepts the conclusion, and using that very conclusion as the middle term, proceeds in this verse to overthrow the principle underlying the conclusion. We gladly approve of what the subjective idealist has advanced, to wit, that the mind takes on the form of jars, etc., their non-existence in reality notwith- standing. For, this explanation accords with the facts of nature. But becanse this is so, the supposed production of the mind ( the subject ) onght also to become nothing more than

108 MiNDOKYOPANISHAD.

an idea; and the mind shonld be regarded as not produced even in the same manner as the things supposed to be cognized by it. Hence those idealists who regard the mind as prodnced and partaking of momentariness, miserableness, emptiness, and non-atman; in other words, who try to understand the mind as (independent of, and) understandable by itself, do something equal to looking np at the sky for a foot-print. These idealists are thus more audacious than their opponents the dualists ; and the Nihilists,* who maintain absolute anni- hilation of self-consciousness, are fools of a yet higher type, inasmuch as they wish to compress the heavens in the palm of their hand. 29. The unborn is said to be born, but its very nature is to be ever unborn; and the nature of a thing can never be otherwise.

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS. This verse is the conclusion of what has been discussed above. Brahman is unborn and one, on grounds already described. The mind too having been shown to be unborn is Brahman as well. If one shonld now say that it is born, this will be equal to saying that the unborn is born. And this will be contrary to its very nature which makes it ever unborn. The rule in regard to the nature of a thing is that it never alters. ( Hence the mind can never be said to pass into birth even through illusion ). 30. The world cannot be said to be without beginning and at the same time non-eternal; nor can liberation which has a beginning be eternal.

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS. Here is another flaw in the theory of those who maintain the reality of the world and liberation. The world which is with- out beginning, which in fact has not a definite past, cannot, in * The Mâdhyamika sect of the Buddhiste.

J'ANKARA'S COMMENTARY. 109

reason, be shown to have an end. For, in experience, nothing which has no beginning is non-eternal. If you instance the break in the continuity of the relation of seed and tree ( as against this thesis ), we say it is not to the point, for it is not one single entity. In the same manner it is not possible to demonstrate the eternity of moksha, realized only at the mo- ment of its knowledge, and therefore known to have a begin- ning. For jars, etc., with beginnning, have no eternity. If it be said that ( moksha in the form of destruction of bandha ) not being any substance, can be eternal like the destruction of a jar ( which though not a substance and thongh with beginning is without end); such an assertion will go against the real positive character of moksha maintained by yon; for moksha being only negative, and therefore a nonentity, will be like the horn of a hare, and therefore without beginning. 31. That which is naught at the beginning, and is so also ut the end, necessarily does not exist in the present : objects are all like ordinary illusions though regarded as real. 32. The being used as means to some end of the objects of waking experience, comes to naught in dream. Hence on account of being with beginning and end they are certainly false and no more.

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS. These verses were explained before ( Chapter II. 6-7); and are cited here only to corroborate our position in regard to the entire non-existence of creation and liberation. 33. All things seen in dream are false, being seen within the body ; for in so small a space, how could objects exist and be seen.

B'ANKARA'S GLOSS. These and the following verses are meant to explain what has already been demonstrated, viz., that the facts of nature point to the canse being no-cause and so forth.

110 MANDUKYOPANISHAD.

34. The seeing of a thing at a distance by going up to it is 'not possible, for no perceptible time is taken in the act of going ; and on being awake, the dreamer does not find himself in the place where he dreamed himself to be.

s'ANKARÂ'S GLOSS. The time taken in going, as also the place of going, are all defiuite in waking experience ; but there appears to be no rule in regard to these in dream; whence it follows that the dreamer does not cognize things at a distance by actnally going ap to them. 35. On being awake, the dreamer does not see anything of uhat had been the subject of conversation with friends (in the dream ) ; nor does he possess any thing he had then acquired.

s'ANKARA'S GLOSS. A man might talk to friends in a dream on various snbjects, but he sees nothing of them on being awake. Nor does he hold in his possession whatever gold, etc., he had acquired in dream. 36. The body active in dream is unreal, inasmuch as there is another ( tangibly ) apart from it ; everything is unrcal like this body, being only a creation of the mind.

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS. The body which appears to be wandering abont in dream is quite unreal, for a body other than that is present at the spot where the dreamer is actually sleeping. As the body active in dream is unreal, so are all things unreal even in waking experience, being, like it, mere creations of the mind. The substance of this section is this, that waking experience is as much fntile as the phenomena of dream. 37. On account of the similarity of perception, waking experience must be the cause of dream; and, it being so, waking experience must be relatively real to the dreamer.

s'ANKARA'S COMMENTARY. 111

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS. The unreality of waking experience is further proved from this, that dream is an effect of it; the experience of dream, con- sisting of perceiver, perception, and perceived, being similar to that of waking. And becanse it is so, waking experience is real only to the dreamer and to none else. As dream is real to the dreamer, that is to say, as the phenomena of dream appear as objects of common experience and really existent, so objects making np waking experience appear as if they were within general experience and really existent, being the canse of the phenomena of dream. Bnt these are not so in reality, in other words, waking experience is like dream and no more.

38. All are entirelu unborn, inasmuch as experience does not warrant the possibility of the birth of anything ; and the production of the unreal from the real is quite impossible.

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS. To begin with a doubt. Though waking experience is the canse of dream, it need not be as futile as dream ; for dream is only momentary, and waking experience is relatively perma- nent. The reply is that this is so only to those who are not sufficiently enlightened. Those who have received the light do not see any trath in cansality and regard all as entirely mnborn, i. e., as atman : for the Vedantas declare " all within and withont is the unborn." If it be said that from waking experience which is real, are prodnced dreams which are unreal, we say-no. For, the unreal is never prodnced from the real, the horns of a hare have never produced anything. 39. Being full of the unreal seen in waking experience, the dreamer re-enacts the same in drcam ; and the unreality seen in dream is, moreorer, not seen in the waking condition.

112 MÂNDUK YOPANISHAD.

s'ANKARA'S GLOSS.

That there is no trath in causality is an obvions contradiction after saying that waking experience is the cause of dream. This difficnlty is thus explained. The relation of canse and effect as conceived by us, in the instance adduced, is this-wise. One full of the unreal, seen like the snake in place of a rope, during his waking experience of the unreal, re-enacts the same in dream, calling into being the triad of perceiver, perception, and perceived, similar to that of the waking condition. Though thus full of the unreal again in dream, he does not, on being awake, as by parity of reasoning he onght, see the same unreality-the imagination which in dream called it into being, being absent. The breach in the chain of cansation thus explained, is hinted at in the text by the word " moreover." And conversely ( though waking experience may generally be regarded as the canse of dream ) several things seen in waking experience, are never experienced in dream. (Hence the chain of cansation is neither absolnte nor real ; but ) waking experience is only said to be the cause of dream ( as an unreal canse of an unreal effect ) not in absolute reality or trath. 40. The unreal as well as the real cannot have the unreal as their cause ; nor can the real have the real as its cause ; and how could the real be a cause of the unreal.

B'ANKARA'S GLOSS. In truth cansation itself is a chimera. How? The unreal, like the horns of a hare cannot be the cause of the unreal like a flower in the sky. Hence the nureal cannot be the cause of the unreal. In the same manner jars, etc., which are ( sup- posed to be ) real, cannot be the effect of an unreal cause such as the horns of a hare. Thirdly, the real, such as jars and the like, is not the cause of the real, such as other jars and the like. And the fourth category-the real being the cause of the nureal-is purely impossible. No other relation than these four is possible under cansation. Hence the enlightened regard causation as a myth.

S'ANKARA'S COMMENTARY. 113

41. As through false knowledge one handles as real, things beyond the range of all possible waking experience, so, in dream, through false knowledge, one sees things possible only in that condition.

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS. This is put in, to do away vith even the least possibility of the relation of cause and effect between waking experience and dream, though both be unreal. False knowledge means wrong perception born of indiscrimination. As one, by a simple feat of imagination, can believe himself handling as real, objects which cannot possibly be imagined as existent in waking experience such as the rope-snake, etc., so he may imagine himself as seeing elephants, etc., in dream, throngh similar false knowledge. But both in the one condition as in the other, the experience of each is peculiar to itself, and there is no relation of canse and effect between the two. 42. Causation is put forth by the wise only for those who being afraid of the absolute cessation of causality stick to the reality of things, from the warrant of their experience and trom their fond attachment to forms.

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS. The warrant of experience is of the form of a belief in the reality of experieuce which is truly unreal. Attachment to forms is faith in the merit of performing religious observances peculiar to one's varna and asrama. The possibility of causa- tion countenanced at times by the wise, is only as means to an end ; and is meant only for the ignorant who, for the two reasons just explained, hold on to the reality of things. They, the ignorant, might do so, but students of the Vedanta mast of themselves be able to realize the one ever unborn âtman, and know the futility of the rest. The srotriyas, those who hold to forms, being thick-headed, are afraid of the absolute cessation of causation, implied in our theory of absolute non-evolution, in 21

114 NÅNDUKYOPANISHAD.

the belief that it tends to self-annihilation. The possibility of cansation and all such things is meant only as a help to such persons, as already explained. 43. Those who, afraid of absolute non-evolution, rely on their account of experience, and go astray, are not much afected by the evil results of their belief, though it is difficult to say they escape with perfect ampunity.

s'ANKARA'S GLOSS. Those who being thus afraid of the theory of absolate non- evolution, rely on the warrant of their own experience, and guide themselves by faith in the forms of religion and go astray, that is to say, swerve from atman and accept duality, are not much affected by the evil results of this their false belief in causation, for, they are ( on account of their strict obser- vance of formal religion ), on the path of truth. If there mnst be some evil, it will be small, being the consequence of their not having realized the trath. 44. As an elepkant, called up by illusion, is said to exist on the wrrrant of experience, and on account of being the cause.of action, so also are objects said to erist on the same grounds.

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS. It may be said that becanse of the warrant of experience, and of the possibility of making things the subject of action. duality in the form of objective experience does exist. This is not true, for the gronnds adduced do not allow of any such assertion. Why not? We see in experience an elephant produced by mere illusion, we act upon seeing it as if it were real, and regard it as in every way a real elephant, by tying it, mounting it, and doing all possible things with it. The existence of duality, on these grounds, is therefore like the existence of this elephant. Hence the two grounds adduced do not prove the reality of objective experience, i. e., duality.

S'ANKARA'S OOMMENTARY. 115

45. Thought-all peace and one, the ever unborn, im- moveable, and immaterial, appears as admitting of. creatite motion, and material existence.

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS .. Here is explained what is that Sat which is, as it were, the snbstratum of the false notions of creation, etc .. The Sat is ever unborn, still it appears to pass into birth, like any ordi- nary being, say-devadatta. It appears to admit of motion as if it itself were moving, like the same devadatta. going from one place to another. It appears as if it were a material thing, a substance, the substratum of certain attributes, like the same. denadatta appearing white, long, etc .. In truth, however, It is. ever unborn, immoveable, immaterial, unsubstantial. What is it then that answers to this description ? It is all' thought which being free from the said accidents is all peace and there- fore one. 46. Thus neither is the mind produced nor are the odjects ;: those who know this are never deceived into false knowledge.

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS. Thas, that is, for reasons given, the mind as well as objècts: ( Jivas ) are never produced, say the knowers of Brahman .. The plural " objects " is metaphorically used, with an eye to the variety created in the one âtman, by the accident of eorporeality. Those who know âtman to be pare thonght, are not deceived by false knowledge, that is to say, they do nos fall into the dark abyss of avidya .; for, says the S'ruti, "where is there any illnsion or sorrow to one who has realized unity?" 47. As motion makes a fire-brand appear straight, crooked, etc., s0 motion makes thought appear as perceiver, perceived; and the like.

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS: The said true knowledge is farther expfained! A's motion makes a fire-brand appear straight, etc., so are produced in

116 MÅNDUKYOPANISHAD.

atman the appearances of perceiver, perceived, and the like. What are the perceiver, and perceived ? They are only the motion of that which is all thought; only a motion appearing as such, through avidya. For immoveable thonght never moves, and thought has already been described as unborn and immoveable. 48. The fire-trand is untouched by the appearance and is ever unborn ( as such ), for its motion is not ut all real ; similarly is thought untouched by appcarance, and is ever unborn, its apparent motion being mere illusion.

8'ANKARA'S GLOSS As the fire-brand is neither straight nor crooked being motionless, and is therefore unborn as, and untonched by, the illusion ; so is the unborn and immoveable without all change on the disappearance of avidy which is the cause of the ill- sion of change, aud is thus free from the appearance of birth and the like. 49. The appearances of the fire-brand in motion do not come from without, nor do they result in anything other than the firc-brand at rest, though they do not appear to enter it.

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS.

Moreover the fire-brand being in motion, its appearance as straight or crooked is not bronght into it from anything without it. And the appearances do not appear in any other place when the fire-brand is at rest. Nor do they enter it at the time of its going into rest. 50. They do not go out of the fire-brand because they are not of the class of substance. The same applies to thought inasmuch as appearance is common to both.

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS. The appearances do not go out of the fire-brand becanse they are uot of the class of substances, such as a house, etc.

S'ANKARA'S COMMENTARY. 117

In other words, as they are not real they do not go or come. Going in or out is possible only of real substances, and not of pure unsubstantiality. The same may, by parity of reasoning, be applied to appearances in thought. 51-52. Appearances do not come from without when' thought is in motion ; they do not go out anywhere beyond the motion ; nor do they enter thought. They do not go out because they do not partake of substantiality ; they are always indes- cribable on account of their not being subject to the relation. of cause and effect.

s'ANKARA'S GLOSS. The similarity is clearly brought ont. Everything said of the fire-brand holds true of thought; the only difference in thought being its ever immutable character. Whence could there be any possibility of appearances such as birth and the like in thonght, ever immutable? On account of the impos- sibility of demonstrating anything like a relation of cause and effect, the relation of producer and produced cannot be establish- ed ; and the said appearances are therefore ever indescrib- able and non-existent. The collective sense is that as the fire- brand, not in itself straight or crooked, is illusively seen to be snch, so thought, ever unborn, is seen to pass into birth, etc., only through illnsion. 53. Substance is the cause of substange and things other than substance of things other than substance ; but Jivas cannot be skown to be substance or things other than substance.

s'ANKARA'S GLOSS. Átman is nnborn ( that is to say, not a snbstance, being without parts) and one ( that is to say, not something other than snbstance, say-attribnte). Those who imagine some kind of causation must admit that substance is the canse of substance, or something other than snhstance of something other than substance, but uot itself of itself. And non-substance

118 MANDUKYOPANISHAD.

is oat of question inasmuch as it is never known in experience to be the independent cause of anything. Jivas are neither sabstance nor something otber than substance, and cannot therefore be the cause or effect of anything. Thus not being substance nor anything other than sabstance dtman ( Jiva) is not the cause or effect of anything. 54. Thus objects are not born of the mind, nor the mind of objects, the wise thus betake themselves to absolute non-evolution, the entire negation of causality ..

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS. Thus for reasons already explained, the mind is nothing other than thought which is dtman; and objectivity is not a resalt of the mind nor the mind of it, for, objects are mere appearances in thougbt. Thus no effect is prodnced from a canse, nor a cause from any effect ; and the wise, i. e .. knowers of Brahman betake themselves to, find the highest peace in, the theory of absolute non-evolution which is entire negation of cansality. 55. As long as there is the least faith in causality, cause and effect will continue to operate ; that faith being destroyed, cause and effect are nowhere.

SANKARA'S GLOSS. What then abont those who have firm faith in cansality ? As long as there is this faith in the form of the convictions " I am the prodncer of the cause in the shape of pions merit or demerit," " mine are merits or demerits," " I shall derive frui- tion from them after a time, in some incarnations "; in other words, as long as there is this false knowledge of cansation in âtman, and the conseqnent fixing of the mind on the idea, canse and effect mast continne to operate, that is to say, merit and demerit and their resnlts must continne to affect such an individoal. When, however, this faith in causation, born of avidyâ, is destroyed by realization of the advaita, even like obsession, etc., by proper incantations, medicines, or herbe, then only do canse and effect cease to exist.

S'ANKARA'S COMMENTARY. 119

56. As long as there is faith in causality, the world is eternally present; this faith being destroyed the wortd is nowhere.

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS. What harm is there if cause and effect continue to exist? As long as faith in causality is not destroyed, the world is eternally present, it contiunes to exist to all eternity. The same faith being destroyed, the world is nowhere for want of the cause of its existence. 57. Everything is produced by the power of avidya and nothing therefore is eternal. Everything again is unborn, being inseparable from Sat, and there is nothing therefore like destruction.

SANKAKA'S GLOSS. It may be urged how after maintaining that there is nothing besides one unborn atman, could one speak of cause and effect or of the world and its production or destruction? The answer is as follows. The power of avidyd is that power of it which spreads forth the illusion of experience and the world, in place of atman ; and everything being born of this power, nothing in the domain of avidyd is eternal. The world, there- fore, though described as produced and destroyed, is well said to be "eternally present"; for in absolute reality everything is the unborn atman. Thus because there is nothing in the shape of birth, there is nothing corresponding to it in the form of death, viz. the destruction of cause or effect. 58. Those entities that are said to be produced are not produced in truth, their production is similar to that of an illusion, and illasion certainly is no reality.

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS. Fntities, vis., Jivas and other things that are imagined to be produced, are not produced in reality, but appear to be so, only

'120 MANDUKYOPANISHAD.

throngh the said power of avidya. And thus birth being but a result of illusion, ought to be nothing more than illnsion. Then is illusion any substance ? Not at all. 59. From seeds, all illusion, nothing comes forth but sprouts of illusion, and these are neither permanent nor impermanent. The same applies to the existence of all beings.

s'ANKARA'S GLOSS. How is the production of entities, mere illusion ? As from seeds such as of the mango-tree, all mayd, nothing bnt sprouts of maya spring forth,* and these are neither permanent nor the reverse; in the same manner, beings, that is objects, Jivas, everything nameable, have no beginning, and no end, being quite unreal. 60. All entities being absolutely unborn, cannot be said to be permanent or not ; where in fact words fail it is impossible to enter into analysis.

S'ANK ARA'S GLOSS. All entities being shown to be absolutely unborn, being all dependent for their existence on thought, characterless, one, 'and eternal, permanence or impermanence cannot be predicated of them. That which cannot be grasped in words, which cannot be expressed, cannot possibly be analysed into this or that, having this or that attribute permanent or impermanent. The S'ruti also says " whence words fall back, etc." 61. As in dream the mind acts as if dual in character through the power of maya, s0 in the waking condition also it acts in the same manner through the same cause. 62. The mind though one appears as dual in dream, so also în the waking condition it, though single, appears dual through illusion.

• This is a familiar illustration, being, borrowed from the performance of certain experts in legerdemain who produce illusive mango-trees, etc.

s'ANKARA'S COMMENTARY. 121

S'ANKARA'S GLOES. That the abstract advaita-thonght-should appear as des- cribable in words is only a feat of the mind, and nothing real, as explained before ( chapter III. 29-30 ). 63. The dreamer going about in all ten directions sees the, whole variety of Jivas born of eggs, perspiration, etc.

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS. The unreality of duality which admits of being described in words is borne ont by this farther reason as well. The dream- er going about in all ten directions in dream, sees the variety of Jivas whether born of eggs, perspiration, or any similar source. What next? 64. These, however, exist only in the mind of the dreamer, and are in no way apart from it; in the same manner this mind too is existent only to the dreamer.

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS. Objects seen by the mind of the dreamer cannot exist out- side of it ; in other words, it is only the mind that objectivises itself. In the same manner the mind of the dreamer must be regarded as existent only for him ; that is to say, it exists no- where apart from the seer (atman ) of the dream. 65 .- 66. One going about in the ten directions, in the waking condition, sees the whole of the variety of Jivas born of eggs, perspiration, etc .; but these are existent only for the mind active in this condition, and are in no way appart from it :- the mind too should, in the same manner, be regarded as existent only for the seer of this condition.

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS. Jivas seen in the waking condition do not exist anywhere bnt in the mind of the seer of that condition, for, they are not seen independent of the mind, and are like the Jivas seen in and

122 MÅNDÛKYOPANISHAD.

through the mind of the seer of a dream. The mind again, madt up of Jivas and their perception, is not independent of the seer of the waking condition, being, like the mind of the seer of a dream, an object of perception to the seer of the waking condition. The rest has already been explained. 67. Both are object of perception to each other, which of them can really be said to be? Both in fact are beyond the range of every rational instrument of knowledge, for these are possible only in and through them.

s'ANKARA'S GLOSS. Jivas and mind are each an object of perception to the other. The mind exists relatively to the Jiva and the Jiva exists relatively to the mind. Hence they are each an object of perception to the other. Therefore anything cannot be said to exist; neither the mind nor its objects. No wise man will assert the existence of either, for, as in dream, the elephant as well as the mind perceiving the elephant are not really exis- tent, so also it should be in this instance. How is it said that they are beyond every rational iustrument of knowledge? Because they are ntterly incomprehensible and indescribable ; and their comprehension by any instrument of knowledge is possible ouly when they are supposed to exist. In other words, the triad of knower, known and knowledge, is possible only in the domain of unreality. If you deny the mental cognition of a jar, it is impossible for yon to perceive the jar and vice versa. In short, the meaning is that it is impossible to define the respective province of instruments of knowledge and the objects to be apprehended by sueh instruments. 68. 69. 70. As the Jira existent in dream is born or dead, 8o all Jivas are and are not. As the Jiva, all maya, is born or dead, so all Jivas are and are not. As the Jiva creuted (by an illusionist ) is born or dead, so all Jivas are and are not.

s'ANKARA'S COMMENTARY. 123

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS, Created, i. e., sent forth by an illusionist by the help of incan- tations, herbs, or medicines. As Jivas existent in dream and illusion, and seen as born of eggs, perspiration, etc., pass through birth and death, so all .Tivas-human entities-which are really non-existent, are ( with all concomitant appearance of birth, death, etc.) merc re ults of the objectivising tendency of the mind, and nothing more. 71. No Jiva is born nor is there any possibility of any such birth ; that there is nothing is the highest truth.

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS So long as the world of experience is supposed to be real birth and death of Jivas are possible like those seen in drenm .. Bnt the highest trnth is that no Jiva is ever born, in the first place. The rest is plain. 72. The whole of experience consisting of perceiver and perceived is merely an imagination of the mind ; hence the mind is described as not in relation with objects, eternal, and absolute.

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS. The whole of experience, i. e., dnality made up of perceiver and perceived, is pnre imagination-a function of the mind which, in absolute trnth is atman, and is, as such, not in relation with objects, eternal, and absolute. The S'ruti says "the purusha is always free from relation." That alone relates itself to objects which has any objects without itself; bnt the mind, having nothing external, is perfectly free from all relation and therefore absolnte. 73. That which exists only in imaginntion does not exist absolutely ; and though it may continue to erist in accordance with the imagination of any other school of thought in absolute reality it does not.

124 MÂNDUKYOPANISHAD.

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS. If the mind is free from relation, being withont external objects to cognize, such a position is not easy to maintain, in- asmuch as the idea of teacher, tanght and teaching, implied in imparting this trnth, goes against it. This obstacle need not detain us. For all such triads are as imaginary as any- thing else. These imaginations are useful only as means to the end, realization of the absolute; for, imagination is only a function of the mind, and whatever exists of it does not exist in reality, and cannot be seen in reality. For, says the Sruti, "duality is nowhere when gnosis arises." The existence of objects maintained by otber schools of thonght, may be true for them ; but from our stand-point of the absolute, nothing exists. Thus the absolnteness of the mind is not at all shaken. 74. It is unborn also in imagination, for, in reality, it is not even unborn ; it is so imagined only relatively in reference to the positions of other schcols,

B'ANKARA'S GLOSS. If teaching, etc,, were simple imagination, the being unborn of atman, taught by this teaching, ought to be imagination as well. We say-yes ; for it is unborn only through such imagi- nations as teaching and the like; in absolnte reality it is not even unborn, It is said to be unborn only as against the position of those schools ( which maintain that it passes into birth ); and this description of It is therefore as much imagi- nation as anything else, nothing being true in absolute reality. 75. ( Men ) have persistent belief only in pure unreality, for duzlity does not really exist. He who thus understands the non-existence of duality is never born, being beyond the range of causality.

S'ANKARA'S GI.O88. Persistent belief in dnality is mere inclination of the mind, from perversity of intellect, inasmuch as it is only a belief in

B'ANKARA'S COMMENTARY. 125

something purely unreal, for duality does not really exist. As the cause of birth, etc., is this persistent belief in the reality of the unreal, he who realizes the non-existence of duality is never born, being above false knowledge. 76. In the absence of cause, superior, inferior, or middle the mind is not born ; for whence could an effect follow without a cause ?

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS. Superior causes consist of certain forms of religion peculiar to each jati and asrama, and carefully observed under the supposition that they lead to the position of gods, by those who are free from the desire of any ( other ) fruit. Middle causes are religions acts mixed with certain irreligious practi- ces, which lead only to the world of mortals. Inferior causes lead to the condition of birds, etc., being wholly irreligions. When one knowing âtman, the advaita, does not relate himself to any of these canses, in fact imagines them as nanght, like a man of discrimination not seeing the dirt, etc., which child- ren would see in the sky, the mind is not born, that is to say, it does not odjectivize itself in the shape of gods, men, birds, etc.,-the results of the respective causes. No effect can be produced without a cause, just as sprouts are not produced without seeds. 77. The being unborn of the mind thus free from causality, is unconditioned and absolute ; and the same is true of all, ever unborn, for it is all an objectivization of the mind.

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS. It is explained how, in the absence of canse, the mind is not born. It is now shown what is the import of this position. "Free from cansality" means free from the cause of birth, con- sisting of religions merit and demerit. And this freedom is attained only by realization of the absolnte. The being au- born of the mind thus free, is unconditioned, that is, not

126 MÁNDUKYOPANISHAD.

affected by change of conditions, and absolnte, that is, ever one. For, from the first, the mind is really ever anborn ; and so are all things. Even before this realization of the absolate the whole of experience is a mere objectivization of the mind. Hence the being unborn of the whole of expe- rience, incloding the mind, is ever unconditioned and absolute. 78. Having known absolute non-existence of causality as the aruth, and not finding any objective cause, one easily reaches that whick is ever free from sorrow, desire, or fear.

s'ANKARÂ'S GLOSS. Having known absolute non-existence of cansality as the truth, on aocount of having seen the entire absence of duality, the domain of causation ; and not finding any external canse in the form of religions merit, etc. ; i. e, being free from all desire of external good, one enjoys the bliss of that condition wherein there is entire absence of sorrow, desire, fear, etc., that is to say, of avidya the canse of these and everything of this kind. In other words the jnanin is never born. 79. As belief in the unreal attaches the mind to the unreal, knowledge of absolute non-evolution frees it from relativity and turns it away from the unreal.

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS. Belief in the unreal means belief in duality that does not really exist ; for duality is only a function of avidya, being the delusion caused by it. Becanse faith in the unreal attaches the mind to the unreal, freedom from relativity brought about by knowledge of the absolnte non-evolution, i. e., unreality of things, turns it away from the unreal. 80. The immutable condition is reached when the mind frees itself from relativity and se'f-objectivization. This indeed is the field of the wise-It is the unconditioned, unborn, and one.

S'ANKARA'S COMMENTARY. 127

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS. When the mind does not relate itself to duality, and frees itself from self-objectivization, it reaches that condition which is immutable, i. e., the state of Brahman ever indescribable, being all full of the bliss of one unique thonght. As this condition and its experience are entirely realizable only by the wise ( we cannot realize them ). It is none other than the unconditioned, ever unborn, and one. 81. The ever unborn, awake, and dreamless, illumines itself of itself; it is the ever-illumined by its very nature.

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS. It is now shown how it is entirely knowable by the wise alone. It enlightens itelf of itself, and does not expect any other aid, such as the light of the sun or the like. In other words, it is self-illumined. It is, by its very nature, all illu- mination. 82. By perception being limited to any one obiect, bliss is thrown back and misery is brought into relief; hence the Lord ( is not knoum ).

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS. Ilow is it that the world does not understand atman though thus explained? Becanse, on acconnt of perception being limited to single objects, that is, to duality ; in other words, on account of a vain faith in the reality of such perception and its objects; bliss ( inhereut in the absolute nature of things ) is of itself thrown back, that is to say, covered away from view, and misery ( the result of imaginary individnalization ) is brought into relief. This is a direct result of the simple per- ception or notion of duality, and has no other act of the mind for its cause. This bappens because of the supreme difficulty attending realization of the absolute. The "Lord" means atman, the advaita. It is not realized ( as the All ) though loudly proclaimed by books and teachers, (for reasons just described).

128 MANDUKYOPANISHAD.

The Sruti also says, " He who describes it is looked at with wood'er, the seer of it is regarded as the cleverest," etc. 83. The childish miss it by predicating of it such things as eristence, non-existence, existence and non-existence, absolute non.existence ; derived respectively from their notion of change, absence of change, combination of both, or absolute negation.

8'ANKARA'S GLOSS.

The perception that the absolnte is existence or non-existence or the like, being the resnlt of carefnl analysis undertaken by the (so-called ) learned, serves only as a veil between them and âtman. When this is so even in regard to the learned, what shonld we say of those who are mere simpletons ? Some (the Vais'eshikas) predicate existence of dtman, whereas others (the subjective-idealists, i. e., the Vijnanavâdibauddhas) main- tain that there is no such thing as atman. A third, ( the pseudo-nihilist ) the Digambara-Jaina, maintains that it is and is not; It is a compound of being and non-being ; while a fourth ( the nihilst, i. e., the Madhyamikabauddha ) holds that it is absolnte non-existence. In all these he who predicates exis- tence of âtman derives that attribnte from its changefal natnre (for, in his theory, atman is subject to happiness, misery, desire, and the like ), and predicates it of it, to mark it ont from all other things which are perishable by nature. The second position derives its predicate from the immutableness of the subject (which imagines the ideas). The third predicate is possible of âtman because in the opinion of that school it partakes both of change and immutability. The fourth posi- tion derives absolute non-existence from its opinion abont the Dature of things. The learned trying to know âtman by theories like these are only acting like children, for these results of their analysis of the nature of atman serve only to cover the reality from view. Ifit is so in their case it is no wonder that the ignorant should be persistently misled.

S'ANKARA'S COMMENTARY. 120:

84. He has seen all who has seen the Lord as untouched, by any of these predicates, which serve only to hide him from the seer.

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS. The nature of the absolute, knowledge whereof is sufficient to acqnit the learned froin tue charge of childishness, is now described. The Lord-atman-is covered and therefore kept hidden from sight by the predicates put forth in the preceding fonr theories. In truth âtman is beyond all reiativity, and is purely absolnte. He who realizes the advaita as thus absolate and beyond relativiiy, and as the very purusha described in the Upanishad, sees all, is in fact a really wise and learned man. 85. Ilaving obtained the whole of omniscience, and that condition of a Brâhmana which is one and without beginning, middle or end,-what remains there to be desired?

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS. Having obtained the whole of omniscience as just described, and having obtaind the conditin of a Brâhmana ( one who is Brahma ), as laid down in the text " this is the permanent glory of the Brahmana," and ever without beginning, middle or end, nothing remains to be desired. Atmalabha, realization of atman, is the last and highest good comprising all possible good in itself. The Sruti also says "he has nothing to gain by observing or not the forms of religion," etc. 86. This is the highest humility of the Vipra, this is the ultimate and natural pucification, this is the natural introvision of the senses,-who knows thus acquires peace.

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS.

The being âtman is the height of hnmility natural to the Vipra ( Brahmana ). This realization of âtman is the highest pacification ( of the mind ). It is natural pacification and not 23

130 MÅNDUKYOPANISHAD.

one, induced by any artificial means. It is also the natural intrnvision of all the senses; that is to say, all senses become then entirely centred in it; inasmnch as in themselves they are nothing. He who realizes atman or Brahman, in this manner, obtains peace, the highest rest, the state in accord with nature,-in fact he becomes or is Brahman. 87. Duality consisting of object and subject is a creation of the external senses ; and the srme without object but consist- ing of subject is also nothing else than another phase of the senses.

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS. The theories of different schools contradicting one another, are the cause of making experience appear real, and are as snch full of partiality and aversion. Having therefore shown, from their mutaal opposition, that they are false, it has been finally established that the advaita, being in no relation with the four predicates already discnssed, and being not inclined to partiality nor open to aversion, and being therefore by nature all peace, is the true philosophy of existence. This section is introduced for an explanation of the method of this philosophy. Duality consists of subject and object, the per- ceiver and the perceived, including everything, the S'astras, etc. This duality is a creation of the eternal senses, it is something cognized only during the waking condition. This is how the Vedânta understands waking experience. Another, i. e., other than the one described (viz. the gross) phase of the senses is that wherein objects are not present, for the senses which externalize themselves as objects are not active in that condition. The subject alone is present, objectivizing itself into subject and object. This is the condition of dream. 88. That which has neither subject nor object is that which is beyond enperience,-the wise call these three-knowledge, knowable, and the absolute.

S'ANKARA'S COMMENTARY. 131

B'ANKARA'S GLOSS. That which is beyond experience, in other words, beyoud the range of the senses, is that condition wherein the perceiver (subject) and perceived (object) do not exist. Experience con- sists of snbject and object and these being absent, the condition beyond experience is none other than sleep wherein the whole of experience exists only in a potential form. It is, as it were, the way to the realizatiou of the absolute. That by which the creation of the senses ( waking experience ), the world apart from the senses (dream), and the condition beyond experience ( sleep), are known is knowledge ( thought ). The knowable are all these three, for there is nothing knowable besides ; as all things imagined by all the different schools are included in these. The absolute knowable is the highest reality, the one uncreate dtman, described before as the fourth. (This fourth is the reality-the way to which is throngh the three preceding stages which are purely naught when this is reached.) These are thus described by the knowers of Brahman. 89. The threefold knowable and knowledge, being known one after the other, the man of high intellect at once realizes everywhere the condition which is all thought.

s'ANKARA'S GLOSS. Knowledge means the knowledge that grasps the three conditions. The knowable consists of the three conditions themselves. The first consists of the gross, the second of something more pure on account of the absence of the gross, and the third is that which results on the absence of the two, and which is described as beyond experience. These three being known one after the other, that is to say, the entirely nnsubstan- tial character of these being relized, one after the other; and the unborn and one being realized, the condition which is all thonght is seen of itself by the man of high intellect. He is called a man of high intellect because his intellect grasps that. which transcends experience. The realization that accrues to sach a man is unconditioned by time or space ; for, the

132 MÂNDOKYOPANISHAD.

abrolute once realized is realized for ever; and there is no begitning or end of the knowledge of one who has realized the absolute. 90. The preliminary things to be known, such as the thing to be avoided, the thing to be yrasped, the thing to be acquired, the thing to be matured, are all, except the thing to be known, mere forms of imagination.

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS. This is said in order to prevent an impression that the three conditions described as knowable, are, on that account, in any way substantial. The thing to be avoided is the triad of con- ditions, waking, dream, and sleep. As these do not exist in âtman, like the snake in the rope, they are to be avoided. The thing to be grasped is the absolute, not at all in relation with any of the four predicates described before. The thing to be acquired consists of the three means of real knowledge, -full knowledge of theory, child-like innocence and fnil con- centration. These shonld be practised by the sage free from the three desires ( viz. desire for children, for wealth, and for name). The thing to be matnred is made up of the fanlts- attachment, hatred, delusion, and the like, called kas'âya (the mordant for the dye of delusion consisting of experience). The ascetic should try to understand all these things to the best of his power. These, however, with the exteption of the thing to be known, viz. Brahman, are regarded by knowers of Brahman as mere forms of imagination, that is to say, as results of mere delnsion, and nothing substantial. 91. All attributes must, by nature, be regarded as without beginning like akasa ; for there is no cariety of any form at any place.

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS. Those desirous of liberation should regard all attributes of atman as without beginning, and therefore permanent by their very nature, being like akas'e, eubtile, unconditioned, and

W'ANKARA'S COMMENTARY. 138

all-pervading. The other half of the verse is put in to dispel a doubt snggested by the plural "attributes."" In atman there is no variety, and these attributes do not mean any, in any mauner, at any place. 92. All artributes are by their very nature all thought, from the first, and are perfectly defined ; he who thus reconciles himself attains immortality.

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS,

The knowableness too of the said attributes is simple illu- sion, and nothing substantial. For, by their very nature, they are all thonght from the first, just hke the snn who is all light from all beginning. Nor do they reqnire to be defined in any way ; for, from the beginning their form is perfectly well- defined. That person desirons of liberation who, in the man- ner described, stauds in no need of any knowledge or defini- tion, either for himself or another, like the sun never in need of any light other thau his own for himself or another ; and who thus reconciles himself to himself, that is to say, entirely shakes off the idea of having anything to know or perform, becomes fit for immortality, is ou the way to moksha. 93. They are all reconciliation from the first, ever unpro- duced, annihilated by their rery nature, and therefore eternal and inseparable ;- all is the unborn, enlightened Unit.

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS. Nor is there any room for bringing abont a reconciliation in atmun, for all attributes are reconciliation itself from the first, unborn, and by their very nature unsubstantial. They are thus even, and inseparable, whence all is the unborn, en- lightened Unit. The puint is that for this reason ( i. e., be- canse nothing is born or destroyed ) reconciliation or liberation

• The word attribute means only the supposed effect of dtman, viz. Jivas which are called attributes as being inseparable from the substance, viz. &t man.

184 NÂNDUK YOPANISHAD.

is not a thing to be accomplished, for nothing is of ase to & thing which is always the same. 94. Those who always rely on separateness never see the light ; those who maintain the reality of separateness, are bound to separateness and are therefore called narrow-minded.

s'ANKARA'S GLOSS.

Those who realize the absolute as described before are really high-minded, all others are simply of narrow mind, For, these latter are bound to separateness, that is to say, to individuality and therefore to dnality and the world of experience. They are the up-holders of the theory of individnality, i e., separateness, in the absolute ; in other words, they are dualists. They are truly called narrow-minded because they can never see the light of the absolute. 95. Those few alone are known in the world as of high intellect who are firm in their conviction of the unborn and the undivided. This the world cannot reach.

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS. The absolute is not capable of being realized by those little beings who, being beyond the teachings of the Vedanta, are of small intellect and narrow mind. Those few alone, including even women and others, who are firm in their conviction of the unborn and the undivided, are known in the world as persons of high soul and high intellect (mahatmas), in other words, as persons one with the supreme essence. This, that is to say, that which is known to these few-the absolute -- is not within reach of the world, the ignorant, the vulgar men of ordinary intellect. " Even gods lose themselves on the way of those who have become the All, who being all love leave no foot- prints behind"; "The way of these is not known like that of birds in the sky;"-says the Smrti. 96. Thought is described as that which itself unborn does not relate itself to attributes themselnes equally unborn ; and

S'ANKARA'S COMMENTARY. 180

it is said to be unconditioned inasmuch as it is thus beyond relativity.

S'ANEARA'S GLOSS. How are they said to be high-sonled? All things being unborn, that is to say being one, thought is ever unborn and one, like the light and heat of the sun. Thought being snch never relates itself to anything and is therefore fitly described as unconditioned like akasa. 97. The least ideu of variety in the mind of the ignorant bars all approach to the unconditioned ; not to say anything of its preventing the destruction of that which keeps it hidden.

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS. From the preceding it follows that the least idea of variety or dnality or separateness, either snbjective or objective, in the mind of the ignorant, prevents him from going towards the absolute. And when the very way is thns barred, it is needless to suy thut the said idea prevents the destruction of that which keeps the absolnte hidden from sight. 98. Entities ( attributes) have never been in any relation with the obstruction, being entirely pure by nature ; they are all light and ever liberated from the beginning, and are described as knowable only because they are all thought.

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS. That the destruction of that which keeps the absolute hidden from sight, is prevented, may be taken to mean that even in this theory the existence of a something in the form of obstruction is admitted. This is denied. For, all are absolutely unrelated to any obstruction, to the so-called bond of avidya. Moreover they are entirely pnre by their very nature, and all light, and ever liberated. If so, how is it that they are des- cribed as "knowable "? Because they are of a nature capable of being known. As the sun who is all light is described as shining, rising, etc: or as mountains never possibly in motion

136 MÅNDUK YOPANISHAD.

are still described as standing; so are things described as knowable though in themselves all thonght. 99. Thought in the enlightened whose effulgence is every- where never relates itself to objects, nor do attributes or know- ledge relate themselves to anything. This however is not the same as that which is held by the Bauddhas.

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS. As thought in the enlightened never transfers itself to any of the objects (attributes), it is always centred in itself, like light in the sun. "The effulgence of the enlightened is every- where" means that thonght is all-pervading like dkasa. Attri- bntes, that is to say, the 'attribntes of the worshipful or the enlightened, i. e. atm in, are also not in relation with anything, like âkasa-like thought. This is only the snmming up of what has been said before that thonght is like akasa, and so forth. The aks'a-like thonght of the enlightened whose effulgence is everywhere like akâs'a, never relates itself to any- thing, nor do things (attribntes) relate themselves to anything. The substance-útman-is like âkis'a, immntable, whole, per- manent, one, nuconditioned, incognizable, free from appetites snch as hunger, etc. The Sruti too says " The sight of the seer is never lost." The absolnte is the unification of per- ceiver, perception, and perceived (itis the unity of the unlimited and limiting). But all the same this is not the same as that which the subjective idealists (Bauddhas) say, by their theory which substitntes subjective ideas in place of objective things, absolutely denying their existence. This theory wears a sem- blance to the advaita, but is not that absolute Monism which is the pivot of Vedanta philosophy. 100. We, haning realized that condition which is difficult to be seen, sublime, uncreate, even, all light, free from variety, salute it as best we can.

S'ANKARA'S GLOSS. This treatise is now conclnded with a salntation meant to extol the magnitude of the Absolnte. It is difficult to be seen,

S'ANKARA'S COMMENTARY. 137

becanse difficult of comprehension, being not related to any of the four possible predicates. Hence it is sublime, not within reach of the ignorant, even like the bottom of the fathomless deep. It is also uncreate, even, and all light. Having realized this condition free from all variety, we who are that condition itself, salute it, to the best of our power ; that is to say, thongh it is impossible to talk of salntation after realization of the Absulate, we say this only from the stand-point of relativity and experience.

( The commentator concludes, as he began, with the follow- ing prayer ). 1. I bow to Brahmar, the destroyer of all fcar of those who betake themselves to It, which, though absolntely unborn, appears by the power of its greatness to pass into birth ; which appears as if in motion, though always at rest : and which though one, appears as many to those whose inner vision is dimmed by the perception of an endless variety of ( nnreal ) existences. 2. 1 am prostrate at the feet of this my guru, the worshipped of the worshipful, who, from sheer love and sympathy for beings immersed deep in the waters of the ocean infested with terrible monsters in the form of the series of births, brought. forth for the good of all this nectar, impossible to be obtained even by the gods, from the inmost depths of the ocean of the Veda churned with the churning-rod of his intellect. 3. I reverence with all my soul the holy feet,-the dispellers of the terrors of incarnation-, of him, by the effulgence of the glory of whose intellect the whole of the darkness of delnsion haunting my mind fled away, appearing or disappearing from time to time, above or below the waters of the terrible ocean of numerous births. He at whose feet persons taking shelter obtain eternal and unfailing knowledge, accompanied with snpreme peace of mind and complete reconciliation with Self.

24

INDEX OF SANSKRIT TERMS NOT

ENGLISHED IN THE TEXT.

ADFARMA- AKS'ARA -- Not -dharma, i. e., demerit,sin; That which never wastes; whenco that intangible result which ac- the letters, the Absolute, eto. crues from bad acts, and is the invisible cause of pain, misery, AMÂTRA-

eto. Having no sign.

ADHIDAIVA -- AMRIT-

Pertaining to adhidevata the pre- Nectar; Immortality.

siding deity of the instruments ANANTA-MATRA-

of pleasure and pain; hence Having infinite signs; Absolute. pertaining to the elementals. ANNAMAYA (KoS'A)- ADIIYÂTMA -- The first of the five kosas-sheaths Pertaining to the atman-Self, -of which the body consists; whence subjective, pertaining the sheath of nutrition (food). to the body. ANTARYÂMIN -- ADVAITA- The inner controller; the subjec- That which has not & second; the tive atman; the Higher Self; well-known philosophy of Abso- The reflection of atman in the lute Idealism. microcosmic mind. AGNI- ANYATHA-KHYATI- The elemental of Fire; the god The theory that the snake seen Fire. in place of a rope is on account AGNIHOTRA -- of having seen a snake some- The worship of fire; a ceremony where previous to the present incumbent on every household- illusion.

er since his marriage (now APARA- almost obsolete.) Another; also the Highest. AHANKÂRA- ASPARS'A- That part of mental operations That which is not in touch with which connects every act with the ego. The egoistie principle. anything; the Unconditionod; the Absolute. A#ÂTI -- ASURA- The theory of Non-evolution. Demons.

INDEX.

AVIDYi- BIJÂTMÂ- Microcosmic power of Prakrti- Thes Suks-matma called Sutratma original matter. or Antaryamin.

AVYÂKRTA- BRAHMAN --

The undefined; the Mahat of the The absolute All. Sankhyas; the undifferenced BRAHMAVIDYÂ- Brahman of the Advaitins. The philosophy and science of the ÅDHIDAIVIKA- Absolute. Forming part of Adhidaica. BUDDHI -- ADHYÂTMIKA -- The mental principle which de- Forming part of Adhyatma. termines, and distinguishes; ÂGAMA- conscience; the Higher Self.

The Vedas. BUDDHINDRIYAS-

ÂHAVANIYA- The organs of khowledge viz., the

'Oue of the three fires forming the eye, the ear, the skin, the nose, the tongue. Agnihetra. ÅKAS'A -- CHAITANYA-

The element so called. The spiritual principle opposed to matter. ÂNANDAMAYA- CHITTA -- The fifth of the five sheaths of the That part of mental operation human body, in which original which takes the object as some- ajnâna presides .. thing apart from the subject; ÂS'BAMA -- generally the mind.

Position, place; one of the four DHARMA- periods over which human ac- Opposite of Adharma which see. tivity is distributod. ATMALÂBHA -- DIGAMBARA-JAINAS --

: Attaining realization of self. A sect of the Jainas opposed to the S'vetambaras. They do not ÂTMAN- wear clothes, and do not allow Self; the great soul; the Absolute. among many minor differences

ÂUMKARA- that a woman oan attain final liberation. The word Aum. DRAVYA -- BHUMÂ -- Substance, the substratum of some The Unconditioned. property. BHUTA- GHATA -- The elements. An eartben jar.

INDEX. iii

GHATÂKÂS'A- Kos'AS- The Akdsa enclosed in a jar. Shoaths, five in all, of the human GUNA -- body.

Property. KSHETRA- HIRANYAGARBHA -- Literally a field; the body. The microcosmie spiritual prin- ciple on the subtile plane. KSHETRAJNA-

Is'WARA -- He who knows the body; the soul.

The reflection of Brahman in MADHUJNANA-

maya; generally Brahman itself. Knowledge set forth in the JÂTI -- Madhu-Brahmana.

Birth; evolution; technically the MAHÂKAS'A -- one common essence of many The great Akasa. things. JNÂNAKÂNDA -- MANAS-

The department of spiritual The mind, the principle which

knowledge. thinks, which relates itself to

KALPA -- objects.

The last great cycle made up of MANOMAYA (Kos'A )

many manwantaras. The third of the five sheaths in

KÂRANA -- which the mind preponderates.

The cause; the causal plane. MAYÂ-

KARMA- Illusion.

The law of causo and effect;any NYÂYA- act in general. Literally the Syllogism; Hence the KARMAKÂNDA- system which deals with Syllo- The department of formal religion. gisms viz., the Indian system of KARMENDRIYAS- Logic so called.

The organs of action viz., the PARA- hands, the feet, speech, and the Supreme; another. two secret organs. PARAMAHANSA- KARS'ÂPANA- Supreme soul; a Raja-Yogin of A particular coin. the last degree. KAS'ÂYA- PRÂJNA- That subtle influence in the mind produced by enjoyment, and The microcosmic spiritual prin-

left there to fructify in time to ciple on the causal plane.

come, and distract the mind PRÂNA- from Samadhi. The vivifying principle in nature.

iv INDEX.

PRÅNAMAYA ( KOs'A ) S'ROT RIYAS- The second of the five sheaths in Learned in Vedic lore. which the prana predominates. PRITHIVI- S'RUTI-

The element so called. The Veda.

PURUSHA -- STHITI-

The Sankhyan Soul which is Condition.

separate in every being. SVADHÂ- PURUSHOTTAMA -- The word used in offering obla- The Highest Purusha-i. e. Brah- tions to the Pitras.

man. TAIJASA- RASA- The microeosmic spiritual prinoi- Taste; the Sense of. ple on the subtile plane. SAMADHI- TAITTIRIYA- That stage of concentration where- in there is consciousness of the Follower of that Sakha of the (Black) Yajur Veda which bears object alone; ecstacy; trance. that name. SAMÂNYA- TÂRKIKAS- See Jati. Those who go by Tarka, reason; SAMAVÂYA- Rationalists-The Naiyayikas. The inseparable relation between TEJOMAYA- the canse and its effect; as bet- ween a cloth and the threads of All light.

whieh it is made. TURYÂ- SAMBHUTI- Fourth; the State of Brahma-

A partieular kind of Upásana jnâna.

(devotion. ) VACH- SAMYOGA- The Word, the Logos. Relation by union. VAIS'ESHIKA- SANKHYA- Those who expatiate on the The philosophy so called; the generic and specific marks of philosophy of enumeration. things, hence the school of philo.

SANNYÂSIN- sophy so called; they are allied

One who has abandoned the world. to the Nyàya.

SHÂKHÂ- VAIS'VÂNARA-

Literally a branch; that particular The microcosmic spiritual prinoi-

reading and worship which is ple on the gross plane.

peculiar to every one group of VARNA- Vedie teachers. The four orders.

INDEX. V

VÂSANÂ -- VINÂS'A- The subtle impression in the mind A particular kind of formal wor capable of developing itself into sbip. action; it is the cause of birth VIPRA -- and experience in general. A Brâhmana; particularly a Brah- VEDÂNTA- mana born, bred and learned as

The philosophy given as the end such.

of the Veda viz., the Upanishuds; VIRaJ --

the philosophy of the Advaitd. See Vaisvanara.

VEDHA- VIRÂT --

The Prajapati. See Virâj. VIS'ESHA -- VIJNÂNAMAYA (Kos'A )- Differentia. The fifth sheath in which buddhi preponderates. VIS'VA -- The mierocosmic spiritual princi- VIJN ÂNAVÂDINg -- ple on the gross plane. A seit of Buddhist idealists (sub- VIS'VÂNAR -- jeotive.) Same as Vaisv ânara.

REDUCED PRICE LIST.

ENGLISH SERIES.

POSTAGE EXTRA.

1. Bhagavad-Gita Translation of, with Notes and annotations by Rs. a.

the late Mr. Tukaram Tatya .. , ... 2. The Jivanmuktiviveka or the Path to Liberation in this Life by ... ... ... 0 G

› Swami Shri Vidyaranyasaraswati rendered into English by Manilal N. Dvivedi, B. A. 1 ... ... ... 4 8. Lectures on the Study on the Bhagavad. Gita being a help to students of its philosohpy by T. Subba Rao, B.A., B.L, F.T.S .... 0:10 4. Tatva-kaumudi (Sankhya) of Vachaspati Misra with an English Translation of the Sanskrit Text by Ganganath Jha, M. A., F. T. S. ... ... .... ... ... 1 8 . A. Collection of Esoteric Writings of T. Subba Rao, B. A., B. L., F. T. S. ... ... ... 1 8 6- The Ishavasyopanishad Translated into English with the com- mentaries of Shri Shankaracharya and Shri Anantacharya and notes from the Tikas of Anandagiri, Uvatacharya, Shankara- nanda, RAmchandra Pandit and Anandabhatta by Shris Chandra Vasu, B. A., F. T. S. ... ... 0 8 7. Gheranda Samhita, being a Treatise on the Hatha and Raja Yogas, printed with Sanskrit Text and an Appendix contain- ing extracts from English words of Authority, describing the Samadhi taken by the Sadhu Haridas at the Court of Ranjit- singh in Punjab. ... ... ... ... ... ... 0 8 8. The Twelve Principal Upanishads, translated into English by Raja Rajendralal Mitra and other Oriental Scholars, with notes from the Bhashya of Shankaracharya, and the Glossary of Anandgiri, being a reprint of the translations published by the Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal ... ... ... ... 4 0 y. The Mandukyopanishad, with Gaudapada's Karikas and the Bhashya of Shankara, translated into English, by Manilal N. Dvivedi, B. A .... ... ... ... 1 E 10. The Yogasara-Sangraha, or the Phylosophy of Yoga-Shastra, being one of the rare Treatises by Vidnyanabhikshu, the greatest authority on the Sankhya and Yoga-Shastras with English translation by Ganganath Jh&, M. A., F. T. 8. ... 0 1: 11. A Compendium of The Raja-Yoga Philosophy, comprising prin- cipal Treaties of Sankaracharya Swami; such as the Aparo- kshAnubhuti, the Atmanatma-Vivek, the Vivek-chudamani, the Charpatpanjari and the Vakyasudha with the Vedânta- sara of Sadanand Swami. Some of these Treatiscs are printed with Sanskrit Texts. 2nd Edition ... ... 1