View source for Mandukya Karika Lecture 134 on 20-December-2023

== Full Transcript (Not Corrected) ==
In our last class, we have been studying the 49th ''Karika'' of the 4th or last chapter called ''Alatha Shanti Prakarana. "Alatha''" means a firebrand, a burning tip, just a tip. But when we move it fast enough, we can produce various forms. The simplest imagination will be a square, a circle, a triangle, etc. But experts can produce any object that we want.

Now, Gaudapada is taking us very deep into the refinement of our intellect. When this glowing tip of anything, is moved, various forms are produced. When it is moved very fast, so many forms can be produced. Now, are these forms really there? First of all, are these forms inside that firebrand or inside the perceiver? Suppose you go on moving this firebrand in front of your pet dog or pet anything, but the dog will not see any form. Only intelligence is necessary. The mind must be working. And our mind is the thing that will go on working. This is a very important point for all of us.

And then, what does Gaudapada want to say? The firebrand is the cause, ''Karana''. The forms of the firebrand, when it is moved, are the ''Karyas'', that is, effects. ''Karya Karana Vada''. This is what he wants to clarify. Naturally, you apply that one to ''Vedanta''. This is only a simile, an example. So, what is it meant for? What is that which needs to be illustrated through these examples? That is to say, pure consciousness, ''Atman'', or ''Brahman'' doesn't have any reality. There is no second object. Only ''Brahman'' is there, ''Atman'' is there. Therefore, when there is only one, the question of ''Karya Karana'' doesn't arise. When we see clay, ''Karya Karana'' doesn't arise. But the moment we see a pot, immediately ''Karya Karana''. Where does this pot come from? It comes from the clay. Where does the ornament come from? From the gold, etc.

So, the scripture is talking about this. This is what the opponent contends. That the scriptures are all speaking ''Karya Karana'' only. Most of the time, it is only a description of ''Karya Karana. Brahma'' is the creator. The whole world, consisting of living and non-living, and the conscious experience of birth, etc., six fold changes. And then, the three types of experiences. Waking, Dream, Dreamless. These activities are going on. Movements are going on. Movements mean change. Changes are going on. So, the previous change is the cause of the later effect. This is what is called ''Karana Karya Vadas''. And our behaviour from birth to death is only dependent upon this ''Karana Karya Vada''. My mother, my parents are the cause. And we, our children, are the effect. And I am the cause. My children are the effect. I studied well. That is the cause. I passed brilliantly and got a very good job. And I slapped my boss. That is the ''Karana''. Lost my job. That is the ''Karya''. Every single thing. Somebody cooked very well. That is the ''Karana''. And I have overeaten. That is the ''Karya''. Since I have overeaten, that is the ''Karana''. My stomach went bad. That is the ''Karya''. You cannot show me one single action which is not born of it or which is not related to ''Karya Karana'', including deep sleep. So, the scriptures are full of it.

Now, Shankaracharya, while commenting upon Gaudapadacharya, clarifies this matter. The truth is, it is one without a second. ''Ajo nityah saswatah.'' These are very important terms: ''Ajah'', unborn. Now, only something that is born can be the ''Karana'' or something else. Swami Vivekananda had given very deep thoughts about these things. What is anybody's life? Somebody, we don't know when or where, had taken a beautiful, very responsive rubber ball and gave it a kick. It went and touched the corner of a cylinder. And that side of the cylinder bounced that ball, and the ball goes to the opposite wall, and that opposite wall bounces it like that. We don't know what the first cause is. But everything is a reaction to a reaction. The original action, we never know. This is called ''Anadi''. We do not know when the ''Samsara'' started. But we know that everything is a reaction. My birth in this life is the reaction to my ''Karma phala'' in the past birth. And what I do now will be the cause which will produce its own reaction.

So, what is the point? That which is birthless can never be the ''Karana'' for anything. And as soon as we see, even though we say a pot is nothing but clay, but there is a difference. Clay is without a form, without a beginning of time, ''Desha, Kala, Nimitta'', without any purpose. This is the characteristic of the clay. Because what can you do with the clay? Can you store water? Or can you cook food? Can you serve from it? Can it be a store? No. For that, it has to be in a particular format. So that format, just like words also, letters A, E, U, V, etc. is completely useless. Only when you combine them and that too in a particular way, ''Triputi'', that is, there is what is called noun, there is an object, and there is something, a verb, which connects a noun with the object, then only a meaning comes out of it. So all these things, the cause is completely, in one way, different from the effect.

So we cannot say a pot is exactly the same. Clay, for example, doesn't have a form; therefore, it doesn't have a specific name, only a general name, clay. But if it becomes a small pot, big pot, round pot, square pot, etc., various names to distinguish one ''Karya'' from another ''Karya''. So the ''Atman'' is unborn, pure consciousness is unborn, and it is one without a second. And it is ''Nitya''. The meaning of ''Nitya'' is changeless. So clay changing into a pot, assuming a different name and form, is a change. We can clearly distinguish it. But consciousness, ''Atman, Atman'' is another name for consciousness. We cannot accuse ''Atman'' as changing into some ''Nama Rupa''. No, it never changed.

So, to illustrate that point, Gaudapada has taken this brilliant example, a really brilliant one. What exists is only one glowing tip, and you cannot name it. It is ''Ajah'', and it is ''Advaita'', it is ''Shashvata'', it is ''Nitya''. You have to apply all those things. But every form that we perceive, that is, the tip is not becoming these forms, but it appears. Here we have to make the distinction between what becomes and what appears. Something appears. For that, Shankaracharya gives a brilliant example. And what for? Because the opponent says, you are boasting of your scriptures, but you are quoting only these kinds of statements which support your view, ''Atman'' is ''Ajah, Nitya, Shashvata, Stanhu, Achalaha'', etc.

But every ''Upanishad'', the essence of the ''Vedas, Bhagavad Gita'', and ''Bhagavad Gita'' specifically says that anything, any manifestation you see, especially in anything, is distinguishable, but I am that special manifestation. But ''Bhagavan'' Himself says, whatever you see is My manifestation. ''mayadhyaksena prakrtih suyate sa-caracaram hetunanena kaunteya jagad viparivartate''

Living, non-living, moving, non-moving. Everything is born of ''Prakruti'', and ''Prakruti'' cannot give birth unless it is enlivened by My power, ''Maya Adhyakshena''. And even if I am an ''Adhyaksha'', some part of that causality is pushed and to me there is no doubt about it. For that, Gaudapada gives all these brilliant examples giving this ''Alatha Spandana'', but at the same time, Shankaracharya comments, I will just give you that example.

Shankaracharya gives the example of two people walking in semi-darkness, and one person sees only the rope, another person sees the snake. The important thing is the person who is seeing the rope does not see the snake. The person who is seeing the snake vividly, he doesn't see the rope. Now, whose knowledge is correct? For that, the answer is that which is unchanging is the truth, that which is sublated, changed later on, that is appearance. So the snake is an appearance. First of all, what exists is only the rope and the rope is out there. It is the ''Vastu.'' But the person who is seeing the snake, he sees the snake. Where is that snake? There is no snake there. The rope has never become the snake, but this person, in his mind, he sees the snake. This is called ''Abhasa''. That is superimposition. So, most of us, why does this person see? Because of ''Avidya. Avidya'' in the form of not clearly visible light, then similarity and previous experience because of these three. But the person who is seeing the rope, because he himself has kept it, perhaps, so he doesn't mistake anything, nothing changes. He knows this is a rope and the effects of the rope rub off on the first person. The effects of the snake rub off on the second person. So, all these verses that we are going to discuss are to illustrate through this beautiful rope-snake analogy because we are all covered. ''Jagrat'', we are affected by two powers of ''Avidya''. One is called covering the truth. Another is seeing something else in its place. So, ''Avarna Shakti'' and ''Vikshepa Shakti''. So, that is the reason.

But a person who has realized ''Brahman'' doesn't see anything at all, except ''Brahman.'' Even to say he sees ''Brahman'' is not a proper word. With this background, we can just recollect the 49th and move forward. 

अलाते स्पन्दमाने वै नाऽभासा अन्यतोभुवः ।

न ततोऽन्यत्र निस्पन्दान्नालातं प्रविशन्ति ते  ४९ ॥

alāte spandamāne vai nā<nowiki>''</nowiki>bhāsā anyatobhuvaḥ |

na tato'nyatra nispandānnālātaṃ praviśanti te || 49 ||

49. ''When the fire-brand is in motion'', ''the appearances (that are seen in it) do not come from elsewhere. When, the fire-brand is not moved'', ''the appearances do not go elsewhere from the motionless fire-brand''. ''Further'', ''the appearances'', ''when the fire-brand is not moved'', ''do not enter into the fire-brand itself.''

We have discussed it. When the firebrand is still, everybody sees only the tip, a burning, glowing tip of anything. It could be incense, it could be a snake, it could be anything. But when it is the moment we start moving, so there is a mover. He is moving. But the ''Alatha'' is not moving. It is an important point to note down. Various appearances, square, etc. So, where are the appearances? If you ask the firebrand, have you become a triangle? Have you become a square? No. It is only our mind, the perceiver's mind that is affected by it.

So, the question is, points are given here: where have these appearances come from? And when the tip stops moving, where do they go? That is the second question. That is, if they have come, whether they have come from outside, and whatever comes from outside will go again outside only. Or, like some people who enter your room from outside and once business is over, they move away.

The second point is, did they come from the still, just glowing tip? No. All three are negative. That means what? Appearances, you should not question where they have come from, how they have come, what time they have come, what is the process, what is the causation, and what changes have taken place. All these questions pertain only to what we call some object that is really existing. But when the object itself is not existing, so when was the son of a barren woman born, and how many months did his mother carry him, and why was he born? He is squint-eyed. Did he do any bad ''prarabdha karma'' in his previous life? And how is he going to live a happy life, unhappy life? All these are completely useless questions because the son of a barren woman doesn't exist. The horns of a hare do not exist. So that which doesn't exist but, for some reason, it appears. And what is the reason? Mind. It is a brilliant analysis.

So long as there is a mind, all these questions become relevant. When there is no mind, for example, in our dream state, dreamless state, deep sleep state, we don't question where the world has come from, who is my father and mother, why was I born like this, why am I so miserable? We never question these things because all these appearances completely disappear. Neither, of course, do I know the real truth. These are the important points mentioned in the 49th. This is being explained in the next few ''Karikas''.

So we move on to the 50th. 

न निर्गता अलातात्ते द्रव्यत्वाभावयोगतः । 

विज्ञानेऽपि तथैव स्युराभासस्याविशेषतः ॥ ५० ॥

na nirgatā alātātte dravyatvābhāvayogataḥ |

vijñāne'pi tathaiva syurābhāsasyāviśeṣataḥ || 50 ||

50. ''The appearances do not emerge from the firebrand because they are not of the nature of a substance''. ''This also applies to Consciousness on account of the similarity of appearances (in both cases).''

Marvellous reasoning power, so deep. What does it mean? The appearances. What appearances are we talking about? The square, the triangle, the circle, etc. of that firebrand. They do not emerge from the firebrand. It always remains only a single glowing pip. But why can't these things appear? For that, the reason is they are not of the nature of a substance. A substance means a ''vastu'', an object. An object means a real object. Only if there is a real object, it has come from somewhere and then it also goes back from where it has come and various changes take place.

But you cannot say, just like a dream, somebody comes and then somebody goes away. Some people give us happiness, some people give us unhappiness. In fact, all people give us, every person, every object, every experience gives us both happiness and unhappiness. Is it something a strange statement? No. Tulsidasa explains this beautifully. My salutations both to the saints and also to evil people, evildoers. Both of them give me happiness but for different reasons. When evil people go away from me, depart from me, then they give me the greatest happiness. When ''dukkha'' goes away from us, it gives us the greatest happiness.

I told you a funny incident. There was a fellow in Chennai, Madras. He was a black fellow and he was wearing complete European dress, black coat and so many things and one tie also. Tie means ''bandana'' actually. And then he specially acquired, maybe he paid a very special price, very tight boots and the whole day, he will go on roaming, suffering and suffering and suffering. Ah! I cannot bear like that. And many people observed it. And then he comes home. And then he takes the boots off, says, "Ah! What a bliss I am experiencing." Some people asked, "Why do you want to suffer like that?" He says, "You fools, you don't know. The degree of happiness I experience the moment I take off my boots." So, when ''dukkha'' goes away, it gives us tremendous happiness. And it is true. You overeat and your stomach goes bad and you suffer for a few days and then everything becomes alright. How happy, how much enjoyment you are enjoying, the same old things which you were criticizing before. Now you praise, what a marvellous cook you are.

Similarly, when good people, that is ''satpurushas'', devotees, those who talk eternal values, when they come, they give me the greatest happiness. When wicked people come to me, they bring tremendous suffering. When they go, they bring tremendous joy. When good people come to me, they give me tremendous happiness. And when these good people, after some time, after talking about God, depart, they give me the greatest suffering. I never want separation from them. So, you see, how much psychological truth is involved in this. The same experience, both gives us happiness as well as unhappiness. Of course, it is a fact. It is called the fact of nature, life. We can never separate them. ''Dukha, sukha'', you can never separate.

So, this is what Gaudapada wants to tell us in the 50th ''Karika''. All the ''rupas'', square, circle, triangle that we perceive, they have not gone away from the glowing tip. Why? What is the reason? Because all these appearances are possible only for a ''dravya. Dravya'' means a real substance. Abhava means all these appearances. That's why we use the word appearance. Appearance is not reality. Appearance is an appearance. So, ''dravyatva'' means there is no shred of reality there. That is called ''abhava-yogataha''. Because there is no shred of reality, truth. They are all appearances.

And then he says, ''vijñāne'pi tathaiva syurābhāsasyāviśeṣataḥ''. What is ''Vijnana'' here? So, pure consciousness which is unborn, one, eternal, unchanging, etc. Similarly, we only experience. What do we experience? Birth of a baby and then the person lives, the person grows, the person becomes old, that person undergoes various problems of life, diseases, and finally the body which is birth. Remember always, we never see the birth of a mind. We never see the birth of a quality. We only see the birth of a physical body. Everybody can see it. It is very important.

So, there are what is called concrete things. There are called what is called only ideational, ideas in the mind. What is the example? Body is a concrete thing. But love, hatred, friendship, service, these are real. They are as real as the body. But they are very subtle. So, when you see the body, it is called perception. But when you experience, it is only experienceable. That is why they are called concept. Ideas in the mind. In ''Vedanta'', in ''Tarka,'' logic, we have to remember this. Percept means any of the knowledge obtained through any of the usage of the five organs of knowledge, sense organs of knowledge. But certain things... Mother loves me. Mother, you show me how much you love. Baby, you love me. Yes. How do I know?

There is a beautiful story to remember. Once, a family of Holy Mother's devotees came. They had a three-year-old baby girl, and she loved Holy Mother. Of course, because Holy Mother used to take her into her lap and play with her with so many sweets. And if anybody does it to me, I will also start loving her. There is no doubt about it. That is why when some devotees come empty-handed, ''ritahastha'', he says, we only brought ''pranam'', no ''pranami''. So, I am not very bothered about them.

So, this girl was tremendous news. She was the only baby girl. So, she teases and then she nags all her brothers and everybody, parents, give me this, give me that. So, once Holy Mother was going to Jairambati. For a few months, she would not return. So, this family came to take leave and then they mentioned this particular nagging quality of the young girl. And Holy Mother, as usual, as soon as the girl comes, she runs to and jumps into the lap of Holy Mother. How fortunate that girl must be. So, Holy Mother took and then she asks, Baby, do you love me? And that girl said, Yes, Mom. I love you very much. How much do you love me? How to show? Can you show anybody how much you love? But baby girl, you know, unfortunately, she doesn't know all these limitations. She opened her hands like this. So, so much I love you. So much I love you. You have to understand. You have to stretch your hands. And Holy Mother put another question, third question. How do I know that you love me? That girl got puzzled. Then she asked Holy Mother, How can I prove that I love you? Then Holy Mother instructed that if you truly love me, you will never ask anything of anybody. And the baby girl understood. After all, Divine Mother was teaching her. She promised. Promise. I promise. From now onwards, I will prove that I love you by not asking anything. And then the family got the blessings and they went away.

When Holy Mother returned, again they came to visit. This time Holy Mother noticed a change. She asked, Did this girl give any trouble? After last time, she promised. And they all said with a bit of regret, I think. Previously, we used to enjoy her teasing, nagging. But now she doesn't ask anyone of us. And what is the result? Everybody was falling head over heels. That how they can ply with her with more and more sweets. Very practical girl, you know. Girls and children are very practical.

So, this is just an illustration to show certain things. You hate somebody. And we all hate something, somebody, etc. And when that somebody comes, your face is beaming. Your eyes are dancing. Oh, so glad to see you. Inside you are boiling. How soon can I get rid of this person? Don't worry. I also practice it sometimes. So, you don't worry about outing your inner feelings, at least to yourself. Don't tell others. I only tell in the classes. I don't tell the devotees directly. ''dravyatvābhāvayogataḥ''. If it is a real object, it is not in your control. This is what is called percept, what is called concept, very important. And both are vastus. Why? Because love is as real, hatred is as real, friendship is as real, service is as real. They are called subtle perceptions called conceptions. That is what will come very soon.

So, giving this example, Gaudapada wants to tell us because all these forms, the triangle, the square, etc., they are not real. They do not come from the glowing tip. In fact, it never becomes anything. So, the question of their coming doesn't arise. Why? ''dravyatvābhāvayogataḥ''. They are not real things. So, what is the comparison? So, this tip of a glowing tip of a stick or an incense stick or whatever it is, is compared to pure consciousness. There is light and it never changes. It is one. It is not born, etc. We have to imagine it. ''Tatha eva syuhu''. ''Syuhu'' means all the things that we imagine are born of pure consciousness. What are they? Birth, etc. ''Shadurmi''. And then three types of experiences or ''panchakoshas''.

''vijñāne'pi tathaiva syurābhāsasyāviśeṣataḥ.'' All these things we have to understand as unreal as not objects at all but perceptions in our mind because of the mind, just like we see various forms when this glowing tip is moved slow or fast by various people. Just as those are superimpositions. So, all the birth, ''srishti, sthiti, laya'' of whether it is body or mind, all the three states of everyday experience are all ''abhasas'', means appearances. And appearances always come because of the mind. Just as a person perceives a snake, the perception of a snake, we should not call it a superimposition of the rope because so long as we continue to see the snake, the person doesn't know that we are superimposing it. Only when we have knowledge of both the rope as well as the snake after light is brought out then we know I was superimposing the snakes because of similarity, because of semi-darkness, because of prior experience but these are really speaking ''abhasas''. What does Gaudapada want to convey through this? Simple. He says this ''karyakarana'' they apply only to ''srishti, sthiti'', and ''laya''. And when there is no ''srishti, sthiti'', and ''laya, karyakarana'' falls. These are all arguments against ''karyakarana vada''.

And He continues in the 51st, 52nd also. 

विज्ञाने स्पन्दमाने वै नाऽऽभासा अन्यतोभुवः ।

न ततोऽन्यत्र निस्पन्दान्न विज्ञानं विशन्ति ते ॥ ५१ ॥

vijñāne spandamāne vai nā<nowiki>''</nowiki>bhāsā anyatobhuvaḥ |

na tato'nyatra nispandānna vijñānaṃ viśanti te || 51 ||

Remember what we have studied earlier in the 49th: the various forms - circle, triangle, etc. There is no reality to them. They are just perceptions. And because they are not real objects, they have not come from the glowing tip. They are not entering into the glowing tip. They have not suddenly come from outside. They are not going outside. So neither because a superimposed something doesn't have any existence. That which doesn't have any existence, no attribute can be laid upon it. That is the idea here.

''vijñāne spandamāne vai'' . Here we are in the ''samsara''. ''Samsara'' means what? I am a ''jeevatma''. I am a ''jeevatma'' means what? I have a body and mind, and my ''chidabhasa'' associated with body-mind is called ''jeevatma'', and there is a mind, and the ''abhasa'' illumines the mind and enlivens the mind, and the mind goes out through the sense organs. There is a tree, there is a man, there is a river, there is a mountain. These are all just as we perceive when somebody is moving the glowing tip of an incense or a stick. These are all mere imaginations of the mind.

What is the point? Plus pure consciousness plus the mind all this ''srishti sthiti laya''. Pure consciousness without a mind, and the best example is deep sleep. There is no ''srishti sthiti laya''. You don't question where from have I come? Why have I come? What ''purva janma karma'' I have done? Nothing of that sort. This is what Gaudapada wants to convey.

''Vijnana'' means in pure consciousness ''spandamane vai. Spandamana'' means vibrations. What does vibration mean? ''Jagrat, sapna, sushupti''; birth, growth, death, etc. They are all ''anyato bhuvaha''. They have not come from somewhere. Just like the forms of a glowing tip when moved do not come from either itself or from outside. They are all ''abhasaha'' and mere appearances and about appearances the questions of where from, why, how do not arise. Na ''anyato bhuvaha''. They do not exist. So they have not come from somewhere.

But how do we find all this? Because all of them are experiences in the mind. Birth is a thought in the mind. Growth, youth, old age, disease, death, sorrow, all these are appearances. How do we know? Deep sleep. I am an old man. You do not say I was born 50 years back or I was born 4 years back. No, you do not say that. Nothing. Because you have no idea of what is birth. Therefore you have no idea of what happens after birth. No idea of death. No thought is there. When there is no thought what should be there? Only pure consciousness. Play of the pure consciousness. So from the ''Vijnana'', they do not come from anywhere. They do not go anywhere because excepting ''Atman'' there is no second thing. Therefore it is very clear. So they are not coming out of pure consciousness. They are also not entering into pure consciousness.

Continuing from the 52nd verse, which we have seen earlier. 

न निर्गतास्ते विज्ञानाद्द्रव्यत्वाभावयोगतः ।

कार्यकारणताभावाद्यतोऽचिन्त्याः सदैव ते ॥ ५२ ॥

na nirgatāste vijñānāddravyatvābhāvayogataḥ |

kāryakāraṇatābhāvādyato'cintyāḥ sadaiva te || 52 ||

51-52. ''When Consciousness is associated with the idea of activity (as in the dream and waking states''), ''the appearances'' (''that are seen in it) do not come from elsewhere. When Consciousness is inactive (as in deep sleep) appearances do not go elsewhere from the inactive Consciousness. Further'', ''appearances do not enter into it. The appearances do not emerge from Consciousness because they are not of the nature of a substance. These are always beyond our comprehension on account of their not being subject to the relation of cause and effect.''

So they have not come from ''Vijnana'', and they are not entering again into ''Vijnana'' because nothing comes out, nothing enters back again because there is nothing. This is a beautiful word. Nothing comes out, nothing goes inside. About nothing, you cannot say anything. If you say anything about nothing, it is anything but nothing. Why? ''dravyatvābhāvayogataḥ''. Earlier, the reason is given because it is not an object. It is not a real object. So ''Abhava'' means reality, ''Abhava'' lacking reality. Appearance should be there but not reality. So that is what he is continuing.

These ideas come to mind when your mind is functioning, and along with ''Srishti'', your mind produces "I am born, I have grown up, I become old, and I am going to die" because you can't say "I am dead." So, ''Karya-Karana.'' First, what is the experience? ''Karya'', effect. And then you deduce why am I growing up? Because I am born. My birth is the reason for my growth. My birth is the reason for my youth. My birth is the reason for my old age. My birth is the reason for my future death. So, ''Karya-Karana''. So, ''Abhava''. There is no ''Karya-Karana'' relationship. These ''Bhavas'' do not exist. Therefore, it is impossible to penetrate the mystery of ''Srishti''. Even such a great soul like Gaudapada says, then why are we seeing it? In simple words, in other words, what we are challenging Gaudapada and Shankaracharya and their ''parampara'' is, if there is no reality, how can there be an appearance? An appearance must have a cause; that is called ''Mithya''. And why has this ''Mithya'' come? This is an unsolvable, ever-remaining unsolvable problem in philosophy. What is it? How do you explain ''Maya''? And the very word ''Maya'', you know what is ''Maya? Ma, Ya''. What is the definition? ''Ya'' that which, ''Ma'', not there. So something that is not there, but it suddenly appears to be, just like our dream, etc.

In a dream, you can't say suddenly why you find yourself in some other place, some other situation. Either you are very happy or not happy, whatever it is, there is no causal relationship. You have eaten nicely, and you are starving, and you are walking and walking. What are you doing? You are nicely sleeping, lying down, and then it is a beautiful dream; you are walking, you are tired, it is very, very hot, you are sweating, everything is going on. But when you wake up, what do you find? You have eaten finely, you are drunk, very tasty, cold drinks, and you are lying on what they call a water bed.

So like that, why did I mention a water bed? Because God Himself prefers a water bed. He is always there, not only a water bed; it is also a spring mattress. So ''Ananta Naga'' was with a thousand hoods, ''Adisesha'', so he is lying. You move, a spring will go down, then you move this side, and it is massaging you every part of your body. This is such a luxury he discovered. But more important than that, father-in-law's house, mother-in-law's house, you get that kind of respect and servitude, which you don't get in your own home. That is why both ''Shiva'' and ''Vishnu'' permanently made their abode their mother-in-law's house. Coming back, what is it?

''Srishti Stithi Laya'' or appearances now it is a very serious objection you are talking nonsense. The point being raised here is that, for any appearance or mistake to happen, there must be some kind of reason or cause. In the case of mistaking a rope for a snake, the three causes mentioned are semi-darkness, the presence of the rope, and the prior experience of snakes causing fear. We don't even say, 'I thought I mistook a rope,' only after gaining knowledge of both. You can claim, 'I mistook this rope for a snake,' but until that time, either you are seeing the rope or you are seeing the snake. Now, to see the snake, you can attribute some type of reason why you have mistaken something for something else. But this is also beautiful logic you will never question. So long as you think that it is a snake, you don't give an explanation of why I am thinking this is a snake. No, it is a snake; that's the reality. Full stop.

When somebody brings light, semi-darkness disappears, similarity disappears, and earlier experience disappears. What remains is whatever object is lying down. Then, why did I mistake it? These three reasons come out. But how did ''Maya'' come about? Where did it come from? Where does it remain, and how can there be ''Maya'' and ''Brahman''? Because you are saying ''Advaita, Advitiya'', and ''Akhanda'' are there, two, no. So, you cannot even say there is one. So, where has this ''Maya'' come from? ''Maya'' is just the opposite of complete knowledge. So, ''Chit'' and ''Achit'', that is ''Chaitanyam'' and its opposite, complete darkness, light, and darkness. Sir, can you explain this? That is why, what does Gaudapada say? '<nowiki/>''Achintyaha sada evate''.' Nobody can answer this question. ''Sada,'' forever, these concepts, appearances, ''achintyaha'', they remain beyond the realm of the mind. There is no doubt about it; that is what he says. The firebrand is compared to this '''Vignyana.' Vignana'' means pure consciousness. 

The same trend is continued in the 53rd ''mantra'' 

द्रव्यं द्रव्यस्य हेतुः स्यादन्यदन्यस्य चैव हि ।

द्रव्यत्वमन्यभावो वा धर्माणां नोपपद्यते ॥ ५३ ॥

dravyaṃ dravyasya hetuḥ syādanyadanyasya caiva hi |

dravyatvamanyabhāvo vā dharmāṇāṃ nopapadyate || 53 ||

53. ''Substance may be the cause of another substance. That which is not substance may be the cause of another which is not substance. But the Jīvas (or beings) cannot be possibly anything like substance or other than substance.''

It is, again, beautiful deep reasoning. Only one real object can be the cause of another real object. For example, clay is real, so a pot is also real. Gold is real, and ornaments are real. Because if you say ornaments are not real, then you have to say even gold is unreal also. No ornaments are nothing but the pure reality of the gold. Similarly, pots etc., pure reality of the clay. Every piece of furniture is pure reality of the wood. Apply it to everything. 

"''anyat anyase chaivahi.''" But supposing something is not a concrete something (as mentioned earlier), you will have to bring it here. Anything concrete we experience is real. So, one real thing, like a mother, for example, can give birth to a baby. A potter, with the help of an instrument, can shape clay into a pot. Similarly, a goldsmith, and a carpenter. But there are also other things. What is it? "''Anyat''" means we are not talking about unreality; we are talking about subtle reality, like love, like friendship, etc. in our mind.

The function of the five sense organs is concreteness, and the function of the mind is ideas—ideational. That is why it is called concepts. "White" is a concept. "This is good" is a concept. "This is a very loving object" is a concept. "This is a happy object, a pleasant object" is a concept. Why concept? Because you can change your concepts any number of times. What you think is very pleasant for you under different circumstances may be just the opposite. But these are ideas. So, one idea, one subtle idea, one concept can lead to another concept.

''ādanyadanyasya caiva hi.'' A concrete object can be the cause of or can produce another concrete object. ''dravyatvamanyabhāvo vā dharmāṇāṃ nopapadyate''. A concept can also produce or be the cause of another concept. But this realness, objectness, concreteness, or this conceptness—''dharmanajeevana. "Dharmana"'' here means pure consciousness, that is, ''jeevatma'', which is endowed. If there is no mind, there are no thoughts. "''Dharmana na upadhyate''"—you cannot attribute that it is born of a mind because every ''jeeva'' is only ''paramatma.'' It is a mistake to think, "I am the body and mind," and so every ''jeevatma'' is none other than ''paramatma''. Therefore, there is no ''draviyam, draviyatva abhava,'' and therefore, birth, etc.

But then, why does the scripture speak of it? For that, I gave you an example. If a man is continuously perceiving a snake and suffering from the effects, that person should not be told there is no snake. Yes, there is a snake; it is a water snake, not a poisonous snake. So, by that itself, when he believes another wise person, let it be there, and then slowly light is brought, and then it is there is no snake at all. So, lessen the burden. This is the essence of ''sadhana''—go on lessening the reality of what we thought absolute reality until it is the real cause, which is the causeless cause. That is the knowledge of ''Brahman'' is obtained. Beautiful idea. This 53rd ''mantra'', we will talk about it in our next class.
[[Category:Mandukya Karika]]