Mandukya Karika Lecture 126 on 25-October-2023

Full Transcript (Not Corrected)

"We have been exploring the philosophies or philosophical views of the four schools of Buddhism: Sautrantika, Vaibhashika, Yogachara, and Madhyamika. Among these, Madhyamika is also known as Shunyavada.

To be concise, the Sautrantikas believe there is an external world, and our understanding of it is possible because we have experiences of the external world and its objects. They argue that experiences can only occur if there are external objects. For example, if there were no independently existing tree outside our mind, we could never have the impression of a tree. This is the view of the Sautrantikas.

Next are the Vaibhashikas, who take a more nuanced approach. They acknowledge the existence of an external world, but they assert that we cannot directly experience it. They compare it to looking into a mirror, where the external world is reflected. As the Dakshinamurthy Sutram suggests: 'Vishwam Darpana Drishyamana Nagaritulyam.' The Vaibhashika school of Buddhism argues that we can only know what the mirror of our mind reveals, mediated by our sense organs. The sense organs receive impressions and transmit them to the mind, which then interprets them as colors, sounds, smells, tastes, and more. According to them, no one can directly experience the world; it is only through our minds.

Swamiji also holds a similar view, emphasizing that we can never directly experience the world, only through our minds. For instance, when you eat something sweet, you might think you are directly experiencing sweetness, but in reality, it's the tongue's nerves that receive the impression and convey it to the mind. The mind then interprets it as a sweet taste. This perspective applies to all sense organs. Both the Sautrantikas and the Vaibhashikas are considered realists because they believe the external world is real. They only differ in whether it can be directly or indirectly experienced.

Then we have the Yogachara school, which takes a different stance. They deny the existence of any external world altogether. According to them, everything is a product of the mind, and the mind possesses a unique power called consciousness. The mind imagines everything, similar to how we dream. In a dream, there is no external world, but the mind relies on memories and reproduces them. However, the Yogachara proponents assert that there is no external world to gather these memories from. It is all a product of imagination or 'Kalpana.' The mind has the capacity to imagine and continuously does so. They give the example of dreaming about flying like a bird in the sky without actually seeing a bird. There is no external world; it's all imagination. This imagination is a function of consciousness, which is 'Kshanika' or momentary. Both the one who imagines and the imagined objects are momentary.

When questioned about how they remember recognizing people they've met before, they attribute it to similarity. When asked how they recognize similarity, they cannot provide an answer. This presents a fascinating logical challenge."

Anyway, these people rely on logic too much. That's why they are all called Tarkikas. The Buddhist philosophers have developed very strong logic, and Hindus, especially Mimamsakas like Kumarila Bhatta, could not counter them.

So, Kumarila Bhatta, in a false guise, decided to become a disciple of a prominent Buddhist teacher to learn the skillfulness of their arguments and logic. He pretended to be a great Buddhist and expressed a dislike for Hinduism. However, as he progressed in his studies, he was caught when tears were noticed during a critique of the Vedas, as Buddha had never accepted them. It became clear that he was a false Buddhist, not a true one. His deception was exposed, and the Guru's followers decided to throw him down a mountain to his death. As he was being thrown, Kumarila Bhatta uttered, 'If Vedas are true...' and miraculously landed safely, but he suffered a slight injury. Later, when someone asked if the Vedas had saved him, he regretted using the word 'if,' which expressed doubt. He believed that the Vedas were true and would have saved him had he not used such language.

Feeling guilty for deceiving his Guru, he believed that the only atonement for this crime was suicide, and it had to be a slow suicide. He sat on a pile of husk, which burns very slowly, and endured the excruciating pain as he slowly roasted. His bravery in enduring this torment was remarkable. Although he suffered physically, he believed that this act of sacrifice would lead to his liberation or 'Mukti.'

Shankaracharya, who wanted to defeat the Mimamsakas, learned that Kumarila Bhatta was the most prominent Mimamsaka. He met him on his funeral pyre, but Kumarila Bhatta was not in a position to engage in an argument. Instead, he directed Shankaracharya to his disciple, Mandana Mishra, who was equivalent to him in the Mimamsaka system. Shankaracharya saluted Kumarila Bhatta and proceeded to Mandana Mishra's house.

Mandana Mishra's house was a place of remarkable intellectual activity. Even the pet birds in the house engaged in arguments with visiting scholars. Shankaracharya recognized Mandana Mishra's house by this extraordinary scene. The ensuing argument between Shankaracharya and Mandana Mishra lasted for 18 days and was conducted with great intellectual rigor. Mandana Mishra's wife, Ubhayabharathi, played a key role as the examiner. While wives often favor their husbands, Ubhayabharathi was a highly learned individual and did not show bias. Her role also included feeding all of Shankaracharya's followers and other scholars who had gathered for this crucial test. The challenge was significant because if Mandana Mishra was defeated, the entire Mimamsaka system, particularly the Karma Kanda system or the ritualistic aspect of Hindu philosophy, would be defeated, as Mandana Mishra was its Guru.

Ubhayabharathi devised a clever way to determine the victor. She made two fresh garlands and placed them around the necks of Shankaracharya and her husband. She declared that whoever's garland appeared to wither away would be considered the defeated party. This psychological challenge aimed to create nervousness in the mind of the person who knew they were losing the argument, which would generate heat in the body, affecting the garland. Of course, the garlands couldn't have consciousness and opinions.

At the end of 18 days, Shankaracharya's garland remained fresh and fragrant, while her husband's garland appeared to wither away. As per the condition of the bet, the defeated party would give up their beliefs and become a disciple of the victor. Therefore, Mandana Mishra, later renamed as Reshwaracharya, became Shankaracharya's disciple and went on to write remarkable works. Kumarila Bhatta learned the logic and debating techniques of Buddhists and used them to defeat many Buddhists. This is a part of history."

So, Mandana Mishra, who was a prominent proponent of the Mimamsaka system, was also defeated by Shankaracharya. We have discussed how the Mimamsaka system, or Karmakanda system, raised questions about what comes first: the body or the Karmaphala (the result of actions). The belief in past lives is fundamental to Hinduism, and it's a widely held belief that our current existence is the result of our past actions (Karma). This raised the question of whether Karma or its results (Karmaphala) comes first. Karma is considered first because every birth is attributed to past Karmaphala. This debate led to various discussions and peculiar logic.

From the 14th to the 23rd Karika and onwards from the 24th Karika, we are dealing with Buddhist systems. The Sautrantika and Vaibhashika schools are referred to as realists, believing in the existence of an external world, with differences in whether it is directly or indirectly experienced. However, the Yogachara school, which is also considered realist, asserts that everything is momentary consciousness (Kshanika Chaitanya).

Then, there's a further refinement within the Yogachara school known as Madhyamika, meaning the middle way. It was developed by Nagarjuna, a great Andhra philosopher, and there's even a Nagarjuna University near Guntur. Nagarjuna argued that even consciousness is Shunyam, or empty. He believed that everything is empty, void. This gave rise to a counter-argument from an Advaitin, who humorously pointed out that if everything is Shunyam, then Nagarjuna himself is Shunyam, making his teachings Shunyam as well. Nevertheless, the concept of Shunyam is indescribable, and Nagarjuna sought to establish that Shunyam is essentially the same as pure Vedanta, describing only Brahman.

Buddha never accepted the concept of Saguna Brahma (God with attributes) and instead focused on Nirguna Brahma (God without attributes). Buddha aimed to bring about changes in the ritualistic system, particularly the practice of animal sacrifice in the name of God, and denied the value of Vedas. This led him to reject the concept of a personal God, emphasizing the impersonal.

Returning to our subject, from the 24th to the 29th Karika, Gaudapada aims to refute all these philosophical groups. He challenges the very concept of causality, stating that even to say whether the world exists, whether in a real or ideal sense, implies a point in time when it did not exist, a point when it came into existence, and a point when it will cease to exist. This concept involves time and space, and there must be a cause for this. However, Gaudapada seeks to establish Ajati Vada, the doctrine that there was never any creation at all. Brahman is completely unborn.

In Karika 28, Gaudapada compares those who see the birth, existence, and disappearance of the world to mad individuals who see the footprints of birds flying in the sky. He refutes the claims of those who attribute everything to the mind, stating, 'Asmat na jayate chittam.'"

Chittam here means mind, and the mind produces ideas, which are called Chittadrishyam. So, 'na jayate chittam' means that the mind itself is not born, let alone the objects (Chittadrishyam) that it imagines. The objects are also not born automatically; otherwise, you would have to claim that there was a time when they did not exist. To argue that from the unborn, something else is born is not logical. It is like saying an unborn baby gives birth to many children, which is impossible.

Those who see the causality between the birth and the consequences (Karma) are like people who see footprints in the sky. This analogy emphasizes that attributing birth to that which is inherently unborn, such as Brahman, is illogical. The idea here is that the mind, and even the objects it imagines, is not born. Gaudapada refutes the Vijnanavadis' (Buddhist school) belief that the mind produces birth and birth leads to consequences (Karma).

Now, in Karika 29, Gaudapada is summarizing his arguments and counterarguments against the Buddhistic schools from Karikas 24 to 28. The first two schools of Hinayana, Sautrantika and Vaibhashika, are referred to as realists. The distinction between them is that the first believes in direct experience, while the second believes in indirect experience through the mind. Gaudapada emphasizes that even so-called direct experiences are still filtered through the mind.

Gaudapada's central thesis is the doctrine of Ajati, which asserts that there is no creation at all. He argues that it is incorrect for disputants (such as the Buddhistic schools) to claim that what is inherently unborn (Brahman) is born. Gaudapada asserts that Brahman's true nature is Ajati, meaning it is never born. The use of the word 'Prakruti' here means the real nature of something. For example, the real nature of a golden ornament is gold. Although there may be various golden ornaments, their real nature, without exception, is gold. The ornaments may differ in appearance, but their essence remains gold."

Why do we say there are one thousand? Because one is a necklace, another is a bangle, another is a ring, another is an earring, another is a nose ring, another is a waist girdle. In the earlier days, wives used to be gifted by their husbands with a huge waist girdle made of pure gold. Even if the woman was very fat, a large, thick gold girdle was considered necessary. It was believed that even when the economy faced uncertainties, this gold would remain valuable. They had little faith in banks. Banks were often referred to as 'Diwala Ho Gaya' (bankrupt). So, Prakruti, or the real nature of something, will never become anything other than itself. A golden ornament, for example, may differ in Nama (name) and Rupa (form), like a ring or a necklace, but its essence remains gold. This is because the real nature of a golden ornament is gold. It was gold before being fashioned into an ornament, remains gold while functioning as an ornament, and can be melted back into gold if needed.

Gaudapada asserts that Ajati, the doctrine that there is no creation, is his central thesis. It is illogical for disputants (such as the Buddhistic schools) to claim that the unborn (Brahman) is born. Gaudapada maintains that Brahman's true nature is Ajati, meaning it is never born. To claim that something infinite becomes finite or that the changeless becomes changeful is not acceptable.

In Karika 29, Gaudapada emphasizes that Brahman can never be born because its nature is unchanging. That which is unchanging will not suddenly undergo change. The definition of truth is 'Trikala abadhitam satyam'—that which never undergoes any change, including changes across past, present, and future. Thus, Brahman is beyond time and unchanging.

Now, in Karika 30, Gaudapada reiterates the same points in different words. He addresses the logic behind the Sankhya school of philosophy, which posits that Prakruti is anadi (beginningless). Gaudapada argues that if samsara (the cycle of birth and death) is truly anadi, as the Sankhya philosophy suggests, it cannot be ended through sadhana (spiritual practice). This is because, according to their own principle, that which is beginningless can never have an end. The discussion highlights the logical inconsistencies in the Sankhya philosophy and emphasizes the central thesis of Advaita Vedanta, which is that the world is not real, there is no individual soul (jiva), no bondage, no spiritual practice (sadhana), and no liberation (mukti). This is the ultimate truth of Advaita Vedanta."

This is all because Gaudapada was a very compassionate teacher. We know that we don't remember, and he knows that we don't remember anything. So the poor man goes on trying to remind us.

So what is the first point? Gaudapada points out that whatever is beginningless will be endless. Anadi, ananta sadhi, shanta. Now, if samsara is anadi, beginningless, then that is its nature. That means moksha, freedom from samsara, is impossible. Why? Because if samsara is beginningless, it will be endless. Nobody can stop it because that is its nature. Nature cannot be changed; this is the point you have to remember.

The second point, supposing that the beginningless nature can be stopped, then what happens? You become free from samsara, which means moksha. Freedom from samsara is called moksha, and falling into the net of samsara is called bandhana, bondage. So, supposing on January 1, 2024, your samsara ends, and your moksha begins. Now, what is the nature of this moksha? It was not there, and now it started. Is it anadi or sadhi? It is sadhi; it has a beginning. The logic is, whatever has a beginning will also have an end. So, what happens? After one hour, not even one hour, samsara will start again. Why? Because when you have such mukti, and I ask you, "Have you gone out of bondage?" You say, "Yes." You say, "On January 1, by Shri Ram Krishna's grace, I have attained my moksha." And I dispute it. You go on getting hotter and hotter. Now, getting hotter and hotter, is it part of samsara or part of moksha? Both ways, a moksha with a beginning and an end is undesirable, even illogical and unthinkable.

If samsara, which means bondage, is also beginningless, ignorance is also beginningless, it will be endless. So, a beginningless and endless ignorance, if that is the nature, it cannot be changed. What is the answer then? If you ask the Advaitin how are you going to answer this question or rephrase it, he says both these problems can be solved because there is no samsara at all, finished. Then, you and I are feeling it; you feel in your dream that someone is dragging you or your wife is showing loving words towards you. Both are completely your foolish imaginations. They are not possible. That is what he wants to say.

Moksha or liberation cannot have a beginning and at the same time be eternal. Whatever has a beginning will have an end. This is the essence of the 30th verse, and he reinforces this idea in two more verses.

Yet, whatever object in the beginning, which means beginningless, and Ante, meaning endless, whatever was not existing at the beginning and won't exist at the end, is non-existent. If someone doesn't exist in the past and doesn't exist in the future, to say that the present exists is a very illogical idea. What would we mean by the present? It had a past and it will have a future. What is in between is called the present. Therefore, whatever was not there at the beginning and will not be there after some time is as good as non-existent.

What is our experience?

In the 31st and 32nd karikas, Gaudapada provides further arguments to illustrate the unreality of the world and how it is primarily a result of ignorance (avidya).

In the 31st karika, Gaudapada emphasizes that our experience of the world is a product of ignorance. We perceive the world as if it exists, but this perception is due to our ignorance. He uses the example of how, in a dream, we believe that the dream world is real while we are in the dream. When we wake up, we realize that the dream was an illusion. Gaudapada's point is that just as we experience a dream world that seems real while dreaming but is ultimately unreal, our waking state experiences are also shaped by ignorance and are similarly illusory. Ignorance makes us see the world and its various phenomena as real, whereas in truth, they are not.

In the 32nd karika, Gaudapada continues to highlight the illusory nature of experiences by contrasting the experiences of the waking state and the dream state. He points out that the experiences in the waking state and dream state are in conflict with each other. For instance, when you dream, you might find yourself in a completely different location or experiencing events that are contradictory to your waking life. When you wake up, you recognize that the dream was unreal. This demonstrates that both the waking state and the dream state experiences are subject to change and contradiction.

Gaudapada's main argument is that experiences in both states are subject to beginning and end. Dreams may last for only a short period of time, but they too have a beginning and an end. Therefore, if samsara is taken to be real and has a beginning, it will also have an end. Anything with a beginning and end cannot be eternal or real in an absolute sense.

He uses these examples and arguments to emphasize that samsara, or the cycle of birth and death, is essentially an illusion created by ignorance (avidya). The realization of the ultimate truth transcends both the waking and dream states, revealing the unreality of samsara and the eternal nature of the self (Atman).

I will stop here.

Ramakrishnam Jagat Gurum Pada Padme Tayo Suratva Pranamami Moho Moho May Sai Ramakrishna, Holy Mother and Swami Vivekananda bless us all with bhakti. Jai Ramakrishna