My Thoughts ......... 12

 1) You cannot search for your shadow in the darkness, as during the darkness, your body is taken up by the shadow itself due to ignorance, when the knowledge shines within you like the Sun, the shadow falls down when you are shining!

2) The light outside the tunnel is real, the tunnel is an illusion! 

3) Silence is the safest response for all the contradiction that arises from impertinence, vulgarity, and envy.  Silence is the rest of the mind and is to the spirit what sleep is to the body, nourishment & refreshment.  It is a great virtue: it covers folly, keeps secrets, avoids disputes, and prevents Sin! 

4) Want to be free, then don't envy or imitate others, don't fall for others' opinions and criticism, and be as you are, that is freedom! 

5) "No one is going to stand up at your funeral and say she had a really expensive couch and great sandals, don't make life about stuff".

6) "Having a soft heart in a cruel world is courage and not weakness".

7) "Imitation is temporary, Originality is permanent".

8) "Don't expect appreciation from tasteless people" 

 9) "Do not pray to Him when you are sick, pray to Him not to become sick" 

10) "Your energy introduces you before even you speak" 

Advaita Prakaranam of Mandukya Upanishad (Chapter 3) Part 15

जीवात्मनोः पृथक्त्वं यत् प्रागुत्पत्तेः प्रकीर्तितम् ।
भविष्यद्वृत्या गौणं तन्मुख्यत्वं हि न युज्यते ॥ १४ ॥

jīvātmanoḥ pṛthaktvaṃ yat prāgutpatteḥ prakīrtitam |
bhaviṣyadvṛtyā gauṇaṃ tanmukhyatvaṃ hi na yujyate || 14 ||

The question comes if the Vedas wants to teach advaitam only whey should it talk about dvaitam at all. It seems to be unnecessary complication. Initially it should talk about dviatam. Thereafter it has to be condemned. Why talk and condemn. Why not keep quiet.

 
Why should I call you and say fool. It could have avoided dvaitam. It talks about dviatam throughout karmakanda. Even in the beginning of jnanakanda very much it is said. How do you account for it.

We say that to reveal advaitam we have to start from somewhere. Upanishad has to start from dviatam where the student is. Only from the place of the student or plane of the student Upanishad has to develop further and then take him to the destination. If I have to take you somewhere I have to pick you from the place where you are. Where is the student now? The student has to be in dviatam at this moment because of his mudhamati. Because of his basic ignorance. Therefore whenever Upanishad is talking dvaitam.

Upanishad is not revealing dvaitam as a fact but it is only introducing dvaitam paraphrasing dvaitam which is already in the mind of the student. Upanishad need not teach what the student already knows. Upanishad need not teach what the student already knows. That is why they tell the story of adviatic teacher.

An Advaita teacher was teaching advaitam to a student. Student was not convinced of adviatam and went to some other teacher to read dvitam with all logic etc. He went back to advaita teacher to argue and establish dvaitam. With that puffed mind he came to argue. The advaita teacher was having a shave due to pournami. He said please wait and afterwards we can have a debate. He was watching the whole procedure. The barber showed the mirror at the end to advaita teacher.

He was shining now,. You are so great that you have added so much shine in my face. You are Narayana. Guru started falling at the feet of barber. Barber felt so bad and he could not bear that.

He said How can I ordinary barber be equal to Narayana. When this statement was made by the barber he looked at the dvaitin. You took 12 years to establish the difference between jiva and isvara. This barber without study of any sasrta he already says I am not Narayana. Why should Upanishad be studied to talk about the difference of jiva and isvara. Everyone by birth is thinking that I am different from Isvara. Upanishad take all efforts to remove this fundamental ignorance.

This is one of the rules of mimamsa. Veda need not teach what is already in the mind of the people. This is technically called gatarthatvam. Already known fact. Veda need not tell that. Even an ant knows that I am not the sugar which I am eating. Why should the upanishad teach it elaborately. Adviatam is not naturally known. It is agatarthah. Not known through other pramanas. It is apurvam. Dvaitam is steppig stone. That person knows only snake. So I have to start from snake. Though ultimately I wish to prove that there is no snake at any time. Start with snake and end with negation of snake. So too with dvaitam and negation of dvaitam.

Destination is advaitam only.

Jivatmanoh prthaktvam - the difference between jiva and isvara.

Utpatteh prak - is talked about before the creation. The bheda is talked about before srishti. So that it can be condemned after srishti vakyas. It is all important technical ideas. Before talking about aikyam I say there are many pots, all pots are born of clay, sustained by it and resolve into it and pot is effect and clay is karanam and then say clay is reality of pot and pots are non-separate from clay and dismiss all pots. Mundaka started with srishti. Yatha sudiptat + Brahman was said to be karanam.

Finally Upanishad concluded that purusha eva idam sarvam. All that is there is Brahman. Began with duality and ended with advaitam. So it is initial statement.

Bhavishyat vrttya + These bheda vakyas are only secondary statements, unimportant statements or figurative. It is temporarily accepted for teaching. It is gaunam for what purpose. From the standpoint of adviatam which is primarily taught later. Bhavishyat is future. From the standpoint of future teaching of advaitam dvaitam is only secondary statement. Serving as a stepping stone.

Mukhyatvam na hi yujyate. You should not give too much importance to dvaita vakyas.

Ultimate importance is not there. They are condemned and dismissed later unlike abheda vakyas which are never condemned.

Advaita Prakaranam of Mandukya Upanishad (Chapter 3) Part 14

जीवात्मनोरनन्यत्वमभेदेन प्रशस्यते ।
नानात्वं निन्द्यते यच्च तदेवं हि समञ्जसम् ॥ १३ ॥

jīvātmanorananyatvamabhedena praśasyate |
nānātvaṃ nindyate yacca tadevaṃ hi samañjasam || 13 ||

Now a problem comes. Purvapakshi (generally dvaitin, includes all philosophers) says you are only taking the aikya statements from Vedas. Whatever is convenient for you you are taking. If you really go to Vedas you have enough statements which reveal the difference also.

Why do you choose abheda only. How do you account for bheda vakyas. Where are they? The entire Karma kanda talks of it only. Worshipper worshipped, karma karta and karma phala data iti.

Even in Upanishads we have such vakyas as dva suparnau sayuja sakhayau samanam vrkshma parishasvajate tayo + In khato rtam pibantau + Two different ones. Like chaya and atapa.

Mamaiva amsah + in Geeta. So jivatma and paramatma are not one and the same. If so, then jiva is birthless like paramatma iti you cannot say. Advaitin is quoting abheda vakyas and dvaitin is quoting bheda vakyas. Veda seems to support both of them.

Which one can we take? We have to use mimamsa here. Mere language and reasoning is not enough. Whatever is praised that must be the intention of the vedantic teaching. Whatever is condemned cannot be the tatparya of vedantic teaching. Through praise, it says what is a fact.

Uniformly advaitam is glorified and great phalams are given for advaita jnanam. Stutyartha vadah and utkrishta phala vacanam. Moksha phala danena prasasyate.

Jivatmanoh + Identity of jiva and atma is praised. Is glorified.

Through what? Abhedena -through many statements of identity. By saying tarati sokam atmavid etc. Yasmin sarvani + Tai - sa yascayam + etam annamayam + sama gayan aste. He is equated to isvara himself.

Whereas when dvaitam comes, upanishad uniformly condemns. Mrtyoh + & Anyah asau + sah na veda. Sa devanam pasuh.

Offering ahutis. Tad evam hi samanjasam - Avaitam alone has to be taken as proper.

Advaita Prakaranam of Mandukya Upanishad (Chapter 3) Part 13

द्वयोर्द्वयोर्मधुज्ञाने परं ब्रह्म प्रकाशितम् ।
पृथिव्यामुदरे चैव यथाकाशः प्रकाशितः ॥ १२ ॥

dvayordvayormadhujñāne paraṃ brahma prakāśitam |
pṛthivyāmudare caiva yathākāśaḥ prakāśitaḥ || 12 ||

Guadapada negated jiva utpatti by yukti pramanam from 3-9 and he negated jagat utpatti in 10th and from 11th onwards jiva utpatti is again negated by sruti pramanam. This topic will be up to 16th sloka. Various methods of the argument are adopted. First is based on aikya vakyas.

Paramatma is birthless - there is no controversy in this. Once Jivatma is equated with Paramatma then our job is simpler. Then Jiva has to be birthless. Jiva is not born. First Taittirya vakya is taken for vicara. Same argument is given through another Upanishad.

This verse is based on Br. Up. In Br. Up each section is known as Brahmanam. Just as in Tai Up we have Vallis. One section is called Madhu Brahmanam. This section is called so because Atma
is revealed as madhu svarupam. Madhu means ananda because madhu is sweet. Since atma is revealed as madhu it is known by that name.

Here Acharya uses the word madhu jnanam to indicate madhu brahmanam. Here the vyashti samashti pair is taken while discussing atma. Vyashti is adhyatma and samashti is adhideivam.

Upanishad points out that atma in the vyashti and samashti are one and the same. For example eyes you take. It is adhyatma.

Adhideivam is devata of cakshuh. What is it? It is surya devata. Eye is adhyatmam and sun is adhideivam. Tongue and Varuna. Hand and Indra and so on. Srotram and Dig devata.

These vyashti and samashti pairs are enumerated in the whole brahmanam. Upanishad says there that the caitanyam behind the vyashti and samashti are one and the same. Caitanyam behind vyashti is jivatma and caitanyam behind smashti is paramatma and so there is identity between the two.

In Mahdu Brahmanam paramatma is revealed as the same in both (dvyaor) in all pairs. Repetition is meant of indicate al pairs of adhyatma and adhideivam. Vyashti and samashti. It is like what?

Yatha akasah. Like space is revealed as the same on Earth outside and in the stomach inside. The pot is replaced by the belly. The example is not there in the sruti> Acharya reminds the previous example discussed before from 3-9.

So aikyam is there between the two and from this we derive that jiva is birthless and so Brahman is ajati and therefore Advaitam alone is in all three periods.

My Thoughts ......... 11

 1) "Everybody dies alone, but if you mean something to someone if you help someone or love someone, and if even a single person remembers you, then maybe you never really die at all".

2) Bubble is part of the Sea, but for a Bubble to become a sea, it has to break its EGO and merge into the vast sea...

3) Remember Draupadi(Atma) had 5 husbands (Tanmatras/Bhootas) but they couldn't save her chastity(Bhakti) when Dushashana(Vices) tried to disrobe (swabhimana) her, only when she raised her both hands (Saranagati) and wailed & prayed to HIM (Bhagwan Krishna), and merged into HIM, her chastity got saved!

4) The body is the limited thing, and Atma is infinite, if you get connected to the body you will feel pettiness but if you get connected to Atma, you will understand how unlimited you have become!  

5) To care and love someone who is unconnected to you, an unknown entity is a Godly thing, loving those who are there with you somewhere gives a chance of selfishness!  

 

6) Remove the superimposed limited "I", and discover the unlimited "I"!

7) When you enter a room full of mirrors you see innumerous images of yours, are you one or are you the countless as projected by the mirrors? 

8) On, this stage of the fake world, honesty is a rarity, which no one appreciates!

9) "People miss you only when you are dead and gone when you are alive they feel disgusted with you and hate you to the core for some of your follies, only a few are magnanimous to move on!".

10) Silence comes from the breath of God, Chaos from the Devil! Remember....... 

Advaita Prakaranam of Mandukya Upanishad (Chapter 3) Part 12

रसादयो हि ये कोशा व्याख्यातास्तैत्तिरीयके ।
तेषामात्मा परो जीवः खं यथा संप्रकाशितः ॥ ११ ॥

rasādayo hi ye kośā vyākhyātāstaittirīyake |
teṣāmātmā paro jīvaḥ khaṃ yathā saṃprakāśitaḥ || 11 ||

Acharya comes back to the same topic of jiva utpatti nishedha. He discussed it before. He picks up the topic again. What is the difference between the previous and this discussion. Is it not a dosha.

Pishta peshana nayaya or punarukti dosha. It is not so because even if the topic is the same the approach is different. Previously it was established through logic. Now he wants to establish through scriptures. Yukti pradhanam before and now it is sruti pradhana. Sruti pramanena jiva utpatti nishedha. It will be from 11 to 16.

Acharya uses various techniques here which are used in mimamsa sastram. To arrive at the intention of the sastram we have various methods of analysis called shadlingam. Upakrama etc.

One method used here is by taking the jiva Brahma aikya vakyam i.e., those statements which reveal the identity between jivatma and paramatma are considered. Tattvamasi etc are there. How will mahavakyam will help in establishing this particular topic. What is the connection between mahavakya discussion and jiva utpatti nishedha. Acharya connects ingeniously.

If sastram points out jiva and Brahman are identical then the idea we get is that just as Brahman is unborn, jiva also is unborn. Brahman ajah. All rival philosophers accept this. The problem is only with respect to jivah. Jiva is born from unborn Brahman. No. Sruti pramana if you see, it also shows no jiva utpatti. If jiva is born you say then it will amount to saying Brahman is born. Because jiva and Brahman are same. Scriptures never discuses the cause of Brahman.

For aikya vakyam acharya takes the Tai.Up. Second chapter is taken here where pancha kosa viveka is done beginning with annamaya kosa. Prthivya oshadhayah … Annarasa mayah it was said there. Rasadayah therefore refers to annamayadi kosah. What Upanishad does? It dismisses every one of them as anatma by saying anyontara atma.

Finally, after dismissing anandamaya it says Ananda atma Brahma puccham pratishtha. Atma Brahma aikyam is pointed out by saying ananda atma is pointed out as Brahma puccham. Atma Brahma aikyam is referred here. This was supported by previous and later statements also like satyam jananm anantam Brahman.. Brahman is discovered in the heart indicating that atma here and Brahman there are identical. In the end also it was confirmed that sa yascayam purushe + Sa ekah. Caitanyam in purusha and HG are one and the same. If both are one and the same, jiva also must be unborn like Brahman.

Rasadayah … The five kosas beginning from annarasamaya kosa were discussed in Tai.Up. Tesham atma.. Their atma or inner content of those five kosas which is known as jivah is revealed as parah or Brahman or paramatma. It is exactly like revealing ghatakasa is the same as mahakasa.

Yatha kham or akasam. It means oneness between pot space and total space. The example is given by acharya and not in tai. Up. Evam + Thus it was revealed. So the conclusion is jiva is not born.

The aim here is not aikyam. Through this topic, acharya wants to establish that therefore jiva is unborn and ajati vada is right and say advaitam is intact. In the following slokas more sruti quotations will be given.

Advaita Prakaranam of Mandukya Upanishad (Chapter 3) Part 11

 संघाताः स्वप्नवत्सर्वे आत्ममायाविसर्जिताः ।

आधिक्ये सर्वसाम्ये वा नोपपत्तिर्हि विद्यते ॥ १० ॥

saṃghātāḥ svapnavatsarve ātmamāyāvisarjitāḥ |
ādhikye sarvasāmye vā nopapattirhi vidyate || 10 ||

We said jiva is never born of paramatma. The birth belongs to only sariram. Sarirams birth we falsely attribute to paramatma, the caitanyam. Now purvapakshi says it is wonderful. I accept it.

But still you are in problem. You have said in your own words, sarirams are born. I want to refute ajati vada. You wanted to establish nothing is born. Now you accept that sariram is born of paramatma. Ghata akasa is not born but ghata is born. So paramatma is karanam not for jivas but of bodies. So your ajativada is wrong. Upto 9th verse Acharya logically negated the jiva utpatti by taking the example of space. It was concluded in 9th sloka.

Throughout these discussions the aim of acharya is to show that advaitam alone was, is and will be. That means advaitam has never become dvaitam. That means creation has never come out of Brahman. That means neither jiva has come out of Brahman nor jagat has come out of Brahman. So Brahman is ajati. Instead of using the word advaitam which never becomes dvaitam, an un beocming advaitam, acharya uses ajati. So every negation of utpatti establishes ajatih and advaitam. So this chapter is called advaita
prakaranam. Like the election speech.

One might talk any number of things and through out there is only one goal, therefore vote for me. So too advaitam is tatparyam here. Having negated jivautpatti, Acharya makes a little diversion here. Sanghatas svapnavat sarve atmamaya visarjitah adhikye sarvasamye va nopapattirhi vidyate

In the previous discussion acharya said jiva is not born with the help of ghata-akasa example. In that example, he showed that ghata akasa is not really born. It is only seemingly born. Really speaking what is born is only pot. What do we mistake. When the pot is born we falsely attribute the birth of the pot to the pot space.

In the same way jivatma also is also nothing but caitanyam which is unborn and identical with paramatma caitanyam which is birhtless. Why do we say jivatma is born?

Acharya said just as pot is born here also a body is born and we falsely attribute the birth of the container body to the content jivatma. This is the essence of the previous discussion.

Now the purvapakshi argues - I accept your statement that ghata akasa is not born. Do you accept the birth of pot? Yes. Then I accept jivatma is not born like paramatma but like pot body is born. It means you are accepting the birth of container the body. Body is matter. So caitanyam may not be born but matter the acetana vastu is born. So jiva is ajati okay and jivatma utpatti you can do nishedha but sarira utpatti you cannot negate. Anatma the matter represents the whole world which is matter only and so you have to accept jagat utpatti. Suppose acharya agrees to the rival’s argument, then the problem will be ajati vada is in trouble. Ajati vada is : nothing is born out of Brahman.

Advaitam is also in trouble. Sarirams will cause dvaitam. So we have to negate sarira utpatti also, jagat utpatti. 10th sloka negates sarira utpatti or jagat utpatti. How do you say bodies are not born. Caitnayam is not born - it is okay. It is difficult to investigate that. So we accept it. But how can you say bodies are not born. We see solidly with our eyes.

Sarve sanghatah + Sanghata is sariram. Sukshma and sthula. All sarirams of all beings. All types - result of punya karma like deva sariram or papa karma like asura sariram. All of them.

Atmamaya-visarjitah - are created. How? By the maya power of atma. By the magic of maya.

Atma kalpayati svamayaya - we saw. Atma alone becomes the seeming duality with the help of maya. When Gaudapada uses the word maya - it means as though born. It is apparently projected.

Maya we use when something seems to happen and it is not logically accountable. Sarpa is unreal for others but it is real at the time of delusion. It is as though real. Sweating is there. From such experience we use the word maya. At the cosmic level also it happens. In this atma is seemingly divided.

Then we may wonder how do you say it is apparent or seeming? I experience it tangibly. Mike I see is not projection. I touch and feel it. It has a function. Svapnavat. It is exactly like dream. In dream everything is nothing but a thought. Dream tiger etc. are mere thoughts. No such substance called tiger. At the moment of sleep, when I am identified with karana sariram, the dream tiger is real. I run away when it chases me. So at the moment of delusion things appear to be real. So too the creation of body is also apparent projection. No substance called body or jagat. So paramatma alone is appearing as bodies. There is no matter at all for vedantins. Consciousness alone exists.

Consciousness plus name and form appears as matter. That is why scientists when they go deeper into matter it is disappearing. World into 108 elements, then all of them into molecules and then to atom to particles to waves of energy. Now they say the type of matter you see depends on the attitude the observer has.

The observer’s attitude influences the observed matter. If you look upon as wave then matter behaves as wave. What you wants to see is there.

How do you account for the inferiority and superiority of bodies. Adhikye + some may be superior. Like the body of sankaracharya. There may be another candala body. All of them are nothing but matter meaning mayikam. Sarva samye va. Adhikya is superiority.

Sarvasamya is same. Or the bodies may be inferior - you may add. Upapattih is not there. You have no reason to establish srishti.

Srishti of what? Srishti of bodies. In one sloka jagat srishti is negated. More elaborate discussion will come in the fourth chapter. Satkarya and asatkarya will come there. So the conclusion is no srishti of any kind. So ajati vada is correct.