Karika bh 3.27 'Atman is born only seemingly as the world'

[V Subrahmanian]

In the Gaudapada Karika 3.27 we have this verse:

सतो हि मायया जन्म युज्यते न तु तत्त्वतः ।
तत्त्वतो जायते यस्य जातं तस्य हि जायते ॥ २७ ॥

 What is ever existent appears to pass into birth through maya, yet from the standpoint of Reality it does not do so. But he who thinks this passing into birth is real asserts, as a matter of fact, that what is born passes into birth again.

The Upanishad teaches that the Atman/Brahman is never an object for comprehension/perception. A doubt may arise that such an Atman might well be non-existent. To clear such a doubt this verse brings an answer:  Atman is never born: aja. Upon perceiving the world, an effect, of the cause - Brahman, we conclude that the latter exists. The analogy is: The magician, who exists, brings forth the magical display of elephant, etc. So, the display is the indicatory mark for the existence of the magician. Similarly with the existence of Brahman being inferred from the effect. 

Does Brahman really become the world? Is Brahman born as the world? No, for the Upanishadic statement that Brahman is ajam, unborn, will be violated. It would be a contradiction to say 'Brahman is unborn and Brahman alone is born as the world'.  The conclusion is: The 'birth' of the world from Brahman OR Brahman 'becoming the world' is only illusory.  In truth nothing is born.    

From the Bhashya we get the implicit message: The creation passages of the Upanishad are there only to indicate that Brahman, the Creator, Exists.  This is because, Shankara has said above that from the effect, we infer the existence of the cause. The Cause cannot be directly perceived because it is beyond speech and mind. The creation that the Upanishads talk of is only illusory creation, which is confirmed by the usage of the magician and his display: the illusory things he shows. 

regards

subbu                                                                                                                                                 

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Subbu ji.

The Upanishad teaches that the Atman/Brahman is never an object for comprehension/perception.

I somehow feel that such a statement is often misunderstood and prevents us from seeing the nearness of Atman. It is everywhere. It is in-built in all our perceptions. It pervades all experiences.

When we say pot-is, cloth-is, there is a perception of is-ness which is nothing but Brahman. The is-ness does not belong to pot. It belongs to Brahman. Hence, is-ness is indeed an object of comprehension and perception. That is why Brahman is said to be sarva-indriya-grAhya and sarva-pratyaya-vedya. (Not having rUpa, rasa, shabda are not hindrance in perception of Brahman because these are hindrance only for those entities which are niyata-indriya-grAhya. Brahman, which is sarva-indriya-grAhya, can be perceived by all indriyAs.)

This is the sum and substance of eka-sattA-vAda wherein pratyaksha is san-mAtra-grAhI and no other entity is accepted to have any sort of existence. I feel that it is extremely important in a meditative living. Our day to day perception of table and cloth etc involve perception of san-mAtra. We just have to do us our attention is-ness.

Objection: Are you saying that shuddha Brahman is the vishaya of the perception "pot is"?

Answer: No. Shuddha Brahman is covered by mUla-ajnAna. That covering is removed only with Brahma-jnAna. So, it is only pot-tAdAtmya-Apanna-Brahman which is the vishaya of perception. And this pot-tAdAtmya is born along with the birth of pot. Just as when illusory silver is born, idam-tAdAtmya is also born. Similarly, with the birth of pot, sat-tAdAtmya (pot-tAdAtmya with sat is also known as sat-tAdAtmya) is also born.

Thus, while shuddha Brahman is not a vishaya of chAkshusha-pratyaksha, pot-tAdAtmya-Apanna-Brahman is indeed a vishaya of chAkshusha-pratyaksha. 

Here, the mechanism is as under. While Ananda is covered by mUla-ajnAna, sat and chit are covered not by mUla-ajnAna but only by avasthA-ajnAna. So, due to pramANa-vritti, there is nAsha of avasthA-ajnAna, and ArOpya-tAdAtmya-Apanna-sat is revealed. Thus, pot-avachchhinna-chaitanya is covered by asattva-ApAdaka-ajnAna, abhAna-ApAdaka-ajnAna and anAnanda-ApAdaka-ajnAna. When there is nAsha or abhibhava of these, there is perception of ArOpya-tAdAtmya-Apanna-sat.

Thus, Ananta Krishna Shastri ji says in Advaita Siddhi, page 322 - [एवं च घटाद्यवच्छेदेन ब्रह्मणःचाक्षुषतावादॊ युक्त एव]

This attitude turns out daily experience of table and cloth in meditative living wherein our attention is centred on is-ness and not on pot and cloth. And we can feel the nearness and directness of sat and chit. 

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[V Subrahmanian]

On Sat, May 24, 2025 at 6:29 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar <sudhans...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste Subbu ji.

The Upanishad teaches that the Atman/Brahman is never an object for comprehension/perception.

I somehow feel that such a statement is often misunderstood and prevents us from seeing the nearness of Atman. It is everywhere. It is in-built in all our perceptions. It pervades all experiences.

Dear Sudhanshu ji,

I fully agree with the concern you have expressed.  The basis of my making such a statement is this Bhashya passage for the Karika 3.27:

एवं हि श्रुतिवाक्यशतैः सबाह्याभ्यन्तरमजमात्मतत्त्वमद्वयं न ततोऽन्यदस्तीति निश्चितमेतत् । युक्त्या चाधुनैतदेव पुनर्निर्धार्यत इत्याह — तत्रैतत्स्यात् सदा अग्राह्यमेव चेदसदेवात्मतत्त्वमिति ; तन्न, कार्यग्रहणात् ।   

That Brahman can be cognized through the 'is-ness' of objects has been well demonstrated by Shankara in BGB 2.16.

warm regards

subbu    

When we say pot-is, cloth-is, there is a perception of is-ness which is nothing but Brahman. The is-ness does not belong to pot. It belongs to Brahman. Hence, is-ness is indeed an object of comprehension and perception. That is why Brahman is said to be sarva-indriya-grAhya and sarva-pratyaya-vedya. (Not having rUpa, rasa, shabda are not hindrance in perception of Brahman because these are hindrance only for those entities which are niyata-indriya-grAhya. Brahman, which is sarva-indriya-grAhya, can be perceived by all indriyAs.)

This is the sum and substance of eka-sattA-vAda wherein pratyaksha is san-mAtra-grAhI and no other entity is accepted to have any sort of existence. I feel that it is extremely important in a meditative living. Our day to day perception of table and cloth etc involve perception of san-mAtra. We just have to do us our attention is-ness.

Objection: Are you saying that shuddha Brahman is the vishaya of the perception "pot is"?

Answer: No. Shuddha Brahman is covered by mUla-ajnAna. That covering is removed only with Brahma-jnAna. So, it is only pot-tAdAtmya-Apanna-Brahman which is the vishaya of perception. And this pot-tAdAtmya is born along with the birth of pot. Just as when illusory silver is born, idam-tAdAtmya is also born. Similarly, with the birth of pot, sat-tAdAtmya (pot-tAdAtmya with sat is also known as sat-tAdAtmya) is also born.

Thus, while shuddha Brahman is not a vishaya of chAkshusha-pratyaksha, pot-tAdAtmya-Apanna-Brahman is indeed a vishaya of chAkshusha-pratyaksha. 

Here, the mechanism is as under. While Ananda is covered by mUla-ajnAna, sat and chit are covered not by mUla-ajnAna but only by avasthA-ajnAna. So, due to pramANa-vritti, there is nAsha of avasthA-ajnAna, and ArOpya-tAdAtmya-Apanna-sat is revealed. Thus, pot-avachchhinna-chaitanya is covered by asattva-ApAdaka-ajnAna, abhAna-ApAdaka-ajnAna and anAnanda-ApAdaka-ajnAna. When there is nAsha or abhibhava of these, there is perception of ArOpya-tAdAtmya-Apanna-sat.

Thus, Ananta Krishna Shastri ji says in Advaita Siddhi, page 322 - [एवं च घटाद्यवच्छेदेन ब्रह्मणःचाक्षुषतावादॊ युक्त एव]

This attitude turns out daily experience of table and cloth in meditative living wherein our attention is centred on is-ness and not on pot and cloth. And we can feel the nearness and directness of sat and chit. 

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBBEp3Q0Zkn8bjd1pAO5LAk6FEbk0POPsOC167FfEe1oTg%40mail.gmail.com.

[putran M]

Namaskaram,

Posting below a post sent by Sunil-ji - minus a sentence outside list scope.

-----------

Dear Subbuji,

Lord Krishna said in the beginning of the 'Original Bhagavad Gita' that everything in this world is unreal, and Shri Gaudapadachatya reproduced that particular verse in Mandukya Karika 2.6. and Adi Shankara wrote the Mandukya karika bhashya. ... Lord Krishna told Arjun to pray to Mother Durga (Mother Shakti), before the Mahabharata war. Lord Ram worshipped Mother Durga before the Ramayana war. Towards the end of his life, Lord Buddha also taught that one should worship 'Mother Tara', the Creator and Abolisher of the World.

Late Shri Ramaksrishna Paramhamsha, the worshiper of 'Mother Kali' (or Mother Shakti).told that the day would be come soon, when one would understand Vedanta in a day. Interestingly, soon after that, the scientists had shown that Matter is convertible to Energy (Shakti).

Regards,

Sunil KB

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te1ekW3jFv6ov_-xCJ0m4z8TdxhVo5eUD40R3UrTBSiUtA%40mail.gmail.com.

[putran M]

Namaskaram,

That Brahman can be cognized through the 'is-ness' of objects has been well demonstrated by Shankara in BGB 2.16.

The below quote in Ch. U. VII.1.3 bhashya seems to indicate this point (although it is responding to objection that Self cannot be expressed in speech):

Objection: How then do words like 'Self', as contained in 'It is the Self that is below' (VII.25.2) and 'That is the Self' (VI.10.3), denote the Self?

Bhashya: This fault does not arise because even though It cannot be expressed in speech, the word 'Self' that is used for the innermost Self as possessed of a body and which is subject to (notions of) differentiations, gives rise to the conviction regarding Existence which remains as the residual entity when the body etc. are denied of being the Self...

 

This attitude turns out daily experience of table and cloth in meditative living wherein our attention is centred on is-ness and not on pot and cloth. And we can feel the nearness and directness of sat and chit. 

This statement of Sudhanshu-ji reminded me of a thread I started last March on "Sat-Chit-Ananda" usage. Vikram-ji and others had participated in that discussion. I had gathered some useful quotes from Taittiriya Up in a file. I am attaching an edited and re-organized version minus some of my confusions and confusing. First part has the quotes and my mananam (including on upasana) in the second part. (But, I have yet to sustain this standpoint in my life; sometimes there is inspiration but usually life reminds me that I have still to work a lot more on more preliminary steps of sadhana.)

thollmelukaalkizhu

[putran M]

 I had gathered some useful quotes from Taittiriya Up in a file.

Quotes from Chandogya and Taittiriya.

[V Subrahmanian]

Thanks Putran ji, for the Chandogya Bhashya reference.  It is indeed the point that is being made.

warm regards

subbu

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKqm3-qf1VZTApcsD0VMA_-Nd4EpK7rgxi2-DRDYb12fAvheqA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Sudhanshu prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

• Sometimes I feel you talk exactly what bhAshya says and sometimes I feel you are going against bhAshya and sticking to mere logical conclusions.  Very strange feeling indeed.  Here I think you are echoing the thoughts of bhAshyakAra with regard to IS-ness. 

 

When we say pot-is, cloth-is, there is a perception of is-ness which is nothing but Brahman. The is-ness does not belong to pot. It belongs to Brahman. Hence, is-ness is indeed an object of comprehension and perception. That is why Brahman is said to be sarva-indriya-grAhya and sarva-pratyaya-vedya. (Not having rUpa, rasa, shabda are not hindrance in perception of Brahman because these are hindrance only for those entities which are niyata-indriya-grAhya. Brahman, which is sarva-indriya-grAhya, can be perceived by all indriyAs.)

 

• As per my understanding, the expectation that at least one feature of kAraNa (brahman) should follow in the kArya (jagat) is fulfilled here. If that is not the case, then

kAraNatvaM behind kAryaM cannot be meaningfully explained. Consider the example mango rasaayana is a sweet dish.  Sugar / sugar syrup is its main ingredient (upAdAna). But we cannot physically notice the features of sound, touch and colour of the sugar in the rasAyana 😊 Therefore, just by seeing the rasAyana, we cannot know whether sugar is its upAdAna or not. But when we eat it or taste it, we will come to know the upAdAna or the cause of the rasAyana is known i.e. sugar. Likewise, it is necessary that at least one feature of the brahman should follow in the Jagat to say anything about kArya-kAraNa ananyatvaM. So the question is which feature has followed. The answer is explained as above i.e. IS-ness 😊 brahman IS of an unchanging form, the Jagat IS of a changing form. The Brahman IS chetana, the Jagat IS achetana/Jaḍa (inert) etc. From this it follows that the IS-NESS of Brahman is the feature that has followed in the Jagat. The nature of the IS-NESS of the brahman has followed in the kArya like AkAsha etc. says bhAshyakAra in sUtra bhAshya.  brahmasvarUpaanugamAya cha AkAshAdyannamayAntaM kAryAM, the svarUpa of brahman has followed in the creation starting from the AkAsha upto the stUla shareera says bhAshya.  Therefore, it is the bhAshya siddhAnta that atleast one single feature of brahman has followed in the Jagat to prove that jagat’s paramArtha svarUpa is nothing but brahman. 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar