Anubhuti Prakasham- Chandogya Chapter 8

Background:

We are now in the Anubhuti Prakasham portion that talks about Chapter 8 of Chandogya. In Chandogya, the 6th chapter talks about "Sat Vidya", chapter 7 talks about "Bhuuma Vidya" and Chapter 8 talks about "Dahara Vidya"

We are currently seeing this Dahara Vidya portion. In "Sat Vidya" (chapter 6), Brahman is revealed as Existence (Sat principle). In "Bhuuma Vidya" (chapter 7), Brahman is revealed as Happiness (Ananda principle). In chapter 8, Brahman is revealed as "Chit principle". Thus, through these 3 chapters, Brahman is revealed as Sat, Chit and Ananda.

In chapter 6, the teacher was Uddalaka and the student was Shvetaketu.

In chapter 7, the teacher was Sanatkumara and the student was Narada.

In chapter 8, now, the teacher is Prajapati and the students are Indra and Virochana.

Chapter 8: Ashta Guna vishishta Ishvara

Chapter 8 reveals Brahman with 8 attributes (maya sahitam brahma)- ashta guna vishista ishvara. These 8 attributes are "absence of old-age" and "absence of death" at the body level, absence of hunger and thirst at the prana level and absence of shoka and papa. These 6 are in terms of absence. 2 positive attributes are mentioned- satya kaama and satya sankalpa. 

Initial sections focus on "upasana" on this ashta-guna vishishta ishvara. The later sections focus on "gnanam". Vidyaranya skips the upasana portions and focuses on the gnanam sections alone.

What is dahara Vidya?

As mentioned, this chapter is called Dahara Vidya or Dahara Aakaasha Vidya. In the Lalita Sahasranama, we have the name "daharaakaara ruupini".

Dahara means "small". Akasha is of course space. Dahara akasha refers to the space in the heart. Brahman is revealed in both saguna and nirguna form in the cave of the heart. Hence, the name dahara vidya. We can remember Geeta- "ishvarah sarva bhutanam hrd deshe arjuna tishTati". The Lord is available as "praagnya" (antaryami rupam, i.e. saguna form) in each living being. As Nirguna, Lord is the Consciousness principle (experienced especially in the mind, whose (mind's) locus is the heart). Hence, dahara vidya means both- saguna and nirguna aspect.

Setting the context: Prajapati, Indra, Virochana

As per the Upanishad, in a certain context, Prajapati mentioned that by knowing Brahman, we can have "sarva loka praapti" and "sarva kaama praapti". This picked the curiosity of both the devas and the asuras (especially the sarva kaama praapti, total fulfilment). Deva raja Indra and Asura raja Virochana came as students to Prajapati. They served Prajapati for 32 years!

Akshi Purusha

It is only after that, that Prajapati taught Indra and Virochana. He initially reveals Brahman as "Vishva" in the individual and as Virat in the Totality. The term "Akshi purusha" is used for Brahman here. The right-eye (akshi) is used as the locus of Brahman. Note- in Mandukya also, we find this dakshina-akshi reference.

The reason is the following behind using the right eye. In the waking state, the most vital organ is the eye. Since Vishva and Virat are concerned with the waking state, the eye is taken.

The eye, the right eye in particular,  is taken as the aalambanam for Virat upasana. This is the second reason.

How Indra and Virochana mistake this akshi Purusha

Prajapati has given a general definition of paramatma as "tad amrtam, tad abhayam, tad brahma". This shows that Prajapati's intent was to reveal Brahman as the Total. Still, when akshi-purusha was taught by Prajapati to Indra and Virochana, they get the wrong message.

When we stand before someone, our body is reflected in their eye. Indra and Virochana think that this reflected body is paramaatma. They think, this is the message!

They ask Prajapati, we see the reflection in water, in a mirror. Is that paramaatma? Prajapati did not want to correct them immediately. He only said, paramaatma is in the water, in the mirror too.

 The water-bowl experiment which still causes mistakes!

To correct them, Prajapati did an experiment. He got a huge water-bowl (sharaavah). He asked Indra and Virochana to stand in front of it. He asked them, "What do you see?" They said, "We see our reflection!"

Next, he asked them to go and groom themselves- new dress, new ornaments etc. and come back. Again, he asked them, "What do you see?" They replied, "We see our reflection!"

Again, Prajapati did not correct them. He wanted them to understand their folly (on their own). He had already described Paramaatma as "tad amrtam, tad abhayam, tad brahma". Hence, it must be "non-changing". Seeing their "changed bodies" (before and after grooming), Prajapati hoped Indra and Virochana will realize that "chhaayaatma" (reflected body) cannot be the Total.

But they did not get the message! Instead, they felt, Prajapati validated their understanding and went back to their respective places!

Virochana made a slight modification after going back to asura loka. Instead of saying, "reflected body is paramatma", he said, "body itself is paramatma". He never came back to Prajapati. He started an "andha parmapara". Thus, chaarvaaka became the philosophy- materialistic philosophy- where body is the end-all and be-all. 

Why did they miss the point? That's because they were not yet ready for the teaching- they had some "pratibandha" obstacle, which had to be overcome. We normally say, continue with bhakti. Obstacles, such as this, will be taken care by bhakti, and we will come back to the right teacher, to get the knowledge correctly!

Problem in akshi-purusha:

Indra came back, because he felt, this chhaayaatma as paramaatma is not making sense! He felt, the body may suffer from conditions like blindness etc. In these cases, this body or its reflection, cannot be paramatma.

Swapna purusha

When Indra comes back to Prajapati, he first asked him to serve for 32 years! That's because he did not understand the intent of the teaching, when Prajapati taught Akshi Purusha. This reveals an important message for the saadhaka. If we are not able to get the import of the Vedantic teaching, it points to a certain lack of preparedness of the mind. It's as though there is some latent papa, some pratibandha, some obstacle, which prevents the student from getting the full impact of the teaching. This lack of preparedness can be solved only through karma-yoga. Hence. Prajapati asks Indra to serve him for 32 years. After this, he starts teaching again.

This time, Prajapati reveals the swapna-purusha. Prajapati's intent is always this- through the swapna-purusha, he wants Indra to know, he (the dreamer) is a mixture of the dream-body, the dream-chidabhasa (reflected consciousness) and the original consciousness. Of this, Prajapati wants Indra to take the original consciousness as the "invariable" and own that up, as his true nature.

Problem in swapna-purusha:

But, like the mistake Indra made in case of Akshi Purusha, he continues to make the same mistake. He takes the reflected consciousness in the dreamer (swapna purusha) as his true nature, as though that is the original "ashta guna vishishta paramatma". But, this cannot be the case, since Prajapati had pointed out that this paramatma is "tad amrtam, tad abhayam, tad brahma". Also, the dreamer suffers from nightmares, and such a swapna-purusha cannot be the paramatma. In particular, "chora" and "vyaaghra" bhaya are given as examples! 

Initially, Indra does not get this message and goes away, thinking he has got the full teaching.

But on the way back to his abode, he realizes this swapna-purusha is making no sense. Hence, he returns to Prajapati.

Supta-purusha:

When Indra returns, Prajapati asks him to serve for 32 more years, for the same reason as the last time!

Note this point: By now, Indra has done these many years of service to Prajapati:

- 32 years after which Prajapati taught akshi purusha!

- 32 years after which Prajapati taught swapna purusha!

- 32 years after which Prajapati taught supta purusha!

He has put in 96 years of service already!

At the end of the most recent 32 years of service, Prajapati teaches. This time, he reveals the supta-purusha, the pragnya, the person-in-deep-sleep. The supta-purusha comprises the kaarana-shariram + chidabhasa + chit (original consciousness). Again, Prajapati's intent is that Indra should take the invariable (i.e. original consciousness) as his true nature/ as paramatma.

In supta-purusha, since the mind is asleep, there is no individuality.  It is closest to Paramatma (as though merged with the totality) as seen in Mandukya: esha sarveshvarah etc. Indra was initially satisfied. 

Problem in supta-purusha:

While going back to his abode, he realized, the deep-sleep state is "jadah" (inert) and cannot be the paramatma.

Hence, he comes back to Prajapati

The complete teaching: Dahara-vidya revealing nirgunam brahman

Prajapati makes Indra serve for only 5 years! That's because his mind has become subtle enough to appreciate the paramatma as supta-purusha. 

From now, comes the main teaching. This is section 12, which is the most important section in Chandogya, Chapter 8.

But, we need to remember one point. After section 12, we have 3 more sections in the Upanishad- 13, 14, 15. But Vidyaranya does not comment on them at all! For him, the teaching is over, once he elaborates the verses in section 12. The reason is the following:

This chapter is called dahara-vidya. But, it has 2 parts. In the first part, comprising the first 6 sections, we get dahara-vidya in which saguna-brahman is revealed (for the sake of upaasana). Next, from 7-12, we get dahara-vidya (especially chapter 12), where nirgunam brahman is reveaed. After this, the upanishad goes back to the original saguna-brahma topic.

Vidyaranya had skipped the sections 1-6 since it dealt with saguna-brahma upasana. Hence, he skips 13-15 also, for the same reason!

For him, the main teaching of nirgunam brahma is in sections 7-12 (both sections included). This point must be remembered.

The sections 13-15 (both sections included) constitute prayers, very similar to the krama-mukti prayers towards the end of Ishavasya Upanishad. But Vidyaranya skips all of this.

That said, he elaborates section 12. It is a section which has the complete-teaching: 

Sundara kaandam

Sarga 57

Today, we read Sarga 57. This is the sarga that describes Hanuman's journey back from Lanka. The following points come to mind regarding this sarga.

Comparison of the sky with the ocean

It is normally said, the sky can be compared only with the sky. There is no simile possible for the sky. Similarly, it is said, the ocean is like the ocean. There is no comparison possible. We are familiar with that verse called "gaganam gaganaakaaram" etc.

Strangely, the first few verses of this sarga compare the sky with the ocean. As Hanuman flies through the sky, on his way, back from Lanka, these verses appear. Every element of the sky is compared with some element of the ocean. The sun, the moon, the stars, the constellations, the wind, the planet Mars, the clouds, each element is compared with some element in the ocean!

This is a particular style- like the "rana nadi" comparison in the Geeta Dhyana shlokas.

Hanuman flying through the sky

There are a few verses, very similar to the verses in Sarga 1 to describe Hanuman's flight. He goes in and out of clouds, much like the moon! He is described as being in touching distance with the moon, and within scratching distance of the stars! The clouds are described in various colours. Perhaps, it is evening time, give the fact that constellations are also mentioned! 

Nearing Mahendragiri

As Hanuman nears the Northern shore where Mahendragiri sits, we see a lot of action. Hanuman lets out a cry to announce his arrival. The 10 directions resound with this noise, like a clap of thunder! The vanaras are all waiting, and cannot contain their excitement that Hanuman is back!

The reactions

Jambavan is the first to discern that Hanuman must have surely met with success. Otherwise, Hanuman will not show so much reaction, he surmises. The Vanaras are very happy and cannot contain their reaction. They jump up and down trees, climb up and down the mountain and swish their tails!

Drishtaa Seeta

Once Hanuman alights beside a water body on Mahendragiri, the first thing he says is "drsishtaa Seeta"- I saw Seeta. We are reminded of Arjuna's nashto mohah! In these cases, the order of the words is such that there is no ambiguity. If Hanuman had said, Seeta-drishtaa, it can even mean "seeta adrishta" which would have the opposite meaning! 

 Hanuman gives a brief account of Seeta. He describes Seeta as "eka veni dharaa"- with a single braid, waiting for Lord Rama, thin and wearing soiled clothes. 

Angada is also very happy. He is effusive in praise, as he exclaims, "What strength! What courage! What accomplishment!" Aho dhairyam etc. The Vanaras are described, as though waiting on Hanuman's lips, they cannot wait to hear, what all happened! That is brought out very vividly.

The sarga ends, with the camera as though panning a long-shot....On Mahendragiri...such a scene unfolded! The sarga closes on that note!

Sarga 58:

In this sarga, we get a detailed description of all that Hanuman did- flying to Lanka, the obstacles he faced, how he searched for Seeta, the initial dejection, how he eventually found her, her meeting with Ravana, Trijata's swapna, how he narrates the story of Rama to Seeta and wins her confidence, giving of the signet ring to Seeta, Seeta's return memento,  Ashoka vana bhanga, destruction of all the rakshasa sent by Ravana- 80,000 kinkaras, Jambumali, 7 sons of the ministers, 5 senapatis, Akshapura, eventual capture by Indrajit, brought to Ravana, how he ordered Hanuman's vadham, Vibhishana's interjection, Hanuman's tail set on fire, how Hanuman torches entire Lanka, how he fears Seeta may have also been caught in the fire, how his fears are assuaged, his return flight to Mahendragiri. 

Hanuman summarizes every incident. There are few embellishments. 

In the original story, we do not hear that Ravana tries to hit Seeta. Here, Hanuman says so- Ravana is about to hit Seeta with his right fist and is stopped by Mandodari. 

Mandodari is not mentioned in that meeting of Ravana and Seeta. But in Hanuman's narration, we see that. 

Similarly, though Trijata's swapna is mentioned in the original, we do not know if Seeta heard Trijata's narration or not. But in Hanuman's version, we see that Seeta did hear. She even says, that if the story is true, and she is free, she will give protection to the rakshasis.

Hanuman does not narrate a few things- Seeta narrated the kaakaasura story to Hanuman. That was more important for her than even chudamani pradaanam. Hanuman skips that. Seeta mentions that "tilaka" incident briefly. Hanuman skips that too. May be, he felt, they should be revealed only to Rama. And Hanuman does so, in sarga 65 (to Rama)- he mentions both- the crow incident and the tilaka incident!

Similarly, he leaves the point where he gives Seeta a suggestion- that he can take her back to Rama immediately. But Seeta does not agree. She needs Rama to come, defeat Ravana and take her back. Hanuman skips this point also, in his narration to the vanaras.

Seeta's description as "eka veni dharaa" (one braid of hair) continues in Hanuman's narration too. Ravana says "eka veni dharaa" in sarga 20 (asking Seeta, why she is like this!) and here also....(sarga 57 and 58), we find the same mention. In sarga 65 also, the same phrase occurs, when Hanuman narrates to Rama- "eka veni dharaa"! 

May be, that common-place hair-style was not what a princess/queen would have sported, hence, it seems to be repeated! 

Sarga 59:

There are a few interesting points in this sarga:

Ravana must have done a lot of tapas. Otherwise, Seeta's inherent tapas would have destroyed him.

Seeta is capable to destroy Rama on her own. However, she chose not to, so that, that glory can go to Rama. Looks like this is the sarga that inspired Tyagaraja to compose "maa jaanaki" in Kambhoji raga!

Hanuman attributes his success to 3 people: To Rama, to Sugreeva and to Seeta. He says, his mission was successful because of the grace from these three.

The next part of this sarga is devoted to an idea from Hanuman. He feels, they should go back to Rama after conquering Ravana on their own, and taking Seeta with them.

Hence, a major part of this sarga is devoted to how the vanaras are capable of destroying Lanka on their own.

Finally, towards the end of the sarga, we get the reasoning. Hanuman feels that Seeta was on the verge of committing suicide and he just about managed to assure her. Hence, he does not want to drag this anymore. That is Hanuman's intent, on why he wants the vanaras to take up this venture, on their own.

Chandogya Bhashyam (Chp 6)

 We are presently in the 6th chapter of Chandogya called Sad-vidya. The chapter is a dialogue between the father Uddalaka and his son Shvetaketu. The main content of this chapter is- "To know that One thing, such that everything else, is as well known!" (eka vignyaanena sarva vignyaanam) That's why Uddalaka asks Shvetaketu, whether he learnt this, in his gurukulam. When Shvetaketu says "No", the teaching begins with "Sad eva somya idam agra aaseet" etc.

We have already seen the maha-vakya in section 8- "tat tvam asi". But Shvetaketu has doubts and asks his father again, "Teach me again- bhu eva maa bhagavaan vignyaapayatu". He does not explicitly convey what the doubt is. But, based on the answer given by the father, we infer the question! Each answer has an example.

Example 1: Honey example

In section 8, there was a discussion on deep-sleep state. In this state, it was said, a jiva experiences Brahman- "sataa somya tadaa sampanno bhavati" (he experiences sat, brahman, in deep-sleep). Then, the question is, if we experience brahman everyday, when we sleep, why do we not remember.  This is the doubt (not expressed!) The answer for that question is given by the honey example.

Honey is collected by the bees from various flowers- some bitter, some sweet. But ultimately, in the honey conglomeration, we find no trace of any individual flower. 

So too, with deep-sleep. In deep-sleep, there is no individuality retained. That's because the mind is asleep, and hence, chidabhasa is also resolved, for the time-being. Only Chit remains. But because, the mind is absent, there is no one to claim, I am in Brahman, though Brahman is present and experienced. 

Example 1a: Tiger-lion-wolf example

But Uddalaka wants to point out that this lack of individuality is only temporary. Upon waking up, we pick up the earlier thread. If the tiger wakes up, it wakes up as a tiger! This is the verse which goes as follows- "vyaaghro vaa simho vaa etc."

With this, Uddalaka goes back to the shravanam statement- "aitad aatmyam idam sarvam, tat satyam, sa atma, tat twam asi shvetaketo"

The important message is- after mananam, one must again go back to shravanam. We do not want scholarship by studying more and more mananam texts!

But Shvetaku has the next doubt, for which the second example is given:

Example 2: River-ocean example

The doubt is this- ok. In deep sleep, I do not remember I was in Brahman. But, why can I not remember that, once I wake up? After all, we get back the individuality upon waking up!

The answer is this- We can "recollect" only what we "collect". In deep-sleep, there was no mind, there was no individuality, there was "no collection". When we wake up, the previous mind is back. But then, how can it recollect now, in waking, when it didn't collect in deep sleep!? 

For this, the river example is given. The river arises from the ocean. The river merges into the ocean eventually. Having merged, when the river comes back once more (as river), it does not recall that it had its origin in the ocean! The individuality was gone (in previous merge into the ocean). Hence, the fresh start of the river, does not recall this point (that it has its origin in the ocean) at all!

Example 3: Dead branch of a tree

In the river example, there is a slight problem. The same water (which was previously Ganga, and now merged in the ocean) may not evaporate and come back again as Ganga (once more). Is that the case with the jiva? Does he lose his individuality? This is the doubt.

Through the simho va, vyaaghro va example, this has actually been negated. But, it is reinforced once more. The same jiva does survive, and come back once more! This happens after deep-sleep, after death and after pralaya also. For that, an example is given, using a tree, to convey the point, that the jiva survives. (Note: The jiva is "lost" only during videha mukti, in which case also, there is really no loss. The body-mind part of the mukta purusha merges into Ishvara, and the consciousness of the mukta purusha is anyway, the same consciousness everywhere)

The example here is...of a tree. Every part of the tree throbs with life. The sap (rasa) oozes out if you strike the root, the middle, the top of the tree. It is a "live" tree, it is a jiva. Sometimes, the jiva chooses to stay-away (because of injury to the branch etc.) such that the branch goes dead. But the tree, the jiva continues. Many branches drop dead, but the jiva (of the tree) continues. We can extend the same logic to say, the jiva of a tree, continues even when the entire tree (in its visible form) is dead. This is called "sanghaata paraarthan nyaaya" which says "any assemblage owes is existence to some principle outside the assemblage). 

This is Shvetaketu's doubt and the answer given by his father. The jiva, in its essence, is deathless. This is our true nature. 

Dead-branch-tree example borrowed in Upadesha Saahasri

The jiva survives despite losing body parts! The teeth is gone, the hair is gone, body-parts may be gone, but the jiva continues. That means the body is not the jiva (by extension).

In Upadesha Saahasri, this Chandogya example is borrowed in Chapter 6, verse 1.

"Chhitvaa tyaktena hastena....swayam naatmaa vishishyatey....Tathaa shishtena sarvena...yena yena vishishyatey" (by whichever attributes, I am qualified, even if I lose them all, I will still survive!) It's like saying, all our accomplishments, body-mind included, are like the feather in the cap. They may embellish us temporarily, but we are bigger than them all. We will be just as fine, without the feather, without the cap, and (as per this quote), without the head too!!! This is a very practical point to keep in mind, whenever anything in life, ageing, loss etc. bothers us!! We are essentially bigger and better than them all!!!

 

 

Upadesha saahasri

Why is mahavakya a pramaanam?

It satisfies the following conditions:

(1) Anadhigatvam: It is the only source of knowledge for Brahman. 

(2) Abaadhitam: Other sources of knowledge cannot contradict what Mahavakya/Upanishad says about Brahman.

Remember, Brahman is Consciousness- which is not a part, product or property of any object etc. This knowledge cannot be conveyed by any other pramanam

(3) Asandigdham: There cannot be any doubt about this knowledge. That's because Consciousness/Brahman is centred on one's self, and hence, it is self evident. Hence,  there is no scope for doubt.

(4) Arthavat: Finally, this knowledge, given by this pramanam, is most significant. It changes life's outlook. Hence, it is arthavat.

(5) Gnaanam janakam: It is not some mumbo-jumbo like "tadheen-gina-tom!" The words convey a meaningful message, a message that can be got by the prepared sadhaka.

Because of the above 5 reasons, Mahavakya is a valid pramanam. It will give the benefit, without anything else (no other supplement, no prasankhyaanam) required to get this knowledge.

That's why Shankara says, if you use this pramanam correctly, there is no doubt possible- trishu kaaleshu api na sanshayah.

Next, there are couple of verses on why mahavakya does not work for all people. It does not work when the student is not a prepared student, when he comes to Mahavakya. He should have done atma-anatma vichara at the individual level. This was called "yushmad asmad vibhaagagyah"- yushmad is anatma. Asmad is atma. The student should know that he is essentially sakshi and NOT ahankara. For this, he needs to see himself in terms of "lakshyaartha" of "tvam". He needs to separate sthula-shariram, sukshma-shariram, kaarana-shariram and chidaabhaara. He should own up himself as Chit or sakshi. Without this, mahavakya will NOT work. With this, mahavakya will work.

What kind of knowledge Mahavakya gives?

It gives "aparoksha knowledge", that means, knowledge centred on "myself" (aparoksha). It is a revised knowledge from the "jiva" or "individual status" that I have assumed myself to be today (the way I understand myself) to the Brahman-status that the mahvakya says, I am essentially am.

Aparoksha is contrasted from "paroksha" and "pratyaksha" It is not "paroksha" (knowledge of a distant object, since the subject of this knowledge is myself, which is never away.)  It is not "pratyaksha", knowledge gained by using the sense-organs. Other objects in the world are perceived through "pratyaksa", but as far as I am concerned, the knowledge is intimate, requiring no other sense organ. It is self-evident, "aparoksha". 

Need to take the lakshyaartha in the mahavakya for twam:

Verse 105 and 106

In these verses, Brahman is called "sat" because in Chandogya, where the maha-vakya "tat twam asi" is mentioned, Brahman is called "sat". 

If we take "twam" as lakshyaartha, i.e. sakshi, i.e. consciousness then, the equation tat twam asi will be tenable. This is the "mukhyaartha" of twam, the verse points out, making it easy to equate with "sat", so that we can now say "sadeva aham".  On the other hand, if we take "twam" as vaachyaartha, as the individual, then, the equation tat twam asi is untenable, mrshaa eva, the verse says.

How does one come to mukhyaartha of "twam"? For this, we should have done "anvaya vyarika" (the verses preceding this). That is, we look at the 3 states of experience, jagrat, swapna and sushupti and understand that in and through all of them, there is a variable part- shariram and prapancha. But, there is also an invariable that goes through these 3 states. That is "I" so that, we say, I am now in waking state, I dreampt, I slept. That I is sakshi, the consciosuness, also called "kutastha" in this section. This sakshi has no individuality. This sakshi (essential part of twam) can now be equated with "tat" (sat in the world). This is how mahavakya works.

Hence, so long as we take the mukhya-artha of twam,  there will be no obstacle (vaarana) in this knowledge (avagati) of mahavakya.

With this, the pramana vichara is complete. The next major topic is, to whom is the mahavakya addressed and who says- aham brahma asmi?

To whom is mahavakya addressed and who says aham brahma asmi?

Mahavakya is addressed to the pramata. Pramata is chidabhasa (with BMS included), i.e. to the ahankara. It cannot be addressed to the Sakshi, because sakshi is akarta- he is not even available to understand the mahavakya because there is no mind in sakshi! 

The next point is, there is a dichotomy here. Pramata gets the maha-vakya. How can he claim aham brahma asmi, since pramata, as ahankara (individual), is limited? Sakshi can claim aham-brahma asmi, but he has no ability to claim (since sakshi has no mind). 

How do we solve this riddle?

We solve this problem in 2 ways:'

Aabhaasa Vaada and Pratibimba vaada:

(1) Use Vidyaranya's method in the Panchadashi. This is the abhasa vaada method. In this method, the jiva or the ahankara is defined as a "sanghaata" of chaitanyam, sukshma-shariram (mind), chidabhasa. Since all the 3 always together, mahavakya is got by chidabhasa. But he does bhaaga-tyaga and removes all parts (intellectually) and retains sakshi alone. This is the method that swamiji uses also. Chapter 4 of Panchadashi has this verse.

(2) There is an alternate pratibimba vaada. In this vaada, chidabhaasa is chit itself "appearing as chidabhasa". It's like the reflection in the mirror. We know the reflection is Me alone, appearing in the mirror. We use pratibimba vaada all the time. When we ask, "Where am I in this old group photo", the "I" means, we are using pratibimba vaada. We know it is a picture, but we are deliberately equating me with the picture. When we have a picture of bhagavan, we treat it as bhagavan itself, though it may be a piece of paper. In all these cases, we are emphasising "abheda" and playing down "bheda". This is pratibimba vaada. In this case, mahavakya is received by the chidabhasa only (same as before). But, the chidabhasa says, it is chit only appearing as chidabhasa. Now, the equation of "aham brahma asmi" can be made by chidabhasa, with the understanding, that in reality, it is chit. Now, the equation becomes tenable.

In verse 107 and 108, aabhaasa vaada is used. Here, a certain "bheda" division is mentioned. The mind (pratyayi) and thought (pratyaya), are imbued with reflected consciousness (aabhaasa), borrowed from tat (verse 107 says) (i.e. sakshi, the original consciousness). It also says, the mind functions "for the sakshi, or for the kutastha", as though it is an "agent for the sakshi". This is just a manner of putting it, to say, that the mind's knowledge, ultimately belongs to the sakshi. Hence, when tat twam asi knowledge is gained by the mind, it is as though "handed over to the sakshi". Only then, the equation of tat-twam-asi be tenable.

The point is this- sakshi cannot gain the knowledge because it is plain consciousness. It has no thought. It is not the pramata. Mind can gain the knowledge, because mind has thoughts. But the mind (with reflected consciousness) cannot claim "aham brahma asmi" because the mind is limited. Hence, we say here, the knowledge is gained by the mind, but it is "handed over to sakshi" (tad arthataa) so that the equation with brahman can now be made. 

In verse 108, abhaasa vaada continues, with the example of a king. The army fights. The victory is gained by the army. But the army hands over the victory to the king. Hence, we say, the king won the battle! So too, here. The mind (with reflected consciousness) gains the knowledge of tat twam asi. But, it hands it over to saakshi, to chit, to kutastha, to the original consciousness, which alone can make the equation tenable. 

To put it plainly, sakshi and brahman can be equated because both are the same consciousness. Mind (with reflected consciousness) i.e. the individual, can never be equated with brahman. This is the final moral of this story, for which, we have this entire circus!

Verse 109:

In verse 109, we get pratibimba vaada. In Shankara's time, there was no pratibimba vaada. It was developed later. But this is the seed verse. Here, we have an example of a mirror and reflection. In this vaada, the reflection is treated as non-different from the original. The original face alone is now appearing in the form of the reflection (like an avatara). In abhaasa vaada, the reflection is considered mithya (since bheda is emphasises). In pratibimba vaada, the reflection is considered real, in the sense, the original alone, is appearing as the reflection. Here, mind is the mirror. Original consciousness (sakshi, kutastha) is the face. The reflected consciousness in the mind (the individuality, ahankara) is the face-reflection in the mind. This reflected consciousness is non-separate from the original consciousness. Hence, mahavakya knowledge ultimately comes to original consciosuness alone (though initially received by the mind+reflected consciousness. 

Verse 110:

Without bringing reflected consciousness (who receives the knowledge of mahavakya, and hands over to chit, like an agent/postman!), we cannot get the knowledge of mahavakya (that I am sat brahman essentially). Thus, the need for chidhaabhasa is emphasised in these verses, which (chidabhasa) is relevant even in praibimba vaada.

Comparing abhaasa vaada and pratibimba vaada:

Sometimes, abhasa vaada is called "2 illuminator theory" and pratibimba vaada is called "1 illuminator theory". This is based on the sun-moon-earth example. In abhasa vaada, sun lends light to the moon. The moon lights up the earth. In pratibimba vaada, we say, "sun alone, as moon-light" lights up the earth at night. As we see, in this example, in pratibimba vaada, we have 1 illuminator (the sun alone), and we are emphasising abheda here. Tameva bhaantam anubhaati sarvam....is pratibimba vaada.

Does the shruti favor pratibimba vaada?

In fact, there are some, who say, "tat twam asi" is indicating pratibimba vaada. The mahavakya is addressed to the chidabhasa. He is the twam. But when we say ..."tat twam" and equate it with brahman, that can be meaningful only if twam is taking as sakshi. It is as though, shruti favors pratibimba vaada here. This observation is also present in tradition.

Verse 111:

Who listens to the mahavakya? It is the pramata, who is actually sakshi (called adhyaksha in this verse). Hence, mahavakya works. If you don't use this method, how else can it work, Shankara asks, as a question.

Avachheda vaada has an advantage in mahavakya:

In Avachheda vaada, there are NO 2 Consciousnesses- There is no chit AND chidabhasa. We have only 1 space, which appears as pot-space also. Pot-space can very well claim, I am the total space. So too, in case of mahavakya. The consciousness enclosed in the body/mind, claims I am Brahman (all pervading, Original Consciousness). The equation is tenable.

What is the problem with avachheda vaada?

While avachheda vaada solves the mahavkya issue, it has a problem with vyavahara. Who does vyavahara? It has to be pot-space, but it admits no alternate status from the total. But, we need that to explain a karta-bhokta atma (chidabhasa) and an akarta atma (chit).

Thus, each prakriya has some lacuna as well as solutions for other issues! We have to use each judiciously.

Verse 112

Purvapakshi says, (like avachheda vaada), why do you need chidabhasa at all? Can't you have Chit alone and say, in its presence, buddhi is activated and becomes pramata? Question is- does atma do anything to the buddhi to activate it and make it a pramata. If we say, atma does nothing (no upakara), then, buddhi will remain as inert as a log of wood (kashTaa). 

Verse 113:

Suppose we say, atma does something, then, atma will become a do-er (and hence parinama). That will be a problem. Hence, we are forced to say, atma does nothing, and yet, mind gets activated. Shankara says, this is exactly what chidabhasa is all about. 

He then says, shruti also supports 2 consciousness theory

Where does shruti talk about 2 Consciousnesses?

(1) Maitreyi Brahmanam: Coming-going consciousness as well as total consciousness.

(2) Kathopanishad: Agnir yathaiko bhuvanam pravishya.... We have both avyakta fire and vyakta fire.

(3) Brahma bindu upanishad: ekadha bahudha chaiva drshyate jala-chandravat

Verse 114: 

This verse says- isn't giving chidabhasa an "action" for atma. Shankara says no. Though we use verbs like atma gives chidabhasa etc. it is NOT an action. He gives 2 examples- snake seen in rope and a reflection in a mirror. Face does nothing, for the reflection to appear in the mirror. So too, with atma!

Verse 115:

Raises a fundamental doubt. Where are these "2 Consciousness" experienced at all? How we do even know, there are 2? OC, RC etc.

Shankara uses anubhava pramana to explain this. 

Note this much alone:

2 topic upto this point:

(a) Role of mahavakya as pramana and the need to take "twam" correctly, as part of that mahavakya equation.

(b) Who receives this knowledge? Pramata (mind with reflected consciousness) receives this knowledge and sort of, "hands it over" to chit (original consciousness) to make the equation tenable. The need for reflected consciousness, is emphasised in these verses.

Note these 2 concepts, with multiple terms!

This is not in the Upadesha Saahasri text, but something to note. End of the day, there are only 2 things that scripture focuses on, as far as the individual (each of us) is concerned. As Mundaka says, there are 2 birds in this body- (dwa suparna sayuja sakhaayaa). One bird is atma/sakshi and the other bird is ahankara or the ego or the individual. As Mundaka, says, this ahankara bird eats sweet and bitter fruits, and experiences the results- sometimes, pleasant and sometimes, unpleasant. This is the individual, each of us. But Mundaka says, on this same tree, i.e. in this body itself, there is another bird, which simply observes- "anashnan anyah". As per scripture, the ahankara-bird that suffers, because it does not know, that in reality,  it is the sakshi-bird! 

Hence, though we start of, with 2 birds, as per advaita sampradaya, there are no 2 real birds out there! One bird is real (sakshi) and the other is mithya (ahankara bird). It's like a person facing a mirror. There are 2 faces out there. One is the real face, the other is a reflected/mithya face. 

Once the ahankara bird owns up its essential nature, as sakshi bird, it no longer suffers. It may still eat sweet and bitter fruits, but is able to rationalize that in the relative world, these opposites cannot be avoided. And in its essential nature, as sakshi, there is no ripple whatsoever. Hence, the vagaries of the world, do not affect anymore! 

This imagery alone plays out throughout scripture in various terms. We have innumerable terms for the ahankara bird and innumerable terms of the sakshi bird. 

Terms for the ahankara bird:

individual, ego, ahankara, ahami, ahankrti, jeeva, jeevatma, vishva-taijasa-praagnya, pramaata, chidabhaasa, atma-aabhasa, twam-pada-vaachyaartha, mind (Reflecting Medium) + reflected consciousness (RC),  antah-karana with chidabhasa, buddhi with chidabhasa, chetanaa (Geeta 13), mithya-aatma, sharira-trayam + chidabhasa, prana + chidabhasa, pratyaya/pratyayi (Upadesha Saahasri) + reflected-consciousness, "mamaiva amshah jeeva lokey" (BG 13), 5 component-jeeva: sthula-shariram + sukshma shariram + kaarana shariram + chidaabhaasa + chit", 3-component-jeeva: sharira-trayam + chidabhasa + chit, 2 component-jeeva: sharira-trayam+chidabhasa (chit is assumed). 

Terms for the sakshi bird:

sakshi, atma, mukhya-atma, paramatma, original-consciousness (OC), brahman, twam-pada-lakshyaartha, ashariri, chit, adhyaksha (Upadesha Saahasri), kutastha (Upadesha Saahasri), visheshyam (Upadesha Saahasri), asammataatma (brahma sutra), sat (Chandogya/Upadesha Saahasri), kshetragnya (Geeta: chp 13), dehi (Geeta, chp 2), purusha (Geeta: chp 13), drishi (Upadesha Saahasri), avagati (Upadesha Saahasri) 

Where do we find 2 Consciousness mentioned? Why do we need 2?

If we look at Katha Upanishad, we find that verse- "rupam rupam pratirupo babhuva". In this verse, the fire-principle is shown as being everywhere, all around us, in unmanifest (avyakta) form. But, when we create a fire, using friction, that unmanifest fire becomes manifest (vyakta). It assumes the same form as the firewood (like a fire-ball of sorts!) Hence, we have "avyakya agni" and "vyakta agni". The Upanishad says, Consciousness is like this. It is everywhere, even in inert elements, but in unmanifest form. The same consciousness, which is one and unmanifest, becomes manifest where we have a "mind in a living being". Now, that same one-unmanifest consciousness, becomes many (as it were), in each mind (in animal, human, insect etc.) and manifest too. This is the verse which talks about "2 consciousness" as it were. One consciousness alone, as though, appears as many. This is conveyed in the Upanishad verse.

A living being, with consciousness, and who is alive and active, is explained using the above manifest consciousness idea. Our "individuality" comes from this manifest/reflected consciousness, in the mind. Now comes the question, why are we even bringing in "unmanifest" and "manifest" consciousness etc. Why cannot the mind/brain have intrinsic consciousness? Why does it need to borrow from a total/unmanifest consciousness etc.

The mind is inert and does not have consciousness of its own

As per Vedanta, the mind, by itself is inert. That's because there are 5 features of any material object in the creation. They are (a) drishyatvam (perceived as an object) (b) bhautikatvam (has a certain materiality) (c) Savikaaratvam (changing nature) (d) Sagunatvam (every object has certain attributes) (e) Aagamaapaayitam (comes and goes!) These 5 factors constitute any "inert object in the creation". If we observe our mind, it also has these 5 factors. Hence, we say, that the mind has no consciousness of its own.  This is the logic or reasoning-based argument in Vedanta to say, mind is just like any inert object.  Veda also says so- "annamayam hi somya manah" (mind is nothing but a modification of food or earth-element) and hence, inert.

But we know the mind is conscious

We know the mind is conscious because through the conscious mind, we know all the objects in the world. When the mind is conscious, we know the world (in waking state). When the mind is resolved, we don't know of a world at all (in deep sleep state). Hence, through this "anvaya vyatireka method", we know we have a conscious mind.

So the question is- where does the consciousness come from for the mind:

So, we have a conscious mind, and by itself, the mind should not be conscious (it being just as inert as any object in the creation). Hence, we say, we have the original consciousness (sakshi). In its presence, the mind becomes conscious. This is the concept of "reflected consciousness" (or limited consciousness). 

How can we prove the original consciousness and reflected consciousness?

The mind is "known". Who knows the mind? As per vedanta, there has to be a knower, a subject that is different from the known. Since we do know the mind and its states, it is the sakshi that knows (called saakshi-pratyaksham) . Every time, we "see" our own mind, it is proof that there sakshi (original consciousness). Dream is the example for saying "mind is an object". This is given in Upadesha Saahasri (chp 14) as well as Brhadaranyaka (ratha example in dream, in swayam-jyoti braahmanam). Remember this point well- when you need to prove that the mind is an object. The dream is the example! This is sakshi at work.

And every time, we see any object in the creation, it is proof that we have reflected consciousness (in the mind).

Thus, just like Katha Upanishad (which we saw earlier), talks about "one avyakta agni" and "several vyakta agni", so too, we have "one original consciousness" (atma) and several reflected consciousness (ahankara).  

To summarize:

- every experience of ours, in this world, in the waking state, is proof of the presence of reflected consciousness (in the mind). This is indriya pratyaksham (with the mind).

- every dream experience of ours, is proof of the presence of original consciousness (which is everywhere) and which reveals the mind as an object. This is sakshi-pratyaksham.

Thus, original-consciousness and reflected-consciousness can be distinctly shown, and are not dependent on each other (anyonya aashraya, which was the doubt raised by the purva-pakshi here).

Why do we need all this detail ?

Vedanta ultimately hinges on just this- reflected-consciousness (ahankara or the individuality) and original consciousness (sakshi)- which is one and with no boundary or limitation. The mahavakya is received by the ahankara, which says "you are the total". At that point, the ahankara has to own up its essential nature (consciousness) as coming from the sakshi. The sakshi is the total. That is the teaching.

Some more detail: Two triads:

Sometimes, the above is expressed as a triad:

(1) Reflected consciousness, (2) thought (3) world....comprise one set of  (1) subject (pramata), (2) instrument (pramanam), (3) object (prameyam)  (called "M" triputi in vedantic circles! (M stands for Mind))

(1) Atma (2) chaitanyam  (3)  mind is another triad of (1) subject, (2) instrument and (3) object. This is called "A triputi" in vedantic circles! (A stands for Atma)

The concept of perception in Vedanta:

We said earlier, that the mind becomes conscious (by borrowing from sakshi)  and knows objects in the world. Every perception of an object, we said, is proof of the reflected consciousness. But since, the reflected consciousness does not exist separate from sakshi (the original consciousness), every perception of any object in the world, has to be handed over to the sakshi!

Hence, every perception (through eyes, nose etc.) is sacred (for the above reason), the concept of perception is explored further in Vedanta. We see this in verses like "naanaa chhidra ghatodara sthitah etc."

Vrtti-vyaapti and phala-vyaapti:

There are 2 concepts which are sometimes brought in (in the context of any sense perception)- the concept of "vrtti vyaapti" and "phala vyaapti". 

As per Vedanta, when we "see" any object, the thought in the mind (vritti), travels towards the object. The thought alone cannot travel, the reflected consciousness along with the thought travels towards the object. The thought assumes the contours of the object. That's how the object, which was previously unknown, becomes known. Removal of the ignorance of the object is caused by vrtti-vyaapti, because the thought pervades the object and assumes the form of the object. But the reflected consciousness component in the thought, makes the object "known" (as an object outside me). 

Thus, any transaction, any perception, requires the reflected consciousness in the mind, to function as shown above.

(Note an aside point: A topic that is related is this- in case of brahma gnyaanam, through mahavakya, how does vrtti-vyaapti and phala-vyaapti work? This topic, though not relevant here, is often raised, along with vrtti-vyaapti and phala-vyaapti. As per Vedanta, maha-vakya does the job of only vrtti-vyaapti. It removes the ignorance of myself as a limited being. It does not do the job of revealing the atma/brahman as a separate, experienced object, so that, we can exclaim, "I know brahman!" Hence, in case of mahavakya, only vrtti-vyaapti is at work (through akhaandaakaara vrtti (maha-vakya)). It does not do the job of phala-vyaapti (unlike seeing a "pot" etc.). This point needs to be remembered, whenever the topic of vrtti-vyaapti and phala-vyaapti comes!)

Sense of localization (reflected consciousness) and the absence of localization (original consciousness):

When the reflected consciousness (i.e. mind) is functional, there is a sense of localization. In the waking state, we experience this. 

But in the deep-sleep state, the mind resolved temporarily. There is no reflected consciousness. There is no world (since the mind is resolved). But, there is also NO limitation. That's because only the sakshi is present in deep-sleep. There is no feeling of localization.

Hence, our sense of limitation is essentially caused by the mind with reflected consciousness. But behind this reflected consciousness, is the original, which has no limitation/localization.

This distinction has a practical implication. Any limitation, is the mind's. As sakshi, I have no limitation, and that sakshi is the real Me.

Does Upanishad mention 2 consciousness ?

Yes, for original-consciousness:

- pragnyaanam brahma

- satyam gnyaanam anantam brahma

Yes, for reflected consciousness:

- rupam-rupam pratirupah (Katha, Brhadaranyaka)

- Maitreyi brahmanam (Brhadaranyaka). Very important section where "coming-going consciousness is talked about" in the conversation between Yagnavalkya and Maitreyi. In fact, this is quoted in most cases, whenever reflected consciousness concept comes in.

2 well-known examples for reflected consciousness and original consciousness

(1) Mirror example:

Our face is the original consciousness, the mirror is the mind, the reflected face in the mirror is the reflected consciousness. The only drawback with this example is that there is a distance between the original face and the reflected face. In case of reflected consciousness and original consciousness, there is no distance because original consciousness is everywhere (sarvagatah).

(2) Sun-moon-earth example:

The sun is the original consciousness. The moon is the mind. The moonlight reaching the earth is like the reflected consciousness. Moon has no light of its own, but becomes luminous, by borrowing light from the sun. So too, with the mind. The mind has no consciousness of its own. It becomes sentient, by borrowing consciousness from the sakshi.

 

Brahma Sutra

 The 4th sutra is "tat tu samanvayaat". Here, tat means Brahman. That's because the first sutra talked about Brahman. The second, third and fourth reference Brahman (indirectly) which is mentioned explicitly, only in the first sutra.

Quick background info:

The first 4 sutras are also the first 4 adhikaranams (topics). In Brahma Sutra, the "topic" is important. That's because each topic talks about a "rule of interpretation". These rules have to be remembered whenever any text (Upanishad, Geeta, Purana etc.) are interpreted.

There are 191 adhikaranams in the entire Brahma Sutra- that means 191 rules of interpretation. Each adhikaranam can have 1 or more sutras under it. In all Brahma Sutra has 555 sutras!

Of these, we have seen 4 sutras. The first 4 sutras happen to be the first 4 adhikaranams also! We have names for the adhikaranams derived from the first sutra under it. Hence, till now, we have seen- "jignyaasa adhikaranam", "janmaadya adhikaranam", "shaastra-yonitva adhikaranam" and "samanvaya adhikaranam".

These topics (191 of them) are so important that Vidyaranya has written a work called "Vaiyaasika nyaaya maalaa" just focusing on these topics.

Tat tu samanvayaat summary:

This sutra's main purpose is to establish that "Brahman" is the "theme" of Vedanta. Why is this rule important? That's because, there are many philosophies that claim that "Brahma upaasanam" is the theme of Vedanta. As per them, just knowing what Brahman is, is of no use! We should use that knowledge to "do" something- like meditation on Brahman (upaasanam), and through that gain punya, to take us to moksha.

But, we do not accept that point of view. For us, Brahman as defined in Vedanta, becomes a "pramnaanam". Using this pramaanam, we gain the knowledge of Brahman (as Me essentially). And this knowledge of Brahman (as Me), is moksha. Hence, there is nothing "to do" after this knowledge. 

Hence, this sutra says, Brahman (tat) is the taatparya (central theme) of the entire shaastram, and we see that through "through samanvaya" (i.e. through the consistency maintained in the Brahman theme, in all the Upanishads). The word "tu" refers to objections to this notion. Hence, we can say, "setting aside the objections from other points of view (other philosophies), we arrive at Brahman as the central theme of the shastram". This is tat tu samanvayaat.

This conclusion is very important because it gives direction to sadhana (for a seeker). He may conclude that he first needs to get "theoretical knowledge" from the shaastra and later, confirm this knowledge, through "actual experience". Tat tu samanvayaat breaks this erroneous conclusion. The knowledge got by employing shaastra as a pramaanam, is more than enough. You do not have to supplement this with anything else.

Of these 4 sutras, samanvaya adhikranam (and hence the tat tu samanvayaat sutra), is very important because the chapter itself is called "samanvaya adhyaaya". In the first adhyaya, there are 134 sutras. Of these, we have seen 4. The remaining 130 sutras, will all be dedicated to the fact that revelation of Brahman is the theme of the entire Upanishads. 

Chandogya chapter-6 is a great example to show- Brahman is the central theme of shastra, by using the 6 lingas in chapter 6 itself. (Note: Sadananda, in Vedanta Saara text, shows how the 6 lingas point to Brahman alone, in this chapter).

Who are the 2 main purvapakshis for this sutra?

(1) Purva meemamsa - Both bhaatta matam (Kumarila Bhatta) and praabhaakaara matam (Prabhakara mishra) are discussed

(2) Vrttikaara matam - Not mentioned, but we infer this purvapakshi as "Upavarsha acharya" (who lived before Shankara's time and whom Shankara bows to, in the Brahma Sutra itself as "bhagavan upavarsha")

Of these Purva Meemamsa says, Veda exists only to prescribe "action". You have to "do" something- some ritual, to gain some benefit. These "to do" injunctions in the Veda are called "kaarya bodhaka vaakyam". As per this group, if Brahman is defined in the Veda, it is useless on its own! It has to be combined with "some action" and the Brahman definition portions are mainly to encourage, to do stuti- of either the performer or the devata. Hence, mere definitions of Brahman in the Upanishads, called "siddha bodhaka vaakyam" is utterly useless on their own! You have to combine these definitions with some specific "vidhi" some specific ritual. 

Vrttikaara matam says there is Brahman. There is Brahman knowledge also, to be got from the shaastram. Till this point, he agrees with us. But, as per them, this knowledge is not enough. You have to do upaasanam, meditation on this Brahman. This will generate punyam. This punyam ultimately gives moksha. Thus, as per them, moksha is "through action" (mental action, i.e. upasana, i.e. meditation).

Thus, both the above purvapakshis are mainly emphasising "action" (either ritualistic action OR meditation action). As per them, this is the main theme (tatparyam) of the Veda.

The "tu" in tat tu samanvayaat, is to defend our proposition from these two views. 

Don't we also talk about meditation?

Yes, we also talk about meditation. The Upanishads themselves say- "shrotavyah, mantavyah, nididhyaasitavya"- You have to listen to the teaching, dwell over it, to remove doubts and finally "meditate" on it (nididhyaasanam). This is the full package of gnyaanam, as per us. This is what makes "pragnyaa" into "sthira-pragnyaa". Yes, this is true, we also talk of meditation, nididhyaasanam. 

The only difference is, in the intent. Why are we doing meditation/nididhyaasanam? We say, complete knowledge is gained through shravanam only. But there are 2 obstacles which may fail to give us the benefit of this knowledge. One is doubt (samshaya) and the other is "habit-based behavior, where I continue to behave as a jiva)". For removing these 2 obstacles alone, we do mananam and nididhyaasanam respectively. Hence, we differ ONLY in the "purpose of nididhyaasanam".

How can we say knowledge alone is enough?

Remember the 3 examples:

- 10th man story: You are the 10th man! (Referenced by Shankara in Taittiriya bhashyam)

- Rama reminded that he is NOT a jiva, but saakshaat Vishnu, by kaala-devata (who was sent by Brahmaa ji) (Uttara kaandam, Ramayana)

- Karna reminded that he is NOT Radheya. He is actually a Kaunteya! (Mahabhaaratam)

In all these 3 examples, the receivers of this knowledge, "did NOT have to do anything" after that. The knowledge was enough for them to tackle their individual issues. So too, with shaastra. Tat tvam asi, properly assimilated, is more than enough. We do not have to "do" anything more.

7 topics discussed in tat tu samanvayaat

(1) Upanishad clearly says karma is connected with shariram (e.g. varna-ashrama abhimaana, kartrtvam etc.) and "sasharirataa" is the cause of samsara. That being the case, karma (physical/mental), is only going to perpetuate karma. And karma can give only 4 types of results- aapti, utpatti, samskaara and vikaara. And moksha cannot be gained by any of these! 

(2) Karma is limited. And a series of limited karmas, cannot give the infinite- plain and simple!

(3) All siddha bodhaka vakyams are NOT useless. When the rope is known, and we realize it is not a snake, there is instant prayojanam. Hence, we cannot generalize and say and all siddha bodhaka vakyams are useless. Maha Vakya falls in this category- the most useful siddha bodhaka vakyam in life!

(4) Purva Meemaansa says- the whole veda is made up of "dos"- kaarya bodhaka vaakya. But even in Veda Purva, we have "nishiddha karma vakyams"- no suraam pibet. In this case, there is "nothing to do". That itself shows that even for them, Veda does convey ideas where there is nothing to do!

(5) We have many people who have read/studied Vedanta for years. They continue to be samsaris. That shows that mere knowledge is not enough. This idea is refuted. Yes, we have "shruta brahma" and "avagata brahma". Avagata brahma is someone who has "understood Vedanta". He hears shastra having done atma-anatma vichara and sees himself as "sakshi"- the lakyshyartha. For such a person, the result of Vedanta is never away.

(6) Isn't gnyaanam itself a form of karma? Isn't it the same as mental karma, since vrtti is involved even here? No. In karma, we have "vidhi" (stipulation based) and "will-based". We may do the karma, not do it, do it differently. But gnyaanam has no scope for stipulation or will. We submit to the pramaana. The pramaana does the job, and we gain knowledge. We gain the knowledge helplessly, like when we open the eyes, and "helplessly" see form and color! So too, with Self Knowledge. When a prepared mind exposes itself to the teaching, he helplessly gains it- ananya protey, agatir atra naasti. There is no will or stipulation here!

(7) In Veda purva, we have karma. If we had only one shastram that covers both Veda purva and Veda anta, then, there is NO need for Vyasacharya to write Brahma Sutra starting with "athaato brahma jignyaaasaa". Anyway, Jaimini maharishi has written "athaato dharma jignyaasa". He could have continued for Vedanta also! We believe in "shastra dvaya vaada"- the anubandha chatushtayam is different for veda-purva and veda-anta- i.e. the adhikari, vishaya, phalam and sambandha are totally different. This shows- Vedanta is a separate shastram with revelation of brahman as the main theme.

Sundara paandya quotations

1.1.4 (as tat tu samanvayaat) is called, quotes 3 verses at the end. They are attributed to Sundara Pandya by scholars, who lived before Shankara! 

How is the topic related to the previous topic?

The previous adhikaranam was shastra yonitva adhikaranam. We gave 2 defintions- Brahma is Veda kaaranam (shastra yoni). Through this, we emphasize brahman's nimitta kaaranam status and omniscience in particular. The second explanation is shastra is the ONLY pramanam for brahma. Brahman can be known ONLY through Veda and NEVER through any other pramanam (e.g. pratyaksha, logic (anumaanam) etc.). Hence, we say "aupanishadam brahma"

That being the case, Brahman is revealed in the Veda. That's when an akshepa is raised- how do you say Brahman is revealed in the Veda. Isn't Brahma-Upasana the main theme of veda/vedanta? That's how this adhikaranam "tat tu samanvayaat" is related.

Having said, Brahman is revealed, through "tu", we negate all views contrary to this taatparyam, the central teaching.  Hence, any akshepa is taken care in tat tu samanvayaat. We say this "akshepa sangati".

Note the definition of adhikaranam: vishayah (bone of contention), vishayi, purva-paksha and sangati- it must cover these 4 topics. 

What is the "vishaya vakyam" for tat tu samanvayaat. It is the entire vedanta! 

One final point- Vedanta talks about what topic- "Brahman" or "Brahma gnyaanam". The answer is "Brahman". Gnyaanam arises by exposing ourselves to Vedanta, where Brahman is revealed.

If you need to memorize, these are the following:

(1) Shloka that defines what is an adhikaranam

(2) Jaimini's sutra- "aamnaayasya..."

(3) The 3 verses from Sundara Pandya

(4) The 2 definitions related to "sashariratvam and samsaara" and "ashiram vaava santa na priyaa-priye sprshatah"

Note: The above "amnaayasya kriyaarthatvaat" quotation.

Adhikaranam-4 Eeekshat-adhikaranam

The topic of srishti:

In this adhikaranam, the topic is creation. Senior Vedantic students may not like this topic. They may favor Maandukya that talks about "ajaati vaada"- there is no creation at all. But, that can be appreciated only if we go through other Upanishads that talk about creation.

Creation is important because through that, we say Brahman is jagat kaaranam. This is tatastha lakshanam. This is easier to appreciate than swarupa lakshanam of brahman which is "satyam gnyaanam anantam".

We say Brahman is kaaranam and jagat is kaaryam. This is adhyaropa stage. Next, we say, there is no world other than brahman. That being the case, Brahman alone is appearing as the world. Hence, we remove kaaryam status to the world as a separate entity. We remove the "causal status" to Brahman also. This is apavaada stage. 

Thus, we start with kaarana-kaarya status and move to adhishtaanam-adhyasta status. In this, the world is mithya. Brahman is "vivarta kaaranam" (if you still want to refer to Brahman in terms of kaaranam and kaaryam).

It is for this revelation of Brahman that srishti prakaranam is present in all Upanishads (except Mandukya). Shankara quotes the shloka related to "adhyaropa-apavaada" in Geeta bhasyam (Chp 13). 

Note above: Shankara's explanation for "sarvatah paanipaadam tat" (Geeta: 13.13). He has quoted adhyaaropa apavaadaa verse, but not in full.

What is the bone of contention?

Now, comes the bone of contention. The world is inert. What should be the cause? The cause should also be inert because between the kaaranam and kaaryam, we have saalakshanyam. All darshanas other than Vedanta say- inert principle has to be cause of this inert world. 

Saankhya-Yoga say "prakrti" or "pradhaanam" is the cause of creation. From prakrti/pradhaanam, the world comes.

Nyaaya (Gautama)-Vaisheshika (Kanaada) say "paramaanu" is the cause of creation.

Only Vedanta says- Consciousness is the kaaranam and the world is a kaaryam! This is the bone of contention.

Who are the purvapakshis here?

Purva-Mimansaka is not in discussion. He says, world has always been around. There is no srishti as such. He was anyway discussed and dismissed in the previous sutra.

Hence, here, we are mainly dealing with Saankhya, Yoga, Nyaya and Vaisheshika. Of them, the most powerful, prathama malla is Saankhya.

All these matams are "tarka" (logic) pradhaana. They accept Shruti, but only as "anuvaada", not as primary. We are veda pradhaana. They say, they can "infer" the cause through the creation. We say, no inference is possible. As far as the cause of the universe is concerned, it is Veda-revealed and that's it! 

For Saankhya, he says, he can explain the cause using anumaanam as well as using shruti (veda). In Shruti, he interprets (misinterprets!) "sad eva somya idam agrey aaseet" (Chandogya) as though it is talking about "pradhaanam" (inert). In case of Saankhya, there is NO Ishvara. We have pradhaanam that evolves into the world. We have many jivas (purusha). Both, these multiple purushas and pradhaanam are both real, and having the same order of reality. And yes, there is no ishvara. As per him, "tat tvam asi" is to ensure that the jiva meditates that pradhaanam is his cause! This is his understanding of maha vakya!

Also, in this adhikaranam, we will bring in the naastika darshanaani also (Buddhism and Jainism).

Shlokas to memorize:

(1) Adhyaropa apavaada defintion verse

On Vyasa's greatness: