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.