Mandukya Karika, verse 3.25

Sanskrit text, IAST transliteration and English translation

संभूतेरपवादाच्च संभवः प्रतिषिध्यते ।
को न्वेनं जनयेदिति कारणं प्रतिषिध्यते ॥ २५ ॥

saṃbhūterapavādācca saṃbhavaḥ pratiṣidhyate |
ko nvenaṃ janayediti kāraṇaṃ pratiṣidhyate || 25 ||

25. Again, by the negation of creation (Sambhūti) the passing into birth is refuted. Causality (in respect of Ātman) is denied by such a statement as, “who can cause it to pass into birth?”

Shankara Bhashya (commentary)

By the condemnation of Sambhūti ¹ (i.e., Hiraṇyagarbha) as something fit to be meditated upon, in such Śruti² passage as, “They enter into blind darkness who worship Sambhūti,” the whole³ creation (evolution) is negatived. For, if Sambhūti were absolutely real, then its condemnation, in such manner, would not be reasonable.

(Objection)—The⁴ condemnation of Sambhūti is meant here for co-ordinating Sambhūti with Vināśa ⁵ as is the case with the Śruti passage,⁶ “They enter into blind darkness who worship Avidyā”.

(Reply)—Yes, it is indeed true that the condemnation of the exclusive worship of Sambhūti is made for the purpose of co-ordinating the meditation regarding Sambhūti with the Karma (ritual) known as Vināśa. Still it should not be forgotten that as the purpose of the Karma known as Vināśa is to transcend death,—whose nature is the desire consequent upon the inborn ignorance of man—so also the aim⁷ of the co-ordination of the meditation on Devatā (i.e., Sambhūti or Hiraṇyagarbha) with the Karma (called Vināśa) undertaken for the purpose of the purification of the mind of man, is to transcend death,—which⁸ is of the nature of the attachment to ritual and its results characterised by the dual hankering after the end and the means. For, thus alone man becomes free from death which is of the nature of impurity and is characterised by the dual impulse of end and means. Therefore the co-ordination of the meditation of Devatā and of Karma—which is Avidyā—leads to freedom from death. Thus⁹ the realisation of Vidyā (the highest knowledge), characterised by the identity of the Supreme Self and Jīva, is inevitable¹⁰ for one who has transcended death,—of the form of Avidyā and characterised by the dual impulses (of the means and the end),—and who is established in renunciation and also devoted to the meaning of the import of the Upaniṣad. It is therefore said thus¹¹: Brahmavidyā (i.e., the knowledge of Brahman—which is the means for the attainment of Immortality and which is (from the relative standpoint) subsequent to the state of the antecedent Avidyā (ignorance) being related to the same person (who is still in the state of ignorance), is said to be coordinated with Avidyā. Hence the negation of Sambhūti is for the purpose of condemnation as it serves a purpose other¹² than the knowledge of Brahman which (alone) is the means to the attainment of Immortality. Though it serves the purpose of removing impurity yet the devotion to Sambhūti does not enable one to realise (directly) immortality. (Therefore the condemnation of Sambhūti is reasonable.) Hence, Sambhūti, being thus negatived, it can be said to have only a relative existence. Having regard to the unity of Ātman, the ultimate Reality, creation (symbolised by Hiraṇyagarbha) which is known as immortal¹³ (only from the relative standpoint) is negated. Such¹⁴ being the case, who can bring into being the Jīva who is seen as created only through illusion (Māyā) and who exists only while ignorance (Avidyā) lasts? This Jīva reverts to its original nature (of Brahman) with the disappearance of Avidvā, For, no one can verily bring into being the snake (falsely) superimposed upon the rope through Avidyā and which disappears when one knows (the true nature of the rope). Therefore no one can produce or create the Jīva. The words “Ko nu” (“who can?”) in the text, being in the form of interrogation refute the idea of causality. The purport of the Kārikā is that there can be no cause for a thing which is seen to be born only through ignorance and which disappears with the destruction of the said ignorance. The Śruti also says, “This¹⁵ Ātman is not born from any cause nor is anything born from it.”

Anandagiri Tika (glossary)

¹ Sambhūti—The word “Bhūti” means “Aiśvarya” i.e., power, and the word Sambhūti indicates one who possesses all powers. It is a deity known as Hiraṇyagarbha (The Golden Germ) who is the first of all the evolved effects and from whom, as the matrix, the whole evolution proceeds. It is described in the Vedāntic texts as the summation of all subtle bodies.

² Śruti passage—This is a quotation from the Iśa-Upaniṣad (12). This Kārikā is based on this text of the Upaniṣad.

³ Whole, etc.—By the condemnation of Hiraṇyagarbha from whom the entire creation is said to proceed, the whole of the subsequent effects is negatived. Therefore the entire effect which is seen in the form of the manifold, is unreal.

⁴ The, etc.—The reference is to the text of the Iśa-Upaniṣad (14) which runs thus: “Those who worship the unmanifested Prakṛti and Hiraṇyagarbha (Destruction, Vināśa) together, get over death through the worship of Hiraṇyagarbha and attain immortality through the worship of Prakṛti.” The contention of the opponent is this: The condemnation of Sambhūti is not for the purpose of proving its unreality. Its purpose is to combine the worship of Prakṛti and Hiraṇyagarbha. The exclusive worship of Hiraṇyagarbha is condemned. (See Shankara Bhashya (commentary) on verse 14 of the Iśa-Upaniṣad.)

⁵ Vināśa—The word ‘Vināśa’ means that object whose characteristic attribute is destruction, the abstract being here used for the concrete. Vināśa means the worship of Hiraṇyagarbha. The contention of the opponent is that the purpose of the condemnation of the exclusive worship of Sambhūti is to prescribe the co-ordination of its meditation with some ritualistic worship and not to imply the unreality of Sambhūti or the first cause.

⁶ Śruti, etc.—The reference is to the 9th verse of the Iśa-Upaniṣad which condemns Vidyā (the exclusive meditation on the deities) and Avidyā (the exclusive ritualistic ceremonies without any meditation) and prescribes their co-ordination.

⁷ Aim, etc.—The purport of the 9th verse of the Iśa- Upaniṣad is this:—Avidyā is something other than Vidyā or knowledge; hence it is Karma: for Karma is opposed to knowledge. Those who are continuously performing Agnihotra-sacrifice, etc., alone, fall into darkness. Those who having given up Karma, are always bent upon acquiring the knowledge of the deities, fall into greater darkness. Who knows that both these should simultaneously be followed by the same person, he alone, so combining the two, gradually secures the one desirable end. That is to say, his mind is purified of all impurities. The pure mind, then, is able to grasp the meaning of the Upaniṣad which alone enables the student to know the ultimate Reality. The aim of such Karma as the Agnihotra-sacrifice, etc., prescribed by the Scripture, is to turn the mind of the student away from the pursuit of worldly objects, not sanctioned by the Scriptures. By the co-ordination of Karma with meditation (on the deities) the student frees himself from all impulse of desires. Even then he has not realised the Highest Truth which is possible only through Jñānam or knowledge.

⁸ Which is, etc.—Death means the endless cycle of birth and death which is inevitable unless one has attained to the knowledge of Brahman. The endless chain is caused by the desire for relative objects.

⁹ Thus, etc.—The knowledge of Brahman can never be combined with the co-ordination of Karma and Upāsanā as the latter belongs to the realm of ignorance. Brahmavidyā and ignorance are as unrelated as light and darkness.

¹⁰ Inevitable—There is no other obstacle for the realisation of the Supreme Reality when all the impurities have been removed by the practice of Karma and Upāsanā.

¹¹ Thus, etc.—No co-ordination is possible between the knowledge of Brahman and any other relative knowledge. Still it is found that the student, at first, through a process of relative knowledge gets his mind purified and then becomes fit for Brahma-Jñānam. Thus from a relative standpoint it is seen that the knowledge of Brahman arises subsequent to the relative knowledge. Really speaking, the knowledge of Self is ever present and ignorance is non-existent. As from the relative standpoint it is seen that an ignorant person gradually attains to the highest knowledge, therefore from that standpoint Vidyā and Avidyā are said to be related to the same person.

¹² Other than, etc.—That is to say, the purpose of the meditation on Sambhūti is the purification of the mind. As this is not the same as the knowledge of Brahman, therefore, Sambhūti is condemned.

¹³ Immortal—In comparison with the phenomenal Jīva, Sambhūti, or Hiraṇyagarbha is said to be immortal, as the cosmic soul exists even after the death of the Jīva. But from the standpoint of Brahman, Hiraṇyagarbha is also mortal and impermanent. Therefore it is condemned.

¹⁴ Such, etc.—There is no act of creation from the standpoint of Reality, because the very idea of creation is due to ignorance. Creation is but an idea of the mind and hence negated.

¹⁵ This, etc.—i.e.y the idea of causality cannot apply to Brahman, It is only an explanation of things in the phenomenal world due to the ignorance of the real nature of Brahman.