Mandukya Karika, verse 3.36

Sanskrit text, IAST transliteration and English translation

अजमनिन्द्रमस्वप्नमनामकमरूपकम् ।
सकृद्विभातं सर्वज्ञं नोपचारः कथंचन ॥ ३६ ॥

ajamanindramasvapnamanāmakamarūpakam |
sakṛdvibhātaṃ sarvajñaṃ nopacāraḥ kathaṃcana || 36 ||

36. (This Brahman is) birthless, free from sleep and dream, without name and form, ever-effulgent and omniscient. Nothing has to be done in any way (with respect to Brahman).

Shankara Bhashya (commentary)

Brahman is both within and without as well as unborn, as there is no cause for its passing into birth. For, we have already stated that (the phenomenon of) birth is seen on account of the ignorance (of the real nature of a thing), as¹ is the case with the rope giving birth to the (illusion of the) snake. It is birthless because all ignorance is destroyed by the knowledge of Truth which is the Ātman. Hence it is free from sleep²; for, Ātman, which is, by nature, non-dual, is always free from sleep the nature of which is that of beginningless delusion characterised by ignorance. Therefore it is free from dream.³ Names and forms which are ascribed to it are due to the ignorance of its real nature. These names and forms are destroyed by Knowledge. It is like the (destruction of the illusion of the) snake seen in the rope. Hence Brahman cannot be described by any name, nor can it be in any manner described to be of any form. To support this, there are such Śruti passages as, “From which words come back,” etc. Moreover, it⁴ is ever effulgent or it is of the very nature of effulgence. For,⁵ it is free from (the ideas of) manifestation and non-manifestation characterised by wrong apprehension and non-apprehension. Apprehension and nonapprehension are (as inseparable) as day and night. Darkness is the characteristic of ignorance. These are the causes of the non-manifestation (of the real nature of Ātman). These⁶ are absent in Ātman. Moreover, Ātman is always of the nature of consciousness and effulgence. Therefore it is reasonable to speak of Ātman as ever-effulgent. It is all-knowing, that is to say, Ātman is all that exists and Ātman is consciousness (awareness) itself. As regards such Brahman (i.e., the one that knows such

Brahman) no action can be enjoined, as may be in the case of others, who (on account of their ignorance of the real nature of Brahman) are asked to practise concentration, etc., on the nature of Ātman. The⁷ purport is that besides the destruction of ignorance it is not possible to prescribe any disciplinary action (for the knowledge of Brahman), as Brahman is always of the nature of purity, knowledge and freedom. The nature of Brahman, which is the subject-matter under discussion is thus described in other ways. The purport of the Kārikā is that apart from the realisation of one’s identity with the attributeless Brahman no effort is to be made by him. The categorical imperative of Kant has no meaning for a knower of Ātman. Yogic Samādhi is not the same as the goal of Jñāna Yoga as described in the philosophy of Advaita Vedānta or the Kārikā.

Anandagiri Tika (glossary)

¹ As, etc.—The phenomenon of the rope producing the snake is due to ignorance of the real nature of the rope.

² Sleep—Sleep or Nidrā means the non-apprehension of objects, as is the characteristic of the mind in deep sleep. In the causal world this Nidrā or ignorance is known to be beginningless, as no beginning of it can be found.

³ Dream—The dream or Svapna is characterised by wrong apprehension of objects. This is not possible in the case of Ātman which is of the nature of eternal purity, knowledge and illumination.

⁴ It is, etc.—The Ātman is that which gives us the idea of light.

It is not itself what is described as light in the waking state.

⁵ For, etc.—The ideas of non-apprehension and wrong apprehension are correlatives. The one implies the other. Similarly the ideas of manifestation and non-manifestation are correlatives. When an empirical Jīva becomes oblivious of himself, as in deep sleep, he is said to be in a state of non-manifestation characterised by the non-perception of objects. Similarly, the empirical Jīva is said to be manifested, as in dream or waking state, when he apprehends objects in a wrong way, i.e., not as they are in their true character which is the non-dual Brahman. But Brahman cannot be identified with the dualistic concepts of non-apprehension or wrong apprehension and non-manifestation or manifestation, as it is the witness of all these conditions.

⁶ These are, etc.—The ideas of manifestation and non-manifestation cannot inhere in Ātman from the standpoint of Reality. These are attributed to Ātman, as one says that Ātman is unmanifested to us previous to the realisation of knowledge and it is manifested to us subsequent to that realisation. These statements are made from the empirical standpoint. But Brahman is always of the nature of illumination which never decreases or increases under any circumstances. In common parlance the advent of day and night is associated with the rising and the setting of the sun. But the sun neither rises nor sets. It is always bright and effulgent. If one takes his stand in the sun he sees neither the night nor its correlative the day. But if a man is away from the sun, he imagines the rising and setting of the sun and consequently experiences day and night which have no meaning from the standpoint of the sun.

⁷ The purport, etc.—All imaginations regarding Samādhi, etc., may have their application in the state of ignorance when one does not realise the ever-illumined nature of his self.