by Srisa Chandra Vasu | 1909 | 15,464 words | ISBN-13: 9789332869165
The English translation of the Mandukya Upanishad including the commentary of Madhva called the Bhasya. The describe the secret meaning of Om as the four names and aspects of the Lord (Vishva, Taijasa, Prajna and Turiya). This Upanishad is associated with the Atharva Veda and contains tweelve verses although Madhva reads the Gaudapada’s Karikas as ...
Madhva’s commentary called the Bhāṣya:
The words are na vidyate agatiḥ. The is elided by sandhi. The sense is that as Viśva and other aspects of the Lord are approachable by the devotee, so also is the Turīya. He is not beyond the reach of His devotee or His worshipper. The Turīya is called impartible, because He is not like the Viśva and the rest who daily separate from each other and become again united to each other, (in deep sleep with Prājña). (Objection). The Viśva and the rest incite the Jīva to worldly activity and functioning and they are causes of all practical worldly (vyavahāra) activities; but the Turīya is the cause of no such functioning of the Jīva or of practical worldly activity. Therefore, the Turīya is Unapproachable and Incomprehensible. (Ans). This doubt is answered by the Kārikā by saying agatir na vidyate—the Turīya is not Unapproachable. (Admitting that by this analysis of na vidyate gatiḥ into na vidyate agatiḥ, you may say that the Turīya is also approachable: but then arises another objection. In the case of Viśva, etc., we see that separate letters are mentioned as leading to these. Thus “a” leads to Viśva, u“” leads to Taijas; “m” leads to Prājña; but no letter is mentioned in the Kārikā as leading to the Turīya. (To this the author answers). The Ātman or the Lord Himself here leads the soul: because in the last verse of the Upaniṣad we find atmaiva ātmānam saṃviśati—“the Self leads the Self to the Self.” The leader here is therefore ātmā in its entirety and not any aspect or portion of it. This saying of the Upaniṣad “that the Self leads the Self to the Self” is an additional reason for holding that the Turīya is approachable; and that the proper analysis of the second line of the above Kārikā is vidyate agatiḥ.
Another text says “He who knows that the worshipper of Viśva, etc., by meditating on them as etc., partakes in their attributes of Ādi-hood, Āpti-hood, etc., and the worshipper becomes similar with the worshipped, himself becomes the honored of all.”
The three similarities become in a sense equalities, when the soul attains mukti. In that state there is no difference between these similarities (or those of the Lord).
[Thus the ādi-sāmānya and apti[āpti?]-sāmānya are taught of the Jīva by Upaniṣad verse 9 which declares that he obtains (āpnoti) all desires and becomes an Ādi “having beginning.” Similarly utkarṣa-sāmānya and ubhaya-sāmānya are taught in verse 10, where the Jīva is said to become Eyer-wise and a Judge. The māna-sāmānya and laya-sāmānya are also taught in verse 11, where the Jīva is said to become the Pervader of all, and Destroyer of all sorrows. All these three-fold similarity of the Jīva with the Lord, becomes equality, only then when the Jīva attains mukti. In states other than mukti, it is a mere similarity without equality.]
The Turīya is called amātra or “impartible” because there is no diurnal separation from it (as in the case of Viśva and Taijasa which daily merge into the Prājña and daily come out of it).
(Note.—The Turīya is not the cause of the waking and other states also).
Though the Turīya is not the agent or the producer of the waking and other states, yet He becomes approachable to the Wise. (The Jñānīs know the Turīya).
It is stated in the Ātma-Saṃhitā “The Jīva in the state of Release gets similarity with the Lord as regards the attributes of Ādimatva, etc., and equality as regards not being subject to modification (before mukti there is similarity only). The Turīya is said to be amātra or impartible in the sense that there is not daily separation from Him (as in the case of Viśva and Taijasa from Prājña).”