Consciousness in Gaudapada’s Mandukya-karika

by V. Sujata Raju | 2013 | 126,917 words

This page relates ‘Turiya and three states of Consciousness’ of the study on Consciousness as presented by Gaudapada in his Mandukya-karika. Being a commentary on the Mandukya Upanishad, it investigates the nature of consciousness and the three states of experience (i.e., wakeful, dream and deep sleep) which it pervades. This essay shows how the Gaudapadakarika establishes the nature of Consciousness as the ultimate self-luminous principle.

Turīya and three states of Consciousness

The mantra 7 of the Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad describes the Fourth (Caturtha), the Turīya, as the source, support and resolution of wakeful, dream and deep sleep states. The Upanisad uses the method of negation to expound the nature of Turīya which is explained in the following pages.

The Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad refers the absolute Self ‘Caturtha’ which is the same as Turīya in order to distinguish it from the other three changing states namely wakeful, dream and deep sleep. The word ‘Turīya’, like the word ‘Caturtha’, means the ‘Fourth’ is highly significant, as it serves to distinguish the Self from Viśva, Taijasa and Prājña. The Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad uses the word ‘Caturtha’ and not ‘Turīya’. But since both words mean the same they are used as synonyms. The term ‘Caturtha’ (Turīya) is used only in relation to three states of wakeful, dream and deep sleep. On the discussion of Turīya in the Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad it appears that the three states of wakeful, dream and deep sleep are only contextually called a ‘state’. Similarly, the number ‘fourth’ has also to be understood contextually. It is incorrect to think that the ‘fourth’ is yet another state of experience that is entirely separate from the three states. The ‘fourth’ is the invariable substrate of the three states. In the strict sense, Turīya is neither a ‘state’ nor the ‘Fourth’.

Śaṅkara as a prelude to the mantra 7 of the Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad begins by saying the fourth quarter which follows in order has to be stated. This is presented in the words of the Upaniṣad as ‘not conscious of the internal object’ (nāntaḥ-prajñaṃ) etc. He says that Turīya cannot be indicated by words. It is indescribable (anabhidheya) because Turīya is devoid of every characteristic that can make the use of words possible. Therefore, the Upaniṣad seeks to describe/indicate Turīya merely through the negation of all attributes.

Negation of all attributes does not mean that Turīya is śunya, viz. a mere void, as claimed by some opponents. According to Śaṅkara all illusory appearances have a real substratum. For example, even in the empirical world, there could be no false appearance of silver without a piece of shell as its substratum. The same is true of other illusory appearances like snake, man and the mirage which have for their substrate, rope, stump and desert respectively. Turīya is the substratum for all appearances including the body and phenomenal world.

To this explanation of Śaṅkara, the opponents raises an objection by saying that: if Turīya is the ground or the substratum for all appearances like vital breath (prāṇa) etc. then it can be described in affirmation and not by the negation of all attributes, as a jar which is the substratum of water is described in affirmation.

To this objection, Śaṅkara replies that prāṇa and other phenomenon are illusory appearances like the illusory appearance of silver on a shell. The relation between the real (the substratum) and the unreal (appearance) cannot be described by words, because such relation is, itself, non-existent. Turīya, by its intrinsic nature, cannot be the object of any other means of knowledge like the perception etc. Turīya transcends the subject-object duality. Turīya is not an object of knowledge, because it is free from all conditioning adjuncts (upādhis). An object which is empirical can be described as belonging to a class possessing class feature (jāti), or quality (guṇa), or action (kriyā), or relation (saṃbandha); sometimes, it may be signified by a conventional word (ruḍhi) used only with reference to it. For example, an object which possesses the class feature, viz., cowness, is signified by the word cow (gau). An object which possesses the quality, viz, blue colour is called nīlaḥ. Similarly, we call the cook a ‘pācakaḥ’ as he performs the act of cooking. So, there are reasons such as the class feature, quality, action, relation and conventional usage for the application of words to objects. Since none of these features are present in Turīya, it cannot be directly signified by a word. It has neither generic nor specific characteristics because it is one without a second. Turīya possessing no activity is not known by any activity, but is the eternal and all pervasive ground from which all activities seem to emerge. It has no qualities, like blueness etc. For all these reasons Turīya cannot be indicated by words or names. The Śruti also validates this view by saying that the Self is ‘that from which speech returns’ (Tai U. 2,4.1).

The opponents point out that if Turīya cannot be described or signified by language, then it would be non-existent like the ‘horns of a hare’; and any effort to pursue the knowledge of Turīya will be futile.

To this objection Śaṅkara says that the effort is not futile. When the Turīya, the fourth, is known as one’s ‘Self’ (ātman), all craving for the non-self (anātman) comes to an end as the craving for silver ceases the moment it is realized to be a shell. Indeed, there can be no possibility of such defects as ignorance, desire and the like, after the realization of Turīya as one’s own Self. There is no reason why Turīya should not be realised as identical with one’s own Self, since it is the intended purport of all Upaniṣads such as: ‘Thou art that’ (Chāndogya Upaniṣad 6.8-16); ‘This Brahman is the Self’ (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad. 2.5.19); ‘That is true, that is the Self” (Chāndogya Upaniṣad 6.8.7); ‘Brahman is realised directly and immediately’ (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad. 3.4.1);’That which is within and without and unborn’ (Muṇḍ U 2.1.2); ‘All this is indeed the Self’ (Chāndogya Upaniṣad 7.25.2)–these and other texts declare the Turīya to be ātman, the Self[1].

This very Self, the Supreme Reality in its real and unreal aspects is described as having four quarters. It’s unreal aspect which is due to ignorance, having the characteristics of three quarters, is like the superimposition of a snake on a rope and that of the nature of the seed and the sprout i.e., establishing the relationship of cause and effect. By its very nature Turīya, the Fourth that is free from causality, and is like the substratum of rope is described by negating the three quarters which are like the superimposed/illusory snake on a rope.

The māntra 7 of the Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad describes Turīya, as follows:

The Turīya is not Taijasa which is conscious of the internal world (nāntaḥ-prajñam); it is not Vaiśvānara which is conscious of external world (na-bahiṣprajñaṃ [bahiṣprajña]); it is not a form of self which is aware of a state between wakeful and dream (nobhayataḥprajñaṃ [na-ubhayataḥprajña]); it is not the massed consciousness of the state of sleep (na prajñānaghanaṃ [prajñānaghana]); it is not the cognizer of all things at the same time (na prajñaṃ [prajña]); nor non-cognitive as what is inert (nāprajñaṃ [aprajñaṃ]). It is unseen (a-dṛṣṭam [adṛṣṭa]), not related to anything (a-vyavahāryam [avyavahārya]), it is ungraspable (a-grāhyam [agrāhya]) by senses and uninferable by pramāṇas (alakṣaṇam [alakṣaṇa]). It is beyond the reach of thought and word (acintyam [acintya]). It cannot be designated by words (a-vyapadeśyam [avyapadeśya]). It is the essence of the knowledge of one’s Self (ekātmapratyasāraṃ [ekātmapratyasāra]); that into which the world gets resolved (prapañcopaśamaṃ [prapañcopaśama]). It is peaceful (śantaṃ [śanta]), the auspicious (śivaṃ [śiva]), and the non-dual (advaitaṃ [advaita]) that is the Fourth, the Self, which is to be known (sa vijñeyaḥ).[2]

According to the above description of the mantra 7, Turīya is distinct from Viśva, Taijasa, and Prājña because it remains independent of adjuncts (ūpadhis). Turīya can be described only negatively as non-perceivable, non-inferable, unthinkable and unspeakable, etc. The reason for this is that Turīya is trans-empirical, trans-relational and beyond the speech. When the Upaniṣad says that (Turīya) is to be known, knowing in this case is not only discovering the Self, but also remaining as the silent immutable Self, remaining in one’s own nature (svarupa-sthiti) and losing sight of the objective world. By stating that Turīya is na prajñam, there is a total denial of Turīya as belonging to the category of cognizer (pramātā) of objects. Again by saying that it is neither ‘aprajña’ it is meant that Turīya is not ‘acetana’ (insentient). The single positive statement that the three states change, but the Self as a witness remains unchanging as the one essence of knowledge is brought out in the phrase (ekātmapratyaysāra). This phrase is amidst a series of negation.

The Upaniṣadic mantra states that the Self has four quarters. However, it may be contended that if the fourth quarter is established as other than the first three quarters characterised by ‘conscious of the internal world’ etc., then negation of their attributes for the purpose of indicating Turīya, the Fourth as ‘not conscious of the internal world’ etc., is futile. Śaṅkara says that this contention is not valid. He asserts that as the nature of the rope can be realized only by negating the illusory appearances of the snake etc., similarly, the ātman, the Self, residing in the three states will be revealed when the three states superimposed (adhyāropa) on it have been negated. So what is called Turīya, the Fourth state, is really nothing other than the ātman, the Self present in all the three states. The Ħ ḍūkya Upaniad resorts to this method of negation (apavāda) to reveal the Self that resides as the substratum of the three states. This method is also adopted in the Upaniṣadic (Chāndogya Upaniṣad 6, 8-16) Mahāvākya ‘That thou art’ (tat tvam asi). In this Mahāvākya, even though the statement is made in an affirmative manner one has to take both the words ‘that’ and ‘thou’ in the secondary sense (lakṣyārtha). The real significance of ‘that thou art’, is Turīya, and it is realized when the adjuncts (upādhis) indicated by the words ‘that’ and ‘thou’ are eliminated.

The description of the Reality using the negative method in the mantra 7 is to establish that this very ātman in the three states is none but Turīya itself. If the Turīya had been really different from the Self which is present in the three states and had possessed characteristics other than those possessed by the Self, then the negative method adopted by the Upaniṣad would have failed to reveal it. The teachings of the scripture then would have no meaning on account of the absence of any instrument of knowledge regarding Turīya. If Turīya cannot be established through the negation of the three states superimposed upon the Self the other alternative thus remains to declare absolute nihilism as the ultimate truth.

The fact is that the three states, wakeful (Viśva), dream (Taijasa) deep sleep (Prājña) are all adjuncts (upādhis) falsely superimposed upon the same Self as a snake, garland, streak of water etc. on the same rope. When these illusory appearances are removed by means of right knowledge, the knowledge of Turīya gets accessed. For this reason, no further instrument/means of knowledge such as yogic meditation etc. is to be sought for the realization of Turīya.

The negation of the illusory appearances and the revelation of Turīya are simultaneous. Like the moment one distinguishes between the snake and the rope, the snake perception is corrected and the ever existing rope gets revealed. The knowledge of rope does not require any further proof or any activity. In other words, no additional means (pramāṇa) is sought for knowing the rope.

The realization of Turīya is not the result of the operation of pramāṇa. The methodology of pramāṇa in empirical knowledge requires the three, namely knower, known and knowledge. According to Śaṅkara, the falsification of the three states is the only valid means of the knowledge of Turīya and he calls it “pratiśedha vijñanarūpa pramāṇa”. This falsification alone can reveal the Turīya. The revelation of the Turīya and the falsification of the three states are simultaneous and not successive in time. After the falsification of the conditioned adjuncts, nothing new emerges known as Turīya. The Turīya is ever present. So there is no possibility of considering Turīya as a new emerging result (phala) due to the falsification of the three states. No means of empirical knowledge can establish Turīya because of its non-dual and non-relational nature.

According to Śaṅkara, a jar to be cognized in darkness requires light and nothing else. It is absurd to believe that something other than light is required to illumine the jar. To be able to perceive the jar enveloped in darkness all that is required is the light for dispelling the darkness. The means one adopts to dispel the darkness would amount to the means of knowing it. The means are effective in removing the darkness enveloping the jar in question; though they are ineffective in bringing about the existence of the jar. Knowledge of the jar immediately happens on its own, as the darkness enveloping the jar gets dispelled. In other words, knowledge of the jar is therefore not the result (phala) of the means of knowledge (pramāṇa), the jar already exists even when it was enveloped in darkness. One does not create jar but only the perception of it.

Likewise, the very negation of the attributes viz. the three states superimposed on the Self reveals Turīya, the Self, though the knowledge of Turīya is not the direct result of the negation of these attributes. Because this knowledge of Turīya ever being present is not something that is attained, reached, achieved after some purificatory rituals. No instrument of knowledge can act upon or create Turīya, as Turīya is knowledge itself. When Turīya is realized, the distinction between the knower, knowledge and known ceases. Therefore, the purpose of the scriptures is only to accomplish the falsification of attributes of three states. This is stated categorically by Gauḍapāda “when the Highest Truth is realized duality ceases to exist” (Gauḍapādakārikā. I.18). The knowledge of subject–object duality cannot survive upon the falsification of duality. If the knowledge of duality continues to persist, then one requires ‘knowledge’ to replace this knowledge and the process thus will lead to infinite regress rendering the falsification of duality impossible. Therefore, it is established that with the falsification of the three states namely wakeful, dream and deep sleep; the knowledge of Turīya gets revealed.

Having shown the absolute importance of the negative description of Turīya in mantra 7, we now proceed to elaborate Śaṅkara’s commentary on the meaning of the terms like nāntaḥ-prajñam etc. The word ‘not conscious of the internal world’ nāntaḥ-prajñam is that Turīya is not Taijasa or its limitations. By the phrase nabahiṣprajñam [nabahiṣprajña] not “conscious of the external world is meant that it is not Viśva”. By stating that Turīya is nobhayataḥprajñam [na-ubhayataḥprajña] “not both internal and external consciousness”, it negates any intermediate state between the wakeful and the dream. When it says, “it is not a mass of consciousness (na prajñānaghanaṃ)”, it negates the state of deep sleep which is a state of non-discrimination as well the cause of both wakeful and dream states. Further in the deep sleep state one cannot distinguish the truth from error.

And when the text says, “it is not conscious (na prajñam)”, it negates all agency in any act of knowledge of an object. There is an altogether denial of Turīya belonging to the category of (pramātṛ) knower of all objects. When it says, “it is not nonconscious (nāprajñaṃ)” it negates non-consciousness (acaitanyam [acaitanya]). This implies that Turīya is not insentient (acetana) or of the nature of matter.

It may be objected that the attributes as ‘conscious of the internal world’ (antaḥprajñam [antaḥprajña]) etc., cannot be held to be non-existent on the analogy of the rope and the snake. In the case of rope -snake analogy the illusory snake gets falsified with the knowledge of the rope. The opponents argue that the attributes of being conscious of ‘internal world’ (antaḥ-prajñaṃ) etc., which are directly apprehended as belonging to the Self, cannot be compared to the falsification of illusory snake on the rope. With the knowledge of rope, the snake perception not only ceases to exist but also becomes non-existent. However, in the case of the three states, they may be negated but cannot become non-existent like the falsified snake on the rope.

Śaṅkara thus replies to this objection saying that the attributes viz. the three states of wakeful, dream and deep sleep, being subject to change, can be proved to be nonexistent by the act of negation. Here, he emphasizes that the analogy of the snake and the rope is appropriate. The illusory appearances of the rope as the snake, the water line, garland etc. are non-existent because such appearances are subject to change.

Similarly, the three states are subject to change as one state sublates the other states. The states come and go and exclude one another mutually. However, the Self persists through them being unchanged. It thus follows that the successive states are mere illusions and their substratum, the Self, is real. One cannot object that the Self or Consciousness appears to change in deep sleep, for deep sleep is something one actually experiences. One rising from deep sleep says, ‘I slept happily, and I did not know anything’ this memory would not have been possible unless the state was witnessed with the help of Consciousness so as to produce the necessary impressions. The śruti also confirms this in the text “knowledge of the knower is never absent” (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad. 4.3.30)[3].

We now proceed to unravel the meaning of the other terms used for describing Turīya. It is described as “unseen” (a-dṛṣṭam [adṛṣṭa]) which means that it is not an object of sensory perception. Senses like eyes, ears etc. cannot know It, because It is the very source of all sensory perceptions. It never becomes an object of the act of knowing. It is because Turīya is the negation of all the attributes. Being invisible (unseen), it is not within the sphere of empirical dealings (a-vyavahāryam [avyavahārya]). One cannot transact with it as one would with an empirical object. It is also not accessible to the organs of action. The text says Turīya has no defining characteristic (lakṣaṇa) or inferential mark (liṅga) that could enable one to infer its existence, as one could infer the existence of the invisible fire from the visible mark of smoke. An inference has a common feature which always presupposes more than one cognitive element. Being one without a second, Turīya is not inferable. Turīya is unthinkable (acintya), and also not subject to direct communication through words because that which one thinks in mind is expressed by words.

Turīya is ‘essentially of the nature of Consciousness consisting of Self’ (ekātmapratyayasāra). The meaning is that it has to be accepted as real because we have the constant and unfailing conviction “this Self is one” persisting as the changeless and constant factor through the successive mutually exclusive states of wakeful,dream and deep sleep. This phrase is intended to show that Turīya though described in a negative way, is not śunya or non-existent.

Śaṅkara gives an alternative explanation of the phrase ‘ekā-atma-pratyaya-sāra’. He says that this phrase should be interpreted to mean that upon realisation of the Turīya, one becomes aware of the unchanging /constant presence of one’s Self. In the first explanation Turīya is described indirectly as the unchanging Self in the three states. The second explanation is to show that Turīya can be directly cognized as the Self. ‘It should be meditated upon as ātman, as the Self, declares a Śruti text (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad. 1.4.7)[4].

So far the text has made a negation of attributes like ‘conscious of the internal world’ (antaḥprajña) etc., which are the attributes of the experience of the three states (sthāni-dharma). The Upaniṣad now mentions the negation of the attributes of the three states (sthāna-dharma) altogether by saying that there is a cessation of the phenomenal universe (prapañcopanśamam [prapañcopanśama]). Hence, Turīya is ever peaceful, all bliss and non-dual. The phrase ‘peaceful’ means that It is without attachment or hatred etc; and it is also unchanging (kūtastha). The phrase ‘all bliss’ means pure and embodiment of highest bliss. Turīya is called Fourth with reference to other three quarters (pādas) which are mere illusory appearances.

‘This, indeed, is the ātman and it should be known’, as communicated by the Mahāvākya “that thou art” and is like knowing the rope as distinct from the illusory appearances of a snake, a line on the ground, a stick etc. This Self which has been described by such Śruti text as ‘the unseen seer’ (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad. 3.7.23), ‘the seer whose power of seeing never comes to be lost’ (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad. etc., is to be known[5]. The phrase ‘to be known’ is used from the standpoint of the earlier condition of ignorance, for once the Self is realized, all duality cease to exist. When Turīya is realized, there no longer remains any distinction between the knower, knowledge and the known.

Before proceeding with his commentary Gauḍapāda sums up the Upaniṣadic mantra 7 in a single kārikā. While referring to the one unstated aspect of Turīya in the above mentioned mantra, which was implicitly conceded by the word “peaceful” (śāntaṃ), he says that Turīya is free from all sorrow. The only specific word from the Upaniṣad that he mentions here is the word “non-dual” (advaita). Śaṅkara in his commentary on this kārikā says that the Turīyaātman, the Self is capable of ordaining the cessation of miseries/sufferings in the nature of Prājña, Taijas and Viśva. It is only the knowledge of Turīya that can destroy misery. The Turīyaātman is unchanging (avyayah) which means that It does not become anything different from its own nature. This is so because there is nothing other than the Turīya, the non-dual Self. The other objects are mere superimpositions on ātman alike a snake seen in a rope. Such a resplendent Being (Deva), known as Turīya or the Fourth is all pervading (Vibhu).

Gauḍapāda in kārikās 11-15 comments upon the teaching of the four quarters of the Self. He introduces distinct terminology and presents his own perspective of the Upaniṣadic mantra. He says: Viśva and Taijasa are conditioned by cause and effect. Prājña is conditioned by cause alone but Turīya which transcends the three states is free from both cause and effect. Śaṅkara says that the generic and specific characteristics of the three states are described in order to ascertain the real nature of Turīya. The common feature of Viśva and Taijasa is that they are both characterized by non-apprehension of Reality (agrahaṇam [agrahaṇa]) and mis-apprehension of Reality (anyathāgrahaṇam [anyathāgrahaṇa]). Non-apprehension of Reality is the cause and mis-apprehension of Reality is the effect. In Prājña there is only non-apprehension of Reality. The Turīya is free from both agrahaṇam and anyathāgrahaṇam.

In the following kārikā 12 Gauḍapāda points out the difference between Prājña and Turīya. He says that Prājña does not know anything of the elf or the non-self, nor truth nor untruth, whereas, Turīya is ever existent. Being the witness of everything, Turīya is said to be all-seeing (Sarvadṛk). Śaṅkara in his commentary on this kārikā explains as to how Prājña is conditioned by the cause (tattvāgrahaṇam [tattvāgrahaṇa]) and Turīya is not subject to either a cause or an effect (anyathāgrahaṇam [anyathāgrahaṇa]). Prājña, unlike Viśva and Taijasa, does not apprehend the duality of the phenomenal world that is born of the seed of ignorance and is other than the Self. Hence, Prājña is conditioned by ignorance being the non-apprehension of Reality, which is the cause (seed) of the misapprehension (anyathāgrahaṇam [anyathāgrahaṇa]) of Reality. However, Turīya is not conditioned by non-apprehension of Reality. Since the cause (seed) is absent, mis-apprehension of Reality which is the sprout (the result) is also absent in Turīya. Just as in the ever luminous sun, there is no possibility of darkness, so in the Turīya there is no possibility of ignorance. The Śruti says, “The knowledge of the seer is never absent” (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad. 4.3.23), and also “There is no seer other than this” (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad. 3.8.11)[6].

Gauḍapāda in kārikā 13 says that non-apprehension of duality is common to both Prājña and Turīya. But Prājna is associated with sleep (ignorance) in the form of cause and Turīya is never associated with sleep. One may ask here that if nonapprehension of duality is common to both Prājña and Turīya, why should Prājña alone be conditioned by avidyā and not Turīya? Śañkara also asserts that Prājña is associated with sleep or nidrā where there is no apprehension of Reality. The Prājña is called bījanidrā. In Turīya such sleep in the form of non-apprehension of Reality does not exist. The Turīya is Self-Realization, the ever present Knowledge free from avidyā, kāma and karma. Thus the binding cause (avidyā) is never associated with Turīya. In the Turīya there is no trace of ignorance.

Gauḍapāda explains the term “dream” (svapna) and “sleep” (nidrā) in kārikā 14. He says that the first two (Viśva and Taijasa) are associated with dream and sleep. Prājña is associated with sleep alone, sleep without dream. Those who are certain about the Truth see that there is neither sleep nor dream in Turīya. Dream or svapna is the misapprehension of Reality (anyathāgrahaṇa), a distorted perception. This is like seeing a snake in the rope. Sleep (nidrā) is the ‘non-apprehension of reality (tattvaapratibodha). The Knower of Brahman, does not see dream and sleep in Turīya, as it would be inconsistent like seeing darkness in the sun. Therefore, Turīya has been described as not associated with the conditions of cause and effect.

As explained above the words ‘sleep’ and ‘dream’ do not refer to the states of sleep and dream, what they refer to is some condition that is associated with the three states. Gauḍapāda clarifies that condition in kārikā 15. He says, ‘dream’ (svapna) belongs to the one who misapprehends Reality. ‘Sleep’ (nidrā) belongs to one who does not know Reality. When both of these errors are removed, one attains the Turīya.

Śaṅkara in his commentary on the above kārikā explains as to when one becomes firmly rooted in Turīya. Both in the wakeful and dream states there is a persistent error about the Reality. It is as though the “dream” continues in both the states. Reality is misapprehended as something else (anyathāgrahaṇa). It is like the perception of the snake in the place of the rope. The sleep (nidrā), characterized by the ignorance of Reality, is the common feature of the three states viz. wakeful, dream and deep-sleep. As dream (svapna) and sleep (nidrā) are common to Viśva and Taijasa they are categorized as one. In the wakeful and dream states, the misapprehension of Reality as something else is predominant. In the deep-sleep state, non-apprehension of Reality (Tattva-agrahaṇam [tattva-agrahaṇa]) is the only error. In the two states of wakeful and dream there is non-apprehension followed by the misapprehension of the real in the form of cause and the effect. When this bondage of the nature of cause and effect is removed i.e. on the realisation of the Self, one attains the state of Turīya (the word “attains” is metaphorical, for there can be no attainment of one’s own Self). It means that when these two types of bondage disappear, one is said to be resolutely established in Turīya.

Footnotes and references:


Som Raj Gupta, The Word Speaks to the Faustian Man, 208.


Nāntah-prjñaṃ na bahiṣprājñaṃ nobhayataḥprajñam. naprajñāa ghanaṃ na prajñaṃ nāprajñam adṛṣtam avyavahāryam agrāhyam alakṣaṇam acintyam avyapadeśyam ekātma-pratyayasāraṃ prapañcopaśamaṃśāntaṃśivam advaitaṃ catruthaṃ manyante saātmāsa vijñeyaḥ. (MāṇḍūkyaUpaniṣad.7)


Nikhilananda Swami, The Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad, 51.


Som Raj Gupta, The Word Speaks to the Faustian Man, 212.




Ibid., 230.

Help me keep this site Ad-Free

For over a decade, this site has never bothered you with ads. I want to keep it that way. But I humbly request your help to keep doing what I do best: provide the world with unbiased truth, wisdom and knowledge.

Let's make the world a better place together!

Like what you read? Consider supporting this website: