Consciousness in Gaudapada’s Mandukya-karika

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

This page relates ‘realization of the motionless Citta’ 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.

Gauḍapāda in kārikā 44 says that, one should awaken the mind when it is latent in deep-sleep (laya). When it is distracted it should be calmed down again. When the mind is in the intermediate state it should be known that the mind is united with impressions of experience (vāsanāsi. e. with the seed of attachment) and should be brought back under control. When it is brought to a state of equilibrium it should not be disturbed again.

According to Śaṅkara by the two means viz. (i) the repeated hearing of jñāna from scriptures and the teacher (jñāna-abhyāsa) and (ii) detachment (vairāgya) one should awaken the mind when it is in sleep (laya) and engage the mind in discretion (viveka) which leads to the knowledge of ātman. Śaṅkara says that citta and manas (mind) mean the same thing here. When the mind is distracted (vikṣepa) by desires and enjoyments, it should again be pacified. When it is awakened from sleep (laya) by repeated practice and also turned away from objects of enjoyment but has not yet attained the state of equilibrium and is in an intermediate state, the mind is still tinged with desire, full of passion, in a state of latency. One should know this state of mind and from this state also one should bring it to the state of equilibrium with effort.

Gauḍapada in kārikā 45 says: ‘The mind should not be allowed to enjoy the bliss that arises out of the condition of samādhi. It should be freed from attachment to such happiness through the exercise of discrimination. If the mind, once attaining to the state of steadiness seeks externality, then it should be unified with the ātman, again, with effort’.

When the mind has reached the state of equilibrium (samatā), that is to say, when it is on the way to reach samatā it should not be disturbed. In other words one should not turn it back towards objects of enjoyment.

Śaṅkara says on this point that the seeker should not allow his mind to indulge in any enjoyment that may arise in the state of samādhi (enlightened reflection). But through the discrimination (prajñayā) and non-attachment (niḥsaṅgaḥ), he should consider that this seeming happiness is the creation of ignorance (avidyā) and is therefore unreal. He should control his mind from the attachment to that happiness. When the mind is withdrawn from the attachment for happiness, and becomes steady and again tries to move out towards objects of enjoyment, (niścarat), it should be controlled by the means of dispassion (vairāgya) and constant practice of knowledge. In other words he should make the mind to attain the state of Pure Consciousness and existence (paripūrna Brahman).

Swami Nilkhilananda says on this point: “In the state of Samādhi, the yogi fails to see that the non-dual Brahman alone exists. He seeks Samādhi because he believes in the existence of the mind as separate from ātman, and therefore tries to control it. By some mechanical means he brings the mind to a state of inactivity and thus makes himself free from all worries. But this is not the Vedāntic goal of truth”[1].

In the kārikā 46 Gauḍapāda emphasises that control of the mind is a means to become Brahman. He says: ‘When the mind does not merge in the inactivity of oblivion, or become distracted by desires, that is to say, when the mind becomes quiescent and does not give rise to appearances, it verily becomes Brahman’.

According to Śaṅkara when the mind is controlled by the means (jñāna and abhyāsa), does not get into the state of sleep (laya) and is not distracted by enjoyment (kama and bhoga), then it is free from movement and action (aniṅganam). The mind becomes steady as the flame of a lamp in a windless place. It does not appear (anābhāsaṃ) in the form of imagined objects. When the mind attains to this state, it becomes Brahman itself (niṣpannaṃ Brahman). In other words, the mind attains to the nature of Brahman.

Gauḍapāda in kārikā 47 says: ‘This highest bliss is based upon the realisation of Self, it is peace, identical with liberation, indescribable and unborn. It is further described as the omniscient Brahman, because it is one with the unborn Self which is the object sought by Knowledge’.

Śaṅkara in his commentary on this kārikā explains the phrase ‘the supreme bliss’ (sukham uttamam). He says that the supreme bliss, which is the highest Reality and, which consists in the realisation of the Truth that is the Self, is centered in the Self (svasthaṃ). It is all peace (śāntaṃ), that is to say, free from all evil. It is coexistent with liberation (sanirvāṇam). It cannot be described in words (akathyaṃ), as it relates to an absolutely unique entity and is not related to any external object. Śaṅkara says this is the supreme bliss which can be realised by yogis alone. This bliss is unborn, unlike the happiness that one experiences from the enjoyment of sensible objects which has an origin. This bliss is non-different from the unborn Consciousness. It has been described by the knowers of Brahman, as Omniscient Brahman.

Gauḍapāda concludes this chapter on non-duality by declaring that no individual is ever born in any way whatsoever. He says in kārikā 48: ‘No jīva is ever born. There does not exist any cause which can produce it. This is the highest Truth that nothing is ever born’.

Śaṅkara in the last kārikā of advaita prakaraṇa reiterates the teaching of Gauḍapāda. He says that all that has been described before (in this chapter), like the practice of mind control (manonigraha), creation of objects from clay, iron and the description of meditation, is merely to enable one to understand the real nature of ātman. These illustrations are not to be taken as ultimately real. The ultimate truth is that no jīva, known as the doer, enjoyer, and sufferer is ever born in any way.

Therefore there is no origination or cause of this non-dual ātman, who by very nature is one and unborn. In the absence of the cause of birth, no individual is ever born. Of all the relative truths in the form of various illustrations inculcated as a means in the previous verses of this chapter, this alone is the Ultimate Truth that nothing whatsoever is ever born in or of Brahman. The illustrations given by both Gauḍapāda and Śaṅkara were only the means for the realisation of this absolute truth.

It is thus evident that the non-dual ātman/Self is the ultimate reality. The Self is ever pure, ever conscious and ever free (nitya-uddha-buddha-mukta). The apparent origination of jīvas has been explained with the help of the analogy of the perceived limitation of space (ākāśa) by pots, pitchers etc. The Self is compared to space. The space is subtlest of five elements, namely earth, water, fire, air and space. It is not composed of parts and is all-pervasive (vibhu). Even though the space is inert and the Self is ever luminous conscious being, the comparison between the two tentatively brings out the point of similarity between the two namely subtlety, the omnipresence and undivided nature. The ātman/ Self has manifested by means of living beings (jīvas) which are like the space within jars/pots.

When the space is enclosed in a room or a pot, one might have an erroneous idea that the enclosed space is different from the space outside. One might even think there are two spaces, the outer and the inner. The outer being not enclosed, the inner encapsulated in an enclosure. However a little reflection will reveal that the notion of ‘outside’ and ‘inside’ are illusory based on the wrong identification of the space with its enclosure namely a pot. If the space were to be considered as limited because it appears bound and divided from the outer space, then one has to realise that the artificial division which is indeed a wrong notion needs to be corrected. The correction is done by realising that there is no division in space and what looks divided is an apparent vision of itself. If the pot which contains space were to break then the space does not get destroyed or tainted by the destruction of the pot. The space remains untouched and is ever the non-dual, undivided subtle element.

Similarly, the jīva is not something other than the Self, as the space in the jar is not other than the space itself. The jīvas originate from the ātman just as the space-in-pots originate from space. When the pots etc. are destroyed, the space within the pots etc. is merged into space itself. In the same way, the jīvas are merged into ātman when ignorance is removed by the right knowledge. When the space within one pot/jar becomes tinged with smoke or dust, all pot-spaces does not get affected, so are the jīvas with regard to happiness, misery and so on. The apparent origination of jīva (jīva-utpatti) is due to the aggregate of bodies. When the aggregate of bodies disappear, jīva also disappears and gets merged in ātman. The names, forms, functions of pots, jars, plates etc. differ in accordance with the limiting conditions but there is no difference of space, so is the conclusion with regard to jīva. As the jar space is neither an evolute nor a limb of space itself, so the jīva is neither an evolute nor a limb of ātman. All aggregates such as body etc. are like dreams projected or created by the illusion (māyā) of ātman.

It should not be understood that with the breaking of the pot, the space in the pot merges with the illimitable space outside. It is as though the space inside the pot realises its true nature which is not different in any way to the space outside. When the body and other limiting adjuncts get resolved with the knowledge of the real nature of the Self, then there is an absolute identity with the supreme Self.

At another level the identity of the jīva and the Self/ ātman is praised on account of their non-dual nature whereas plurality is condemned in the scriptures. Therefore, that non-duality alone is reasonable. The separateness of jīva and ātman as mentioned in the sruti texts dealing with creation of the universe should not be interpreted literally. They are to be understood in a figurative sense. They should be regarded as providing an introduction to the texts which teach non-duality. The creation has been expounded in various ways with the illustrations of earth, sparks, iron etc. as a means in order to make us understand the ultimate truth of non-origination.

In reality the duality or manifold universe does not exist. It does not have any independent existence of its own. It is only apparent manifestation of its substratum, the non-dual ātman. In other words the non-dual ātman, which is supreme reality, appears manifold through māyā. The ātman which is unborn and immortal does not undergo any change or modification. It does not transform itself into the dual universe. If it were to change itself, then it can never retain its innate nature i.e. changeless and unborn. It is only due to illusion (māyā) that the non-dual ātman appears as the dual universe.

In fact it is the mind which is the cause of appearance of duality or the manifold universe. In other words, all duality is mere projection of the mind. The mind projects duality comprising of subject and object (grāhya-grāhaka bhāva) both in dream and waking states. When the mind attains to its pure state, it ceases to act and realises its oneness with its substratum, the Self. When the mind ceases to act, no duality is perceived. In this state, the mind loses its separate identity, becomes no-mind and merges into the Self. This state of no-mind is known as amanibhāva. Indeed the apparent acts of the mind projecting the world of duality are admitted only in the empirical realm. From the absolute standpoint, the mind is non-different from the non-dual ātman. It is significant to know the state of the mind which has completely identified itself with its source, the Self. Such mind known as controlled mind is pure, tranquil, free from ideation and full of discrimination. However, the behavior of the mind in deep sleep is different and is not similar to that of the controlled mind. The mind loses itself in sleep to its seed form of ignorance, but the controlled mind being established in Brahman shines with the awareness of pure Consciousness.

The absolute Knowledge being unborn is non-different from the object of knowledge i.e. Brahman (jñeyabhinna-jñāna). The One who knows the Self, the Self that is known and the knowledge of the Self, are all one and the same. Knowing the Self is like perceiving Consciousness in Consciousness. It implies that the unborn is known by the unborn. The Self is known when the two forms of wrong knowledge characterized by dream (svapna) and sleep (nidrā) are removed. For the Self is sleepless, dreamless, nameless, formless, ever effulgent and omniscient. It always remains the same. There is no practice in any way whatsoever with reference to the Self as it is not the result of any activity.

Being subtlest of the subtle, the Self or Consciousness remains ever unaffected, unqualified untouched (asparśa) by the phenomenal universe (prapañca). Consciousness is not in contact with objects nor is it in contact with the appearances of objects. For the object is certainly non-existent and the ideas constituting the appearances of objects are not separate from Consciousness. Therefore, Consciousness is not born, nor are things perceived by it born. Origination is mere illusion. Non-origination (ajātivāda) is the supreme truth.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Nilkhilananda Swami, The Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad, 208 fn.

Like what you read? Consider supporting this website: