31.   (உள்ளது நாற்பது)     FORTY VERSES ON REALITY   

                         (BY  RAMANA MAHARSHI)

Commentary by  'WHO'  (= Lakshmana Sharma)

 "Can there be a sense of existence without something that is? Is Real

Consciousness a thing other than That? Since that (Reality) dwells, thought

 free, in the Heart, how can It - Itself named the Heart - be meditated on?

 And who is there, distinct from It, to meditate on It, the Self whose nature

is Reality Consciousness? Know that to meditate on It is just to be at one

 with It within the Heart."

 

uLLadu aladu uLLa uNarvu uLado?

uLLa poruL uLLal aRa uLLatte uLLadAl

uLLal enum uLLa poruL uLLal evan?

uLLatte uLLapaDi uLLade uLLal uNar

 

உள்ளது அலது உள்ள உணர்வு உளதோ ?

உள்ள பொருள் உள்ளல்அற உள்ளத்தே உள்ளதால்

உள்ளமெனும் உள்ள பொருள் உள்ளல் எவன்?

உள்ளத்தே உள்ளபடி உள்ளதே உள்ளல் உணர்

 

This is the original Tamil verse Mangalam-1 of Bhagavan.  I am giving this original Tamil for you all to see the majesty of Ramana’s classical Tamil (even if you do not understand Tamil!).

 

Commentary on the first line:

 

There are two meanings for this line.  Both are valid.

First meaning of first line:

 

Can there be a sense of Existence  without something that is?  Here the conclucsion is there exists something that always is. The jIva-Ishvara-jagat (soul-God-universe) which appears as real  is not real, but there is a substratum (adhishTAnam) of Reality underneath. This is the truth declared by the Upanishads, which call this Reality ‘brahman’. Bhagavan himself explains this as follows:

 

“Every one sees himself and the universe around him.  He thinks both are real. If they are real they should always appear, not off and on. But they appear and also disappear. They appear in the waking and dream state but not in the deep sleep state. In other words they appear only when the mind is there. They do not appear when the mind is not there. Therefore the seer JIva and the seen universe are only thought-forms of the mind and not real. Where these thoughts arise from, where they merge, that is the only shining Reality”.  This same content is going to be given by Verse beginning with ‘ulagaRivum onRAy’ later.

 

So what appears only off and on is unreal and what appears always uninterruptedly is Real. Recall B.G. *nAsato vidyate bhAvo …*. Which gives the distinction between sat and asat.  ‘What does not exist before and after, is only non-existent even in the present but only appears to exist’ says Gaudapada in his Karika. Those who accept this maxim of Reality are advaitins.  Others are dvaitins.

 

The standard example for this unreal appearance of the universe and the Reality of the AdhishTAnam is the snake-rope example. Brahman is the adhishhTAnam (sub-stratum, base) ; jIva-Ishvara-jagat is Aropitam (Superposed entities).

 

The snake which is imagined hides the rope which exists.  So also the imagined jIva-Ishvara-jagat hides the existent brahman. So long as brahman is seen only as the universe (By the way ‘Universe’ here will include jIva and Ishvara also because if the universe is not there, the JIva and Ishvara also are not there), brahman will not be seen or known as brahman.  When by Atman-Realisation, Wisdom arises, the universe will not be seen as universe but as Brahman, the only Reality.  This appearance and disappearance is the characteristic of mAyA. Really mAyA is not real.  But that will be known only on Self-Realisation. Before that, that is, so long as the universe is taken to be real, one has to say mAyA exists.  This mAya is also called avidyA or ajnAna.

 

When the rope appears as snake, the appearance is due to the confusion in the mind of the seer. Now the jIva-Ishvara-jagat appearance is due to what? Is there a consciousness other than brahman and is it that which shows the universe to us? Is brahman inert or conscious? Is consciousness brahman or is consciousness a quality of brahman?  The replies to these are given by the second meaning of the first line of the verse.  It is actually the second sentence that appears in the translation posted by Peter. We shall take it up in the next post. (To be contd.)

 

Now let me go to the second meaning of the first line of the Mangalam-1 verse.

 

Text: uLLadaladu uLLavuNarvu uLLado?

 

1st meaning:  Can there be a sense of existence without something that is? (This was already commented above

 

2nd meaning: Is Real  Consciousness a thing other than That?

Now for the commentary by WHO (on the second meaning):

 

What exists – false or real – what sense makes it explicit? This consciousness is not different from what absolutely exists.  That itself is a bundle of consciousness – of the form of  Knowledge (jnAna-svarUpa). In order for this to express itself there is no cognizing source other than itself.  That which exists expresses itself by its own luminiscence of consciousness.  It is self-effulgent. This is the substance of the 2nd meaning.

 

At the time of Ignorance brahman appears as the universe. At the state of jnAna  that itself expresses as the sat-cid-Atman (and nothing else). For both expressions it is the knowledge-factor of brahman that is the shining Light.  [ Footnote: For the universe to appear it is again the Light of brahman that shines.  The Light of brahman is not totally hidden by the universe. The akhaNDa-brahma-chaitanyam itself sparks as the speck of ego and that shows up the universe] .

 

There is one more implication in this sentence. Since we said there is no other consciousness distinct from brahman, the universe that appears to be different must be only a false sensation. And he who sees this universe as a real show, is also having only a false sensation.  Bhagavan says the seer or jIva who sees this universe is also part and parcel of this show of universe. This same idea comes again in the verse beginning with ‘nAmulagam’.

 

In the Appendix (anubandham) to this text Bhagavan calls this ‘false soul’ or ‘false jIva’. Vedanta books call this ‘cidAbhAsa’ (also false consciousness). Ignorant people think of this jIva as AtmA; they call this jIvAtmA and call God as paramAtmA, as if there are two AtmAs.  This text-line tells us that other than this ever-existent brahman there is no one to be called jIva. Therefore we, that is, the AtmA is brahman and not something else.  This is the brahmAtmaikya conclusion of all Upanishads. This is also the considered conclusion of Adi Shankara.  This is the Absolute pAramArthika truth that will be clear by the experience of jnAna. We think in our Ignorance, that the false jIva is AtmA and other things are different from it.

 

All this means: Brahman is what exists.  It is the only Reality. It is also the Consciousness that expresses itself. Therefore brahman is AtmA. There is nothing different from it either sentient or not. It has no differences like the seer and the seen. This is the conclusion of advaita.

 

Note that this text-line does not tell you that brahman HAS consciousness. Brahman IS consciousness – that is the teaching. If something has consciousness it means it has consciousness as a quality or qualification. In that case it will be callled buddhi. Actually this is not different from the mind. For mind, to be conscious is not its nature. It is its quality or qualification. Therefore consciousness of the mind is not permanent or stable. In sleep the mind’s consciousness vanishes. The consciousness that is the nature of brahman is not of this kind. It is eternal and unchanging. It is unaffected by time and space. Even when all the universe disappears, even in that primordial state, it exists.

 

That brahman is jnAna-svarUpa is to be known by the teaching that we receive. But it can also be inferred by logic.  Such a logic appears in the first meaning of this text line. We saw therein that it is brahman that is the origin as well as destination of all thoughts of the mind. So brahman is the source of this sentient mind; so this brahman has either sentience or is itself sentience.  If it HAS sentience it is like the mind and so not a reality. Thus it is neither insentient nor an entity which has sentience.  Then what is it?  It IS sentience, consciousness (chit or chaitanyam). This is the conclusion of all Vedanta. Therefore it is called sat-chit.

 

Alternatively we can also argue as follows:

 

It is not correct to say that brahman HAS sentience. Therefore it has to be either insentient or Caitanyam (Sentience, Consciousness) itself.  If you accept it is insentient then it means it is not self-effulgent; for all insentient things show up only by an external intelligence. Then the question arises:  how is  brahman   effulgent, by what intelligence? The opponent would say it is effulgent by an intelligence outside of it.  Now the question is: That caitanyam – is it *sat* (existent) or *asat* (non-existent)? Certainly not non-existent; for a non-existent thing never lights up anything. If you say it is *sat* then it becomes *sat* and *cit* . Thus we have accepted that the same entity can be both *sat* and *cit*. In that case, the earlier mentioned brahman which exists, can as well be also *cit*. This is the easy way out. Thus it turns out that the existent Brahman which is the adhishhTAnam for the universe is self-effulgent, in other words, in order to show it there is no other intelligence necessary.  On the other hand, if we say that this existent thing is not self-effulgent, then in order to show it there must be another cit (intelligence). That also cannot be said to be self-effulgent, by the above logic. Thus another intelligence has to be postulated.  So we have to go on postulating non-self-effulgent intelligences, -- a series of them.  This is then an infinite regress (anavasthA-doshha). Thus the conclusion is the brahman which is the Reality is self-effulgent.

 

Thus it is clear that brahman is by nature Existence as well as Intelligence. That is why it is called *sat-cit*. But this does not exhaust the svarUpa of brahman. Its svarUpa can be understood only by experience not by any other means.

 

So the mind which appears to have sentience is really not so. It is also insentient (jaDa)  like the universe.

 

In fact this brahman is our AtmA.  But then why does it not show up like that for us? Why are we thinking that we are finite beings who suffer all the unhappiness and revolve in this samsAra?  The answer comes in the next portion of the Mangalam first verse.

                             CONTINUED IN 31.1

  • Facebook Clean Grey

© 2017 by V. Krishnamurthy

profvk@yahoo.com