Mandukya Upanishad, Class 59
In these verses, Gowdapadha refutes
dvaida vadhi who is explaining the creation with the law of karma. He
says karma and sareeram are cause and effect. Gowdapadha took six
different options and showed that none of them will work. So, with the
theory of karma, the creation can’t be explained. In Vedanta we only
accept the law of karma temporarily to explain creation and once the person is
ready to accept higher level, we negate this theory.
Having refuted the six options,
Gowdpadha comes to another topic in 22nd verse where he pointed out, not only
the creation of the whole universe can’t be logically explained, but also any
single object’s creation can’t be explained. Any ordinary object in the
world, even the creation of that object can’t be explained. Taking the
pot, you can’t prove the origination of the pot.
- Pot can’t be created out of pot
- Pot can’t be created out of non-pot (any other object)
- Pot can’t be created out of a mixture of pot and non-pot
- An existent pot can’t originate
- A nonexistent pot can’t originate
- A mixture of existent and nonexistent pot can’t
originate.
Whether you take the macro cosmic
creation or the micro cosmic creation, no creation can be proven.
In the 23rd verse, Gowdapadha
considers three more options:
- From beginning-less karma, a body can’t be born because
there is no beginning-less karma - From beginning-less body, a karma can’t be born because
there is no beginning-less sareeram - Without a cause, body and karma can’t be born naturally
born. That which does not have aadhi does not have aadhi; meaning
that which does not have karanam does not have origination.
Causeless origination is not
possible. All the three options are ruled. Ultimately the
conclusion is you can’t logically establish a creation. Therefore, there
is no creation; there is no world. There is only Brahman. The real
meaning of advaidam is kariya karana vilakshanam.
Verse
24
In previous verses Gowdapadha
refuted the Sankya philosophers and dvaida philosophers; both of the philosophers
are asthika philosophers – accepting veda pramanam. Until now Gowdapadha
refuted asthika philosophers; from now on he takes on nasthika philosophers;
these philosophers don’t believe veda pramanam; they accept experience.
- Charuvaka Madham; materialistic
- Jaina madhama; founded by Rishaba Devaha; later revived
by Varthamana Mahaveera and others; jinaha meaning conquering sense
organs. The one who follows this philosophy are called jains - A group of four madhams which are budhism or bowdha
madham originated by Buddha. Lord Ashoka asked the scholars to
compile the Buddhist teaching
Here Gowdabdha takes up on refuting
Buddhism from verse 24 to verse 28. The four branches are:
- Sowthranthika madham: This philosopher says that
there is an external world different from the observer, the subject.
The external world is different from the observer and is real; this real
distinct external world is proved by prathyaksha pramanam; therefore, this
philosophy presented in a nutshell presented as bahya prathyaksha
vadhinaha. - Vaibashika madham: Close to first one and they
also say there is an external world; it exists separate from the observer;
the external world is real; This distinct real external world is proved by
inference or reasoning. This
philosophy presented in a nutshell presented as bahyana anumana vadhinaha - Yogachara madham: There is no independent real
external world at all separate from the subject. Just there is no
real dream world, separate from the observer, individual. This philosopher
can be defined as Bahyartha abava vadhinaha. External is only an
appearance - Madhyamika madham: This is similar to the third
one; they also so there is no external at all; There is no subject
observer also. Sarvartha abava vadhinaha. Soonya vadhinaha.
The first two are called hinayana
bowdha madham and the last two are called mahayana bowdha madham.
Of the four, the third on yogachara
madham is closer to vedanta. He also says that there is a subject which
is real, the object is unreal. We also say the subject, the observer is
also real. This subject is the observer the consciousness principle or
vigyana swaroopam; we advantin also say that the subject, the observer is
consciousness principle.
Similarities between yogachara and vedantins:
Both say world is mithya; observer alone is sathyam; sathyam the observer is
chaithanyam;
The difference is yogachara syas
that the consciousness is the temporary one having a fleeting existence and
this consciousness comes and goes as a flow. For him the subject is not a
single eternal consciousness, the subject is a flow of temporary consciousness;
In advaidam there is no flow of consciousness, but it is one and eternal.
Gowdapdha will talk about the
similarities and thereafter he will discuss the differences. First, he
joins yogachara madham to refute the first two; later on, he refutes yogachara
madham.
The first two, heenayana madham, are
refuted by yogachara madham. 24th verse is the presentation of heenayana madham
which consists of 1 and 2 or sowthranthika and vaibashika madham.
Every experience or knowledge we get,
should have a corresponding external object. In the absence of external
object, you can’t have variety of experiences. In dream, you don’t have
varieties of knowledge. In waking you do have varieties of
knowledge. Every knowledge, therefore, presupposes an external
world. Every knowledge proves an existence of external object.
Every cognition is associated with corresponding, relevant external object.
Different knowledge is not possible without external objects. If you
don’t accept plurality of external objects, you can’t explain plurality of our
experiences.
Second reasoning he gives, that we
have varieties of emotions like pleasure, pain etc. If I should have
these emotions, every one of them must be caused by some external
objects. If the body feels heat that heat experience must have been
caused by some external cause. Therefore, external world is there, it is
different from me and it is real.