Mandukya Upanishd, Class 60
Suppose I want to become chess
champion in the world, I only have to defeat the number one person.
Similarly, among various ashtika dharsahanams, which accept creation, the most
prominent one is the Sankya philosophy and by refuting Sankya philosophy, then
we would have refuted all asthika philosophers.
From verse 24 to 28, Gowdapadha
refutes all nasthiaka dharshanam, mainly bowdha madham or Buddhism.
- Buddhism has four branches. 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.
Of these four, the first two are
refuted by the third one. The first two accept that there is a real
creation separate from the observer. Third, yogachara, refutes both of
them and establishes that there is no observed world separate from the
observer. Since he negates the matter, the external world, and
establishes that the observer consciousness alone is real, yogachara is very
close to advaidham. With regard to negation of the world, advaidam and
yogachara are same and call the world as mithya. Both also say
consciousness alone is Sathyam and agree on refuting external world.
Refuting yogachara comes in verse 28.
24th verse presents the first two
branches of Buddhism and assert that there is an external world.
First argument is if there is a
variety of experiences, then there must be variety of objects outside.
Internal variety proves external plurality. If external plurality is
dismissed, you will not be able to explain the plurality of experiences.
To explain internal plurality, you must accept external world. Every
experience must have a corresponding external object.
The second argument is that if there
is a pain feeling there must be an external object which causes the pain; same
thing is true for pleasure also. This also proves an external
world. So, one has to accept the existence of an external world accepted
by heenayana madham and all other systems of dwaida philosophies – philosophies
accepting real world.
In the next three verses heenayana
is refuted by yogachara; it should be taken as refutation by Gowdapadha.
Verse 25
Superficially looking, what heenyana
is saying is correct. Because every cognition, every experience and every
knowledge must have a corresponding object. But when I look into the
detail, I find the external object disappears. For example, bangle, chain
and ring. We have three different words, corresponding to that plurality
of thoughts. With each word, the understanding of object is
different. There is plurality of words, cognition and there must be
plurality of object. There is a bangle, there is a chain and there is a
ring. There are three different words; three different knowledge and
three different objects. But those three objects, really speaking, are
non existent. There is no substance called bangle or chain or ring.
There is only one substance called gold. There are no three
substance. Bangle, chain and ring are three words for which there are no corresponding
substance at all. There is only one word with a corresponding
substance: gold. What is the meaning of using different words when
there is no substance? When you negate substance, bangle, chain and ring
and then you negate the corresponding words. Padhams and padhartham are
both mithya. As you keep probing deepder and deeper, all the padhams and all the
padharthas will go away; only adhistanam will remain – the observer, the
consciousness.
If you inquire into reality, is
there a thing called bangle? The so-called external substance will become
non substantial. Bangle does not have any weight. The weight
belongs only to gold. Bangle is only a word. Similarly, world is
only a word. There is no such thing called world other than the observer.
Another example is dream experience. For every dream experience, the dreamer sees
a corresponding an external object. After waking up, we find that there
is no external object. Experience disappears, experienced objects
disappear when you wake up. Similarly, the corresponding worldly objects
also disappear.
Verse 26
There is no external matter at
all. There is only consciousness which does not experience any external
objects at all. Because there is no object for the consciousness to
contact. The consciousness does not contact any real object because there
are no real objects. Similar to not contacting an elephant in dream
because there is no elephant. Can we say that consciousness contacts an
unreal object? Consciousness does not contact with an unreal object also
because an unreal object does not exist separate from consciousness. If
there is no unreal object separately, how can it contact? Contact
requires a separate object. For example, gold does not contact unreal
bangle because there is no unreal bangle separate from gold. If gold has
to touch the bangle, there must be two things – gold and bangle. Gold and
bangle are only two names for only one substance. Then where is the
question of contacting each other. Matter is not a substance; it is a
name given to consciousness. Matter and consciousness are only two names
for one and the same absolute realty. One who understood gold, calls it
gold; one who misses the gold, calls it bangle. Two different people call
it by two different names; but the substance is only one. From wise
person’s angle chaithanyam is called the truth; from an ignorant person it is called
world. There is no object separate from consciousness; a real object is nonexistent;
an apparent object does not exist separate from consciousness. There is
no mithya padharthaha separate from sathyam. Only when there are two independent
things contact is possible.
Verse 27
Consciousness does not come in
contact with any object at all in all the three periods of time – in the past,
present or future. You do not come in contact with the dream elephant
before dream, after dream or even during dream. Because there is no
elephant even during dream because the elephant is only in your mind and it is
only a feeling and feelings are not facts. The question is (this question
is not in the sloka, but the answer is in the sloka) if you don’t accept an
external world, how do you differentiate right knowledge and wrong
knowledge/error. Normally, we do use the expression right knowledge or
wrong knowledge or error. Rope knowledge is right knowledge; snake
knowledge is error. How do you say which is right knowledge and which is
wrong knowledge? You differentiate what is right and what is wrong based on
outside object. When the object and knowledge is in concurrence, then it
is right knowledge. When the knowledge I have and the object do not
concur, then it is wrong knowledge or error. When the perception and
object tally, it is right knowledge. When they do not, it is wrong
knowledge. That means you need an external object to tally. But if
you don’t accept an external object at all, then you can’t explain an
error. The question is how do you explain an error? The yogachara
says I do not accept right knowledge or wrong knowledge; there is no right/wrong
division at all. In dream rope perception or snake perception is
correct? There is no question of rope perception being correct or snake
perception being correct because they both are projection; there is no snake
outside. How can you talk about error when there is no object at all
outside? There is no question of explaining the error. Since there
is no external object and there is no question of explaining an error.