10 Apr 2022
Jump to other chapters in BRAHMAJṆĀNAM (The Knowledge of God)
1. Tadeka masṛja ccedaṃ, nohyaṃ śaktyā hi nohyayā |
Nohyānā mekataḥ śaktiḥ, Parabrahmaiva kevalam ||
[The unimaginable God created this world from nothing and without the help of any second thing. Immediately, we think that the unimaginable God must have created this world with His unimaginable power. Since the power is also unimaginable, we cannot distinguish the boundaries of the possessor of power or unimaginable God and the unimaginable power, and we have to forcibly agree that the only one unimaginable God called as unimaginable power itself exists since any number of undistinguishable unimaginable items result as one unimaginable item only.]
2. Śaktiśaktimatorūhye, samaikyā da pṛthak kṛtāt |
Nohyāvyāpti rapi grāhyā, samaikyā deka bodhagāt ||
[Even in imaginable items, the possessor of power and power are distinguishable and different as in the case of sun and sunlight. But both are inseparable and this brings indirect monism of the two items. Anyway, this principle of indirect monism is also limited to imaginable items only and does not apply to unimaginable items. Somehow, there is a tradition of explaining the concepts of unimaginable items in terms of the explanation of imaginable items compared, which is for a better convenience of understanding by the imaginable human beings. Even in that way, we can say that the possessor of power and power are one only due to their inseparable union.]
3. Anūhyohya dṛśo raikyaṃ, Śaktiśaktimator bhavet |
Dhātvarthānyārthayo ssāmyaṃ, citraṃ nāstyapi yaddhi sat ||
[This unimaginable power of unimaginable God is called Māyā. There is unnecessary quarrel between Vedāntins following Parabrahman or unimaginable God and Śākteyas following Māyāśakti or unimaginable power because both are one and the same either through the view of unimaginable items or the view of imaginable items. The word Māyā comes from the root word ‘Maya’, which means ‘wonderful’ (Maya - Vaicitrye). Some say that this word means that which does not exist really by itself, even though, it appears as if real (Yā mā sā Māyā). Even this type of meaning correlates with the first said meaning because if something that does not exist really by itself but appears as reality, such a thing is also wonderful.]
4. Nāmadvayamekavastu, tayorna hetu kāryayoḥ |
Draṣṭṛdṛśyavibhedo'stu, tāvarthau sadasattayā ||
[There is no difference between Parabrahman and Māyāśakti because one single item itself is called as unimaginable God or unimaginable power. When it is unimaginable, you cannot bring a distinction between the possessor of power and power in that one single unimaginable item. For the same one item, two different names are used and the quarrel is between the two names and not between the two items. However, one must be very careful in this topic because we have told that Parabrahman and Māyāśakti are one and the same. We have not told that the created world or product and the creator-cause or Parabrahman/ Māyāśakti are one and the same. If both are one and the same, where is the difference between the entertained subjective God/ Śakti and the entertaining objective world? When these two different items come into picture, the subjective God/ Śakti stands in the first type of meaning (wonderful) and the objective world stands in the second type of meaning (unreal by itself appearing as real). Since God is unimaginable, He is wonderful. Since world is created from nothing and without the help of any second thing, the world is unreal by itself appearing as reality. In the first type of meaning, God/ Śakti is the absolute reality and in the second type of meaning, world is a relative reality.]
5. Māyā hetu ravidyedaṃ, kāryaṃ dvaitā nna jānate |
Jīvo mithyāṃ vinodārthāṃ, tasya tatsat satīṃ bhramāt ||
[If you take Parabrahman as Māyāśakti only, the cause is Māyā and the effect or product or created world is Avidyā. Avidyā means the ignorance of causal reality or Māyā (hidden rope) and the appearance of the unreal effect or creation called Avidyā (exposed serpent). This is real ignorance for the soul since it can never know the cause so that the effect never disappears. For God, the effect is becoming real due to the grace of God (Who gives His absolute reality to the effect) for the sake of His entertainment and actually, the effect can be also realized by God in its original sense of unreality. Dualism exists between Parabrahman and creation, whereas, monism exists between Parabrahman and Māyā.]
6. Prakṛtiḥ Puruṣo dvyarthau, kāryakāraṇatobhaye |
Dvaitabheda stayo rnohyā, māyohyaṃ racitaṃ jagat ||
[People have confused Māyā for Prakṛti or Avidyā. If Parabrahman is taken in the place of Māyā, Parabrahman is the cause (Kāraṇabrahma) and His creation is the product (Kāryabrahma) as per the school of Vedānta. If Māyā is taken as the cause (Kāraṇaśakti) and Her creation as the product (Kāryaśakti), it will be the school of Śākteya. In both schools, there is distinction and difference between cause and effect. In both schools, the cause is unimaginable and the effect or product is imaginable. The word Prakṛti can also be used in the senses of both cause and effect because Prakṛti is cause (prakṛṣṭaṃ kriyate anayā iti prakṛtiḥ and prakṛtirmūlakāraṇe) as well as the effect or product (prakṛṣṭā kṛtiḥ kāryamiti vā). Puruṣa also stands for both cause and effect. Puruṣa means Parabrahman lying in the incarnation as the ultimate cause (puri śete iti). Puruṣa taken as awareness lying in a living body becomes the part of the creation or effect since awareness is told as the part of creation in the name of Parāprakṛti. Therefore, the usage of any word in a specific context, must be clearly explained without assuming some fixed meaning.]
7. Na trayaṃ dvayamevāsti, hetu kārye na tūhyatām |
Hetuḥ kriyā ca kāryohya-tarkābhāvāt kvaci dgataḥ ||
[You shall not say that both Parabrahman and Māyā are separate entities and then say that Parabrahman created this world through His power called Māyā. You have to take both Parabrahman and Māyā as one item only so that the created world came from Parabrahman, Who is also called as Māyā. All our knowledge about cause and effect is completely based on an imaginable cause like mud producing an imaginable effect like pot. Both the cause and effect are imaginable and hence, the process of production of the pot is also imaginable. Here, such logic of imaginable items can’t be applied since cause or Māyā is unimaginable and the effect or the world is imaginable. There is no such example in the world because except the cause or Māyā, no item in the world is unimaginable. There is no similar example in the world for the generation of imaginable effect from unimaginable cause. The worldly logic totally fails in the case of Māyā generating the world. The property of cause enters the effect as per the force of logic between cause and effect. Here, the cause does not enter the effect by any logical rule, but, enters here and there as incarnations with full freedom. Hence, not only is the cause unimaginable, but also, the process of generation of the effect from the cause is also unimaginable. Only the effect is imaginable. If you neglect the background of a magic show, it can be compared to Māyā (Parabrahman) creating this world. The non-understandable nature lies in the magician only and this is expressed in the magic show. The miracles appear in the case of a very rare case like incarnation only and not everywhere in the world like the black colour of the mud appearing everywhere in the pot.]
8. Śakti sāmyā nnaika tattvam, nohyaikā jaḍajaṃ jagat |
Liṅgadūraṃ samau naitā, vindra jālendra jālikau ||
[The word power is common in both Māyā as well as this world that is modified from inert energy. By this commonality, people confuse the common nature between the cause and effect. This is another misunderstanding because the power of omnipotence of unimaginable Māyā (Parabrahman) and the power of inert energy modified as the entire creation look as one and the same. This is not correct because the cause is unimaginable and the effect is imaginable. The magician and the magic show have no similarities. There is only one magician performing this magic show and the magician may be male (Parabrahman) or female. Such distinction is purely immaterial.]
9. Parabrahma mahiṣyeṣā, dvaita bhaktā parātparā |
Mūkāṃbayā preritassan, stutiṃ cakre sa Śaṅkaraḥ ||
[Śaṅkara always took the world in the sense of relative reality, which is unreal by itself without Parabrahman. The word Māyā was confined to the world only in the second type of sense of the word Māyā (yā mā – non-existent) and the absolute reality was confined to Parabrahman only. Even if it is told that Parabrahman created this world through Māyā, Māyā will stand as the power of Parabrahman only and will not go to the side of the creation! Parabrahman or Īśvara is told as Māyī and this also proves that Māyā is always related to Parabrahman only and not to the world (Māyinaṃ tu Maheśvaram - Veda). The word Māyā, in the sense of wonder, can be applied to the world also since this world is also wonderful though not in the level of wonder of Parabrahman. When God said in the Gītā that no soul can cross His Māyā without His grace, we can say here also that the world is a strong illusion (in the second type of the sense of Māyā), which cannot be crossed by the soul since soul itself is part and parcel of the creation. The sense of Māyā as wonder of the creation cannot be significant before the climax wonder of unimaginable God and therefore, it is always better to limit Māyā to God only. Śaṅkara defined the relative reality or Mithyā as neither existent nor non-existent in defining the relative reality and never said Māyā as Mithyā. If Māyā is taken as alternative word for Parabrahman, Śaṅkara would not have told that Māyā as relative reality, but would have told Māyā as the absolute reality. This confusion was very popular because Māyā was told as prakṛti (Māyāṃ tu prakṛtiṃ… - Veda) and prakṛti was fixed as world only. Śaṅkara followed this general sense. But, prakṛti can mean Parabrahman since here, prakṛti is in the sense of the root cause of the world. Due to this, Māyā is always confined to the word ‘Parabrahman’, even though, Māyā is told as prakṛti. To remove this confusion, Śaṅkara was advised by Goddess Mūkāṃbikā to say that Māyā śakti exists as absolute reality. Accordingly, Śaṅkara started Saundaryalaharī and the first verse says that “without Śakti, God Śiva (Himself) is unable even to move” (Śiva śśaktyā yuktaḥ…). Here, the word Śakti means Māyā Śakti, Who is the Parabrahman Himself and Shiva stands for Datta, the first energetic incarnation. This means that Datta can’t exist without Parabrahman. In order to remove this confusion in future, He termed this Māyā Śakti as Mahāmāyā (Mahāmāyā viśvaṃ bhramayasi…). In this verse, He addressed Mahāmāyā as the queen of Parabrahman (Parabrahma mahiṣī). He also told that Mahāmāyā is the unimaginable power with infinite potency and hence, we can take Her as Parabrahman directly (Turīyā kāpi tvaṃ duradhigama nissīma mahimā). Here, the word ‘turīyā’ is used, which is always used for Parabrahman. By this, He maintained Parabrahman as the possessor of the power and Mahāmāyā as the power of Parabrahman. By this, the general thinking was also followed.]
[The story is that Śaṅkara went to have the vision of Mūkāṃbikā, where He fell down without any strength. Goddess Mūkāṃbikā appeared and asked for the reason for such condition of Śaṅkara. Śaṅkara replied that there was no power in Him to stand. Then the Goddess told Him that Śaṅkara shall accept the existence of the super most power called Māyā Śakti or Mahāmāyā. Realizing the whole confusion, Śaṅkara praised Mahāmāyā as the ultimate power while simultaneously stating that She is the queen of Parabrahman controlling the King through the strength of love. In dualism, the devotee becomes the master of God as seen in the case of Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa.]
10. Advaitaṃ prāk ca dvaitaṃ prāk, paraṃ dvaitaṃ viśiṣṭatā |
Apṛthak dvaita manyacca, tatrāsya sevayā parā ||
[The unimaginable power and unimaginable God are one and the same because any number of unimaginable items result in one unimaginable item only and this resembles the monism of Śaṅkara. Coming to Datta and His power, called Anaghā, that is inseparable from Him, though different, resembles the philosophy of Rāmānuja, which can be also applied to Brahmā and Sarasvatī, Viṣṇu and Lakṣmī and Śiva and Parvatī. In all these examples, mediation of unimaginable God exsits. These are examples of Saguṇa Brahman or phase of imaginable items as media. In all these examples, the dualism of Madhva also applies because it is separable dualism between possessor of power and power. In such perfect dualism, God becomes the servant of devotee and hence, superiority of Śakti is maintained (Girāmahurdevīṃ… – Śaṅkara).]
Chapter-1: Matāntarīkaraṇa Prakaraṇam
Chapter-2: Parabrahma Prakaraṇam
Chapter-3: Māyā Śakti Prakaraṇam
Chapter-6: Ākāśa Tejaḥ Prakaraṇam
Chapter-8: Sṛṣṭilakṣya Prakaraṇam
Chapter-9: Jagat Sṛṣṭi Prakaraṇam
Chapter-10: Jīvātma Tattva Prakaraṇam
Chapter-11: Matasamanvaya Prakaraṇam
Chapter-12: Yoga Vicāra Prakaraṇam
Chapter-13: Mokṣa Vimarśa Prakaraṇam
Chapter-14: Jñāna Yoga Prakaraṇam
Chapter-15: Bhakti Yoga Prakaraṇam
Chapter-16: Karma Yoga Prakaraṇam
Chapter-17: Pravṛtti Nivṛtti Prakaraṇam
Chapter-18: Dharmādharma Prakaraṇam
Chapter-19: Varṇa Vyavasthā Prakaraṇam
Chapter-20: Upanayana Gayatrī Prakaraṇam
Chapter-21: Yajñahoma Prakaraṇam
Chapter-22: Upadeśa Prakaraṇam
★ ★ ★ ★ ★