मूलाविद्यानिरास:
Mulavidya Nirasa
प्रथम: खण्ड:
(विषयावतरणम्)
First Chapter
(Introducing the subject-matter)
अवस्थारहितं मूढै: त्र्यवस्थमिति कल्पितम् ।
आस्तां पुरस्तात् तत्तेजो मूलाविद्यानिरासकृत् ॥
The light which in itself is free from any state is wrongly imagined by the ignorant to be undergoing (experiencing) three states. May that light, which (successfully) refutes the root-ignorance, stand in front of me (in order to guide me).
पीठिका Prelude
१. वेदान्तप्रक्रियासूचनम् - निर्विशेषानवच्छिन्न-शुद्धचैतन्य-स्वरूपे सर्वात्मनि मिथ्याभूतस्य
अनात्मन: संसर्गम् आरोप्यमाणमबुधैः अपोद्य, वस्तुस्वरूपस्य निर्विचिकित्सं निश्चयार्थं
निखिलनिगमारम्भ:-- इति भगवता भाष्यकारेण सोपपत्तिकं प्रस्थानत्रयेऽपि प्रदर्शितम् ।।
1. A hint at the Vedantic method
The limitless self is free from any distinctions and is of the nature of consciousness through and through. Upon this (pure) self, the ignorant superimpose the non-self born of misconception. The aim of all the Upanishads is to clearly ascertain the nature of Reality by sublating this super-imposition. This is expounded by Āchārya Śankara in his commentary on trio.
a) तत्र सर्वेऽपि वेदान्ता जाग्रद्व्यवहारे विषयविषयि-विभागमादाय आत्मानं विविञ्चन्ति ।
The Upanishads take the subject-object duality found in the waking state and discriminate the Atman from its object, the non-self.
b) झटित्यवगतमिथ्याभावे स्वप्ने पुनः तस्यैवात्मन: स्वयंज्योतिष्ट्वं प्रतिपादयन्ति ।
First, during the dream state which is easily understood to be false, the same Atman is pointed out by the Upanishads to be self-shining.
c) जाग्रत्-स्वप्न-प्रपञ्चयो: सर्वसमतासूचनेन च विषयमिथ्यात्वं प्रतिष्ठापयन्ति ।
Thereafter showing the all round similarity of (waking) the world with that of dream, they prove falsity of the waking world also.
d) अथापि विषयसाहचर्यं नैवात्मा विजहाति इत्यत: सविशेषो विषयावच्छिन्न एव – इति
कांश्चिन् मन्दमतीन् प्रतिभायात् । तन्निराकरणाय सर्व-विषयमलवर्जितां सुषुप्तिमुपन्यस्य
आत्मनो निस्सङ्गत्वं दृढीकुर्वन्ति; –
Nevertheless, a slow witted person might possibly think that the Ātman is still not free from its relationship, with the objects and therefore is verily distinct and bound to the objects. Hence, in order to remove this misunderstanding of him, the Upanishads appeal to the deep-sleep that is free from the (defilement) impurity of any foreign relatedness and ascertain the un-involvedness of the Ātman.
–- इत्येवम् अवस्थात्रितय-परीक्षणेन कृतार्थयन्ति जिज्ञासून् आत्मतत्त्वाऽवेदनेन ॥
Thus, through an examination of the three states, the Upanishads fulfil the seeker’s life by revealing the truth of oneself.
२. प्रकरणविषयादि -
एषैव प्रक्रिया वेदान्ताभियुक्तैरादृता, निर्दुष्टा च – इति स्पष्टमेव सूक्ष्ममतीनाम् ।
2. The subject matter etc., of the work
The intelligent know well that the same method is adopted by the Vedantic adepts (to reach their disciples) and is flawless.
अथ स्याद् -- उच्छेदात् संप्रदायाध्वनोऽस्य, अद्वैतस्य निस्संशयं तत्त्वं निश्चेतुमशक्नुवानै:,
स्वयमजानद्भिरेव द्वैतिपरिणतैः, अद्वैताचार्यंमन्यै: कैश्चिद् अन्यथान्यथा प्रतिपाद्यमानेन
प्रक्रियाभासेन मोमुह्यमानो दरीदृश्यते अद्यतन-जिज्ञासुगणः,
It is probably due to a break in the succession of the tradition that some people who fail to ascertain clearly the truth (of non-duality) have unconsciously slipped down to the state of Dualists, yet consider themselves to be non-dualist teachers. When such teachers are presenting only a semblance of the Vedantic method that too in various ways, the seekers of today are seen to be confused with such a teaching.
– इत्यतो भाष्यत्रये तत्र तत्र प्रकीर्णान् विचारान् एकत्र पुञ्जीकृत्य, द्वैतवासना-
दूषितान्त:करणै: प्रोच्यमानविषयाणां सारासार-विवेचन-पूर्वकं वेदान्तार्थ-
प्रक्रियातत्त्व-निर्धारणार्थम् इदं प्रकरणं प्रस्तूयते ॥
Therefore, by unraveling with a critical analysis, how true or false are the various ideas in the teaching of such of those who are contaminated with duality, I attempt here to determine the true method of Vedanta by culling Śankarāchārya’s ideas scattered in the various places in his three sets of commentaries.
जिज्ञासुप्रतिपत्ति:
The belief of the Seeker
३. सुषुप्तिकालेऽपि प्रपञ्चोऽस्ति - अत्र भवति जिज्ञासो: प्रतिपत्ति: -- यद्यपि जाग्रति विद्यमानं
विषयजातं स्वप्ने नोपलभ्यते, सुषुप्तौ च सर्वविधविषयाननुभूति: सकलजनसाधारणी,
तथापि नैतावता निष्प्रपञ्चत्वमात्मन: सेद्धुमर्हति ।
3. The world exists even in deep sleep also :-
An ordinary person who is still a seeker thinks like this – It is obvious that the waking set of objects is not found in dream. It is common that no object whatsoever is ever experienced by anybody in the sleep, yet this does not prove that the Ātman is free from the world;
तथाहि - सुप्तोत्थिता: सर्वेऽपि यथापूर्वमेव प्रपञ्चमुपलभन्ते जाग्रति । न कश्चिदपि संशेते
- इदमेव वा स्यान् मदीयं गृहं यस्मिन्नहं ह्यो रात्रौ सुष्वाप, किमन्यदेव वा ? - इति ।
because everyone experiences, on waking, the same world as before. Nobody ever doubts like this – Is it the same house of me where in I slept last night or some other?
व्यवहारे च अन्यै: सह न कदापि विसंवादो भवति कस्यचिदपि सुप्तिपूर्वतनजाग्रति
अनुभूतस्य विषयस्य तादवस्थ्यविषये ।
No person experiences any dis-agreement (or variance) with others in identifying the things of previous waking.
सुषुप्तिं गते हि सति एकस्मिन् पुरुषे, न सर्वेऽपि प्रसुप्ता भवन्तीति न तदानीं
जगद्विच्छित्ति: स्यात् ।
When one person sleeps all others do not go to sleep, hence the world (continues to exist and) does not cease.
अपि च, यदि सुषुप्तौ सर्वोऽप्ययं प्रपञ्च: समुच्छिद्येत अत्यन्तमेव, कथमिदमुपपद्येत
यज्जागरिते नियतं प्रपञ्चोपलम्भनमिति ?
If the world were to dissolve, for good, in sleep, how would we come to experience inevitably the same world on waking?
न हि - प्रतिजागरम् अभूतपूर्वमेव जगत् प्रत्यग्रमुत्पद्यते - इति शक्यतेऽभ्युपगन्तुं,
सकलप्रमाणविरोधेन अभावादपि भावोत्पत्ति: स्वीकृता मा भूदिति । न चैतदुचितं
तदेवेदमिति निश्चित-तद्भावावगमकस्य प्रत्यभिज्ञानस्य उपेक्ष्यत्वाऽपादनम्, असति
बाधके ।
One cannot hold that an altogether new and fresh world arises with every waking; because that amounts to accepting, contrary to all pramānās (evidences) that something comes out of nothing. And it is not proper to deny the definite experience of the sameness (i.e. pratya-bhijña), in the absence of any contradicting (or disproving) evidence.
तस्माद् न्यायपरिशुद्धा न भाति सुषुप्ते प्रपञ्चो न विद्यते इत्युक्ति:॥
Hence, it does not sound reasonable to maintain that the world does not exist in sleep.
४. जाग्रत्-स्वप्नयो: प्रपञ्चो दृश्यते -- नापि स्वप्ने प्रपञ्चस्याभाव:; दृश्यते हि य: कोऽपि
प्रपञ्चाभासः तत्रापि ।
4. The world (obviously exists during waking and dream:- Nor is it true that no world (whatsoever) exists in dream, because there too appears obviously something resembling the world.
न च वाच्यं - जागरितेऽपि प्रपञ्चाभास एव; न त्वस्ति पारमार्थिक: प्रपञ्च:, मानाभावात्;
तथा च न भ्रान्तिसिद्धेन प्रपञ्चेन सद्वितीयत्वमात्मन – इति ।
Objection of the Vedantin: Even in waking, it is only a seeming world. You cannot call it a real one because there is no means of knowledge whatsoever to prove it to be so. And thus, the Ātman cannot become dual(istic) with a world that is appearing erroneously.
जागरितं स्वप्नतुल्यमिति प्रतिज्ञामात्रेण हि न सर्वजनानुभवसिद्धं तयोर्वैषम्यम् अपह्नोतुं
शक्यते । जाग्रति विद्यमानौ देशकालनिमित्त-सम्पत्तिः, अबाधश्च - इत्येतौ
जाग्रदवस्थाया: स्वप्नतो वैलक्षण्यं स्फुटं गमयत: ।
Reply of the seeker: You cannot say this because merely by an assertion such as “waking is similar to dream”; it is not possible to negate the universally acknowledged (or experienced) dissimilarity (unlikeness) between them. The characteristic features of waking such as
a. presence of sufficient space, time and cause for the objects to exist really and
b. not being sublated.
These two go to prove clearly how the waking is distinct from the dream.
अपि च, निरिन्द्रियस्थाने अवस्थितान्त:करणे दोषसंस्कार-निमित्तज-प्रत्ययप्रवाह एव
स्वप्नः, तदन्यद् जागरणम् - इति तयोर्लक्षणभेदोऽपि सुप्रतिपद: ।
Besides, they have contrasting features, such as, dream is a flow (or a series of projections of a mind which is detached from the senses and impelled by haphazard impressions. Whereas the waking is not so.
तथा हि श्रुति: - ’न तत्र रथाः’ (बृ. ४-३-१०) इत्यादि: स्वप्नस्य मिथ्यात्वप्रतिपादिका ।
Here is a Śruti that speaks of unreality of dream,
“(In dream) there are neither chariots, nor horses, nor the roads; but it is the dreamer (alone) who projects (or imagines) (all of) them (chariots, horses and roads).” (Br.U.4-3-10)
स्मृतिश्च -
"इन्द्रियाणामुपरमे, मनोऽनुपरतं यदि । सेवते विषयानेव, तद्विद्यात् स्वप्नदर्शनम् ॥"
(मो.ध. २७५-२४) इति ।
Even a following smruti says the same,
“When the senses retire but the mind, being active, it experiences the objects, that state would be known as dream”.
(Mo. Dha. Par.275-24)
न च क्वचिदपि एवं शास्त्रेषु जागरितस्यापि मिथ्यात्वं प्रतिपादितमुपलभ्यते, नाप्यनुभूयते,
येन भवेदपि तस्य स्वप्नतुल्यत्वम् ।
But nowhere in the scriptures does one find waking as taught to be unreal as is taught in case of dream; nor is it ever experienced as such, whereby the waking could be held to be similar to dream.
अथवा पुनरस्तु -- जाग्रत्स्वप्नयोः भेदकलक्षणे न स्त एव – इति । तथापि
अनुभवारुढत्वादेव सुखदु:खभेदवत् तयोर्भेद: केन वार्यते ?
Even if a person ignores their distinguishing (or peculiar) character, how can he deny the contrast experienced between them as clearly as between pain and pleasure?
तस्माद् वैलक्षण्यात् स्वप्नजागरितयोः, न स्वप्न-साम्याद् जागरितेऽपि प्रपञ्चाभास:
शक्यानुमान: ; मा भूत् तुहिन-साधर्म्याद् दहनोऽपि तद्धर्मा इति ।
Therefore, merely by comparing with dream, waking world cannot be inferred to be unreal because a person would not infer fire to be cold by comparing it with ice.
तस्मात् स्वप्ने प्रपञ्चाभास:, प्रबोधे तु तथ्य एव प्रपञ्च: प्रतीयते - इत्यभ्युपगन्तव्यम्
Hence, we have accepted a semblance of world in dream and an experience of real world in the waking.
ततश्च सिद्धं सप्रपञ्चत्वमात्मन: स्वप्ने, निर्विवादमेव च जागरिते ॥
Therefore a final conclusion is that the Ātman is found to be with the world in dream and indisputably so in the world.1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1In dream, there is no sufficient space for the things
like elephant or a mountain, yet we see them.
Similarly, there is no sufficient time to really go to a distance
place and come back, yet we go and come back.
