Get Even More Visitors To Your Blog, Upgrade To A Business Listing >>

Brhadaranyaka 1.4.7: Anupravesha Shruti and Pravesha Bhashyam of Shankara

With this Upanishad has discussed the entire vykata prapancha the manifest Universe. All the divisions of sadhana sadhyam etc are possible only in the manifest universe. In unmanifest universe there is no divisions at all. it is nirvikalpaka rupam. There is no means nor ends there. Now from next mantra 7 the teaching enters into avyakta prapancha or avyakrta prapancha. 
taddhedaṃ tarhyavyākṛtamāsīt,

Verse 1.4.7:
तद्धेदं तर्ह्यव्याकृतमासीत्, तन्नामरूपाभ्यामेव व्याक्रियत, असौनामायमिदंरूप इति; तदिदमप्येतर्हि नामरूपाभ्यामेव व्याक्रियते, असौनामायमिदंरूप इति; स एष इह प्रविष्ट आ नखाग्रेभ्यः, यथा क्षुरः क्षुरधानेऽवहितः स्यात्, विश्वम्भरो वा विश्वम्भरकुलाये; तं न पश्यन्ति । अकृत्स्नो हि सः, प्राणन्नेव प्राणो नाम भवति, वदन् वाक्, पश्यंश्चक्षुः, शृण्वन् श्रोत्रम्, मन्वानो मनः; तान्यस्यैतानि कर्मनामान्येव । स योऽत एकैकमुपास्ते न स वेद, अकृत्स्नो ह्येषोऽत एकैकेन भवति; आत्मेत्येवोपासीत, अत्र ह्येते सर्व एकम् भवन्ति । तदेतत्पदनीयमस्य सर्वस्य यदयमात्मा, अनेन ह्येतत्सर्वं वेद । यथा ह वै पदेनानुविन्देदेवम्; कीर्तिं श्लोकं विन्दते य एवं वेद ॥ ७ ॥
taddhedaṃ tarhyavyākṛtamāsīt, tannāmarūpābhyāmeva vyākriyata, asaunāmāyamidaṃrūpa iti; tadidamapyetarhi nāmarūpābhyāmeva vyākriyate, asaunāmāyamidaṃrūpa iti; sa eṣa iha praviṣṭa ā nakhāgrebhyaḥ, yathā kṣuraḥ kṣuradhāne'vahitaḥ syāt, viśvambharo vā viśvambharakulāye; taṃ na paśyanti | akṛtsno hi saḥ, prāṇanneva prāṇo nāma bhavati, vadan vāk, paśyaṃścakṣuḥ, śṛṇvan śrotram, manvāno manaḥ; tānyasyaitāni karmanāmānyeva | sa yo'ta ekaikamupāste na sa veda, akṛtsno hyeṣo'ta ekaikena bhavati; ātmetyevopāsīta, atra hyete sarva ekam bhavanti | tadetatpadanīyamasya sarvasya yadayamātmā, anena hyetatsarvaṃ veda | yathā ha vai padenānuvindedevam; kīrtiṃ ślokaṃ vindate ya evaṃ veda || 7 ||
7. [Page 110] This (universe) was then undifferentiated. It differentiated only into name and form—it was called such and such, and was of such and such form. So to this day it is differentiated only into name and form—it is called such and such, and is of such and such form. This Self has Entered into these bodies up to the tip of the nails—as a razor may be put in its case, or as fire, which sustains the world, may be in its source. People do not see It, for (viewed in Its aspects) It is incomplete. When It does the function of living, It is called the vital force; when It speaks, the organ of speech; when It sees, the eye; [Page 111]when It hears, the ear; and when It thinks, the mind. These are merely Its names according to functions. He who meditates upon each of this totality of aspects does not know, for It is incomplete, (being divided) from this totality by possessing a single characteristic. The Self alone is to be meditated upon, for all these are unified in It. Of all these, this Self alone should be realised, for one knows all these through It, just as one may get (an animal) through its footprints. He who knows It as such obtains fame and association (with his relatives).
All Vedic means consisting of meditation and rites, which depend on several factors such as the agent and culminate in identity with Hiraṇyagarbha, a result achieved through effort, are but co-extensive with this manifested, relative universe. Now the Śruti wishes to indicate the causal state of this manifested universe consisting of means and ends, the state which existed before its manifestation, as the existence of a tree in a seed-form is inferred from its effects such as the sprout, in order that the tree of relative existence, which has one’s actions as its seed and ignorance as the field where it grows, may be pulled up together with its roots. For in the uprooting of it lies the perfection of human achievement. As it has been said in the Upaniṣad as well as the Gītā, ‘With its roots above (i.e. the Undifferentiated) and branches below (Hiraṇyagarbha etc.)’ (Ka. VI. i; G. XV. i). And in the Purāṇa also, ‘The eternal tree of Brahman’ [Page 112] (Mbh. XIV. xlvii. 14; Śi. V. i. 10, 76). This was then: ‘Tat’ (that) refers to the seed-form of the universe before its manifestation. Being remote, it is indicated by a pronoun denoting an object not directly perceived, for the universe that was to emanate from the Undifferentiated is related to past time. The particle ‘ha’ denoting tradition is used to make the meaning easily understood. When it is said, ‘It was then like this,’ one easily comprehends the causal state of the universe, although it is not an object of perception, just as when it is said, ‘There was a king named Yudhiṣṭhira.’ ‘This’ refers to the universe differentiated into name and form, consisting of means and ends, as described above. The co-ordination of the two words ‘that’ and ‘this,’ denoting respectively the remote and present states of the universe, indicates an identity of the universe in these two states, meaning that which was this, and this which was that was undifferentiated. From this it is clear that a nonexistent effect is not produced, nor an existent effect lost. It, this sort of universe, having been undifferentiated, differentiated into name and form. The neuter-passive form of the verb indicates that it differentiated of itself, i.e. manifested itself till it could be clearly perceived in terms of name and form, (Since no effect can be produced without a cause) it is implied that this manifestation took place with the help of the usual auxiliaries, viz. the controller, the agent and the operation of the means. It was called such and such. The use of a pronoun not specifying any particular name indicates that it got some name such as Devádatta [Page 113] or Yajñadatta. And was of such and such form: No particular form such as white or black is mentioned. It had some form, say white or black. So to this day it, an undifferentiated thing, is differentiated into name and form—it is called such and such, and is of such and such form.
This Self, which it is the aim of all scriptures to teach, on which differences of agent, action and result have been superimposed by primordial ignorance, which is the cause of the whole universe, of which name and form consist as they pass from the undifferentiated to the differentiated state, like foam, an impurity, appearing from limpid water, and which is distinct from that name and form, being intrinsically eternal, pure, enlightened and free by nature—this Self, while manifesting undifferentiated name and form, which are a part of It, has entered into these bodies from Hiraṇyagarbha down to a clump of grass, which are the support of the results of people’s actions, and are characterised by hunger etc.
Objection: It was stated before that the undifferentiated universe differentiated of itself. How then is it now stated that the Supreme Self, while manifesting that universe, has entered into it?
Reply: There is nothing wrong in it, for really the Supreme Self was meant as being identical with the undifferentiated universe. We have already said that that universe was necessarily manifested with the help of the controller, the agent and the operation (of the means). This is also borne out by the fact that the word ‘undifferentiated’ has been used co-ordinatively [Page 114] with ‘this.’ Just as this differentiated universe has several distinguishing features like the controller and other factors, which serve as its causes, similarly that undifferentiated universe also must not be without a single one of these distinguishing features. The only difference between them is that the one is differentiated and the other is not. Moreover, we see in the world that people use expressions according to their wish, as for instance, ‘The village has come,’ and ‘The village is deserted.’ Sometimes they mean only a habitation, as when they use the latter expression. Sometimes they mean the inhabitants, as when they use the former expression. Sometimes again the word ‘village’ is used in both the senses, as in the sentence, ‘And one must not enter (Praviś) the village.' Similarly here too, this universe is spoken of as both differentiated and undifferentiated to indicate the identity of the Self and not-Self. Likewise only the (manifested) universe is meant when it is said that this universe is characterised by origin and dissolution. Again, only the Self is meant in such expressions as, ‘(That) great, birthless Self' (IV. iv.. 22, 24, 25), ‘Not gross, not minute’ (III. viii. 8, adapted), ‘This (self) is That which has been described as “Not this, not this,” etc. (III. ix. 26; IV. ii. 4; IV. iv. 22; IV. v. 15).
Objection: The manifested universe is always completely pervaded by the Supreme Self, its mani-festor. So how is It conceived of as entering into it? Only a limited thing can enter into a space that is not occupied by it, as a man can enter into a village etc. But the ether cannot enter into anything, since it is ever present in it.
Tentative answer[5]: [Page 115] The entrance in question may be the assumption of a different feature, as in the case oi a snake born in a rock. To explain: The Supreme Self did not enter into the universe in Its own form, but, while in it, appeared under a different feature[6]; hence It is metaphorically spoken of as having entered it, like the snake that is born in a rock and is within it, or like the water in a cocoanut.
Objection: Not so, for the Śruti says, ‘After projecting it, the Self entered into it’ (Tai. II. vi. 1). This text says that the Creator, after projecting the effect, entered into it unchanged. When it is said, ‘After eating he goes,’ the acts of eating and going, belonging to earlier and later periods, are separate from each other, but the agent is the same. This is an analogous case. It would not be possible if the Self iemains in the universe and changes at the same time. Nor is an entity that has no parts and is unlimited ever seen to enter into something in the sense of leaving one place and being connected with another.
Tentative answer: Well, then, the Self has parts, for the Śruti speaks of Its entrance.
Objection: No, for there are Śruti texts like the following: ‘The Supreme Being is resplendent, formless’ (Mu. II. i. 2), and ‘Without parts, devoid of activity’ (Śv. VI. 19). Also there are Śruti texts denying all particular namable attributes to the Self.
Tentative answer: The entrance may be like that of a reflection.
Objection: [Page 116] No, for it cannot be admitted that the Self is ever removed from anything.
Tentative answer: May it not be like the entrance of an attribute in a substance?
Objection: No, for the Self is not supported by anything. An attribute, which is always dependent on and supported by something else (the substance), is metaphorically spoken of as entering it. But Brahman cannot enter like that, for the Śrutis describe It as independent.
Tentative answer: Suppose we say that the Self has entered into the universe in the same sense as a seed enters into a fruit?
Objection: No, for then It would be subject to such attributes as being possessed of parts, growth and decay, birth and death. But the Self has no such attributes, for it is against such Śruti texts as ‘Birthless, undecaying’ (IV. iv. 25, adapted) as well as against reason.
Tentative answer: Well then, let us say some other entity that is relative and limited has entered into the universe.
Reply (by the Advaitin): Not so, for we find in the Śruti that beginning with, ‘That deity (Existence) thought' (Ch. VI. iii. 2), and ending with, ‘And let me manifest name and form’ (Ibid.), the same deity is spoken of as the agent of entering as well as manifesting the universe. Similarly, ‘After projecting it, the Self entered into it’ (Tai. II. vi. 1), ‘Piercing this dividing line (of the head), It entered through that gate’ (Ai. III. 12), ‘The Wise One, who after projecting all forms names them, and goes on uttering those [Page 117] names’ (Tai, Ā. III..xii. 7), ‘Thou art the boy, and Thou art the girl, Thou art the decrepit man trudging on his staff' (Śv. IV. 3), ‘He made bodies with two feet’ (II. v. 18), ‘He transformed Himself in accordance with each form’ (II. v. 19; Ka. V. ix. 10)—these Śruti texts show that none other than the Supreme Self entered into the universe.
Objection: Since the objects It has entered into mutually differ, the Supreme Self (being identical with them) must be many.
Reply: No, for there are such Śruti texts as the following: 'The same Lord resides in various ways’ (Tai. Ā. III. xiv. 1), ‘Although one, It roamed in many ways’ (Ibid. III. xi. 1), ‘Although one, Thou hast penetrated diverse things’ (Ibid. III. xiv. 3), ‘The one Lord is hidden in all beings, all-pervading and the Self of all’ (Śv. VI. 11).
Objection: Leaving aside the question whether the Supreme Self can or cannot consistently enter, since those objects that have been entered into are subject to transmigrationand the Supreme Self is identical with them, It too comes under transmigration.
Reply: No, for the Śrutis speak of It as being beyond hunger etc.
Objection: It cannot be. for we see that It is happy or miserable, and so on.
Reply: Not so, for the Śruti says, ‘It is not affected by human misery, being beyond it’ (Ka. V. 11).
Objection: This is not correct, for it conflicts with perception etc.
Reply: [Page 118] No, perception and the like have for their object only the particular form (the apparent self) that It takes owing to Its being the support of Its limiting adjunct (mind). Such Śruti texts as, ‘One cannot see the seer of sight’ (III. iv. 2), ‘Through what, O Maitreyī, should one know the knower?’ (II. iv. 14; IV. v. 15), Tt is never known, but is the Knower’ (III. viii. 11), show that the consciousness in question is not of the Self, but that such perceptions as that one is happy or miserable, concern only the reflection of the Self in limiting adjuncts like the intellect, for in the perception, T am this,’ the subject is metaphorically spoken of as co-ordinate with the object (body). Besides, any other self is refuted by the statement. ‘There is no other witness but This’ (III. viii. 11). Happiness or misery, being related to parts of the body, are attributes of the object.
Objection: This is wrong, for the Śruti speaks of their being for the satisfaction of the self, in the words, ‘But it is for one’s own sake (that all is loved), (II. iv. 5; IV. v. 6).
Reply: Not so, for in the words, ‘When there is something else, as it were’ (IV iii. 31), it is taken for granted that the happiness, misery, etc. are for the satisfaction of the self while it is in a state of ignorance. They are not attributes of the Self, for they are denied of the enlightened self, as in such passages as, ‘Then what should one see and through what?’ (II. iv. 14; IV. v. 15), ‘There is no difference whatsoever in It’ (IV. iv. 19; Ka. IV. 11), ‘Then what delusion and what grief can there be for one who sees unity?’ (Iś. 7).
Objection: [Page 119] It is wrong, for it clashes with the system of logic.[7]
Reply: No; from the standpoint of reason too the Self cannot be miserable. For misery, being an object of perception, cannot affect the Self, which is not an object of perception.
Objection: The Self may have misery as the ether has the attribute of sound.
Reply: No, for the two cannot be objects of the same consciousness. The consciousness that perceives happiness and deals with objects of perception only, cannot certainly be supposed to cognise the Self, which is ever to be inferred.[8] If It were so cognised, there would be no subject left, since there is only one Self.
Objection: Suppose we say that the same Self is both subject and object, like a lamp?
Reply: No, for It cannot be both simultaneously. Besides the Self pannot be supposed to have parts.[9]This also refutes the (Buddhist) view that the same consciousness is both subject and object. Moreover, we have no reason to infer that happiness and the Self, which are the objects of perception and inference respectively, stand to each other in the relation of attribute and substance; for misery is always an object of perception and abides in the same substance (body) that has form or colour. Even if the misery of the Self is said to be due to Its contact with the mind,[10] [Page 120] it would make the Self a thing which has parts, is changeful and transitory, for no attribute is ever seen to come or go without making some change in the substance connected with it. And a thing which has no parts is never seen to change, nor is an eternal entity seen to possess transitory attributes. The ether is not accepted as eternal by those who believe in the Vedas, and there is no other illustration.
Objection: Although a thing may change, yet, since the notion of its identity abides, it is eternal.
Reply: No, for change in a thing implies that its parts become otherwise.
Objection: Suppose we say that the same Self is eternal.
Reply: Not so, for a thing that has parts is produced by their combination, hence they may divide again.
Objection: It is wrong, for we do not see this in thunder, for instance.
Reply: Not so, for we can easily infer that it must have been preceded by a combination. Therefore the Self cannot be proved to have transitory attributes like misery.
Objection: If the Supreme Self has no misery, and there is no other entity to be miserable, then it is useless for the scriptures to try to remove misery.
Reply: Not so, for they are meant to remove the false notion of misery superimposed by ignorance. And the Self being admitted to imagine Itself as miserable, the scriptures help to remove that error, as in the [Page 121] case of the failure to count the tenth man, although he was there.[11]
Like the reflection of the sun etc. in water, the entrance of the Self means only Its being perceived like a reflection in the differentiated universe. Before the manifestation of the latter the Self is not perceived, but after it is manifested, the Self is perceived within the intellect, like the reflection of the sun etc. in water and the like. Because It is thus perceived as having entered, as it were, into the universe after manifesting it, It is indicated in such terms as the following: ‘This Self has entered into these bodies’ (this text), ‘After projecting it, the Self entered into it' (Tai. II. vi. i), ‘Ṛiercing this dividing line (of the head), It entered through that gate’ (Ai. III. 12), and ‘That deity (Existence) thought: Well, let me enter into these three gods (Are, water and earth) as this individual self' etc. (Ch. VI. iii. 2). The all-pervading Self, which is without parts, can never be supposed to enter in the sense of leaving a certain quarter, place or time and being joined to new ones. Nor is there, as we have said, any other seer but the Supreme Self, as is testified [Page 122] by such Śruti texts as, ‘There is no other witness but This, no other hearer but This' etc. (III. viii. n). The passages delineating the projection of the universe and the entrance of the Self into it as well as its continuance and dissolution, serve only as aids to the realisation of the Self, for this is described in the Śrutis as the highest end of man. Witness such texts as the following: ‘It knew only Itself.... Therefore It became all’ (I. iv. io), ‘The knower of Brahman attains the highest' (Tai. II. i. i), ‘He who knows that Supreme Brahman becomes Brahman’ (Mu. III. ii. 9), ‘He only knows who has got a teacher' (Ch. VI. xiv. 2), ‘It takes him only so long (as he does not give up the body),' etc. (Ch. VI. xiv. 2).. And the Smṛtis, ‘Then knowing Me truly, he enters into Me' (G. XVIII. 55), ‘That (Self-knowledge) is the chief of all knowledge, for it leads to immortality’ (M. XJI. 85). Besides, since duality has been repudiated, the passages delineating the manifestation etc. of the universe can have the sole aim of helping the realisation of the unity of the Self. Therefore we conclude that the entrance of the Self into the universe is but a metaphorical way of stating that It is perceived in the midst of the latter.
Up to the tip of the nails is the intelligence of the Self perceived. How has the Self entered? This is being explained: As in the world a razor may be put in its case, the barber’s instrument-bag—is perceived as being within it— or as fire, which sustains the world, may be in its source, wood etc.—the predicate is to be repeated with ‘fire’ where it is perceived through friction. As a razor lies in one part of the case, or as [Page 123] fire lies in wood pervading it, so does the Self reside in the body pervading it in a general and particular way. There It is perceived as doing the functions of living as well as sight etc. Therefore people do not see It, realise the Self[12] that has thus entered into the body and does the above functions.
It may be urged that this statement, ‘People do not see It,’ repudiates something for which there was no occasion, for the vision of It is not the topic under consideration. The answer to it is: There is nothing wrong in it, for since the passages delineating the projection etc. of the universe are meant as aids to the realisation of the unity of the Self, the vision of the Self is the subject under consideration. Compare the Śruti, ‘He transformed Himself in accordance with each form; that form of His was for the sake of making Him known’ (II. v. 19). Now the reason is being given why people see It only as doing the functions of the vital force etc. (but not as a whole): For It is incomplete when It does the above functions. Why incomplete? When It does the function of living, It is called the vital force.Because of doing this function only, and none other, the Self is called the vital force, from the derivative meaning of the term, as one is called a cutter or a cook. Therefore, not combining the other aspects doing other functions, It is incomplete. Similarly, when It speaks, the organ of speech (or speaker); when It sees, the eye, or seer; when It hears, the ear, or listener. In the two sentences, ‘When It does the function of living, It is [Page 124] the vital force,’ and ‘When It speaks, the organ of speech,’ the manifestation of its power of action is indicated. While the two sentences, ‘When It sees, the eye’and ‘When It hears, the ear,’ indicate the manifestation of Its power of knowledge, for this is concerned with name and form. The ear and the eye are the instruments of knowledge, which has name and form as its material, for there is nothing to be known except these two, and the ear and the eye are the instruments to perceive them. And action has name and form as its auxiliaries and inheres in the vital force; the organ of speech is the instrument to manifest this action inherent in the vital force. Likewise the Self is called the hand, the foot and the organs of excretion and generation, which are all suggested by the organ of speech. The whole differentiated universe is this much. It will be said later on, ‘This (universe) indeed consists of three things: name, form and action’ (I. vi. i). And when It thinks, the mind, that which thinks. The word ‘mind’ also means the common instrument of the.different manifestations of the power of knowledge. But here it denotes the Self, the agent who thinks.
These, the vital force etc., are merely Its names according to functions, not describing the Self as It is. Hence they do not express the entity of the Self as a whole. Thus the Self is differentiated by the activities of living etc. into name and form such as the vital force, which are engendered by those different activities, and is manifested at the same time (but not realised as a- whole). He who meditatesthrough his mind upon each of this totality of aspects doing the [Page 125] functions of living etc., qualified as the vital force or the eye, without combining the other aspects doing particular functions—meditates that this is the Self, does not know Brahman. Why? For It, this Self, is incomplete, being divided from this totality of aspects doing the functions of living etc. by possessing a single characteristic, and not including the other characteristics. As long as the man knows the Self as such, as possessed of the natural functions, and thinks that It sees, hears or touches, he does not really know the whole Self.

In the beginning the whole Universe was in potential form. All sthula sukshma shareera and punya papa were all there in potential form. When the karmas and punya/papa became ripe for fructification, because avyakta avastha bhoga cannot be possible.. punya papa exhaustion requires shareera karana vishaya SKV - all 3 - body/organs/objects and all 3 are dormant in avyakta.
When karma becomes ripe bhoga or experience should take place and experience requires the triad of SKV and hence unmanifest has to become manifest. This transformation is called Srshti. And with this universe becomes differentiated into names and forms. Associated with every name and form is a particular function. And with nama and rupa comes personality also physical emotional and intellectual personality. Function can be in terms of function in society such as brahmana, kshatriya or duties such as parent, child.

Up says we can infer this process from our present experience itself - before the making of an ornament, the gold is a lump, and ornaments are in avakrta unmanifest form and at that time there is no transaction possible - with bangle etc. From the unmanifest all the nama rupa becomes manifest like bangle chain - different names with different forms with different functions. Tad idam etarhi even now also namarupabhyam vyakriyate everything in the universe comes to manifestation through nama and rupa alone. This law is extrapolated for the entire creation. What nyaya holds true in vyashti holds true in samashti. Namarupas were in nirvikalpa condition in unmanifest state, just like they are in sushupti, and with transition to srshti or creation these names and forms become recognizable. With nama rupa sthula sukshma shareeram and sthula sukshma prapancha no interaction is possible as they are both jadam, and hence after manifestation of nama rupa prapancha consciousness is needed to enter - which will come next

With this vykarta adhyaropa and avyakrta adhyaropa topics are both covered. From next sentence Up takes a small diversion from the topic of adhyaropa and the topic is Srsthi - what happens after Srshti. The adhyaropa topic will be continued later.
Up says saha iha pravishta. After the creation of the world the Paramatma Himself entered the creation in the form of jivatma

Here Shankara gives a very elaborate bhashyam as seen above - sa iha pravishtaha - this famous statement is called pravesha shruti - and this is found not only in this upanishad - it is seen in Taittriya - Ch 2 Section 6 so.akamayata bahu syam prajayeyeti . sa tapo.atapyata . sa tapastaptva idagm sarvamasrijata . yadidam kincha . tatsrishtva tadevanupravishat.h . tadanupravishya -
anupravesha shruti is there. In chandogya anena jIvena AtmA'nupraviSya nAmarUpe vyAkaravANi  
This idea is famous as pravesha shruti. Being an important statement, Shankara discusses this everywhere but in Brhadaranyaka his discussion is elaborate.

First of all Sa Iha Pravishta He enters Here. 
What does He stand for here?

The word Saha refers to what has been discussed so far which is Avyaktam or Maya or Prakrti. But Shankara argues Saha refers to Brahman. SO question is how? How can we say Saha refers to Paramatma alone.
First Avyaktam can never exist separate from brahman or paramatma.
Avyakrtam or avyaktam can have 3 different meanings in different contexts
1 - avyakrtam refers to Maya alone - that is unmanifest alone.
2 - avyakrtam can refer to the mixture of maya + Brahman or Ishwara or mayasahitam brahma
3 - avyakrtam can also refer to Brahman alone

All 3 meanings are possible depending on context
In this context here avyakrta should be understood as the 3rd meaning i.e. Paramatma. Because the 3rd alone fits in with the later discussion where jivatma-paramatma aikyam is talked about.
So here saha refers to Paramatma.

If there is a different meaning for different context will it not be confusing?
Shankara says we ourselves use different expressions depending on the context for the same word - like "well"... Shankara gives the different meanings of a word like "village" - the geographical place, the people of the village and sometimes to the mixture of place and people. Village was empty, place without people - whole village came for a function - people of the village is referred here - "one should not enter village where there are nastikas or there is no temple" refers to a mix of place and persons. 
Next we take the meaning of "entry" that is spoken of.
Shankara analyses various possibilities and refutes them.
We can take 5 of them
1. Devadatta builds a house and enters it
Shankara refutes this idea. This is possible in the example because Devadatta was parichinna a limited entity - there was a place where he was not, but in the case of Paramatma cannot enter anywhere because He is All pervading.
2. Paramatma builds a house and jivatma entered.
Shankara refutes as Upanishad clearly says Paramatma entered because one who has created alone has entered. Also in Taittiriya it is said tat sRshtvA / tad-evAnuprAviSat / tadanupraviSya 
3. Dravya gunavat - There is a nyayika argument - when anything is created for one second that object is nirgunam and within one second the property comes to that object - guna enters the dravyam - similarly consciousness also enters the material universe 
Shankara refutes - property is always dependent on a substance - it is paratantra - if paramatma is like guna and paramatma will become paratantra
4. Phale bijawat - When a fruit ripens one part becomes more solid and becomes the seed. Different parts of the same thing become differentiated. Similarly portion of paramatma transforms into jivatma. Shankara refutes - first of all a modification can never be called entry. secondly modification is impossible for paramatma. 
5. Darpane pratibimbavat - just as a reflection enters a mirror; similarly the reflection of paramatma is formed and the formation of reflection is called paramatma. Like a reflected sun, that reflection, as a entity, enters the well water. Shankara refutes. There should be a second thing other than what is being reflected. Since there is no second thing such as a reflecting medium here there is no question of pratibimba entry. This can create a doubt because we talk about chidabhasa, chit pratibimba.. we do use this expression pratibimba. The Mind is mithya and a mithya reflection is talked about when advaitin talks about pratibimba as chidabhasa. Here the interlocutor talks about the reflection not as mithya but as real. 

Shankara then explains that anupravesha shruti is arthavada - a portion meant to explain some other important thing - it has no direct relevance but is essential to explain something else - which is jivatma paramatma aikyam. The main topic is the aikyam which is intended to be conveyed and you understand anupravesha in that context. Paramatma is available behind the mind as a Sakshi - that alone is figuratively said to be anupravesha. Buddhau sakshitaya upalabdhi pravesha ityuchyate

We dont find any phala noted with regards to knowledge of Srshti or anupravesha. Up never says if you know srshti you will get brahman - no benefit is mentioned for knowing Srshti or anupravesha. This is a Meemaamsa logic or rule. If a particular portion of a Veda does not give any phalam that portion does not have any direct import or purport or tatparyam. Such portions are called arthavada in Meemaamsa which we accept in Advaita. The original purpose of this teaching is knowledge of paramtma. Student willhave curiosity as to know where is that paramatma who is to be known. FOr this reason srshti or creation is explained and mind is mentioned and after that anupravesha is mentioned. This helps the student know paramatma is available in the mind itself as sakshi as witness conscioussness
Once we have understood jivatma paramatma aikyam you can forget srshti topic  - details such as whether akasha is first or vayu is first, whether there are five elements or three become unimportant and are to be discarded. We should not spend time then trying to analyze srshti details.

Antahkarane upalabhyatvam eva pravesha shruteh tatparyam. Paramatma is available in the mind as Sakshi chaitanyam - that alone is the import of anupravesha.

Other schools of philosophy come forth with objections to this interpretation.
First comes from a ordinary man - I dont accept jivatma is identical to paramatma because jivatmas are many and paramatma is One. Shankara answers that you think jivatmas are many because minds are many. Who said jivatmas are many? There is no plurality in sakshi jivatma. You are confusing many minds with many sakshis which is an error. There are many illumined minds but the illuminator is One. Eko devah sarva bhuteshu gudah, sarva vyaapi sarva bhutantaratma (Sv Up) and Gita Kshetrajna chapi maam vidhi sarva kshetreshu 
Another objection jivatma is full of sorrow. Transitions from joy to sorrow. That means Paramatma, if identical, should also be samsari and subject to joy and sorrow. All Up declare uniformly that Ishwara is free from all such blemishes. FOr this Shankara says when we talk of the aikyam of jivatma and paramatma, we should understand this aikyam properly. We dont mean paramatma = samsari jivatma but instead jivatma = asamsari paramatma. That alone is purpose of Shastra. Right interpretation is jivatma is also free from sorrow just like paramatma. Purpose of shastra is liberation - not to add one more samsari. So right interpretation is jivatma is free and jivatma is sorrowful is a delusion. Shankara here provides the Shruti reference for this as well. From Katha Upanishad 2.2.11
sUryo yathA sarvalokasya chakShuH na lipyate chAkShuShairbAhyadoShaiH | ekastathA sarvabhUtAntarAtmA na lipyate lokaduHkhena bAhyaH || 11||

3rd question is now put forth -  Shruti may say Jivatma is free from sorrow but just because shruti says we cannot say - as per mimamsa if Shruti teaches something that is contrary to direct experience pratyaksham then that cannot be accepted as is, but needs to reinterpreted in such a way that it does not contradict pratyakhsma. Even if 1000 shruti statements say fire is cold we cannot accept. So here the question is since our direct experience is "i am sorrowful" - just because shruti says jivatma is not sorrowful i cannot accept it. Shankara negates this - you can never say that dukham in the atma is directly experienced. Because if sorrow in the atma has to be directly experienced the atma has to be directly experienced. Only then can you talk about sorrow of the atma. But atma is never an object of experience. Atmanya avishayatvat atma dukham pratyaksam iti na shakyate. Nobody can experience atma sorrow - whatever is experienced belongs to anatma. Atma is ever the subject the vishayee.

Now after the layman comes the Buddhist the kshanika vijnanavadi.
He argues Atma cannot be experienced as a object but still atma can experience itself. When atma experiences itself atma can experience its sorrow. thus atma sorrow becomes a pratyaksha vishaya. Shankara refutes this - when you say atma experiences itself - same atma becomes both subject and object of experience and one locus can never be both subject and object. The seer can never be seen. In one action both is not possible.
To this purvapakshi suggests one part of atma is subject and one part is the object. Like how i see my hand with my eyes - eye part is subject and hand part is object but both are in me, I. Shankara refutes this Atma is partless or divisions. Niramshatvat nishkalatvat nirvikalpatvat.

Now comes the tarka shastra (nyayika). He says in tarka shastra it is clearly established that atma has sorrow - including raga dvesha etc Shankara says who will accept tarka shastra as it is full of mistakes and loopholes and he points out some of the mistakes 
Atma is nityam eternal and dukham is atma's gunam. Gunam and guni are inseparable. Substance and property are inseparable. Dukham is anityam. So Shankara questions how can a anitya dukham be there as inseparable guna in nitya Atma. This is impossible. According to tarka atma is known through inference - tarka goes through series of inferences to arrive at atma. Now if you say atma has dukham which is pratyaksham - not inferred.
How can a pratyaksha guna belong to a anumeya vastu how can a perceived property belong to an inferred substance? This is also not possible. 3rd response for tarka shastra Shankara says is the approach is wrong.
Tarka says atma is jadam. When atma comes in contact with the mind it gives rise to knowledge jnana utpati. Atma joins the mind, mind joins the sense organs, and sense organ contacts the object. And with this object jnanam is born and with that happiness and sorrow also are born. Jnanam sukham dukham are properties which should belong to some entity - does it belong to object or sense or mind or atma - has to be one of these four. Tarka says they belong to or join the atma. Shankara says this is wrong - atma cannot join the mind with the law of tarka shastra itself. Tarka rule is combination is possible only between things which have forms. space having no form cannot combine with anything. And tarka itself says atma is formless. niravayam amurtam. So there is contradiction here.

Finally the Jaina philosopher comes in with his objection. Jaina says if you are taking atma has formless and all pervading then alone all these contradictions come. In our philosophy we say atma is not allpervading or formless. Atma is only body-pervading shareera vyapi shareera parimanaka. Atma size is limited to the body madhyama parimanaha is the term - any measurement between smallest and biggest. anu and vibhu are smallest and biggest and in between is madhyama which covers all other measurements.  Shankara refutes this Jain philosophy very briefly here (more elaborately refutation of Jainism is done in Brahmasutra). If Atma has got a form and shape it will be perishable. Everything with a shape has a beginning and end. Everything with name and form is perishable. Jaina also feels atma is nitya. And hence it is self contradictory to say atma is nitya and that it is also savayatvam (particularized form) or madhyama.
Jaina refutes by saying there may be special cases where there is form and still they are eternal. Like vajram diamond Diamond has been formed very long ago and it is the hardest to destroy as it very hard - and so jaina thinks diamond is nityam. and it savayavam. Shankara says to say something is anityam you need not see the destruction of it. Perishability need not be always proved through perception but can be done through inference.  Like our Sun - we have never seen the origin and we will never see its destruction. Yat savayavam tat anityam is the law that can be extended to anything in the creation. And vajram is also persihable. And with this Jaina matha is concluded. 

This concludes the pravesha bhashyam.

We continue further looking at mulam.
A nakagre bhyah. The Supreme pervades the entire human upto the tip of the nail - meaning it pervades the entire body. yatha kshurah - kshuram means razor. kshuradhanam means a razors bag. Another example is fire. which sustains the world. Agni is present in the arani wood. Aranyaor nihito jata veda Fire is present in the arani wood in unmanifest form and becomes manifest when it is rubbed. 
What is the subtle significance of these 2 examples?
When you take the razor. It has vishesha vrtti specific availability
Fire pervades the entire arani wood - it has samanya vrtti or general availability
Anandagiri further explains that Atma obtains in the body in two forms as both vishesha and samanya vrtti. During jagrat and swapna avastha we are using one or other particular organ and function as seer, hearer, etc. and when we are functioning in that form consciousness organ is specifically available in that organ as it were. In sushupti consciousness does not express in any specific locus.
Then Up says tam na pashyanti. Up is now coming to samsara.
We see Paramatma is available as sakshi. that sakshi I am. I am the one who is specifically present in the body and also generally present in the body. I am consciousness and body is kulayam
Even though this is the case the Up says no one knows this fact.
Everyone knows I the sakshi but they dont know the correct way of knowing the sakshi. There is never total sakshi ajnanam. Everyone has atma jnanam - when he says "I am" only this atma jnanam is partial and erroneous where I am is mistaken for something else.

Why did this happen? The attributes of one are wrongly appearing or superimposed on the other. Upadhi is a thing which is proximate to another thing and whose attributes appear on the other. upa sameepe sthitva seeyan dharman anyatra adadhaati iti upaadhi. The one in which the attributes appear is upahitam. 3 conditions - both are proximate/intimate, attributes of one upadhi appears on the other, and the attributes are not really transferred but only appear to be so or superimposed. Crystal and red flower is the classic example given to illustrate this. When the 2 are in proximate, the redness of the flower appears on the crystal, and the crystal only appears as red, but in reality there is never any transfer of colour. Because of anupravesha body and sakshi are now proximate. Body sense organs are upadhi and sakshi is upahitam. Sakshi which is ashabdam asparsham arUpam avyayam tathArasam nityam agandhavacca and drshtrtvam of eyes is superimposed on sakshi and sakshi is falsely called drashta. Simlarly atma "becomes" shrota, vijnata, pita, etc and nirvishesha sakshi appears with attributes and each attribute limits the sakshi and the sakshi that is known by all is now a limited sakshi. And this is known not as "sakshi is limited" but as "I am limited". Hence akrtsno hi sah.. That sakshi which is krtsnah purnam is now appearing as limited as parichinnah as akrtsnah incomplete. Pranan prano bhavati. When prana is breathing, no one says prana is alive we say I am alive. Sakshi becomes alive because of prana upadhi. Similarly through speech upadhi atma appears to be a speaker and seer, thinker, and so on. karmanyamaneva all these names of sakshi are based on functions of the upadhi and are not the real name or real nature of sakshi but are based on the functions of upadhi.
Mind becomes manta because of sakshi
Ears become shrota because of sakshi
While the organs becomes the agent sakshi never becomes a agent.
Only because the organs are proximate the sakshi appears to be the agent. Sakshi seemingly becomes shrota, manta etc - in the vision of a ajnani. Sakshi has now gained individuality. asparsham arUpam avyayam sakshi is now an individual and "becomes" drashta, shrota, manta, etc. Hence the Up says karmanāmānyeva
What is wrong with this wrong knowledge? Samsara.
Akrtsno hi sah -  Sah is that "individualized" sakshi Krtsna means whole. arktsna means limited. Once limited comes, wants come, And once wants come they will never be fulfilled fully and then comes depression and raga dvesha and so on.
Na sa veda laments the Upanishad.
Upto this is the samsara explanation
Next we will take up Vidya sutra and Vidyasutra bhashyam of Shankara

This post first appeared on SELF-KNOWLEDGE, please read the originial post: here

Share the post

Brhadaranyaka 1.4.7: Anupravesha Shruti and Pravesha Bhashyam of Shankara


Subscribe to Self-knowledge

Get updates delivered right to your inbox!

Thank you for your subscription