Mantra 7

In plain words

That universe was unmanifest then. All Vedic means—characterized by knowledge and action, reliant on agents and instruments, and culminating in the state of Prajapati—extend only this far, remaining bound within the differentiated world of worldly existence. Now, scripture wishes to reveal the seed state of this manifest universe prior to its differentiation, much as the hidden seed of a tree is inferred from its sprouting branches. This worldly tree, rooted in ignorance and nourished by karma, must be completely uprooted along with its roots; for true liberation is attained only when it is utterly destroyed. Thus it is declared in the Kathaka Upanishad: 'It has its root above and its branches below'; in the Bhagavad Gita: 'With its root above and branches below'; and in the Purana: 'The eternal tree of Brahman'.

Close to the Sanskrit

That indeed was unmanifest then. All Vedic means, characterized by knowledge and action, dependent on many factors such as agent, and terminating in the fruit of the state of Prajapati, is only this much—namely, this differentiated world of transmigration. Now, the text wishes to point out the seed state of this very differentiated world of ends and means, prior to its differentiation, just as a tree's seed state is inferred from effects like sprouts; for this tree of transmigration, having karma as its seed and ignorance as its field, must be uprooted entirely along with its roots; because upon its uprooting comes the fulfillment of the human goal. And thus it has been said in the Kathaka Upanishad: 'Having its root above and branches below'; and in the Gita: 'Having root above and branches below'; and in the Purana: 'The eternal tree of Brahman'.

In plain words

Just as saying 'a steadfast king existed' refers to a specific person, the word 'idam' (this) denotes the manifest world of means and ends just described. Because the two words 'tat' (that) and 'idam' (this)—referring to the unmanifest and manifest states of the universe—share the same grammatical core, we understand that both states are one and the same: 'that very thing is this' and 'this was that unmanifest reality.' This established, it is clear that an unreal effect has no true birth, and a real entity has no destruction. That very universe, while unmanifest, became differentiated exclusively through name and form. The reflexive passive phrasing 'it differentiated itself' implies that the self alone manifested into clear boundaries of specific names and forms, naturally pointing to a controller, agent, and means. The phrase 'such-and-such is his name' refers to a general label, like Devadatta or Yajnadatta, while 'this form' refers to visible shapes like white or black. That unmanifest reality continues to be differentiated even now through name and form as 'such-and-such a name and such-and-such a form.' This is the ultimate truth for the sake of which all scriptures begin—the ground upon which beginningless ignorance superimposes doership, action, and results. He is the ultimate cause of the universe, within whom name and form arise like foam on water. Yet he remains entirely distinct from name and form, ever pure, luminous, and free by nature. It is he who, having manifested name and form from his own unmanifest essence, entered into all physical bodies—from Brahma down to a blade of grass—where living beings experience hunger and bear the fruits of their actions.

Close to the Sanskrit

Just as when it is said 'a steadfast king was born indeed'; 'idam' (this) describes the differentiated world of means and ends as described. Because of the co-referentiality of the two words 'tat' and 'indam', which denote the world in its unmanifest and manifest states, it is understood that the unmanifest and manifest states of the world are one and the same: 'that was this', and 'this very thing was unmanifest'. Now, this being so, it is established that there is no origination of the non-existent and no destruction of the existent effect. Such a world, being unmanifest, was differentiated through name and form alone—by name and by form. Because of the passive-active usage of the verb 'vyākriyata' ('was differentiated'), it means that the self itself differentiated—distinctly making itself clear with the boundaries of specific names and forms—logically implying a controller, agent, means, and action. By the general pronoun 'asau nāma' ('such-and-such is name'), it designates a mere name—for example, Devadatta or Yajnadatta—'such-and-such is his name'. Similarly, 'idam' (this) is the non-specific [form]; 'this white or black form is his', thus 'idaṃrūpa' (of this form). That unmanifest substance, even at this present time, is differentiated by name and form alone—as 'such-and-such-named, of such-and-such-form'. For the sake of which all scriptures commence, upon which through beginningless ignorance the superimposition of agency, action, and fruit is made, which is the cause of the entire universe, in which name and form are differentiated like foam arising from water or from a clear mind, and who is distinct from those name and form, intrinsically of the nature of eternal purity, awareness, and freedom—this very one, differentiating the unmanifest name and form into his own nature, has entered into bodies here, from Brahma down to a clump of grass, which are subject to hunger and serve as receptacles for the fruits of karma.

In plain words

An objection is raised: has it not been said that the unmanifest universe unfolds itself spontaneously? Why is it said now that the supreme Self itself, while bringing forth the unmanifest, entered directly into it? There is no flaw here, because the supreme Self is being described precisely as the underlying reality of that unmanifest universe. We have already explained that the manifest world arises through the causal network of controllers, agents, and actions, and the word 'this' shares the same case as the word 'unmanifest.' Just as this tangible world possesses numerous distinct attributes like controllers, so too the unmanifest possesses its own subtle attributes; the only actual difference between them lies in whether they are manifest or unmanifest. In ordinary life, we see that words follow the speaker's intent: we say 'the village has arrived' when we mean the villagers, or 'the village is empty' when we mean the empty houses, or 'do not enter the village' when we mean both together. In the same way, Scripture sometimes speaks of the world as manifest or unmanifest when teaching the non-difference of the Self and the world. At other times, when describing the world as subject to birth and decay, it speaks of the world alone. And yet at other times, through passages like 'The great, unborn Self,' 'Neither gross nor subtle,' and 'This Self is not this, not this,' it speaks exclusively of the pure Self.

Close to the Sanskrit

Not thus? The unmanifest itself is unfolded, it has been said; how is this now spoken—that the supreme Self itself, manifesting the unmanifest, entered here? This is no fault, because the supreme Self is intended to be described as having the nature of the unmanifest world. For we stated that the manifest world is produced with the cause of assumed controller, agent, and action, and because of the co-ordinativity of the word this with the word unmanifest. Just as this world, possessing various causes such as controllers, is manifest, so that unmanifest remains possessing some undestroyed distinction. The difference is merely manifest and unmanifest. And it is seen in the world that word usage depends on intention, as 'the village has come,' 'the village is empty'—sometimes with the word village when intending merely the residence, the word usage 'the village is empty' takes place; sometimes when intending the resident people, 'the village has come'; sometimes even when intending both, as in 'do not enter the village'—similarly here also, this world is manifest and unmanifest, thus in the intention of non-difference the designation of the Self and non-Self occurs. Thus this world is of the nature of origination and destruction, thus there is designation of the mere world. Thus 'the great unborn Self,' 'not gross, not subtle,' 'this same one is not this, not this,' and so forth, is the designation of the pure Self.

In plain words

An objection is raised: Since the supreme creator has already manifested the entire universe and pervades it completely at all times, how can he be said to have entered it? A place that is not yet entered can only be penetrated by something limited, like a man entering a village; space itself does not enter anything because it is already all-pervading. If someone argues that the Supreme enters through a secondary attribute, just as a snake naturally dwells inside a stone or water resides inside a coconut—we reply: No, because Scripture explicitly declares, 'Having created that very thing, it entered it.' It teaches that the creator projected the universe and then entered it without undergoing any change of identity. Just as a person eats and then walks—where the two actions occur sequentially while the person remains one and the same—so too the creator remains unchanged. But such sequential action is impossible if the entity merely undergoes internal transformation while staying in place. Furthermore, physical entry involving the abandonment of one location and contact with another is never observed in the case of a partless, infinite reality. If you argue that entry is only spoken of things that possess parts, we answer: No, because śruti declares, 'The divine Purusha is formless,' 'He is partless and actionless,' and denies all finite attributes of the Supreme. If you suggest that the entry is like that of a reflection—we reply: No.

Close to the Sanskrit

Now, the manifold world being manifested by the supreme manifester, all-pervading and eternal—how is he imagined to have entered here? An unentered place can be entered by a limited entity, as a village by a man; but not anything by space, because of its eternal pervasiveness. If it be said 'by another attribute, like a stone serpent or the like'—even so, it might be: the supreme Self did not enter by its own form; what then? It arises with another attribute while staying right there; therefore it is figuratively spoken of as entered, just as the innate serpent residing inside a stone, or water inside a coconut—No, because of the scriptural text, 'Having created that, it entered that very thing.' For it is heard that the creator, without attaining another state of being, having created the effect, afterwards entered. Just as in the phrases 'having eaten, he goes,' the actions of eating and going have mutual temporal separation, and the agent is undivided—similarly here also, but this is not possible when another state of being is produced in that very entity abiding there. Nor is entry characterized by contact with another place, accompanied by separation from another place, seen in the case of a partless and unlimited entity. If it be said that entry is heard only of that which has parts—no, because of such scriptural texts as 'The divine, formless Purusha,' 'Partless, actionless,' and from texts prohibiting all expressible specific attributes. If it be said 'like the entry of a reflection'—no,

In plain words

Since Brahman is all-pervading, there can be no spatial distance between Him and anything else to allow for a literal entry. If you suggest it is like qualities entering a substance, we say no: qualities are inherently dependent on their substance, whereas scripture declares Brahman to be absolutely independent. If you suggest it is like a seed entering a fruit, we say no: that would mean Brahman has physical parts and is subject to birth, growth, decay, and death, which contradicts the timeless truth that He is unborn and changeless. If you suggest that a different, limited soul is the one who entered, we say no: scripture explicitly attributes both the creation and the entry to the same supreme Divinity. From the crown of the head to the soles of the feet, it is the one Divine Self that has entered, appearing as the youth, the maiden, and the elder. Nor does the apparent variety of living beings divide this one Self, for the sages sing of the one God hidden in all hearts, all-pervading and undivided.

Does the Supreme's entry into the body make sense, or not? Let that question rest for a moment. If someone objects that since the souls that enter are subject to saṃsāra and are non-different from the Supreme, the Supreme must also be subject to saṃsāra—we answer: not so, because scripture declares that the Supreme transcends hunger and thirst. If you argue that we actually observe individuals experiencing happiness and misery, and therefore the Supreme must also experience them—we answer: not so, because scripture states, 'External, he is untouched by the sorrow of the world.' If you object that denying this contradicts direct sensory perception and is therefore untenable—we answer: not so, because perception and other valid means of knowledge operate only within the realm of limiting adjuncts. Texts like 'You would not see the seer of sight,' 'By what would you know the knower, O dear one?', and 'The unknown knower' show that the Self is never an object of objective cognition. What then is the nature of ordinary sensory awareness like 'I am happy' or 'I am miserable'? It is merely a reflection cast upon the mind and its adjuncts, falsely attributed to the true subject through the loose linguistic usage of identifying the ego with the Self, and refuted by the text 'There is no other seer than this.' Furthermore, because pleasure and pain are experienced in connection with the limbs of the body, they belong strictly to the bodily adjuncts, not to the pure Self. If you object that the Upanishadic text 'Everything is for the sake of the Self' proves that the Self desires and experiences objects—we answer: not so, because that subservience applies only to the realm of ignorance. In the state of true knowledge, scripture explicitly negates duality, declaring: 'Where there is as it were another, then by what and whom would one see?', 'There is no multiplicity here whatsoever,' and 'What delusion or sorrow can there be for one who sees the absolute oneness?' Thus, misery is never an attribute of the Self. If logicians object that this conflicts with their philosophical systems—we answer: not so, because even sound reasoning shows that suffering cannot belong to the Self. Suffering is a perceptible object, but the Self is never an object of sensory perception. If you argue by analogy that the Self possesses misery just as space possesses the attribute of sound—we answer: not so, because the Self and suffering cannot form a single, homogeneous object of awareness. Moreover, traditional smriti texts confirm: 'The immortal is beyond that.' Since all descriptions of creation and manifestation ultimately serve to reveal the non-dual unity of the Self, the scriptural mention of the Supreme's 'entry' into the body is simply a figurative way of describing how the transcendent consciousness becomes manifest within the physical frame.

Close to the Sanskrit

Because spatial separation from another object is impossible. If it is said, 'like the entry of qualities into a substance,' we say no, because Brahman is independent. The entry of a quality, which is eternally dependent, into a substance is only figuratively spoken of; but such entry is not logical for Brahman, because of the scriptural declaration of His absolute independence. If it is said, 'like the seed in the fruit,' we say no, because that would entail having parts, growth, decay, birth, and destruction. And Brahman does not possess such attributes, because it contradicts scriptural texts like 'unborn, decayless' and logical reasoning. If it is said, 'a different, limited transmigrating soul has entered here,' we say no, because starting from 'That deity willed...' up to 'Let me differentiate names and forms,' the agency of both entry and differentiation is heard to belong to that very deity. Likewise, 'Having created that, He entered into it,' 'He, having split this crown of the head, entered through this door,' 'The wise one, having projected all forms and made names, remains calling them,' 'You are the boy, or the girl, you are the old man tottering with a staff,' 'He made two-footed bodies,' and 'He became form after form'—from these mantras, there is no entry of anyone other than the Supreme. If it is said, 'Due to the mutual difference of those who entered, there is multiplicity of the Supreme,' we say no, because of scriptures like: 'One God is seated in many ways,' 'Being one, He moves in many ways,' 'You, being one, have entered many,' 'One God is hidden in all beings, all-pervading, the innermost Self of all beings.'

Does entry make sense or not? Let this rest for the moment. If it is objected that because those who have entered have transmigratory nature and are non-different from that, the supreme also has transmigratory nature—not so, because of the scriptural statement of passing beyond hunger and the like. If it is objected that because of the observation of happiness and misery and the like it is not so—not so, because of the scriptural text 'Untouched is he by the world's misery, external.' If it is objected that it is improper because of contradiction with perception and other means—not so, because perception and others have as their object particulars produced by dependence on adjuncts. Based on scriptural passages such as 'You would not see the seer of sight,' 'By what would you know the knower, O dear one?', 'The unknown knower,' there is no cognition having the Self as its object; what then? Perceptual cognition such as 'I am happy, I am miserable' has as its object solely the reflected image produced by the superimposition of the intellect and other adjuncts, due to the metaphorical use of co-ordinate syntax between the object and the subject, and because of the prohibition of any other seer by 'There is no other seer than this.' And because of being qualified by bodily limbs, misery is an attribute of the object. If it is objected that this is improper because of the scriptural text stating that everything is for the sake of the Self—not so, because it is admitted that it pertains to the Self in the realm of ignorance, as stated by 'Where there is as it were another, then by what would one see whom?', 'There is no multiplicity here whatsoever,' 'What delusion is there, what sorrow, for one who perceives the oneness?' and similar texts, and because of the prohibition of it in the realm of true knowledge, misery is not an attribute of the Self. If it is objected that it is improper because it contradicts the doctrines of logicians—not so, because even through reasoning, misery cannot belong to the Self. Indeed, the Self cannot be qualified by misery, which is an object of perception, since the Self is not an object of perception. If it is objected that the Self has misery like space having the attribute of sound—not so, because of the impossibility of being the object of a single unified cognition. And from smriti texts such as 'Indeed the immortal is from that.' And because of the sublation of the perception of difference, creation and other passages are reasonably understood as having the realization of the oneness of the Self as their ultimate purport. Therefore, the entry is figuratively spoken of as merely the being cognized of the one located in the effect.

In plain words

Consciousness of the self is experienced right down to the tips of the nails. How, then, has it entered the body? The text explains through familiar examples: just as a razor is safely tucked inside a barber's case, or just as fire lies latent within pieces of wood—revealed only when it is churned. Just as a razor occupies only a corner of its case while fire permeates every part of the fuel it inhabits, so the self pervades this entire body both generally and specifically, revealing itself through vital functions like breathing and seeing. Yet, because of this subtlety, people do not see or recognize the self thus present within them. If someone objects that the scriptural statement 'they do not see him' prohibits something that was never even under discussion, that objection fails. The passages on creation are ultimately meant to reveal the oneness of the self, making the perception of the self the central subject all along, as confirmed by the Vedic verse: 'He assumed every form as his own reflection, that he might be perceived.'

Close to the Sanskrit

Up to the nail-tips, consciousness is perceived of the self. Here, how as it were has it entered, he says: just as in the world, a razor is placed in a razor-container, namely in the barber's equipment case, the razor is found inside—inserted, it might be; or just as the all-sustaining fire—from sustaining the universe, all-sustaining—fire in the nest, in wood and the like, might be inserted, as it continues; for there it is perceived when churned. And just as a razor is situated in one part of a razor-container, and just as fire is situated pervading everywhere in wood and the like, so the self is situated having pervaded the body generally and specifically; for there indeed it is perceived possessing activities such as breathing and seeing. Therefore, they do not see or perceive that self thus entered and characterized by breathing and other activities. But is this not a prohibition of what is not attained—'him they do not see', since seeing was not under discussion? This is no fault, because creation and other sentences have the realization of the unity of the self as their purport, so his seeing is indeed contextually established; from the mantra text: 'Form by form he became its counterpart; that is his form for the sake of beholding.'

In plain words

Mind is so called because one thinks with it; as scripture says, 'The person, acting and thinking, is called mind.' The faculties beginning with breath are simply functional names of this Self, names born of activity rather than indicators of its true substance. Therefore, they do not reveal the absolute, undivided reality of the Atman, even though the Self appears to be expressed through them. If someone isolates a single vital function—such as breath or the eye—and meditates on it alone as the Self, failing to integrate the whole, that person does not truly know Brahman. Why? Because that partial view makes the Self appear fragmented and incomplete, restricted to a single isolated function while ignoring all others. As long as a person understands the Self only through ordinary sensory activities—thinking 'I see,' 'I hearing,' 'I touch'—they have not yet directly known the complete and whole Atman.

He asks: 'In what manner perceiving does one truly understand?'

The text says: 'As the Self.' Whatever specific attributes, such as the vital breath, are declared—he who pervades them all is spoken of as the Self. Embracing every particular within itself, such a person becomes whole. Indeed, by its mere existence, it pervades all those attributes born of limiting adjuncts and specific functions. Scripture will likewise declare: 'It meditates as it were,' 'not this, not this,' 'not gross,' 'one alone without a second,' 'transcending hunger and the like.' The purpose of such passages is to reveal the true nature of the Self, and their fruit is liberation, which is the eradication of ignorance.

Close to the Sanskrit

Mind—because one thinks by this; 'The person, being an agent and thinking, is called mind.' Those are these, beginning with breath, the name-actions of this Self, action-born names, action-names indeed, not having as their domain mere substance; therefore they do not illuminate the entire reality of the Self—thus indeed that Self, even though being manifested and illuminated by vital activities and respective name-forms produced by respective activities. He who, from this aggregate of vital activities, isolating each breath or the eye, having the nature of a particularized activity without integrating other specific activities, meditates with the mind, 'This is the Atman'—he does not know, he does not know Brahman. Why? Because this Self is incomplete, unintegrated, being separated from this aggregate of vital functions, and qualified by each single particular attribute, because of not integrating other alternative attributes. As long as this one knows thus—'I see,' 'I hear,' 'I touch,' or knows characterized by natural sensory activity, so long does he not truly know the complete Self.

How again seeing does he know thus, he says.

As the self - whatever specific attributes like prāṇa have been spoken, he who obtains those is spoken of as the self. He being thus the subsumer of all particulars becomes whole. For in the form of mere reality he pervades the specific attributes generated by special actions and adjuncts like prāṇa. And so it will speak - 'meditates as it were'... 'not this not this', 'not gross', 'one only without a second', 'beyond hunger and the like' - the utility of sentences beginning thus is by revealing the specific nature of the self to be meditated upon. And the fruit is liberation or the cessation of ignorance.

In plain words

Some maintain that through meditation one must evoke a specialized awareness of the self, by which the self is known, and that this alone dispels ignorance—not the mere knowledge of the self born from scriptural sentences. In support of this view they cite scriptural passages such as: 'Having known, let him cultivate understanding'; 'The self is to be seen, heard, reflected upon, and deeply meditated upon'; 'He is to be sought after, he is to be inquired into,' and so on.

No, because there is no other action left to perform. The statement 'one should meditate on it as the Self' is not a new command to act. Why? Because once the scriptures have revealed the true nature of the Self and negated everything that is not the Self, there remains no other duty—either mental or physical—to be done. A command is only meaningful when it prompts a person to act beyond merely understanding the words, as when one is told to perform a sacrifice to reach heaven. Knowing the words of a ritual is not the same as performing it. But once you realize 'I am Brahman,' all seeking and all actions naturally cease.

Close to the Sanskrit

Others describe: Through meditation one should bring about a distinct cognition concerning the self; by that the self is known; and that alone is the remover of nescience, not the knowledge born from Vedic sentences concerning the self. In this meaning also utterances: 'Having known let him form understanding' 'To be seen, to be heard, to be reflected upon, to be deeply meditated upon' 'He is to be sought after, he is to be inquired into' and so on.

No, because of the absence of any other object. Nor is 'one should meditate on it as the Self' an unprecedented injunction; why? Because apart from the knowledge generated by the sentences expounding the nature of the Self and negating the non-Self, there is no other duty, mental or external, to be performed. For an injunction is fruitful only where human activity is observed to occur apart from the mere knowledge generated by hearing the injunctive sentence—as in 'desiring heaven, one should perform the Darsha-Purnamasa sacrifices.' Indeed, the mere knowledge generated by the injunctive sentence of Darsha-Purnamasa is not the actual performance of those sacrifices...

In plain words

You might ask: since we are discussing the knowledge by which everything is known, why does the text suddenly speak of 'attaining' the Self as if it were a different topic? The answer is that knowing the Self and attaining the Self mean the exact same thing. Not possessing the Self is nothing but ignorance of it; therefore, realizing it is itself its attainment. This is not like acquiring an external object that you do not already have. Here, there is no difference between the one who attains and the thing attained. When you seek an external object, you are separate from it, and you must act to get it. But the Self is your very nature; it is already eternally attained, and only a thin veil of ignorance makes it seem lost—just as a shell is mistaken for silver until you look closely.

Close to the Sanskrit

If it is objected: 'When the Self is known, everything else is known' being the topic of knowledge under discussion, how is 'attainment' spoken of as if it were not under discussion? We reply: No, because the identity of meaning of knowledge and attainment is intended. For the non-attainment of the Self is indeed mere ignorance; therefore, knowledge itself is the attainment of the Self. It is not an attainment of the Self characterized by the acquisition of the unobtained, like the attainment of the non-self, because of the absence of difference between the attainer and the to-be-attained...

In plain words

Because the root 'vind' means to acquire, the result of knowing these attributes is explained: just as the Self, descending into name and form, attains manifest existence and takes on the aggregate of breath and body, so the one who knows this secures glory, renown, and praise alongside his companions. Alternatively, whoever knows the described reality attains that liberation—termed 'śloka'—which is the liberating knowledge of oneness sought by truth-seekers. This indeed is the supreme fruit.

Close to the Sanskrit

Because of the meaning of acquisition from the verb vind, the fruit of knowing attributes is spoken of thus: just as this Self, having entered into name and form, attained visibility and also obtained the aggregate beginning with breath—so too, whoever knows this acquires fame, renown, and praise along with companions. Or else, whoever knows the reality as stated attains liberation, signified by the word shloka, which is the knowledge of identity desired by seekers; thus this is indeed the primary fruit.