Payload Website Template

WAKING, dreaming, deep sleep, and that which is beyond, such are the four states of Ātmā: the greatest [mahattara] is the Fourth [Turīya]. In the first three _Brahma_ dwells with one of Its feet; It has, three feet in the last.^[1]

Thus, the proportions previously established from one point of view are found reversed from another point of view: of the four feet (_pādas_) of Ātmā, the first three, when the states of Ātmā are considered distinctively, only have the importance of one from the meta-physical viewpoint, and from that same viewpoint the last is three in itself. If _Brahma_ were not ‘without parts' (_akhanda_) it might be said that only a quarter of It is in Being (including therewith universal manifestation, of which It is the principle) while Its three other quarters are outside Being.^[2] These three other quarters may be regarded in the following manner: (i) the totality of the possibilities of manifestation insofar as they are not manifested, subsisting therefore in an absolutely permanent and unconditioned state, like everything belonging to the 'Fourth' (insofar as they are manifested they belong to the first two states: as manifestable they belong to the third state, principial in relation to the two former); (ii) the totality of the possibilities of non-manifestation (of which moreover we only speak in the plural by analogy, for they are obviously beyond multiplicity and even beyond unity); (iii) and lastly, the Supreme Principle of both, which is Universal Possibility, total, infinite, and absolute.^[3]

The Sages think that the 'Fourth' [Chaturtha],^[4] which knows neither internal nor external objects [in a distinctive or analytical sense], nor the former and the latter taken together [regarded synthetically and in principle] and which is not [even] a synthetic whole of integral knowledge, being neither knowing nor not knowing, is invisible [adrishta, and indeed non-perceptible by any faculty at all], actionless [avyavahārya, in Its changeless identity], incomprehensible [agrāhya, since, It comprehends all], indefinable [alakshana, since It is without any limit], unthinkable [achintya, since It cannot be clothed in any form], indescribable [avyapadeshya, since It cannot be qualified by any particular attribute or determination], the unique, fundamental essence [pratyaya-sāra] of the Self [ātmā present in all the states], without any trace of the development of manifestation [prapancha-upashama, and consequently absolutely and totally free from the special conditions of any mode, of existence whatever], fullness of Peace and Beatitude, without duality: It is Ātmā [Itself, outside of and independently of any condition], [thus] It must be known.^[5]

It will be noticed that everything concerning this unconditioned state of Ātmā is expressed under a negative form: it is easy to understand why this must be so, since, in language, every direct affirmation is necessarily particular and determinate, the affirmation of something which excludes something else, and which thereby limits the object so affirmed.^[6] Every determination is a limitation, that is to say, a negation:^[7] consequently, it is the negation of a determination which is a true affirmation and the apparently negative terms which we find here are, in their real sense, pre-eminently affirmative. So also the word ‘Infinite', which has a similar form, expresses in reality the negation of all limit; it is therefore the equivalent of total and absolute affirmation, which comprises or embraces all particular affirmations, but which is not any one affirmation to the exclusion of others, precisely because it implies them all equally and 'non-distinctively': and it is in this manner that Universal Possibility contains absolutely all possibilities. Everything that can be expressed by means of an affirmative form belongs of necessity to the realm of Being, since this is itself the first affirmation or the first determination, that from which all others proceed, just as unity is the first of numbers, whence all others are derived; but here we are no longer in unity but in 'non-duality', or, in other words, we are beyond Being for the reason that we are beyond all determination, even principial.^[8]

In Itself, then, Ātmā is neither manifested (vyakta) nor unmanifested (avyakta), at least when one only regards the unmanifested as the immediate principle of the manifested (which refers to the state of Prājña): but It is the principle both of the manifested and the unmanifested (although this Supreme Principle can also be said to be unmanifested in a higher sense, if only thereby to proclaim Its absolute changelessness and the impossibility characterizing It by any positive attribution whatsoever).

It [the Supreme Brahma, with which unconditioned Ātmā is identical], the eye does not attain to,^[9] nor speech, nor the mind:^[10] we do not recognize It [as comprehensible by aught other than Itself] and it is for this reason that we do not know how to expound Its nature [by means of any sort of description]. It is superior to what is known [distinctively, or superior to the manifested Universe] and It is even beyond what is not known [distinctively, or beyond the unmanifested Universe, one with pure Being];^[11] such is the teaching that we have received from the wise men of former times. It should be realized that That which is not manifested by speech [nor by anything else], but by which speech is manifested [as well as everything else], is Brahma [in Its Infinity], and not what is looked upon [as an object of meditation] as ‘this' [an individual being or a manifested world, according as the point of view refers to the ‘microcosm' or the ‘macrocosm'] or that' [Ishvara or Universal Being itself, outside all individualization and all manifestation].^[12]

Shankarāchārya adds the following commentary to this passage:

A disciple who has attentively followed the exposition of the nature of Brahma must be led to suppose that he knows Brahma perfectly [at least in theory]; but, in spite of his apparent justification for thinking so, this is nevertheless an erroneous opinion. In actual fact the well established meaning of every text concerning the Vedānta is that the Self of every being who possesses Knowledge is identical with Brahma [since through that very Knowledge the 'Supreme Identity' is realized]. Now a distinct and definite knowledge is possible in respect of everything capable of becoming an object of knowledge: but it is not possible in the case of That which cannot become such an object. That is Brahma, for It is the [total] Knower, and the Knower can know other things [encompassing them all within Its infinite comprehension, which is identical with Universal Possibility], but cannot make Itself the object of Its own knowledge [for, in Its identity, which is not the result of any identification, one cannot even make the principial distinction, as in the condition of Prajña, between a subject and an object which are nevertheless ‘the same’, and It cannot cease to be Itself 'all-knowing' in order to become ‘all-known', which would be another Itself], in the same way that fire can burn other things but cannot burn itself [its essential nature being indivisible, just as, analogically, Brahma is 'without duality'].^[13] Neither can it be said that Brahma is able to become an object of knowledge for anything other than Itself, since outside Itself there is nothing which can possess knowledge [all knowledge, even relative, being but a participation in absolute and supreme knowledge].^[14]

Hence it is said in the succeeding passage of the text:

If you think that you know [Brahma] well, what you know of Its nature is in reality but little; for this reason Brahma should be still more attentively considered by you. [The reply is as follows]: I do not think that I know It; by that I mean to say that I do not know It well [distinctively, as I should know an object capable of being described or defined]; nevertheless, I know It [according to the instruction I have received concerning Its nature]. Whoever among us understands the following words [in their true meaning]: ‘I do not know It, and yet I know It,' verily that Man knows It. He who thinks that Brahma is not comprehended [by any faculty], by him Brahma is comprehended [for by the Knowledge of Brahma he has become really and effectively identical with Brahma Itself] ; but he who thinks that Brahma is comprehended [by some sensible or mental faculty] knows It not. Brahma [in Itself, in Its incommunicable essence] is unknown to those who know It [after the manner of some object of knowledge, be it a particular being or Universal Being] and It is known to those who do not know It at all [as 'this' or 'that'].^[15] hearing (_shrotra_), and lastly about the 'vital breath' (_prāna_).^[13]^[14]^[15]

Footnotes

[1]_Maitri Upanishad_ VII.2.

[2]_Pāda_, which means 'foot' can also mean 'quarter'.

[3]Similarly, when considering the first three states, which together constitute the realm of Being, it could also be said that the first two amount to no more than a third of Being, since they only contain formal manifestation, while the third state by itself amounts to two-thirds, since it includes both formless manifestation and unmanifested Being. It is essential to note that only possibilities of manifestation enter into the realm of Being, even when considered in all its universality.

[4]The two words _Chaturtha_ and _Turīya_ bear the same meaning and apply to the one identical state: _Yad vai Chaturtham tat Turīyam_, 'assuredly that which is _Chaturtha_, that is _Turīya_' (_Brihadaranyaka Upanishad_ V. 14.3).

[5]_Māhdūkya Upanishad_ I.7.

[6]It is for the same reason that this state is simply called 'the Fourth', since it cannot be characterized in any way; but this explanation, although quite plain, has escaped the orientalists and in this connection one can mention a curious example of their lack of understanding: Oltramare imagined that this name 'the Fourth' showed that a ‘logical construction' only was intended, because it reminded him of ‘the fourth dimension of the mathematicians'; this is an unexpected comparison to say the least, and it would certainly be difficult to justify it seriously.

[7]Spinoza himself has formally recognized this truth: _Omnis determinatio negatio est_; but it is hardly necessary to mention that his application of it is more reminiscent of the indetermination of _Prakriti_ than of that of _Ātmā_ in its unconditioned state.

[8]Our point of view in the present instance is purely metaphysical, but it should be added that the same considerations can also apply from the theological point of view; although the latter ordinarily keeps within the limits of Being, there are those who have recognized that 'negative theology' alone is strictly valid, or in other words that only attributes which are negative in form can properly be ascribed to God. Cf. Saint Dionysius the Areopagite, _Treatise on Mystical Theology_, the last two chapters of which resemble the text we have just quoted in a remarkable manner, even down to the expressions used.

[9]Similarly, the Koran says in speaking of Allah: ‘The eye cannot reach Him.' ‘The Principle is reached neither by sight nor by hearing.' (_Chuang Tzu_, chap. 22; Father Wieger's translation, p397).

[10]Here, the eye stands for the faculties of sensation and speech for the faculties of action; we have seen above that _manas_, by nature and function, participates in both alike. _Brahma_ cannot be reached by any individual faculty: It cannot, like gross objects, be perceived by the senses, nor conceived by thought, like subtle objects; It cannot be expressed in sensible mode by words, nor in ideal mode through mental images.

[11]Cf. the passage already quoted from the _Bhagavad-Gītā_ xv.18, according to which _Paramātmā_ 'transcends the destructible and even the indestructible'; the destructible is the manifested and the indestructible is the unmanifested, taken in the sense that we have just explained.

[12]_Kena-Upanishad_ I.3–5. What has been said of speech (_vāch_) is then successively repeated, in _shrutis_ 6–9, and in the selfsame terms, about the 'mental faculty' (_manas_), the eye (_chakshus_),

[13]Cf. _Brihadāranyaka Upanishad_ IV.5.14: ‘How could the [total] Knower be known?'

[14]Here again, one can establish a comparison with the following phrase from the _Treatise on Unity_ (_Risalāt-al-Ahadiyah_) of Muhyi ‘d-Dīn ibn al-'Arabī: ‘There is nothing, absolutely nothing, that exists apart from Him [Allah], and He comprehends His own existence without [however] this comprehension existing in any manner whatsoever.'

[15]_Kena Upanishad_ II.1–3. Here is an almost identical Taoist text: 'The Infinite said: 'I do not know the Principle; this answer is profound. Inaction said: I know the Principle; this answer is superficial. The Infinite was right in saying that It knew nothing about the essence of the Principle. Inaction was able to say that it knew It as regards Its external manifestations.... Not to know It is to know It [in Its essence]; to know It [in Its manifestations] is not to know It [as It really is]. But how is one to understand this, that it is by not knowing It that It is known? This is the way, says the Primordial State. The Principle cannot be heard; that which is heard is not It. The Principle cannot be seen; that which is seen is not It. The Principle cannot be uttered; that which is uttered is not It.... The Principle, not being imaginable, cannot be described either. Whoever asks questions about the Principle and answers them, both show that they do not know what the Principle is. Concerning the Principle, one can neither ask nor make answer what It is. (_Chuang Tzu_, chap. 22; Father Wieger's translation, pp397–399).

THE UNCONDITIONED STATE OF ĀTMĀ

Footnotes