Swami Madhavananda, who has translated (and in places, commented) on Shri Shankaracharya's "Vivekachoodamani", calls it an "original work of Shankara's genius" in the preface to the book. There could be more than one reason for calling it a work of genius. For one, it is possible that some of the statements made by Shri Shankaracharya in the book regarding the subtler aspects of creation were great revelations, made for the first time by him in trying to explain declarations in the Shrutis (upanishads), and later understood by others through his writings. Or, he might be referring simply to the deep conviction with which the highest of the truths of the Shrutis have been explained and propagated in the book - something perhaps impossible for someone without self-realization. My own money would, however, be on a third reason which is as follows. I read elsewhere that if Vedanta (especially, non-dual Vedanta) stands out relative to all other branches of Indian philosophy, it is in its preaching of absolute and total renunciation from everything "unreal", to the point where nothing except the Supreme Reality absorbs one's mind. Upon reading this translation of Vivekachudamani, it is very clear what that statement means.Even when the book goes into an explanation of some subtler aspect of reality (the gunas, the koshas, etc.), it does not let the reader's mind divert from the central and overriding message - that the sadhu needs to constantly keep his mind absorbed in the ideas of Brahman (the One Supreme Reality), especially the idea that Brahman is the absolute, one, non-dual reality, upon which the phenomenal world is but an erroneous super-imposition (like a rope being mistaken for a snake) and maintain in his mind the absolute renunciation which comes with the message. This thought, and the resulting "love for all" permeates every verse of the book, and if this was Shri Shankaracharya's central teaching, the book simply never loses focus. Swami Madhavananda says that a "new life has been breathed into the dry bones of philosophical discussion", and one reading of the 580 verses makes clear exactly what he means.
In the initial verses, Shri Shankaracharya mentions four well-accepted means to self-realization. The first is discriminating between the real and the unreal. The second is deep inner renunciation (not just an outward discipline for the show). The third is the cultivation of the six virtues (calmness, etc.) and the final but equally important one is the desire for liberation (self-realization). A student's typical question is considered - on the nature of bondage and liberation - and then the teacher goes on to explain. The means - especially discrimination (or, Viveka) between the real and the unreal and renunciation - are then discussed throughout the book in great details. Since Brahman is real and the phenomenal world is a super-imposition upon it, the nature of Brahman is explained, with some references to the upanishads too. The nature of creation - the pranas, the koshas, the gross and subtle body and the three gunas (modes of nature) are all mentioned - because these are all part of the "unreal" which needs to be given up - i.e., which should not be identified with by the seeker. The importance of inner (mental) renunciation is definitely an all-important theme, preached by Shri Shankaracharya with utmost conviction throughout the book.
In the 125th verse, Shri Shankaracharya says that there is something self-luminous and eternal, which is the substratum and witness of the the three states (waking, dreaming and deep sleep) and of the ego too. Commentaries on Patanjali's Yoga Sutras also mention this. The commonly understood "witness consciousness" in human beings, which helps one be conscious even of passing emotions, thoughts and desires, is called the subtle subject, and Patanjaliji says that meditating deeply enough on this "witness" leads to an opening up of further deeper and subtler aspects of creation for the meditator, including the realization of the finest and most subtle witness of all intelligence - the "purusha" of Sankhya and Yoga. The common witness-consciousness is of course self-luminous only in a limited way. To recognize the external, something internal needs to be there to acknowledge, feel and think about it. Without this internal, the external is not "lighted" (not known). So in that sense, the common brain is also "self-luminous" inasmuchas the illuminator of the brain iteself (the purusha) is not commonly known to seekers until they attain to realization. In deep dreamless sleep, though, this common witness loses its luminosity, so it is not perfectly self-luminous. The common witness-consciousness is also "eternal" in the sense that it stays quite the same throughout one's life - at least relatively speaking - even as the body and mind undergo many changes. It only seems to be absent in dreamless sleep, but otherwise it seems eternal. The ultimate witness, however, is said to be the witness of this witness-consciousness too, and of all states of the being. It is not realized without God's grace or efforts in this direction. The good news, though, is that even small efforts to see this ultimate witness, beginning with the commonly known witness-consciousness, can help one increase his/her identification with the ultimate witness, and thereby help attain to higher states of self-awareness.
While being completely devoid of any deterioration or change associated with matter and time, this eternal self is also said to be the "creator" of the phenomenal world - at least in its universal form. We all might have heard of the self (or, Atman) being described as being like a projector - the non-dual (Advaita) Vendantist's position is easily understood using this analogy - at least I think I remain true to the Advaita position when I describe the story in the following way. I, in my universal form, dreamt-up a universe as my "lila" (play), and projected these images on myself - images of bodies which live in houses, read books, go somewhere, and which have limited knowledge due to the "veiling power" (aavaran shakti) of Maya. The "projecting power" (vikshepa shakti) of Maya helped me in my endeavour to create these images, so very central to me, the projector, in my play. In the universe (or universes) I created, I used these two powers to create individualized egos which govern the individualized bodies. I also gave the individuals these two powers in the form of natural tendencies - the aavaran shakti in the form of tamasic tendencies which make them say "I don't want to know", "I don't want to do", etc., and the vikshepa shakti in the form of rajasic tendencies which make them feel like "I want this so I am going to do something to develop it, or get it". I also give them intelligence and consciousness to bring them back out of Maya, if they choose that way out. Once they hear of the great path, they can try to merge their senses into the mind, the mind into intelligence, intelligence into the witness consciousness and that, finally into the reality, which is me, the projector who has projected all this. So, the importance of this dreamt-up (projected) image of a body and world is much lesser for the sadhu than any other branch of Indian philosophy would suggest. It is to be considered just like one's image in water or one's shadow - who's affected by what happens to those image-bodies? As Shri Shankracharya says in verse 509 - let this body drop down in water or on land, I am untouched by its properties, as the sky is by the properties of the jar.
Brahman is then to be considered the only reality, says the great guru, not the phenomenal world, but keep in mind that the phenomenal world is itself nothing but a mistaken perception like a snake in a rope - actually only the rope existed and will exist forever. Therefore, even the world is nothing but Brahman, which seen through the eyes of Maya, appears like a snake instead of like the rope it is! At least, this is the right way for the Sadhu to think - all the time trying to merge his mind and intelligence into the undifferentiated, non-dual Brahman. This is the first means, and like a magnet pulling iron filings naturally to itself, brings about the state of deepest renunciation, which is the second means for the one who desires to go beyond the veil of Maya.
As a schoolboy, I heard that Kalidasa - after obtaining the blessing of Goddess Kali - came back home to his wife and knocked politely on the door and his wife replied, still not knowing who it was at the door, by asking the question "asti kashchit vag-visheshah" (is there something special or important)? Kalidasa, with his newfound wisdom, went on to write four of his famous epics, starting each with one of these words (asti, kashchit, vak and vishesha). It was his way of saying "Yes, there is indeed something special!" Shri Shankaracharya probably knew of this story and in the 125th verse, where he says, "asti kashchit swayam-nityam", he is perhaps also saying to his disciples what Kalidasa said to his wife - "Indeed, there is something very, very special!" For Shri Shankara, the secret of the self-luminous, eternal self, and the consciousness that all is One, attained by meditation, absorption and the fundamental renunciation, was that special thing. For the present writer, even the feelings created by these ideas, pondered upon with some faith, are special enough.
Sadanand Tutakne
In the initial verses, Shri Shankaracharya mentions four well-accepted means to self-realization. The first is discriminating between the real and the unreal. The second is deep inner renunciation (not just an outward discipline for the show). The third is the cultivation of the six virtues (calmness, etc.) and the final but equally important one is the desire for liberation (self-realization). A student's typical question is considered - on the nature of bondage and liberation - and then the teacher goes on to explain. The means - especially discrimination (or, Viveka) between the real and the unreal and renunciation - are then discussed throughout the book in great details. Since Brahman is real and the phenomenal world is a super-imposition upon it, the nature of Brahman is explained, with some references to the upanishads too. The nature of creation - the pranas, the koshas, the gross and subtle body and the three gunas (modes of nature) are all mentioned - because these are all part of the "unreal" which needs to be given up - i.e., which should not be identified with by the seeker. The importance of inner (mental) renunciation is definitely an all-important theme, preached by Shri Shankaracharya with utmost conviction throughout the book.
In the 125th verse, Shri Shankaracharya says that there is something self-luminous and eternal, which is the substratum and witness of the the three states (waking, dreaming and deep sleep) and of the ego too. Commentaries on Patanjali's Yoga Sutras also mention this. The commonly understood "witness consciousness" in human beings, which helps one be conscious even of passing emotions, thoughts and desires, is called the subtle subject, and Patanjaliji says that meditating deeply enough on this "witness" leads to an opening up of further deeper and subtler aspects of creation for the meditator, including the realization of the finest and most subtle witness of all intelligence - the "purusha" of Sankhya and Yoga. The common witness-consciousness is of course self-luminous only in a limited way. To recognize the external, something internal needs to be there to acknowledge, feel and think about it. Without this internal, the external is not "lighted" (not known). So in that sense, the common brain is also "self-luminous" inasmuchas the illuminator of the brain iteself (the purusha) is not commonly known to seekers until they attain to realization. In deep dreamless sleep, though, this common witness loses its luminosity, so it is not perfectly self-luminous. The common witness-consciousness is also "eternal" in the sense that it stays quite the same throughout one's life - at least relatively speaking - even as the body and mind undergo many changes. It only seems to be absent in dreamless sleep, but otherwise it seems eternal. The ultimate witness, however, is said to be the witness of this witness-consciousness too, and of all states of the being. It is not realized without God's grace or efforts in this direction. The good news, though, is that even small efforts to see this ultimate witness, beginning with the commonly known witness-consciousness, can help one increase his/her identification with the ultimate witness, and thereby help attain to higher states of self-awareness.
While being completely devoid of any deterioration or change associated with matter and time, this eternal self is also said to be the "creator" of the phenomenal world - at least in its universal form. We all might have heard of the self (or, Atman) being described as being like a projector - the non-dual (Advaita) Vendantist's position is easily understood using this analogy - at least I think I remain true to the Advaita position when I describe the story in the following way. I, in my universal form, dreamt-up a universe as my "lila" (play), and projected these images on myself - images of bodies which live in houses, read books, go somewhere, and which have limited knowledge due to the "veiling power" (aavaran shakti) of Maya. The "projecting power" (vikshepa shakti) of Maya helped me in my endeavour to create these images, so very central to me, the projector, in my play. In the universe (or universes) I created, I used these two powers to create individualized egos which govern the individualized bodies. I also gave the individuals these two powers in the form of natural tendencies - the aavaran shakti in the form of tamasic tendencies which make them say "I don't want to know", "I don't want to do", etc., and the vikshepa shakti in the form of rajasic tendencies which make them feel like "I want this so I am going to do something to develop it, or get it". I also give them intelligence and consciousness to bring them back out of Maya, if they choose that way out. Once they hear of the great path, they can try to merge their senses into the mind, the mind into intelligence, intelligence into the witness consciousness and that, finally into the reality, which is me, the projector who has projected all this. So, the importance of this dreamt-up (projected) image of a body and world is much lesser for the sadhu than any other branch of Indian philosophy would suggest. It is to be considered just like one's image in water or one's shadow - who's affected by what happens to those image-bodies? As Shri Shankracharya says in verse 509 - let this body drop down in water or on land, I am untouched by its properties, as the sky is by the properties of the jar.
Brahman is then to be considered the only reality, says the great guru, not the phenomenal world, but keep in mind that the phenomenal world is itself nothing but a mistaken perception like a snake in a rope - actually only the rope existed and will exist forever. Therefore, even the world is nothing but Brahman, which seen through the eyes of Maya, appears like a snake instead of like the rope it is! At least, this is the right way for the Sadhu to think - all the time trying to merge his mind and intelligence into the undifferentiated, non-dual Brahman. This is the first means, and like a magnet pulling iron filings naturally to itself, brings about the state of deepest renunciation, which is the second means for the one who desires to go beyond the veil of Maya.
As a schoolboy, I heard that Kalidasa - after obtaining the blessing of Goddess Kali - came back home to his wife and knocked politely on the door and his wife replied, still not knowing who it was at the door, by asking the question "asti kashchit vag-visheshah" (is there something special or important)? Kalidasa, with his newfound wisdom, went on to write four of his famous epics, starting each with one of these words (asti, kashchit, vak and vishesha). It was his way of saying "Yes, there is indeed something special!" Shri Shankaracharya probably knew of this story and in the 125th verse, where he says, "asti kashchit swayam-nityam", he is perhaps also saying to his disciples what Kalidasa said to his wife - "Indeed, there is something very, very special!" For Shri Shankara, the secret of the self-luminous, eternal self, and the consciousness that all is One, attained by meditation, absorption and the fundamental renunciation, was that special thing. For the present writer, even the feelings created by these ideas, pondered upon with some faith, are special enough.
Sadanand Tutakne
