Mandukya Karika, verse 3.1

Text

उपासनाश्रितो धर्मो जाते ब्रह्मणि वर्तते ।
प्रागुत्पत्तेरजं सर्वं तेनासौ कृपणः स्मृतः ॥ १ ॥

upāsanāśrito dharmo jāte brahmaṇi vartate |
prāgutpatterajaṃ sarvaṃ tenāsau kṛpaṇaḥ smṛtaḥ || 1 ||

1. The Jīva betaking itself to devotion (upāsanā) thinks itself to be related to the Brahman that is supposed to have manifested Himself He is said to be of narrow intellect because he thinks that before creation all was of the nature of the unborn (Reality).

Shankara Bhashya (commentary)

While determining the meaning of Aum, it has been stated in the form of a proposition that “Ātman is the negation of phenomena, blissful and non-dual.” It has been further stated that “Duality does not exist when the reality is known.” Further, in the chapter on Illusion, that duality does not exist really has been established by the illustrations of dream, magic, castle-in-the-air, etc., and also by reasoning on the grounds of “the capability of being seen” and “the being finite,” etc. Now it is asked whether non-duality can be established only by scriptural evidence or whether it can be proved by reasoning as well. It is said in reply that it is possible to establish non-duality by reasoning1 as well. How is it possible? This is shown in this chapter on Advaita. It has been demonstrated in the last chapter that the entire realm of dualism including the object and the act of devotion is illusory,2 and the attributeless, non-dual Ātman alone is the Reality. The word “upāsanāŚrīta” in the text, meaning the one3 betaking himself to devotion, signifies him who has recourse to devotional exercises as means to the attainment of liberation and who further thinks that he is the devotee and Brahman is his object of worship. This Jīva or the embodied being further thinks that through devotional practices he, at present related to the evolved4 Brahman (Personal God), would attain to the ultimate Brahman after the dissolution of the body. Prior5 to the manifestation, according to this Jīva, everything including itself, was unborn. In other words he thinks, “I shall, through devotional practices, regain that which was my real nature before manifestation, though at present I subsist in the Brahman that appears in the form of the manifold.” Such a Jīva, that is, the aspirant, betaking itself to devotion, inasmuch as it knows only a partial aspect of Brahman, is called of narrow6 or poor intellect by those who regard Brahman as eternal7 and unchanging. The Upaniṣad of the Talavakāra (Kena) supports this view in such statements as, “That which is not expressed (indicated) by speech and by which speech is expressed, That alone know as Brahman and not that which people here adore,” etc.