- Shri Shankaracharia commentary :

Aum, the word, is all this. As all diversified objects that we see around us, indicated by names, are not different from their (corresponding) names, and further as the different names are not different from Aum, therefore all this is verily Aum. As a thing is known through its name, so the highest Brahman is known through Aum alone. Therefore the highest Brahman is verily Aum. This (treatise) is the explanation of that, tasya, that is, of Aum, the word, which is of the same nature as the higher as well as the lower Brahman. Upavyākhyānam means clear explanation, because Aum is the means to the knowledge of Brahman on account of its having the closest proximity to Brahman. The word ‘Prastutam’ meaning ‘commences’ should be supplied to complete the sentence (as otherwise, it is incomplete). That which is conditioned by the triple (conceptions of) time, such as past, present and future is also verily Aum for reasons already explained. All that is beyond the three (divisions of) time, i.e., unconditioned by time, and yet known by their effects, which is called ‘Avyākṛta’, the unmanifested, etc.,—that also is verily Aum. (Ⅴ)

- Shri Shankaracharia commentary :

All this is verily Brahman. All that has been said to consist merely of Aum (in the previous text) is Brahman. That Brahman which has been described (as existing) inferentially is now pointed out, as being directly known, by the passage, “This Self is Brahman”. The word this, meaning that which appears divided into four quarters, is pointed out as the innermost Self, with a gesture (of hand) by the passage, “This is Ātman”. That Ātman indicated by Aum, signifying both the higher and the lower Brahman, has four quarters (Pādas), not indeed, like the four feet (Pādas) of a cow, but like the four quarters (Pādas) of a coin known as Kārṣāpaṇa. The knowledge of the fourth (Turīya) is attained by merging the (previous) three, such as Viśva, etc., in it in the order of the previous one, in the succeeding one. Here the word ‘Pāda’ or ‘foot’ is used in the sense of instrument. The word ‘Pāda’ is again used in the sense of an object when the object to be achieved is the fourth (Turīya). (Ⅴ)

- Shri Shankaracharia commentary :

Jāgaritasthāna, i.e., his sphere (of activity) is the waking state. Bahiṣprajña, i.e., who is aware of objects other than himself. The meaning is that consciousness appears, as it were, related to outward objects on account of Avidyā. Similarly Saptāṅga, i.e., he has seven limbs. The Śruti says, “Of that Vaiśvānara Self, the effulgent region is his head, the sun his eye, the air his vital breath, the ether (Ākāśa) the (middle part of his) body, the water his kidney and the earth his feet.” The Āhavanīya fire (one of the three fires of the Agnihotra sacrifice) has been described as his mouth in order to complete the imagery of the Agnihotra sacrifice. He is called Saptāṅga because these are the seven limbs of his body. Similarly he has nineteen mouths. These are the five organs of perception (Buddhindriyas); the five organs of action (Karmendriyas); the five aspects of vital breath (Prāṇa, etc.); the mind (Manas); the intellect (Buddhi); egoity (Ahaṃkāra); mind-stuff (Chitta). These are, as it were, the mouths, i.e., the instruments by means of which he (Vaiśvānara) experiences (objects). He, the Vaiśvānara, thus constituted, experiences through the instruments enumerated above, gross objects, such as sound, etc. He is called Vaiśvānara because he leads all creatures of the universe in diverse ways (to the enjoyment of various objects); or because he comprises all beings. Following the grammatical rules regarding the compound which gives the latter meaning, the word that is formed is Viśvānara, which is the same as Vaiśvānara. He is the first quarter because he is non-different from the totality of gross bodies (known as Virāt). He is called first (quarter) because the subsequent quarters are realized through him (Vaiśvānara).

(Objection)—while the subject-matter under discussion treats of the innermost Self (Pratyak Ātmā) as having four quarters—in the text, “This Ātman is Brahman”—how is it that (the external universe consisting of) the effulgent regions, etc., have been described as its limbs such as head, etc.?

(Reply)—This, however, is no mistake; because the object is to describe the entire phenomena, including those of gods (Adhidaiva) as having four quarters from the standpoint of this Ātman known as the Virāt (i.e., the totality of the gross universe). And in this way alone is non-duality established by the removal of (the illusion of) the entire phenomena. Further, the one Ātman is realized as existing in all beings and all beings are seen as existing in Ātman. And, thus alone, the meaning of such Śruti passages as “Who sees all beings in the Self, etc.” can be said to be established. Otherwise, the subjective world will, verily, be, as in the case of such philosophers as the Sāmkhyas, limited by its (one’s) own body. And if that be the case, no room would be left for the Advaita which is the special feature of the Śruti. For, in the case of duality, there would be no difference between the Advaita and the Sāmkhya and other systems. The establishment of the identity of all with Ātman is sought by all the Upaniṣads. It is, therefore, quite reasonable to speak of the effulgent regions, etc., as seven limbs in connection with the subjective (individual self, Adhyātma) associated with the gross body, because of its identity with the Adhidaiva (comprising the super-physical regions) universe from the standpoint of the Virāt (the totality of the gross physical universe). This is further known from such characteristic indication (of the Śrutí), as “Thy head shall fall”, etc.

The identity (of Adhyātma and Adhidaiva) from the standpoint of the Virāt indicates similar identity of the selves known as the Hiraṇyagarbha and the Taijasa as well as of the Unmanifested (Īśvara) and the Prājña. It is also stated in the Madhu Brāhmaṇa, “This bright immortal person in this earth and that bright immortal person in the body (both are Madhu).” It is an established fact that the Self in deep sleep (Prājña) is identical with the Unmanifested (Īśvara) because of the absence of any distinction between them. Such being the case, it is clearly established that non-duality is realized by the disappearance (of the illusion) of all duality. (Ⅴ)

- Shri Shankaracharia commentary :

He is called the Svapnasthāna because the dream (state) is his (Taijasa) sphere. Waking consciousness, being associated as it is with many means,1 and appearing2 conscious of objects as if external, though (in reality) they are nothing but states3 of mind, leaves in the mind corresponding4 impressions. That the mind (in dream) without5 any of the external means, but possessed of the impressions left on it by the waking consciousness, like6 a piece of canvas7 with the pictures painted on it, experiences the dream state also as if it were like the waking, is due to its being under the influence of ignorance, desire and their action.8 Thus9 it is said, “(And when he falls asleep) then after having taken away with him (portion of the) impressions from the world during the waking state (destroying and building up again, he experiences dream by his own light)” (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad, 4. 3. 9). Similarly the Atharvana, after introducing the subject with “(all the senses) become one in the highest10 Deva, the mind,” continues “There the god (mind) enjoys in dream greatness”11 (Praśna Upaniṣad). From12 the standpoint of the sense-organs, the mind is internal. He (the Taijasa) is called the Antaḥprajña or conscious of the internal because his consciousness in dream becomes aware of the mental states, which are impressions left by the previous waking state. He is called the Taijasa because he appears as the subject though this (dream) consciousness is without any (gross) object and is of the nature of the essence of light. The Viśva (the subject of the waking state) experiences consciousness associated with gross external objects; whereas, here (in the dream state), the object of experience is consciousness consisting of Vāsanās (the impressions of past experience). Therefore this experience is called the experience13 of the subtle. The rest is common (with the previous Śruti). This Taijasa is the second quarter (of Ātmarn).

Anandagiri Tika (glossary)
1 Means.—Subject-object relationship, agency, instrumentality, etc.

2 Appearing—According to Vedānta, external objects, perceived by the sense-organs, have no absolute reality. They appear as real on account of Avidyā. Their reality cannot be proved for the simple reason that they become non-existent when their essential character is enquired into.

3 States of mind— External objects are nothing but mental existents produced by Avidyā. There are no such independent external entities as objects; they are but creations of the mind. In fact we are not conscious of any external objects independent of the mind. We take our mental creations to be such objects. Again those who seek for the cause of these mental creations or ideas, which we think we see as external objects, are led into a logical regressus. This causal chain leads nowhere. It will be shown later on that the whole idea of cause and effect is unreal.

4 Corresponding, etc.—that is, like those experienced in the waking state. These impressions are subsequently reproduced in the form of dream-objects.

5 Without any, etc.—It is because in dream no other separate entity than the mind of the dreamer, is present.

6 Like a piece, etc.—Dream experiences appear as real as the experiences of the waking state.

7 Like a piece of canvas, etc.—The picture painted on a piece of canvas appears to possess various dimensions though, in reality, the picture is on a plane surface. Similarly, dream-experiences, though really states of mind, appear to be characterized by the-presence of externality and intemality.

8 Action—The word “Karma” is used in Vedānta in more senses than one. “Karma” primarily means “action It also signifies the destiny forged by one in one’s past incarnation or present: the store of tendencies, impulses, characteristics and habits,, which determine one’s future èmbodiment and environment. Another meaning of “Karma”, often used in reference to one’s caste or position in life, is ritual, the course of conduct, which one ought to follow in pursuance of the tendencies acquired in the past, with a view to work them out. The meaning of the word, here, is the tendencies generated in the mind by the activities of the waking state. Avidyā gives rise to Kāma or desire, and this in its turn, impels a man to action.

9 Thus, etc.—The causal relation between the waking and the dream states is sought to be established here on scriptural authority.

10 Highest, etc.—it is because in the dream state the Jīva is associated with the Upādhi of mind.

11 Greatness—The Jīva in sleep, characterized by darkness, possesses the light by means of which the subject-object relationship is seen. The greatness of mind consists in the fact that in dream, it can transform itself into knowledge, act of knowing and the object of knowledge.

12 From the standpoint of— From the standpoint of the waking state alone when the sense-organs are active, one can review the dream experiences and thus come to know the internal activity of the mind which acts in the dream state independently of the sense-organs of the waking state.

13 Experience of the subtle—The experiences of waking and dream states are of the same nature; for in both the states the perceiver is aware only of his mental states which are not related to any external objects, as they are non-existent. From the standpoint of dream, dream objects are as gross and material as those experienced in the waking state. From the view-point of the waking state alone, one may infer that the dream objects are subtle, that is, composed of mere impressions of the waking state, inasmuch as in the dream state no external (that is, gross) object exists at all. (Ⅴ)

- Shri Shankaracharia commentary :

The adjectival clause, viz., “Wherein the sleeper,” etc., is put with a view to enabling one to grasp what the state of deep sleep (Suṣupti) signifies, inasmuch as sleep characterized by the absence of the knowledge of Reality is the common feature of those mental modifications which are associated with (waking, that is) perception (of gross objects) and (dream, that is the) non-perception (of gross objects). Or the object of the introduction of the adjectival clause may be to distinguish the state of deep sleep (of the sleeping person) from the two previous states as sleep characterized by the absence of knowledge of Reality is the common feature of the three states. ‘Wherein,’ that is to say, in which state or time, the sleeping person does not see any dream, nor does he desire any desirable (object). For; in the state of deep sleep, there does not exist, as in the two other states, any desire or the dream experience whose characteristic is to take a thing for what it is not. He is called the ‘Suṣuptasthāna’ because his sphere is this state of deep sleep. Similarly it is called Ekībhūta, i.e., the state in which all experiences become unified—a state in which all objects of duality, which are nothing but forms of thought, spread over the two states (viz., the waking and the dream), reach the state, of indiscrimination or non-differentiation without losing their characteristics, as the day, revealing phenomenal objects, is enveloped by the darkness of night. Therefore conscious experiences, which are nothing but forms of thought, perceived during dream and waking states, become a thick mass (of consciousness) as it were (in deep sleep); this state of deep sleep is called the ‘Prajñānagharta’ (a mass of all consciousness unified) on account of the absence of all manifoldness (discrimination of variety). As at night, owing to the indiscrimination produced by darkness, all (percepts) become a mass (of darkness) as it were, so also in the state of deep sleep all (objects) of consciousness, verily, become a mass (of consciousness). The word ‘eva’ (‘verily’) in the text denotes the absence8 of any other thing except consciousness (in deep sleep). (At the time of deep sleep) the mind is free from the miseries of the efforts made on account of the states of the mind being involved in the relationship of subject and object: therefore, it is called the Ānandamaya, that is, endowed with an abundance of bliss. But this is not Bliss Itself; because it is not Bliss Infinite. As in common (experience) parlance, one, free from efforts, is called happy and enjoyer of bliss. As the Prājña enjoys this state of deep sleep which is entirely free from all efforts, therefore it is called the ‘Ānandabhuk’ (the experiencer of bliss). The Śruti also says, “This is its highest bliss.” It is called the ‘Cetomukha’ because it is the doorway to the (cognition) of the two other states of consciousness known as dream and waking. Or because the Ceta (the perceiving entity) characterized by (empirical) consciousness (Bodha) is its doorway leading to the experience of dreams, etc., therefore it is called the “Cetomukha’. It is called Prājña as it is conscious of the past and the future as well as of all objects. It is called the Prājña, the knower par excellence, even in deep sleep, because of its having been so in the two previous states. Or it is called the Prājña because its peculiar feature is consciousness undifferentiated. In the two other states consciousness exists, no doubt, but it is (there) aware of (the experiences of) variety. The Prājña, thus described, is the third quarter. (Ⅴ)

- Shri Shankaracharia commentary :

This in its natural state, is the Lord (Īśvara) of all. All, that is to say, of the entire physical and super-physical universe. He (Īśvara) is not something separate from the universe as others hold. The Śruti also says, “O good one, Prāṇa (Prājña or Īśvara) is that in which the mind is bound.” He is omniscient because he is the knower of all beings in their different conditions. He is the Antaryāmin, that is, he alone entering into all, directs everything from within. Therefore He is called the origin of all because from Him proceeds the universe characterized by diversity, as described before. It being so, He is verily that from which all things proceed and in which all disappear. (Ⅴ)

- Shri Shankaracharia commentary :

(Objection)—The object was to describe Ātman as having four quarters. By the very descriptions of the three quarters, the fourth is established as being other than the three characterised by the “conscious of the subjective”, etc. Therefore the negation (of attributes relating to the three quarters) for the purpose of indicating Turīya implied in the statement, “Turīya is that which is not conscious of the subjective”, etc., is futile.

(Reply)—No. As the nature of the rope is realised by the negation of the (illusory) appearances of the snake, etc., so also it is intended to establish the very Self, which subsists in the three states, as Turīya. This is done in the same way as (the great Vedic statement) “Thou art that”. If Turīya were, in fact, anything different from Ātman subsisting in the three states, then, the teachings of the Scriptures would have no meaning on account of the absence of any instrument of knowledge (regarding Turīya). Or the other (inevitable alternative would be to declare absolute nihilism ( śūnya) to be the ultimate Truth. Like the (same) rope mistaken as snake, garland, etc., when the same Ātman is mistaken as Antaḥprajña (conscious of the subjective) etc., in the three states associated with different characteristics, the knowledge, resulting from the negation of such attributes as the conscious of the subjective, etc., is the means of establishing the absolute absence of the unreal phenomena of the world (imagined) in Ātman. As a matter of fact, the two results, namely, the negation of (superimposed) attributes and the disappearance of the unreal phenomena happen at the same time. Therefore no additional instrument of knowledge or no other effort is to be made or sought after for the realisation of Turīya. With the cessation of the idea of the snake, etc., in the rope, the real nature of the rope becomes revealed and this happens simultaneously with the knowledge of the distinction between the rope and the snake. But those who say that the knowledge, in addition to the removal of the darkness (that envelopes the jar), enables one to know the jar, may as well affirm that the act of cutting (a tree), in addition to its undoing the relation of the members of the body intended to be cut, also functions (in other ways) in other parts of the body. As the act of cutting intended to divide the tree into two is said to be complete with the severance of the parts (of the tree) so also the knowledge employed to perceive the jar covered by the darkness (that envelopes it) attains its purpose when it results in removing the darkness, though that is not the object intended to be produced. In such case the knowledge of the jar, which is invariably connected with the removal of the darkness, is not the result accomplished by the instrument of knowledge. Likewise, the knowledge, which is (here) the same as that which results from the negation of predicates, directed towards the discrimination of such attributes as “the conscious of the subjective” etc., superimposed upon Ātman, cannot function with regard to Turīya in addition to its act of negating of such attributes as “the conscious of the subjective” which is not the object intended to be produced. For, with the negation of the attributes such as “conscious of the subjective,” etc., is accomplished simultaneously the cessation of the distinction between the knower, the known and the knowledge. Thus it will be said later on, “Duality cannot exist when Gnosis, the highest Truth (non-duality), is realised.” The knowledge of duality cannot exist even for a moment immediately after the moment of the cessation of duality. If it should remain, there would; follow what is known as regressus ad infinitum; and consequently duality will never cease. Therefore it is established that the cessation of such unreal attributes as “conscious of the subjective” etc., superimposed upon Ātman is simultaneous with the manifestation of the Knowledge which, in itself, is the means (pramāṇa) for the negation of duality.

By the statement that it (Turīya) is “not conscious of the subjective” is indicated that it is not “Taijasa”. Similarly by the statement that it is “not conscious of the objective,” it is denied that it (Turīya) is Viśva. By saying that it is “not conscious of either”, it is denied that Turīya is any intermediate state between the waking and the dream states. By the statement that Turīya is “not a mass all sentiency”, it is denied that it is the condition of deep sleep—which is held to be a causal condition on account of one’s inability to distinguish the truth from error (in deep sleep). By saying that it is “not simple consciousness”, it is implied that Turīya cannot simultaneously cognize the entire world of consciousness (by a single act of consciousness). And lastly by the statement that it is “not unconsciousness” it is implied that Turīya is not insentient or of the nature of matter.

(Objection)—How, again, do such attributes as “conscious of the subjective,” etc., which are (directly) perceived to subsist in Ātman become non-existent only by an act of negation as the snake, etc. (perceived) in the rope, etc., become non-existent (by means of an act of negation)?

(Reply)—Though the states (waking and dream) are really of the essence of consciousness itself, and as such are non-different from each other (from the point of view of the substratum), yet one state is seen to change into another as do the appearances of the snake, water-line, etc., having for their substratum the rope, etc. But the consciousness itself is real because it never changes.

(Objection)—Consciousness is seen to change (disappear) in deep sleep.

(Reply)—No, the state of deep sleep is a matter of experience. For the Śruti says, “Knowledge of the Knower is never absent.”

Hence it (Turīya) is “unseen”; and because it is unseen therefore it is “incomprehensible”. Turīya cannot be apprehended by the organs of action. Alakṣanam means “uninferable”, because there is no Liṅga (common characteristic) for its inference. Therefore Turīya is “unthinkable” and hence “indescribable” (by words). It is “essentially of the nature of consciousness consisting of Self”. Turīya should be known by spotting that consciousness that never changes in the three states, viz., waking, etc., and whose nature is that of a Unitary Self. Or, the phrase may signify that the knowledge of the one Ātman alone is the means for realising Turīya, and therefore Turīya is the essence of this consciousness or Self or Ātman. The Śruti also says, “It should be meditated upon as Ātman.” Several attributes, such as the “conscious of the subjective” etc., associated with the manifestation (such as, Viśva, etc.) in each of the states have already been negated. Now by describing Turīya as “the cessation of illusion”, the attributes which characterise the-three states, viz., waking, etc., are negated. Hence it is “ever Peaceful”, i.e., without any manifestation of change—and “all bliss”. As it is non-dual, i.e., devoid of illusory ideas of distinction, therefore it is called “Turīya”, the “Fourth”, because it is totally distinct (in character) from the three quarters which' are mere appearances. “This, indeed, is the Ātman and it should be known,” is intended to show that the meaning of the Vedic statement, “That thou art”, points to the relationless Ātman (Turīya) which is like the rope (in the illustration) different from the snake, line on the ground, stick, etc,, which are mere appearances. That Ātman which has been described in such Śruti passages as “unseen, but the seer”, “the consciousness of the seer is never absent”, etc., should be known. (The incomprehensible) Turīya “should be known”, and this is said so only from the standpoint of the previously unknown condition, for duality cannot exist when the Highest Truth is known. (Ⅴ)

- Shri Shankaracharia commentary :

In the word Aum prominence is given to that which is indicated by several names. The word Aum which has been explained before as Ātman having four quarters is again the same Ātman described here from the standpoint of syllable where prominence is given to the name. What, again, is that syllable? It is thus replied: Aum. It is that word Aum which being divided into

parts, is viewed from the standpoint of letters. How? Those which constitute the quarters of the Ātman are1 the letters of Aum. What are they? The letters are A, U and M.

Tn the first Upaniṣad it is said, “Aum, the word, is all this.” The word Aum is the name (abhidhāna) which indicates everything (abhidheya) past, present, future and all that which is beyond even the conception of time. Thus Aum is the name for Brahman. The second Upaniṣad declares that Brahman is the Ātman. The Ātman with its four quarters has been explained in the following Upaniṣads. Therefore all these explanations are of Aum from the standpoint of Ātman where prominence is given to that which is indicated by names. Now the same Aum is explained from the standpoint of the word itself, that is the name which indicates Ātman or the Supreme Reality.

The Highest Truth as explained above by the process of the refutation of the erroneous superimposition can be grasped only by the students of sharp or middling intelligence. But those ordinary students who cannot enter upon philosophical reflection regarding the Supreme Reality as given in the previous texts, are advised to concentrate on Aum as the symbol of the Ultimate Reality.

Anandagiri Tika (glossary)
1 Are, etc.—It is because the quarters and the letters are identical. (Ⅴ)

- Shri Shankaracharia commentary :

Points of specific resemblance between them are thus pointed out. That which is Vaiśvānara, whose sphere of activity is the waking state, is the first letter of Aum. What is the Common feature between them? It is thus explained: the first point of resemblance is pervasiveness. All sounds are pervaded by A. This is corroborated by the Śruti passage, “The sound A is the whole of speech.” Similarly the entire universe is pervaded by the Vaiśvānara as is evident from such Śruti passages as, “The effulgent Heaven is the head of this, the Vaiśvānara Ātman,” etc. The identity of the name and the object, indicated by the name, has already been described. The word ‘Ādimat’ means that this has a beginning. As the letter A is with a beginning, so also is Vaiśvānara. Vaiśvānara is identical with A on account of this common feature. The knower of this identity gets the following result: One who knows this, i.e., the identity described above, has all his desires fulfilled and becomes the first of the great. (Ⅴ)

- Shri Shankaracharia commentary :

He who is Taijasa having for its sphere of activity the dream state is U (उ) the second letter of Aum. What is the point of resemblance? It is thus replied: The one common feature is superiority. The letter U:is, as it were, ‘superior’ to A; similarly Taijasa is superior to Viśva. Another common feature is: the letter U (उ) is in between the letters A (अ) and M (म). Similarly Taijasa is in between Viśva and Prājña. Therefore this condition of being in the middle is the common feature. Now is described the result of this knowledge. The knowledge (of the knower of this identity) is always on the increase, i.e., his power of knowing increases considerably. He is regarded in the same way by all, i.e., his enemies, like his friends, do not envy him. Further, in his family not one is born who is not a knower of Brahman. (Ⅴ)

- Shri Shankaracharia commentary :

One who is Prājña associated with deep sleep is M (म) the third sound (letter) of Aum. What is the common feature? It is thus explained. Here this is the common feature: The word Miti in the text means “measure”. As barley is measured by Prastha (a kind of measure), so also Viśva and Taijasa are, as it were, measured by Prājña during their evolution (utpātti) and involution (praḷaya) by their appearance from and disappearance into Prājña (deep sleep). Similarly after once finishing the utterance of Aum when it is re-uttered, the sounds (letters) A and U, as it were, merge into and emerge from M. Another common feature is described by the word “Apiteh” which means “becoming one”. When the word Aum is uttered the sounds (letters) A and U become one, as it were, in the last sound (letter) M. Similarly, Viśva and Taijasa become one (merge themselves) in Prājña in deep sleep. Therefore Prājña and the sound M are identical on account of this common basis that underlies them both. Now is described the merit of this knowledge. (One who knows this identity) comprehends all this, i.e., the real nature of the universe. Further he realises himself as the Ātman, the cause of the universe, i.e., Īśvara. The enumeration of these secondary merits is for the purpose of extolling the principal means (of knowledge). (Ⅴ)

- Shri Shankaracharia commentary :

The amātroḥ (soundless) is that which has no parts (sounds, etc., or letters). This partless Aum which is the fourth, is nothing but Pure Ātman. It is incomprehensible, because both speech and mind which correspond to the name and the object disappear or cease; the name and the object (that is indicated by the name) which are only forms of speech and mind cease or disappear (in the partless Aum), It is the cessation of the (illusion of) phenomena and all bliss and is identical with non-duality. Aum, as thus understood, has three sounds which are the same as the three quarters and therefore Aum is identical with Ātman. He who knows this merges his self in the Self which is the Highest Reality. Those who know Brahman, i.e., those who realise the Highest Reality merge into Self, because in their case the notion of the cause which corresponds to the third quarter (of Ātman) is destroyed (burnt). They are not born again, because Turīya is not a cause. For, the illusory snake which has merged in the rope on the discrimination of the snake from the rope, does not reappear as before, to those who know the distinction between them, by any effort of the mind (due to the previous impressions). To the men of dull or mediocre intellect who still consider themselves as students of philosophy, who having renounced the world, tread on the path of virtue and who know the common features between the sounds (mātrāḥ) and the quarters (or parts) as described above,—to them Aum, if meditated upon in a proper way, becomes a great help to the realisation of Brahman. The same is indicated in the Kārikā later on thus: “The three inferior stages of life, etc” (Māṇḍūkya Kārikā, Advaita Chapter, 16.) (Ⅴ)