॥ हरि: ॐ॥ SANDEEPANY SAADHANALAYA MUMBAI  Ādī Śaṅkarācārya’s

Upadeśa Sāhasrī Part -I (Chapter 1 to 10 of Poetry Section)

Sunday Discourses By

Swami Bodhatmananda, Resident Acharya (16th & 17th Residential Vedanta Courses)

Prepared by Students of Sandeepany Sadhanalaya Chinmaya Mission, Saki Vihar Road, Powaii, Mumbai, Maharashtra 400072, India Dedicated with our humble offering of gratitude to our Acharyaji and the entire Guruparampara ______***** ______Upadeśa Sāhasrī

Upadeśa Sāhasrī, a composition by Bhagavān Śaṅkarācārya, is a prakaraṇa grantha, a text that prepares us to study the Upaniṣads or Vedānta. The Ācārya, Śri Śaṅkarācārya, introduces Vedānta as part of the text itself and goes on to classify this work as an Upaniṣad. We will see how and why he does this.

The word upadeśa means instruction or teaching, bodha. The upadeśa given to the student here is unlike that given during the thread ceremony (mantropadeśa), or an initiation upadeśa (dīkṣā upadeśa). Here, the upadeśa is the teaching of Vedānta śāstra (Vedānta upadeśa). The word sāhasrī means a thousand; so Upadeśa Sāhasrī means a thousand teachings. This text has two sections: prose (gadya bhāga) and poetry (padya bhāga). We will commence with the poetry section, as it is simpler. There are 675 verses in addition to the prose section.

One may well ask why the text is called sāhasrī if it doesn’t have 1000 verses. The word sahasra also means many (bahvārthe sahasram). If 700 or 800 people had gathered somewhere, one might say, "A thousand people were there". This is one way we justify the word ‘thousand’, as we have to explain why this particular title was given to the text. Another explanation is that each verse could have multiple upadeśas. Also, we haven’t accounted for the gadya bhāga, which also has numerous teachings. So, there could in fact be more than a thousand teachings, thus Upadeśa Sāhasrī.

The word Vedānta actually refers to a technical term called ‘prasthāna trayī’. These are the three main works that lead us to the Truth or Brahman - the Upaniṣads, Bhagavad-gītā and Brahma Sutra. The simple answer to the question, “What is Vedānta?” is that it is the essence of the Vedas, which is explained in prasthāna trayī. Similarly, the great ācāryas have named three prakaraṇa granthas as the prakaraṇa prasthāna trayī. They are Upadeśa Sāhasrī; Naiṣkarmya Siddhi by Sureśvarācārya, a disciple of Śri Śaṅkarācārya and Saṅkṣepa Śārīrakam by Sarvajñātma Muni who was a disciple of Sureśvarācārya. Guru-śiṣya parampara is evident in these three texts. Upadeśa Sāhasrī is highly respected amongst ācāryas as it is the essence of the Upaniṣads, imparted by Bhagavān Śaṅkarācārya.

The poetry section of the text has 19 chapters. With 233 verses the 18th chapter, called Tattvamassi Prakaranam, is the longest. The entire chapter is on the māhāvākya (a statement indicating oneness between an individual and Totality), tat tvam asi.

_____

1 Chapter 1: Upodghāta Prakaraṇam

Bhagavān Śaṅkarācārya introduces the text in the first chapter called Upodghāta Prakaraṇam, ‘The Introduction’. This is a specific, technical term in Vedāntic literature. The Ācārya gives a line of thought on the subject he wants to introduce. In Vedānta śāstra it is called the anubandha catuṣṭaya1.

Suppose I am looking for some entertainment, may be a movie or some good food. I ask where I can get entertainment. Someone may suggest, "Go, sit under the mango tree”. Someone else may say, "Take a walk along the river". Neither of these will satisfy me, as it is not what I am looking for. I have a particular idea in mind and I am looking for someone who will give me what I want. This is how I get associated with a particular object with a specific purpose. This is called anubandha.

In the case of the text, I am a seeker with a purpose and how this purpose will be fulfilled is what is discussed in anubandha. The seeker is called the adhikārī, a qualified student. He wants absolute happiness and total freedom from sorrow; this is his sole purpose (prayojanam). Vedānta has a solution for this adhikārī; it thus becomes the sambandhi, the associate or relative. The relationship between the seeker and Vedānta is that Vedānta provides a solution for the seeker’s problems.

From childhood, we have seen problems all around us. One family has one set of problems while another has a different set. From the outside, it may seem as though everybody is happy and well settled, but all you need is to ask two questions. First ask, "How are you?". The answer will be, “Everything is fine”. Then ask, "Oh, everything is fine?" and you will hear, "No, actually, things are not that great. Let me tell you…". In other words, everyone has problems. We will find a solution only if we look in the right place. A grandmother dropped a needle while sewing inside the house. She summoned her grandchildren to help her look for it. A little later, she found them looking for the needle outside the house, under a lamp. She asked them why they were looking for it there and they replied, "Because there is light here!". In the same way, we look for happiness where it is not. Since Vedānta shows us where the solution is, it is the sambandhi. Vedānta is the ‘revealer’, and the Truth is what is revealed.

The following is a bird’s eye view of the first chapter: Verse 1: mangalācaraṇam - invocation. Verse 2: introduction. Verses 3-5: jñānam as the means to Liberation - jñānam mokṣa sādhanam. Verses 6-7: karma cannot give mokṣa. Verses 8-11: Jñāna-karma samuccaya - combining jñānam and karma as proposed by the opponent (pūrvapakṣin).

1 The four aspects that must be considered when composing or studying a text: the adhikārī, prayojanam, viṣaya and sambandha

2 Verses 12-24: refutation of pūrvapakṣin. Verses 25-26: Upadeśa Sāhasrī as an Upaniṣad.

चैतन्यं सर्वगं सर्ं सर्भव ूतगहु ाशयम।् यत्सर्ववर्षयातीतं तस्मै सर्ववर्दे नमः॥१॥

Caitanyaṁ sarvagaṁ sarvaṁ sarvabhūtaguhāśayam | yatsarvaviṣayātītaṁ tasmai sarvavide namaḥ ||1||

चैतन्यं – Consciousness; सर्वगं – goes everywhere, all-pervading; सर्ं – all, entire creation; सर्व- भूत-गुहा-आशयम ् – resides in the cave of the heart (intellect) of all; यत ् – that which is; सर्व- वर्षय-अतीतम ् – beyond all, untouched by creation; तस्मै – to that; सर्ववर्दे – all-knowing; नमः – salutations.

1. Salutations to that all-pervading, all-knowing Consciousness, that resides in the cave of the heart of all beings, which is all, yet untouched by all.

This is the invocation verse and salutations are offered. Blessings are sought -

• To ensure that the work is completed without obstacles • In the hope that it reaches those for whom it has been composed, those seeking Liberation • In order that the teachings bear fruit for the one studying them. • To bring humility. When a text is composed, the author should never think that it is he, the individual, who has accomplished a great feat. These are the teachings of our ṛṣis and tradition. Therefore, our individuality, or ahaṅkāra, must be kept to a minimum. The work is created with all humility and offered at the feet of the Teacher or God.

The invocation is a salutation that is offered to Consciousness, Brahman. It indicates the nature of Caitanya as all-knowing, all-pervading and in the cave of the heart of all (as ‘I’ Consciousness). Brahman is not an external entity to whom we bow. Consciousness is present in each one of us, in our intellect, as sākṣī, the witness, of all our thoughts. Salutations to Consciousness is the recognition of that oneness, in the form of ‘I am That’.

Caitanya (Consciousness) is in the intellect of all, as the witness. One may wonder that if this Consciousness is the witness in the intellect of all, how big can it really be? Our intellects are quite small. If there is a cave in that intellect where sākṣī resides, then Consciousness that we are praying to must be very small! Caitanya is all-pervading, so it cannot be small. One could further think that if it is all-pervading, then there is something that is pervading and something else that is being pervaded. No, the word sarvaṁ indicates that it is all. It is not just ‘all-pervading’; it is ‘all’ and it is ‘all-pervading’. There is no duality; It is one alone. It is all, and It pervades all. Finally, Bhagavān Śaṅkarācārya says that it is beyond all (sarvaviṣayātītam). Nothing of this creation can touch it. That is Caitanya.

3 We can think of the nature of Consciousness in the following way: • For ease of understanding, it is said to be present in everyone, sarvabhūta-guhaśayam • Then we are to understand that It is all-pervading, sarvagam • Slowly we begin to understand that in fact It is all, sarvaṁ • Finally, we know It as ‘That which is beyond all', sarvaviṣayātītam

Let us analyse the verse further. The different indicators given for Caitanya are the common meaning of these words. We can also look at Caitanya in the following way: by saying Consciousness is that which is in the intellect of all as sākṣī, tvam pada lakṣyārthaḥ, the implied meaning of the word ‘I’, is indicated. Tvam means you, so when the Teacher says tvam, the student should understand it as himself or ‘I’.

This is the implied meaning of the word ‘I’, so when I say ‘I’, what I am referring to really is this Consciousness. In the absence of Consciousness, the body is like an empty box; it has no value. When you buy expensive jewellery you get it in a nice box. That box has value only because of that precious thing in it. Once you take the jewellery out of it, the box no longer has any value, no matter how attractive it may look. The only reason the body has value is because Consciousness expresses in it. This is the real meaning of the word ‘I’, or the implied meaning of tvam.

By saying Consciousness is that which is sarvagam and sarvaṁ, tat pada vācyārtha, the direct meaning of the word ‘That’, is indicated. That which is all, we call God; God is all-pervading. Referring to Consciousness as ‘That which is beyond all’ (sarvaviṣayātītam), tat pada lakshyārtha, the implied meaning of the word ‘That’ is indicated.

Thus here, in one verse, the Äcārya says tvam pada lakṣyārtha and tat pada lakṣyārtha are the same. This oneness is the subject matter (viṣaya) of the text.

Vācyārtha is the literal meaning and lakshyārtha the implied meaning of a word. For example, a person scorched by the summer heat will cry out, “This summer is fire!”. There is no fire; the word is used to indicate the intensity of the heat. The literal meaning of 'I' is the individual with Consciousness. The implied meaning of ‘I’ is only Consciousness. Calling tat as ‘God’ or ‘Bhagavān’ is vācyārtha. The implied meaning of 'God' or ‘Bhagavān' is that Consciousness that is untouched by all.

We have to understand that the real meaning of the word ‘I’ is Consciousness that is all- pervading and untouched by all, beyond all. That I am. It is this knowledge of oneness that will free me from all my problems. Sarvaviṣayātītam indicates that happiness, which is free from problems, because nothing can touch it; no sorrow can touch it. Attaining this happiness is the purpose, prayojanam, of this text.

What is the sambaṅdha (relationship between the revealer and the revealed)? This śāstra will reveal that Brahman which is both the revealer and the revealed. Who is this work meant for?

4 In the following verse, Bhagavān Śaṅkarācārya elaborates on how it is meant for those yearning for happiness, free from all sorrow.

समापय्य क्रियाः सर्ाव दािाग्नन्याधानपूवर्कव ाः। ब्रवर्ामथेदानीं र्啍ुं र्ेदः प्रचिमे॥२॥ samāpayya kriyāḥ sarvā darāgnyādhānapūrvikāḥ | brahmavidyāmathedānīṁ vaktuṁ vedaḥ pracakrame ||2||

समापय्य - having made complete (through the seeker); क्रियाः – Vedic activities; सर्ावः – all; दािा-अग्ग्नन-आधान-पूवर्वकाः - preceded by marriage and consecration of the sacred fire (for the performance of daily Vedic rituals); ब्रवर्ा – Knowledge of the Self; अथ – hence; इदानीम ् – now; र्啍ुं - to speak; र्ेदः – the Vedas; प्रचिमे – begin.

2. Having completed all enjoined Vedic activities which necessitate marriage and the invocation of sacred fire, the Vedas now begin to speak on knowledge of the Self.

The Vedas, the subject of this verse, contain teachings on how we should live our lives. They are comprised of two distinct parts: Pūrva Mīmāmsā and Uttara Mīmāmsā. The former details practices of karma and upāsanā, including all rituals at the physical, speech, and mind level. Uttara Mīmāmsā is commonly known as the jñāna section.

Pūrva Mīmāmsā is for someone who thinks his problems will be solved in the world. To him the Vedas enjoin karma and upāsanā. Vedic rituals or laukika karma are prescribed for worldly gain, like a better job or a bigger business. The individual is told to experience everything to the fullest. Sooner or later, he will realise that any happiness he gained from these was fleeting. He is exhausted from this fruitless quest. It is to such an individual, who has seen the limitations of the world, and now seeks a different solution, that the jñānam section of the Vedas is addressed. The Vedas now begin to speak (vaktum pracakrame).

When we have done all the worldly activities, the Vedas have told us to do, from morning prayers to chanting mantras and suktams, to living a life of righteousness, charity and discipline and the same Vedas then ask us to stop these activities. As children, we go to school. We don’t stay there forever; we graduate. When it comes to work however, we continue working forever. We should ask ourselves why we started the work in the first place. If the answer is money, then we should ask why we want money. Samāpayya is the Vedas saying, “You can stop this work”.

When can we stop karma? Agni-ādhānam are all the rituals that a householder (and his wife) is supposed to do by invoking sacred fire in the house. During his marriage ceremony, he has promised that he will do these rituals and offer oblations to the fire every day. These days most people don’t do fire rituals, but at least they light a lamp in front of Bhagavān. Then, whatever pūjā, japa, chanting or meditation they do, it is in the presence of that fire. Householders also have other responsibilities such as charity (dānam). In the Bhagavad-gītā, it

5 is said that worship, austerity and charity (yagna, tapas and dānam) will purify seekers1. If someone has taken up these practices and has done them to some extent, the purpose for which they were taken up is served, but the permanent happiness he is looking for has not been gained. All these practices have given the individual a certain amount of purity of mind. He is now mature and ready for higher teaching.

To these mature seekers, who have done what the Vedas have prescribed and have understood the limitations of what the world can give, the Vedas say, “You can stop all these activities and move to the next stage of your life”. The Vedas will now teach brahmavidyā, Self- knowledge.

In the next few verses, Bhagavān Śaṅkarācārya establishes that only Knowledge, not karma, will give Liberation. He says this repeatedly to make it absolutely clear that no action needs to be done to gain Liberation. The role of the Vedas, Vedānta and the attainment of mokṣa are beautifully explained by the Ācārya in small steps.

कमावणि देहयोगाथं देहयोगे वप्रयावप्रये। ध्रुर् े स्यातां ततो िागः द्वेषश्चैर् ततः क्रियाः॥३॥ karmāṇi dehayogārthaṁ dehayoge priyāpriye| dhruve syātāṁ tato rāgaḥ dveṣaścaiva tataḥ kriyāḥ ||3||

कमावणि – karmas; देहयोगाथमव ् - for association with the body; देहयोगे – when association is there with the body; वप्रय-अवप्रये – joy and sorrow; ध्रुर्े – certainly; स्याताम ् – will be; ततो – from that (experience of joy and sorrow); िागः – likes, attachment; द्वेषः – dislikes; च एर् – and indeed; ततः – from that (attachment and dislike); क्रियाः – actions.

3. From karma arises association with a body, from association with a body, there will certainly be experience of joy and sorrow. From joy and sorrow arise strong likes and dislikes, and indeed from likes and dislikes arise actions.

In this verse, the word dehayoga is used for association with the physical body (deha sambaṅdha). Whatever we are associated with, be it objects or people, is only because of karma (karmāṇi dehayogārtham). Such contact is bound to create impressions in our minds in the form of likes and dislikes (dehayoge priyāpriye, dhruve syātām).

Someone standing outside a lecture hall on a hot summer day does not care about fans inside. Once he steps inside, whether he gets to sit under the fan depends on karma - the act of going inside the room, as well as puṇya/pāpa. If I have done some good karma and I have puṇya, I will get to sit under the fan when it is hot. It is not the object itself that gives sukham or duḥkham. It is my mental state that determines how I see a situation. The same action can give opposite results. If it is hot outside, I am happy to sit under the fan. If I have a cold, I will

1 यज्ञदानतप:कमव न त्या煍यं कायवमेर् तत ् | यज्ञो दानं तपश्चैर् पार्नानन मनीवषिाम ् || - भगर्द् गीता - १८-५

6 not be so happy. If karma produces a favourable outcome, it is the result of puṇya karma and an unfavourable outcome is the result of pāpa karma.

Our association with people is similar. A young man on his way to the office saw a young woman every day. They remained strangers until one day when he did something that offended her. Now they disliked each other and were the cause of sorrow for each other, duḥkha kāranam. But after six months, they became friends, establishing a relationship. Duḥkha kāraṇam morphed into dehayoga and even sukha kāraṇam. If they were to get married, the association would be both sukha and duḥkha kāraṇam!

This goes to show that people and objects by themselves are not capable of doing anything. Our karma and frame of mind at the time of an encounter will determine whether a person or object will give us sukham or duḥkham. Whenever anything comes in contact with the body, the association will certainly be seen to be either priya or apriya. The final outcome will be ‘I like it’ or ‘I don’t like it’. Tataḥ rāgaḥ; I will develop a strong liking for the object/person that gives me sukham. If it is apriya, then dveṣa, I will not like it and will do my best to stay away from it.

Bhagavān Śaṅkarācārya gives the sequential result of association in small steps: • The body’s connection with objects is because of karma (prārabdha) • Karma will either be good karma (dharma) or bad karma (adharma) • Good karma will produce puṇyam; bad karma will produce pāpam • Puṇya will result in sukham and pāpam will result in duḥkham • I will have rāga for whatever gives sukham and dveṣa for whatever gives duḥkham

I will chase what I have rāga for and run away from what I have dveṣa for. Tataḥ kriyāḥ, this leads to more karma and the cycle continues. This vicious cycle shows, why we are continuously propelled into action.

धमावधमौ ततोऽज्ञस्य देहयोगस्तथा पुनः। एर्ं ननत्यप्रर्तृ ोऽयं संसािश्चिर्शृ म॥् ४॥ dharmādharmau tato'jñasya dehayogastathā punaḥ| evaṁ nityapravṛto'yaṁ saṁsāraścakravadbhṛśam ||4||

धमव-अधमौ – merit and sin; ततः - from that (actions); अज्ञस्य – for the ignorant one; देहयोगः – association with the body; तथा – then ; पुनः – once again; एर्म ् – in this way; ननत्यप्रर्तृ ः – ever engaged; अयम ् – this; संसािः - cycle of transmigration; चिर्त ् – like a wheel; भशृ म ् – continuously.

4. From actions arise merit and sin, which in turn leads the ignorant one to become associated with a body again. In this way, the cycle of transmigration continues like a spinning wheel.

Where there is karma, there is dharma and adharma. The scriptures prescribe karma based on an individual’s varṇa (caste, temperament) and āśrama (stage of life).

7 Adharma results from the non-performance of an action prescribed by the scriptures (sin of omission, pratyavāya doṣa) and also from performing an action prohibited by the scriptures (niṣiddha karma). In the world today, actions are based on individual preference rather than scriptural injunction. If we want something, we first try to get it by the correct means. If we don't succeed, we resort to wrong ones. This is also adharma. Adharma is committed because of our own tendencies that pressurise us to obtain the desired object by any means possible. External situations don’t force us to commit adharma. If we have a tendency to commit adharma, then external situations will be seen to be conducive for us to do adharma. Actions, whether dhārmika or adhārmika, will determine our next body, ready for the next set of experiences. Our puṇya and pāpa account is ready to pay dividends. In this way, we return to step one, karmāṇi dehayogārtham and the cycle continues.

Bhagavān Śaṅkarācārya says that it is in this way that the ignorant individual (ajña) goes through this cycle eternally (nityapravṛttaḥ), ever engaged in karma, followed by dharma- adharma, puṇya-pāpa, sukha-duḥkha, rāga-dveṣa and then karma again. This is the saṁsāra chakra (saṁsārascakravad-bhrśham) that never stops.

We are so busy making minor adjustments and temporary fixes to solve our problems that we don’t have the time to think about their root cause. As long as we remain ignorant, the giant cycle will continue as it has for thousands of lifetimes. Right now, we have a human body. We could have an animal or a bird or even a devatā body next; the cycle will continue. We may even attain higher worlds and enjoy greater pleasures. But once our puṇya runs out we will have to return.

Bhagavān has not explicitly stated it here, but we should understand that ignorance refers to the ignorance of that Consciousness, which is all-pervading, which is in the hearts of all, which is beyond all, and which is the all-knowing principle. If we do not recognise this, our fate is scripted.

अज्ञानं तस्य मूलं स्याददनत तानममष्यते। ब्रवर्ात आिब्धा ततो ननःश्रेयसं भर्ेत॥् ५॥ ajñānaṁ tasya mūlaṁ syāditi taddhānamiṣyate| brahmavidyāta ārabdhā tato niḥśreyasaṁ bhavet ||5||

अज्ञानम ्– ignorance of non-dual Truth; तस्य – of that (saṁsāra); मूलम ् – root cause; स्याद् - is; इनत – thus; तद् - its (ignorance); हानम ् – destruction; इष्यते – is desired; ब्रवर्ा – knowledge of non-dual Truth; अतः – therefore; आिब्धा – has begun; ततः – by this; ननःश्रेयसम ् – absolute good, Liberation; भर्ेत ् – shall happen.

5. The root cause of saṁsāra is ignorance of the non-dual Truth, and thus its destruction is desired. For this reason, the teaching of this Knowledge has begun so that Liberation may be attained.

Bhagavān states clearly in this verse that ignorance is the cause of this transmigration. Taking up one body after another; life after life, one is riddled with the problems of hunger and thirst,

8 birth and death, union and separation, disease and old age. These are common to all, no matter who we are or what body we are expressing through. At the mental level we are constantly insecure, worrying about the future. What will happen? Who will take care of me?

Generally, we don’t arrive at the conclusion given by Bhagavān here. If we do analyse the cause of transmigration, we think it is because we don’t put forth sufficient effort to solve our problems. Some think it is a lack of hard work, others think it is the lack of money or not knowing the right people. But here, the Ācārya says that it is our rāga/dveṣa that is the root cause of all our problems. If we like something, we run after it. If we dislike something, we do everything we can to avoid it. Either way, our activities do not stop.

Why do we have likes and dislikes in the first place? If we say that we like something, it is not a fact but rather a notion that we are currently entertaining. Our likes are constantly changing. What we loved as children is of no interest to us now. As we grow up, or as circumstances change, our fascination for a particular thing fades away. When we are overpowered by our likes and dislikes, we think that a given object or situation is what we want. It is our erroneous thinking and not the object itself that is the cause of our rāga/ dveṣa.

Think of someone who enthusiastically starts a job at a company he admires. In a couple of years, his enthusiasm has waned and while he supports the company, he now finds it to be mediocre. A few years later, he is a disgruntled employee who cannot find anything positive about the company and is actively looking for another job.

Our likes and dislikes are based on specific situations and our mindset. When those change, our attitude changes. Likes and dislikes exist because we have superimposed the idea of joy and sorrow onto objects, people and situations. Where we see joy, the superimposed idea is called śobhana adhyāsa, and where we see sorrow, it is called aśobhana adhyāsa. This śobhana/aśobhana buddhi exists because we think it is the object that gives us joy or sorrow. This is how the mind works. To begin with it is neutral, but then develops preferences. Say I am watching a cricket match between Australia and England. To begin with, I am a neutral spectator. As the match progresses, I start to like the way someone plays, and I start to support his team and my rāga gradually increases. If India is playing, then my bias is there to begin with. In familiar situations, we know what we like and dislike. But even in unfamiliar circumstances, where we think we are neutral, rāga can creep in.

Ajñānam is the ignorance of our non-dual nature. As long as we don’t know this non-dual Reality, the cycle of saṁsāra will continue. It is our ignorance of the non-dual Truth that is the cause of transmigration. As long as there is duality there is rāga/dveṣa, which result in karma, dharma/adharma, puṇya/pāpa, sukha/duḥkha; the whole package.

Ignorance must thus be destroyed. In Vedānta, the emphasis is on the removal of ignorance. Ignorance has two aspects: a subject and a locus where it (ignorance) expresses. In order to successfully remove ignorance, both aspects must be addressed:

9 • Subject - Ignorance of something can only be removed by knowledge of that thing. Ignorance of physics will not be removed by the knowledge of mathematics. • Locus - Knowledge needs to take place where the ignorance is present. If I am ignorant of physics, it serves no purpose if my brother studies physics. Since I am the locus of ignorance it is I who need to learn physics.

If we are ignorant of the non-dual Truth, then we (locus) need to gain knowledge about this Truth (subject) to end our ignorance. Therefore, we are starting the study of brahmavidyā, the knowledge of Brahman, the non-dual Truth.

What will be the result of gaining brahmavidyā? Niśreyasam or Liberation (mokṣa). The literal meaning of the word niśreyasam is absolute good - it is good anywhere, anytime, under any circumstance. Simply put, it is mukti or mokṣa. Isn’t this what we all want? To be happy anywhere, anytime, under any circumstance; no matter what happens? In Bhaja Govindam, Bhagavān Śaṅkarācārya says that we should be happy regardless of whether we are with people or in solitude; regardless of whether someone gives us sorrow, regardless of the presence or absence of objects; our desire is to be happy1. This is what we all want. This is possible only if our minds are in Brahman. Brahmavidyā tells us that Brahman is our true nature; this is mokṣa. When the mind is well established in Brahman, then we will be happy all the time.

One may ask why the study of Brahmavidyā is required for mokṣa. Why can’t we attain mokṣa by doing some karma? In this day and age, we prefer not to think; we would rather just follow instructions. Many people are happy to undertake endless activities, but don’t want to study or listen to Vedānta. They are afraid that Vedānta will tell them to give up everything; to have vairāgya. Most people are too attached to their likes/dislikes and the worlds they have built around themselves with so much care and effort.

In the next two verses, the Ācārya says that Knowledge alone will remove ignorance and give Liberation, and not karma.

वर्ैर्ाज्ञानहानाय न कमावप्रनतकू लतः। नाज्ञानस्याप्रहािे दह िागद्वेषक्षयो भर्ेत॥् ६॥ vidyaivājñānahānāya na karmāpratikūlataḥ| nājñānasyāprahāṇe hi rāgadveṣakṣayo bhavet||6||

वर्ा – Knowledge; एर् – alone; अज्ञान-हानाय – for destruction of ignorance; न – not; कमव – action; अप्रनतकू लतः - not opposed to; न – not; अज्ञानस्य – of ignorance; अप्रहािे – upon non-destruction; दह – indeed; िाग्नद्वेषक्षयः – elimination of likes and dislikes; भर्ेत ्– will happen.

1 योगितो र्ा भोगितो र्ा स敍गितो र्ा स敍गवर्हीनः । यस्य ब्रणि िमते चचत्तं नन्दनत नन्दनत नन्दत्येर् ॥- भज गोवर्न्दं - १९

10 6. Knowledge alone will destroy ignorance and not karma; as karma is not opposed to ignorance. As long as ignorance is not destroyed, the elimination of likes and dislikes will not occur.

When introducing a subject, the process (cintanam) should be such that there is complete clarity1. In the previous verse, the Ācārya said that ignorance is destroyed by Knowledge. Now, he says that Knowledge alone will destroy ignorance, vidyā eva ajñāna hānāya (samarthā) and not karma. This is the teaching of the entire chapter. The Introduction is setting the stage by defining the nature of the problem and how it can be solved. Ignorance of non-dual Truth is the source of all my problems. Knowledge is the only solution, not karma. Therefore, I must put forth every effort to gain that Knowledge.

If karma does not give Liberation, why do the śāstras say, “The Vedas should be studied to understand karma”?2. Why were we enjoined to do kāyika karma, vācika karma, mānasa karma? Karma is required to purify our minds. If we are extroverted, it will help us gain a degree of maturity and vairāgya from the world. We will understand that this saṁsāra is endless3. Then our minds will be ready for jñānam. When the Vedas said “do karma”, we did karma. When the Vedas say, “Drop karma”, we will drop it.

Knowledge and ignorance are opposed to each other and thus cannot exist simultaneously. Knowledge dispels ignorance just like lighting a lamp dispels darkness. Karma cannot remove ignorance because karma is a product of ignorance! It is because of this ignorance that we think we are limited, finite beings; victims of circumstances. We think our lives are mostly tragedy with very little comedy!

This sense of finitude is the source of all our desires. We constantly seek objects, people and experiences hoping they will end our sorrow. The tragedy is that instead of giving us joy, they only bring more sorrow. Until this ignorance is removed, our rāga/dveṣa will drive our decision-making and force us to engage in action thus continuing the vicious cycle (verses 3, 4). As long as we don’t know that we are infinite, we will see duality; joy in certain things, people, situations, etc. and sorrow in others. Ignorance means that I think ‘I am ahaṅkāra, I am a person’, and the result will be that I go on labeling objects, people and situations in terms of likes and dislikes.

Does this mean we should have no preferences at all? Suppose two jīvanmuktas from different parts of India are attending a breakfast bhikṣa. When asked what they would like, the one from the north may say parathas while the one from the south may prefer dosas. And when a third jīvanmukta from overseas joins the table, he may prefer cereal and toast. These may be preferences born of their respective upbringing and are not necessarily symptomatic of attachment. However, if there is an insistence for a particular item, then we can say that rāga/dveṣa still exist. If they are flexible and will happily eat whatever is given to them, we can

1 चचन्ताम ् प्रक्र्तमसद््यथावम ् उपोातम ् प्रचक्षते 2 र्ेदो ननत्यमधीयतां तददु दतं कमव स्र्नुीयता ं ... - साधना प祍चकं - १ 3 पुनिवप जननं पुनिवप मििं … - भज गोवर्न्दं - २१

11 conclude that rāga/dveṣas are absent. So, preferences are not a problem, it is strong likes and dislikes that cause agitation.

िागद्वेषक्षयाभार्े कमव दोषोर्ं ध्रुर्म।् तस्माग्न्नःश्रेयसाथावय वर्ैर्ात्र वर्धीयते॥७॥ rāgadveṣakṣayābhāve karma doṣodbhavaṁ dhruvam| tasmānniḥśreyasārthāya vidyaivātra vidhīyate||7||

िाग-द्वेष-क्षय-अभार्े – in the absence of elimination of likes and dislikes; कमवदोष-उर्ं – the defect of karma arises; ध्रुर्म ् – certainly; तस्मात ् – therefore; ननःश्रेयसाथावय – for the sake of Liberation; वर्ा – knowledge of non-dual truth; एर् – alone; अत्र – here; वर्धीयते – is prescribed.

7. When likes and dislikes are not eliminated, the defect of action will certainly arise. Therefore, knowledge alone is prescribed here for the purpose of Liberation.

When rāga/dveṣas persist, the defects of karma will also persist and we will never be able to perform karma without attachment. When my desire for an object is strong, I will use all possible means to get it; this is called rāga. If I have a dislike or dveṣa for something, I will do everything I can to avoid it, even if it means doing adharma. Rāga/dveṣa create the notion that joy is obtained from particular objects or situations and we will be unhappy without them.

Even if we try to do karma perfectly, by always doing dharma, we will never gain permanent happiness because karma has an inherent defect. In the Bhagavad-gītā, Bhagavān Kṛṣṇa says that, “All karma is associated with defects just as every fire is associated with smoke”1. Therefore, Knowledge is the only means prescribed for the one who wants to be free from transmigration, sorrows and all afflictions. Karma will not give mokṣa, only Knowledge will. Thus, we must put forth effort to gain the right knowledge.

Verses 3 - 5 explained how karma assumes association with the body and fails to dispel the ignorance of our infinitude. As a result, the mind develops rāga/dveṣa, which in turn prompts more karma; karma has its inherent defects and the cycle of saṁsāra continues. Verses 6 and 7 explained that since only jñānam is opposed to ignorance, it will lead us to mokṣa, karma will not.

नन ु कमव तथा ननत्यं कतवव्यं जीर्ने सनत। वर्ायाः सहकारित्र्ं मोक्षं प्रनत दह तद् व्रजेत॥् ८॥ nanu karma tathā nityaṁ kartavyaṁ jīvane sati| vidyāyāḥ sahakāritvaṁ mokṣaṁ prati hi tad vrajet||8||

1 … सर्ाविम्भा दह दोषेि धूमने ाग्ग्ननरिर्ार्तृ ाः ॥ - भगर्द् गीता - १८-४८

12 नन ु – but (objection); कमव – action; तथा – just as; ननत्यं – daily (duties); कतवव्यं - which should be done; जीर्ने सनत – as long as one lives; वर्ायाः - of knowledge; सहकारित्र्ं – supportive, complimentary to; मोक्षं – Liberation; प्रनत – towards; दह – indeed; तद् – it (karma); व्रजेत ् – goes.

8. (Objection) But daily karmas, which are to be performed lifelong, take one towards Liberation since they are complementary to knowledge.

From this verse on, Bhagavān Śaṅkarācārya discusses an important subject and addresses arguments that are often raised by opponents of Advaita Vedānta, who do not accept Knowledge as the sole means to Liberation. Referring to the same scriptures as Advaita Vedāntins, they advocate combining knowledge and action as the means to Liberation. The pūrvapakṣin is the proponent of this opposing viewpoint.

There are those who believe that results cannot be obtained without action. They feel that both Knowledge and karma (nitya and naimittika karma) are equally important in gaining Liberation. From a transactional standpoint, where nothing comes for free, their argument seems valid. How can Liberation be gained without doing anything? We spend a lot of our waking hours engaged in activity. From the moment we wake up until we go to bed; we brush our teeth; bathe; dress for work; make breakfast or lunch and go to work. After work inevitably there are other chores and errands to run before going home for dinner and then jumping into bed. In the midst of such a frenzied, action packed day, few people will sit down for mediation or study in the morning and watch or listen to satsang when they return from work. We live a karma-oriented life interspersed with jñānam on the odd occasion. We can understand why this pūrvapakṣin has put forth his proposal of combining the two.

When Bhagavān says that Knowledge alone will give us mokṣa, not many people will be happy, asking if all they are doing and have done in the past counts for nothing. It is important that we have a clear vision of how to look at life and understand the means to Liberation as given in the śāstras.

The pūrvapakṣin believes that karma must be performed until death. The word karma is used for all actions that are initiated with desire and a sense of doer-ship (the notion ‘I am doing this’). Such desire prompted actions are called kāmya karma. Even when action is not prompted by desire, the notion of doership persists. Though not implicitly stated, the pūrvapakṣin is including these karmas in his counter proposal.

The pūrvapakṣin’s first reason is that karma will help get knowledge and together they will give Liberation. He says this based on his understanding of a mantra in Īśāvāsya-upaniṣad1. The pūrvapakṣin has interpreted the word vidyā as knowledge. But based on the context of the mantra the word vidyā referes to upāsanā.

1 … अवर्या मत्ृ युं तीत्र्ावऽमतृ मश्नुत े ॥ - ईशार्ास्य उपननषद् - ११

13 यथा वर्ा तथा कमव चोददतत्र्ावर्शेषतः। प्रत्यर्ायस्मतृ ेश्चैर् कायं कमव मुमुक्षुमभः॥९॥ yathā vidyā tathā karma coditatvāviśeṣataḥ| pratyavāyasmṛteścaiva kāryaṁ karma mumukṣubhiḥ||9||

यथा – just as; वर्ा – knowldege; तथा – similarly; कमव – karma; चोददतत्र् – enjoined; अवर्शेषतः – without distinction, equally; प्रत्यर्ाय-स्मतृ ेः – due to sin of omission according to Scripture; च – and; एर् – indeed; कायं – should be done; कमव – actions; मुमुक्षुमभः – by seekers of Liberation.

9. Since actions and knowledge are both enjoined in the same manner, and the scriptures also talk about the sin of omission (for not performing daily duties), all actions enjoined must indeed be performed by seekers of Liberation.

Continuing his argument, the pūrvapakṣin says that karma is also required for Liberation because it is enjoined in the Vedas1. In the Bhagavad-gītā, Bhagavān Kṛṣṇa Himself says that nobody can sit without doing karma for even a moment2. While it is true that the śāstras prescribe karma, the context of these declarations must be taken into account to understand their intention. A child walked into a room where an important meeting was being held and was asked to leave. The child was not addressed by name but simply commanded, “Please leave the room”. The command to leave was heard by everyone in the room. Should they all have left the meeting because they heard what the child was told? No. Similarly, in the scriptures, statements are made for specific audiences (adhikārīs) and when taken out of context, they don’t mean the same.

Injunctions in the Vedas enjoining karma are for those individuals who do not have the necessary temperament and maturity to undertake enquiry into the subtle subjects dealt with in the Vedānta section of the Vedas. They are also for those who cannot sit without doing karma, or those steeped in tamas (inertia) who don’t do any karma. If not made to act, they will be unable to help themselves or contribute anything positive to the people around them and society at large. Specific actions are enjoined for them so that they can act in a manner that is beneficial to all, including themselves.

Not only is karma prescribed but also the attitude with which it must be done. Someone who is doing nothing is first told to do karma; then he is told not to do niṣiddha karma. His karma is now kāmya karma. He is then told that by dedicating these karmas to Īśvara his desires will be eliminated3. The Vedas give a complete process so that an individual can purify his mind sufficiently to allow him to pursue subtle enquiry. The Vedas do not enjoin jñānam. Just as

1 र्ेदो ननत्यमधीयतां तददु दतं कमव स्र्नुीयता ं ... - साधना प祍चकं - १ 2 न दह कग्श्चत्क्षिमवप जातु नतत्यकमकव ृ त ् … - भगर्द् गीता - ३-५ 3 ईश्विावपवतं ने楍छया कृ तम ् … - उपदेश साि - ३

14 someone who is hungry doesn’t ask if he should eat, a seeker of Liberation doesn’t need to be told to seek Knowledge. The scriptures say that if an individual does not perform his enjoined duties, the sin of omission (pratyavāya doṣa) is incurred. To avoid this, actions must not be given up.

नन ु ध्रुर्फला वर्ा नान्यग्त्कंचचदपेक्षते। नाग्ग्ननोमो यथैर्ान्यद् ध्रुर्कायोऽप्यपेक्षते॥१०॥ nanu dhruvaphalā vidyā nānyatkiṁcidapekṣate| nāgniṣṭomo yathaivānyad dhruvakāryo'pyapekṣate||10||

नन ु – but; ध्रुर्-फला – fixed result; वर्ा – Knowledge; न – does not; अन्यत ् – else, other; क्रकं चचत ्– anything; अपेक्षते – expect; न – no; अग्ग्ननोमः – a ritual which results in attainment of heaven; यथा – just like; एर् - indeed; अन्यत ् – something else; ध्रुर्कायःव – fixed, certain result; अवप - also; अपेक्षते – expects.

10. (Vedāntin) But Knowledge alone gives its fixed result. (Opponent) No, just as the Agniṣṭomaḥ ritual gives its fixed result but also requires other (karmas)…

तथा ध्रुर्फला वर्ा कमव ननत्यमपेक्षते। इत्येर्ं केचचदद楍छग्न्त न कमव प्रनतकू लतः॥११॥ tathā dhruvaphalā vidyā karma nityamapekṣate| ityevaṁ kecidicchanti na karma pratikūlataḥ||11||

तथा – like that; ध्रुर्-फला – fixed result; वर्ा – Knowledge; कमव – actions, duties; ननत्यम ् – daily; अपेक्षते – expects; इनत – thus; एर्ं – in this way; के चचत ् – some people; इ楍छग्न्त – regard, think; न – not so; कमव - karma; प्रनतकू लतः – since it is opposed (to Knowledge).

11. …So too, Knowledge which gives its fixed result (Liberation) also expects the performance of daily duties alongside. So, some people think, but it is not proper, since action is opposed to Knowledge.

For his fourth argument in support of his proposition that Knowledge and karma are both required for Liberation, jñāna-karma samuccaya, the pūrvapakṣin uses the example of the Agniṣṭoma ritual. Agniṣṭoma is a ritual prescribed to attain heaven. The ritual depends on several ancillary rituals, all of which must be performed in tandem for the Agniṣṭoma to bear fruit. In the same way, the pūrvapakṣin claims, to get the result (Libersation), Knowledge and karma must be done together.

‘Nanu’ (verse 10) is the Vedantic standpoint being reiterated; that Knowledge will certainly yield the result independently and does not need anything else. The reasoning behind this standpoint will be discussed in the next few verses.

Though the above is a technical discussion, the pūrvapakṣin’s underlying intention is that he wants to continue to entertain all desires, gain some knowledge by attending some discourses

15 on Vedānta and use this to gain mokṣa. He does not like the idea of giving up all actions and being scrutinised constantly by a Guru in order to gain mokṣa. This is the opinion of most people, perhaps even some of us!

The second line of verse 11 says that the pūrvapakṣin’s proposition is mere wishful thinking, kecidicchanti (some people wish it were so). Bhagavān says that jñāna-karma samuccaya is not possible, as karma is inherently opposed to jñāna. For the rest of the chapter, Bhagavān systematically shows why jñāna and karma cannot be combined.

Two entities that oppose each other cannot function together. When two individuals are like- minded, they will be able to work together, not otherwise. Similarly, jñāna and karma cannot function in tandem; they are enemies! If jñāna is present, karma cannot remain; just like light and darkness (tamaḥ prakaśavat) cannot co-exist.

All four arguments put forth by the pūrvapakṣin will be refuted. In the śāstras, three factors are examined when considering the compatibility of two objects: • Hetu – origin of the object • Svarūpa – nature of the object • Kāryam – culmination of the object

To prove that Knowledge and ignorance are opposed to each other, we must conduct this three-part analysis. If all three are inconsistent, the objects are deemed incompatible; samuccaya is not possible. This test is not simply a theory but a practical tool to evaluate compatibility. It is universal in its application, from individuals analysing their own lives, to assessing dysfunctional corporate entities.

To gain Knowledge, the four-fold qualification (sādhana catuṣṭaya) is required. These are acquired only through karma (the seeker must perform nitya and naimittika karma) or upāsanā. This being the case, why does Vedānta refute the proposal laid out by the pūrvapakṣin so emphatically?

Vedānta says that jñānam and karma cannot be done simultaneously. Karma (including upāsanā) should be done first, and once it has played its part in purifying the individual’s mind, then jñānam should be pursued. Vedānta does not deny that karma is necessary to acquire qualifications. Jñānam and karma are to be done sequentially (krama-samuccaya) rather than simultaneously (sama-samuccaya; saha-samuccay). All seekers have to perform karma to acquire qualifications, only then can they pursue jñānam.

There are two types of sādhakas: the unqualified one has neither qualifications nor Knowledge; the qualified sādhaka has qualifications but no Knowledge as yet. The jñānī has both qualifications and Knowledge. Karma is enjoined for the unqualified seeker. Once qualifications are gained, the seeker is then instructed to acquire jñānam. Karma can be dropped since its purpose has been served. Jñānīs are not required to do anything. They can, if they choose to, but there is no longer any compulsion. Jñāna-karma samuccaya is only

16 possible for jñānīs. We see them continuing to do karma. Bhagavān Kṛṣṇa himself says, “There is nothing in the three worlds, O Pārtha, that is to be done by Me, nor is there anything unattained that should be attained by Me; yet I engage Myself in action”1.

An unqualified seeker who gets the opportunity to do Vedānta śravaṇam is encouraged to study. The outcome of the study will not be Liberation because his mind is insufficiently prepared because of lack of qualifications. Qualities like śama and dama will be missing, and such a mind will be easily distracted and so the śravaṇam will be partial. For such seekers, jñāna yoga is actually predominantly karma yoga. They have some Knowledge but will continue to act in the world because of agitations in their minds. In reality, they have not started jñāna yoga. Their actions, if done correctly, will help purify and calm their minds. The performance of the daily karma prescribed by the Vedas such as recitation of stotrams, japa as well as upāsanā should not stop, as the necessary qualifications to drop karma altogether have not yet been acquired.

Gṛhasthas who have the necessary qualifications can reduce karma. They are required to continue with some enjoined karma but can let go of vyāvahārika karma and laukika karma. They do not need to undertake elaborate rituals or attend every wedding and birthday party they are invited to. That time can be used to gain jñānam. Only those in brahmācārya or sannyāsa āśrama, can drop karma altogether and attend discourses on Vedānta full time.

Men of Realisation are not required to do karma or pursue jñānam. If they choose to act, it is for the wellbeing of others, loka sañgraha. In the Bhagavad-gītā, Bhagavān Kṛṣṇa instructs Arjuna to act for the welfare of others2. As mentioned earlier, saha-samuccaya is only possible for Men of Realisation. For them, the kartā and jagat have both become mithyā (that which has dependent existence; is limited by time, space or object and can be contradicted). At the time of experience, jagat appears to be real but on enquiry is shown to be apparent. Also, the purpose of both karma and jñānam has been served and there is nothing further to accomplish.

Jñānam reveals that Brahman is real and doership is mithyā so they do not oppose each other and therefore are compatible. A jñānī does not perform karma with doership. As the doer and the world have been negated (bādhita), the karma will also be bādhita karma. It would be permissible for him to teach; he would be reveling in the Truth.

Now, Bhagavān Śankarācārya says that a qualified seeker of Liberation (mumukṣu) need not do karma either. From verses 12 to 15, he refutes the pūrvapakṣin’s arguments in favour of combining Knowledge and action as a means to Liberation.

वर्ायाः प्रनतकू लं दह कमव स्यात्सामभमानतः। ननवर्कव ािात्मबुवश्च वर्ेतीह प्रकीनतवता॥१२॥

1 न मे पाथावग्स्त कतवव्यं त्रत्रषु लोके षु क्रक祍चन | नानर्ाप्तमर्ाप्तव्यं र्तव एर् च कमवणि || - भगर्द् गीता - ३-२२ 2 … लोकस敍रहमेर्ावप सम्पश्यन्कतुमहवमसव ॥ - - भगर्द् गीता - ३-२०

17 vidyāyāḥ pratikūlaṁ hi karma syātsābhimānataḥ| nirvikārātmabuddhiśca vidyetīha prakīrtitā||12||

वर्ायाः – of knoweldge; प्रनतकू लम ् – opposite; दह – indeed; कमव – action; स्यात ् – is; सामभमानतः – with individuality; ननवर्वकाि-आत्म-बुवः – Knowledge where there is no individuality; च - and; वर्ा – Knowledge; इनत – thus; इह – here; प्रकीनतवता – well-known, declared.

12. Indeed it is well known here, that karma which is with individuality, is the opposite of Knowledge where there is no individuality.

Vedānta says that jñānam and karma cannot co-exist. All four of the pūrvapakṣin’s arguments will now be refuted. As noted in the previous verse, the śāstras examine three factors (hetu, svarūpa and kāryam) when considering the compatibility of two objects. To prove that knowledge and karma are opposed to each other, we must conduct this three-part analysis. If all three are inconsistent, the objects are deemed incompatible; samuccaya is not possible. This test is not simply a theory but a practical tool to evaluate compatibility. It is universal in its application, from individuals analysing their own lives, to assessing dysfunctional corporate entities.

The differences between jñānam and karma are pointed out. Jñānam is like light, and karma is like darkness; their fundamental natures are opposites. Karma is performed with ahaṅkāra or abhimāna, the notion that ‘I am the performer of the action’. This notion of doership is very strong and at the heart of every action. There is no abhimāna in Knowledge. When the understanding ‘I am Brahman’ dawns, individuality ceases to exist.

Brahman or ātmā, is free from all modifications. No changes are possible in Brahman. In contrast, when I become a doer, my intellect undergoes modifications. When I do something, I will get a result which will make me either happy or sad. If I am happy, I will want to do more of that karma; if I am sad, I will want to do another karma that will give me a result that will make me happy. This cycle will continue as long as I am the kartā.

Through jñānam, when I understand that I am ātmā, which is Infinite; one without a second and of the nature of happiness, then there is no further desire to act and all striving ends. This is called nirvikāra-ātma-buddhi. With the new understanding that there is nothing besides Me, nothing remains to be attained or accomplished. I am Infinite and of the nature of happiness (ananda svarūpa), thus all my engagements will end. While performing karma however, I am continuously unsatisfied, constantly striving to gain something.

This nirvikāra ātma buddhi is what is called jñānam. It is complete contentment in my own being. As long as individuality exists, karma will be performed to gain fulfillment. If there is discontentment in our hearts, we can infer that jñānam is absent. Once jñānam has been gained, karma has served its purpose. Actions in search of happiness will lead to more actions, while jñānam gives us complete contentment, independent of any external situation.

18 अहं कताव ममेदं स्याददनत कमव प्रर्तवते। र्स्त्र्धीना भर्ेदद्वा कत्रवधीनो भर्ेदद्वचधः॥१३॥ ahaṁ kartā mamedaṁ syāditi karma pravartate| vastvadhīnā bhavedvidyā kartradhīno bhavedvidhiḥ||13||

अहं – I am; कताव – the doer; मम- mine; इदम ् – this; स्यात ् – is; इनत – thus; कमव – actions; प्रर्तवते – go on, take place; र्स्तु-अधीना – dependent on object; भर्ेत ्– is; वर्ा – Knowledge; कत-वृ अधीनः – dependent on doer; भर्ेत ् – is; वर्चधः – enjoined actions

13. ‘I am the doer’, ‘This is mine’; these prompt action. Knowledge is dependent on the object and action depends on the doer.

More differences between jñānam and karma are pointed out here. Notions of doership and ownership, ‘I am the doer, this is mine’ are the basis for karma. When I have jñānam, I am akartā, I am one without a second, there is nothing other than Me; there is only advaita. Karma keeps dvaita buddhi where as jñānam gives advaita buddhi. If we have gained jñānam but consider dvaitam to be real, we will remain bound.

Jñānam is vastu-tantram, whereas karma is puruṣa-tantram or kartṛ-tantram. Vastu-tantram means dependent on the object (vastu). If I want to know the colour of a pot the knowledge depends on the pot and not on me. The dimensions of a lecture hall depend on the room, not me. Now if I am building a lecture hall, I can decide what the dimensions of the room will be. This is puruṣa-tantra. I have to do something to build the hall. That is karma and it depends on me. I can similarly decide on what pūjā I want to do but I can’t decide what mantra must be chanted for a particular vidhi. Jñānam depends on the object so it is called vastu-tantra and karma depends on the person doing it, so it is called puruṣa-tantra.

Jñānam is vastu-tantra and pramāṇa-janya, born from a valid means of knowledge. For knowledge of ātmā the correct means of knowledge is Vedānta. Ātmā has to be known exactly as ātmā is, nirguṇa; niṣkriya; nirvikāra etc. No deviations are possible. When it comes to jñānam, pramāṇa (śāstra) alone will determine how ātmā is to be known; there is no freedom offered.

Karma, on the other hand, is puruṣa-buddhi-janya, based and guided by human thinking. The doer may be told what to do, but how it is to be done is entirely up to him. Puruṣa buddhi is used along with pramāṇa. For example, if we wanted to build a Kṛṣṇa temple, its layout will be determined by the śāstras. However, the choice of material used to construct it, be it bricks, stone or marble, is entirely up to us. The śāstras specify the direction the mūrti should face but we can choose whether we want Rādha and Kṛṣṇa, Kṛṣṇa by himself, or Kṛṣṇa with Arjuna. Regardless of the form we choose, the śāstras say that the Kṛṣṇa we are worshipping is saccidānanda, jagat utpatti sthiti laya kāraṇam; this cannot be changed.

Jñānam will make me antarmukha (introverted); ātmā jñānam will turn me towards the Self. Karma will always make me bahirmukha (extroverted). When we are extremely extroverted,

19 we are incapable of understanding subtle topics. On the other hand, when we are introverted, we can sit quietly and contemplate on ātmā. In such a frame of mind, it is difficult to do external activities.

कािकाण्युपमृ ानत वर्ा बुवममर्ोषिे। इनत तत्सत्यमादाय कमव कतु ं व्यर्स्यनत॥१४॥ kārakāṇyupamṛdnāti vidyā buddhimivoṣare| iti tatsatyamādāya karma kartuṁ vyavasyati||14||

कािकाणि – accessories and action; उपमृ ानत – destroys; वर्ा – knowledge; बुवम ् – knowledge (of mirage); इर् – like; ऊषिे – in a desert; इनत – thus; तत ् – that (actions); सत्यम ् – real, true; आदाय – having accepted; कमव – actions; कतुमव ् – to do; व्यर्स्यनत – proceeds, becomes engaged

14. Knowledge destroys all actions along with its accessories, just as knowledge destroys the reality of mirage water in a desert. But, having accepted accessories as real, one continues to do action.

The word kāraka has its root in Sanskrit grammar. In Sanskrit, sentences are formed around a verb. Everything that relates to the action (verb) is known as the kāraka; the doer of the action, the object of the action, the locus of the action, the purpose of the action etc. So, the word kāraka includes everything to do with the action besides the action itself, kriyā, and its result, which is yet to come. The whole universe is nothing but kāraka.

Vedānta jñānam negates the whole world by making it mithyā (illusory). In a scorching desert, where there is no water, the heat creates the illusion of a mirage. Upon enquiry, the mirage disappears, as I find there is no water. With the new knowledge, I understand that there was never any water in the desert, it was nothing but an illusion created by the rays of the sun. Only with the right knowledge does one know this fact.

Similarly, correct knowledge of the Truth, that I am Brahman, will make all of creation mithyā. The one who has realised his true nature as infinite Bramhan cannot perform karma in the conventional sense. For him the kartā is mithyā, karma is mithyā, the locus of action is mithyā and so too is the purpose of action. Jñānam removes all false notions and as a result, karma is no longer possible. Once Knowledge dawns clearly, it is understood that I am not the kartā, nor is there any purpose in accomplishing anything in this world by action; actions will not satisfy me. This is the power of Vedānta jñānam. When it dawns, it eradicates all incorrect notions. The knowledge, 'aham Brahma asmi' leaves no room for any desires to exist.

As mentioned earlier (verse 11), the only reason a jñānī would have to act is loka sangraha. As those around him are still ignorant, chasing something or the other to gain happiness, he uses the rest of his life to help people to free themselves from the effects of ignorance. Having no purpose left for himself, no desires to fulfill and no unaccomplished goals, he has nothing left to do. He is infinite!

20 It should be evident by now that Knowledge and desires cannot co-exist. Once I know I am Brahman, I will not have any desires. If I do have desires, then I don’t yet know myself to be Brahman. If the latter is our story, then we should do karma with the aim of gaining vairāgya. We must act until we understand and accept that objects, people and situations are incapable of giving us what we are looking for. Mahānārāyaṇa-upaniṣad says that it is not by action, progeny or wealth, but by renunciation alone that immortality (Infinite) is gained1. Until this becomes our understanding and wisdom, we will be forced to engage in action based on our karma, likes and dislikes etc., and our transmigration will continue. Actions have ignorance as their root, whereas jñānam comes in to remove ignorance. Karma starts from ignorance, is sustained by ignorance and sustains ignorance. Jñānam also begins with ignorance but results in the removal of ignorance.

Someone who gives reality to karma will also think kārakas are real. The jñānī has negated the reality of kārakas so how can he perform any action?

वर्셁त्र्ादतः शक्यं कमव कतु ं न वर्या। सहैर् वर्दषु ा तस्मात्कमव हेयं मुमुक्षुिा॥१५॥ viruddhatvādataḥ śakyaṁ karma kartuṁ na vidyayā| sahaiva viduṣā tasmātkarma heyaṁ mumukṣuṇā||15||

वर्셁त्र्ात ् – due to being opposite in nature; अतः – therefore; शक्यम ् – capable, possible; कमव – actions; कतुमव ् – to do; न – not; वर्या – along with Knowledge; सह एर् – along with; वर्दषु ा – by a wise person; तस्मात ् – therefore; कमव – action; हेयम ् – rejected; मुमुक्षुिा – by one desirous of Liberation

15. The root cause of saṁsāra is ignorance of the non-dual Truth, and thus its destruction is desired. For this reason, knowledge of the non-dual Truth has begun so that Liberation may be attained.

Another point of difference between the two is that karma is done to gain something that we don’t already have (aprāptasya prāptih). Jñānam only points out what already is (prāptasya prāptih); it is a statement of fact.

Since they are opposites, karma and Knowledge cannot be undertaken simultaneously. The only exception being for a Man of Realisation, who acts with the understanding that everything other than Brahman is mithyā; just a dream. Equipped with such knowledge, if he has to continue to act, he may do so.

One who has understood that he is Brahman and this jagat is mithyā will continue to live his life as before except that now everything has a new tag in front of it - mithyā. He will live in his mithyā home and continue his mithyā saṁsāra. Mithyā does not mean objects do not exist or that they will not give experiences. People and objects will continue to give love, joy and

1 न कमविा न प्रजया धनेन त्यागेनैके अमतृ त्र्मानशुः ... - महानािायि उपननषद - ४-१२

21 sorrow according to their nature. He now understands that everything is mithyā and therefore all his transactions are also all mithyā too.

This is the conclusion of the first set of arguments as to why jñāna-karma samuccaya is not possible; there is virodha in hetu, svarūpa and kāryam as summarised below. The key word in this verse is mumukṣuṇā. Not just a jñānī, even a mumukṣu should drop karma. If an individual has sufficient qualification and is seeking Liberation, then he should drop karma; otherwise he should continue to do karma with the aim of gaining qualifications.

To summarise, there are bhedas at different levels, which are:

Hetu Bheda • Jñānam is vastu-tantra; karma is puruṣa-tantra • Jñānam is pramāṇa-janya; karma is puruṣa buddhi

Svarūpa Bheda • Jñānam is like light; karma is like darkness • Jñānam is advaita buddhi; karma is dvaita buddhi • Jñānam is free from modifications; karma has modifications • Jñānam makes me introverted; karma makes me extroverted • Jñānam is prāptasya prāptih; karma is aprāptasya prāptih

Kārya Bheda • Jñānam starts with ignorance but then removes it • Karma starts and is sustained by ignorance.

देहाैिवर्शेषेि देदहनो रहिं ननजम।् प्राणिनां तदवर्ोत्थं तार्त्कमव र्चधभर्व ेत॥् १६॥ dehādyairaviśeṣeṇa dehino grahaṇaṁ nijam| prāṇināṁ tadavidyotthaṁ tāvatkarmavidhirbhavet||16||

देहात ् – from the body; यैः – by those; अवर्शेषेि – no different, undistingiushed; देदहनः – those who think they are embodied; रहिम ् – consideration, understanding; ननजम ् – one’s own; प्राणिनां – for all living beings; तद् – that; अवर्ा-उत्थम ् – arisen from ignorance; तार्त ् – so long as (that understanding is there); कमव-वर्चधः – injunction of action; भर्ेत ् – are.

16. ‘The Self is not different from the body’ is the ignorance-born understanding of those living beings that feel they are embodied. As long as this understanding remains, actions will be enjoined.

As discussed earlier, Vedic injunctions are not universal. They are based on varṇa and āśrama. They are meant for a particular adhikārī. If prāyaścitta karma (acts of atonement) has been prescribed, it must be understood that this is for someone who has done some niṣiddha karma. If no niṣiddha karma was done, there is no need to do any prāyaścitta. Similarly, kāmya karma is done to fulfill a particular desire. Different rituals are required based on the

22 object of desire; the ritual to go to heaven will be different from that asking for rain. Instructions will also vary based on the varṇa/āśrama of the individual. Instructions for a brāhmaṇa are different from those for a kṣatriya.

In this verse the Vedic injunction to perform karma applies only to those who understand themselves as jīvas, not the body. The puṇya that results from doing a ritual will be enjoyed by the jīva (not the body). This is in opposition to what is revealed by jñānam which says, ‘I am not this jīva, I am Brahman’. In Ātmabodha, Bhagavān Śankarācārya says, “Just as the person who regards a rope to be a snake is overcome by fear, so also one considering oneself as the ego (jīva) is overcome by fear. The egocentric individuality in us becomes fearless by realising that it is not a jīva, but the supreme Self”1.

Vedic injunctions prescribing karma, do not apply to the one who knows he is not a jīva. There will always be people who consider themselves to be jīvas, not ātmā (as Caitanya svarūpa). Therefore, karma will continue. Vedānta does not make the Vedas redundant as those who consider themselves to be jīvas will always find guidance in the Vedas to fulfill their desires.

We do not consider ourselves different from the body. We see ourselves as the gross body (sthūla śarīra) plus the subtle body (sūkṣma śarīra); a notion born of ignorance. As long as avidyā and avidyā-born notions persist (because of which the body etc. are included in ‘I’), we will have to accept the karma vidhi (both prescriptive and prohibitive) of the Vedas. If someone is interested in artha, kāma or dharma, they should do karma.

Someone who clearly understands that, ‘I am Brahman’ no longer needs to perform karma. A jñānī need not do karma, but a total ajñānī must do karma. What should a mumukṣu do? He does not think he is enlightened and so hesitates to claim that he is Brahman; but he also does not want to do a lot of karma as it leaves him with no time for study and reflection. He should gradually reduce karma and spend the time so saved for śravaṇam, mananam and nididhyāsanam. This is acceptable as it is another injunction of the very same Vedas. Śravaṇam, mananam and nididhyasanam are the means to know ātmā.

We should evaluate our own lives in light of this. What is our goal and where do we currently stand in relation to that? Are we seekers of artha, kāma, and dharma or do we seek mokṣa? If it is mokṣa alone that we want, then we can let go of laukika karma and vaidika karma. The time gained is to be used for Vedānta śravaṇam.

In the next verse, the Ācārya says that for the one who has gained Knowledge, all his erroneous notions will go away. It was because of notions, like ‘I am the body’, that the Vedas had enjoined karma. On studying Vedānta, we understand that we are not the gross body, nor the subtle or causal body. When this understanding comes, ignorance goes and along with it every erroneous notion we held about ourselves.

1 ि煍जुसपर्व दात्मान ं जीर्ं ज्ञात्र्ा भयं र्हेत ् । नाहं जीर्ः पिात्मेनत ज्ञातं चेग्न्नभवयो भर्ेत ् ॥ - आत्मबोधः - २७

23 One who has not studied Vedānta will begin his journey with the idea that he is the body and then follow scriptural injunctions that will help increase his qualifications. A seasoned seeker on the other hand will follow a different course of action, the path of no action.

नेनतनेतीनत देहादीनपोात्मार्शेवषतः अवर्शेषात्मबोधाथं तेनावर्ा ननर्नतवता॥१७॥ netinetīti dehādīnapohyātmāvaśeṣitaḥ aviśeṣātmabodhārthaṁ tenāvidyā nivartitā||17||

नेनत नेनत – ‘not this, not this’; इनत - Thus; देहादीन ् – body, etc.; अपो – having negated; आत्म-अर्शेवषतः – the Self alone remains; अवर्शेष-आत्मबोध-अथमव ् – for knowledge of that ātmā which is free from qualifiers; तेन – by that; अवर्ा – ignorance; ननर्नतवता - is removed.

17. To know the Self as free from qualifiers, the body etc. are negated by means of 'not this, not this'1and thus the Self alone remains. With this knowledge, ignorance is removed.

The nature of ātmā is described as being aviśeṣa, free from all qualifiers. Viśeṣana refers to those attributes that distinguish an object from others. If we have two pens, one blue and the other red, ‘red’ becomes a viśeṣana of the red pen; it is the attribute that allows us to distinguish it from the other pen. In the case of ātmā, no such qualifiers exist. It is aviśeṣa; it is not distinct or different from anything.

So, then how will we know this ātmā that we truly are? When we start our quest, we are told that ātmā is that which is different from sthūla, sūkṣma and kāraṇa śarīras. So, we begin by eliminating all that ātmā is not. When the seeker is a novice, he has ideas like, ‘ātmā is different from the seeker’ and ‘everything else is anātmā’. As his enquiry continues, he understands that anātmā has no independent existence. Wherever anātmā is perceived, ātmā is present. This is called aviśeṣa ātmā; ātmā that doesn’t exclude anything. It is all-inclusive. The invocation verse says, Caitanya is all2.

To give knowledge of the subject (ātmā) that has no features to distinguish it from what we know, the Vedas use a process of negation, known as ‘neti, neti’, 'not this, not this'. Statements such as, ‘ātmā is not mūrta prapañca, ātmā is not amūrta prapañca’ negate all that is known. What remains is the all-inclusive ātmā. Why is this process of negation required if ātmā includes all? It is only names and forms, which do not exist, that are negated. We have a pot, a plate and a ladle made of clay. When we negate the pot, plate and ladle what is left is clay. We need to get rid of the names and forms of the three objects to arrive at the substance that they are made of. For clay to exist, the name and form of the pot, plate and ladle are not required. Clay can exist independent of the pot, plate and ladle. So also, with ātmā.

As long as our attention is only on names and forms, we will never know the Truth. This is why the Vedas first negate them and then include them at a later stage. We hesitate to negate

1 … नेनत नेनत … - बहृ दािण्यक उपननषद - २-३-६ 2 चैतन्यं सर्वगं सर्ं... - - उपदेश साहस्त्री - १-१

24 names and forms because we are worried that in the process the name and form dearest to us, our own body, will also be negated. We refuse to let go of these names and forms even though the scriptures insist that we will not know ātmā until we negate our own individual name and form.

Once the process of negation is complete what remains is avaśeṣita ātmā, which is also all- inclusive, aviśeṣa ātmā. This is the knowledge that the Vedas reveal. A mahāvākya is used only to reveal ātmā that is all. Having gone through the above process, ignorance is removed.

What happens when ignorance goes?

ननर्त्तृ ा सा कथं भूयः प्रसूयेत प्रमाितः। असत्येर्ावर्शेषेऽवप प्रत्यगात्मनन केर्ले॥१८॥ nivṛttā sā kathaṁ bhūyaḥ prasūyeta pramāṇataḥ| asatyevāviśeṣe'pi pratyagātmani kevale||18||

ननर्त्तृ ा – is removed; सा – ignorance; कथम ् – how; भूयः – once again; प्रसूयेत – born; प्रमाितः – from Śruti; असनत – negated; एर् – indeed; अवर्शेषे – Ātmā which has nothing other than it; अवप – surely; प्रत्यगात्मनन – in that innermost Self; केर्ले – free from differences.

18. When ignorance is removed through Śruti, how can it rise again? Ignorance is indeed negated in that innermost Self, which contains nothing other than iselft and which is free from differences.

Ignorance is removed by Vedānta pramāṇa (mahāvākya). With ignorance gone, the notion, ‘I am the body’ also goes. Once eliminated, ignorance cannot return.

Many sādhakas fear the return of ignorance even after Knowledge has been gained. While doing śravaṇam, the sādhaka feels that he is beginning to understand the message of Vedānta but the very next day, nay, a few hours later, he is back to the same misconception of taking himself to be the body. The Ācārya says that avidyā cannot be born again. If the notion ‘I am the body’ arises, know that avidyā never left! If avidyā has indeed been dispelled, this notion will not arise again. Until we can clearly see the role of avidyā, we must continue to study. We must know ourselves as the ātmā which is the innermost Self, which includes all, apart from which nothing else exists, and is free from sajātīya, vijātīya and svagata1 bheda (implied by the use the term aviśeṣa).

With the use of the word aviśeṣa, the Ācārya removes any room for misinterpretation of the statement, ‘Besides ātmā nothing else exists’. On accepting the statement, some may think that jagat and jīvas are present as entities within Paramātmā, if not separate from Parmātmā. To remove the idea of distinctions within or without, the word ‘aviśeṣa’ has been used; in Truth, there is no internal or external duality. Such notions are eliminated when we arrive at

1 Within categories, between categories and within itself

25 the correct understanding of non-duality through the proper study of the Upaniṣads and mahāvākyas. Correct understanding negates duality or plurality - they are mithyā.

As in that Truth, which is aviśeṣa, pratyagātmā and kevala, all inner and outer duality is negated by knowing them to be mithyā; how can ignorance then arise again? There is no residue left for it to return since everything has been negated. With the understanding ‘I alone am Caitanya’, the dispelled ignorance cannot return. When external light is insufficient, I see a snake instead of a rope lying on the ground. Once I know that it is only a piece of rope, the next time I see the rope I will not be deluded into thinking it is a snake. I understand that though it appears to be a snake, in reality there is no snake.

What does this have to do with me not doing karma? The next verse addresses that.

न चेयू ः प्रसूयेत कताव भो啍ेनत धीः कथम।् सदस्मीनत च वर्ज्ञाने तस्मादद्वाऽसहानयका॥१९॥ na cedbhūyaḥ prasūyeta kartā bhokteti dhīḥ katham| lsadasmīti ca vijñāne tasmādvidyā'sahāyikā||19||

न चेद् – if it (ignorance) cannot; भूयः – once again; प्रसूयेत – arise; कताव – doership; भोक्ता - experiencership; इनत – thus; धीः – idea, notion; कथम ् – how; सदग्स्म- ‘I am eternal Existence’; इनत – thus; च – and; वर्ज्ञाने – upon knowing; तस्मात ् – therefore; वर्ा – Knowledge; असहानयका – independent.

19. Upon knowing ‘I am eternal Existence’, and if ignorance cannot once again arise, then how can notions of doership and experiencership remain? Therefore, Knowledge is independent (in giving Liberation).

What would it be like to be armed with the knowledge that ‘I am Sat’ which existed before creation, which alone exists now and will continue to exist after the seeming dissolution of this creation? What is that Reality? A simple mental exercise can give us a glimpse of what It would be like. Let us start by eliminating the entire creation, all names and all forms. Then let us eliminate matter, earth; water; fire and air. Only space remains. Finally, let us eliminate space too.

The intellect will stop functioning when space is eliminated. Thereafter, all thoughts are suspended. What remains when all these have been eliminated? The Upaniṣads say what remains is Sat. Bhagavān says that deep sleep, where everything is eliminated is a prototype of this state. In deep sleep, we have no cognition of anything. We don’t have to wait for dissolution to know what Sat is. In Dakṣiṇāmūrtī Stotram Bhagavān Śaṅkarācārya says that a sleeping person is in pure Existence form; all instruments are withdrawn, folded back: it is Sat1.

1 … सन्मात्रः कििोपसंहिितो योऽभूत्सुषुप्तः पुमान ् … - दक्षक्षिामूनत व स्तोत्रं - ६

26 When the knowledge ‘I am that which remains when everything else has been negated’, has taken place, ignorance is dispelled. It is no longer possible to have the idea that I am the kartā or bhoktā. Sat has no instruments, external or internal. To become a kartā I need instruments (karaṇas). Similarly, I cannot be the bhoktā as I need instruments to experience something. As Sat, I do not have karmendriyas, jñānendriyas or a mind. So then how will the thought that I am kartā/bhoktā return?

With the dawn of this knowledge, our understanding of ourselves changes completely. We realise that what we thought ourselves to be was erroneous. Our entire identity, which has been shaped and refined over the years, is seen to be fictional and thrown overboard.

Once upon a time, there was a very rich merchant called Raman, who could buy whatever he desired. He happened to meet some mahātmās and studied śāstra under them. Realising that all his wealth and life had no real purpose, he took sannyāsa and was given the name Krishnānanda. One day an acquaintance who knew that Krishnānanda was none other than Raman, called him by the name ‘Raman’. Having heard that, Krishnananda thought to himself, "He is calling Raman. I am Krishnānanda, I have nothing to do with Raman". Similarly, when I think that I am the kartā/bhoktā, Vedic injunctions apply to me. When I know that I am Sat, all previous roles and identities are dropped.

Thus, establishing that Knowledge is capable of giving Liberation independently and does not depend on karma, Bhagavān refutes the pūrvapakṣin’s argument that karma should be performed along with jñānam because the Vedas prescribe it. It was also established that the context of statements that enjoin an individual to perform karma, have not been considered. For a seeker of Liberation, once qualifications have been acquired, it is vital that actions be dropped.

The pūrvapakṣin could say that Śruti says to do karma; in Īśāvāsya-upaniṣad, it is said that vidyā and karma have to go together1. Elsewhere, it is said that if you desire to live a hundred years, you should continue to do karma. If you want to live, you should do karma2. This mantra is meant for someone who thinks he is a human being. If one has this notion of being human (naratva buddhi), one has to do karma. If one has Sat-buddhi, he is free.

Furthermore, in the mantra that says vidyā and karma have to go together, the term vidyā refers to upāsanā, not brahmavidyā. This can be confirmed, as thereafter, the Upaniṣad goes on to say, ‘The face of Brahman is covered by the conditioning of the solar disc in space (the Sun deity representing Hiranyagarbha). O Sun God, for me the seeker of Truth, please open the gate to reveal the Truth’3. The instructions are meant for those who are still not Liberated; it is the upāsanā section of the scripture. Statements have to be considered in context. It is possible to combine karma and upāsanā as they are rooted in avidyā; combining karma and brahmavidyā is not possible.

1 … अवर्या मत्ृ य ुं तीत्र्ावऽमतृ मश्नुत े ॥ - ईशार्ास्य उपननषद् - ११ 2 कु र्न्व नेर्ेह कमावणि ग्जजीवर्षेत ् सतं समाः । एर्ं त्र्नय नान्यथेतोऽग्स्त न कमव मलप्यते निे । । - ईशार्ास्य उपननषद् - २ 3 दहिण्मयेन पात्रेि सत्यस्यावपदहतं मुखम ् । तत्त्र्ं पूषन्नपार्िृ ु सत्यधमावय 饃ये ॥ - ईशार्ास्य उपननषद् - १५

27 This difference arises because of the different terminology used by each school of thought. When a Vedāntin talks about vidyā, he means Brahmavidyā. When someone from karma śāstra or karma mīmāmsā talks about vidyā, he means upāsanā vidyā. Even though the word vidyā is the same, what we should understand in the context varies.

अत्यिेचयददत्यु啍ो न्यासः श्रुत्यात एर् दह। कमवभ्यो मानसान्तेभ्य एतार्ददनत र्ाग्जनाम॥् २०॥ atyarecayadityukto nyāsaḥ śrutyāta eva hi| karmabhyo mānasāntebhya etāvaditi vājinām||20||

अत्यिेचयद् – it (renunciation) excels; इनत – thus; उ啍ः – said, declared; न्यासः – renunciation of limited ego; श्रुत्या - by Śruti; अतः – therefore; एर् – thus; दह - indeed; कमवभ्यः – than physical action; मानसान्तेभ्यः – than mental action; एतार्त ् – ‘This Knowledge alone is enough’; इनत – thus; र्ाग्जनाम ् – of Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad.

20. Renunciation of the limited ego is superior to physical action and even mental action. This alone is the declaration of Śruti. The quotation ‘This Knowledge alone is enough’ is from Bṛhadāranyaka- upaniṣad (see verse 21).

अमतृ त्र् ं श्रुतं यस्मात्त्या煍यं कमव मुमुक्षुमभः। अग्ग्ननोमर्ददत्यु啍ं तत्रेदममभधीयते॥२१। amṛtatvaṁ śrutaṁ yasmāttyājyaṁ karma mumukṣubhiḥ| agniṣṭomavadityuktaṁ tatredamabhidhīyate||21|

अमतृ त्र्म ् – immortality; श्रुतम ् – is heard ; यस्मात ् – therefore; त्या煍यम ् – should be given up; कमव –actions; मुमुक्षुमभः - by seekers of Liberation; अग्ग्ननोमर्त ् - (Knowledge) is like the agniṣṭoma ritual; इनत - thus; उ啍म ् – said, declared; तत्र - there, in response to that; इदम ् - this, the following; अमभधीयते - is explained.

21. …supports the immortality heard of1. Therefore, action should be renounced by seekers of Liberation. In response to the objection that stated similarity between Knowledge and the Agniṣṭoma ritual (verse 12), the following is explained.

What we have seen so far is that avidyā will be eliminated by vidyā and once dispelled, avidyā cannot return. In the absence of avidyā, kartā/bhoktā buddhi will not exist either. Without kartṛtva bhāva, karma cannot be performed. The arguments are supported by Vedic injunctions; only those with nara buddhi should do karma, not everyone. In any Vedic declaration where vidyā and karma are combined, vidyā refers to upāsanā vidyā.

If the Vedas had intended karma to be performed until we draw our last breath (yavat jivet agnihotram juhoti), sannyāsa would not have been mentioned. The fact that it is mentioned implies that there are those who can take karma sannyāsa. The Upaniṣads themselves talk

1 … एतार्दिे ख쥍र्मतृ त्र्ममग्य्त … - बहृ दािण्यक उपननषद - ४- ५-१५

28 about sannyāsa. Sannyāsa, not karma, is mentioned as the means to immortality. This means that a time has to come in our lives when karma must be dropped. Vedānta vijñāna and sannyāsa yoga are mentioned together meaning that they should be undertaken in tandem. Mahānārāyaṇa-upaniṣad says that sannyāsa exceeds all karma1. This Upaniṣad first glorifies different kinds of tapas – ṛtam, satyam, śama, dama, dānam, yajña etc. It then lists the hierarchy of the tapas, with mānasika tapas (austerity at the mental level) being the highest (compared to those at the body and speech level) but concludes that renunciation surpasses them all.

All austerities are performed by ahaṅkāra. Sannyāsa is giving up this very ahaṅkāra itself. ‘I am not ahaṅkāra, I am Brahman’; with this understanding of sannyāsa, it surpasses all physical and mental karma. If the Upaniṣad says this, it should be understood that sannyāsa is the highest form of austerity and not any karma.

Vājinām refers to Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad. The word etāvad in the verse refers to a dialogue between Sage Yājñavalkya and his wife Maitreyi. Yājñavalkya Ṛṣi tells Maitreyi that jñānam is indeed the means to Liberation, and then leaves home and takes sannyāsa. Earlier in the chapter he had told her that Liberation would never come though karma and its means2.

This Vājasaneya Śruti clearly says that for immortality, knowledge alone is needed. If karma is indeed prescribed until the end of one’s life, Yājñavalkya Ṛṣi would not have taken the path of sannyāsa. Thus, taking the support of Mahānārāyaṇa-upaniṣad and Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad, where sannyāsa is clearly mentioned, Bhagavān says that a mumukṣu can also renounce karma. Sannyāsa is prescribed for a simple reason; it will give a seeker more time to think about ātmā. Karma keeps us occupied with anātmā. We often hear people complaining that they really want to attain mokṣa in this lifetime but don’t have the time for it, as they have too much work to do! Both cannot be done simultaneously. What Bhagavān is saying is that, if one is serious about attaining mokṣa, he can stop all karma to pursue jñānam.

Statements that have their basis in Śruti, are intended for those who are staunch followers of the Vedas. They will only drop karma if the Vedas enjoin it. However, most people do not follow the Vedas strictly. They do karma for personal desires, not because the Vedas have said so. For such people, the defects in those desires need to be pointed out by someone they look up to. Until then, they will not stop performing actions though endlessly saying they desire mokṣa.

Mokṣa will not be gained unless we are willing to pay the price for it. Mokṣa comes with its own demands, the first being that karma must be dropped. Karma brings in a host of results that we are extremely attached to and are afraid to give up. It can bring glamour that we don’t want to let go of; it makes us feel important; we are active; we get invited to places, etc. When one starts wearing ochre clothes, invitations are no longer forthcoming. One needs to be ready

1 न कमविा न प्रजया धनेन त्यागेनैके अमतृ त्र्मानशुः । र्ेदान्तवर्ज्ञानसुननग्चचताथावः संन्यासयोगातयः शुसत्त्र्ाः । - महानािायि उपननषद - ४-१२ 2 … अमतृ त्र्स्य तु नाशाग्स्त वर्त्तेनेनत ॥ - बहृ दािण्यक उपननषद - २-४-२

29 and have the firm resolve that he is no longer interested in these worldly pursuits. The whole idea of dropping karma is so that I have enough time for mokṣa sādhanā.

We have complicated our lives by adding numerous unnecessary requirements from the world; a bigger house, car, gadgets etc. We have to keep working to fulfil these desires, leaving us little time for ātmā cintanam. Most of the time we are doing anātmā cintanam! When everything is going smoothly, we have no complaints, but when sorrow comes we think that the study of Vedānta did not help us in any way. We want to be a part of this world and also want everlasting happiness that the world has failed to deliver. Vedānta offers this everlasting happiness, but there are few takers! The world and the everlasting happiness cannot co-exist.

Out of compassion, the Ācārya asks us to streamline our lives. This chapter has been dedicated to this cause alone. The teachings begin from the next chapter. We must first make room in our lives for jñānam to take place. This is why it is repeatedly said that only jñānam will give mokṣa and karmas can be dropped.

Our actions should reflect our priorities. We may be ready to drop karma but may be bound by certain responsibilities, the result of past choices and actions, which cannot be given up. We should be mindful of our present actions and not take on something that will tie us down further. Reducing our commitment to worldly activities will give us the time we need to study and gain this Knowledge. Our thinking has to change. To enable this change, the śāstras and the Äcārya are willing to help us, but we must take the first step.

नैककािकसा्यत्र्ात्फलान्यत्र्ा楍च कमविः। वर्ा तदद्वपिीतातो 饃ान्तो वर्षमो भर्ेत॥् २२॥ naikakārakasādhyatvātphalānyatvācca karmaṇaḥ| vidyā tadviparītāto dṛṣṭānto viṣamo bhavet||22||

न-एक-कािक-सा्यत्र्ात ् – due to requirement of many accessories; फल-अन्यत्र्ात ् – due to variety of results; च – and; कमविः – of karma, action; वर्ा – Knoweldge; तदद्वपिीता – is the opposite of that (karma); अतः - therefore; 饃ान्तः – example; वर्षमः – dissimilar, inappropriate; भर्ेत ् – is.

22. Knowledge is the opposite of action on account of karma requiring many accessories, as well as yielding a variety of results. Therefore, the comparison (with Agniṣṭoma) is inappropriate.

The pūrvapakṣin had four arguments to support his proposition of jñāna-karma samuccaya: • Karma is vidyā-sahakārī: it will support knowledge • Veda-vihita: it is prescribed by the Vedas • Pratyavāya doṣa: if we don’t do karma, there is sin of omission is incurred • Agniṣṭoma example: just as this ritual requires auxiliary rituals to give its result, svarga, jñānam also requires other auxiliary rituals to give mokṣa.

30 In this verse, Bhagavān says that the example of the Agniṣṭoma ritual is not śama it is viśama. Comparing Agniṣṭoma and Brahmavidyā is like comparing apples and oranges. Brahmavidyā, which is vastu–tantra, cannot be compared with Agniṣṭoma, which is puruṣa–tantra.

People often cite the lives of realised masters like Swami Vivekananda and Swami Chinmayananda, who worked very hard to uplift society, as an example of jñānam and karma being performed simultaneously. This is yet another invalid example. The point under discussion is the means that must be used to attain Liberation. We expect a seeker to emulate the actions of a realised master as a means to Liberation. But the seeker has not yet gained Knowledge and karma has not yet served its purpose. For a realised master, both karma and jñānam have accomplished their respective purposes. They are two extremes of the spectrum!

We have seen that karma is prescribed for a student who has neither qualifications nor Knowledge. One who has the qualifications, but no Knowledge is instructed to gain jñānam. The one who has both qualifications and Knowledge knows that He is Brahman, which is satyam, while karma and creation are mithyā. His combining karma and jñānam is very different from an unqualified student combining them. This is a viśama dṛṣṭānta.

Consider the case of two brothers. One is graduating from college while the other is still in school. When the older brother finishes college, the younger brother wants to stop going to school as well. His parents will not allow him to do so. What applies to someone graduating from college is very different from what applies to someone in school. What applies to a jñānī doesn’t apply to an ajñānī.

Similarly, karma (Vedic rituals) relies on various factors (kārakas): the priest, materials, place, methodology, etc. Even the faith with which the ritual is performed is said to affect the result. Chāndogya-upaniṣad says, by performing rituals with great śraddhā, one will reap greater results1. Without śraddhā no result will be obtained. The result of the Agniṣṭoma ritual, svarga, is thus sādhya and not a siddha phala (it is sādhya, different from me.).

Unlike the fruits of Knowledge, the result of the Agniṣṭoma is not attained immediately; it is gained only after this body drops. ‘Phala-anya’ has two meanings: a) it is different from the upāsaka; the result is gained in time and lost at another time, but the individual is separate from the result; b) ‘anya’ also refers to the variety of results gained depending on variety of karmas.

Karma may lead one to heaven but even in heaven there is gradations! Heaven after all is only a different world, where one enjoys higer grades of pleasure, using better equipment than here in the human world. Based on the karma, some will attain the throne while others will be cleaning the throne. Someone may become Indra’s chief cook and someone else may be the

1 … यदेर् वर्या किोनत श्रयोपननषदा तदेर् र्ीयवर्त्तिं भर्तीनत ख쥍र्ेतस्यैर्ाक्षिस्योपव्याख्यानं भर्नत ॥ - छांदोग्नय उपननषद - १-१-१०

31 caretaker of his elephant. Not everyone can be Indra. The variety of results is based on the variety of karmas, kārakas and the mental state of the kartā while performing the karma.

Knowledge is different because it yields the same result, no matter who gains it or when they gain it. The knowledge of an individual who studied an Upaniṣad 5000 years ago is identical to the knowledge gained by someone who is studying it now or someone who will study 5000 years from now. All three will gain the Knowledge 'I am Brahman, not the individual I take myself to be'. The Knowledge attained is identical and there is no gradation; it is not as if someone will get the Knowledge for a few years and someone else gets it for a longer period of time. Everyone gets the same Knowledge, ‘I was Brahman, I am Brahman and I will forever be Brahman’.

Therefore, there should be no differences in the mind of the student of brahmavidyā. If Brahman is sajātīya, vijātīya svagata bheda rahita, my understanding is that I am am sajātīya, vijātīya, svagata bheda rahita. All differences are understood to be superficial and a ‘working arrangement’ to make transactional life possible.

Ātmajñānam is acquired through Vedānta śravaṇam, mananam and nididhyāsanam. Śravaṇam is primary, while mananam and nididhyāsanam play supporting roles. How is jñānam any different from karma since śravaṇam is a kriyā? Mananam can similarly be considered as karma at the mental level, mānasika karma. If so, why does Vedānta constantly deny karma as a means to Liberation?

To understand this clearly, we have to go back to the definitions of puruṣa-tantra and vastu- tantra. Puruṣa-tantra depends on the subject while vastu-tantra depends on the object. For example, you can choose how to come to the lecture hall: by car, taxi, etc. This is puruṣa- tantra and belongs to the field of karma. You have no choice on the subject of the discourse. This is vastu-tantra. Externally, it may look like an action, but the listener has no say in the subject matter.

The śāstras say that ātmā is ajara, amara, abhaya and amṛta: deathless, changeless, fearless and undecaying. Whether we like it or not, we have no say in the nature of ātmā. The nature of ātmā has to be understood as it has been given in the śāstras, ‘I am birth-less and deathless’. If Knowledge does not take place in this way, the fault does not lie with the Knowledge or the communicator of the Knowledge, but with the one receiving it. We must thus put forth effort to become better recipients of this unchanging Knowledge.

The same applies to mananam. A seeker can choose any text to listen to and reflect on, be it Tattva Bodha, Ātmabodha, Vivekacūḍāmaṇi, one Upaniṣad or all of them. The nature of ātmā is identical in all the texts, it is vastu-tantra and the seeker cannot decide what it is. The study of multiple texts only serves to dispel doubts in the seeker’s mind; it will assist in mananam.

Knowledge is obstructed because of erroneous ideas that we have entertained in the past, which have now become habitual notions. These are called viparīta bhāvanās and will only be removed by nididhyāsanam. The time required to remove these notions and make the

32 Knowledge clear and firm, will depend on the individual. Someone may require two years of nididhyāsanam while someone else may require 20 years. Regardless, the subject remains the same, ‘I am Brahman’. Thus, nididhyāsanam is also vastu-tantra.

The duration of practice will depend upon the intensity of the practice and the seeker’s initial qualifications. Casual study or mere listening to Vedānta does not yield results, even if someone claims, “I know I am Brahman”. Similarly, a longer period of nididhyāsanam will be required for someone who has many erroneous notions. When mental disturbances, erroneous notions and the tendency to be disturbed by the external world are reduced, only then one is said to have gained Knowledge. Thus, śravaṇam, mananam and nididhyāsanam are all considered to be Knowledge, not action. The subject matter for all is the same - ātmā, which is vastu-tantra. Someone may say that śravaṇam is supported by mananam and nididhyāsanam just as Agniṣṭoma is supported by other rituals. There is no similarity as śravaṇam is vastu-tantra. Therefore, comparing Agniṣṭoma to the study of Brahmavidyā is invalid.

The next verse provides another line of argument put forth by the Vedantin to explain how the Agniṣṭomaritual is unlike Brahmavidyā.

कृ ष्याददर्त्फलाथत्व र्ादन्यकमोपबंहृ िम।् अग्ग्ननोमस्त्र्पेक्षेत वर्ान्यग्त्कमपेक्षते॥२३॥ kṛṣyādivatphalārthatvādanyakarmopabṛṁhaṇam| agniṣṭomastvapekṣeta vidyānyatkimapekṣate||23||

कृ ष्याददर्त ् – like farming, etc.; फलाथत्व र्ात ् – due to it producing a result; अन्य-कमव- उपबंहृ िम ् – other supporting actions; अग्ग्ननोमः - the agniṣṭoma ritual; तु - but; अपेक्षेत – shall expect, depend on; वर्ान्यत ् - other than Knowledge; क्रकम ् - what; अपेक्षते - expect.

23. To produce results, the Agniṣṭoma ritual will depend on other supporting actions as in the case of farming etc. But in the case of Knowledge, what else is required other than itself?

Agriculture and business yield different results based on the inputs. Factors such as the amount of land used for cultivation; the quality of seeds sown; the type of fertiliser used and the amount of sunlight and rain received; all determine the output. The point is that additional karmas are required for the result to be attained. Depending on these karmas, there is a gradation (sātiśaya) in the results.

This is also true for Agniṣṭoma. Someone who performs longer rituals along with all the auxillary sādhanās, will get better results. The result will depend on the means used. In the case of Knowledge, there are no such variations. Knowledge will be gained only as it is given, it cannot be changed. Everyone who studies this will get the same Knowledge and wisdom, 'I am Brahman. I am free'. If there are differences in understanding, it is because of the qualifications of the students; not the Knowledge. Vidyā does not have any gradation.

33 Wrods like Brahmavit, Brahmavit-varah, Brahmavit-varīyān, Brahmavit-variśṭhaḥ seem to imply a gradation in the knowers of Brahman. There is no gradation in Knowledge. The knower of Brahman knows he is Brahman. The gradation is in the level of withdrawal from the world, vairāgya,

A Brahmajñānī cannot be judged by worldly norms. One may be active while another may not; one may teach or be a scholar of Sanskrit, while another may have an administrative role. External acts cannot be the criteria to evaluate a Brahmajñānī. Their expressions vary based on their pūrva saṁskāras (their preparation at the mind/intellect level etc.). However, their Knowledge, 'I am Brahman', is not any different.

Krsno bhogī śukastyāgī nṛpau janakarāghavau, Vaśiṣṭha karmaniṣṭhaśca shadete jñāninaḥ śamaḥ.

The above verse says that Bhagavān Kṛṣṇa lived in a palace, with many queens, children and grandchildren; Śukadevji lived as a total tyāgī (renunuciate); Janaka Māharāj and Śri Rāmcandra ruled their respective kingdoms; and Vaśiṣṭha Muni, as the priest of Raghu kula, performed karmas continuously. However, all of them were Brahmaniṣṭhas.

The variety of expressions exist because, either it was their svadharma or because of their avatāra, which required them to play specific roles to accomplish specific purposes. Once an individual accomplishes the purpose of life (gaining mokṣa), he will continue living as he did before. His Knowledge is the same as that of anybody else who has studied Brahmavidyā.

Vidyā does not need anything else. Karma tells me I am finite, and it cannot therefore be combined with Knowledge. Knowledge tells me that I am Infinite; śravaṇam, mananam, nididhyāsanam also enforce the same idea and therefore can be combined with Knowledge. Anything that reinforces the idea that I am a finite being, a doer or an experiencer, cannot be combined with Knowledge. With this, the third reason for samuccaya is also refuted.

Now, the fourth aspect: pratyavāya doṣa, is negated in one verse.

प्रत्यर्ायस्त ु तस्यैर् यस्याहंकाि इष्यते। अहंकािफलाचथवत्र्े वर्ेते नात्मर्ेददनः॥२४॥ pratyavāyastu tasyaiva yasyāhaṁkāra iṣyate| ahaṁkāraphalārthitve vidyete nātmavedinaḥ||24||

प्रत्यर्ायः – sin of omission; तु – but; तस्य - for him; एर् – indeed; यस्य - for the one who; अहंकािः - notion of finitude; इष्यते - incurs; अहंकाि-फल-अचथवत्र्े – finitude nor desire for results of actions; वर्ेते – has; न – not; आत्मर्ेददनः – For the one who knows the Self.

24. The one who has the notion of finitude, indeed incurs a sin of omission. For the one who knows the Self there is no notion of finitude nor is there any desire for results of action.

34 The Äcārya says that only someone with ahaṅkāra, the notion that he is finite and the doer of action, will incur the sin of omission. All Vedic injunctions are for ahaṅkāra; they are for the ignorant. No injunctions apply for a jñānī who knows he is Brahman; akartā and abhoktā. If injunctions are not followed, then the sin of omission is incurred. Since there are no injunctions for a jñānī, there can be no sin of omission.

Just as hospitals are for the sick, the Vedas are for the ignorant, not the enlightened. An enlightened man knows himself to be Brahman; and all injunctions, whether to perform karma or to go to a Guru to gain Knowledge are redundant. The purpose for which all injunctions are given is achieved once he knows himself to be Brahman. He does not seek to gain anything anymore to fulfill himself and no doubts remain for him to approach a Teacher and undertake any study. No erroneous notions remain for him to dispel through nididhyāsanam. Just like a cup of water isn’t going to add to the ocean, nothing can add to what he already has. He doesn’t need anything because he is content. The knower of the Self will not benefit from any karma. Thus, the proposition of combining jñānam and karma serves no purpose for him.

In earlier verses (15 and 21), Bhagavān said that a seeker of Liberation can and should give up karma. He also explained why the knower of ātmā has no ahaṅkāra and so doesn’t incur any pratyavāya doṣa. But what about the seeker who is in the process; he has gained Knowledge but is not able to fully abide in it? Does he incur the sin of omission? If karma is dropped to accommodate Knowledge, then there is no pratyavāya doṣa. So giving up karma for more śravaṇam, mananam and nididhyāsanam will not incur sin. Doing japa, pārāyaṇam etc. is not considerd combining karma and jñānam if it is done for citta śuddhi, to make Knowledge firm. Stopping these karmas to make more time for śravaṇam will not incur pratyavāya doṣa. Stopping daily duties to go to the movies or socialize will surely incur pratyavāya doṣa. Thus, an individual in gṛhastha āśrama can undertake only those karmas that will assist him in his quest for Liberation. Those who haven’t entered gṛhastha āśrama yet, have the option to not start these karmas at all.

With this, all four of the pūrvapakṣin’s arguments have been refuted and we now return to our main subject. From the sixth verse on Bhagavān established how Knowledge alone will remove ignorance, and no support of karma is required. Therefore, we are now going to begin the study of brahmavidyā.

तस्मादज्ञानहानाय संसािवर्ननर्त्तृ ये। ब्रवर्ावर्धानाय प्रािब्धोपननषग्त्त्र्यम॥् २५॥ tasmādajñānahānāya saṁsāravinivṛttaye| brahmavidyāvidhānāya prārabdhopaniṣattviyam||25||

तस्मात ् – Therefore; अज्ञान-हानाय – for destruction of ignorance; संसाि-वर्ननर्त्तृ ये – for removal of transmigration; ब्रवर्ा - Knowledge of the Self; वर्धानाय – to enumerate; प्रािब्ध- उपननषत ् - the Upaniṣad begins; तु - but, thus; इयम ् - this

35 25. Therefore, for the destruction of ignorance, removal of transmigration, and to enumerate the Knowledge of the Self, this Upaniṣad begins.

Following the thought process in the text so far, we arrive at the conclusion that the elimination of ignorance is a must. It is ignorance of the fact that I am the Infinite, non-dual, self-evident Reality, that is the cause of saṁsāra (verses 3 and 4). To eliminate saṁsāra, the perpetual roller-coaster ride where we are constantly tossed up and down, we must eliminate ignorance. Knowledge will destroy ignorance and so Brahmavidyā must be gained.

Prārabdhopaniṣad, the Upaniṣad begins (prārabdham) in order to gain Brahmavidyā. This Knowledge is not gained by sitting down and closing our eyes, but rather by studying. Bhagavān makes it explicitly clear that Knowledge is gained only through pramāṇa; the Upaniṣads. No other means are available. After studying an Upaniṣad if someone claims that no new understanding has dawned, he should work to increases his qualification and study again. And study yet again if Knowledge still does not dawn! There is no other way to attain this Knowledge.

Bhagavān Śaṅkarācārya has given this text the status of an Upaniṣad. This is Śruti in the prakaraṇa prasthana traya. An Upaniṣad is that reveals Brahmavidyā. The next verse gives a beautiful definition of the word Upaniṣad.

सदे셁पननपूर्स्व य ग्क्र्वप चोपननषर्ेत।् मन्दीकििभार्ा楍च गभावदेः शातनात्तथा॥२६॥ saderupanipūrvasya kvipi copaniṣadbhavet| mandīkaraṇabhāvācca garbhādeḥ śātanāttathā||26||

सदेः – of the root ‘sad’; उप-नन-पूर्स्व य – preceded by the prefixes ‘upa’ and ‘ni’; ग्क्र्वप – followed by the suffix ‘kvip’; च - and; उपननषद् - Upaniṣad; भर्ेत ् – is; मन्दीकिि-भार्ात ् – due to loosening of (impact of karma); च – and; गभावदेः – of rebirth etc.; शातनात ् – due to destruction; तथा – thus.

26. The word Upaniṣad is derived from the root 'sad', which is preceded by the prefixes 'upa' and 'ni' and is followed by the suffix 'kvip'. Thus, it is called Upaniṣad because it loosens the impact of karma and destroys rebirth, etc.

The word Upaniṣad has two prefixes: ‘upa’ and ‘ni’, followed by the root ‘sad’. There is a suffix: ‘kvip’, of which all four letters drop when the verbal root ‘sad’ is converted into a noun, as used here.

The root, ‘sad’ has three meanings: avasādana, gati and viśaraṇa.

• Avasādana is for manda sādhakas, who are not highly qualified. Their vairāgya will gradually increase; their puṇya karma will increase and bondage will be loosened if not destroyed.

36 • Gati is for the jijñāsu or mediocre sādhakas; they will gain this Knowledge ‘I am Brahman’. As a result of gaining this Knowledge their mental agitations will be reduced significantly. If they have sufficient qualifications, they will have no re- birth. For the less qualified the impact of karma will be less and they will have less frequent re-birth because vasana pressure is reduced. • Viśaraṇa is for those who are highly accomplished in spiritual qualifications, they will know they are supreme Brahman and will be free from transmigration.

In this way, the word Upaniṣad means Brahmavidyā. The secondary meaning is the book through which the Knowledge is gained; it is the means to understand while the Teacher is teaching. _____

37 Chapter 2: Pratiṣedha Prakaraṇam

The first chapter is dedicated to establishing that clear knowledge of the Infinite Truth as my own Self, is the only way to solve all our problems (gain Liberation). The fundamental problem is ignorance of our infinitude; and this is why we continuously transmigrate from one body to another and from one world to the next, seeking complete satisfaction. The Ācārya embarked on an extensive discussion to prove beyond all doubt that Knowledge is the sole means to Liberation. Karma will not lead to Liberation, nor can it assist in achieving this goal. Only Knowledge will result in Liberation.

The second chapter is called Pratiṣedha Prakaraṇam. The word pratiṣedha means negation. The negation of matter is the subject of the next few verses and this takes our enquiry a step further. Since it was established that Knowledge of my true nature is the means to Liberation, the next logical step would be to seek this Knowledge. Brahman or ātmā, my true nature, is said to be Caitanya svarūpa (of the nature of Consciousness).

The world as we know it is made up entirely of matter, which is always available for our perception. How and where do we seek this Consciousness? From our transactions with the world so far, we know that our senses cannot perceive Brahman as an object (matter). For the purpose of this analysis, we will divide the world of matter into two: what we do not include when we think of ourselves (a tree); and all that we do include when we think of ourselves (our bodies). When I think of myself, I never include the tree in the courtyard. On the other hand, whenever I think of ‘I’, I erroneously include my body, which is also matter. We don’t need Vedānta to tell us that we are not trees, but we do need pramāṇa to tell us that when we think of ourselves, we should exclude our body.

The body is physical (or gross) matter. Subtler matter also exists and this is the mind (antaḥkaraṇa) which is also included whenever we think ‘I’. Both gross (body) and subtle matter (mind) must be excluded from our notion of ‘I’. The Upaniṣads say that when we negate or reject both external and internal matter in this way, what remains is Consciousness. Consciousness is never available as an external entity but can be identified through this process of negation (pratiṣedha). This negation of matter, external and internal, gross and subtle, is the subject of this chapter.

An objection is raised before the chapter even begins! The pūrvapakṣin objects to the contention that Liberation can be gained through the study of Vedānta. He questions the very validity of Vedānta as a means of Knowledge. On the spiritual path, we often come across those who say Vedānta is impractical. While we may not believe this the first time we hear it, sooner or later we may also fall victim to this thinking. When will the notion ‘I am not this body or mind’ go? We never have a waking moment without this notion; yet Vedānta emphatically and repeatedly asserts that ‘I am ātmā, not this body that I take myself to be’. This is forgotten the day the body gets sick.

38 The pūrvapakṣin claims that Vedānta is not a valid solution because the notion ‘I am this changing body’ is too strong to be displaced by any other understanding. Don’t we all constantly feel that we are saṁsārīs, with a never-ending set of problems? It is indeed very difficult for us to cognise that we are not a part of this endless cycle. Earlier it was said that Knowledge gives mokṣa, which is prāptasya prāptih, meaning it is already gained. Jñānam reveals, ‘I am already Brahman’. However, our direct experience is ‘I am a saṁsārī’. How can Vedānta jñānam ever take place when our experience of the world and our individuality in it, is so powerful? If the knowledge ‘I am Brahman’ cannot displace our previous notions, what good is this Knowledge? Here, the pūrvapakṣin claims that the thought ‘I am a saṁsārī is too deep-rooted to be displaced by the thought ‘I am Brahman, an asaṁsārī’. Therefore, knowledge of Vedānta is of no use.

To counter this, we will analyse some of the different means of knowledge1 and how they work:

• Pratyakṣa pramāṇa or direct perception: Knowledge is gained through perception by the sense organs. This perception is given reality; validity; importance. Our sense organs give us the knowledge that the body and its abilities are limited and subject to modification. Therefore, we too are subject to change and are finite. We gather these ideas through direct perception.

• Śabda pramāṇa or knowledge through words: Vedānta is śabda pramāṇa.

Each pramāṇa is valid in its own field and is sufficient to give knowledge of that particular field. Pratyakṣa pramāṇa functions only in the field of objects, where the senses can bring in information for the intellect to cognize. Vedānta pramāṇa on the other hand functions in the field of the subject. The two pramāṇas function in different domains and therefore there is no conflict between them. One does not have to displace the other; they can co-exist.

My eyes see the colour and form of a pot. My nose reports its smell. My nose can’t give me information about size and colour because that is not its domain of operation. Sight is exclusive to the eye and no other sense organ can give me that information. Likewise, the eyes can’t give me any information about smell; that is the exclusive domain of the nose. Both sense organs co-exist, each operating in it’s own domain. Similarly, pratyakṣa pramāṇa has no conflict with śabda pramāṇa in the field of Consciousness and śabda pramāṇa does not operate in the field of sense objects. Thus, there is no competition between the two pramāṇas, as posited by the pūrvapakṣin. They can co-exist, and one does not need to displace the other for their prevalence as they function in their own separate domains.

Therefore, Vedānta can give us the Knowledge ‘I am Brahman’ where ‘I’ refers to Consciousness and not the body. The body ‘I’ is known directly by the senses. The knowledge gained through each of the pramāṇas is independent and equally valid. Just as I gain the

1 The 6 means of knowledge are: pratyakṣa – direct perception; anumāna – inference; upamanā – comparison; arthapattī – presumption; śabda – verbal testimony and anupalabdhi - non-apprehension.

39 knowledge of objects through my sense organs, the knowledge of Consciousness and its infinitude is gained through Vedānta. As the body, I am finite, but as Consciousness, I am infinite.

However, we never think of ourselves as Consciousness. As noted before, we include gross and subtle matter in our notion of ‘I’ so it is never cognised independently of matter. So how will we know that we are Consciousness?

This is where the teachings of this chapter begin. We are directed to negate anātmā (matter) from ātmā. The physical separation of matter and Consciousness is not possible. It is through intelligent discrimination (viveka) that we exclude the matter aspect that we have erroneously included in our understanding of ‘I’. Just as when I remove the pot name and form from a pot what is left is clay, the intelligent removal of anātmā from ‘I’ will leave only pure Consciousness (ātmā). This process is popularly called meditation.

This is so subtle that we need time and a calm mind to undertake this process. How can we possibly think of ‘I’, ātmā when we have a multitude of things on our minds? Various techniques are employed prior to meditation to prevent the mind from getting disturbed. We turn off the lights to prevent the mind from noticing things that would otherwise distract it. We try to meditate early in the morning when the mind is calm, before it is kicked into a frenzy by other activity or by rajas.

The objective in meditation is to consciously exclude the anātmā aspect which I am not but have erroneously included in ‘I’. This is called pratiṣedha. For this, there is a mahāvākya in Bṛhadāranyaka-upaniṣad: neti neti.

प्रनतषेुमशक्यत्र्ान्नेनतनेतीनत शेवषतम।् इदं नाहममदं नाहममत्या प्रनतपते॥१॥ pratiṣeddhumaśakyatvānnetinetīti śeṣitam| idaṁ nāhamidaṁ nāhamityaddhā pratipadyate||1||

प्रनतषेुम ् – to be negated; अशक्यत्र्ात ् – due to the impossiblity; नेनतनेनत – ‘not this, not this’; इनत – thus; शेवषतम ् – remains; इदम ् – this; न – not; अहम ् – I; इदम ् – this; न – not; अहम ् – I; इनत – thus; अा – directly; प्रनतपते – revealed.

1. Through the process of ‘not this, not this’, the Self alone remains because it can never be negated. Thus, through the process of ‘I am not this, I am not this’ the Self is directly revealed.

This famous injunction, ‘neti, neti’ is from Bṛhadaranyaka-upaniṣad. In Vedānta, it is used as a tool to negate all gross and subtle creation. In reality, we are never too worried about most of the external world. The focus of the injunction is on aham (tvam-pada). In the understanding of ‘me’ or ‘I’, all erroneous notions that have been included must be eliminated because it is these erroneous notions that are the source of our duḥkham. To

40 facilitate the process, a simple technique has been given to eliminate all erroneous notions of myself, nāham idam, nāham idam, idam na aham.

Every thought/interaction has two distinct aspects: the subject and the object, aham and idam respectively. Whatever is idam is not aham, an object can never be the subject, I. It is aham that has thoughts of idam. In Upadeśa Sāra, Ramana Maharshi says that all thoughts, all objects depend upon aham1. Whenever we think of an object, it has to be associated with ‘I’ for its recognition. Without the ‘I’-thought, there is no cognition of anything, which is what happens in deep sleep. Here, Bhagavān says, whatever we associate with as idam is not aham.

The body is an object too. If we find this difficult to grasp, consider that my body is an object for someone else and therefore it is an object for us too. Since this body is an object of experience, it cannot be Me. We also perceive our body as undergoing change, implying that we are the knower of these changes and thus different from the body.

Idam is, therefore na aham. The rule is: if it can be experienced, it is not Me. Whatever we understand to be idam must be negated. In meditation, the meditator negates all idam and what remains is aham, the meditator. This aham cannot be negated as it is the subject that is doing the negating.

We have not yet clarified who this aham is. Who is doing the meditation? If I remain as the meditator, meditation is not complete. If I am the meditator (dhyāta), meditating upon something (dhyeya), through the process of meditation (dhyānam), then plurality will persist. In Vedānta, advaita and not plurality is the final goal. If this triad of the knower, knowledge and the object of knowledge persists, then the process of negation is not yet complete.

In the first stage of sādhanā, whether meditation or knowledge, everything else is negated and we simply remain the sādhaka. All other notions we have of ourselves are negated, whether they relate to the body or any role we may play in our daily lives; young, old, man, woman, brother, father, officer, manager, director, etc. Only the meditator remains. This meditator is the ahaṅkāra with thoughts. Thoughts are used to negate everything and once this is done, no further thoughts on negation are entertained. What is left is ahaṅkāra. Is the ahaṅkāra idam or aham? Since I address myself as aham it cannot be idam. The final goal is to know ‘I am not the meditator; I am Brahman’. How is this to be achieved? For this we need to take a closer look at ahaṅkāra.

Ahaṅkāra is a defective copy of ātmā. The defects are the limitations that result in sorrow. However, we think of it as aham because ahaṅkāra alone has the ability to express the Consciousness aspect of ātmā. The reflection of Consciousness called cidābhāsa is only available in ahaṅkāra. Ahaṅkāra along with cidābhāsa is called sābhāsa ahaṅkāra. Due to its inherent ability to reflect Consciousness, ahaṅkāra is able to function like a sentient entity and hence we forget the presence of ātmā. The next step in our process of negation is to

1 र्त्तृ यस्त्र्हं र्वृ त्तमाचश्रताः… - उपदेश सार - १८

41 negate this ahaṅkāra. Ahaṅkāra and cidābhāsa change while ātmā does not. So, when ahaṅkāra is negated, it is the changing aspect of ‘I’ that is negated.

The Upaniṣads say what is left after everything is negated is Brahman. When the Teacher tells the student, “You are that Brahman” the student understands ‘I am Brahman’. What does he include in ‘I’? When the Teacher says ‘I’ he means ātmā, devoid of antaḥkaraṇa and cidābhāsa (since cidābhāsa and antaḥkaraṇa are always together it doesn’t have to be negated separately).

Ahaṅkāra is available in the waking and dream states, not in deep sleep. In deep sleep we do not know ourselves as ahaṅkāra. When we say ahaṅkāra is negated, this does not mean ahaṅkāra is destroyed or that it disappears. It goes into a latent/dormant state known as laya where it is not available for transaction. Since the knower of the waking world is not available in deep sleep, it implies that this knower is negated in deep sleep.

Ātmā, however, is not negated in deep sleep. How can we confirm this? When we wake up after a good night’s sleep, we are aware of the fact that we had no experience. It is only after we wake up that we can say that there was a time (when we were sleeping), when we had no experience. Because ahaṅkāra is absent/unavailable, expression during the experience (of sleep) is not possible. This shows that something is present even when I, the knower (ahaṅkāra) am absent. This is confirmed by this verse as pratishedhumaśakyatvāt, that which is not available for negation.

Ahaṅkāra and ātmā function together. Ātmā cannot do anything, as its nature is to just be. Ahaṅkāra’s nature is to express itself in the form of an ‘I’-thought, but it depends on ātmā for its sentiency as it is inert by itself. Ātmā cannot say, “I am.” Ahaṅkāra can say, “I am”, but needs Consciousness to be able to do so; thus, they function together. In the waking and dream states, where ahaṅkāra is present, the ability to express is also seen to be present. In deep sleep however, ahaṅkāra is not present. Ātmā is always present, but it is abhoktā. It cannot say, “I am” in deep sleep. When ahaṅkāra wakes up, it can verbalise the knowledge that ‘ātmā was present in deep sleep’.

Ahaṅkāra is thus negated in deep sleep while ātmā is not. Using negation, neti neti, everything besides ātmā is negated. Ātmā is recognised as the non-negateable aparokṣa Caitanya.

अहंधीरिदमात्मोत्था र्ाचािम्भिगोचिा। ननवषात्मोर्त्र्ात्सा न पुनमावनतां व्रजेत॥् २॥ ahaṁdhīridamātmotthā vācārambhaṇagocarā| niṣiddhātmodbhavatvātsā na punarmānatāṁ vrajet||2||

अहंधीः – The ‘I’ thought; इदम ् – this; आत्मा-उत्था – arisen from the inner instrument (antaḥkaraṇa); र्ाचािम्भि-गोचिा - mere words; ननवष-आत्म-उर्त्र्ात ् – due to the ‘I’ thought arising from the antaḥkaraṇa being negated; सा – it (the ‘I’ thought); न – not; पुनि-् मानताम ् - validated again; व्रजेत ् – become.

42 2. The ‘I’ thought, which has arisen from the antaḥkaraṇa and which is mere words, can no longer become validated again as that antaḥkaraṇa-born ‘I’ thought has been negated.

Ahaṅkāra is also known as aham vṛtti, the ‘I-thought’. While discussing the process of negation, we had seen how all objects are classified as idam vṛttii, object-thought. In the world, we can see change associated with objects; they are present one moment and gone the next. Therefore, it is relatively easy to recognise them as a flow of vṛtti or thoughts. Do we feel that ahaṅkāra is also a vṛtti, or do we feel that it is ever present? We definitely don’t feel that we are constantly changing. We see objects changing but do we ever see ahaṅkāra changing? On the contrary, we dislike the idea that we have changed. If someone tells us, “You’ve changed, you look so different”, our response will be, “What is different? I am still the same”. Even on the physical plane we do not like the idea of having changed.

Then, how do we accept that ahaṅkāra is a thought as opposed to our notion of it being an ever present, changeless entity? We use the words idam vṛtti and aham vṛtti, but never question what it is that is changing. What was there yesterday is gone, replaced by something else. We may read the concept of aham vṛtti and understand it, but if it is not born out of our own thinking, we will not be convinced.

We know ahaṅkāra’s grosser expressions change in the form of thoughts like ‘I am happy’ or ‘I am indifferent’. These are adjectives for ahaṅkāra. In her interactions with the world, a woman becomes daughter ahaṅkāra, who becomes wife ahaṅkāra, mother ahaṅkāra and so on. In this way, ahaṅkāra is seen to change based on the roles and identities it assumes.

At the level of the mind, what I see as the changing ‘I’ are the moods of the mind, ‘I am happy’, ‘I am sad’, etc. This change is so subtle that it is very difficult to recognise that I am really changing. The changes mentioned here are with respect to the world. To recognise the changing nature of ahaṅkāra independently of the external world is indeed very difficult. How can this be done?

Because of its proximity to ātmā, when ahaṅkāra expresses itself, due to superimposition (adhyāsa), we think the non-changing nature of ātmā is ahaṅkāra’s nature. Ātmā’s nityatva and satyatva are superimposed on ahaṅkāra and therefore we think that ahaṅkāra does not change. It is our incorrect understanding that leads us to think that as ahaṅkāra, ‘I never change’.

For it to be negated, ahaṅkāra (aham vṛtti) has to be changing. If it were changeless, ahaṅkāra would be eternal, like ātmā, which is unacceptable. Also if it were changeless, it would also be present in deep sleep, which would mean we would never sleep! Since it is not present in deep sleep, we know that ahaṅkāra is not eternal.

Having understood that ahaṅkāra is constantly changing, we need to determine the viṣaya (subject) and the origin of the aham vṛtti. First, we need to be clear that aham is indeed a vṛtti. During our waking hours, there is never a time when the aham vṛtti is absent. Idam vṛtti seems to constantly rise and dissolve but aham vṛtti is ever present.

43 When we say, “I understand what is being taught”, which aspect of I is being referred to?. The body does not understand, nor do the senses or prāṇas. It is the mind, or the intellect, (antaḥkaraṇa) that says, “I understand”. The teaching is the idam vṛtti while ‘I’ is the aham vṛtti. Understanding is in the form of a thought in which there is a sense of comfort with what is being taught. Thus, when I (ahaṅkāra) identify with this thought, I say, “I understand”.

In the verse, the word idam is used to denote ātmā. This is done to draw our attention to the aspect of ‘I’ that can be recognised as idam. So, here ātmā1 refers to the antaḥkaraṇa (inner instrument) and not the Self. The origin of all vṛttis is the antaḥkaraṇa. This includes viṣaya- ākāra vṛtti, aham vṛtti and even Brahmākāra vṛtti. However, the object of an idam vṛtti will be objects: people, things, etc. while the object of aham vṛtti is the ‘I’-thought. The object of a ‘pot-thought’ is a pot, a tangible substance. The object of the ‘I’-thought is I, but I is a thought. Therefore, the object of the aham vṛtti will be the aham vṛtti. When I say, “I am happy”, the part of me that is happy is the mind, which is a thought.

Sukham, dukham?? understandings are all expressed in that ‘I’-thought. When the antaḥkaraṇa wants to sleep, ahaṅkāra says, “I am sleepy”. Who is it that is sleepy? Not the body, the sense organs or prāṇas. There may be one thought that says, “Go to sleep” and another thought that says, “You can’t sleep until you have read this chapter”. This is also the mind. Everything expresses in the ‘I’-thought. The ‘I’-thought has I as the viṣaya where all moods of the antaḥkaraṇa are expressed.

The origin of the aham vṛtti is the antaḥkaraṇa. The viṣaya of the aham vṛtti is the aham vṛtti, or aham by itself. We will not be able to determine what aham is by itself. For simplicity, we can say that antaḥkaraṇa is the origin and antaḥkaraṇa is also the viṣaya. But by using such words we are only avoiding a conflict. We have to face this one day.

Now, the antaḥkaraṇa has two facets, the changing and the non-changing. What doesn’t change, which I think is always present, I call aham. The antaḥkaraṇa is like a river that has a non-changing riverbed and constantly flowing (changing) water. At no two points in time is the river the same. It is constantly changing. Yet we do not say that the river has changed. Similarly, in the midst of all changes, we feel we are changeless.

All changes that occur in the mind, in the form of thoughts are belong to ahaṅkāra. This is ahaṅkāra’s job. The moment it identifies with any change it becomes one with the change. So ahaṅkāra is constantly changing but seems to be changeless. This is why it is very difficult to negate ahaṅkāra. I can easily identify and negate anything that is known to be changing.

Thus, we can say that the ahaṅkāra arises in the antaḥkaraṇa, as a vṛtti. It arises as we wake up each morning. In fact, it is only when my ahaṅkāra arises, that I am able to say, “I woke up”. Whatever happens to ahaṅkāra, I consider to be happening to me. The antaḥkaraṇa however is anātmā as it is not available at all times; it is absent in deep sleep. It is also jaḍa and can

1 ātmā is a flexible pronoun which is used to indicate those entities where a sense of ‘I-ness’ exists e.g: ‘dehātmā-bhāva’ is sense of I-ness in the body.

44 only function when enlivened by Consciousness. Ahaṅkāra is anātmā, because it arises in the antaḥkaraṇa, has antaḥkaraṇa as its viṣaya, and it is jaḍa. It is thus subject to negation.

It is due to superimposition alone that we feel that ahaṅkāra itself is eternal and changeless. This is adhyāsa. Using our ability to discriminate, we should be able to separate ahaṅkāra and ātmā as different entities. Ātmā is the real, non-changing ‘I’, free from limitations. Ahaṅkāra, which is anātmā, is not Me. In reality, ahaṅkāra has no independent existence; it is vācarambhaṇa (exists in name only). There is no real substance called ‘pot’, it is only clay. Similarly, the ‘I’-thought does not have an existence apart from Consciousness. When ahaṅkāra is negated thus, with the correct understanding arising from pramāṇa, it no longer has any validity.

Our daily experience however is different. Though ‘I’, the changeless ātmā is asaṁsārī, I feel that I am the ahaṅkāra. This ahaṅkāra obstructs the new understanding that ‘I am asaṁsārī’ from becoming firm. Earlier, we discussed the pūrvapakṣin’s viewpoint that direct perception is a more powerful pramāṇa than Vedānta, and as a result this challenged the validity of Vedānta as a pramāṇa. The knowledge ‘I am Brahman, I am a saṁsārī’ can never replace my perception that ‘I am kartā, bhoktā, saṁsārī’. It was also noted then that since pratyakṣa pramāṇa and Vedānta operate in different fields, they are not contradictory and can co-exist.

We need to understand this clearly as it is a source of confusion for many. The notion of being the doer/experiencer is very strong and we wonder when the understanding ‘I am asaṁsāri’ will come. And if it does come, will it stay? While we are in class we understand and feel that we are Brahman. As soon as the class is over, we switch back to be the kartā, bhoktā, saṁsārī. This is because we have not properly understood the pramāṇa. Each means of knowledge has its own sphere of operation. Eyes cannot report taste and the tongue cannot report colour. There is no conflict between the two.

Direct perception functions in the field of matter, where Consciousness is reflected as cidābhāsa. It tells me about the limited body where a limited ahaṅkāra expresses various moods. The knowledge gained through Vedānta is about Caitanya svarūpa ātmā, changeless and eternal. The field of operation of the two pramāṇas is entirely different. If we think both are talking about the same thing, we will definitely be confused and will never think that Liberation is possible. As long as we don’t recognise that Vedānta and direct perception speak at completely different levels, we will constantly have this conflict and will struggle for mokṣa.

With the Knowledge ‘I am Brahman’, creation is negated as the two do not function on the same level of reality. The understanding ‘I am Brahman’ can prevail all the time. The notion ‘I am ahaṅkāra’ is at a lower degree of reality. This is called ‘varying ontological status’, or ‘viśama-sattā’. This is why once the ahaṅkāra is negated, it does not regain its validity.

If we fail to understand this critical aspect, we will constantly struggle. There is no conflict if we understand that ‘Aham Brahmāsmi’ will only negate the reality of ahaṅkāra. We cannot negate ahaṅkāra, only its reality. With knowledge, I understand that ahaṅkāra is perceived to be eternal only because of ātmā’s presence; superimposition leads to the characteristics of

45 ātmā being projected onto ahaṅkāra. Only through knowledge can we negate the superimposition and separate the two.

Ahaṅkāra associates itself with the reflection of Consciousness and comes alive. It has the ability to know only because of the Consciousness expressing there through cidābhāsa. The identification between ahaṅkāra and cidābhāsa is natural. This ahaṅkāra however, erroneously identifies with ātmā and it also identifies with karma and the body. Therefore, even upon gaining the Knowledge that ‘I am not ahaṅkāra, I am ātmā’, the identification with karma and the body continues. This saṁskāra cannot be broken suddenly. It should be remembered that this identification belongs to ahaṅkāra, not ātmā. I should know that I am ātmā.

Even with the dawn of knowledge, ahaṅkāra will continue to identify with the body, which is a product of karma. The identification will be negated but cannot be stopped. This is the period of jīvanmukti, where the ahaṅkāra still identifies with the body but also has the ability to know; allowing for knowledge, experiences and their enjoyment. The jīvanmukta always knows that he is not ahaṅkāra, but he is ātmā. He assumes the identity of ahaṅkāra for transactional purposes only.

Externally, the vyavahāra at the individual level will not change as that is determined by karma. Karma has given birth to the body and as a result, the body has certain features. All physical forms of identification such as a driver’s license, passport, etc. will have ahaṅkāra identified with the body due to karma and will continue as before. The natural ahaṅkāra- cidābhāsa identification will continue too. The ahaṅkāra -ātmā identification however is negated having understood myself to be ātmā, not ahaṅkāra. Life will continue as before. The only change will be that henceforth the world will only have a transactional reality.

For ātmā to express, ahaṅkāra is needed. When it is understood that I am Brahman and not ahaṅkāra, the one that claims this is ahaṅkāra. Then would the statement, ‘I am Brahman, and I am not ahaṅkāra’ be considered valid?

There where anātmā exists, ātmā is also present. Anātmā cannot exist independently. The ahaṅkāra negates the anātmā aspect. That independently existing ātmā, because of which anātmā ahaṅkāra exists, that Brahman I am. Earlier the ahaṅkāra was negated externally in the world everything that I am not. Now, ahaṅkāra itself will negate that part of ahaṅkāra which is not ātmā. That which remains will say ‘this Brahman, I am’.

The study of Vedānta ends with the upadeśa ‘tat tvam asi’: ‘You are that Brahman’. If one has not understood which aspect of ‘I’ should be included and which is to be excluded while understanding the teachings, the entire interpretation will be incorrect. When the Teacher says, “You are Brahman” and the student understands ‘I am Brahman’, both of them should be at the same level of understanding. The Teacher is referring to ātmā, ‘I’ devoid of antaḥkaraṇa and cidābhāsa. This aspect of ‘I’ alone is Brahman. If one does not know that both these need to be negated, then even upon gaining the knowledge they will claim that

46 though they know they are Brahman, they are still disturbed. Brahman cannot be disturbed. This means that I have not understood the Teacher’s words.

We know that ātmā and antaḥkaraṇa cannot be separated physically. We should understand how to negate antaḥkaraṇa as it has no independent reality. Only then will the the statement ‘Aham Brahmāsmi’ be understood correctly. If not, we will constantly question the validity of the statement, because what is known to be true for Brahman, will not be seen to be true for ourselves. It is said Brahman is all-peaceful, but I am not peaceful because I have included in aham, my mind, which is subject to disturbance. When I include the disturbed mind in aham, I am in effect saying 'I am the disturbed Brahman’! Brahman is eternal and changeless, but I see myself constantly changing because my mind has not been excluded from the understanding of ‘I’.

We negated the outer world first, then the body and finally the mind. The pure Consciousness which remains, ‘that alone I am’, this is Brahman. Once the antaḥkaraṇa is negated, it will never become real as it will be invalidated. It becomes non-substantial. What impact does this have for us practically, in our day-to-day life?

We think of ourselves as individuals. This individual (including the body, senses, mind and prāṇas) is subject to constant change; prārabdha karma and challenges from the world. This is the nature of an individual. To think that all our problems (at the physical-mental level) will one day be solved is erroneous thinking. At the individual level, something or the other will continue. This individual is called the aham vṛtti – the ahaṅkāra.

Vedānta’s solution is to tell us that the individual is not this embodied entity to begin with as it is subject to negation. We are that Brahman which is free from all limitations and problems. We should be able to detach ourselves from this false identity that we hold on to so dearly. If we are able to do this, then the identity will never become valid again because we will have understood the Truth on the basis of a valid means of knowledge.

The question that now arises is whether this new knowledge revealed by Vedānta will be able to take root?. The notion that I am a saṁsārī is very strong indeed and will not easily allow any new knowledge take place.

पर्बव ुवमबाचधत्र्ा नोत्तिा जायते मनतः 饃मशिेकः स्र्यं मसः फलत्र्ात्स न बा्यते॥३॥ pūrvabuddhimabādhitvā nottarā jāyate matiḥ dṛśirekaḥ svayaṁ siddhaḥ phalatvātsa na bādhyate ||3||

पूर्बव ुवम ्– previous knowledge; अबाचधत्र्ा – not having negated; न – not; उत्तिा – latter, new; जायते – arise; मनतः – knowledge, understanding; 饃मशः – the seer; एकः - one, alone; स्र्यम ् मसः – independently existing; फलत्र्ात ्– that because of which all illumination (knowledge) is possible (by sākṣī or cidābhāsa); सः – It (the Self); न – not; बा्यते – be negated.

47 3. Without having negated the previous understanding, this new Knowledge will not arise. The Self which is the seer, non-dual, and independently existing, cannot be negated because it is that which illumines everything.

How will new knowledge take root? First, our understanding that we are saṁsārī, kartā and bhoktā must be negated. My pūrva buddhi about myself is ‘I am Swami Bodhatmananda’. This erroneous notion needs to be invalidated. Until previous knowledge is negated, new knowledge will not take root. The roles we play in our lives, husband; father; son; manager, will all be negated as they must all be understood as mithyā. Vedānta pramāṇa negates all the erroneous notions we entertain about ourselves. Once all that can be negated has been negated, what remains is Brahman.

Thus, all previous knowledge is negated and then it simply remains as a transactional tool that we can use, knowing that it is mithyā. Ahaṅkāra continues as a negated identity. Only ātmā remains. If our previous understanding can be negated, will this new understanding also be subject to negation by some other understanding or the old understanding? Bhagavān Śaṅkarācārya says that the wisdom that ‘I am Brahman’ will never be negated. It is of the nature of the seer, one without a second. It is self-existing and everything else has a dependent existence on Brahman, which is why it can be negated. A wave in the ocean has no independent existence. It is water in a particular form that rises and falls. This is why the wave can be negated and the water that gives it existence cannot. Water is svataḥ siddhaḥ, while the wave is parataḥ siddhaḥ.

We are familiar with the terms ‘phala vyāpti’ and ‘vṛtti vyāpti’. Here ‘phala’ refers to the Consciousness that expresses in every thought, because of which thoughts have the ability to know. By itself antaḥkaraṇa is inert matter. When Consciousness expresses in it, this inert matter gains sentiency. This reflection of Consciousness in the antaḥkaraṇa, cidābhāsa, is what allows the external world to be illumined by the sense organs.

Thoughts of joy or sorrow are in the mind and a sense organ is not required to know them. Thoughts are directly illumined by sākṣī. The inner world is illumined by the sākṣī and the outer world is illumined by cidābhāsa. A rope seen lying on the ground is illumined by cidābhāsa in the intellect. On that rope, if an illusory snake is perceived, it is illumined by sākṣī. Since the snake is not available for vyavahāra, it is like any object in a dream, present only in the mind and therefore an object of illumination for sākṣī.

Caitanya, because of which all knowledge is possible, is called ‘phala’ in the verse. That knowledge is the final result of all transactions. The result of all karma is joy or sorrow, which is known because I become aware of it. So, as vācyārtha phala refers to cidābhāsa and as lakṣyārtha it refers to sākṣī. Most people are not even aware of sākṣi. They think cidābhāsa runs the show. Cidābhāsa however owes its existence to sākṣi or Caitanya and therefore lakṣyārtha of phala is ātmā.

To gain the knowledge of a pot, a pot-thought is created in the mind. The pot-thought has Consciousness embedded in it, which reveals the pot to me. Thoughts are constantly

48 changing, but there is a changeless entity that is present throughout, regardless of whether the object is outside or within, this is Caitanya. It will never be negated and is present in all as Existence (svayam siddha) and Consciousness (svayam prakāśa). Even in deep sleep when there are no thoughts, sākṣi illumines their absence.

Thus, we should not worry that the new understanding will subsequently be replaced by another understanding. Having understood that I am present in and through all transactions as sat-cit, nothing can negate Me. I, the ātmā, expresses in all antaḥkaraṇas. Even with jīvanmukti or videha mukti, I continue to exist. I am not negated in deep sleep or samādhi or at the time of death or dissolution. I am Existence in which creation becomes unmanifest and resides. Negation of My true nature is not possible. To explain this, a beautiful example is given in the last verse of this chapter.

इदं र्नमनतिम्य शोकमोहादददवू षतम।् र्नाान्धािको यद्वत्स्र्ात्मानं प्रनतपते॥४॥ idaṁ vanamatikramya śokamohādidūṣitam| vanādgāndhārako yadvatsvātmānaṁ pratipadyate||4||

इदं – this; र्नम ् – forest; अनतिम्य – having transcended, gone beyond; शोक-मोह-आदद- दवू षतम ्– flawed with grief, delusion etc.; र्नात ्– from the forest; गान्धािकः – the kidnapped man from Gāndhāra; यद्वत ् – just as; स्र्ात्मानम ् – the Self ; प्रनतपते – attains (his destination).

4. Just as the man kidnapped from Gāndhāra attains his destination having gone beyond the forest, which is flawed with grief and delusion, so too does the seeker attain the Self.

An allegory from Chāndogya-upaniṣad explains how one transitions from the understanding ‘I am kartā, bhoktā, saṁsārī’1 to ‘I am asaṁsārī’2. Some thieves kidnapped a man from Gāndhāra (modern day Kandahar, Afghanistan). He was blindfolded, gagged, bound and left to his fate in a forest. He was able to remove the gag from his mouth. He didn’t know where he was or whether there was anyone around to hear him, but he kept shouting for help. A compassionate passerby heard him and immediately responded saying, “I am coming!”. The compassionate stranger removed the man’s blindfold, untied his hands, gave him detailed directions on how he could get back to Gāndhāra and then went on his way. Following the directions, the man was thus able to return to Gāndhāra.

The forest where the kidnapped, blindfolded and bound man was left represents the body. The wild animals in the forest are kāma, krodha, lobha, moha, mada, mātsarya, old age and disease; a source of trouble for the one lost in the forest. The eyes are viveka and the blindfold

1 यथा सोम्य पु셁षं गन्धािेभ्योऽमभनाक्षमानीय तं ततोऽनतजने वर्सजृ ेत्स यथा तत्र प्रा敍र्ोद敍र्ाधिा敍र्ा प्रत्य敍र्ा प्र्मायीतामभनाक्ष आनीतोऽमभनाक्षो वर्सृ ः॥ - छांदोग्नय उपननषद - ६-१४-१ 2 तस्य यथामभनहनं प्रमु楍य प्रब्रूयादेता ं ददशं गन्धािा एतां ददशं व्रजेनत स रामाद्रामं प楍ृ छन्पग्ण्ितो मेधार्ी गन्धािानेर्ोपसम्पेतैर्मेर्ेहाचायर्व ान्पु셁षो र्ेद तस्य तार्देर् चचिं यार्न्न वर्मोक्ष्येऽथ सम्पत्स्य इनत ॥ - छांदोग्नय उपननषद - ६- १४-२

49 that covers them is moha. The thieves who put us in this situation are puṇya and pāpa. The kidnapped man’s cries for help are our endless complaints about the sorrows of the world. The compassionate traveler who freed him, the parama kāruṇika, is the Teacher who says that help is at hand. He releases the bandhana and gives directions to get home. The Teacher then leaves as his job is done. The student should remember what the Teacher has taught him and continue on his journey. He will reach his destination. Chāndogya-upaniṣad says that the one who has a Teacher will certainly attain his destination1. Just as the kidnapped man reached his destination, Gāndhāra, the sādhaka attains his true nature. Once attained, it will not be lost.

The allegory illustrates that we need a Teacher to show the way; the Teacher is pramāṇa. The Ācārya will instruct us to study Vedānta beause it is pramāṇa. This is why śraddhā is essential; śraddhā is defined in Tattva Bodha as faith in the teachings of the Guru and śāstras2 and in Vivekacūḍamaṇi as conviction in the truth of the teachings of the śāstras and Guru3. The śāstras and Guru always go hand in hand. Our tradition does not accept one without the other; this very fact is its strength.

Once Knowledge has been gained using pramāṇa, it will not be negated and prior knowledge will not return. Once I know I am Brahman, I am free.

_____

1 … आचायर्व ान्पु셁षो र्ेद … - छांदोग्नय उपननषद - ६-१४-२ 2 गु셁र्ेदान्तर्ाक्याददषु वर्श्वासः - तत्त्र् बोध १-३-५ 3 शास्त्रस्य गु셁र्ाक्यस्य सत्यबुद््यर्धाििम ् … - वर्र्ेकचूिामणि - २५

50 Chapter 3: Īśvara-ātmā Prakaraṇam

The first chapter is an introduction, which outlines the need for the text. Bhagavān Śaṅkarācārya explained that Knowledge of our true nature is the only solution to all our problems, which are the result of erroneous notions about ourselves. This was established by explaining that the body is a result of karma; performance of karma results in dharma or adharma, which results in puṇya and pāpa, and they in turn result in sukha and duḥkha. Our ideas of sukha and duḥkha exist because of our rāga and dveṣa. It this chain reaction that keeps us engaged in the world, we never become free. Hence the knowledge of our completeness is sought. Keeping this need in mind, the teaching of brahmavidyā was initiated.

The suggestion to combine karma with jńānam was explained as impossible by Bhagavān. The first chapter thus ended with the idea that Upadeśa Sāhasrī, an Upaniṣad, will loosen the bondage of karma and lead the sādhaka to Brahman, thus destroying ignorance. The second chapter is the Pratiṣedha Prakaraṇa where ātmā-pratipatti through pratiṣedha is indicated. Negation of anātmā and recognition of ātmā is the goal of the discussion. All idam (what is not me) is first negated and then the reality of very ahaṅkāra that undertook the negation is questioned. The question that arises from the above process is that while idam can be negated, ahaṅkāra is not referred to as ‘idam’; it is referred to as ‘aham’. So, is ahaṅkāra ātmā or anātmā?

Anātmā pratiṣedha includes the negation of ahaṅkāra. Ahaṅkāra is anātmā with respect to sākṣī, I. This aspect was taken up elaborately and we concluded that ātmā devoid of anātmā and its attributes is free; so I, devoid of the physical body and the mind, and their respective problems, am free. However, when the body and mind start disturbing me, I do not know how to keep them separate from my understanding of myself. The example used to illustrate this is of the man who was kidnapped from Gāndhāra and left blindfolded, gagged and bound and left in a forest. Similarly, we too are lost in this forest called the body-mind complex. It is the teachings of a Guru and śāstra which guide us back to our home, which is Om.

The third chapter is called Īśvara-ātmā Prakaraṇam. Its objective is to recognise that Īśvara is not different from me. Do we believe that God is different from me? The answer will depend on our idea of ourselves and of God. Three aspects must be considered here: The Creator, creation and I. • If I take myself to be an individual in this creation; limited by my physical body, senses, mind and so on, and God to be the Creator, then I will be different from God. God is the Creator and I am the created. • If I see God as both Creator and creation then I, the individual, am included in creation, which is nothing but Him. The understanding is that I am a part, and He is the whole. • I am neither separate nor a part of God. In essence I am one with God Consciousness.

51 Having negated all anātmā, if I have understood myself to be ātmā, my relationship still depends on my idea of God. Do I believe God to be ātmā like I am, or anātmā? Everything is falls within one of two categories, ‘I’ or ‘not I’. There is no third option. Upadeśa Sāhasrī deals only with the question of whether God is ātmā like I am, or anātmā. If God is anātmā, then like any other anātmā, God would be inert matter, subject to modification and destruction and thus mithyā. If God is not anātmā, then that God will be ātmā, I.

This chapter addresses four defects that would arise if Brahman and ātmā were different.

ईश्र्िश्चेदनात्मा स्यान्नासार्स्मीनत धाियेत।् आत्मा चेदीश्र्िोऽस्मीनत वर्द्या साऽन्यननर्नतवका॥१॥

īśvaraścedanātmā syannāsāvasmīti dhārayet| ātmā cedīśvaro'smīti vidyā sā'nyanivartikā||1||

ईश्र्िः - Brahman, the Self; चेत ् – if; अनात्मा – different from the Self; स्यात ् – is; न असौ अग्स्म – ‘I am not that’; इनत – thus; धाियेत ् – understands; आत्मा – (I) one’s own self; चेत ्– if; ईश्र्िः - Brahman; अग्स्म – am; इनत – thus; वर्द्या – knowledge; सा – this; अन्यननर्नतवका – that which eliminates otherness (jīvatva from Brahman).

1. If Brahman is (considered) different from the Self, then one will understand thus – ‘I am not that’. But if one understands his own Self as Brahman, then that knowledge eliminates notion of finitude from Brahman.

The Vedas say we should worship God. This implies that God will be the one who is worshipped and we will be the worshippers. These roles are clearly delineated in the earlier sections of the Vedas (Pūrva Mīmāmsā). The same Vedas later say, “tat brahma tvam asi”, you are that Brahman, the origin of creation. Which instruction of the Vedas should we follow? What is the relationship between Īśvara and ātmā?

As long as we are not prepared, as long as we have desires, we should worship God and He will fulfill our desires. As we mature, we realise that these desires never end and fulfilling them is not only impossible but also futile. Entertaining desires has only given us a different kind of sorrow, nothing else. Then we begin questioning why we have desires in the first place and how we can end them. It is to such a seeker that the Upaniṣads say, “You are That”. The undwrstanding of the teachings of the Vedas depends on the maturity of the seeker.

Muṇḍaka-upaniṣad says that jīva and Īśvara are like two birds sitting on the branch of a tree1. One is enjoying fruits while the other is simply watching. This gives the impression of two, and people think that one is the jīva-bird and the other the Īśvara-bird; one is enjoying karmaphala while the other is watching. The Upaniṣad also says that jīva and Īśvara are not different and this may lead to some confusion. Is there oneness or difference? The purpose of

1 द्वा सुपिा व सयुजा सखाया समानं र्क्षृ ं परिषस्र्जाते ... - मुण्िक उपननषद - ३-१-१

52 this chapter is to address such seemingly conflicting instructions of the Vedas and determine if the Upaniṣads are talking about oneness or difference between jīva and Īśvara.

In this verse, the word Īśvara refers to Brahman. That means Īśvara should be ātmā because Mānḍūkya-upaniṣad says that ātmā is Brahman1; there is no other Brahman. This chapter proves the oneness of Brahman and ātmā by examining the problems that arise if Brahman is not one with ātmā. This is done using a technique called abhyupetya vāda, which accepts a contrary point of view and then proves that it has inherent defects and is thus invalid. In the four verses of this chapter, four such defects will be pointed out. The first defect is pointed out here is that if I am not Brahman, Śruti will be wrong; there will be Śruti virodha doṣa.

Knowing myself to be ātmā (Caitanya svarūpa), anything that is different from Me will be anātmā. If we assume that Īśvara, Brahman is anātmā then we imply that Brahman is jaḍa and therefore finite. If ātmā were different from Brahman, they would condition each other, making both finite. (If ātmā is infinite, Brahman has to be finite as it is different from ātmā. This is not possible). I am existence and if Brahman is different from Me then Brahman is non-existence. Many such problems arise when we assume Brahma to be different from ātmā and therefore, Brahman has to be ātmā.

If the sādhaka’s understanding is that Īśvara is anātmā, he will never think that he is Brahman. There will be a direct contradiction with the essential teaching of the Upaniṣads that ‘I am Brahman’. This is called Śruti virodha.

If I understand that I, ātmā, am Brahman, there will be no Śruti virodha. Also, because I understand that I am Brahman, there is no delay between understanding and attaining Brahman. If I think of myself as a jīva and not Brahman, then I will have to do something to become Brahman, which is incorrect. Śruti says that I am Brahman, so as soon as I understand that I am Brahman, I will attain Brahman. Knowledge and attainment are simultaneous. If someone was told that Uttarkashi is beautiful and he should visit there, he would have to do something to reach it in due course. If, however, he was told that the lecture hall they were sitting in was beautiful and he should see it, what does he have to do? Nothing. As soon as he knows, he has attained it.

The understanding of ‘I am Brahman’ should be equally clear and spontaneous. This is why Vedānta says that Liberation is through jńānam; nothing needs to be done. We are already there. Attainment is only figurative; as soon as Knowledge is gained Liberation is attained. All other preparations are only to remind myself that I am already That. The jīva never becomes Brahman because the jīva has always been Brahman.

The notion of ‘becoming Brahman’ is logically flawed. Let us assume that a jīva can become Brahman. The jīva is saṁsārī while Brahman is asaṁsārī. Does the jīva become Brahman by retaining jīva-hood or by giving it up? If the jīva becomes Brahman by keeping its jīva-hood,

1 … अयमात्मा ब्र … - माण्डू啍य उपनिषद - २

53 then the jīva would attain asaṁsāritva yet keeping its saṁsāritva, which is not possible. If the jīva attains Brahman by dropping its jīva-hood, then who attains Brahman as jīva-hood has been dropped? Thus, it is not possible to attain Brahman by keeping jīva-hood, and if it is dropped there is no one left to attain Brahman. So, the jīva can never attain Brahman. It is always Brahman. Jīvatva is an erroneous notion that the right Knowledge will correct.

When I understand that ātmā is Brahman, and that Brahman I am, the knowledge that the Upaniṣads have given eliminates the idea of jīvatva from Brahman. It is Brahman that has the erroneous notion ‘I am jīva’.

There is no process by which saṁsārī jīva will become asaṁsārī Brahman; finite cannot become infinite. It is very important that we are clear about this. No amount of sādhanā will transform a jīva into Brahman. No karma, upāsanā or dhyānam will make us Infinite. In Vedānta, the purpose of dhyānam is for the immortal, that erroneously thought he was mortal, to discover the knowledge that he was always immortal.

Bṛhadāranyaka-upaniṣad says that if someone says ‘that is different, I am different’, he has not understood the teaching yet1. He who takes himself to be different from Brahman, is immature and not ready for mokṣa and will remain bound as he doesn’t know how to think. We are only free when we understand that we are Brahman.

The next verse takes a quotation from the Upaniṣads and says that because the Upaniṣad has stated it (I am Brahman), there has to be a reason for it; if it was not so, the quotation would have no purpose.

आत्मनोऽन्यस्य चेद्धमाव अस्थूलत्र्ादयो मताः। अज्ञेयत्र्ेऽस्य क्रकं तैः स्यादात्मत्र्े ह्यन्यधीह्नुनतः॥२॥

ātmano'nyasya ceddharmā asthūlatvādayo matāḥ| ajñeyatve'sya kiṁ taiḥ syādātmatve hyanyadhīhnutiḥ||2||

धमावः अस्थूलत्र्ादयः मताः – indicators in the form of descriptions such as ‘not gross, etc.’; अन्यस्य आत्मनः – belonging to something than the Self; चेत ् – if; अज्ञेयत्र्े – being of that which is not sought; अस्य – of this; क्रकम ् तैः स्यात ् – by those (indicators), what is accomplished?; आत्मत्र्े – being of the Self; दह – indeed; अन्यधी-ह्नुनतः – destruction of all other notions of otherness.

2. What would be accomplished if the indicators such as ‘not gross, etc.’ belonged to something other than the Self?. It would indeed be futile to know that which is not sought. On the other hand, if the indicators belong to the Self, then all notions of otherness are indeed destroyed.

This verse refers to a mantra from Bṛhadāranyaka-upaniṣad that indicates the nature of Brahman as not gross, not subtle, not tall, not short, not dark, not bright, without ears,

1 … अन्योऽसार्न्योऽहमस्मीनत, न स र्ेद … - बहृ दािण्यक उपननषद - १-४-१०

54 without a tongue, without any sense organs, without mind, without prāṇa1. These indicators of Brahman are given because I am That. If they were about some remote entity, then they would be of no interest to me. This is the second defect and is known as Brahmanah ajñeyatva doṣa. Ajñeya is not known, not knowable and not to be known.

Entertaining the notion that Brahman is different from me and knowing everything about Brahman serves no purpose. The Upaniṣads say I am Brahman. So, all these indicators apply to me. They say I am not tall, short, fat, lean and so on. I have no physical body or mind and therefore I am free from all their afflictions. In the Bhagavad-gītā, Bhagavān Kṛṣṇa makes it clear that the knower of the mind, body, etc. is Me2. This is Brahma ātmā aikya. Thinking that Brahman is different from me and learning about that Brahman serves no purpose. The glories of Brahman are my glories. That is to be known; in fact, it is the only thing to be known. This is why it is emphasised that the Self should be realised3. Bhagavān Kṛṣṇa also says that this is to be known4 and if you know this you don’t need to know anything else5. I need to know this as myself and then my purpose in life is complete. The notion that I am ahaṅkāra is destroyed and with that all sorrow.

ममथ्या्यासननषेधाथं ततोऽस्थूलादद गह्ृ यताम।् पित्र चेग्न्नषेधाथं शून्यतार्िनव ं दह तत॥् ३॥ mithyādhyāsaniṣedhārthaṁ tato'sthulādi gṛhyatām| paratra cenniṣedhārthaṁ śūnyatāvarṇanaṁ hi tat||3||

ततः – therefore; अस्थुलादद – ‘not gross, etc.’; गह्ृ यताम ्– understand/ know; ममथ्या-अ्यास- ननषेधाथमव ् – for the purpose of negating erroneous notions (about the Self); पित्र – the not- Self; ननषेधाथं – for the purpose of negating; चेत ्– if; शून्यता-र्िवनं – description of complete non-existence (of the Self); दह – indeed; तत ् – that.

3. Therefore, understand that the statements ‘not gross, etc.’ are for the purpose of negating erroneous notions (about the Self). If such statements were intended for the negation of the not-Self, then they (the statements ‘not gross, etc.’) are indeed descriptions of that which does not exist.

The mantra from Bṛhadaranyaka-upaniṣad6 discussed in the previous verse is also referred to here in the discussion of the third defect śūnyatā-varṇana-doṣa, the defect of description of void that would arise if Brahman and ātmā were different.

The nature of Brahman is said to be not gross; not subtle; not atomic. It is not short or tall; it is not fluid; it is not red (has no colour); it is not like a shadow, it has no appearance, it is

1 अस्थूल ं अनिु, अह्रस्र्ं अदीर्घं … - बहृ दािण्यक उपननषद - ३-८-८ 2 इदं शिीिं कौन्तेय क्षेत्रममत्यमभधीयते … - भगर्द् गीता - १३-२ क्षेत्रज्ञं चावप मां वर्व … - भगर्द् गीता - १३-३ 3 … आत्मा र्ा अिे द्रव्यः… - बहृ दािण्यक उपननषद - २-४-५ 4 … 煍ज्ञानममनत प्रो啍मज्ञानं यदतोऽन्यथा || - भगर्द् गीता - १३-१२ 5 … य煍ज्ञात्र्ा नेह भूयोऽन्य煍ज्ञातव्यमर्मशष्यते || - भगर्द् गीता - ७-२ 6 … न तदश्नानत क्रकं चन न तदश्नानत कश्चन - बहृ दािण्यक उपननषद - ३-८-८

55 not like an ābhāsa; it is not darkness; it is not space, it is not air; it has no association. It is not speech and does not have organ of speech; it is not the ears, nor does it have an organ of hearing; it has no eyes, nor does it have an organ of sight. All the organs of perception are negated and so is the owner of the organs. It has no mind, no praṇa; it has no inside or outside. It does not become an object of experience nor is it the experiencer1: with this everything known is excluded. All this is what Brahman is not.

This elaborate description of Brahman or akṣara tattva would serve no purpose if Brahman were different from Me. If Brahman is not Me, it will be anātmā; since I am ātmā and anything other than Me will be anātmā. A pot is anātmā: different from ‘I’. It is known only because of its attributes: size, shape, texture, colour. If we try to imagine a pot without any properties, we won’t be able to describe it at all. Attributes are required to describe all anātmā. Whenever we use attributes, we are always describing anātmā. Anātmā devoid of attributes has no existence; it is śūnyam. So, if there is something other than Me, and it is devoid of attributes, it will be śūnyam.

Therefore, if the Upaniṣads say that Brahman is devoid of attributes and if that Brahman is different from me, then that Brahman will become śūnyam. The entire description would be purposeless (vyartham). Why describe something that does not exist? This is the objection that Advaita Vedānta has with Buddhism, which says that the Truth is śūnyam, void. Vedānta does not agree. Why does one have to do years of sādhanā to become void? Why should one have the goal of becoming nothing (śūnyam)?

Śūnyatā-varnanam implies that the Upaniṣads would become a description of nothing. An anātmā, without properties loses its very existence. The purpose of ‘asthūlādi’ is not to negate attributes from anātmā; that would only make it a description of śūnyatā. If Brahman is not different from Me, then the Upaniṣad mantra is aimed at negating all the false notions that I have erroneously included in my notion of ‘I’; mithyā adhyāsa. If I think I am the body, then all body-related problems and defects are taken as mine. Here, it is said I am that Brahman which has no body. If I think I would like better eyesight, I am told that as Brahman, I have no eyes.

The purpose of the mantra is not merely to glorify Brahman but to remove all the erroneous notions that we have falsely superimposed on ‘I’, which bring us nothing but sorrow. Our error is that we consider ourselves to be the individual personality that we have taken on. All issues belong to the individual and we are in love with our individuality. We want to keep it and yet become free from all problems; this will never happen! Claiming this personality as ourselves is mithyā adhyāsa. We have to do mithyā adhyāsa niṣedha. All statements of the Upaniṣads indicating svarūpa lakṣaṇa (direct indicators) or taṭastha lakṣaṇa (indirect indicators) of Brahman have the sole purpose of eliminating the erroneous ideas that we

1 … अस्थूलमनण्र्ह्रस्र्मदीर्घमव लोदहतमस्नेहम楍छायमतमोऽर्ाय्र्नाकाशमस敍गमचक्शुष्कमश्रोत्रमर्ागमनोऽतेजस्कमप्रा िममुखममात्रमनन्तिमबाम,् न तदश्नानत क्रकं चन, न तदश्नानत कश्चन ॥ - बहृ दािण्यक उपननषद - ३-८-८

56 entertain about ourselves. The previous chapter dealt with ahaṅkāra niṣedha; this chapter is about negating all the false attributes in ahaṅkāra.

Thus, only if Brahman is not different from I can the descriptions presented in the Upaniṣads help negate the false superimpositions in Me.

बुभुत्सोयदव द चान्यत्र प्रत्यगात्मन इष्यते। अप्रािो ह्यमनाः शुभ्र इनत चानथवकं र्चः॥४॥ bubhutsoryadi cānyatra pratyagātmana iṣyate| aprāṇo hyamanāḥ śubhra iti cānarthakaṁ vacaḥ||4||

बुभुत्सोः प्रत्यगात्मनः अन्यत्र – different from the inner-most self of the one desirious of knowing the Self; यदद – if; च – and; इष्यते – considered; अप्रािः दह अमनाः शुभ्रः – ‘devoid of praṇa and mind, of the nature of Consciousness’; इनत – thus; अनथकव म ् – meaningless; र्चः – statement.

4. If (Brahman is) considered to be different from the inner-most self of the one desiring to know it, then the statement ‘devoid of praṇa and mind, of the nature of Consciousness’ would be rendered meaningless.

In Muṇḍaka-upaniṣad, ātmā is referred to as akṣara and is said to be divya: divine; amūrtaḥ: formless (having no gross body); both outside and inside; ajaḥ: birth-less (implying it is also deathless); aprāṇaḥ: having no prāṇa; amanāḥ: having no mind and śubraḥ: pure (untouched by avidyā) 1.

The word bubhutsu means one with a desire to know: boddhum icchuḥ. Many people have the desire for Liberation (mumukṣutvam), but not everyone who is a mumukṣu understands that Liberation comes only through Knowledge. One who seeks Liberation through Knowledge is a bubhutsu. Thus, not all mumukṣus are bubhutsus. Most people think Liberation will come through other means; they are waiting for a special event or time when they will attain Liberation. Such individuals are excluded from this verse. In the very first chapter itself it was made clear that Liberation is possible when the right knowledge is gained. Therefore, we should not only be seekers of mokṣa, but also seekers of knowledge. No actions will give us Liberation.

If Brahman is different from the Self of the one who wants to know, (pramātā), then the Upaniṣadic statement. ‘aprāṇo hyamanāḥ śubhraḥ’2 would be meaningless. If I think I have a body, the Upaniṣad says that I am amūrtaḥ. If I take myself to be sapraṇaḥ (with prāṇa), the Upaniṣad says that I am aprāṇaḥ; if I think I am with mind, I am told that I am amanāḥ. I think I have kāraṇa śarira (avidyā), so the Upaniṣad tells me, “In you, there is no avidyā, you are śubraḥ”. That is why ātmā is sthūla-sūkṣma-kāraṇa sarirāt vyatiriktaḥ, where even avidyā is absent. Śubraḥ is that where there is no darkness (tamaḥ). Thus, in Me, there is no body;

1 ददव्यो मूतःव पु셁षः स बााभ्यन्तिो जः । अप्रािो मनाः शभ्रु ो... - मुण्िक उपननषद - २-१-२ 2 … अप्रािो मनाः शभ्रु ो… - मुण्िक उपननषद - २-१-२

57 prāṇa; mind; avidyā or anything else. If these statements were not intended for Me, then they are a description of something that has no relevance for me. They would be anarthakam.

If there is bhrānti (misconception) about something, then negation is required. There is no need to negate something that is not possible. For instance, I don’t need to say that a man has no horns. It is because I live with this (erroneous) idea that I am saprāṇaḥ that I am told I am aprāṇaḥ. I think I am the mind so I am told that I am not. All the negation serves a purpose only if it applies to me. Brahman is devoid of all superimposition and superimposition-based attributes.

Negating that which is not, is known as aprāpta-pratiṣedha doṣa. The very fact that the Upaniṣad is negating these ideas implies that I have erroneously superimposed them on Me and their purpose is served only when I have negated them.

_____

58

Chapter 4: Tattvajñāna Svabhāva Prakaraṇam

The fourth chapter is called Tattvajñāna Svabhāva Prakaraṇam, the nature of Self-knowledge. It deals specifically with how someone who has gained this Knowledge, a jñānī or jīvanmukta, lives in the world.

Jīvanmukti is what we are all striving for. While living, I know that I am Brahman and I am free. Even though ahaṅkāra is exists as an experiencer, ahaṅkāra has negated itself. When idam is negated, ahaṅkāra is also negated. The jīvanmukta continues to live in his body, transacting in this world. It is ahaṅkāra that interacts in the world; sense organs interacting with sense objects. In the Bhagavad-gītā Bhagavān Kṛṣṇa says that a jñānī is very clear in his knowledge that it is the sense organs that interact with sense objects, but he is not that1. The result of this Knowledge is that all his past, accumulated karmas are burnt and all future karmas will give no results.

Living in this world, we performed many karmas in the past. These are called sañcita karma. They are accumulated over a period of time and will bear fruit for the jīva in the future. They are the reason for his rebirth. Karma is associated with the jīva and not the body or ātmā. The body is a product of karma.

When a part of sañcita karma fructifies it is called prārabdha karma and the jīva takes a new body. Karma performed while exhausting prārabdha karma is called āgami karma. For the ajñānī āgami karma becomes a part of sañcita karma, so there is no need for the distinction between sañcita and āgami. For a jñānī all karma performed after Knowledge has been gained is āgami; these karmas will not bind him.

Prārabdha is often called fate, to indicate circumstances over which we have no choice. A term that is often discussed with prārabdha is puruṣārtha, self-effort to attain a particular goal. In Vedic thinking however, puruṣārtha is used for those karmas that have injunctions (vidhi). There are also injunctions for karmas undertaken for a specific result, like heaven. Thus, puruṣārtha can denote daily karma or those done to fulfill desires.

अहंप्रत्ययबीजं यदहंप्रत्ययर्ग्त्स्थतम ् । नाहंप्रत्ययर्ु ं कथं कमव प्रिोहनत॥१॥ ahaṁpratyayabījaṁ yadahaṁpratyayavatśitaṁ| nāhaṁpratyayavahnayuṣṭaṁ kathaṁ karma prarohati||1||

अहम-् प्रत्यय-बीजम ् – arising from the seed of limited ‘I’; यत ् – those (sañcita) karma; अहम-् प्रत्ययर्त-् ग्स्थतम ् – reside in the one who has limited ‘I’-thought; न-अहंप्रत्यय-र्ग्ह्न-उष्टम ्

1 नैर् क्रकग्祍चत्किोमीनत यु啍ो मन्येत तत्र्वर्त ् | पश्य祍शण्ृ र्न्स्पशृ ग्祍जघ्रन्नश्नन्ग楍छन्स्र्प祍श्वसन ् || - भगर्द् गीता - ५-८ प्रलपग्न्र्सजृ न्गह्ृ ण्न्नुग्न्मषग्न्नममषन्नवप | इग्न्द्रयािीग्न्द्रयाथेषु र्तवन्त इनत धाियन ् || - भगर्द् गीता - ५-९

59 – actions burnt by the fire of knowledge stating ‘I am not the limited ‘I’-thought’; कथम ् – how; कमव – action; प्रिोहनत – continue, sustain, grow.

1. Those past actions that arose from the seed of the limited ‘I’ thought, which reside in the one who harbours the limited ‘I’ thought – how can these actions continue once burned by the fire of knowledge which states, “I am not the limited ‘I’-thought”?.

The aham vṛtti arises in the antaḥkaraṇa and is the seed for the notion ‘I am the doer’. The aham vṛtti is absent in deep sleep and as a result there is no sense of doership. It is the ahaṅkāra that says ‘I am the doer’ and it is this thought that is the seed for all karma. The doer is the one who has erroneously superimposed ahaṅkāra on ātmā. It is this erroneous notion that is the seed for all karma.

All karmas rise with ahaṅkāra and are stored in the antaḥkaraṇa. When Knowledge dawns, all sañcita karmas are burnt. I am Brahman who has no gross body, subtle body, prāṇas, mind, avidyā: so how can I be a kartā? All the karmas that were performed with the notion that I am this finite ahaṅkāra are burnt by the new wisdom that I am Brahman. Like a burnt plant that cannot grow, burnt karma cannot give results. As Knowledge is gained, karma starts becoming ineffective. In the Bhagavad-gītā, Bhagavān Kṛṣṇa says that, in the fire of knowledge all karmas are burned to ashes1 and Muṇḍaka-upaniṣad says that, in the manner stated above, sañcita karmas are destroyed2.

A jñānī who continues to live and act in this world is called a jīvanmukta, liberated while living. As long as his body is alive, he will function like anyone else. Since every karma gives a result, the jñānī will also get karmaphala. In his case however it will be immediate (dṛṣta). There will be no addition to his sañcita karma (adṛṣta phala).

For someone doing a ritual every day, the immediate result is peace of mind, absorption of the mind in Bhagvān, etc. The adṛṣta phala is puṇya, which will be available to him only after he has dropped this body and that karma fructifies. Sometimes adṛṣta phalam may be gained at a later time in the same body. Thus, only karma performed to purify the mind, to enable Vedānta śravaṇam, is appropriate for a seeker. If the karma is performed to gain puṇya or to fulfill sankalpas etc. then the results will come only at a later period of time.

In the next verse, an objection is raised and answered - if a jñānī can gain dṛṣta phalam, then won’t adṛṣta phalam give rise to another body?

饃र्楍चेत्प्रिोहः स्यान्नान्यकमाव स इष्यते। तग्न्निोधे कथं तत्स्यात्प楍ृ छामो र्स्तद楍ु यताम॥् २॥ dṛṣṭavaccetprarohaḥ syānnānyakarmā sa iṣyate| tannirodhe kathaṁ tatsyātpṛccāmo vastaducyatāṁ||2||

1 … ज्ञानाग्ग्नन: सर्वकमावणि भस्मसात्कु 셁ते तथा || - भगर्द् गीता - ४-३७ 2 … क्षीयन्ते चास्य कमावणि तग्स्मन ्饃े पिार्िे - मुण्िक उपननषद - २-२-८

60 饃ष्टर्त ् – like immediate result; चेत ् – if; प्रिोहः – growth, perpetuation, continuation; स्यात ्– shall be; न – no; अन्यकमाव – separate, different activity; सः – that activity; इष्यते – is considered; तत-् ननिोधे – when that (ignorance) is eliminated; कथम ् – how; तत ् – that (prārabdha karma); स्यात ् – shall be; प楍ृ चामः – We ask; र्ः – you; तत ् – That; उ楍यताम ् – please answer.

2. (Opponent) Since immediate results of actions (performed after Knowledge is gained) are similar to results which come over time, continuity of karma is certainly there. (Vedāntin) This is not so, because those actions that give immediate results are considered differently. (Opponent) But we ask you how there can be such karmas when ignorance is already destroyed?. Please answer.

Two questions are raised by the pūrvapakṣin. The first is: if adṛṣta phalam is like dṛṣta phalam, it should also yield results for the jñānī and therefore he will have future births.

A jñānī has attained Knowledge but is still in the body. He has to perform karma, which will give results. If he is hungry he will eat. Satiation is the dṛṣta phalam of the karma. If he crushes an ant while walking should that not give adṛṣta phalam?

The answer is no. Karmas that give dṛṣta phalam are in a different category from those that give adṛṣta phalam. Karmas that are not kāmya karma or injunctions will not give adṛṣta phalam. For sannyāsīs, actions such as bhikṣa, atana, etc. are not based on desire but merely to sustain the body. In Sādhanā Pañcakam, Bhagvān says that food should be consumed as medicine for the disease called hunger1. Injunctions are of two types, vidhi or niṣiddha. Karmas that don’t fall in either category don’t give adṛṣta phalam.

A jñānī does not perform any vidhivat, niṣiddha or kāmya karma. For him there is no puruṣārtha. Śukāṣṭakam speaks of those who walk this path: for the one who has understood ‘I am beyond the three guṇas’, what vidhi or niṣiddha can be applicable?2. Thus, all āgami karmas performed by a jñānī will give only dṛṣta phalam and so there is no rebirth.

So, for a jñānī neither sañcita nor āgami karma will give results. The pūrvapakṣin’s next question is: then why should prārabdha karma continue to give results? It was ignorance that gave rise to karma in the past, which has become prārabdha in the present. When the jñānī started his journey in the current body, he was ignorant. He began this life with a certain amount of prārabdha karma. On attaining Knowledge, the ignorance that was the cause of the body is destroyed. So why is the body not destroyed? Prārabdha. Why is prārabdha karma not destroyed? It is like an arrow; once released it can’t be stopped till it reaches its target.

देहाािम्भसामथ्याव煍ज्ञानं सदद्वषयं त्र्नय। अमभभूय फलं कु यावत्कमावन्ते ज्ञानमुर्ेत॥् ३॥

1 क्षुद्व्याचधश्च चचक्रकत्स्यतां… - साधना प祍चकं - ४ 2 … निस्त्रैगुण्ये पथि विचरतः को विथ ः को निषे ः ॥ शुकाकम ् - १

61 dehādyārambhasāmarthyājjñānaṁ sadviṣayaṁ tvayi| abhibhūya phalaṁ kuryātkarmānte jñānamudbhavet||3||

देहादद-आिम्भ- सामथ्यावत ् – ability to produce body, etc.; ज्ञानम ् – Knowledge; सद्वर्षयम ् – whose content is Brahman; त्र्नय – in you; अमभभूय – having overpowered; फलम ् - result; कु यावत ् – produces; कमावन्ते – when prārabdha karma ends; ज्ञानम ् – Knowledge; उद्भर्ेत ् – arises, manifests.

3. (Vedāntin) Having veiled that Knowledge of Brahman, prārabdha karma, which has the ability to produce body, etc., produces results. When prārabdha karma ends, then Knowledge (free from appearance of body) manifests.

Even though jñānam has been gained, prārabdha karma is still capable of giving its result. As soon as jñānam is gained ignorance is destroyed. Since ignorance is the cause of the body, once ignorance is gone, theoretically, so should the physical body. But the body does not die. Knowledge will not be able to give its full result because prārabdha karma will not allow the body to die until it has been exhausted.

The gross, subtle and causal bodies continue after jñānam has been gained. The difference between the jñānī and ajñānī is in the causal body, which has two aspects: āvaraṇa (veiling) and vikṣepa (projecting) śakti. For a jñānī, āvaraṇa śakti is completely destroyed and vikṣepa śakti is partially eliminated. It is āvaraṇa śakti that pushes the jīva towards its next birth. Since āvaraṇa śakti is destroyed for a jñānī there will be no re-birth.

It is vikṣepa śakti that gives rise to the idea of the body and the world, a seeming appearance of both, deha ābhāsa and jagat ābhāsa. Since the jñānī's vikṣepa is not completely destroyed, his body, the bodies of others and the world will continue for him for transaction. Since āvaraṇa is gone, once this body is dropped a new one will not be taken up. For the ajñānī however, since āvaraṇa persists, once this body is dropped, the next body is ready for him to continue to receive the fruits of his karma. The phenomenon of retaining a small amount of ignorance (upon gaining Knowledge) to allow prārabdha to exhaust itself is known as avidyā leśaḥ. It is because of this that we see jñānīs interacting in the world; all other avidyā having been eliminated.

One aspect of prārabdha is the physical afflictions an individual endures. The sādhanās undertaken by the jñānī along with the Knowledge that he has gained will ensure that mental afflictions do not trouble him. However, body-related problems are unavoidable. Knowledge has brought him the wisdom that he is not the body, nor is he the mind and it is this wisdom that will enable him to take all physical afflictions in his stride.

The next verse explains why prārabdha continues.

आिब्धस्य फले ेते भोगो ज्ञानं च कमविः। अवर्िोधस्तयोयु啍व ो र्ैधम्यं चेतिस्य तु॥४॥

62 ārabdhasya phale hyete bhogo ġyānaṁ ca karmanaḥ| avirodhastayoryukto vaidharmyaṁ cetarasya tu||4||

आिब्धस्य – of prārabdha karma; फले – the two results; दह – indeed; एते – these two; भोगः – experiences; ज्ञानम ्– Knowledge; च – and; कमविः – of actions (prārabdha); अवर्िोधः – no contradiction; तयोः – of these two (Knowledge and prārabdha); युक्तः – logical; र्ैधम्यमव ् – contradiction; च – and; इतिस्य – of the other two (sanchita and agami); तु – but.

4. Worldly experience and Knowledge are both results of prārabdha karma. It is logical to say there is no contradiction between the two. But between Knowledge and the others (sañcita and āgāmi karma), there is a contradiction.

Bhagavān Śaṅkarācārya says that both bhogas and jñānam are the result of prārabdha karma. If jñānam is also a result of prārabdha, why would anyone put forth effort to gain Knowledge? What is meant here is that this human body is a result of prārabdha karma. If I become a sādhaka, mumukṣu or jijñāsu, it is because of conducive prārabdha karma. It is in this body that the sādhaka has an association with a Teacher and the scriptures. It was his prārabdha karma that resulted in the body and a suitable environment for jñāna sādhanā. It is in this way that prārabdha karma results in jñānam.

As long as an individual is ignorant, he lives a life prompted by desires and his life will be based on puruṣārtha. Prārabdha karma expresses but puruṣārtha is the main driver. Once Knowledge has been gained, there are no more desires and the jñānī’s life is based solely on prārabdha. As long as one is driven by desires, whether it is for jñānam or bhoga, a body and the appropriate surroundings will be required. These are available through a particular body and particular karmas all of which are the result of prārabdha karma.

There is no contradiction between prārabdha and Brahmajñānam. Prārabdha can continue even in the presence of Brahmajñānam. However, sañcita and āgāmi karma cannot co-exist with Brahmajñānam. It is as though prārabdha karma is allowed to remain since it played a positive role in bringing about Knowledge. Sañcita and āgāmi on the other hand do not contribute to Brahmajñānam and are therefore totally eliminated; the avirodha between prārabdha and jñānam is only partial.

Avidyā leśaḥ discussed in the previous verse is referred to here as the obstruction: pratibandha. As we saw earlier, avidyā leśaḥ obstructs jñānam from expressing completely and as a result prārabdha karma continues. The word pratibandha is used in several ways depending on the context. For instance, if loud music is playing next to the lecture hall, the audience will not be able to hear the speaker properly, their hearing will be partial and their śravaṇam will thus be called pratibandha śravaṇam. This example is of a very gross kind. Here this is different. This pratibandha keeps the individual as a jīvanmukta, but does not make him videha mukta right away. It is only when prārabdha ends that he becomes a videha mukta.

This is often a source of fear for sādhakas who would like jīvanmukti and videha mukti to happen simultaneously thus eliminating the possibility of ahaṅkāra rising again. He fears that

63 if there is prārabdha and mithyā ahaṅkāra, then that mithyātva may become satyam again; he worries that body identification may creep back in and he will start feeling that he is a saṁsārī again. There are numerous stories of ṛṣis who were distracted while performing severe tapas and as a result had to redo everything. The Teacher tells the sādhaka that his fears are unfounded; once Knowledge has been gained there is no return to saṁsāra.

देहात्मज्ञानर्煍ज्ञानं देहत्मज्ञानबाधकम।् आत्मन्येर् भर्ेस्य स ने楍छन्नवप मु楍यते। ततः सर्वममदं मसं प्रयोगोऽस्मामभिीरितः॥५॥

देहात्म-ज्ञानर्त ् – (as firm) as the knowledge that the body is the Self; ज्ञानम ् – Knowledge; देहात्म-ज्ञान-बाधकं – (knowledge which) negates knowledge that the body is the Self; आत्मनन – in one’s own self; एर् – alone; भर्ेत ् – becomes; यस्य – of the one; सः – He; न – not; इ楍छन ् – desiring; अवप – even; मु楍यते – is liberated; ततः – thus; सर्मव ् –all; इदम ् – this; मसद्धम ् – is established; प्रयोगः – reasoning, logic; अस्मामभः - by us; ईरितः - explained, expounded.

5. The one whose Knowledge is such that it negates the notion that the body is the Self, and when it becomes as firm as the (previous) knowledge that the body is the Self, then such a person is Liberated whether he desires it or not. This has all been logically established.

An ajñānī’s prajñā is ‘I am this body’, and nobody can convince him otherwise. In the same way, the jñānī is rooted in the knowledge ‘I am Brahman’. This Knowledge leads to a complete negation of the notion ‘I am the body’. I cannot be ātmā and ahaṅkāra simultaneously; either I am ahaṅkāra, or I am Brahman.

The jñānī or jīvanmukta’s ‘I am Brahman’ buddhi is unshaken at all times. This being so, he has no choice. The moment I understand myself to be Brahman, the very question of Liberation or rebirth is rendered invalid; Brahman does not have bondage or birth. In the world, people say that a jīvanmukta dropped his body only to come back to bless the whole world, but this is not possible. Once the knowledge that ‘I am Brahman’ is firm, the karma account is closed and there can be no rebirth. The nature of Knowledge is vastu-tantra, it does not depend upon the individual’s wish or will. I cannot turn on the switch and expect the bulb not to glow. Once I turn on the switch, the rest is out of my control. Similarly, Liberation is inevitable for the one who has gained this Knowledge. Poojya Gurudev Swami Chinmayananda used to say, “Be careful before entering the halls of Vedānta. Once you are inside, you don’t have a choice”.

In Advaita Vedānta, we have to accept two planes of existence: absolute and transactional. From the absolute standpoint, the one who has realised the Truth knows he is Brahman; this is his real identity. From the transactional standpoint, which is unreal or mithyā, he uses the ahaṅkāra as his identity. That is why the word ‘bādhakam’ is used; it means negated or falsified. From the absolute standpoint, a jñānī knows that he never had any prārabdha. From the transactional standpoint, there exists a falsified ahaṅkāra, which continues to have falsified prārabdha.

64 The verse says, ‘all this’ is proved, established. ‘All this’ refers to the points made in this chapter for a purpose not explicitly stated. They must be connected to the previous chapter, which said ‘Aham Brahma Asmi’.

In summary, it is possible to gain this Knowledge and understand aham as Brahman/ātmā and not ahaṅkāra. An objection was raised about ahaṅkāra having various karmas, which was addressed in this chapter as: • All sañcita karma is destroyed upon the dawn of Knowledge. • The jñānī will continue to function in the world based on his prārabdha and not puruṣārtha. • Agāmi karma gives only dṛṣta phalam not adṛṣta phalam. • Jñānam is incapable of destroying prārabdha karma. • A jñānī will have no deha abhimāna and will therefore not return to saṁsāra.

Since there is no deha abhimāna, there is nothing to prevent Aham Brahmāsmi jñānam. How prārabdha karma continues for a jñānī has been logically explained. Muṇḍaka-upaniṣad says that all his karmas are destroyed1. From the jñānī’s standpoint, all karmas are destroyed. From world’s standpoint, prārabdha remains. There are Śrutis that talk about jīvanmukti and videha mukti too; Bhagavān Śaṅkarācārya justifies both of them. Chāndogya-upaniṣad says that the delay for the jñānī is only until the body drops2. Until then prārabdha continues but he is already Liberated on the strength of the mahāvākya.

_____

1 मभते दयरग्न्थग्श्छन्ते सर्वसंशयाः । क्षीयन्ते चास्य कमावणि तग्स्मन ् 饃े पिार्िे ॥ - मुण्िक उपननषद - २-२-८ 2 … तस्य तार्देर् चचिं यार्न्न वर्मोक्ष्येऽथ सम्पत्स्य इनत ॥ - छांदोग्नय उपननषद -६-१४-२

65 Chapter 5: Buddhi-aparādha Prakaraṇam

This chapter is called Buddhi-aparādha Prakaraṇam, the error committed by the intellect. It is the erroneous notions in the buddhi that are the cause of suffering and transmigration. Since the aparādha is committed by buddhi, the prāyaścitta (corrective measures) must also be done by the buddhi. Correct understanding is what is required.

The chapter delves into why we are unable to abide in the Truth. Śruti says that only Knowledge is required to recognise that ‘I am Brahman’, clear comprehension and not karma; then why is it that we are not all able to claim that we are Brahman?

मुत्राश敍को यथोद敍को नारहीदमतृ ं यथा | कमवनाशभया煍煍न्तोिात्माज्ञानारहस्तथा ॥१॥ mūtrāśaṅko yathodaṅko nāgrahīdamrtḁ ṁ yathā | karmanāśabhayājjntorātmājñānāgrahastathā ||1||

मुत्र आश敍कः – doubting it to be urine; यथा – just as; उद敍कः – Udaṅka Ṛṣi; न – not; अरहीत ् – accept; अमतृ ं – nectar (immortality); यथा (यथाथभव ूतं) – in reality; कमव नाश भयात ्– fearing destruction of karma (karmaphala or future selfish karma); जन्तोः – all beings; आत्मज्ञान – Knowledge of the Self; अरहः – do not accept; तथा – in the same way.

1. Just as Udaṅka Ṛṣi denied himself immortality by doubting the nectar offered to him to be urine, so too people do not accept the Knowledge of the Self given to them fearing the destruction of their karma.

The verse refers to a story from the Purāṇas about Udaṅka Ṛṣi. He undertook severe tapas and Bhagavān Mahāviṣṇu appeared before him granting him whatever he wanted. Udaṅka Ṛṣi asked for the amṛtam that the devatās drink every night in svargaloka. Bhagavān Mahāviṣṇu asked Indra to take the amṛtam to Udaṅka Ṛṣi. Indra however was very insecure about his own position and didn’t want Udaṅka Ṛṣi to have the amṛtam as it would confer devatā status on him. Since he could not refuse an order from Bhagavān, he played a trick. He went to Udaṅka Ṛṣi’s ashram dressed as a cānḍāla, an outcast, with the pot of amṛtam tied in such a way that it hung near his thighs and offered it to Udaṅka Ṛṣi.

Udaṅka Ṛṣi did not recognise Indra and based on where the pot was placed on the cānḍāla’s body, he thought he was being offered urine. He was offered amṛtam but the viparīta bhāvanā in him was so strong, because of Indra’s appearance as a cānḍāla and the location of the pot, that Udaṅka Ṛṣi refused the amṛtam.

Similarly, due to viparīta bhāvanā people deny ‘Aham Brahmāsmi’. Amṛtam is offered and we do not accept it. The solution to all our problems is given right here. It was the fear that drinking an outcast’s urine would make him an outcast too that prevented Udaṅka Ṛṣi from drinking amṛtam. He didn’t recognise Indra nor amṛtam. Similarly, it is out of fear that we deny ourselves the immortality offered to us in the form of Knowledge of the Self.

66 It is the fear of karma nāśa that prevents us from accepting this teaching, since once Knowledge is gained all sañcita karma is burnt. We are not worried about the destruction of our pāpa karma, but want to keep, and enjoy, our puṇya karma. In doing so we want to protect the ahaṅkāra, to whom the puṇya belongs. Thus, one meaning of karma nāśa is karmaphala nāśa. Karma nāśa can also mean the loss of interest in future karma; one will lose selfishness in all actions undertaken after Knowledge. This is seen as negative as people fear how society will see them. They fear that once they know Brahman, they will not continue karmas they did while ignorant.

We are afraid of losing our individuality and the little sukham we get from the world. As ahaṅkāra, I am someone. When Vedānta says you are everything, we think that to become everything we have to let go of our individuality and we may lose everything. In Brahman, which is abhaya svarūpa, we see bhaya. Instead of becoming infinite, we want to remain finite. This is our error.

Māṇḍūkya-upaniṣad Kā says that people fear that which will give them fearlessness1. It is only when we let go of the ahaṅkāra will we be free of śoka, moha and bhaya2. It is our erroneous notions that prevent us from recognising amṛtam or that which gives it to us.

बुवस्थश्चलतीर्ात्मा ्यायतीर् च 饃श्यते| नौगतस्य यथा र्क्षृ ास्तद्वत्संसािवर्भ्रमः॥२॥ buddhisthaścalatīvātmā dhyāyatīva ca dr̥śyate| naugatasya yathā vrk̥ ṣāstadvatsaṁsāravibhramaḥ||2||

बुवस्थः – expressing in the intellect; चलनत-इर् – as though moving (doership); आत्मा – the Self; ्यायनत-इर् – as though thinking (knowership); च – and; 饃श्यते – seen to be नौगतस्य – of a moving boat; यथा – just as; र्क्षृ ाः – trees; तद् र्त ्– similarly; संसाि वर्भ्रमः – movement of saṁsāra.

2. Just as the movement of a moving boat is superimposed on trees, so too the Self, expressing in the intellect is accepted to be a part of saṁsāra; taking on doership and knowership.

This verse discusses bhrama kāraṇam; why I commit the aparādha of not internalising the fact that I am Brahman.

For someone sitting in a moving boat, it is the trees on the shore that appear to be moving and not him. The movement of the boat is superimposed on the stationary trees. Similarly, saṁsāra is in the intellect but we think it is in ātmā. The activity of buddhi is superimposed on actionless ātmā.

Ātmā expresses in the intellect but is untouched by it. ‘Calati iva, dhyāyati iva’ is a famous quotation from Bṛhadāranyaka-upaniṣad. The original mantra reads ‘dhyāyati iva, lelāyati iva...

1 … अभये भयदमशवनः - माण्डू啍य उपनिषद का - ३-३९ 2 … तत्र को मोहः कह् शोक - ईशार्ास्य उपननषद् - ७

67 ‘1. It refers to the fact that just as we superimpose movement on the trees, we superimpose the dharma of the intellect on ātmā. Saṁsāra actually belongs to buddhi or ahaṅkāra, but we feel that we are saṁsārīs.

‘Calanam’ means movement, activity; the word used in Bṛhadāranyaka-upaniṣad is ‘lelāyati’. Movement is at the level of Organs of Action (karmendriya) and prāṇa. ‘Dhyāyati’ means thinking, and it is at the level of the Organs of Knowledge (jñānendriya) and antaḥkaraṇa. However, these activities are erroneously attributed to ātmā, I. I think I am kartā and jñāta; ‘calati iva’ means it is as though ātmā is doing (kartṛtva) and ‘dhyāyati iva’ means it is as though ātmā knows (jñātṛtva).

Knowledge takes place in the intellect only but is superimposed on ātmā. Consider the statement ‘I am meditating’. It is the intellect; but I think I am meditating. This is the superimposition. The thought ‘I am the meditator’ is also an error. Notions of doership and enjoyership are erroneous. The Upaniṣads go to the extent of saying that the statement ‘I am the knower of Brahman’ is also an error. I am not the ‘knower of Brahman’; ‘I am Brahman’. Until I get that knowledge, everything else is at the level of the intellect and an error. All activities and knowing: doership, enjoyership, knowership, perception, feeling, thinking, etc. are all errors.

I have to know I am Om, Saccidānanda alone. I take on the role of a perceiver, feeler and thinker only, when I use the body, mind and intellect. It is because of this error that the delusion that ‘I am saṁsārī’ persists. Ahaṅkāra thrives on this because it knows that as long as it is not questioned, its status is safe.

To gain the result of this Knowledge, ahaṅkāra has to be negated. The idea that ‘I am this person’ has to be uprooted entirely. I am different from the three bodies and the five sheaths. Presently, what I know of myself to be, is only within the confines of the three bodies and the five sheaths. If we had to describe ourselves devoid of pañcakośa, we would have to say ‘śuddhoऽham, buddhoऽham, nityoऽham, muktoऽham…’. When we think of others devoid of pañchakośa, they too will be ‘śuddhoऽham, buddhoऽham, nityoऽham, muktoऽham …’.

When I understand that I am Brahman and others are also nothing but Brahman, there is no reason to dislike the other because there is no other. Love for all is natural; no one hates himself. Only when a person has abrahmatva buddhi, do all differences arise.

नौस्थस्य प्रानतलोम्येन नगानां गमनं यथा| आत्मनः संसनृ तग्स्तद्वत-् ्यायतीर्ेनत दह श्रुनतः॥३॥ nausthāsya prātilomyena nagānāṁ gamanaṁ yathā| ātmanaḥ saṁsrtistadvat̥ -dhyāyatīveti hi śrutiḥ||3||

1 … ्यायतीर् लेलायतीर्… - बहृ दािण्यक उपननषद - ४-३-७

68 नौस्थस्य – for the one seated in a boat; प्रानतलोम्येन – in the opposite direction; नगानाम ् – of the unmoving (trees or mountains); गमनं – movement; यथा – just as; आत्मनः – in the Self; संसनृ तः – transmigration; तद् र्त ् – so too; ्यायनत इर् – as though thinking; इनत दह श्रुनतः – thus reads Śruti.

3. Just as the unmoving appear to move in the opposite direction for the one seated in a moving boat, so too transmigration appears in the Self; ‘as though thinking’ reads Śruti.

For someone sitting in a boat, the trees (or mountain) on the shore appear to be moving in the opposite direction. Movement of that which does not move is not possible and is only a superimposition. So too are the karmas and experiences of ātmā which is actionless, akartā and abhoktā. This is our error. Just as Udaṅka Ṛṣi erred in not recognising Indra and amṛtam, we do not recognise our own nature, and so we superimpose the dharma of buddhi on ātmā and thus suffer.

The word prātiloma means moving in the opposite direction, while anuloma is movement in the same direction. A river flows from the mountain towards the ocean; this is anuloma. Sometimes the river turns and flows in the direction of its source; this is prātiloma. Places where this happen become tīrthas, as they are indicative of going back to the source, back to ourselves. Ātmabodha says he knows, “I am a place of pilgrimage, because I have come back to my source”1.

In this verse, prātiloma refers to the apparent movement of trees (mountain) in the direction opposite to that of the boat. The use of ‘iva’ indicates that all such movements are only apparent; trees cannot move. Saṁsāra in ātmā is ‘iva’; similarly, equally unreal, no matter how real it appears. Birth and death are as real as the movement of the mountain.

Bṛhadāranyaka-upaniṣad says that the saṁsāra of ātmā is only ‘iva’: as though2; it is not really there. Here, Bhagvān Śankarācārya expects that the student is dedicated to Śruti pramāṇa; only when Śruti is accepted as pramāṇa will Knowledge be instantaneous. If one accepts that because Śruti has said that ātmā ‘dhyāyati iva, lelāyati iva’: saṁsāra in ātmā only appears to be so, then there is freedom instantly.

Saṁsṛti appears by harbouring notions like I am born; I will die; I am a man; I am a woman; I have relationships with others; Īśvara is different from me and so on. These are all an illusion just like the movement of trees seen by someone travelling by boat. I do not accept that trees are moving, but I accept that I was born, and I will die and in between I maintain relationships with the people around me. All such notions are nothing but bhrama as ātmā is asaṅga and advitīya. The notion that Īśvara is different from me and a relationship exists between the two of us is also an illusion, just like the movement of the mountain. Similarly, ātmā, which can never be impure, is perceived to be so due to superimposition of antaḥkaraṇa’s attributes on it.

1 यः स्र्ात्मतीथं भजते वर्ननग्ष्ियः... आत्मबोधः - ६८ 2 … ्यायतीर् लेलायतीर् … - बहृ दािण्यक उपननषद - - ४-३-७

69 One has to constantly remember this. Unless we think and we understand correctly, our study will yield no significant results. We must press the most painful points. We are very comfortable thinking that we are born, and we are doing sincere sādhanā and that one day we will realise the Truth. Vedānta says that ‘one day’ is today.

We are fearful where we have to be most fearless. Continuing to harbour such notions is what keeps us bound. ‘Right now, I am bound but one day, I will be liberated’. Such thinking is like thinking the trees are moving! No movement is possible in ātmā nor any bondage. Bondage of ātmā is also due to superimposition just like the movement of the trees. Finitude or paricchinnatva is like the movement of trees. Seeking happiness from the world outside is like the movement of trees.

Saṁsāra is one word but it includes all of the above: birth, death, doership, enjoyership, rāga/dveṣa, everything. We have to question our thinking thoroughly. If I am bound right now, what will set me free one day? If Liberation is indeed through Knowledge, then I have to already be free. I am unable to internalise the fact that I am ātmā, and want to remain as the ahaṅkāra. This is saṁsṛti.

चैतन्यप्रनतत्रबम्बेन व्याप्तो बोधो दह जायते| बुेः शब्दाददमभभावसस्तेन मोमुते जगत॥् ४॥ caitanyapratibimbena vyāpto bodho hi jāyate| buddheḥ śabdādibhirbhāsastena momuhyate jagat||4||

चैतन्यप्रनतत्रबम्बेन – by the reflection of Consciousness; व्याप्तः – pervaded; बोधः – knowing; दह – only; जायते – comes about; बुेः – in the intellect/ahaṅkāra; (चैतन्यस्य आत्मनः) शब्दाददमभः – words, etc. (all external objects); (आकािेि) भासः (ज्ञानं भर्नत) – are known (by the Consciousness); तेन – by this; मोमुते – repeatedly deluded; जगत ् – world (people/ population).

4. Knowing takes place in the intellect/ahaṅkāra because it is pervaded by the reflection of Consciousness. In the proximity of objects such as words, etc, the Consciousness takes their form resulting in knowledge in the intellect. By the above, people are repeatedly deluded.

This verse explains how delusion arises. Consciousness is absolute reality while buddhi is transactional reality. They only appear to interact because of the presence of the reflection of Consciousness (Caitanya pratibimba, cidābhāsa or cicchāya) in buddhi or ahaṅkāra. This buddhi, which is inert by nature, acquires the ability to know.

Thoughts that are of the nature of sound, taste, touch, smell, form, etc. arise in the intellect. When an object comes in proximity of the intellect (via the sense organs and the mind), the intellect takes the form of the object. It is the reflection of Consciousness that allows the thought to take the form of the object. It is as though the object is pervaded by Caitanya allowing the knowledge ‘I know this object’ to take place.

70 What happens is that Caitanya, ātmā, as though takes the form of that object. Consider the example of a pot. When the pot is seen it is as though Caitanya takes the form of a pot. But because this pot is recognised as idam, not aham, the knowledge is ‘I know this pot’. If no object is present, what form would buddhi assume? When there is no idam vṛtti, aham vṛtti still remains; in the absence of an object thought, the subject continues. In this subject, I have erroneously accepted the notion of finitude. Therefore, the notion that I am finite continues.

In the absence of external viṣayas, the pañcakośas becomes the viṣaya. Aham is identified with the pañcakośas. Wherever I have maximum abhimāna is what I will consider myself to be. This varies from individual to individual and also changes multiple times during the day. In the waking state most people consider themselves to be the physical body. In the dream state, one cannot have deha abhimāna so there the abhimāna is of whatever I consider myself to be in the dream. In deep sleep, I remain as kāraṇa śarira abhimānī and on waking up I say that I slept well. I have aham-bhava wherever my identification is the maximum. Pañcadaśī says, that by identifying with these sheaths, the Self seems to become one with them1.

Not everyone will have a lot of abhimāna about the body but may instead have abhimāna about another identity like being a father, mother, etc. Some may have abhimāna of the manomaya kośa, which expresses in thoughts such as ‘I am very nice, loving and compassionate’ and so on; others may have abhimāna of the vijñānamaya kośa, and that abhimāna expresses as ‘I am very intelligent’ and so on.

A viṣaya is known through an idam vṛtti. When Caitanya expresses in the buddhi and that buddhi takes the ākāra of that viṣaya, it pervades the viṣaya. The knowledge of the viṣaya takes place in the buddhi. The nature of this knowledge is in the form of ‘I am the knower of this object’. What the Teacher is pointing out is ‘dhyāyati iva’. The notion, ‘I am the knower’ is the error here; real knowledge should be ‘I am knowledge, jñānasvarüpa’. Aviveka is in the form of delusion, not recognising the distinction between me (ātmā) and buddhi (anātmā). This error of ours is aptly put in Ātmabodha which says, “By the indiscriminate blending of the two, the Existence-Consciousness aspects of the Self and the thought wave of the intellect, there arises the notion of ‘I know’”2.

The word momuhyate is used to highlight the repetitive occurrence of this error on our part. In Sanskrit, a word is repeated to denote superlative degree; here, it denotes extreme delusion, atiśayena muhyati. What is the nature of this delusion? Delusion is at many levels. Here the Teacher is talking about the final one, the real problem, which is the superimposition of ahaṅkāra on ātmā. This happens because they appear similar. Silver is not superimposed on a rope and a snake is not superimposed on a shell. Rope and snake go together, and silver and shell go together. Superimposition only happens when there is a similarity. The similarities between ahaṅkāra and ātmā are:

1 … तत्ततत्तकोषैस्त ु तादात्तम्यादात्तमा तत्ततन्मयो भर्ेत॥् प祍चदशी - १-३६ 2 आत्मनः सग्楍चदंशश्च बुेर्वृ त्तरिनत द्वयम ् । संयो煍य चावर्र्ेकेन ... - आत्मबोधः - २५

71 • Both have pratyakatva (‘I’-ness) and express themselves as ‘I’. The word pratyakatva means innermost.

• Both also possess boddhṛtva, the ability to illumine. Whenever ahaṅkāra is present, the reflection of Consciousness is immediately available in it because of the sattva aspect in ahaṅkāra (sattva is its upādana kāraṇa) and therefore Caitanya immediately expresses there as cidābhāsa or Caitanya pratibimba. This association between the two is natural and is known as sahaja tādātmya. The enlivened ahaṅkāra or sābhāsa ahaṅkāra, which expresses as ‘I’, has the ability to know objects. As mentioned earlier, in the absence of objects (idam) it expresses as ‘aham’.

It is because of pratyakatva and boddhṛtva in both, that there is confusion between ahaṅkāra and ātmā. This is called bhrānti. They can be thought of as identical twins as it is very difficult to tell them apart. Fortunately, we understand that ātmā alone is self-existing and the ahaṅkāra has no sattā of its own; one is real while the other is apparent. However, when they are close together, we fail to distinguish the two. To illustrate the point, the example that is often cited is that of an iron ball and fire, when put together they appear as a single entity – a red hot fire ball. The correct knowledge is that I am not the jñātā/ahaṅkāra; I am śuddha Caitanya, which is jñāna-svarūpa.

An error that many seekers make is to think that through sādhanā, ‘I’ the a ahaṅkāra will one day become Brahman/ātmā. Which is to say we think that through sādhanā, the finite individual will one day become infinite Brahman. This is not possible.

To see why this is so, consider the example of fire. Its inherent nature (svābhāvika dharma) is heat. The inherent nature of water is coolness. The inherent nature of a thing cannot be changed; fire will always be hot, and water will always be cool. Even if the water is heated, once the heat is removed, it will cool down and return to its inherent state. The inherent nature of ahaṅkāra is mortality. No matter how much sādhanā is done, something mortal will never become immortal. If my nature as ahaṅkāra is mortality, then no matter what I do, mortal will never become immortal; saṁsārī will never become asaṁsārī; bound will never be liberated. Thus, if we accept bondage as real, as our dharma, then liberation is an impossibility. Māṇḍūkya-upaniṣad Kā says, “The immortal (amṛta) cannot become mortal (martya) nor can the mortal become immortal, for it is never possible for anything to change itself in its essential nature and yet remain the same”1. Modifications that are attained through karma and upāsanā cannot change the nature of an object.

So, if I start my journey as ahaṅkāra in order to eventually become ātmā, my goal will never be reached because my basic assumption is wrong. I have to understand that I already am ātmā and not this ahaṅkāra. I am already immortal, infinite and asaṁsārī not the mortal,

1 न भर्त्यमतृ ं मत्यं न मत्यमव मतृ ं तथा । प्रकृ तेिन्यथाभार्ो न कथग्祍चवर्ष्यनत ॥ - माण्डू啍य उपनिषद का - ३-२१

72 finite, saṁsārī that I take myself to be. Right knowledge is all that is needed, knowledge of the fact that I am already free.

Theoretically, the possibility exists that the infinite thinks itself to be finite, but to think that karma and upāsanā will turn the finite into infinite is impossible even theoretically. No amount of karma and upāsanā can make the finite into infinite.

We start by discriminating between ātmā and ahaṅkāra. Then we must recognise that ahaṅkāra will never become ātmā no matter how much karma and upāsanā we do. This is where many good sādhakas err. To think this way is to deviate from the principles of jñāna sādhanā, as one will now have to do karma. Mokṣa, which is prāptasya prāptih, has now beome aprāpta, so something will have to be done to attain it. However, any phala (result) obtained by an action will be anitya. Bhagavān Śaṅkarācārya reiterates that all that is attained through karma and upāsanā (all the way up to prakṛti laya) is still saṁsāra.

I am ātmā to begin with. Thinking otherwise is the aparādha of the buddhi. The sādhaka’s next challenge is to separate ātmā and ahaṅkāra. In the case of external objects, separation is easily possible but with ahaṅkāra, it is not. Wherever I (ātmā) go, the ahaṅkāra follows like a shadow. Īśāvāsya-upaniṣad says that they are as though one1. They are constantly together. During śravaṇam, mananam and niddhyāsanam, ahaṅkāra is present. To claim ‘Aham Brahma Asmi’, ahaṅkāra has to be present. Thus, we can see why the process becomes difficult. The only way the two can be separated is through viveka. An example is presented in the next verse to illustrate the point.

चैतन्यभास्यताहमस्तादथ्यं च तदस्य यत ् | इदमंशप्रहािेन पिः सोSनभु र्ो भर्ेत॥५॥् caitanyabhāsyatāhāmastādarthyaṁ ca tadasya yat | idamaṁśaprahāṇena paraḥ so'nubhavo bhavet||5||

चैतन्य-भास्यता – being illumined by Consciousness; अहमः – of the ahaṅkāra; तादथ्यं – for the sake of (Consciousness); च – and; तदस्य – of It (Consciousness); यत ् – since; इदम ् अंश – this portion (ahaṅkāra); प्रहािेन – by destruction; पिः – Supreme; सः – He; अनुभर्ः – Experience; भर्ेत ् – remains.

5. Since ahaṅkāra is an object of experience (illumined by Consciousness) and cannot independently exist, upon giving up this notion of ‘I am ahaṅkāra’, what remains is Ātmā, which is the Supreme.

Ahaṅkāra and ātmā are always together. When I am doing śravaṇam, mananam or nididhyāsanam ahaṅkāra is present. When I say ‘aham brahmāsmi’ ahaṅkāra is present. To separate ahaṅkāra and ātmā is very difficult.

Ahaṅkāra is illumined by Caitanya. It becomes an object of knowledge like any other viśaya whereas ātmā never does. This distinction allows us to separate ātmā from ahaṅkāra.

1 अनेजदेकं … - ईशार्ास्य उपननषद् - ४

73 Ahaṅkāra is seen to be a part (śeṣa), as though belonging to ātmā. Just as a part cannot exist without the whole, we have already seen how ahaṅkāra cannot exist without ātmā. If separated, it loses its very existence. Since ātmā is present in deep sleep and ahaṅkāra is not, ātmā can exist without ahaṅkāra even though they are always together. Thus, I am not that ahaṅkāra.

Since ahaṅkāra becomes an object of knowledge of ātmā and also depends on ātmā for its very existence, I can conclude that I am not that ahaṅkāra (deep sleep is analysed to prove that ātmā is independent of ahaṅkāra. In deep sleep, the ahaṅkāra ceases to express, and ātmā continues to illumine its absence). Thus, if we treat the word ‘na’ in the second line as separate from ‘prahāne’, then the verse would read as: ‘tasmāt aham ātmā na ahaṅkāra’.

When the destruction of idam amśa takes place, when abhimāna tyāga happens and the erroneous notion ‘I am this individual’ is given up, what remains is that ātmā which is supreme. ‘Saḥ’, ‘paraḥ’ and ‘anubhavaḥ’ are all in sāmānādhikaraṇya: they refer to the same locus. Simply put, they are other names for ātmā. Ātmā gets the names parmātmā and anubhavaḥ, that which is ever experienced.

Alternatively, if the verse is read as, ‘idam amśa prahanena’, then it would translate as: by the destruction of idam amśa; by abhimāna tyāga. One cannot physically destroy ahaṅkāra; as long as the jīvanmukta continues to live, the ahaṅkāra will continue.

_____

74 Chapter 6: Viśeṣa Apoha Prakaraṇam

The sādhanā prescribed in the previous chapters is very subtle. As our intellects are gross and we are thus unable to comprehend the full import of the teaching, we require smaller steps and grosser levels of teaching that we can firmly hold on to, so that we can arrive at the Truth being pointed out.

This chapter explains how to separate ātmā from ahaṅkāra and claim, ‘I am Brahman’. To claim ‘I am Brahman’, I need buddhi. But to be I am Brahman, I don’t need buddhi.

This chapter is called Viśeṣa Apoha Prakaraṇam. The word apoha means to remove. What is to be removed is viśeṣa (attributes) that I include in myself. We are mostly interested in adding viśeṣa to our personality as our entire focus is on being different from everyone else. Here, the Ācārya asks us to get rid of everything that distinguishes us from others because ātmā is nirviśeṣa – free of all attributes.

नछत्त्र्ा त्य啍ेन हस्तेन स्र्यं नात्मा वर्मशष्यते| तथा मशेन सर्ेि येन येन वर्शेष्यते ॥१॥ chittvā tyaktena hastena svayaṁ nātmā viśiṣyate| tathā śiṣṭena sarveṇa yena yena viśeṣyate||1||

नछत्त्र्ा – having cut; त्य啍ेन – given up/renounced; हस्तेन – hand; स्र्यं – one’s own; आत्मा – Self; न वर्मशष्यते – is not with attributes; तथा – so too; मशेन – remains; सर्ेि – all; येन येन – whichever; वर्मशष्यते – has attributes.

1. Having separated one’s hand from oneself one continues to exist. Similarly, the Self is not with attributes; it remains even after all attributes have been given up.

How does one know what the real dharma of ‘I’ is and what has been erroneously understood? When attributes are removed (mentally) and ātmā continues to exist, then what I understood as my attributes never really belonged to Me, they were taken on erroneously.

There are only two entities: ātmā and anātmā, each with distinct characteristics. In our current understanding of ‘I’ they appear together. Thus, the need to do viveka; ātmā is sat cit ānanda svarūpa while anātmā is the five kośas. The error we make is to take the dharma of anātmā to be that of ātmā.

A viśeṣaṇam is that which qualifies a viśeṣya (locus of attributes). If I have a red pen while everyone else has blue pens, then the red pen becomes a qualifier for me, allowing me to be distinctly recognised. In order to evaluate if an attribute is inherent or not, we have to try to separate the viśeṣaṇam from the viśeṣya and see if the viśeṣya continues to exist. If the red pen is removed and I continue to exist, then the pen was never my dharma1.

1 Dharma, guṇa, viśeṣana and attribute are synonymous

75 Any instrument that is taken up can be separated from Me. In this verse, Bhagavān speaks of hands. If my hands are cut off and put to one side, then I can no longer be identified as ‘the one with hands’. Though the qualifier no longer belongs to me, I continue to exist. Similarly, all attributes that we think of as ours actually belong to anātmā. For instance, my height is a qualifier. In the dream and deep sleep states, I do not possess qualifiers and still exist. The viśeṣana is dropped in dream and deep sleep. Similarly, all attributes such as smartness, wealth, beauty, weight, gender, etc. that we have attributed to ourselves are anātmā and can be dropped. When all viśeṣanas that ātmā is currently qualified (as saguṇa/saviśeṣa) are dropped, what remains is attribute-less, unqualified ātmā (nirguṇa/nirviśeṣa ātmā).

Another way to understand and differentiate between what does and doesn’t belong to Me is dṛg-dṛśya viveka, separating the seer from the seen. I can reject whatever is seen and continue to exist as the seer. Whatever is known or experienced is different from the illuminator, ātmā. The seer and the seen are different from each other. The seer will never become the seen and the seen will never become the seer. I can experience a pot, but the pot will never experience me. In other words, the object can never experience the subject. An experienced attribute belongs to the object of experience not the one experiencing it; the subject. If I see a green snake, the colour green belongs to the snake not to my eyes that see the snake.

Everything that is experienced belongs to the realm of anātmā. Objects and their attributes are drśya and therefore anātmā; I, on the other hand, am the dṛṣṭā. Ātmā is distinct from anātmā; dṛṣṭā is different from drśya. The dṛṣṭā is always of the nature of Caitanya while the drśya is jaḍa.

Therefore, whatever is experienced as viśeṣana belongs to anātmā; colour, height, weight, form, etc. are all viśeṣanas. Experience is at three distinct levels: • the outer level – external objects • the body level – one’s own body • the mind level – one’s emotions: sukha, duḥkha, kāma, krodha, etc.

All these are experienced, and therefore cittagāh drśyāḥ, while I am their sākṣī. I can let go of all experiences and continue to exist. As a result of this viveka, the pañcakośas and the three bodies are dropped, negated.

तस्मात्त्य啍ेन हस्तेन तु쥍यं सर्ं वर्शेषिम|् अनात्मत्र्ेन तस्मा煍ज्ञो म啍ु ः सर्ैवर्वशेषिैः॥२॥ tasmāttyaktena hastena tulyaṁ sarvaṁ viśeṣaṇam| anātmatvena tasmājjño muktaḥ sarvairviśeṣaṇaiḥ||2||

तस्मात ्– therefore; अनात्मत्र्ेन त्य啍ेन हस्तेन – having given up the hand which is anātmā; तु쥍य ं – same as; सर्ं वर्शषे िम ् – all attributes; तस्मात ् – therefore; ज्ञः – knower; मु啍ः – is free; सर्ैः वर्शेषिैः – from all attributes (qualifications)

76 2. All attributes are anātmā, just like the hand which was given up. Therefore, the knower, being devoid of all attributes, is free.

Therefore, all viśeṣaṇās are the same (tulyam) and have to be rejected as anātmā, in the way the hands were dropped in the previous verse. All conditionings that I take to be myself must be given up the way they are given up in deep sleep. He who knows himself to be free of all attributes is really free.

We are interested in becoming saviśeṣa. We want to distinguish ourselves from everyone else and strive to be different and special; to have some viśeṣana. On the one hand we want to stand out in a crowd, while on the other, we want to sit down for meditation and endeavour to know ourselves as nirviśeṣa ātmā. We have to understand that all viśeṣanas actually belong to anātmā. Whatever we add to our life, will be anātmā – whether at the level of the body, senses, mind or the intellect.

All saviśeṣa that are thus present in anātmā belong to the ahaṅkāra. We want to remain as ahaṅkāra because there are viśeṣanas there, we like our individuality. Vedānta says Parabrahman is nirviśeṣa. We should understand that these distinguishing traits are not our dharma/ lakṣaṇas; they are āgantuka (incidental). They have come (āgama) and they will also go (apāyé). All viśeṣanas have arrival and departure and are thus anātmā.

Anything that is not my inherent dharma does not remain forever. This is easy to understand at the level of objects and the body, be it clothes and pens or teeth and hair. They are not me. Our problem is with the mind. We are unable to recognise that every thought that has come will also go and that we are different from our thoughts. We feel that we are sukhi/duḥkhi, kāmī, krodhī, mohī, etc. We identify with these thoughts to such an extent that we are unable to go beyond the mind and intellect. I have to hold on to the knowledge that everything that comes and goes is anitya. I, ātmā am nitya.

One who has clear knowledge and viveka is free from all such adjectives; attributes and qualities. Our attempt should be to not get caught up in any attribute in ourselves; they are anātmā. Vedānta tells us that all attributes are mithyā and therefore we shouldn’t value them too much. This is not to say that good values should not be cultivated or appreciated but rather to understand that the one who appreciates them is also mithyā. At a transactional level, they are relevant.

In 14th chapter of the Bhagavad-gītā, Bhagavān Kṛṣṇa speaks of the three guṇas. He says that rajoguṇa is superior to tamoguṇa and sattvaguṇa is superior to rajoguṇa. From the standpoint of Brahman, all guṇas are mithyā. It is not possible to grasp the Truth when one is in a state of tamas and a gradual transition from tamas to rajas and finally to sattva is prescribed. When our attention shifts to Paramātmā tattva, then all guṇas are known to be mithyā. Understanding all viśeṣaṇas to be anātmā and giving them up, the seeker is set free.

When all anātmā is rejected, only Saccidānanda remains. The experience of deep sleep is used to illustrate this point. When I wake up, I can recall that I slept very well; this proves that I

77 was present during deep sleep and also had knowledge of the state. I can only recollect what I have experienced. Thus, I, sākṣī, was the illuminator of the deep sleep state. This confirms that even when everything (all attributes) is given up, what remains is of the nature of Sat (Existence) and Cit-svarūpa (Knowledge). In deep sleep, I experienced ānanda too. I was happy even though there was nothing to experience. I was happy because that is my svarūpa.

The lesson we need to learn from deep sleep is that we can be happy in the absence of objects. We don’t need anything to make us complete. We can give up the whole world and exist happily.

वर्शेषिममदं सर्ं सा्र्लंकििं यथा| अवर्ा्यासतः सर्ं ज्ञात आत्मन्यसर्ेत ् ॥३॥ viśeṣaṇamidaṁ sarvaṁ sādhvalaṁkaraṇaṁ yathā| avidyādhyāsataḥ sarvaṁ jñāta ātmanyasadbhavet||3||

इदं सर्ं वर्शेषि – all these attributes; सा्र्लंकििं यथा – are like beautiful ornaments; अवर्ा – ignorance; अ्यासतः – erroneously attribute; ज्ञात आत्मनन – upon knowing the Self; सर्ं असर्ेत ् – all becomes unreal.

3. All attributes are akin to beautiful ornaments; due to ignorance, the beauty of the ornaments is erroneously attributed (to a person). Upon knowing the Self, all attributes are known to be unreal.

All attributes that I see in myself like tall, short, fair, happy, unhappy, etc., are like ornaments (alaṅkāra) that can be put on and taken off at will. They are not my dharma. I have taken them on to beautify myself. They are only temporary. Due to to avidyā and adhyāsa, I believe these to be ‘my attributes’. A car is like an alaṅkāra; it brings some glory to its owner. He feels elated when people recognise him by his car. If he starts to think that he and the car are one or that he can’t exist without it, as it is an essential part of his identity, then there is a problem. If viveka is lost, then what is supposed to be an alaṅkāra, becomes a part of ahaṅkāra.

Notions of I-ness (ahaṅkāra) and my-ness (mamakāra) both cause problems. Mamakāra is only an extension of ahaṅkāra; wherever I cannot expand ‘I’, I expand into ‘mine’. I want more and more. Since I can’t increase a given physical size, I expand by possessing what is external and calling it ‘mine’. There is nothing wrong with having possessions. The problem arises when we forget that we are different from them and can exist without them.

Avidyā is not knowing that there are two entities. Adhyāsa is taking the two to be one; I think I am my car. When a man goes for a walk with his dog and passersby praise the dog, the man begins to think he is being praised. He forgets that they are talking about his dog. When someone praises the way my body looks, I think they are praising me. Likewise, if my body is criticised, I feel I am being criticised. Due to ignorance, there is superimposition and this is what brings viśeṣanas.

78 The human body is a viśeṣana and so is the body of a donkey. I am not human nor am I a donkey. At the seat of meditation, I do not need to meditate that ‘I am not a donkey’ as I have no identification with the donkey’s body. However, the adhyāsa that ‘I am a human being’ is always present. No effort is required to remove thoughts that don’t exist. The effort is required to remove the erroneous identification.

When ātmā is known, all viśeṣaṇas will be understood as mithyā. This is the essence of Vedānta; if I know myself as Brahman, everything else is now known to be mithyā. In Rāmacaritamānasa Goswami Tulasīdāsa says, upon waking up, all dreams (svapna bhrama) are dispelled1. When you wake up, the dream world is gone. It was experienced but it is not real. Anything that can be experienced is not real. This is the case with our minds, we must withdraw the reality we give to the mind.

A question that often arises in the mind of a seeker is that though he has understood Vedānta, he is unable to experience ātmā. Trying to ‘experience’ ātmā or Caitanya is to make it anātmā. A pot can be experienced and so can its colour, because they are anātmā. Ātmā is nirviśeṣa and can thus never be experienced as an object. It is the subject. That which is ātmā dharma is ever present. There is no question of not experiencing it.

Now, the Ācārya says that we should see dṛśyatva in ahaṅkāra the way we see dṛśyatva in any other anātmā. Pratyakatva and boddhṛtva are qualities in both ātmā and ahaṅkāra, but dṛśyatva is exclusive to ahaṅkāra. Therefore, ahaṅkāra can be experienced; ātmā will always remain as the illuminator. Thus, the question of experiencing ātmā is invalid. What is experienced cannot be Me.

ज्ञातैर्ात्मा सदा राो ज्ञेयमुत्स煍ृ य केर्लः| अहममत्यवप यद्-राहयं व्यपेता敍गसमं दह तत ् ॥४॥ jñātaivātmā sadā grāhyo jñeyamutsrjyḁ kevalaḥ| ahamityapi yad-grāhayaṁ vyapetāṅgasamaṁ hi tat||4||

आत्मा के र्लः – ātmā, which is kevalaḥ; ज्ञाता एर् सदा रा: – holding on to the Knower alone at all times; ज्ञेयम ् उत्र煍य – separate the known; यद् राम ् - that which becomes known; व्यपेता敍गसमं दह तत ् – is indeed like the limb that has been separated.

4. Holding on to the Knower (ātmā) alone at all times, which is kevalaḥ, one should separate all that is known. That which becomes known is indeed like the limb that has been separated.

Aham is understood in two ways, as ātmā and ahaṅkāra. Both have the ability to illumine or know, jñātrtva. Ahaṅkāra also becomes known, jñeya. Thus, I can say that I know myself or that I am happy, sad, etc. Ātmā knows ahaṅkāra. There is dṛśyatva or jñeyatva in ahaṅkāra not ātmā. Ātmā will never be known.

1 जागᴂ जथा सपन भ्रम जाई - िामचरितमानस - १-१११-१

79 Ātmā and ahaṅkāra are always together and are known to us as ‘I’; one aspect is Caitanya while the other is jaḍa, and together ‘I’ can be described as cit-acit-ātmaka aham. As we saw earlier, anything that becomes jñeyam is a viśeṣaṇam and must belong to a viśeṣya which is distinct from the viśeṣaṇam. In aham, the Cit aspect is the viśeṣya and a cit is the viśeṣaṇam. To make the above clear, let us think of someone wearing a shirt. Ātmā or Caitanya is like the individual (the viśeṣya) who has fives layers (kośas), like the shirt, that go to make the viśeṣaṇam. All viśeṣaṇam is jaḍa.

We must separate ātmā from ahaṅkāra. Our task is now to look for ātmā, which is devoid of jñeya dharma. Ahaṅkāra has jñeya dharma. That which becomes known is not the real me. Ahaṅkāra is only to transact in the world; a makeshift arrangement.

The Ācārya says this ahaṅkāra is only a qualifier and is like the cut off hand that can be kept aside. On giving it up, I will continue to exist, as I do every night in deep sleep. Our aim is to retain this understanding in the waking and dream states and know that ahaṅkāra is mithyā. We cannot get rid of it; it will keep appearing during waking and dream, but we can cease to be bothered by it. This is jīvanmukti.

If we understand this clearly, we will never fear the loss of the body or anything belonging to the five kośas. Vedānta makes a sādhaka fearless by telling me, “Even when this body drops, nothing happens to Me, I continue to exist”.

Another example is given to show how I continue to exist regardless of the presence or absence of qualifiers/attributes.

यार्ान्स्यादददमंशो यः स स्र्तोSन्यो वर्शेषिम|् वर्शेषप्रक्षयो यत्र मसो ज्ञग्श्चत्रगुयथव ा ॥५॥ yāvānsyādidamaṁśo yaḥ sa svato'nyo viśeṣaṇam| viśeṣaprakṣayo yatra siddho jñaścitraguryathā||5||

यार्ात ् – up until; इदं अंश – this (the known, ahaṅkāra) aspect; यः स्यात ् – whatever is; स स्र्तः अन्यः – that is different from the Self; वर्शेष-प्रक्षयः – total dissolution of attributes; यत्र – there where; मसद्ध: ज्ञः – knowledge is; चचत्रगुयथव ा – like Citraguḥ (owner of variegated cows).

5. Just as the owner of variegated cows (citraguḥ) is distinct from his cows, ahaṅkāra is different from the Self. Knowledge is where there is a total dissolution of attributes.

As discussed earlier, ‘I’ has two aspects, the known and knower. Here the Ācārya says that whatever becomes known, idam amśa, is different from Me. All adjectives or qualifiers are indicative only of anātmā, which are additions to Me, ātmā. True knowledge is where there is a total dissolution of all viśeṣanas, attaining nirviśeṣatvam.

Viśeṣanas are dissolved by understanding the difference between what is ever present (anuvṛtta) and what is transitory (vyāvṛtta). Ātmā is anuvṛtta while all viśeṣanas are vyāvṛtta

80 and can thus be eliminated as not Me. If I wear a red shirt today and an orange one tomorrow, then I am anuvṛtta, while the shirt which changes is vyāvṛtta; it is not me.

In this verse the example given is of a citraguḥ. A citraguḥ is someone who owns numerous cows of different colours. He had an identity before he got the cows; he existed before he became known as citraguḥ. There would be a problem if he thought that his only identity was citraguḥ. His bhrānti would be to think he exists because the cows exist.

Ahaṅkāra is like the coloured cow. My ignorance is to assume that this is my only identity. At the seat of meditation, I have to remind myself that this is not who I am. The more I identify with these titles, the greater will be my sorrow. We all have five kośas; we can choose any one to analyze and negate or work towards adding more kośas and further complicating our lives. Knowledge is mentally putting aside viśeṣanas. I existed prior to all anātma and upādhī and will continue to exist when they go.

This can be summarised throuogh anumānam: • Pratijñā: Viśeṣaṇam is different from ‘I’ and can be separated • Hetu: Because it is a viśeṣaṇam, it is distinct from the locus it resides in • Udahāraṇa: Citraguḥ; even without the title ‘Citraguḥ’, the individual continues to remain

In the next verse, a question that may arise in the mind of the seeker is answered. In the mahāvākya ‘Aham Brahma Asmi’, what does Aham refer to? Is it saviśeṣa or nirviśeṣa?

इदमंशोSहममत्यत्र त्या煍यो नात्मेनत पग्ण्ितैः| अहं ब्रेनत मशांशो भूतपूर्गव तेभर्व ेत ् ॥६॥ edamaṁśo'hamityatra tyājyo nātmeti paṇḍitaiḥ| ahaṁ brahmeti śiṣṭāṁśo bhūtapūrvagaterbhavet||6||

इदं अंशः – the known part ahaṅkāra); अहं इनत अत्र – here in this ‘aham’; त्या煍यः – give up; न आत्मा इनत – because it is not ātmā; पग्ण्ितैः – the wise; मशांशः – that aspect which remains; अहं ब्र इनत – ‘I am Brahman’ thus said; भूतपूर्-व गतेः-भर्ेत ् – due to the long-standing association with I.

6. In ‘aham’, the wise give up the ahaṅkāra (which becomes known) as it is not ātmā; ātmā remains. The statement, ‘I am Brahman’ is therefore due to the individual’s long-standing association with I.

In the vākya ‘Aham Brahmāsmi’, how is ‘aham’ to be understood? When we say aham, we include five entities: sthūla śarīra, sūkṣma śarīra, kāraṇa śarīra, cidābhāsa and ātmā. Wise people know the idam amśa is not aham. The three śarīras are known and subject to modification and so are anātmā; cidābhāsa is unavailable without sūkṣma śarīra. What remains is ātmā.

81 When a wise person says ‘Aham Brahmāsmi’, he must exclude the pañcakośas from his understanding of aham. One cannot say “I am Brahman” and “I am disturbed”. It is the mind, idam, which is disturbed. Knowledge takes place in idam and so does disturbance. Brahman is what remains after all anātmā is excluded.

People say, “I know I am Brahman, but I am still suffering”. This is not possible; Brahman is ever free. It is the mind that suffers. This is also true with ‘experiencing Brahman’. Brahman cannot be experienced. It is the mind that wants to experience. Brahman is what remains when all conditionings and attributes have been negated. Only what is always free of attributes can be called Brahman.

Another question is raised regarding the mahāvākya; if Brahman is infinite and includes all then why does the mahāvākya limit Brahman to aham? Sarvaṁ brahma; everything is Brahman – aham, tvam, idam etc. The Ācārya says that the word aham is used because of bhūtapūrvagatyā (prior association).

A seeker begins his journey by working on the ahaṅkāra. When the ahaṅkāra (his invidiuality) is finally given up, he becomes nirviśeṣa. Distinctions such as aham, tvam and idam no longer exist. Strictly speaking, one need not say, “aham brahmāsmi”, “brahma” would be sufficient. However, what remains at the end of all negation is also referred to as aham by the seeker, the statement remains as ‘Aham Brahmāsmi’.

_____

82 Chapter 7: Buddhi-ārūḍha Prakaranam

In the six chapters completed so far, various topics were raised and discussed. If we are to summarise the teachings in one sentence, it would be - Aham Brahma Asmi; I am Brahman. This is the central theme of the entire text. Bhagavān Śaṅkarācārya analysed the word ‘aham’ and instructed us to negate the ahaṅkāra, because it has dṛśyatva dharma. What then remains is Brahman alone.

In the third chapter, Īśvara-ātma Prakaraṇam, Brahman, immortality, was presented to the student just like it was offered to Udaṅka Ṛṣi. It is up to us whether we choose to accept or reject it. Since this text has been given the status of an Upaniṣad by Bhagavān himself (and is Śruti prasthāna of prakaraṇa grantha), this central theme should be understood as the mahāvākya.

What is the purpose of understanding oneself to be Brahman? We seek this Knowledge because all our problems will end only when we know this Truth. When I understand that I am sākṣī, which is devoid of all upādhīs (conditionings), and this very sākṣīnirvikāra aham/Caitanya is Brahman, the journey is over. No questions remain. There is nothing more to do or attain. Apart from I (the Self), nothing remains.

In the sixth chapter, we saw that when all viśeṣanas are negated, what remains in nirviśeṣa. That nirviśeṣa is Brahman. One cannot even say ‘Aham Brahmāsmi’ because ‘aham’ is Brahman, ‘tvam’ is Brahman and ‘idam’ is also Brahman; everything is Brahman. Strictly speaking, from the highest standpoint, there is no viśeṣa; but because our journey begins from enquiring into ‘I’, because it is here that Caitanya is experienced, therefore Aham Brahma Asmi is the mahāvākya.

The nirviśeṣa sākṣī that I discovered to be the sākṣī of all intellects is the theme of the seventh chapter.

बुद््या셂ढं सदा सर्ं 饃श्यते यत्र तत्र र्ा| मया तस्मात्पिं ब्रह्म सर्वज्ञश्चाग्स्म सर्वगः||१|| buddhyārūḍhaṁ sadā sarvaṁ dr̥śyate yatra tatra vā| mayā tasmātparaṁ brahma sarvajñaścāsmi sarvagaḥ||1||

सर्ं 饃श्यते मया – all is seen (experienced) by me; यत्र तत्र र्ा – everywhere; बुद््या셂ढं सदा – is always perceived by the intellect; तस्मात ् – therefore; पिं ब्रह्म अग्स्म – I am the supreme Brahman; सर्वगः – all-pervading; सर्वज्ञः – all-knowing.

1. Everything is experienced by Me everywhere and is always perceived by the intellect. Therefore. I am the all-pervading and all-knowing Supreme Brahman.

83 Whatever is seen or perceived by an individual becomes an object of experience only when it comes in contact with the intellect. Whether it is adhyātma1, adhibhūta2 or adhidaiva3; something within the body or from the external physical world, everything is known only through the intellect. All that is known in the waking and even the dream state is only through the intellect. An experiencer is required for the cognition of an experience. In the absence of buddhi, nothing can be known (as is our experience in deep sleep). For cognition, the object has to become known to the intellect by becoming an object of a thought.

Three entities are involved in cognition: viśaya, buddhi and ātmā. Ātmā does not experience viśaya directly. Everything is experienced by the intellect. By itself, the intellect has no ability to know anything. Ātmā blesses it with the ability to illumine, and this is how the intellect knows the world. Thus, I am param: that which does not become an object of knowledge; I am beyond the intellect. Viśayas are on one side of the intellect while I am on the other. Therefore, the intellect cannot make Me dṛśya. I always remain the dṛaṣṭā. That, which does not become dṛśya is Brahman. That Brahman I am. The Bhagavad-gītā and Kathopniṣad both say that ātmā is beyond buddhi4.

How does one become sarvajña (all-knowing)? When an ajñānī says ‘I am sarvajña’ his idea of ‘I’ is his intellect. When a jñānī says, “I am sarvajña”, his idea of ‘I’ is ātmā. At the level of ātmā, sarvajña is the illuminator of each limited intellect. In fact, sarvajña literally means that which illumines all. It illumines all intellects: of devatās, humans, paśu, pakṣī and every other living creature. I illumine all intellects and therefore I am all-knowing.

Sarvagaḥ means that which goes everywhere, is unconditioned, infinite. How is ātmā infinite? There is no pramāṇa for the ‘manyness’ of ātmā/sākṣī. There is no valid teaching that speaks of the existence of multiple sākṣīs; there is only one ātmā (sākṣī). If there is only one sākṣī, should it not know what is happening in all antaḥkaraṇas? We only know what is happening in our own mind, not that of anyone else. How can I be the sākṣī of all intellects?

यथात्मबुद्चधचािािां साक्षी तद्र्त्पिेष्र्वप| नैर्ापोढुं न र्ादातुं शक्यस्तस्मात्पिो ह्यहम||् २|| yathātmabuddhicārāṇāṁ sākṣī tadvatpareṣvapi| naivāpoḍhuṁ na vādātuṁ śakyastasmātparo hyaham||2||

यथा – just as; (अहं) साक्षी – (I) am the witness; आत्म बुद्चध (प्र)चािािाम ् – of the objects perceived by my intellect; तद्र्द – so too; पिेषु अवप – even of others (intellects’ perceptions); आपोढुम ्– to reject; न र्ा आदातुम ्– nor to take up (accept); एर् न शक्यः – indeed not possible; तस्मात ् – therefore; पिः दह अहम ्– I am the Supreme.

1 Adhyātma: Knower (where there is I notion), e.g. eyes 2 Adhibhūta: locus of matter (e.g. clip) 3 Adhidaiva: Matter with Caitanya presiding over it (e.g. presiding deity of eyes, Sun God) 4 इग्न्द्रयाणि पिाण्याहुरिग्न्द्रयेभ्यः पिं मनः । मनसस्तु पिा बुवयो बुःे पितस्तु सः ॥ भगर्द् गीता - ३-४२ इग्न्द्रयेभ्यः पिा थाव अथेभ्यश्च पिं मनः । मनसस्तु पिा बुवबुव ेिात्मा महान्पिः ॥ - कठ उपननषद - १-३-१०

84 2. Just as I am a witness to my intellect’s perceptions, I am the witness of the perception of everyone else’s intellects’ too. Indeed, it is not possible to accept or reject me, therefore I am the Supreme (Brahman).

How is it possible that I can witness the thoughts of everyone’s intellect in the way that I witness the thoughts of my own intellect? This question is a result of the erroneous understanding of ‘I’. Because there is always mutual superimposition between ahaṅkāra and sākṣī, I feel that I am this Swami and not sākṣī. An individual only knows the thoughts in his own intellect. Sākṣī has no association with any intellect. I (sākṣī) am as free of the Swami’s intellect as anybody else’s. Since there is identification with only one intellect, the individual says, “I only know what is happening in my intellect, not anyone else’s”.

I (sākṣī) am sarvajña. Each intellect is limited, but because I illumine all intellects, I know all. It is out of ignorance that I (sākṣī) have taken ownership of only one intellect and this is the cause of my misery. However, the truth is that I (sākṣī) illumine all intellects and thus know everything: ādhidaivika, ādhibhautika, ādhyātmika, jāgrat/svapna jagat, ihaloka, paraloka.

Similarly, I witness the happenings of Indra, Varuṇa, Agni; all devatās and even Brahmaji. Their ānanda and knowledge also belong to Me. It is only because of the identification with this particular pañcamahābhūta (physical body) that we take on the miseries of the body as our own. This is called a narrow mind (kṣudra buddhi). It is not possible to be sarvajña at the level of the individual intellect. How much can any one individual know? Buddhi is always alpajña and sākṣī is inherently sarvajña. Sākṣī’s identification with the limited, individual buddhi is the ‘duḥkha kāraṇa’.

How am I the Supreme Brahman? The verse says ‘āpodḥum na vā ādātum’: cannot be given up nor taken on. It is aheya and anupādeya: sākṣī is that which cannot be rejected or accepted. That which is finite (within time, space etc.) can be taken up and dropped. The only thing that I can’t take up or give away is my own Self and this has to be infinite and unconditioned by time, space and object.

What Bhagvān says in this verse is that ‘I’ (sākṣī) have to be the Supreme Brahman which is infinite. I have to be that supreme Paramātmā alone. It has now been logically proved that there are problems only if I identify with buddhi. In addition, by defining Brahman as that which cannot be given away and taken up, it is implied that it is already attained.

In the Bhagavad-gītā, Bhagavān Kṛṣṇa uses the terms kṣetra and kṣetrajña1. Kṣetra is what is experienced (the field of the known) and kṣetrajña is the knower of the field. Bhagavān Kṛṣṇa says that each physical body is a kṣetra and the knower of the body is the kṣetrajña. He says, ‘that kṣetrajña I am’, and that kṣetrajña is in all bodies. We know what is happening in our bodies and minds, so we are the kṣetrajña. But Bhagavān says: ‘know Me to be that kṣetrajña’. There is only one kṣetrajña in all kṣetras; one sākṣī in all intellects. That is Me.

1 इदं शिीिं कौन्तेय … - भगर्द् गीता - १३- २ क्षेत्रज्ञं चावप मां वर्द्चध सर्क्षव ेत्रेष ु भाित … - भगर्द् गीता - १३-३

85 Do the defects of the intellect belong to the knower? The next verse addresses this question by confirming that the defects belong to the intellect and not sākṣī, ātmā.

वर्करित्र्मशुद्धत्र्ं भौनतकत्र्ं न चात्मनः| अशेषबुद्चधसाक्षक्षत्र्ाद् बुद्चधर्楍चा쥍पर्ेदना||३|| vikaritvamaśuddhatvaṁ bhautikatvaṁ na cātmanaḥ| aśeṣabuddhisākṣitvād buddhivaccālpavedanā||3||

वर्करित्र्म ् – subject to modification; अशुद्धत्र्म ् – impurity; भौनतकत्र्म ् – made of matter; च अ쥍पर्ेदना – and of limited knowledge; न आत्मनः – not of the Self; अशेषबुद्चधसाक्षक्षत्र्ाद् – being a witness of the intellect and its modifications; बुद्चधर्त ् – unlike the intellect.

3. Unlike the intellect, the Self is not subject to modifications or impurity, is not made of matter nor is It of limited knowledge, because It is the witness of the intellect and its modifications.

The four defects of the intellect are: • Bhautikatvam - consisting of matter • Vikāritvam - subject to modification • Aśuddhatvam - mpurity • Alpavedanā - has limited knowledge

Buddhi is made up of sūkṣma or apañcīkṛta pañcamahābhūta, it is matter. Therefore, bhautikatvam belongs to buddhi. Vikāritvam belongs to buddhi as it undergoes modification in the form of thoughts when any knowledge takes place. If there is no vṛtti in the buddhi, no knowledge can take place. If my attention wanders during a lecture, even though the sound hits my eardrums, no vṛttis are formed and so no knowledge is gained during the time I was inattentive.

Aśuddhatvam is svābhāvaka to the intellect. There is always some rāga, dveṣa, kāma, krodha, etc. in the intellect, which make it impure. Aśuddhatvam is also present as saṁsarga doṣa: the defect of association. When my intellect perceives something, it undergoes modification and gains some knowledge. This knowledge makes me happy or sad. Suppose I am told there will be ice cream for lunch today. First there is jñānam and subsequently there is joy because I like ice cream. The knowledge of ice cream brought joy, which is also a vikāra in the intellect. If however, I am observing a fast today, this knowledge brings sadness. This modification of the intellect in response to the knowledge is aśuddhatvam. At first, it is only knowledge but then I am affected by it. There would be no problem if I remain the pramātā (knower), but I immediately become the bhoktā (experiencer). The inherent tendency to be influenced by my own knowledge (positively or otherwise) is aśuddhi. Thus, an object (or its jñānam), its guṇa and doṣa affect buddhi.

For this reason alone, is it said that for a jñānī, knowledge will continue but he must remain indifferent to the swings of the intellect. This teaching is given in many verses in the Bhagavad-

86 gītā1. A good sādhaka will not be swayed by good news or bad news even at the level of the intellect. Though it is not possible to remain equanimous at all times, one has to practice this. Real samatva is only possible at the level of ātmā, and not the intellect.

The fourth defect is that of alpavedanā or alpajñatvam. Buddhi will always be alpajña. Vedanā means pain but here it refers to ‘knowing’. Alpavedanā does not belong to ātmā since it is sarvajña. Each intellect will have a variety of vikāras, aśuddhi etc. Ātmā does not have any of these defects because the attributes of dṛśya (which are also dṛśya) do not belong to the dṛaṣṭā; the attribute of a dṛśya vastu also becomes an object of knowledge.

For example, I the dṛaṣṭā, see a clip, a dṛśya. The pink colour of the clip belongs to theclip and not to me, it is different from the dṛaṣṭā. I am not the clip, nor am I the colour pink. Similarly, I am not the the buddhi nor am I any of the attributes of the buddhi – vikāra, aśuddhi etc. The Teacher says that if I think of myself as the buddhi at all times, then I will never understand the vākyārtha of ‘Aham Brahmāsmi’. In that ‘aham’, buddhi must be negated or transcedned to arrive at the implied meaning of the statement.

Many sādhakas err in understanding the lakṣaṇas of a jñānī; as these are often spoken of from the standpoint of ātmā. The sādhaka wants to see these in buddhi, which is never possible. His understanding of Brahman includes buddhi and as a result, all it’s defects (alpajñatva, etc.) are also included. He continues to see himself as finite and limited. Knowledge should bring contentment, regardless of external circumstances. Rāga, dveṣa, jealousy, etc. have to recede. Knowing oneself to be sarvajña is to identify with samaṣṭi (totality) and not with vyaṣṭi (individuality).

In the Bhagavad-gītā, Bhagavān Kṛṣṇa says that despite having attained everything in the three worlds, He continues to do everything2. This is what is expected of us too; to continue doing whatever is required of us. Action will no longer be driven by a sense of incompleteness or with the desire for a particular outcome. There is no kartavya (duty) left thereafter, there is nothing that is not done and nothing left to be accomplished3.

मिौ प्रकाश्यते यद्र्द्रक्ताद्याकाितातपे | मनय सं饃श्यते सर्वमातपेनेर् तन्मया||४|| maṇau prakāśyate yadvadraktādyākāratātape | mayi saṁdr̥śyate sarvamātapeneva tanmayā||4||

1 सुखद:ु खे समे कृ त्र्ा लाभालाभौ जयाजयौ … - भगर्द् गीता - २-३८ … मसद््यमसद््यो: समो भूत्र्ा … - भगर्द् गीता - २-४८ … मसद््यमसद््योननववर्वकाि: … - भगर्द् गीता - १८-२६ 2 न मे पाथावग्स्त कतवव्यं त्रत्रषु लोके षु क्रक祍चन । नानर्ाप्तमर्ाप्तव्यं र्तव एर् च कमवणि ॥ - भगर्द् गीता - ३-२२ 3 यस्त्र्ात्मिनतिेर् स्यादात्मतप्ृ तश्च मानर्: | आत्मन्येर् च सन्तुष्टस्तस्य कायं न वर्द्यते || - भगर्द् गीता - ३-१७ नैर् तस्य कृ तेनाथो नाकृ तेनेह कश्चन | न चास्य सर्भव ूतेषु कग्श्चदथवव्यपाश्रय: || - भगर्द् गीता - ३-१८

87 मिौ – in a jewel; िक्तादद आकािता प्रकाश्यते – red colour, etc. expresses; आतपे – in the presence of sunlight; यद्र्त ्– so too; मनय – in My presence; सर्ं सं饃श्यते – all is seen; आतपेन इर् तत ् मया – by Me, like sunlight.

4. Just as red colour, etc. are seen in a jewel only in the presence of sunlight, so too all is seen in My presence. All is illumined by Me; like sunlight.

The example of a crystal and a red flower placed next to it is commonly cited in Vedānta. In the presence of sunlight, the crystal takes on the colour of the flower, appearing to be red. In the same way ātmā illumines all intellects.

As mentioned in the first verse, an object becomes known only when it becomes buddhi- āruḍha; comes in front of the intellect. It becomes known by vṛttis where the buddhi takes the form of the object thereby making it known. Just as sunlight is required for a crystal to reflect colour, Caitanya is needed for the intellect to gain any knowledge. I, the Caitanya, express through every intellect. Anything known by any intellect is known by Me since I illumine all intellects. Katha-upaniṣad says that everything becomes known through the individual intellect only when the Caitanya is available1.

If everything is known to sākṣī, is there even a need for the intellect? Yes. Sākṣī (Caitanya) does not undergo any modification to take the form of an object. Sākṣī expresses in buddhi, (which in turn undergoes modification to take the form of the object (thereby gaining knowledge of the object). Since Caitanya expresses in the intellect as cidābhāsa, it has the ability to illumine. The role of the intellect is to get viśesa jñānam. In its absence, sākṣī will have only sāmānya jñānam; no particulars will be known. It is the intellect that knows words, colours and forms and not sākṣi. Sākṣī’s knowledge is only illumination.

बुद्धौ 饃श्यं भर्ेद् बुद्धौ सत्यां नाग्स्त वर्पयवये| द्रष्टा यस्मात्सदा द्रष्टा तस्माद् द्र्ैतं न वर्द्यते||५|| buddhau dr̥śyaṁ bhaved buddhau satyāṁ nāsti viparyaye| draṣṭā yasmātsadā draṣṭā tasmād dvaitaṁ na vidyate||5||

बुद्धौ सत्याम ् – when intellect is present; बुद्धौ 饃श्यं भर्ेद् – intellect will have perception; नाग्स्त वर्पयवये – in its (intellect’s) absence, there will be no perception; यस्मात ् द्रष्टा (अहम)् सदा द्रष्टा – since I am always the illuminator; तस्माद् – therefore; द्र्ैतं न वर्द्यते – there is no duality.

5. Perception is possible only in the presence of the intellect, and not in its absence. As I am always the illuminator (knower), therefore there is no duality.

1 … तमेर् भान्तमनुभानत सर्ं तस्य भासा सर्वममदं वर्भानत ॥ - कठ उपननषद - २-२-१५

88 Three things are required for knowledge to take place: ātmā, buddhi and viśayas. Viśayas become dṛśya of buddhi which itself becomes dṛśya for ātmā. When the intellect is not available, as in deep sleep1, nothing is known.

Anything that does not come within the purview of the intellect remains unknown. Using pramāṇa and lakṣaṇa, a pramātā gains knowledge of the prameya vastu (object of knowledge)2. If something does not become prameya for some pramātā, then its existence is questioned. It must be known to some intellect at some point of time to become known. Since I am the pramātā in all intellects, I illumine all.

If nothing is known in deep sleep, how can its existence be proved? If there were no such state, there would be no discussion about it. Something that doesn’t exist is not taken up for discussion. At the time of deep sleep, while the intellect is unavailable, I (sākṣī) continue to be present. Conventionally three states of the intellect are accepted (waking, dream and deep sleep) and since they all belong to the intellect, they become an object of knowledge for sākṣī. I (sākṣī), on the other hand, am unaffected by the three states and ever present, witnessing the states of the intellect.

Thus, both buddhi and viśayas are said to have a dependent or borrowed, reality; they are present some time and absent at other times. What is present all the time has an independent l reality. All objects become known only when the intellect is known; this is dependent reality or dependent existence. I, on the other hand, am sadā (ever present) and draṣṭa; together the two words indicate My true nature as Sat-svarūpa and Cit-svarūpa. Therefore, only I have independent reality; everything else has only borrowed reality. Thus, there is no duality. I alone am. I am advaya (non-dual).

Saying there is no dvaitam implies that there is no association of ātmā with anything. Since there is no association, ātmā has to be pure (śuddha). However, a question may be posed here regarding the influence of knowledge and ignorance on ātmā. Does ātmā have bondage and liberation? This is answered in the last verse of this chapter.

अवर्र्ेकात्पिाभार्ं यथा बुद्चधिर्ैत्तथा| वर्र्ेकात्त ु पिादन्यः स्र्यं चावप न वर्द्यते||६|| avivekātparābhāvaṁ yathā buddhiravaittathā| vivekāttu parādanyaḥ svayaṁ cāpi na vidyate||6||

यथा – just as; बुद्चधः अर्ैत ् – the intellect knew; पि अभार्म ् – the absence of the Supreme (Brahman); अवर्र्ेकात ् – due to ignorance; तथा – so too; वर्र्ेकात ् तु – however, upon Knowledge; पिात ्अन्यः – other than the Supreme (Brahman); स्र्यं चावप न – including itself (intellect/individuality) is not; वर्द्यते – known.

1 In deep sleep antaḥkaraṇa vṛttis are absent but ajñāna vṛtti is present 2 लक्षिप्रमािाभ्याम ् र्स्तु मसवः

89 6. Previously, due to ignorance, the intellect (thought that it) ‘knew’ the absence of Brahman; in the same way, on gaining Knowledge, it knows that other than Brahman there is nothing, including itself (the intellect is also negated).

At the time of ignorance, the intellect denies the existence of Brahman; it does not exist and it is not known (na asti, na bhāti). This is the stage of aviveka. With the dawn of Knowledge comes the understanding that there is nothing besides Brahman. Once Brahman is known, there is no ‘other’. In Rāmacaritamānasa, Goswami Tulasīdāsa says that when you wake up, the dream illusion is gone1. So also, when Knowledge dawns, no duality remains. It is not possible to say ‘I am Brahman’ and the world and other jīvas also exist.

When knowledge takes place, the intellect is negated with everything else. Nothing else remains; there is advaitam. This is mokṣa. Ātmā is not affected by bandha or mukti, both belong to the intellect. Ātmā identifies with that intellect and thinks it is bound. It goes through all the struggles and woes of the world, then goes to a Teacher and does śravaṇam, mananam and nididhyāsanam, etc. The same ātmā, identified with the enlightened intellect (where the Knowledge of the Truth has taken place), will know itself to be ever-free. Ātmā does not gain freedom, but rather knows itself as distinct from the intellect and thus ever free.

The final understanding is that there is no such thing as creation, nor the very buddhi that enabled this wisdom. Other than Para Brahman nothing else exists. Since ātmā is never bound, there is no question of ‘becoming free’. It is in this sense that ātmā is asaṅga and śuddha. Ātmā is nitya-śuddha, nitya-buddha, nitya-mukta and this ātmā is who I am.

1 जेदह जानᴂ जग जाइ हेिाई। जागᴂ जथा सपन भ्रम जाई॥ - िामचरितमानस १-११२-१

90 Chapter 8: Mativilāpanam

This chapter, called Mativilāpanam, is a dialogue between ātmā and the intellect. The word mati means buddhi and vilāpanam is dissolution, so the chapter is about dissolving the intellect in ātmā. This can be understood in two ways. First is the temporary dissolution of the mind through the practice of yoga, nirvikalpa samādhi. The other is śuddha Vedānta prakriya, where the reality of the intellect is negated. This is done by making the intellect (antaḥkaraṇa or ahaṅkāra), a dṛśya vastu, by having a conversation with it. Whatever is dṛśya has to be inert and therefore anātmā (yad dṛśyam, tat jaḍam tat anātmā). By making the intellect dṛśya, we remind ourselves that it is jaḍa and therefore only has dependent reality (parataḥ siddhi) and cannot exist independent of ātmā.

A conversation requires a speaker and a listener. When I say I am talking to myself, I create a division within myself where one part is speaking while the other is listening. Here, buddhi is made dṛśya and is instructed to conduct itself in a certain manner. Not only is this technique a good tool for meditation, it also facilitates the quietening of the mind/intellect/ahaṅkāra, which is the need of those seekers who are unable to ascertain the Truth because of disturbances in their minds. If the wisdom ‘I am Brahman’ does dawn, it doesn’t stay for most people.

The uttama adhikārī is able to hold on to the Knowledge. He is like the arrow maker from Śrīmad Bhāgvatam, who was so focused on his work that he did not notice the king’s procession go past him1. A good student can negate the intellect in its very presence; he knows it to be mithyā and himself as Brahman. For other students, the intellect will have to be free from disturbances before Knowledge can take place. Ātmā is ever present but its knowledge is only gained in a calm mind. There is a clock in the bedroom that ticks continuously. You only hear it at night when the other sounds that drowned out the ticking have subsided. Similarly, the knowledge ‘Aham Brahma Asmi’ does not become evident for sādhakas while they are in the midst of other activities and their mind is engaged elsewhere. This nididhyāsanam is a good way to shift our attention, time and again, to that which is the key to freedom.

चचनतस्र्셂पे स्र्त एर् मे मते िसाददयोगस्तर् मोहकारितः| अतो न क्रकं चचत्तर् चेवतेन मे फलं भर्ेत्सर्ववर्शेषहानतः ||१|| citisvarūpe svata eva me mate rasādiyogastava mohakāritaḥ| ato na kiṁcittava ceṣṭitena me phalaṁ bhavetsarvaviśeṣahānataḥ ||1||

मे मते – O! my Intellect; िसाददयोगः– association with sense objects, etc; तर् मोहकारितः – is the cause of your delusion; अतो – therefore; तर् चेवतेन – by your efforts; न मे क्रकं चचत ् फलं

1 … यथेषुकािो नपृ नत ं व्रजन्त- ममषौ गतात्मा न ददशव पाश्वे ॥ - श्रीम饍 भागितम ् - ११-९-१३

91 भर्ेत ्– for me there is no gain; एर् – indeed; चचनतस्र्셂पे स्र्तः – myself of the nature of pure Consciousness; सर्ववर्शेषहानतः – free of all attributes.

1. O Intellect! All associations/desires for sense pleasures are the cause of your delusion. Indeed, I am of the nature of pure Consciousness, free of all attributes. Therefore, your efforts bring Me no gain.

Ātmā says to the intellect, “I am pure Consciousness. O intellect, it is because of your desire for objects in the world that you have sorrow. It is your delusion that such pursuits will bring you happiness. Whatever you think your source of happiness is, I am not associated with it”. It is as though ātmā is washing its hands off the intellect saying, “Swami this is your problem, leave me out of it!”.

Ātmā is nitya-mukta so all problems belong the intellect or jīva. I am nirviśeṣa. All viśeṣas belong to the intellect. In verse 6.1, Bhagavān Śaṅkarācārya talked about how all viśeṣaṇas are to be separated from the viśeṣya, just like the hand that has been cut off and put aside1. All kośas should similarly be cut off from my understanding of myself. I become free from them by knowing that they never belonged to Me.

Ātmā has no interest in the intellect. A sannyāsī should be like this, un-swayed by his intellect. He should be able to tell the intellect, “I have no interest in what you do. I do not derive joy or sorrow from your pursuits”.

वर्मु楍य मायामयकायवताममह प्रशाग्न्तमायासदीदहतात्सदा| अहं पिंब्र सदा ग्व्कमु啍र्त्तथाजमेकं द्वयर्ग्जवतं यथः||२|| vimucya māyāmayakāryatāmiha praśāntimāyāhyasadīhitātsadā| ahaṁ paraṁbrahma sadā vkimuktavattathājamekaṁ dvayavarjitaṁ yathaḥ|2||

वर्मु楍य – having given up; मायामयकायतव ाम ् इह – these effects arising from māyā (illusion); सदा प्रशाग्न्तम ् – repose at all times; आयादह – attain; असत ् ईदहतात ् – from unreal, desired; यतः अहं पिंब्र – Since I am the Supreme Brahman; सदा ग्व्कमु啍 र्त ् – always liberated (as though); तथा अजम-् एकम ् द्वयर्ग्जतव म ् – and I am unborn, One alone and devoid of all dualities.

2. (O Intellect!) having given up these unreal effects (desires) of māyā, attain peace at all times. Since I am the Supreme Brahman, I am unborn, One alone, devoid of all dualities and always Liberated.

Ātmā is further instructing the intellect to give up all activities, as they are an effect of māyā and are mithyā. The relentless pursuit of this mithyā vastu that you think will bring you happiness is the source of your sorrow. Give them up and attain repose (vilāpanam) in Brahman, the real source of happiness.

It is the nature of objects to constantly change. You can’t seek support in that which is constantly changing. Support can only come from what is unchanging (kūṭastha). What does

1 नछत्त्र्ा त्य啍ेन हस्तेन ... - उपदेश साहस्त्री - ६ -१

92 not change does not appeal to us and we are thus told to seek support from satya vastu and get entertainment from mithyā vastu with the clear understanding that there is no support there. Take the example of a movie; the screen is constant while the projection on that screen is constantly changing. We go to the movies for the projection, not the screen, but without the screen there can be no projection. We know the projection to be unreal and do not fall in love with it. This is the point being made here: ‘asad-īhitāt praśāntim āyāhi’.

The word sadā is used to indicate a steady, continuous peace that is present in the waking and dream states and not just the temporary attainment of peace as in deep sleep. Here vimukta- vat means as though liberated. Since bondage is not real for ātmā, it only appears to be liberated. Buddhi is bound; I (ātmā) am not. It is because of superimposition that ātmā feels as though it is bound. When the intellect is liberated, ātmā feels it is liberated.

As ātmā, I have no bondage or liberation. I am ‘ajam’ (birthless) so ṣad-vikāra rahita: free of all six modifications; ‘ekam’ (one) so there are no sajātīya bhedas and ‘dvaya-varjitam’ (without a second) so vijātīya bhedas are also absent. Since this is My nature, I am Parabrahman. What this means is that I am not one ātmā among many ātmās; there are not as many ātmās as there are jīvas. There is only one Brahman and that Brahman I am. Ātmā is equated with Brahman to negate the view held by other darśanas. According to Saṅkhya and Yoga darśana there are many ātmās. Also, the words māyāmaya (like magic) and asad-īhitāt (therefore unreal) are used to describe the world, thus negating the view of these darśanas that believe the world to be real (satyam).

‘Māyāmaya’ can also be interpreted as ‘māyām aya’. ‘Aya’ means gaccha (to go) and the sentence would thus read ‘O intellect, go to māyā’, go back to your origin. Going back to its origin means the dissolution of individuality, when an effect goes back to its cause, it dissolves, like a gold ornament that loses its individuality when it melted into gold. Pravilāpanam is the dissolution of the effect into its cause. The intellect dissolves into its cause, māyā, by giving up its notion of being an effect. Every night when we go to sleep, the intellect, with all its knowledge and problems, is dissolved. Unfortunately, this dissolution is only temporary (laya) while the dissolution achieved via Knowledge is permanent (nāśa).

The intellect now asks ātmā how it can be nirviśeṣa and not saviśeṣa. It is associated with so many bodies and it is this association that gives rise to my notion of myself. Buddhi says this is why it is giving ātmā viśayas. In the next verse, ātmā says that it needs nothing from buddhi, it is complete by itself.

सदा च भूतेषु समोSग्स्म केर्लो यथा च खं सर्वगमक्षिं मशर्ं| ननिन्तिं ननष्कलमक्रियं पिं ततो न मेSस्तीह फलं तर्ेदहतैः ||३|| sadā ca bhūteṣu samo’smi kevalo yathā ca khaṁ sarvagamakṣaraṁ śivaṁ| nirantaraṁ niṣkalamakriyaṁ paraṁ tato na me’stīha phalaṁ tavehitaiḥ ||3||

सदा च भूतेषु समः अग्स्म – I am the same in all beings; केर्लः – without any distinctions; यथा खं – just like space; सर्गव म ् अक्षिं मशर्म ् ननिन्तिं ननष्कलम ् अक्रियं पिम ् – all pervasive,

93 indivisible, auspicious, endless, part-less, action-less and supreme; ततः – therefore; तर् ईदहतैः – by your desires; न मे अग्स्त इह फलम ् – there is no benefit for me.

3. I am the same in all beings, without any distinctions just like space; all pervasive, indivisible, auspicious, endless, part-less, action-less and supreme. Therefore, there is no benefit for me by your desires.

Multiple pointers have been provided for ātmā, which is Brahman: • Samaḥ – this word itself is used to indicate Brahman. In the Bhagavad-gītā, Bhagavān Kṛṣṇa says that Brahman alone is changeless, ever the same1. Everything in the world is changing but Brahman is not. • Kevalaḥ – other than Brahman there is nothing. • Yathā kham – like space. Whatever is true for space is true for ātmā. Therefore, ātmā is all-pervading, imperishable and untouched. • Śivam – auspicious or pure. Brahman is ever-pure because there is nothing other than It to make It impure. It is asanga. • Nirantaram – Eternal • Niṣkalam – Partless • Niṣkriyam – Actionless. Brahman has no karma sambandha. All sukha/duḥkha arises from karma and since Brahman has no karma sambandha, It is untouched by all joys and sorrows. • Param – Above all. Everything else is an illusion, like the golden colour of a snow- capped mountain at sunrise. The colour of the snow has not changed. Similarly, Brahman is similarly untouched by all.

This is My nature. Nothing that the intellect desires affects Me. The intellect has ideas of joy and sorrow in objects and experiences. Knowing that none of this affects Me is jīvanmukti. Nothing can add to ātmā and nothing can be taken away from ātmā. With a firm conviction in this Knowledge, even the heaviest of sorrows will not disturb Me2. Here, the word Guru is used to indicate intense sorrow. Also, the Teacher gives the student sorrow to test how well established he is in the wisdom.

The intellect tells ātmā, “You may be Brahman with all these attributes. But you have friends and family who will need what I am offering”. Ātmā’s reply is that It has no family and friends. It is asanga.

अहं ममैको न मदन्यददष्यते तथा न कस्याप्यहमस्म्यसंगतः| अस敍ग셂पोSहमतो न मे त्र्या कृ तेन कायं तर् चाद्वयत्र्तः||४|| ahaṁ mamaiko na madanyadiṣyate tathā na kasyāpyahamasmyasaṁgataḥ| asaṅgarūpo’hamato na me tvayā krtenḁ kāryaṁ tava cādvayatvataḥ||4||

1 … ननदोषं दह समं ब्र … - भगर्द् गीता - ५-१९ 2 … यग्स्मग्न्स्थतो न द:ु खेन गु셁िावप वर्चा쥍यते || - भगर्द् गीता - ६-२२

94 अहं एकः – I am one; न मद् अन्यद् इष्यते – nothing other than Me exists; तथा न कस्य अवप अहम अग्स्म – also I cannot belong to anyone; असंगतः – because I have no relations; अस敍ग 셂पः अहम ्– I am without any attachments; अतः – therefore; न मे – has nothing to do with me; त्र्या कृ तेन कायं – whatever is accomplished by you; तर् च – nor for you; अद्वयत्र्तः – because you are not different from Me.

4. I am the One, and nothing other than Me exists. I do not belong to anyone as I have no relationships or attachments. Therefore, whatever is accomplished by you has nothing to do with Me, nor does it serve you as you are not different from Me.

Ātmā tells buddhi that there is nothing other than me. I am asanga and so have no body or relationships. I am not a part of anything and nothing is a part of Me. There is nothing that can be called mama (mine). I have no sambandha with anything. Therefore, I have nothing to do with anything that you do. It is difficult to say this to someone and even more difficult to say this to one’s own intellect.

The intellect’s struggles are of three types: • It seeks anātmā for the sake of anātmā: This includes taking care of the body or switching on the fan. There is nothing wrong with such activities as long as we know they are for anātmā and not Me (ātmā). • It seeks anātmā for ātmā: Here ātmā says it is tṛpta (content) and doesn’t need anything from buddhi. • It performs sādhanā for the mokṣa of ātmā: Buddhi thinks it is doing sādhanās like śravaṇam, pūja, dhyānam, japa for the liberation of ātmā. Ātmā tells buddhi that it should continue to do these if it wishes but it should understand that it cannot give mokṣa to Me (ātmā). Mokṣa is My nature and is thus ever attained. Sādhanās such as śravaṇam are not to gain mokṣa but to know that I, ātmā who is Brahmam, am nitya- mukta and nothing else is needed.

This is why Vedānta is said to be śabda pramāṇa. It is jñāpakam and not kārakam; knowing is sufficient, nothing needs to be done. If Brahman were sādhana-sādhya (attained through sādhanā) it would be like any other sādhya vastu, impermanent. Since the goal of Vedānta is to know the Infinite, it cannot be sādhya. Brahman will not be attained by śravaṇam, mananam and nididhyāsanam; they tell us that the goal is a siddha vastu, it is already gained.

When Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad says that the Self should be seen/realised – it should be heard of, reflected on and meditated upon1, it does not mean that we will see or know ātmā through śravaṇam, mananam and nididhyāsanam. The objective of this statement has been explained by Bhagavān Śaṅkarācārya as being like asking someone to cut an iron rod with a sword. The objective is not to cut the iron rod but the sword itself. Similarly, when the intellect enquires into the nature of ātmā, it will know itself to be mithyā.

1 … आत्मा र्ा अिे द्रव्यः श्रोतव्यो मन्तव्यो ननदद्यामसतव्यो … - बहृ दािण्यक उपननषद - २-४-५

95 So, we can do sādhanā to attain mokṣa but it should be understood that ātmā will not gain anything from it. Ātmā is nitya-śuddha-buddha-mukta and does not need purification, knowledge or liberation. Ātmā is also nitya-trptḁ and no contentment will come to it from anātmā. In our ignorance we tie external activities with inner satisfaction, mokṣa or śuddhi of ‘I’ (ātmā). One can pursue these activities but always with the knowledge that I am already pure and content. Forgetting this is the cause of all my sorrow. If a woman thinks ‘I will be happy if my husband listens to me’, she is setting herself up for unhappiness. Her attitude should be ‘I will be happy regardless of whether or not he listens to me’. This is true whether you are a wife, husband, parent or teacher.

Ātmā tells buddhi that it is mithyā as it is dependent on ātmā for its existence (advayatvataḥ). All deliberations of the mind are vikalpa and are not needed for our happiness. The intellect is told to slow down because it constantly entertains ideas and activities in the pursuit of happiness and fulfillment.

We can undertake activities in anātmā for the sake of anātmā. Any śānti, sukham or tṛpti we get from these is for ahaṅkāra and thus fleeting. Ātmā does not and cannot derive sukham from anātmā, it is of the nature of peace, happiness and fulfillment.

In the next verse, Bhagavān Śaṅkarācārya tells us why he composed this text.

फले च हेतौ च जनो वर्ष啍र्ानननत प्रचचन्त्याहमतो वर्मोक्षिे| जनस्य संर्ादमममं प्रक्लप्तृ र्ान्स्र्셂पतत्त्र्ाथव र्बोधकाििम||् ५|| phale ca hetau ca jano viṣaktavāniti pracintyāhamato vimokṣaṇe| janasya saṁvādamimaṁ praklrptav̥ ānsvarūpatattvārthavibodhakāraṇam||5||

जनः फले च हेतौ च वर्ष啍र्ान ् – ‘people are attached to cause and effect’; इनत प्रचचन्त्य – thinking thus; अहं संर्ादमममं प्रक्लप्तृ र्ान ्– I imagined this dialogue; जनस्य स्र्셂प-तत्त्र्-अथव- वर्बोध- काििम ्– for the purpose of giving people clear knowledge of their true nature; वर्मोक्षिे – for the purpose of Liberation.

5. ‘People are attached to cause and effect’. Considering this, I imagined this dialogue (between the Self and the intellect) for the purpose of giving people clear knowledge of their true nature in order to attain Liberation.

Bhagavān Śaṅkarācārya says that people are too attached to hetu and phala, cause and effect. The world is summed up in two words hetuphalātmāka jagat, where there is cause and effect. Simply put, hetu refers to karma and phala refers to karmaphala. Our lives are spent either running after the means (karma) or some goal (karmaphala).

Seeing this he says, “I have described this for their mokṣa”. The entire teaching in fact is purely out of compassion for us. He sees our suffering and would like to help alleviate it. The

96 purpose of the text was never to gain fame or material gain. Śri Sureśvarācārya says that this is not for name/fame, material gain or pūjā1.

Other Ācāryas compose works so that other Masters may see whether they have understood the subject or not. Svabodha pariśuddhyartham brahmavit-nikasāśmasu: in the fire of knowledge of wise people, my knowledge will be tested. Errors in my thinking will be corrected. A metal’s purity is tested by putting it in fire to remove impurities; so too is the wisdom of wise people.

This dialogue between ātmā and buddhi has been imagined in order to give sincere seekers the knowledge of their own true nature.

संर्ादमेतं यदद चचन्तयेन्निो वर्मु楍यतेSज्ञानमहाभयागमात|् वर्मु啍कामश्च तथा जनः सदा चित्यशोकः सम आत्मर्त्सुखी||६|| saṁvādametaṁ yadi cintayennaro vimucyate’jñānamahābhayāgamāt| vimuktakāmaśca tathā janaḥ sadā caratyaśokaḥ sama ātmavatsukhī||6||

यदद निः – if man; एतं संर्ादम ् – this dialogue; चचन्तयेत ् – contemplates upon; वर्मु楍यत े अज्ञान-महाभय-आगमात ् – is freed from the immense fear caused by ignorance; वर्मु啍कामः – freed from desire; तथा – thereafter; जनः सदा चिनत – he ever roams about; अशोकः समः आत्मर्त-् सुखी – sorrow-less, equanimous, Self-possessed and blissful.

6. When somebody contemplates on this dialogue, he will be freed from the immense fear caused by ignorance. Thereafter, abiding in the Self, free from sorrow, equanimous and blissful, he ever roams the world free from desire.

This verse gives phalaśruti. Someone meditating on these verses will become free from the great fear that arises from ignorance. In the absence of the knowledge of our true identity, it is our insecurity that propels us into various pursuits. With the wisdom gained by this knowledge, insecurity will be eliminated.

Every morning we should tell our intellects not to bring these offerings to us, they are no longer of interest to us. As Naciketā says to Yamācārya in Kathopaniṣad, “Keep them for yourself” 2. When we no longer seek fulfillment in the world outside, knowing ourselves to be Eternal, we will be free from desire and sorrow and always equanimous.

_____

1 न ख्यानत लाभ पूजाथमव - िैष्कर्मययससध्दद: - १-६ 2 … तर्ैर् र्ाहास्तर् नत्ृ यगीत े ॥ - कठ उपननषद - १-१-२६

97 Chapter 9: Sūkṣmatā-Vyāpitā-Prakarṇam

The previous chapter, Mativilapanam Prakranam, is a dialogue between ātmā and buddhi. The mind is directly instructed as a dṛśya vastu; I, ātmā, am the draṣṭā. As part of this dialogue ātmā tells budhdi, “O buddhi you are mithyā I am satyam. Whatever projects or activities you take up to try to fulfill Me, will fail because I am nitya tṛpta. What you bring is apūrna; I am pūrna. All the proposals you bring are finite. I will never get anything out of your activities so stop bringing Me such proposals. I am asanga; nothing can touch Me. No matter what you bring, nothing is added nor lost from Me”.

This meditation on ātmā as asanga, pūrna, satya, and non-dual should tell us that we are complete and don’t need anything from outside. This is real Self-knowledge. In the fifth verse of the previous chapter, Bhagavān Śaṅkarācārya says that he composed this dialogue for people who are attached to viṣayas, karma and karmaphala. This Self-knowledge will make them free from desires and thus sorrow.

Now, this chapter is called Sūkṣmatā-Vyāpitā-Prakarṇam, because the first word of the first verse is sūkṣmatā-vyāpitā. Sūkṣmatā means subtleness and vyāpitā means pervasiveness. This chapter speaks of the subtleness and pervasiveness of ātmā. A cause is always more subtle and pervasive than its effect. Atmā is the ultimate cause so it is the most subtle and pervades all effects. This chapter gives an uncomplicated understanding of ātmā and some means to meditate on it.

सूक्ष्मताव्यावपत े ज्ञेये गन्धादे셁त्तिोत्तिम|् प्रत्यगात्मर्सानेषु पूर्पव ूर्प्रव हाितः||१|| sūkṣmatāvyāpite jneye gandhāderuttarottaram| pratyagātmavasāneṣu pūrva pūrvaprahāṇataḥ||1||

सूक्ष्मता-व्यावपते – subtleness and pervasiveness; ज्ञेये – should be known; गन्धादेः – starting from earth (earth, water, fire, air and space); उत्तिोत्तिम ् – in order (of increasing subtlety and pervasiveness); प्रत्यगात्मा-अर्सानेषु – culminating in the inner most Self; पूर्पव ूर्प्रव हाितः – by the negation of the preceding entity.

1. Starting from earth (grossest) and culminating in the innermost Self, subtleness and pervasiveness of entities should be known by the negation of the preceding entity in order (of increasing subtlety and pervasiveness).

Gandha literally means smell, but here it refers to earth, as earth alone is endowed with the quality of smell (gandhavati pṛthivī). Whenever a smell is perceived, it is the earth aspect of matter that is being perceived by our faculty of senses. Liquids, like perfume, and many gases also have the earth element which gives them their characteristic smell.

The fewer the organs of knowledge required to pereice an object, the more subtle it is. Using a mango as an example, we can see that it has all five guṇas –

98 • Śabda – a sound can be heard when the mango is tapped on • Sparśa – it’s texture can be felt • Rūpa – it has a form that can be seen • Rasa – it has a definite taste • Gandha – it has a distinct smell

Since it has all five guṇas, it is considered to be a gross object. Water on the other hand has only four of the five guṇas; it does not possess the gandha guṇa (in its uncontaminated state). Fire being subtler than water, has only three guṇas (śabda, sparśa and rūpa) while air has only śabda and sparśa. Space being the subtlest has only śabda guṇa. We know this because we can hear sound which travels through space. Thus, each element (in the following order) earth, water, fire, air and space, is subtler than the one preceding it. Kathopaniñad says ātmā is without sound, touch, form, taste and smell1. It is thus the subtlest and cannot be known through any of our sense organs.

Taittirīya-upaniñad says that it is from ātmā alone that everything has emerged; from ātmā came space, air, fire, water and earth; each element arising from the one preceding it2. Each element is the cause (kāraṇam) for the following element, which is the effect (kāryam). Since the cause is always more pervasive than the effect, kāraṇam pervades the kāryam; space, being the cause of the other four elements pervades them, while earth cannot pervade water, which is its cause. Thus, ātmā is not only the most pervasive but also the subtlest. It cannot be known through the sense organs as it does not possess any qualities which can be used to know it. So, the fewer the attributes (guṇas), the more pervasive the object. Since ātmā is subtler and more pervasive than everything (being the ultimate cause), all effects can be merged into it; everything finally merges into ātmā – earth merges into water, water into fire, fire into air, air into space and finally space into ātmā.

Why would anyone need to know this? This is where sādhanā comes in. In its grossest form everything we experience (as names and forms) is nothing but pṛthivī. My sādhanā should be to shift my attention from the gross form to its cause. So, from earth to water to fire to air to space and then to the Existence aspect, which is none other than my inner Self. Having disregarded the name and form3, one should be able to see Sat (Existence) there, regardless of what the object is4. To be able to do this we must have vairāgya towards the world of objects. Since all objects in their name and form are so dear to us, without vairāgya we will not be able to see them as Existence devoid of name and form. That Existence I am.

Knowing vyāpakatva enables me to understand that I am everywhere and therefore I need not be insecure. Insecurity express in many ways – as jealousy, anger, fear etc. All of them only serve to give me sorrow. Being the subtlest, I pervade everything – there is nothing that can

1 अशब्दमस्पशवम셂पमव्ययं । तथाऽिसं ननत्यमगन्धर्楍च यत ् ... - कठ उपननषद् - १-३-१५ 2 … तस्माद्वा एतस्मादात्मन आकाशः संभूतः । आकाशाद्वायुः । र्ायोिग्ग्ननः । अग्ननेिापः । अद्भ्यः पचृ थर्ी … - तैवत्तिीय उपननषद - २-३ 3 उपेक्ष्य नाम셂पे … - 饃ग्न饃श्यवर्र्ेकः - २२ 4 … यग्स्मन ् कग्स्मंश्च र्स्तुनन … - 饃ग्न饃श्यवर्र्ेकः - २७

99 exist without Me. I am everywhere, without moving, I travel faster than the mind1. I am also in all, as all; seated in the hearts of all2, even in those who dislike Me. This Knowledge gives us the ability to calm the agitations of the mind by addressing the very finitude that is at the root of it all. To enable the above to take effect, one has to sit down and think deeply on what has been explained.

From the highest standpoint, the Truth is that I, the Self, am changeless – kūṭasthaḥ. Without undergoing any change, all effects are produced by Me; I am the cause of the entire universe. If I undergo any modification, I too would be subject to destruction, vināśi.

शािीिा पचृ थर्ी तार्ार्ाा प्रमाितः| अम्ब्र्ादीनी च तत्त्र्ानन तार्煍ज्ञेयानन कृ त्स्नशः||२||

śarīrā pṛthivī tāvadyāvadbāhyā pramāṇataḥ| ambvādīnī ca tattvāni tāvajjneyāni kṛtsnaśaḥ||2||

शािीिा – related to the physical bodies; पचृ थर्ी – gross aspect; तार्द् – that much; यार्द् – as much; बाा – external; प्रमाितः - in size and proportion; अम्ब्र्ादीनी च तत्त्र्ानन – also water and other elements; तार्द् ज्ञेयानन कृ त्स्नशः – also should be known in entirety. 2. It should be known thoroughly that the elements related to all physical bodies are identical in size and proportion, to the elements that make the external world.

Our physical body is made up of the same elements that make up the external world. In fact, they occur in the same proportion. For example water covers approximately 75% of the Earth’s surface; the body is also approximately 75% water. This is true for the other elements as well. The nature of the elements is also the same both inside and outside the physical body. For instance, the element earth has five guṇas inside and outside the body. Thus, the elements are similar in their sūkṣmatā and vyāpitā, both inside and outside.

When the weather is very hot, the earth dries up and cracks appear in the ground. Similarly, when our skin loses its moisture, cracks appear in it. When objects outside catch fire and burn down, only ashes remain; this will be the fate of our body when it is burnt. These examples prove the similarity between the elements that constitute the outside world and this body – there is no difference between them.

The gross body is not the effect or product of the five elements but the very elements themselves; pañcikṛta pañca-mahābhūtaihkṛtam means it is pañcamahābhūta itself. Tattva Bodha says, “That which is born from the essence of food, grows by the essence of food and merges into the earth, which is the nature of food is called annamaya kośaḥ (the food sheath)”3. The purpose of this verse is to tell me to let go of the effects and shift my attention

1 अनेजदेकं मनसो जर्ीय: - ईशार्ास्य उपननषद् - ४ 2 सर्वस्य चाहं दद सग्न्नवर्ो - भगर्द् गीता - १५-१५ 3 अन्निसेनैर् भूत्र्ा अन्निसेनैर् र्वृ ं प्राप्य अन्न셂पपचृ थव्या ं यदद्वलीयते तदन्नमयः कोशः … - तत्त्र् बोध - ७-१

100 to the cause; I am ātmā and not annamaya kośaḥ. Everyone else is also Sat svarūpa, Caitanya svarūpa ātmā.

Some commentators explain that all observed differences– adhibhūta, adhidaiva and adhyātm, are solely due to ignorance (ajñānyena vijṛmbhitattvāt). In reality, they are none other than the one Consciousness, which expresses in a variety of ways. Not knowing this Truth, I give reality to the variety of objects observed in the world outside. Therefore, on understanding myself to be the cause which pervades all, my attention shifts from name and form to ātmā (Existence/Consciousness).

र्य्र्ादीनां यथोत्पत्तेः पूर् ं खं-सर्वगं तथा| अहमेकः सदा सर्वग्श्चन्मात्रः सर्वगोऽद्वयः||३|| vayvādīnām yathotpatteḥ pūrvam kham-sarvagam tathā| ahamekaḥ sadā sarvaścenmātraḥ sarvagoऽdvayaḥ||3||

यथा – just as; र्य्र्ादीनाम ् उत्पत्तेः पूर्मव ्– prior to the creation of air, etc; खं-सर्गव म ् – space is all-pervading; तथा – so too; अहम ् सदा – I am always; एकः सर्वः चचन्मात्रः सर्वगः अद्वयः – the one, non-dual, all-pervading pure Consciousness.

3. Prior to the creation of air and the other elements, space alone existed and pervaded everything. Similarly, I am the One, non-dual, all-pervading pure Consciousness, which is all.

By comparing our true nature to space, a technique of meditation has been indicated here. There is however one important difference; I am Caitanya svarūpa (Cinmātra), while space is inert (jaḍa). The similarities between the two are:

• All-pervading space alone is present prior to the creation of air, fire, water and earth and is also present in all elements. I, the Self, which is pure Consciousness, am present everywhere at all times. There is nothing other than Me.

• Just as space is one, and in it, none of the elements have an independent existence, so too in Me, even space has no independent existence. I was present even before the creation of space; Chāndogya-upaniṣad says that from Truth alone everything came, ātmā (Existence) was there before creation1.

If variety exists how can ātmā be non-dual? Creation is only a superimposition on the Truth (āropitam) like the ‘pot’ name and form is superimposed on clay. With superimposition the real entity doesn’t change. You can have a pot, plate and vase made of clay – these are all only names and forms. There is only one entity – clay. Superimpositions do not touch the substratum. A pot cannot touch clay since there is no real entity called pot – it is simply a name and form. So too this creation and all its changes do not touch Existence.

1 सदेर् सोम्येदमर आसीदेकमेर्ादद्वतीयम ् … - छांदोग्नय उपननषद - ६-२-१

101 These are subtle ideas which we must dwell on. To understand that all names and forms are only superimpositions on Existnce requires a highly prepared mind. To increase our qualifications and become uttama adhikārīs will require constant effort. If Bhagavān did not think this was required, he would not have composed this text. We need to think about whether we are ready to take up this cintanam. It will get us from aprokṣa jñānam to dṛdha aprokṣa jñānam. We have to do this for Liberation.

There is an alternate reading for the second line of the verse ‘Aham ekaḥ sada sarvaḥ cinmātraḥ sarvagaḥ advayaḥ’; where sarvaḥ is replaced by śuddhaḥ (pure). This would thus read, ‘I am ever pure’; nothing can contaminate Me. Even though the entire universe has emerged from ātmā, ātmā continues to remain nitya śuddhaḥ. It is unaffecred by all the objects we observe as they are nothing but names and forms superimposed on I.

Consider the example of gold and a gold ornament – they are one in essence. The presence of the ornament does not affect the existence of gold; whatever form the ornament is in. Modifications including the destruction of the ornament will not affect the existence of gold. Similarly, Existence is never affected by any modifications including the destruction of what is superimposed on It. Even at the time of dissolution when everything becomes unmanifest, the very dissolution ground into which everything merges is this Existence. That I am.

Knowing myself to be this Existence, I should not be affected by what happens around me. Īśāvāsya-upaniṣad speaks of Reality as all-pervading, bright, bodiless, scathless, without muscles, pure, untouched by pairs of opposites such as merit and sins, dharma and adharma, kārya and kāraṇa1. Thus, the word śuddhaḥ refers to Existence while Cinmātraḥ refers to Consciousness. That Existence I am.

ब्रााः स्थार्िान्ता ये प्राणिनो मम पूः स्मतृ ाः| कामिोधादयो दोषा जायेिन्मे कु तोऽन्यतः||४|| brahmādyāḥ sthāvarāntā ye prāṇino mama pūḥ smṛtāḥ| kāmkrodhādayo doṣā jāyeranme kutoऽnyataḥ||4||

ब्रााः स्थार्िान्ताः – beginning from Brahmāji down to the immovable creation; ये प्राणिनो पूः – the bodies of all beings; मम स्मतृ ाः – are considered to be Mine; कामिोधादयो दोषाः – defects such as desire, anger etc; जायेिन ् मे – come to me; कु तः – from where; अन्यतः – because none are apart from me.

4. The bodies of all beings, starting with Brahmāji down to immovable creation, are considered to be My bodies. Where can defects such as desire, anger and so on come to from? (They cannot) because none are apart from Me.

I express in all creation starting from Brahmāji extending to the grossest objects. Their bodies are My body. Will the problems of these bodies, like anger or desire or a backache become

1 स पयावग楍छु िकायमव्रिस्नावर्िं शुमपापवर्म ् - ईशार्ास्य उपननषद् - ८

102 My problems? No, I am asanga and so untouched by all their defects. If the dharmī is adhyasta (superimposed) all its dharmas will also be adhyasta; if Brahmāji’s body itself is a superimposition on Me, then all Brahmāji’s qualities and defects are also mere superimpositions on Me.

These are not easy ideas to absorb, we need to reflect on them. We get so carried away by our own minds that we have no time to think of anyone else’s problems, let alone those of all creation! We have to know that these bodies and their problems are superimpositions on the non-dual ātmā. They come and go and nothing happens, nothing can happen. This is Liberation. It is a clear understanding that I, ātmā, am already Liberated.

Even if all bodies are My bodies, I am śarirī (the owner of the body) while they are śarira (body). Kathopaniṣad says, I am, “The One without a body in all bodies, the One changeless in all that is changing”1. Therefore, none of them touch me. While they are all subject to destruction, I am not. In the Bhagavad-gītā, the Lord says, “I am the Indestructible in all that is subject to destruction”2; since these all have a beginning and an end, I am nitya3, anāśi (avināśi), aprameya (never become an object of cognition). Liberation is in this understanding.

Kuto me anyatarah – how are they different from Me? Being superimpositions, they are not different from Me, nor are they one with Me; since they have a different degree of reality, they can exist without affecting Me in any way. Thus, no creation, dissolution or any modifications can contaminate Me – unassociated with these (asanga), I remain ever pure.

If I understand that all bodies belong to Me; there is nothing besides Me, then I will have no rāga/dveṣa for anything and thus no kāma, krodha etc. either. I am non-dual, Caitanya svarūpa, asanga and free from all doṣas4. Asangatva is elaborated on in the next verse.

भूतदोषैः सदाऽस्पष्ृ टं सर्भव ूतस्थमीश्र्िाम|् नीलं व्योम यथा बालो दु ं मां र्ीक्षते जनः||५|| bhūtadoṣaiḥ sadā’spṛṣṭam sarvabhūtasthamīśvaram| nīlam vyoma yathā bālo duṣṭam mām vīkṣte janaḥ||5||

जनः मां दु ं र्ीक्षते – people look upon (consider) Me as affected; भूतदोषैः – by the defects of jīvas/elements; यथा बालः – like a child (erroneously); नीलं व्योम – looks upon the sky to be blue; सदा-अस्पृ ं – always untouched; सर्व-भूतस्थम-् ईश्विाम ्- The Lord residing in all beings.

5. People erroneously consider Me, who am the Lord residing in all beings and always untouched, to be affected by the defects of the jīvas and their constituent elements, just as a child considers the sky to be blue.

1 अशिीिँ शिीिेष्र्नर्स्थेष्र्र्ग्स्थतम ्… - कठ उपननषद - १-२-२२ 2 वििश्यत्स्िवििश्यन्तं - भगर्द् गीता - १३-२८ 3 अन्तर्न्त इमे देहा ननत्यस्यो啍ा: शिीरिि: … - भगर्द् गीता - २-१८ 4 … ननदोषं दह समं ब्र … - भगर्द् गीता - ५-१९

103 I, ātmā, remain ever untouched by the defects of the five elements as well as those of the jīvas composed of these five elements. I am the one present in all bodies1 (sarvapura-sthāyī) and the Lord of all bodies (sarvapurasvāmin). Here ‘bodies’ includes the gross, subtle and causal bodies; the modifications or defects of the three bodies do not affect Caitanya. Disease at the physical level, mental turmoil at the subtle level and vāsanās at the causal level do not affect Me. Ajñāna which is the cause of all problems is also accommodated in Caitanya which reamins untouched by it.

Just as people with immature intellects think that the sky is blue, most people believe Caitanya to be affected – dūṣṭa2. People think I (Caitanya) am affected by the doṣas of all that appears in Me, but in fact I am always free from all defects. Just as space is not affected by the air it supports, the cause is not affected by the effect3; if it was affected by anything, then to regain ātmā would be impossible. This is called nitya-śuddhatva.

Upadeśa Sāhasrī is an excellent text for meditation. It has been composed by Bhagavān for those seekers who have already done enough basic śravaṇam and intense mananam and now want to dwell on the nature of ātmā as indicated in the Upaniṣads.

म楍चैतन्यार्भास्यत्र्ात्सर्वप्राणिचधयां सदा| पूममव प्राणिनः सर्े सर्वज्ञस्य वर्पाप्मनः||६|| maccaitanyāvabhāsyatvātsarvaprāṇidhiyām sadā| pūrmama prāṇinaḥ sarve sarvajnasya vipāpmanaḥ||6||

सर्व-प्राणि-चधयाम ् – intellects of all beings; मत-् चैतन्य-अर्भास्यत्र्ात ् – are illumined by Me (Consciousness); सर्े प्राणिनः पूः – bodies of all beings; मम सर्वज्ञस्य सदा वर्पाप्मनः – belong to Me, who am all-knowing and always free of sins.

6. Because the intellects of all beings are illumed by Me (Consciousness), the bodies of all beings belong to Me who am all-knowing and ever free of sins.

Caitanya/ātmā is sarvajña and avabhāsya. Everything is illumined and I am the illuminator. The intellects of all beings are illumined by Me, sākṣī (Caitanya), so all knowledge belongs to Me. ātmā is identified with the intellect of all and is the illuminator of all4. In Vivekacūḍamaṇi, after explaining the vijñānamaya kośa, Bhagavān Śaṅkarācārya refers to ātmā as vijñānamaya.

I don’t do anything but any knowledge gained by any intellect is attributed to Me. All action is attributed to Me. But I don’t do anything - ‘dhyāyati iva lelāyati iva’5. Dhyāyati and lelāyati indicate jñāna and karma sambandha respectively. Everything falls within these two categories

1 अशिीिँ शिीिेषु … - कठ उपननषद - १-२-२२ क्षेत्रज्ञं चावप मां वर्व सर्क्षव ेत्रेष ु - भगर्द् गीता - १३-३ 2 dūṣta refers to that which is affected adversely by an external factor 3 उमा िाम त्रबषइक अस मोहा। नभ तम धूम धूरि ग्जमम सोहा॥ – िामचरितमानस - १-११६-४ 4 …योऽयं वर्ज्ञानमयः प्रािेषु न्त煍योनतः पु셁षः… - बहृ दािण्यक उपननषद - ४-३-७ 5 … ्यायतीर् लेलायतीर्… - बहृ दािण्यक उपननषद - ४-३-७

104 and neither is in Me. I am not a pramātā nor am I a kartā/bhoktā. These are all attributed to Me.

All the bodies of all individuals are My bodies, and they are all illumined by Me; I am jyoti- svarūpa. They have borrowed intelligence; Mine is independent. Therefore, I am sarvajña. Sarvajñatva refers to ātmā’s role as the illuminator and not the pramātā of all. In Caitanya’s absence no knowledge is possible.

‘Vipāpmā’ is the one who is free from pāpa (sin)1. Connecting to the previous verse, ‘vipāpmanaḥ’ translates as belonging to the one residing in all2; I (Caitanya), am also the inner controller of all: antaryāmi. I express in all bodies, all elements and control them from within.

The Antaryāmi Brāhmaṇa of Bṛhadāranyaka-upaniṣad says that ātmā is the inner controller of all3. From within space, it controls space; from air, it controls air; from fire, it controls fire; from fire, it controls earth. That I am. Controllership should be understood as Existence; everything exists because of My presence. A cotton shirt exists because of cotton. Only when this is my understanding will I know that I am the inner controller and in-dweller of all. Pervading the cause within, I am sūkṣma and vyāpi.

The non-duality of ātmā is the subject of the next three verses. Bhagavān Śaṅkarācārya classifies all of creation as viṣaya, viṣaya jñānam and nirviṣaya jñānam (śuddha Caitanya). Viṣaya and viṣaya jñānam will be shown to be mithyā. Since nirviṣaya jñānam is uncontradicted at all times, it alone is satyam. By definition that which can be contradicted (bādhita) is mithyā and that which is never contradicted (abādhita) is satyam. Anything available in the waking or dream states that is not available in deep sleep is contradicted. In the waking state we have viṣayas and viṣaya jñānam; in the dream state there are subtle viṣayas and their viṣaya jñānam. None of these exist in deep sleep. So viṣaya and viṣaya jñānam are both mithyā. Bhagavān elaborates on this using Upaniṣad mantras.

जननम煍ज्ञानवर्ज्ञेयं स्र्प्नज्ञानर्ददष्यते| ननत्यं ननवर्वषयं ज्ञानं तस्माद् द्वैतं न वर्ते||७|| janimajjnānavijneyam svapnajnānavadiṣyate| nityam nirviṣayam jnānam tasmād dvaitam na vidyate|7||

जननमत-् ज्ञान-वर्ज्ञेयम ् – knowledge that is born and becomes known (to the Knowing Principle); स्र्प्नज्ञानर्त-् ईष्यते – is considered to be like dream knowledge (unreal); ननत्यं ननवर्वषयं ज्ञानम ् – The Knowing Principle is eternal and free of all qualifiers; तस्माद् द्वैतं न वर्ते – therefore there is no duality.

1 वर्गतम ् पापम ् यस्मात ्सः वर्पाप्म, तस्य वर्पाप्मनः 2 … सर्भव ूतस्थम ... - उपदेश साहस्त्री - ९-५ 3 … यस्य सर्ावणि भतु ानन शिीिम,् यः सर्ावणि भूतान्यन्तिो यमयनत, एष त आत्मान्तयावम्यमतृ ः … - बहृ दािण्यक उपननषद - ३- ७-१५

105 7. Knowledge that is born and becomes known (to the Knowing Principle) is considered to be unreal like dream knowledge. However, the Knowing Principle is eternal and free of all qualifiers, therefore there is no duality.

Only Caitanya/ātmā exists; there is no duality. This will be established in this verse.

‘Janimat’ is that which is born or produced. All knowledge takes place in the intellect in the form of thoughts and is janimat jñānam. The knowledge of an object (vijñeya) arises when we see it and goes away when the object is no longer present. This knowledge that comes and goes is likened to a dream that comes and then goes; it is contradicted. What exists in the waking world is unavailable in the dream world and vice versa.

Another way of looking at this is to consider that an effect always depends on a cause. All knowledge in the intellect (vṛtti jñānam) depend on sākṣī/kūṭastha. Vṛtti jñānam can only take place in the presence of cidābhāsa. Objects, which are inert, are illumined by vṛttis, which are also inert, by borrowing Consciousness from kūṭastha ātmā.

We saw earlier that all that is inert is illusory: yad jaḍam tad mithyā. Jaḍa vastu is asat as it gets contradicted at another time. That which is always uncontradicted is also seen to be of the nature of Cit (Consciousness); Sat and Cit always go together. What is acit is asat. So viṣayas and viṣaya jñānam are asat.

Only that jñānam which is unrelated to all viṣayas; nirviśeṣa and kūṭastha, remains uncontradicted and can be said to be eternal. Unlike viṣayas and viṣaya jñānam, kūṭastha ātmā is not contradicted even in deep sleep. Therefore, ātmā alone is satyam; everything else is mithyā. There is no duality. When all duality is destroyed, ātmā alone remains; be it in deep sleep or at pralaya (total dissolution of all creation). Since duality is only a superimposition in advaitam, which is Absolute Reality, advitīyatva of ātmā is ever intact.

A seeker may ask how it is possible to prove that ātmā exists even in the state of deep sleep. This is a valid question as all schools of thought (darśana) have not reached this conclusion. If ātmā was not present in deep sleep, it too could be contradicted. The next verse addresses this question and affirms that ātmā is indeed nitya.

ज्ञातुज्ञावनतदह व ननत्यो啍ा सुषप्तु े त्र्न्यशून्यतः| जार煍ज्ञानतस्त्र्वर्ातस्तद्रां चासददष्यताम||् ८|| jnāturjnānirhi nityoktā suṣupte tvanyaśūnyataḥ| jāgrajjnātistvavidyātastadgrāhyam cāsadiṣyatām||8||

ज्ञातुः ज्ञानतः दह - indeed knowledge of the Knower; ननत्य उ啍ा – is said to be eternal; तु अन्य-शून्यतः – because nothing other than (the Knower is seen to be present); सुषुप्ते – in deep sleep; तु जारत-् ज्ञानतः च तद्-रां – but the knowledge of the waking state along with that which is known in waking; अवर्ातः – due to ignorance; असद्-इष्यताम ् – also is considered to be unreal.

106 8. Indeed, the knowledge of the Knower is said to be eternal as it continues even in deep sleep. On the other hand, the knowledge of the waking state along with all that is perceived during waking is due to ignorance and is therefore considered unreal.

The knowledge of the Knower is eternal. Bṛhadāranyaka-upaniṣad says that ātmā’s Consciousness nature never disappears; it is aviparilupta Caitanya and is present even in deep sleep1. And there is no other Caitanya. It is not the case that one Consciousness has gone to sleep and another is watching and then the second Consciousness goes to sleep and a third is watching. There is only one Consciousness and it is eternal and svayam jñāna-svarūpa.

I know ātmā is present in deep sleep because when I wake up I recognise that there was a state called deep sleep, different from waking and dream. This recognition is only possible if I (ātmā) was present to illumine the state. If this were not the case, we would only accept two states: waking and dream.

It is because of the presene of Caitanya in suṣupti that I can not only recall my presence in that state, but also the absence of everything else (anyaśūnyatvaḥ). Since no objects were available, their jñānam was absent. What remains is Consciousness alone, which is always present. Swami Chinmayananda used to refer to this as ‘objectless awareness’: awareness without the presence of any objects; J Krishnamurthy called it ‘choiceless awareness’. It is said to be ‘choiceless’ awareness because - I am That.

Since there is only one Caitanya, this one Consciousness is eternal and svayam jñāna-svarūpa. All knowledge of the waking state is called avidyataḥ (because of avidyā) and should thus be understood to be avidyā only; all our knowledge of objects in the waking state is only a different form of ignorance. Thus, according to Vedānta, all knowledge other than the knowledge of ātmā (parā vidyā) is considered to be ignorance as it does not lead us out of saṁsāra. In the case of worldly knowledge (aparā vidyā), before we gained that knowledge, we had the notion ‘aham paricchinnoऽsmi’ (I am finite/conditioned) which did not go away once we got that worldly knowledge. All the objective knowledge gained in waking and dream is avidyā. It is because of the non-apprehension of the Truth that there is misapprehension in waking and dream. Instead of seeing clay if I see only the pot, that is misapprehension. Instead of seeing Brahman if I only see only pañcamahābhūtas or nāma/rūpa, this is avidyā. As viṣaya and viṣaya jñānam have both been understood to be mithyā, only nirviṣaya jñānam remains as Sat. This being the One reality, which is advaitam; this non-dual Reality I am.

A pūrvapakṣa is raised: if all objective knowledge gained in the waking state is mithyā, wouldn’t the knowledge of ātmā be mithyā as well?. A Bṛhadaranyaka Upaniṣad mantra says that ātmā should be seen/realised – heard of, reflected on and meditated upon2. So, ātmā becomes an object of darśana-kriyā, śravaṇa-kriyā, etc. Therefore, ātmā also has to be mithyā.

1 … न दह द्रु 饃वेवर्वपरिलोपो वर्तेऽवर्नामशत्र्ान ् … - बहृ दािण्यक उपननषद - ४-३-२३ 2 … आत्मा र्ा अिे द्रव्यः श्रोतव्यो मन्तव्यो ननदद्यामसतव्यो … - बहृ दािण्यक उपननषद - २-४-५

107 The Vedāntin replies that this is not the case. Kathopaniṣad says that ātmā never becomes an object of knowledge1. The Śruti vākya ‘ātmā vā are draṣṭavyaḥ’ should not be understood as darśanam in the literal, physical act of seeing an object. Muṇḍaka-upaniṣad clarifies this further by saying that ātmā is not known by the eyes, ears, etc., or by any other means2. Atmā is known only as aparokṣa jñānam (immediate knowledge), gained through Vedānta pramāṇa. Ātmā is always the subject and never becomes karma viṣaya (object of action) or jñāna viṣaya (object of knowledge). This is explained further by Bhagavān with another quotation in the following verse.

셂पर्त्त्र्ासत्त्र्ान्न 饃ष्ट्यादेःकमवता यथा| एर्ं वर्ज्ञानकमवत्र्ं भूम्नो नास्तीनत गम्यते||९|| rūpavattvādyasattvanna dṛṣṭyādeḥ karmatā yathā| evam vijnānkarmatvam bhūmno nāstīti gamyate||9||

यथा – just as; 셂पर्त्त्र्ादद असत्त्र्ात ् – because it is devoid of all qualities such as form, etc.; न 饃ष्ट्यादेःकमवता – cannot be made an object of action; इनत गम्यते – is understood; एर्ं वर्ज्ञानकमत्व र्म ् भूम्नःनाग्स्त – similarly, objectification of Bhūmnaḥ (the Infinite) is not possible.

9. Just as that which is devoid of all qualities such as forms, etc. cannot be made an object of action, so too the objectification of Bhūmnaḥ (the Infinite) is not possible.

There are no guṇas such as rūpa, rasa, etc. in ātmā and so it does not become a karma viṣaya or jñāna viṣaya. How is ātmā known then? Ātmā is Caitanya svarūpa. All our efforts are to know what is jaḍa; not what is Caitanya. Our struggle is to remove the anātmā that we have erroneously included in ātmā, specifically pañcakośas and cidābhāsa. Ātmā jñānam is svayam prakāśa and aparokśa; nothing needs to be done to gain it. Ātmā never becomes a viṣaya. Ātmā jñānam is never viṣaya jñānam. Therefore, ātmā is always advaya and satya.

The word bhūmnaḥ used in this verse is a reference to a mantra from Chāndogya-upaniṣad which says that the Infinite is where one does not see the other, hear the other, know the other3. This is often misunderstood to mean that ātmatva is where there is no perception (through the senses) or recognition of anything else. What this actually means is that I only see Myself everywhere, and nothing else. What the Upaniṣad is saying is that you don’t have to look for anything outside, just know yourself. Since my attention is turned outward, I am told to eliminate everything and pay attention to what remains. The resulting knowledge is not in the conventional sense of knowing, the way one knows an object. In the absence of all cognition, infinite Brahman is recognised without itself becoming an object of knowledge. Only you exist, nothing else. This is Infinitude.

1 अशब्दमस्पशवम셂पमव्ययं तथाऽिसं ननत्यमगन्धर्楍च यत ् ... - कठ उपननषद - १-३-१५ 2 न चक्षुषा गृ ते नावप र्ाचा । नान्यैदेर्ैस्तपसा कमवि र्ा … - मुण्िक उपननषद - ३-१-८ 3 … यत्र नान्यत्पश्यनत नान्य楍छृ िोनत नान्यदद्वजानानत स भूमा … - छांदोग्नय उपननषद - ७-२४-१

108 The purpose of this verse is to eliminate any doubt in the seeker’s mind as to whether ātmā persists when otherness is eliminated. Ātmā is ever-present, and is non-dual, where nothing else is present. In this way, advitīyatva of ātmā is established.

_____

109 Chapter 10: Dṛśisvarūpa Paramārthadarśana Prakaraṇam

A sādhaka constantly faces a challenge in his sādhanā. He has learned that he is infinite Brahman but his experience is that he is finite and limited; he has learned that he is Caitanya but continues to thinks himself to be the body (jaḍa). When he suffers mental or physical pain, he thinks he is a bhoktā and not abhoktā Caitanya. He accepts the Knowledge but doesn’t think it has made any difference to his life; it has not helped him solve his problems.

This problem has been understood and addressed by the śāstras. We have understood the teaching intellectually. We are unable to claim this Knowledge as our own because we have viparīta bhāvanā. We think we are aśuddham (impure); or that we are the body (jaḍa) not Caitanya svarūpa; or we think we are a combination of jaḍa, Caitanya and ahaṅkāra who has fear, grief, jealousy, etc. To remove these and other viparīta bhāvanās, the śāstras tell us to constantly reflect on the teaching with a calm mind. This is called meditation.

This chapter Dṛśisvarūpa Paramārtha Darśana Prakaraṇam is on meditation, nididhyāsana. The sādhaka who has done enough śravaṇam should now dwell on aham pada lakṣyārtha not vācyārtha; to shift his attention to what is really meant by the indicators given. We should remember who we really are so that we can see the result of the Knowledge in our lives. We feel that we know the Truth but when sorrow comes, we are doubly miserable; once because of the situation, and then because we think Vedānta has not worked for us.

Such verses for meditation are found in every text so that we can soak our minds in the teaching. We should not, however, be impatient for the result; it will come in due course. We need to keep providing the right knowledge to the intellect and ensure correct thinking. A gardener only plants something, provides water and fertiliser. Fruits will come when the time is right.

If we do nididhyāsanam regularly, we will see results at the time of a crisis. We exercise to prevent sickness. If we do get sick it helps us to recover. We should do nididhyāsanam on whatever disturbs us the most. If our relatives give us duḥkham, we should remind ourselves that we (as ātmā) are asaṅga; we have no relatives. At the vyavahārika level, we will have to deal with the situation but we can do it with the understanding that it is not Me. We have to separate ourselves in this way. If we fear death or old age, we must remind ourselves we are ageless and deathless. The body will age and die but I, as sākṣī, remain changeless.

饃मशस्र्셂पं गगनोपमं पिं सकृ दद्वभातं त्र्जमेकमक्षिम|् अलेपकं सर्वगतं यदद्वयं तदेर् चाहं सततं वर्मु啍 ॐ||१|| dr̥śisvarūpaṁ gaganopamaṁ paraṁ sakrdvibh̥ ātaṁ tvajamekamakṣaram| alepakaṁ sarvagataṁ yadadvayaṁ tadeva cāhaṁ satataṁ vimukta oṁ||1||

饃मश-स्र्셂पम ् – of the nature of seer (of the nature of Absolute Reality); यद् गगन-उपमम ् – just like space; पिम ् – Supreme (above all ); सकृ द्-वर्भातं – shine only once (continuously

110 shine); तु अजम-् एकम-् अक्षिम ् – indeed unborn, One without a second and imperishable; अलेपकम ् – unaffected/untainted; च सर्गव तम ् – and all pervasive; तदेर् – that alone; अहम ् – I (am); सततम ् – at all times; वर्मु啍 – ever free. ॐ – Yes (Indeed I am that).

1. I am of the nature of the Seer, the Supreme Brahman. I shine continuously and am indeed birthless, and one without a second. I am unaffected, all-pervading and non-dual like space. I am therefore ever free.

The seer (dṛg) is of the nature of Absolute Reality and thus the chapter is called Paramārtha Darśana. The word aham refers to ‘I’. Since this is a chapter on meditation, it should be understood as lakṣyārtha; aham devoid of the gross, subtle, causal bodies and cidābhāsa. Viparīta bhāvanā is my inability to think of myself as lakṣyārtha aham; I always take myself to be vācyārtha aham. We need to be clear about when to use the direct meaning and when to use the implied meaning so that there is no confusion.

This verse gives us numerous pointers to reflect on for meditation to remove viparīta bhāvanā. I am: • Draṣṭā: The illuminator. A draṣṭā never becomes dṛśya (the object of knowledge). • Gaganopamam: As pure Consciousness, I pervade and accommodate all; like space • Param: Supreme, above all. In Kathopniṣad, the word param is defined as that which is of greater subtlety, pervasiveness and most immediate1. As Consciousness, I am the subtlest, most pervasive and innermost. • Sakṛt vibhātam: The literal translation is, that which shines only once. What is meant is that I am ever of the nature of illumination. Consciousness shines continuously, not intermittently; I am not kṣaṇika vijñāna; unlike ahaṅkāra that is present in waking and dream but not in deep sleep, Consciousness does not have an aarrival or a departure2 and is constantly present in all three states. • Ajam: Birthless. As pure Consciousness I have neither birth nor death. These belong to the physical body. • Ekam: One without a second. Just as one fire appears in many forms3, ātmā is one, but appears as many because of the variety in conditionings. • Akṣaram: Imperishable. As pure Consciousness I am never destroyed. • Alepakam: Unaffected (nirlipta). Ātmā is not affected by the problems of the physical body, mind, sense organs, prāṇas or any external factors4. In the Bhagavad-gītā, Bhagavān Kṛṣṇa says that even a true karma yogi remains unaffected by karma or phala, like the lotus leaf that never gets wet when there are water droplets on it5. The defects of the mind, like rāga, dveṣa, etc., will not and cannot affect Me.

1 … पिमं पदम ् ॥ कठ उपननषद - १-३-९ 2 िोदेनत िा्तमेनत … - 饃ग्न饃श्यवर्र्ेकः - ५ 3 अग्ग्ननयवथैको …’ कठ उपननषद - - २-५-९ 4 सूयो यथा सर्वलोकस्य चक्षुः न मलप्यते चाक्षुषैबावदोषैः । एकस्तथा सर्भव ूतान्तिात्मा न मलप्यते लोकदःु खेन बाः ॥ - कठ उपननषद - २-५-११ 5 ब्रण्याधाय कमावणि स敍गं त्यक्त्र्ा किोनत य: | मलप्यते न स पापेन पपत्रममर्ाम्भसा || - भगर्द् गीता - ५-१०

111 • Sarvagam: All-pervading. • Advayam: Non-dual (The non-duality of ātmā was established in Chapter 9).

Understanding these to be our nature, we must recognise that we were, we are and will always be free. The word Om here indicates that the student has understood the Teacher’s words and says, “Yes (Indeed I am that)”.

The purpose of these pointers is to remove viparīta bhāvanā. Different people can have different viparīta bhāvanās and our meditation should be aimed at removing our particular viparīta bhāvanās. For instance, many fear death - theirs and that of their loved ones, who are source of their sukham. The word ekam should remind us that there is no other. Ajam should remind us that as Consciousness there is no birth or death; either for us, or for our loved ones. If we are envious of others, our meditation should be on our oneness with everyone as I (Caitanya) am the upādāna kāraṇa of all.

There is a gap between my understanding of myself and the wisdom of the Upaniṣads, which meditation will bridge. Meditation is not to experience ātmā, which cannot be experienced, or to gain knowledge that I don’t have. It is to remove viparīta bhāvanā.

饃मशस्त ु शुद्धोSहमवर्ग्क्त्रयात्मको न मेSग्स्त कग्श्चद्वर्षयः स्र्भार्तः| पुिग्स्तिस्चो्र्मव धश्च सर्वतः संपूिभव ूमा त्र्ज आत्मनन ग्स्थतः||२|| dr̥śistu śuddho'hamaviktriyātmako na me'sti kaścidviṣayaḥ svabhāvataḥ| purastirascordhvamadhaśca sarvataḥ saṁpūrṇabhūmā tvaja ātmani sthitaḥ||2||

饃मशस्त ु - indeed the Seer; अहम ् – I am; शुद्धः – pure (devoid of ignorance); अवर्ग्क्त्रयात्मको – devoid of all changes; मे स्र्भार्तः – essentially in Me; न अग्स्त कग्श्चदद्वषयः – there are no objects; पुिः-नतिः-च-उ्र्वम-् अधः-च सर्वतः – in front, around, above and below, i.e. everywhere; संपूि-व भूमा – the Infinite; आत्मनन ग्स्थतः – resting in Myself; तु – indeed; अजः – unborn.

2. Pure and changeless (without attributes) Consciousness I am, which is of the nature of the Seer. I am devoid of any objects to illumine. Unborn and established in the Self, I am the all-pervading Brahman, present in every direction.

While the first verse removed the idea of association of ātmā with problems of the sthūla and sūkṣma śarīras, this verse removes the notion of association with the problems of the kāraṇa śarīra. The Seer (ātmā) is ever pure, śuddha. Here, śuddha is used to indicate that where ignorance and all problems related to the kāraṇa śarīra are absent. I (ātmā) have no ignorance and nor was I ever ignorant; ignorance cannot disturb ātmā/Caitanya. Impurities in ‘I’ are only ābhāsa; they appear to be present but do not really exist in ‘I’. Impurities result in vikāra (modification), but since no impurity can exist in Me, I am ever changeless (nirvikāra).

Being non-dual, no viṣaya can exist in Me. The very notion of duality - I am the subject and there is an object, is not possible as there is nothing but I alone: in the front, above, below,

112 or behind; thus there is no possibility of anything else. We should remember that in Advaita Vedānta, when it is said ‘I am advayaḥ (or advitīya)’, this is only possible if I (ātmā) am of a different degree of reality. I am pāramārthika satya, while everything else is mithyā; it has a lower degree of reality.

Īśāvāsya-upaniṣad says that ātmā (Me) is pure and sinless1. Munḍaka-upaniṣad says that ātmā has no prāṇa or mind2. There is no ignorance in Me. There are no modifications (vikāras) in Me, as I have no form or attributes3. Modifications are changes in attributes such as size, shape, colour, strength, etc. I have no attributes so there is no possibility of vikāra in Me. There are no viṣayas in Me and as the Truth I do not associate with anything4.

This Bhūmā is sampūrṇa: only one infinite exists and it rests in itself. I do not depend on anything; I am self-existing reality5. In life, we depend on many people both physically and emotionally; for our happiness, security and physical comfort. This dependence only grows as we get older. Our wisdom should be that I don’t depend on anyone and that everything depends on me.

The central idea of these verses is that we should constantly dwell on aham-pada lakṣyārtha.

अजोSमिश्चैर् तथाSजिोSमतृ ः स्र्यंप्रभः सर्वगतोSहमद्वयः| न काििं कायवमतीर् ननमवलः सदैकतप्तृ श्च ततो वर्मु啍 ॐ||३|| ajo'maraścaiva tathā'jaroSmrtḁ ḥ svayaṁprabhaḥ sarvagato'hamadvayaḥ| na kāraṇaṁ kāryamatīva nirmalaḥ sadaikatrptḁ śca tato vimukta oṁ||3||

अजः अमिः च एर् – unborn and also deathless; तथा अजिः– also devoid of decay; अमतृ ः – immortal; स्र्यंप्रभः – self luminous; सर्वगतः – all-pervading; अद्वयः – non dual; अहम ्– I am; न काििं कायवमतीर् – nornor the cause or the effect (of creation); सदा – always; ननमवलः एक तप्तृ ः च – One, content and pure; ततः – therefore; वर्मु啍 – free; ॐ – Yes (Indeed I am that).

3. I am ever unborn, ever deathless, ever devoid of old age, ever immortal, ever self-luminous (all Knowledge is possible because of Me). Neither am I the cause of creation nor am I an effect of creation. I am extremely pure and ever content. I am free. Yes (Indeed I am that).

In this verse, Bhagavān gives more pointers for us to meditate on. • Ajam-amara: Having no birth and death6 I am immortal. By negating the two modifications (birth and death), all six7 are negated.

1 … शुमपापवर्म ् … - ईशार्ास्य उपननषद् - ८ 2 … अप्रािो मनाः शभ्रु ो … - मुण्िक उपननषद - २-१-२ 3 … अस्थूलमनण्र्ह्रस्र्मदीर्घमव … - बहृ दािण्यक उपननषद - ३-८-८ 4 … न तदश्नानत क्रकं चन, न तदश्नानत कश्चन॥ - बहृ दािण्यक उपननषद - ३-८-८ 5 … प्रनतवत इनत स्र्े मदहग्म्न … - छांदोग्नय उपननषद - ७-२४-१ 6 न जायते मियते र्ा वर्पग्श्चत ् … - कठ उपननषद - १-२-१८ 7 Six modifications being – coming into existence, birth, growth, modification, decay and death

113 • Na kāraṇam kāryam: Not a cause or an effect1. Atmā is not the cause of creation nor is it an effect of anything in creation; It is a causeless Cause. Since everything in creation has to either be a cause or an effect, by negating both, the impossibility of creation is implied! There is no creation; nothing exists besides ātmā. • Ajaraḥ: Without ageing2. • Svayamprabhaḥ: Self-luminous or svayamprakāśa3. The Bhagavad-gītā describes ātmā as beyond darkness and the light of all lights4; that because of which all other knowledge is possible. The ability of the sense organs to perceive their respective objects and the ability of the mind to know is possible only because of the presence of ātmā Caitanya5, which ‘as though’ lends them its ability to illuminate. • Advayaḥ: Non-dual. Since viṣayas and viṣaya jñānam are bādhita (negated), therefore advayah. • Nitya tṛpta: Ever content. I am not involved in the problems of my bodies so I an ever free6.

The question is whether the world is an absolute reality or not. The pointers given here for meditation, are the essence of the teachings of the Upaniṣads; the central message being that we will never find a permanent solution to our problems within dvaitam. Isn’t it our experience that as soon as we have fixed one problem that another one crops up?. Within duality, there has never been a day, nor will there ever be a day, that is free from problems. Beginning at the physical level, the problems of hunger and thirst persist throughout our lives, and so also problems at the subtle level of the mind and intellect. It is only from the absolute standpoint, in advaitam, that I understand my freedom.

To begin with, we think that a day will come when all duality will be overcome, perfection achieved, and liberation gained within the world itself. Try as we may, this will never happen. Within a family, a husband and wife will not agree all the time. If this is the case between two individuals who live together, then to expect harmony with children, friends, etc. is a distant dream. Only from the absolute standpoint are there no differences.

‘Om’, as explained previously, in this context means Yes (Indeed I am that). The student has understood what the Teacher is indicating.

The verse says that ātmā is dṛśi svarūpa, changeless. I am different in waking, dream and deep sleep. How can I be changeless?

1 … न्नायं कु तग्श्चन्न बभूर् कग्श्चत ्… - कठ उपननषद - १-२-१८ 2 स र्ा एष महानज आत्माजिोऽमिोऽमतृ ोऽभयः ... - बहृ दािण्यक उपननषद - ४-४-२५ 3 अत्रायं पु셁षः स्र्यं 煍योनत - बहृ दािण्यक उपननषद - ४-३-१४ 4 煍योनतषामवप त煍煍योनतस्तमस: पिमु楍यते: … - भगर्द् गीता - १३-१८ 5 आत्मचैतन्यमाचश्रत्य देहेग्न्द्रयमनोचधयः । स्र्क्रियाथेषु र्तवन्ते सूयावलोकं यथा जनाः । - आत्मबोधः - २० 6 … क्रकमम楍छन्कस्य कामाय शिीिमनुसं煍र्िेत ् ॥ - बहृ दािण्यक उपननषद - ४-४-१२

114 सुषुप्तजारत्स्र्पतश्च दशवनं न मेऽग्स्त क्रकग्祍चत्स्र्ममर्ेह मोहनम ् । स्र्तश्च तेषां पितोऽप्यसत्त्र्ततस्तुिीय एर्ाग्स्म सदा饃गद्र्यः॥४॥ suṣuptajāgratsvapataśca darśanaṁ na me'sti kiñcitsvamiveha mohanam । svataśca teṣāṁ parato'pyasattvatatasturīya evāsmi sadādrgadvayḁ ḥ॥4॥

दशवनं - perceptions; सुषुप्तजारत्स्र्पतः च – of deep sleep, waking and dream; न मे अग्स्त – do not belong to me; क्रकग्祍चत ् स्र्म ् इर् इह मोहनम ् – they are like a delusion in one’s own self; स्र्तः च तेषां पितः अवप असत्त्र् – themselves (the three states or sense objects) do not have an independent existence, nor do they have an existence dependent upon the Self; ततः – therefore; तुिीय एर् अग्स्म – Turiya alone I am; सदा 饃ग ् अद्वयः – ever the non-dual Seer.

4. None of the perceptions of waking, dream and deep sleep belong to Me. This is due to delusion in one’s own Self. These three states (or objects) do not have an independent existence, nor do they have an existence dependent on the Self. I am therefore the fourth, which is the Seer of all the three states and one without a second.

The word turīya means fourth and it is used with respect to the three states – waking, dream and deep sleep. Since we are only familiar with the three states the Upaniṣads introduce ātmā as the fourth. Later the Upaniṣads negate the waker, dreamer and deep sleeper; and also objects in the waking and dream states and their absence in deep sleep. There is no first, second and third; only a fourth. Suppose someone names her only child fourth. A stranger hears her calling the child will assume that there are three other children. Atmā is called ‘fourth’ but it is the non-dual Truth, the substratum upon which the other three - the waking, dream and deep sleep are made possible1.

As we step down from the absolute to the transactional plane, we are deluded into considering ourselves as the waker, dreamer and deep sleeper. These three identities and the objects belonging to the three states have no independent sattā (existence) or sphūrti (Caitanya, ability to illumine) of their own. They do not have borrowed reality either. Borrowed existence is only possible when the borrower and lender are in the same plane of reality. If I borrow money from someone in my dream it is of no use to me in waking. From the absolute standpoint, nothing else exists. It is only because of superimposition that I feel that the waker, dreamer and deep sleeper, and creation have existence.

The next few verses can be understood in two ways. They can be used for mananam. Logic can be used to prove that you are indeed changeless, unassociated, etc. If sufficient śravaṇam and mananam have already been done and no doubts remain then these verses are to say ‘this is who I am’. This is a statement of fact, pramāṇa vacanam, and a declaration to myself of my true nature. When seen thus, it becomes nididhyāsanam.

1 … शान्तं मशर्मद्वैतं चतुथ॥व - माण्िूक्य उपननषद - ७

115 शिीिबुीग्न्द्रयदःु खसंतनतन व मे न चाहं मम ननवर्वकाितः| असत्त्र्हेतोश्च तथैर् संततेिसत्त्र्मस्याः स्र्पतो दह 饃श्यर्त||् ५||

śarīrabuddhīndriyaduḥkhasaṁtatirna me na cāhaṁ mama nirvikārataḥ| asattvahetośca tathaiva saṁtaterasattvamasyāḥ svapato hi dr̥śyavat||5||

शिीि-बुव-इग्न्द्रय-दःु ख-संतनतः – body, intellect and senses which are lineage of sorrow; न मे – do not belong to me; न च अहम ् – nor are they me; मम ननवर्वकाितः – since I am free of all modifications; तथैर् संततेः असत्त्र् हेतोः च – and also due to them being unreal; असत्त्र्मस्याः स्र्पतो दह 饃ष्यर्त – unreal like dream indeed since they are all seen.

5. As I am changeless, the lineage of sorrow arising from the body, the intellect and the senses are not Me, nor Mine. Since they are all seen (drśya), they are unreal like dream objects.

The body, intellect, senses which are the cause of sorrow, duḥkha santati, are not Me and do not belong to Me. I am nirvikāra. I have no aham or mama sambandha with them. Association is possible only when the two objects belong to the same plane of reality (sama-sattā). The body, intellect, senses, etc. do not belong to Me because they have a lower degree of reality than Me. I am the Seer (draṣṭā), while they are the seen (dṛśya). Because of the difference in the degree of reality, no association is possible between Me and them.

Suppose a mother is looking for a wife for her son. After much searching she finds a suitable match in a dream. A waking boy and a dream girl cannot get married! Similarly, a relationship between, ātmā and śarīra, indriya, buddhi is not possible. If there appears to be a relationship, it is because of superimposition (adhyāsa). As seen in the previous verse, the body, etc., have no reality of their own; they do not even have borrowed reality. It is only a superimposition.

The entire duḥkha santati is asat because they are all mithyā (illusory). Being both, impermanent and the dṛśya, they are mithyā; they are vācārambhaṇam: only words. There are no real, independent entities called the body, intellect, and sense organs, etc. These are all names given to that one Reality. Like dream objects, they are unreal.

A question is raised. The body, mind, sense organs, etc. are mithyā because they are dṛśya. Ātmā is śuddha and nirvikāra. Śuddhatva and nirvikāratva would then be guṇas of ātmā and anything with attributes is mithyā; so, shouldn’t ātmā be mithyā? And wouldn’t śuddhatva, nirvikāratva, etc., also be mithyā? The next verse says this is not the case.

इदं तु सत्यं मम नाग्स्त वर्क्रिया वर्कािहेतुन व दह मेSद्वयत्र्तः| न पुण्यपाप े न च मोक्षबन्धने न चाग्स्त र्िावश्रमताSशिीितः||६|| idaṁ tu satyaṁ mama nāsti vikriyā vikāraheturna hi me'dvayatvataḥ| na puṇyapāpe na ca mokṣabandhane na cāsti varṇāśramatā'śarīrataḥ||6||

इदं त ु सत्यम ् – this is the truth; मम नाग्स्त वर्क्रिया – modifications do not belong to me; वर्कािहेतुन व दह मे – indeed there is no cause for modification in me; अद्वयत्र्तः – because I am non-dual; न पुण्यपापे – I have no merits or sins; न च मोक्षबन्धने – and neither do I have

116 liberation or bondage; न चाग्स्त र्िावश्रमता – nor are there caste or stages (of life) for me; अशिीितः – because I have no body.

6. Indeed this is the Truth. I do not change nor am I a cause for change as I am non-dual. As I do not possess a body, I have neither sin nor virtue, bondage nor liberation, caste nor āśrama.

This verse should be seen as a declaration, ‘This is the Truth’. There are no modifications in Me because there is nothing to bring about any change. Something can change if it is in its inherent nature or if there is some external cause. Ātmā is non-dual so there is nothing to cause the change. Ātmā is Sat (that which does not change). No modifications are possible in ātmā.

Merit and sin belong to the subtle body, which I, ātmā, do not have. Kaivalya-upaniṣad says ātmā is devoid of body, mind, birth or death1. Since I don’t have the three bodies (gross, subtle and causal), I do not have any notions related to them. Merit and sin are only possible when varṇa and āśrama dharma are accepted and adhered to (or disregarded). Since ātmā does not have a physical body, it does not belong to any varṇa or any āśrama2 and so merit and sin are not possible for It. Bondage and Liberation belong to ahaṅkāra (subtle body) along with notions of being a sādhaka, mumukṣu, baddhaḥ, muktaḥ, etc. They are not real.

We begin our spiritual journey with the understanding that we need to gain mokṣa. At that time, we think, “I am ahaṅkāra and I need Liberation”. As we study Vedānta, we understand that we are not ahaṅkāra; ahaṅkāra is dṛśya. When I do neti neti, that ahaṅkāra which is dṛśya is negated from Me3. I am the draṣṭā that remains after all negation and I am ever free.

At the seat of meditation, a single verse or a few words by themselves may not be sufficient for nididhyāsanam. At such times, we should be able to use all the knowledge assimilated through śravaṇam. When we eat, there are many items on our plate. Our bodies should be able to assimilate and extract the nutrients it requires from each item on the plate. Only then will the food benefit us. Similarly, when we are ready for nididhyāsanam, we should be able to do this; extract the essence of what we have learnt. Only then will it be effective.

Sometimes, despite eating correctly, the body doesn’t get all the nutrition it needs. This can happen to a seeker too. We think we have understood but our knowledge is only general. The full import is understood only over time. We say, “Ātmā is beyond birth, death and everything. Now I want to do āyuṣa homa!”. By all means do the homa. But do it with the understanding that it is for the physical body. I am ātmā and there is no sambandha between us. This is assimilation of the Knowledge.

1 … न पुण्यपाप े मम नाग्स्त नाशो न जन्म देहेग्न्द्रयबुविग्स्त ॥ - कैर्쥍य उपननषद - २२ 2 यत्तदद्रेश्यमरामगोत्रमर्िमव |्अचक्षुः श्रोत्रं … - मुण्िक उपननषद - १-१-६ 3 As seen in Chapter 2: Pratiśedha Prakaraṇam

117 Śuddhatva, nirvikāratva, etc., are not attributes of ātmā, and therefore they are not dṛśya. They are used to negate any aśuddhi that has been superimposed on ātmā. Strictly speaking, I am only Sat-svarūpa; other descriptions are to help the seeker separate ātmā from anātmā.

The next verse says that śarīra sambandha is not possible in Me. I am like space – nirmalaḥ.

अनाददतो ननगुिव तो न कमव मे फलं च तस्मात्पिमोSहमद्वयः| यथा नभः सर्वगतं न मलप्यते तथा हं देहगतोSवप सक्ष्ू मतः||७|| anādito nirguṇato na karma me phalaṁ ca tasmātparamo'hamadvayaḥ| yathā nabhaḥ sarvagataṁ na lipyate tathā hyahaṁ dehagato'pi sūkṣmataḥ||7||

अनाददतः ननगुिव तः – being beginning-less and attribute-less; न मे कमव च फलम ् – there are no actions or results for me; तस्मात ् अहं पिमः अद्वयः – therefore I am Supreme and non-dual; यथा नभः सर्वगतं न मलप्यते - just as space is all-pervading and never tainted (by anything); देहगतः अवप – even though appearing to be in a body; तथा दह अहम ् – so too am I (never tainted); सूक्ष्मतः – because I am subtle.

7. As I am beginning-less and devoid of attributes, I have neither actions nor their results. Therefore, I am the Supreme and One alone. Due to my subtlety (being devoid of form), I do not get affected by the body, just as space which is all-pervading does not get affected by anything in it.

This idea presented in this verse is is from the 13th chapter of the Bhagavad-gītā, where Bhagavān Kṛṣṇa describes ātmā as being beginingless, attributeless and immutable. Like space, though it appears to be present in the body, it does not act nor get tainted by anything1.

In the previous verse, the question of whether śuddhatva and nirvikāratva are attributes of ātmā is addressed. If they are attributes, they will become dṛśya and so mithyā. They are not attributes of ātmā; ātmā is attributeless (nirguṇa). ‘Satyam’, ‘jñānam’, ‘anantam’ are not attributes of ātmā; they only negate other dharmas in ātmā. To negate all that is jaḍa, we say ātmā is jñāna svarūpa, Caitanya. To negate the idea of change, we say ātmā is Sat, changeless. Sat, Cit, Ānanda are not attributes of ātmā; they are not guṇas.

A guṇa (quality) can be inherent or incidental to an object. For example, the orange colour of a paper clip can be inherent (svābhāvika) to the material the clip was made from or added later with the use of a dye. If an attribute appears at some stage, then it is not inherent. It will go away at a later stage; and is therefore said to be incidental (āgantuka).

No attributes existed before creation; ātmā alone was. All guṇas belong to prakṛti and are only seen once creation begins. The elements space, air, fire, water and earth express qualities in the form of śabda, sparśa, rūpa, rasa and gandha respectively as they arise. Thus, any guṇa that is seen to be present in ātmā is only due to superimposition - it is incidental, not inherent. Not only are these guṇas incidental they are also of a lower degree of reality than ātmā. They

1 अनाददत्र्ाग्न्नगुिव त्र्ात्पिमात्मायमव्यय:| शिीिस्थोऽवप कौन्तेय न किोनत न मलप्यते || - भगर्द् गीता - १३-३२ यथा सर्वगतं सौक्ष्म्यादाकाशं नोपमलप्यते | सर्वत्रार्ग्स्थतो देहे तथात्मा नोपमलप्यते || - भगर्द् गीता - १३-३३

118 do not affect ātmā in any way, just as space is unaffected by whatever happens/is suspended within it.

Thus I, as lakṣyārtha ātmā or śuddha Caitanya, am anādi and nirguṇa. I have no association with anything of creation. Therefore, I have no association with karma or its results. Bṛhadāranyaka-upaniṣad declares that karmas do not make me grow or shrink1. Since I do not have any sañcita, āgāmi or prārabdha karma, their phala (results) in the form of puṇya and pāpa also do not affect Me2. Reminding myself of this in times of sorrow, I will be able to rise above them. Even if I consider myself to be in this body, I should remember that I am not associated with this body.

‘Ātmā’ refers to one’s own Self. Unlike the verses in the Bhagavad-gītā, Bhagavān Śaṅkarācārya uses the word aham here because these verses are for nididhyāsanam. Our thinking should not be that Paramātmā is all-pervading, nitya, śuddha, buddha, mukta, etc., but that it is I who is all-pervading, nitya, śuddha, buddha, mukta and unaffected by all.

सदा च भूतेषु समोऽहमीश्र्िः क्षिाक्षिाभ्यां पिमो ह्यथोत्तमः । पिात्मतत्त्र्श्च तथाद्र्योऽवप सग्न्र्पयवयेिामभमतस्त्र्वर्द्यया ॥८॥ sadā ca bhūteṣu samo'hamīśvaraḥ kṣarākṣarābhyāṁ paramo hyathottamaḥ । parātmatattvaśca tathādvayo'pi sanviparyayeṇābhimatastvavidyayā ॥8॥

अवप – even though; अहम ् ईश्विः – I am, the Lord; सदा च भूतेष ु समः – always the same in all beings; क्षि-अक्षिाभ्यां पिमः – above the perishable and the imperishable; दह अथ उत्तमः – thus indeed the Highest; पिात्म-तत्र्ः – supreme essence; च तथा अद्वयः – and also non-dual; तु अवर्या – but due to ignorance; सन ् वर्पिययेि अमभमतः – understood differently.

8. Though I am the Lord, the same in all beings, beyond the perishable and the imperishable and therefore the Supreme: the Self of all, and non-dual. I am understood differently (as a limited being) due to ignorance.

The verse echoes ideas from the Bhagavad-gītā, where Bhagavān Kṛṣṇa declares on multiple occasions that Brahman is free from all defects and is samaḥ (the same)3. Samatva means that Brahman is the same everywhere at all times; unaffected by time, space and objects. All observed differences belong to upādhī (conditionings) only.

This is beautifully illustrated in Manīṣā Pañcakam, where Lord Śiva disguised as a cānḍāla crosses the path of Bhagavān Śaṅkarācārya and his disciples. One disciple usher the cānḍāla away with the words ‘gaccha gaccha’ (move). The cānḍāla asks the Ācārya who should move – the upādhī or Caitanya? At the level of Caitanya everything is the same. All differences,

1 … न र्धवते कमविा नो कनीयान ्… - बहृ दािण्यक उपननषद - ४-४-२३ 2 अन्यत्र धमावदन्यत्राधमावत ् ... - कठ उपननषद - १-२-१४ 3 समोऽहं सर्भव ूतेष ु न मे द्र्ेष्योऽग्स्त न वप्रय: … - भगर्द् गीता - ९-२९ … ननदोषं दह समं ब्रह्म … - भगर्द् गीता - ५-१९

119 notions of superiority and inferiority, etc., are at the level of upādhī, which is mithya. Caitanya is the same in all bodies be it Brahmāji or an ant1.

In the Bhagavad-gītā, the word samaḥ is used for the Uttama Puruṣa2, who is different from Kṣara Puruṣa (subtle and gross matter) and Akṣara Puruṣa (primordial matter). Kṣara Puruṣa refers to all matter, while Akṣara refers to conditioned Consciousness. Uttama Puruṣa is different from both and always refers to pure Consciousness (śuddha Caitanya).

Even though I am non-dual, supreme and untouched by matter, I see myself differently. It is ignorance that leads me to believe that I am dual, limited and associated with matter. Even though the Upaniṣads say that there is nothing besides Me3, I see myself as only a small part of creation. I give reality to duality. This is avidyā.

Avidyā comes with its own effects. The next verse says that all effects of avidyā are absent in Me.

अवर्द्यया भार्नया च कमवमभवर्ववर्क्त आत्माऽव्यर्चधः सुननमलव ः । 饃गाददशग्क्तप्रचचतोऽहमद्र्यः ग्स्थतः स्र्셂पे गगनं यथाचलम ् ॥९॥ avidyayā bhāvanayā ca karmabhirvivikta ātmā'vyavadhiḥ sunirmalaḥ । drg̥ ādiśaktipracito'hamadvayaḥ sthitaḥ svarūpe gaganaṁ yathācalam ॥9॥

वर्वर्啍ः अव्यर्चधः – separate and unobstructed; अवर्द्यया भार्नया च कमवमभःः – by ignorance, desires or actions; सुननमलव ः आत्मा – the extremely pure Self; अहम ्– I am; अद्र्यः – non-dual; ग्स्थतः स्र्셂पे – established in my own Self; गगनं यथा अचलम ् – immovable like space; प्रचचतः – considered (to be associated); 饃गादद-शग्क्त – with power of seeing, etc.

9. I am the Self, pure and unobstructed by ignorance, desires and actions. Non-dual and established in my true nature, I am like the immovable space. I am thought to be associated (due to superimposition) with the powers of seeing and other perceptions.

Most of us think, “I am ignorant and striving for mokṣa; I am doing śravaṇam, etc.”. These notions show that we have accepted ignorance as real. To think that ignorance can affect Me, śuddha Caitanya, is ignorance! I, śuddha Caitanya, am untouched by avidyā, kāma and karma. Since I am of a higher degree of reality than them, avidyā, kāmanā and karma cannot obstruct Me. This is how ignorance has to be constantly negated.

To recognise this is jīvanmukti. Vedānta does not promise Liberation in the future. It says, “I am ever-free”. One may then continue to work in the world and do all that is necessary, knowing that it is all for the sake of anātmā - food, shelter, medicines, exercise, clothing, etc. Since problems related to the body, mind and intellect bother us from time to time, we need

1 या ब्रह्माददवपपीमलकान्ततनुषु … - मनीषाप祍चकं - १ 2 द्र्ावर्मौ पु셁षौ लोके क्षिश्चाक्षि एर् च … - भगर्द् गीता - १५-१६ 3 … नेह नानाग्स्त क्रकं चन … - बहृ दािण्यक उपननषद - ४-४-१९

120 to do whatever is required to address these; with the knowledge that these actions have nothing to do with my mokṣa. I am ever free, ignorance cannot touch Me.

Bṛhadāranyaka-upaniṣad says that doership, enjoyership, etc., are not My dharma; they belong to the intellect. They are superimposed on Me. I am that non-dual Truth which abides in Its own nature; like the non-moving space. Space does not move; everything moves in space. I (Caitanya) am non-moving; all manifestation and dissolution are in Me. As lakṣyārtha (ātmā or Caitanya) I am that unchanging Reality. I abide in Myself; I don’t do anything; I cannot do anything. I am ever free.

The next section of the chapter describes the result of this Knowledge, when it is clear and comprehensive.

अहं पिं ब्र वर्ननश्चयात्म饃敍 न जायते भूय इनत श्रुतेर्चव ः| न चैर् बीजे त्र्सनत प्रजायते फलं न जन्माग्स्त ततो मोहता||१०|| ahaṁ paraṁ brahma viniścayātmadr̥ṅ na jāyate bhūya iti śrutervacaḥ| na caiva bīje tvasati prajāyate phalaṁ na janmāsti tato hyamohatā||10||

अहं पिं ब्र – I am the Supreme Brahman; आत्म饃敍 – the Seer; वर्ननश्चय – having the firm conviction; न जायते भूय – is not born again; इनत श्रुतेर्चव ः – thus says Śruti; अमोहता –due to absence of delusion; न जन्माग्स्त – there is no birth; च एर् – just as; न बीजे त ु – when the seed is not; (न) असनत प्रजायते फलं ततः – the sprout too is not born thereafter.

10. Śruti says that the one who has a firm conviction about the Knowledge of oneself as Brahman, is never born again. As there is no delusion, there is no birth; for in the absence of the seed (the cause), there cannot be any sprout (any effect).

Only the one who is firm in his conviction that ‘aham param Brahma asmi’ will get the result of this Knowledge. When this understanding is in an individual’s antaḥkaraṇa, this jñānī is not born again1 into saṁsāra where limitations, problems, disease, and suffering are the experience of all. When I understand that I have no birth, where is the question of rebirth?

Logic is also used to establish why a jñānī will not be reborn. There can be no sprout without a seed. Similarly, when there is no ignorance, there is no adhyāsa and so no rebirth. This is the result of Knowledge, gained through sravanam and made firm in nididhyāsanam. This is the result for one who abides in this Knowledge. He gains fearlessness2 and becomes free of delusion and sorrow3. While punarjanma nivṛtti (no re-birth) is only realised after the body is dropped, the other results are gained immediately, as one continues to live in this body. Don’t we all want freedom from fear and sorrow while living?

1 … यस्माूयो न जायते ॥ - कठ उपननषद - १-३-८ … काा सा पिा गनतः ॥ - कठ उपननषद - १-३-११ 2 … अथ सोऽभयं ग॑तो भ॒र्नत … - तैवत्तिीय उपननषद - २-७ 3 … तत्र को मोहः कः शोक … - ईशार्ास्य उपननषद् - ७

121 In the next verse, the nature of moha (delusion) is described by Bhagavān Śaṅkarācārya and the impossibility of its existence in Me, Brahman.

ममेदममत्थं च तथेदमी饃शं तथाहमेर्ं न पिो न र्ान्यथा । वर्मूढतैर् ं न जनस्य क쥍पना सदा समे ब्रणि चाद्वये मशर्े ॥११॥ mamedamitthaṁ ca tathedamīdr̥śaṁ tathāhamevaṁ na paro na vānyathā । vimūḍhataivaṁ na janasya kalpanā sadā same brahmaṇi cādvaye śive ॥11॥

मम इदं– ‘this is mine’; च इत्थम ् – and ‘(this is) of this nature’; तथा इदं ई饃शम ् – also ‘this is so’; तथा अहम ्एर्म ्– ‘I am so’; न पिः – ‘others are not so’; न र्ान्यथा – and not considering otherwise; वर्मूढता एर्ं जनस्य क쥍पना – all are foolish imaginations of people; न च ब्रणि – and not in Brahman; सदा समे अद्वये मशर्े – which is ever the same in all, non-dual and auspicious.

11. The false notions that people have such as, ‘this is mine’; ‘this is of this nature’; also ‘this is so’; ‘I am so’; ‘someone else is not so’ and so on, are all because of delusion. They are never in Brahman, which is the same in all beings, non-dual and auspicious.

As mentioned earlier, all the erroneous notions we entertain, viparīta bhāvanās, are delusions that arise from ignorance. Fanciful notions like ‘mama idam - this is mine’ and ‘ittham - this is of this nature’, etc. are some of the most common. We have ideas of a relationship with an object or a person. We feel, ‘this object is mine’ or ‘I knoiw this person’ or that ‘he is like this – itham’.

We have an image in our minds and then want people to act in accordance with that. We also insist that they think of us the way we want them to. We don’t give them freedom to act as they please. This is moha and the cause of our bondage. People are never the problem; it is only such kalpanā, imagination, that gives rise to all our problems. A wise man lets others be whoever they choose to be. In the Bhagavad-gītā, Bhagavān Kṛṣṇa describes a jñānī as one who has samabuddhiḥ1. He accepts people as they are and shares his opinion only when asked. Just as we do not expect a chilli to stop being spicy or salt to taste sweet, we must realise that people will not behave the way we want them to. The desire to change others is often seen in newly weds. Each got married with an idea of what he/she wants from their partner. Since it is rare that the partner will meet all the requirements, each thinks they will change the other to fit their requirements. If they are wise, they will realise that this is mission impossible!

These are common viparīta bhāvanās and a source of duḥkham. Others include the incorrect understanding we have of ourselves. If I say I am sitting somewhere, it is the body that is doing the sitting and must be included in my notion of I. Or if I am watching or listening to something then the eyes and ears must be included in my understanding of myself. At the seat of meditation, all such ideas must be eliminated. ‘I’ must be understood as Caitanya, which is sarvavyāpi (all-pervading) and aśeṣa-viśeṣa-nirasta (devoid of all attributes). I must

1 सुग्न्मत्रायुदव ासीनम्यस्थद्वेष्यबन्धुषु | साधुष्र्वप च पापेष ु समबुववर्मव शष्यते || - भगि饍 गीता - ६-९

122 think of myself as infinite and untouched (asaṅga), and not this limited individual. All erroneous notions are vimūḍhatā, delusion.

The nature of that Liberation is explained further in the next verse.

यदद्वयं ज्ञानमतीर् ननमवलं महात्मनां तत्र न शोकमोहता । तयोिभार्े न दह कमव जन्म र्ा भर्ेदयं र्ेदवर्दां वर्ननश्चयः ॥१२॥ yadadvayaṁ jñānamatīva nirmalaṁ mahātmanāṁ tatra na śokamohatā । tayorabhāve na hi karma janma vā bhavedayaṁ vedavidāṁ viniścayaḥ ॥12॥

यद् अद्वयं ज्ञानम ् अतीर् ननमलव म ् – when the extremely pure Knowledge of the non-dual Self; महात्मनाम ् – in the great souls; तत्र न शोकमोहता – there is no grief or delusion; तयोः अभार्े – in the absence of these two; न दह कमव जन्म र्ा भर्ेद् – indeed there cannot be any birth or action; अयं र्ेदवर्दां वर्ननश्चयः – is the conclusion of the knowers of Vedas.

12. When the extremely pure Knowledge of the non-dual Self takes place in great souls, there is no grief or delusion. The knowers of the Vedas firmly conclude that there can then not be any birth or action.

When the Knowledge “I am Brahman” who is jñāna svarūpa and non-dual has taken root in an individual, he sees himself as all and so no longer experiences grief or delusion1. He has no more karma or birth. We can accept that he will not have rebirth but how can we say the Man of Realisation does no karma when we see him act? In the Bhagavad-gītā, Bhagavān Kṛṣṇa says, “I do not do anything”2. The firm understanding of a Man of Realisation is that even while performing actions such as seeing, hearing, moving, etc., he does not really do anything. If others think he is acting, it is their superimposition. Being established in this wisdom, there is no karma for him. This is the firm conclusion of the knowers of the Vedas.

Moha (delusion) will lead to śoka (grief) and then to karma and inevitably to janma (birth). Moha nivṛtti is through jñānam alone. Bhagavān Kṛṣṇa clearly says that those who grieve have not understood the Truth3. We have to know the Truth and see the result in ourselves. Do we get disturbed? Are we able to use this wisdom to pull ourselves out of any disturbance?

The next verse describes a jñānī and can be considered to be the benchmark to evaluate ourselves against.

सुषुप्तर्煍जारनत यो न पश्यनत द्वयं तु पश्यन्नवप चाद्वयत्र्तः । तथा च कु र्न्व नवप ननग्ष्ियश्च यः स आत्मवर्न्नान्य इतीह ननश्चयः ॥१३॥ suṣuptavajjāgrati yo na paśyati dvayaṁ tu paśyannapi cādvayatvataḥ । tathā ca kurvannapi niṣkriyaśca yaḥ sa ātmavinnānya itīha niścayaḥ ॥13॥

1 … तत्र को मोहः कः शोक एकत्र्मनुपश्यतः ॥ - ईशार्ास्य उपननषद् - ७ 2 नैर् क्रकग्祍चत्किोमी … - भगर्द् गीता - ५-८ 3 … नानुशोचग्न्त पग्ण्िता: ॥ - भगर्द् गीता - २-११

123 यः – he who; द्वयम ्पश्यन ्अवप – even though perceiving duality; न त ु पश्यनत – but does not see (duality); जारनत – in waking; सुषुप्तर्त ् – like in sleep; अद्वयत्र्तः - due to the knowledge of non-duality; तथा च – and also; यः कु र्नव ् अवप ननग्ष्ियः – he who even though acting is action-less; सः आत्मवर्त ् – he is the knower of the Self; न अन्य इतीह ननश्चयः – certainly not anyone else.

13. Here, the understanding is that one who, though perceiving the world of duality (through the senses) in the waking state, does not perceive it as real (due to duality being negated), like a man in deep sleep; and who is in reality actionless even when (apparently) acting; he is a man of Self-Knowledge; and not anyone else.

The only criterion for realisation is not to see duality in waking, the way it is not seen in deep sleep. At the transactional level duality will always be perceived by the senses, but because the nature of the Truth as non-dual is clearly known, the ātmavit doesn’t give reality to this observed duality. The Bhagavad-gītā describes him as the one for whom waking is like deep sleep1 as he is asleep to duality. The Man of Realisation has negated ahaṅkāra, which is the source of all duality.

The entire gamut of experiences begins with the rise of the I-thought every morning. We fail to recognise this because of our extroverted nature. It is a long and difficult process to constantly focus all our attention on ahaṅkāra. This is why sādhakas prefer external sādhanā to sitting quietly, constantly negating ahaṅkāra.

Even though he perceives duality, the Man of Realization negates it in the waking state. For him, waking is just like deep sleep, where duality is dormant. Vyavahāra or transactions in the world outside will continue for him but he knows himself to be ‘action-less’. In the Bhagavad- gītā, Bhagavān Kṛṣṇa says that a wise man is one who can see action in inaction and inaction in action2. I should know that I am not the doer of actions while performing the action3, not after the action. The one who has this niścaya is ātmavit, na anyaḥ (not anyone else). There are no other requirements.

Everything else is our kalpanā; whether it is external objects like clothing and mālās, or how much time he spends doing karma or how long he sits in meditation. The knowledge of Reality firmly establishes that all anātmā is mithyā. In the very first chapter of Upadeśa Sāhasri we saw that Knowledge eliminates kriyā (action), kāraka (its auxillaries) and its phala (result)4 entirely. How can any action then be a measure of Knowledge?

If we want to see where we stand, we must ask ourselves the question: do I give reality to plurality in the waking state? Do I remember I am actionless ātmā while I am acting? There is no other means. The mind is anātmā and all vikśepa is only at the level of the mind. To

1 या ननशा सर्भव ूतानां तस्यां जागनतव संयमी | यस्यां जारनत भूतानन सा ननशा पश्यतो मुने: || भगर्द् गीता - २-६९ 2 कमवण्यकमव य: पश्येदकमवणि च कमव य: | स बुवमान्मनुष्येषु स य啍ु : कृ त्स्नकमकव ृ त ्- भगर्द् गीता - ४-१८ 3 … पश्य祍शण्ृ िि ् … - भगर्द् गीता - ५-८ 4 कािकाण्युपमृ ानत वर्ा ... - उपदेश साहस्त्री - १-१४

124 address vikśepa, one can practice samadhi abhyāsa. It will help the mind to abide in Knowledge. ‘Na anya’ is used to emphasise that there is only one criterion for Realisation – firm Knowledge. Nothing else.

The Ācārya concludes the chapter by saying that the one who has this advaita-darśanam (vision of oneness) is kṛtakrtya (no longer has any objective to achieve).

इतीदमु啍ं पिमाथवदशवनं मया दह र्ेदान्तवर्ननग्श्चतं पिम ् । वर्मु楍यतेऽग्स्मन्यदद ननग्श्चतो भर्ेन्न मलप्यते व्योम इर्ेह कमवमभः ॥१४॥ itīdamuktaṁ paramārthadarśanaṁ mayā hi vedāntaviniścitaṁ param । vimucyate'sminyadi niścito bhavenna lipyate vyoma iveha karmabhiḥ ॥14॥

इदं उ啍ं पिमाथवदशवनं मया इनत – this vision of the Supreme Truth thus spoken by me; दह र्ेदान्त-वर्ननग्श्चतं पिम ् – is the highest as ascertained by Vedānta; अग्स्मन यदद ननग्श्चतः– one who has firm conviction in this (Truth); वर्मु楍यत े – is liberated; व्योम इर् भर्ेत ् – becomes like space; न मलप्यते कमवमभः – is untainted by actions.

14. This vision of the Supreme Truth described by me is the highest as it is ascertained by Vedānta. One who has firm conviction in this Truth is Liberated; he becomes like space; he is untouched by all actions.

Bhagavān Śaṅkarācārya says that he has spoken of the highest Truth. The assertion of Vedānta; the essence of all Upaniṣad mantras is ‘I am Brahman’. The one who abides in this Knowledge is free; like space he is untouched by all.

So, what should we do? As the Ācārya has said we should meditate until all erroneous notions are gone and we abide in the Knowledge that the lakṣanas of Brahman are my lakṣanas. Advitīyatva, bhūmātva are possible only when jagat is mithyā; so, we should meditate on jagat mithyātva. At the level of the individual, jagat mithyātva translates into ahaṅkāra mithyātva and we should meditate upon that. Only when we stop identifying with ahaṅkāra will we be free from sorrow.

With the end of this chapter, one part of the text is complete; the highest Truth has been spoken of, the means of reaching it has been elaborated and meditation has been prescribed.

_____

125 Transliterations of footnotes

Chapter 1 Page 1 yajñadānatapaḥkarma na tyājyaṁ kāryam-eva tat, yajño dānaṁ tapaśc aiva pāvanāni manīṣiṇām. - Bhagavad-gītā 18.5 …………………………………… 6 1 yogarato vā bhogarato vā saṅgarato vā saṅgavihīnaḥ, yasya brahmaṇi ramate cittaṁ mandati nandati nandatyeva - Bhaja Govindam 19 …………. 10

1 cintām prakrta-siddhyarthām upodghātam pracakṣate ……………………… 11 2 vedo nityamadhīyatāṁ taduditaṁ karma svanushthīyatāṁ - Sādhanā Pañcakam 1 …………………………………………………...... 11 3 punarapi jananaṁ punarapi maraṇaṁ - Bhaja Govindam 21 …………...... 11 1 sarvārambhā hi doṣeṇa dhūmenāgnir-ivāvṛtāḥ. - Bhagavad-gītā 18.48 …… 12 1 avidyayā mṛtyuṁ tīrtvā vidyayāmṛtamaśnute. – Īśāvāsya-upaniṣad 11 …… 13 1 vedo nityamadhīyatāṁ taduditaṁ karma svanushthīyatāṁ - Sādhanā Pañcakam 1 ………………………………………………………….... 14 2 na hi kaścitkṣaṇamapi jātu tiṣṭhatyakarmakṛt - Bhagavad-gītā 3.5 ……...... 14 3 īśvarārpitaṁ necchayā krtam - Upadeśa Sāra 3 ……………………………… 14 1 na me pārthāsti kartavyaṁ triṣu lokeṣu kiñcana, nānavāptamavāptavyaṁ varta eva ca karmaṇi. - Bhagavad-gītā 3.22 ……………………………...... 17

2 lokasaṅgrahamevāpi sampaśyankartumarhasi. - Bhagavad-gītā 3.20 ...... 17 1 na karmaṇā na prajayā dhanena tyāgenai ke amṛtatvam… - Mahānārāyaṇa-upaniṣad 4.12 …………..……………………………………… 21 1 rajjusarpavadātmānaṁ jñātvā bhayaṁ vahet, nāhaṁ jīvaḥ parātmeti jñātaścennirbhayo bhavet. - Atmabodha 27 23 …...... 1 neti, neti - Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 2.3.6 ……………………………………… 24 2 caitanyaṁ sarvagaṁ sarvaṁ - Upadeśa Sāhasrī 1.1 …………………………. 24 1 sanmātraḥ karaṇopasaṁharaṇato yo’bhut-suṣuptaḥ puman - Dakṣiṇāmūrtī Stotram 6 ……………………………………………………...... 26 1 avidyayā mṛtyuṁ tīrtvā vidyayāmṛtamaśnute. - Īśāvāsya-upaniṣad 11 ...… 27 2 Kurvanneveha karmāṇi jijīviṣecchatagṁsamāḥ, evaṁ tvayi nānyatheto’sti na karma lipyate nare. - Īśāvāsya-upaniṣad 2 ………………………………… 27 3 hiraṇmayena pātreṇa satyasyāpihitaṁ mukham, tattvaṁ pūṣan apāvṛṇu satyadharmāya dṛṣṭaye. - Īśāvāsya-upaniṣad 15 ……………………………..... 27 1 etāvadare khalvamṛtatvamiti - - Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 4.5.15 ………… 28

126 1 na karmaṇā na prajayā dhanena tyāgenai ke amṛtatvamānaśuḥ, Vedānta-vijñāna-suniscitarthaḥ sannyāsa-yogād yatayaḥ śuddhasattvaḥ. - Mahānārāyaṇa-upaniṣad 4.12 ………………………………………………….. 29 2 amṛtatvasya tu nāśāsti vitteneti - Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 2.4.2 …………… 29 1 yadeva vidyayā karoti śraddhayopaniṣadā tadeva viryavattaram bhavati. - Chāndogya-upaniṣad 1.1.10 ……………………………………………………... 31

Chapter 2 1 vṛttayas-vahaṁ-vṛttimāśritaḥ - Upadeśa Sāra 18 …………………………… 41 1 yathā somya puruṣaṃ gandhārebhyo'bhinaddhākṣamānīya taṃ tato'tijane, visṛjetsa yathā tatra prāṅvodaṅvādharāṅvā pratyaṅvā, ā ī ā ā ṣ ā ī ā ṣ ṛṣṭ ḥ pradhm y t bhinaddh k a n to'bhinaddh k o vis a . 49 – Chāndogya-upaniṣad 6.14.1 ………………………...... 2 tasya yathābhinahanaṃ pramucya prabrūyādetāṃ diśaṃ gandhārā etāṃ diśaṃ vrajeti sa grāmādgrāmaṃ pṛcchanpaṇḍito medhāvī gandhārānevopasampadyetaivamevehācāryavānpuruṣo veda tasya tāvadeva 49 ciraṃ yāvanna vimokṣye'tha sampatsya iti. - Chāndogya-upaniṣad 6.14.2 …………………………………………………… 1 ācāryavānpuruṣo veda - Chāndogya-upaniṣad 6.14.2 ……………………… 50 2 guru-Vedānta-vakyadiṣu viśvāsah. - Tattva Bodha 3.5 ……………………… 50 3 śāstrasya guruvākyasya satyabuddhiavadhāranā - Vivekacūḍāmaṇi 25 .... 50 Chapter 3 1 Dvau suparṇā sayujā śākhāyā samānaṁ vṛkṣaṁ pariṣasvajāte - Muṇḍaka-upaniṣad 3.1.1 ……………………………………………………… 52 1 ayamātmā brahma – Māṇḍūkya-upaniṣad 2 …………………………………... 53 1 anyo'sāvanyo'hamasmīti, na sa veda - Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 1.4.10 ……. 54 1 asthūlamanaṇvahrasvamadīrgham - Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 3.8.8 ……… 55 2 idam śarīraṁ kaunteya - Bhagavad-gītā 13.2 ………………………………….. 55 kṣetrajñaṁ cāpi māṁ viddhi - Bhagavad-gītā 13.3 …………………………… 55 3 ātmā vā are draṣṭavyaḥ - Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 2.4.5 …………………….. 55 4 jñānam-iti proktam-ajñānam yadatoo’nyathā - Bhagavad-gītā 13.12 ……….. 55 5 yajjñātva neha bhūyo’nyajjñātavyamavaśiṣyate. - Bhagavad-gītā 7.2 ……… 55 1 asthūlamanaṇvahrasvamadīrghamalohitamasnehamacchāyamatamo'- 56 vāyvanākāśamasaṅgamacakśuṣkamaśrotramavāgamano'- tejaskamaprāṇamamukhamamātramanantaramabāhyam, na tadaśnāti kiṃcana, na tadaśnāti kaścana. - Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 3.8.8…

127

1 divyo hyamūrtaḥ puruṣaḥ sa bāhyābhyantaro hyajaḥ, aprāṇo hyamanāḥ śubhro - Muṇḍaka-upaniṣad 2.1.2 ……………………………………………… 57

2 aprāṇo hyamanāḥ śubro - Muṇḍaka-upaniṣad 2.1.2 ………………………….. 57 Chapter 4

1 jñānāgniḥ sarvakarmāṇi bhasmasāt kurute tathā. – Bhagavad-gītā 4.37 …… 60 2 kṣīyante cāsya karmāṇi tasmin dṛṣṭe parāvare. - Muṇḍaka-upaniṣad 2.2.8 .. 60 1 kṣudhvyādhiśca cikitsyatāṁ - Sādhanā Pañcakam 4 ………………………… 61 2 nistraigunye pathi vicarataḥ ko vidhi ko niṣedhaḥ - Śukāṣṭakam 1 ………… 61 1 bhidyate hṛdayagranthiśchidyante sarvasaṁśayaḥ, kṣīyante cāsya karmāṇi tasmin dṛṣṭe parāvare. - Muṇḍaka-upaniṣad 2.2.8 …………………………… 65 2 tasya tāvadeva ciraṃ yāvanna vimokṣye'tha sampatsya iti. - Chāndogya-upaniṣad 6.14.2 …………………………………………………… 65 Chapter 5 1 abhaye bhaya-darśinaḥ - Māṇḍūkya-upaniṣad Kā 3.39 ……………………… 67 2 tatra ko mohaḥ kah śoka - Īśāvāsya-upaniṣad 7……………………………… 67 1 dhyāyati iva, lelāyati iva - Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 4.3.7 ………………… 68 1 yassvātmatīrthaṁ bhajate viniṣkriyaḥ - Ātmabodha 68 …………………… 69 2 dhyāyatīva, lelāyatīva - Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 4.3.7 ……………………… 69 1 tattatkośaistu tādātmyādātmā tat tanmayo bhavet. - Pañcadaśī 1.36 ……… 71 2 ātmanaḥ saccidṁśaśca buddhervṛttiriti dvayam. saṁyojya cāvivekena - Ātmabodha 25 ….………………………………………………...………….… 71 1 na bhavatyamṛtaṃ martyaṃ na martyamamṛtaṃ tathā. prakṛteranyathā- bhāvo na kathaṃcidbhaviṣyati. - Māṇḍūkya-upaniṣad Kā. 3.21, 4.7 ………... 72 1 anejadekaṁ - Īśāvāsya-upaniṣad 4 ………………………………………...... 73 Chapter 6 1 jāge jathā sapanma jāī. - Rāmacaritamānasa 1.111.1………………………...... 79

128 Chapter 7 4 indriyāṇi parāṇyāhurindriyebhyaḥ paraṁ manaḥ, manasa tu parā buddhiryo buddheḥ paratastu saḥ. - Bhagavad-gītā 3.42 ……...... 84

indriyebhyaḥ parā hyarthā arthebhyaśca paraṁ manaḥ, manasastu parā buddhir-buddherātmā mahān-paraḥ. - Kathopniṣad 1.3.10 ………………… 84 1 idam śarīraṁ kaunteya - Bhagavad-gītā 13.2 ………………………………… 85 kṣetrajñaṁ cāpi māṁ viddhi sarvakṣetreṣu bhārata – Bhagavad-gītā 13.3 … 85 1 sukhaduḥkhe same kṛtvā lābhālābhau jayājayau – Bhagavad-gītā 2.38 ……. 87 siddhyasiddhyoḥ samo bhūtvā - Bhagavad-gītā 2.48 ….……………………... 87 Siddhyasiddhyor-nirvikāraḥ - Bhagavad-gītā 18.26 ………………..………… 87 2 na me pārthāsti kartavyaṁ triṣu lokeṣu kiñcana, nānavāptamavāptavyaṁ varta eva ca karmaṇi. - Bhagavad-gītā 3.22 ……………………………………... 87 3 yastvātmaratireva syādātmatṛptaśca mānavaḥ, ātmanyeva ca santuṣṭastasya 87 kāryaṁ na vidyate. - Bhagavad-gītā 3.17 ………………………………………. naiva tasya kṛtenārtho nākṛteneha kaścana, na cāsya sarvabhūteṣu kaścidarthavyapāśrayaḥ. - Bhagavad-gītā 3.18 ………………………………... 87 1 tameva bhāntamanubhāti sarvaṁ tasya bhāsā sarvamidaṁ vibhāti. – Kathopniṣad 2.2.15 …………………………………………………………….... 88 2 lakṣaṇapramāṇābhyām vastu siddhiḥ ………………………………………..… 89 1 jāge jathā sapana bhrama jāī - Rāmacaritamānasa 1.111.1 ………………….… 90 Chapter 8 1 yatheṣu-kāro nṛpatiṁ vrajantam, iṣau gatātmā na dadarśa pārśve - Śrimad Bhāgvatam 11.9.13 …………………………………………………….... 91 1 chittvā tyaktena hastena… - Upadeṣa Sāhasrī 6.1 ……………………………… 92 1 nirdoṣam hi samaṁ brahma. - Bhagavad-gītā 5.19 …………………………… 94 2 Yasmin-sthito na duḥkhena guruṇāpi vicālyate. – Bhagavad-gītā 6.22 ……… 94 1 ātmā vā are draṣṭavyaḥ śrotavyo mantavyo nididhyāsitavyo - Bṛhadāranyaka-upaniṣad 2.4.5 …….………………………………………….... 95 1 na khyāti lābha pūjārtham – Naiṣkarmya Siddhi 1.6 …………………………... 97 2 tavaiva vāhāstava nrtyagīte - Kathopaniṣad 1.1.26 ……………………………. 97 Chapter 9 1 aśabdamasparśamarūpamavyayaṁ tathārasaṁ nityamagandhavacca yat - Kathopaniṣad 1.3.15 ……………………………………………………………... 99 2 tasmādvā etasmād ātmana ākāśaḥ sambhūtaḥ. ākāśādvāyuḥ. vāyoragniḥ. agnerāpaḥ. adbhyaḥ pṛthivī. – Taittirīya-upaniṣad 2.3 ……………………….. 99 3 Upekṣya nāmarūpe - Dṛg Dṛśya Viveka 22 …………………………………….. 99

129 4 yasmin kasmiṁśca vastuni - Dṛg Dṛśya Viveka 27 …………………………… 99 1 anejadekaṁ manosah javīyo – Īśāvāsya-upaniṣad 4 …………………………… 100 2 sarvasya cāham hṛdisanniviṣṭha – Bhagavad-gītā 15.15 ……………………… 100 3 annarasenaiva bhūtvā annarasenaiva vṛddhiṁ prāpya annarūpa-pṛthivyāṁ yadvilīyate tad annamayaḥ kośaḥ – Tattva Bodha 7.1 ………………………… 100 1 sadeva somyaidamagra āsīdekamevādvitīyam - Chāndogya-upaniṣad 6.2.1 ……………………………………………………... 101 1 sa paryagācchukramakāyamavraṇamasnāviragaṁśuddhamapāpaviddham – 102 Īśāvāsya-upaniṣad 8 …………………………………………………………… 1 aśarīraṁ śarīreṣu – Kathopniṣad 1.2.22 …………………………………………. 103 2 vinaśyatsvavinaśyantaṁ - Bhagavad-gītā 13.28……………………………… 103 3 antavanta ime dehā nityasyoktāḥ śaririṇaḥ - Bhagavad-gītā 2.18 …………… 103 4 nirdoṣam hi samaṁ brahma - Bhagavad-gītā 5.19 ……………………………... 103 1 aśarīraṁ śarīreṣu – Kathopniṣad 1.2.22 ………………………………………… 104 kṣetrajñam cāpi māṁ viddhi sarvakṣetreṣu. – Bhagavad-gītā 13.3 …………… 104 3 Umā Rāma bisaika asa mohā; nabha tama dhūma dhūri jimi sohā; - Rāmacaritmānas 1.116.4 ………………………………………………………... 104 4 yo'yaṃ vijñānamayaḥ prāṇeṣu hṛdyantarjyotiḥ puruṣaḥ - Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 4.3.7 …………………………………………………. 104 5 dhyāyati iva, lelāyati iva - Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 4.3.7 …………………... 104 1 vigatam pāpam yasmāt saḥ vipāpma, tasya vipāpmanaḥ …………………… 105 2 sarvabhūtastham- Upadeṣa Sāhasrī 9.5 ………………………………………… 105 3 yasya sarvāṇi bhūtāni śarīram yah sarvāṇi bhūtānyantaro yamayati eṣa ta ātmāntaryamyamrtah.̥ - Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 3.7.15 …………………… 105 1 na hi draṣturdr̥ṣterviparilopo vidyate’ vināśitvān. - Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 4.3.23 ………………………………………………... 107 2 ātmā vā are draṣṭavyaḥ śrotavyo mantavyo nididhyāsitavyo - Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 2.4.5 ………………………………………………… 107 1 aśabdamasparśamarūpamavyayaṁ tathārasaṁ nityamagandhavacca yat -- Kathopaniṣad 1.3.15 ……………………………………………………………… 108 2 na cakṣuṣā grhyate̥ nāpi vācā nānyairdevaistapasā karmaṇā vā. – Muṇḍaka-upaniṣad 3.1.8 ……………………………………………………… 108 3 yatra nānyat-paśyati nānyatcchr̥ṇoti nānyat-vijānāti sa bhumā. - Chāndogya-upaniṣad 7.24.1 ……………………………………………………. 108 Chapter 10 1 paramaṁ padam - Kathopaniṣad 1.3.9 ………………………………………… 111

130 2 nodeti nāstametyeṣā - Dṛg Dṛśya Viveka 5 ……………………………………… 111 3 agniryathaiko - Kathopaniṣad 2.5.9 …………………………………………… 111 4 sūryo yathā sarvalokasya cakṣurna lipyate cakṣuṣair-bahyādoṣaih, ekastathā sarvabhūtāntarātmā na lipyate lokaduḥkhena bāhyaḥ. - Kathopaniṣad 2.5.11 ... 111 5 brahmaṇyādhāya karmāṇi saṅgaṁ tyaktvā karoti yaḥ, lipyate na sa pāpena padmapatra ivāmbhasā. - Bhagavad-gītā 5.10 …………………………………. 111 1 śuddhamapāpaviddham. - Īśāvāsya-upaniṣad 8 ……………………………… 113 2 aprāṇo hyamanāḥ śubro - Munḍaka upaniṣad 2.1.2 …………………………… 113 3 asthūlamanaṇvahrasvamadīrgham - Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 3.8.8 ……… 113 4 na tadaśnāti kiñcana, na tadaśnāti kaścana - Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 3.8.8 113 . 5 sve mahimni pratiṣṭhitaḥ - Chāndogya-upaniṣad 7.24.1 ……………………… 113 6 na jāyate mriyate va vipaścit - Kathopaniṣad 1.2.18 …………………………… 113 1 nāyaṁ kutaścit na babhūva kaścit - Kathopaniṣad 1.2.18 ……………………... 114 2 sa va eṣa mahānaja ātmājaro’maro’mṛto’bhayo - Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 4.4.25 ………………………………………………... 114 3 atrāyaṃ puruṣaḥ svayam jyotiḥ - Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 4.3.14 ………… 114 4 jyotiṣām api tajjyotis-tamasaḥ param-ucyate - Bhagavad-gītā 13.18 ………… 114 5 ātmacaitanyamāśritya dehendriyamanodhiyaḥ, svakriyārtheṣu vartante sūryālokaṁ yathā janāḥ. - Ātmabodha 20 ……………………………………… 114 6 kimicchankasya kāmāya śarīramanusanjvaret - Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 4.4.12 ……………………………………………...... 114 1 śāntam śivamadvaitam caturtham - Māṇḍūkya-upaniṣad 7 ………………… 115 1 na puṇyapāpe mama nāsti nāśo, na janmadehendriya buddhirasti – Kaivalya-upaniṣad 22 ………………………………………………………...... 117 2 yattadadreśyamagrāhyamagotramavarṇam acakṣuḥ srotraṁ - Muṇḍaka-upaniṣad 1.1.6 ……………………………………………………… 117 1 anāditvān-nirguṇatvāt-paramātmāyam-avyayah, śarīrastho’pi kaunteya na karoti na lipyate. - Bhagavad-gītā 13.32 ………………………………………… 118 yathā sarvagataṁ saukṣmyād-ākāśaṁ nopalipyate, sarvatrāvasthito dehe ā ā ī ā tath tm nopalipyate. - Bhagavad-g t 13.33 ………………………………….. 118 1 na vardhate karmaṇā no kanīyān - Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 4.4.23 ….…… 119 2 anyatra dharmād-anyatrādharmāt - Kathopaniṣad .2.14 …………………… 119 3 samo’haṁ sarvabhūteṣu na me dveṣyo’sti na priyaḥ - Bhagavad-gītā 9.29 ……………………………………………………………… 119 nirdoṣam hi samaṁ brahma - Bhagavad-gītā 5.19 …………………………… 119

131 1 yā brahmādi pipīlikānta tanuṣu - Manīṣā Pañcakam 1 ………………………… 120 2 dvāvimau puruṣau loke kṣaraścākṣara eva ca - Bhagavad-gītā 15.16 ……….... 120 3 neha nānāsti kiṃcana - Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 4.4.19 ……………………… 120 1 yasmād bhūyo na jāyate - Kathopaniṣad 1.3.8 ………………………………… kāṣṭhā sā parā gatiḥ - Kathopaniṣad 1.3.11 ………………………………… 121

2 atha so’bhayam gato bhavati - Taittirīya-upaniṣad 2.7 ………………………… 121 3 tatra ko mohaḥ kaḥ śoka - Īśāvāsya-upaniṣad 7 ………….…………………… 121 1 suhṛn-mitrāryudāsīna-madhyastha-dveṣya-bandhuṣu, sādhuṣvapi ca pāpeṣu samabuddhirviśiṣyate. - Bhagavad-gītā 6.9 …………………………… 122 1 tatra ko mohaḥ kaḥ śoka ekatvamanupasyataḥ - Īśāvāsya-upaniṣad 7 .…….... 123 2 naiva kiñcit karomi - Bhagavad-gītā 5.8 ………………………………………… 123 3 nānuśocanti paṇḍitāh - Bhagavad-gītā 2.11 …………………………………….. 123 1 yā niśā sarvabhūtānāṁ tasyāṁ jāgarti saṁyamī, yasyāṁ jāgrati bhūtāni sā niśā paśyato muneḥ. - Bhagavad-gītā 2.69 ……………………………………… 124 2 karmaṇyakarma yaḥ paśyedakarmaṇi ca karma yaḥ, sa buddhimān- manuṣyeṣu sa yuktaḥ kṛtsnakarmakṛt. - Bhagavad-gītā 4.18 ………………… 124 3 paśyañsṛṇvan - Bhagavad-gītā 5.8 ……………………………………………… 124 4 kārakāṇi upamṛdnāti vidyā - Upadeśa Sāhasrī 1.14 ……………………………. 124

132