PANCADASI

NOTES FROM SWAMI PARAMARTHANANDA’S RECORDED LECTURES

Author: Professor H. K. Kesavan

Copyright (2014) Estate of Professor H. K. Kesavan

1

Ch 1: Tatva prakaranam

The text

This Vedantic text is authored by Swami in the 14th century. Prior to becoming the head of the Sringeri matt, he was called Madhavacharya and served as an administrator of the Vijayanagara kingdom. He was a prolific writer and his most famous work is Pancadasi which is considered to be one of the best works on . The characteristic feature of this book is that there is a progressive development of the subject. Accordingly, it is excellent both from the standpoint of the student as well as of the teacher because of its pedagogical value. One can derive full benefit from the study of the text if the student has already undergone the study of the Gita and the principal . The text has 15 chapters of varying sizes and each chapter is called a prakaranam—not adhyaya as it is usually referred to. It can be subdivided into three groups with five chapters in each group, called panchakam. The three groups are: a) viveka panchakam; b) deepa panchakam; and c) ananda panchakam. The first chapter is titled Tatva-Viveka Prakaranam.

Subject matter

It starts with Gurunamaskara and asks for the grace of God. Sri Sankarananda, a great Vedantic scholar, who was also a prolific writer, was Vidyaranya’s guru. Amidst all types of ignorance, Self ignorance (mula ) is the fundamental ignorance. Every is in the grip of this ignorance. The bondage and resulting pain arising from this ignorance is called samsara.

Next, the author introduces the knowledge of the tatvam about the inner essence of an individual which is invisible and immortal. For a proper understanding of the teaching, the student should have some prerequisites which are four-fold in nature; they are called chatushtaya sampathi (scs). If there is such an extensive preparation that is necessary before embarking on the study of the tatvam, how can students who do not have this prior preparation benefit from it? Vidyaranya assures that it will also help them through his blessings. It will gradually convert such students into qualified people and so he advises them to do in sincerity.

2

Jivatma

The author starts with an analysis of jivatma which is the inner essence of the individual. Nature of jivatma is sat, chit, and ananda—meaning, , consciousness, and bliss. The definition of consciousness is enumerated next and a clear understanding of its implications is expected for the study of Vedanta. The five-part definition is: a) it is not a product, property, and part of the body; b) it is an independent entity; c) it is not limited by the boundaries of the body and extends beyond it; d) it survives after the fall of the body; and e) the medium of the body is essential for its manifestation. The humans are sentient and are endowed with the faculty of consciousness. Some other alternative words used for consciousness are awareness and sentiency. This consciousness alone comes into indirect contact with objects of the universe-- vedyaha. In the scriptures, the subject of consciousness is divided into 5 segments. Each segment is accessible to only one sense organ. Ear is the of sabda prapanca, the world of sound—it is nonexistent for the deaf. Similarly, sparsa prapanca is accessible for touch, rupa for vision, rasa for taste, and gandha for smell.

Consciousness comes into contact with these 5 objects. The deciding factors are: 1) sense organ—the organ that is operated shuts off the remaining sense organs—indriyas; 2) mind—specific thought (vritti). Indriyam along with vritti decides which object should come into contact with consciousness. It brings about experience of the object. For instance, consciousness plus cow, gives the cow experience. Experience is the name of consciousness when it comes into contact with the object. It is another name for consciousness indicating a relational status. Thus, there are several relational names with the objects of the universe. Are the experiences many or one? The usual answer to the question would be that there would be many experiences which are based on a fundamental error. In truth, there is only one consciousness seemingly appearing as many experiences; thus, plurality is an erroneous conclusion. Relational names refer to one and only one consciousness. Changes are only in objects. Intellectually, remove the objects from experiences; we will be left with one and the same consciousness.

In jagrat —the waking state—one uniform consciousness appears as manifold experiences. Consciousness persists in svapna avastha, the dream state, but the objects are different. The difference between jagrat and svapna can be stated. In jagrat, objects have longer periods of existence whereas in svapna, they last for a relatively shorter time; according to scientists, the periods are on the average of about 1½ minutes. Consciousness is also very much present in susupti avastha, the sleep state. In this state, the object of experience is total blankness which is the sleep experience. Since consciousness is the same in the three states, consciousness

3 is uniform, undivided, and changeless throughout life. In fact, this conclusion is extended to time beyond an individual’s life—eternal. Vidyaranya asks us to focus only on one idea—consciousness is one continuous entity.

Experiences of 3 states

Every experience happens in the mind—a thought mode—vritti. Every vritti is a sentient one—chetana, not jada (sentient not inert). Every vritti is associated with consciousness. What is the relationship between consciousness and thought? The author wants to point out that it is similar to the relationship between consciousness and body—recall the definition of consciousness stated earlier. Stream of experiences means stream of thoughts. One thought arises and falls as experiences come and go. But consciousness does not rise and fall. Consciousness is also present between thoughts. If there is no thought, there will be no experience but consciousness continues. It will be objectless consciousness, not emptiness. Consciousness with dancing thoughts is compared to the story of rasa krida of Bhagavata where one dances with numerous gopis. If it is clearly understood that consciousness is associated but not affected by the thoughts, it will be pure ananda—pure bliss.

In sleep also, we have a form of experience called experience of blankness. It is one uniform experience called mula avidya—primary ignorance. It is the absence of everything—everything is in a dormant form. How does one know that there is an experience of ananda? Definitely, this experience is not at the time when one is asleep; instead, we recollect this experience on waking. Recollection is possible only after collecting the experience. This observation lends proof to susupti . We remember only what we have directly experienced. The thought must have existed for the experience of blankness. Wherefrom does this thought arise? The thought arises in the dormant mind—the unmanifest condition called the karana sariram. Consciousness exists in that thought also. One does not recognize karana sarira vrittti at the time it occurs, but only after waking. We usually refer to sleep experience—the word sleep would not have existed in the vocabulary if the vritti had not occurred. Is sleep knowledge in the waking state memory or knowledge? It is memory because jagrat and susupti are different states. Memory of sleep in jagrat means direct experience of blankness in sleep state. Therefore, at the time of sleep, you had direct experience of blankness which is a special thought in the dormant mind. Even in coma, consciousness is there but the thoughts are those of sukshma vritti.

By analyzing the three states of consciousness, we affirm that the consciousness principle does not undergo any change at all. Only thought patterns in the three states are different. Consciousness along with a thought is renamed as experience. When all the thoughts go away, there is no more drama in the mind. Only consciousness is present. No one can destroy consciousness. It has no birth because it is not created in time.

4

On existence

In science, it is assumed that matter is fundamental and is always present; on the contrary, it is believed that consciousness evolves in time. In Vedanta, on the other hand, consciousness is ever present and does not evolve. What does evolution of life mean? Consciousness is eternally present but it requires a medium for it to materialize as the life principle. Let us hypothetically say that all living beings are destroyed. Consciousness will still be there but it cannot express itself. We introduce the term to connote consciousness that is reflected in the body-mind complex. Chidabhasa has birth and death whereas chit, the perennial consciousness, does not take birth. Can one prove existence of consciousness? The very question is ridiculous because a human is a conscious being. The prover of everything need not be proved. He is self- proved—satyam prakashaha—svatha —self-evident. Consciousness has intrinsic existence. Existence must be its very nature. So chit is also sat; jivatma is both chitrupaha and sadhrupaha.

Ananda

Having established that consciousness possesses the intrinsic features of sat and sadh, we proceed to establish its third feature, namely, ananda. Whenever a person or object gives me happiness, that entity gives me joy. Similarly, another object may not give me joy. And so we develop our likes and dislikes towards objects according to whether they give joy or sorrow. Everybody loves oneself. Self is also an object of love. There are several sources of joy including atma. On observation, we find that Self is uppermost in everybody’s list of likes. What is loved most is self-love. How do we logically prove it? Any other love in our list of likes is conditional love; it is only love of one-self that is unconditional. Even God is subjected to conditions. Therefore atma is unlike all other objects of love which are conditional. I want to protect myself—let me not die. Let me not cease to exist—let me survive all the time. How about a person wanting to commit suicide? On examination one finds that it is because of one problem or the other that he is facing that he deems life unbearable. If a solution for that specific problem is found, he will suddenly lose his motivation to kill himself. Self is always the object of love.

A jnani loves everyone unconditionally. Does this observation invalidate our understanding of the supremacy of self-love? No, because a jnani’s love is universal because he sees everyone as atma. His self has expanded to include the whole universe unlike an ajnani’s. Self is the greatest source of joy; in fact, it is the only inexhaustible source.

5 So far, Vidyaranya has developed the theme of consciousness, existence, and bliss without the help of the scriptures which assert the three intrinsic qualities of and, furthermore declares the identity of jivatma and paramatma. This identity is known as .

Samsara

Why do we have the problem of samsara? The problem arises because the fact of aikyam is not clearly known. We only have a partial knowledge about it. Atma svarupam is partly concealed. Atma ananda svarupam must be known to us to some extent because of the fact that we have unconditional love to ourselves. If we had complete knowledge of it, we would have known that atma is ananda svarupa and as a result we would not have gone to external objects for seeking ananda. It is the partial knowledge (neither ignorance nor bliss) that is the cause of the problem of samsara; it is partial knowledge that is the obstacle (pratibandha).

There is an unfortunate tendency to define even terms that are obvious in their meaning in order to be precise. The way the meaning of obstacle is defined is one such. When you know an object in all its completeness, its description is called asthi bhuti vyavahara; and when there is an obstacle and you don’t experience it as a result of it, you don’t accept its existence—it is then called nasti nabhati vyavaharaha. The obstacle has transformed the first description into the second one and it is thus defined accordingly. All this seems long-winded but we do come across such steps in philosophical development in order to satisfy our urge for clarity and precision.

The obstacle for atmananda is beginningless ignorance—avidya. It also creates misconceptions. Samsara will continue if this obstacle is not removed. Ignorance has the unique feature that it will never die a natural death. Therefore, it has to be destroyed willfully. Automatic liberation is only a comforting tale. In order to eliminate ignorance, one would need the requisite knowledge about it.

Prakriti

Prakriti is the fundamental form of matter. It is subtler than energy. Prakriti has three gunas: satva, , and tamas. The principal features of these gunas are constituted by jnanendriyas, karmendriyas, and inertia, respectively. Inertia is also called sakti. . The three divisions of prakriti classified according to gunas are: a) sattva prakriti; b) rajas pradhana prakriti; and c) tamas pradhana prakriti. We introduce a) and b) first, and c) later.

Iswara, Jiva and Jagat

Matter is capable of manifesting consciousness. The original consciousness (OC) when reflecting in prakriti—the reflecting medium—(RM), is called reflected

6 consciousness (RC) or borrowed consciousness. When OC has satva pradhana prakriti as the RM, its RC is called ; when OC has rajas pradhana prakriti as the RM, its RC is called Avidya. Maya and avidya are two aspects of the original prakriti. The quality of reflection in the two mediums of satva and rajas will be different. The reflected consciousness due to Maya, due to satva pradhana prakriti, is called God—Iswara. He is able to keep maya under his control—maya becomes a servant of Iswara. Lord is omniscient—sarvajnya.

The medium of rajas that gives rise to avidya is the originator of Jiva. Avidya stifles the power of satva although it does not make it totally bereft of it which explains that jiva is endowed with partial knowledge. Avidya dominates jiva. Each jiva has a reflecting medium. There are as many avidyas as . Also, there are many varieties. Together, it is called karana sariram.

Maya and Avidya are the names given to the RMs of pradhana and rajas pradhana prakriti, respectively. The RM of tamas pradhana prakriti is called prakriti itself without inventing a new name for it. All three media are jadam (inert) by themselves. The three inert media are activated by one principle that is beyond all three of them, that is, by Brahman itself.

Srishti

Prakriti means that which can evolve. Five elements are born of prakriti. Since they are jadam, they are tamas pradhana. The satva guna is suppressed. The rajo guna cannot be active. Any object of consumption is inert in nature. Inert elements are available for jiva’s bhoga. Why not Iswara bhoga? Because jivas have accumulated phalas accounted for in the ledger on punyas and papas, and they are exhausted by karma phalas. How does one account for the first creation of the universe? It is not a one-time event; creation is eternal. Who keeps track of -papa phala? Iswara has faithfully maintained an invisible record uncontaminated by a virus in his computer. Iswara is the nimitta karanam for creation and prakriti is upadana karanam.

Five elements are born of prakriti; they also have satva and rajas elements in addition to its tamas element in them because all three gunas are mutually coupled thus differing only in their proportions. Also, there are five subtle elements where satva guna part dominates—these are: , , jala, , and prithvi. There are 5 jnanendriyams (eyes, ear, nose, skin, tongue). In addition, there are two functional names for the inner organ called anthakaranam—mind which does the function of analysis, and intellect which serves the function of decision. There are 5 karmendriyas and 5 ; one with five-fold functions is reckoned as 5 pranas.

Prakriti tatvam is introduced to understand avidya. There are a total of 17 elements to constitute sukshma sariram (): 5 jnanendriyas+ 5 karmendriyas+ 5 pranas+ 2 inner senses. Karana sariram (causal body) is

7 beginningless. Sukshma sariram is first created; it is also called linga sariram meaning an indicator. Sukshma sariram has the capacity to reflect. Reflected object is an indicator of the original object. The RM is always a for the existence of OC. Sukshma sariram indirectly reveals atma. Iswara looked through sukshma sariram is called Hiranyagarbha. Jiva looked through sukshma sariram is called Tejasaha. If both are born of sukshma sarira, why do they have different names? Hiranyagarbha connotes the total, called samashti, a macro concept. Tejasa is used for the micro concept, called vyashti. The words samashti and vyashti appear very often because we are investigating the universe both at the macro and micro levels. When the identification of the individual I is with Tejasa only, which is a partial identification, it acquires the name Samsara.

Mere karana sariram or sukshma sariram will not suffice for experiencing samsara. Samsara starts in all its fullness only after the arrival of sthula sariram. The physical body—golakam—is necessary for experiencing samsara. Sthula sariram is bhoga ayatanan and sthula prapanca is bhogya. Convert subtle elements into gross elements and then to the body by a process which can be called grossification. It is for the experience of individual tejasa.

The process of grossification is called panchikaranam whereby 5 subtle elements are converted into 5 gross elements. Each gross element consists of ½ of one of the five subtle elements and 1/8 of the other 4 subtle elements. It will result in a 5x 5 matrix whose rows represent gross elements and the columns represent the subtle elements. There will be an entry of ½ along the main diagonal, and entries of 1/8 for the off-diagonal elements. Every gross element becomes an alloy. The name is based on the dominant element. Subtle element is called tanmatra. Thus, creation is born of tamasic part. Recall the earlier discussion on satva pradhana prakriti (RM) and maya as also the rajo-pradhana prakriti (RM) and avidya.

Brahmanandam: is the elliptical cosmic globe; 14 lokas exist within it—seven up and seven down. It could be viewed as 14 fields of experience.

A brief summary of the goal

Iswara is chaitanyam reflected in Maya which is satva pradhana. Iswara is not affected by maya. Self-knowledge is unaffected by samsara. Creation is a leela, a sport. Jiva is Brahma chaitanyam reflected in avidya which is rajoguna pradhana. Partial knowledge of jiva is the cause of error. The individual does not know his true nature on account of the fundamental error. The crucial thing missing is Self- knowledge. Security comes from one’s own true nature and since one does not know what it is, insecurity results. One should be looking inwards for gaining security. Being exclusively an extrovert will not help. The motivation for action— for karma—is for getting security. Every relation one strikes is in search of

8 security only. But bhoga, the fruits of action, will lead to more karma and thus we will be caught in the endless cycle of karta-bhokta-karta. We take one sthula sariram after another and not necessarily even in the same loka resulting in a disorderly movement. It is a helpless journey where one does not get any relaxation. Unfortunately, Yamadharmaraya does not consult the individual before making his next placement!

Jiva cannot escape the samsara cycle independently. It has to seek external help. One has to surrender to a guru. But how does one identify a guru? Surrender to God and ask him to send a guru. Perform noble and follow the tenets of karma . One should never entertain the idea that this wisdom has dawned at a rather late stage in one’s life. Whenever one embarks on the correct path is the right time. Bhagavan will bring a guru. A compassionate guru will lift a jiva from the morass of samsara. Brahmasmi.

Jiva is finite and it looks out for completeness—purnatvam. If not, it will be caught in the cycle of samsara; one will be going from finite to finite only. That finite + finite = finite only, is called apurnabhava. We will be constantly trying to satiate one desire after another and finally die with a bundle of unfulfilled desires. Incomplete can never become complete if jiva is left untended. For a way out, a seeker should approach a guru who has the ability and willingness to give upadesam. Interestingly, rescue from the endless cycle of samsara is an intellectual activity. Spritual ignorance is associated with and its removal is essentially a cognitive problem. Knowledge can only be imparted through the use of language whether it is spoken or written. One should take the knowledge and drop the words. Subject oneself to a systematic teaching from a teacher who has tatva jnanam. One method of teaching is through pancha viveka. A method of teaching is called prakriya. When successful, enjoy the inner peace that surpasses all understanding.

Pancha kosha viveka

Shravanam is the consistent and systematic study for a length of time under a competent . The method of teaching chosen here is through the analysis of the five . The five layers of personality are: 1) annamaya kosha (anatomical layer); 2) pranamaya kosha (physiological layer); 3) manomaya kosha (psychological layer); 4) vijnanamaya kosha (intellectual layer); and 5) (blissful layer). Atma which is the conscious principle has the deceptive appearance of being concealed by these 5 layers. But the fact is atma cannot really be concealed because of two reasons: a) atma is all- pervading and an entity that is infinite cannot be covered; b) consciousness cannot be covered by the 5 koshas since the koshas themselves are known in the light of consciousness only. A cloud, however vast, is smaller in area than the sun and it is known because of sunlight only. So, when we speak of covering consciousness by the five koshas, it is only meant in a figurative sense. One has lost sight of atma because our attention is being distracted. This observation also

9 suggests another definition of samsara: the absolute real is being missed while attention is being distracted by mithya anatma.

Annamaya kosha is the tangible physical body born out of 5 gross elements. This represents the anatomical aspect. Pranamaya kosha is a part of sukshma sharira and consists of 5 pranas and 5 sense organs of action. This kosha represents the physiological aspect. All of them are born of rajas and so represents kriya sakti. Manomaya kosha is part of sukshma sariram and is made up of mind— vimarshatma—instrument that is responsible for doubt –jnanendriyam. Vijnanamaya kosha consists of the intellect (that ends the process of doubting) and the sense organs (jnanendriyas) born of satva guna; this is also part of sukshma sariram. Finally, anandamaya kosha that belongs to karana sariram is experienced in susupti. (Note three koshas are classified under sukshma sariram.) In sleep, there is the two-fold experience of total ignorance and bliss. Ignorance is dominated by tamo guna whereas bliss is dominated by satva guna—this combination is called malina satvam. There are 3 layers of ananda: a) priya, b) moda, and c) pramoda—representing happy, happier and happiest layers. Anandamaya kosha gives rise to experiential ananda. Brahmananda is never experiential knowledge.

Jiva’s problem is that instead of claiming that I am consciousness pervading the 5 koshas, it makes the wrong identification and settles for taking the 5 koshas as itself. It is identification with the 5 koshas that is the false conclusion. That is the tadatyam—the intellectual problem. Physical proximity of atma and anatma is not a problem because atma always remains unaffected. They cannot be physically separated because atma is all-pervading. Furthermore, they should not be separated since that would make all vyavaharas (transactions) impossible to conduct. Both are necessary for transaction. Even to say I am Brahmasmi, a mahavakya, we want the juxtaposition of the two. It should be emphasized that the intellectual conclusion that I the consciousness is limited by the body is the wrong conclusion. It is a cognitive problem. I am ever free when the body is there; also, I am ever free even when the body is not there—this latter statement is true but cannot be expressed in the absence of the body.

In summary, saving jivatma is a cognitive problem, and it is also called a spiritual problem. The intellectual problem is related to the ignorance about the spirit. Spiritual knowledge takes place in the intellect. Jnanadanam cannot be done physically. It can be done through words—guru upadesa. Method used for the teaching is pancha kosha viveka in order to segregate the five koshas from I. Dissection is necessary to separate chetana atma from achetana anatma. Tatadatyam is the problem and viveka is the solution.

Anvaya vyathirekha is the instrument for the intellectual dissection of the problem. Panchakosha viveka is the goal. Jivatma is thus extracted from panchakosha and equated to Paramatma. We will now explain what vyathirekha is all about. This method is employed to determine whether two

10 things are inseparably tied to one another as one single compound or whether the two separate entities are incidentally appearing as one. Swamiji gives a humorous example to illustrate the method. Suppose we want to determine whether the teeth of a person are intrinsic to him or not. Go to his house to meet him without giving advance notice. You see the person without teeth. The logic is: before this visit, I did not know whether he had natural teeth or he was wearing denture. Now I see the same person in the absence of teeth. I have seen one of them (the person) in the absence of the other (teeth). This is the perception of one qualified by the absence of the other—this is the anvayaha part of the logic. The absence of denture qualified by the presence of the other is the vyathireka portion of the logic. Using this logic, we will prove that all 3 sarirams are incidental to consciousness and secondly, even in their absence I continue to exist

Consider the pair atma and sthula sariram first. In jagrat avastha, they are together. However, in dream, I the consciousness is qualified by the absence of sthula sariram. This is the anvayaha part of the logic to prove the separability of atma and sthula sariram. Absence of sthula sariram qualified by the presence of atma is called vyathirekha.

Next, we consider the pair atma and sukshma sariram. In svapna, there is the experience of atma qualified by the absence of sukshma sariram—anvaya. Also, there is the absence of sukshma sariram qualified by the presence of atma— vyathirekha. Conclusion: sukshma sariram is not intrinsic to atma. Atma is different from sukshma sariram.

(A point of clarification: The pancha koshas are related to gross, subtle, and causal bodies. In sukshma (subtle) we include 3 koshas, namely, prana, mano, and vijnana. These 3 koshas are divided into two groups as determined by their gunas. The pranamaya kosha is determined by rajo guna, and manomaya and vijnana koshas are determined by sattva guna. This fact is emphasized because of the prevailing confusion in the literature about their classification. Karana sariram is grouped under anandamaya kosha.)

Finally, consider the pair karana sariram and atma. Go to a condition where karana sariram is present. Take the state of jnanam that enjoys Brahmasmi. The states of jagrat, svapna and susupti are absent. In the state of , there is no avidya and atma is very much present. The samadhi state will be discussed at length later. When self-ignorance is absent, atma is present—this is the anvaya portion. When atma is present, there is absence of ignorance—this is the vyatirekha portion of the logic. Therefore, karana sariram also is not one’s intrinsic part.

The final conclusion of the analysis on application of the anvaya-pratirekha logic is that pure atma is Brahman. And atma has been intellectually separated from the 5 koshas.

11

Bhaga-thyaga applied to mahavakyam

The jiva notion is dropped. Atma becomes Brahman. No such claim is valid from the standpoint of the koshas. Logical possibility of union of atma with Brahman is called sambhavanam. Oneness between jivatma and paramatma is revealed by the mahavakyam tatvamasi. Tat is Paramatma, tvam is Jiva and asi is their union. The usage that jivatma joins paramatma is utterly confusing. The right statement should be that jivatma owns up paramatma.

Swamiji takes up a grammatical point next whose clarity is required for further development of the mahavakyam. The discussion is on bhaga-thyaga-lakshana; it is about employing words. The primary method is mukhyartha vritti where we use a word to mean the totality of the object. Instead, if we use a word to reveal a part of the object it is called bhaga-thyaga-lakshana. This second form of usage is very common. Consider the statement: I see you. Obviously, the statement is not made in the primary sense at all since one is not interested in including one’s entire body in the meaning of you in the statement. Another example: I ate a mango—it does not mean that I ate the seed also.

The usage of I in the context of this text can include all 3 bodies and chaitanyam. But as used in different contexts, we filter the I deleting the parts that are inapplicable. In the example, I am intelligent; I refers to sukshma sariram and only to the buddhi part. In Vedanta one comes across the statement, you are all pervading’; the primary meaning of this statement is obviously not true. You refers to chaitanya only and other meanings are filtered out. Filtering depends on the context.

By the application of pancha kosha viveka, the chaitanyam part of jivatma is separated. Separation is a cognitive process. Referring to a movie projected on a screen, the analogy suggested is that one does not have to stop a movie in order to appreciate the fact that it is separated from the movie. Consciousness has no connection with the three bodies. Destruction of the body does not destroy consciousness; and presence of the body does not pollute consciousness. The presence of the body, however, will have a nice entertainment value. It is a leela. Bhagavan’s activity is a leela. A jnani’s activity is also a leela. But we have the propensity for converting leela into a problem.

In inferring the correct meaning of the mahavakyam, Tat-tvam-asi, which is, jivatma is identified with paramatma; one should not take the direct meaning of the vakyam. Rather, by appealing to bhaga lakshana, we should take the secondary meaning. For example, in the statement, ` I am all pervading’, the I refers to consciousness and does not include the additional factors normally associated with it.

12 The primary meaning of Tat (Paramatma) includes chaitanyam, satva-pradhana prakriti which is maya, and the superior virtues of omniscience, omnipotence etc. Also, in order to create this world, Paramatma takes recourse to tamas pradhana prakriti. Paramatma who has all the above properties has become jagat karanam, the cause of this universe—both the intelligent and material cause of creation. With the help of satva pradhana prakriti (spp), he becomes the intelligent cause and with the help of tamas pradhana karanam (tpp), he becomes the material cause.

Jivatma—Tvam-- is also a composite entity. The components are a) consciousness, and b) rajo-pradhana prakriti (rpp) which is called avidya, an inferior instrument compared to Paramatma’s reach. Jivatma is contaminated with desires—punya, papa, karma, raga, dvesa etc.

The secondary meanings that we associate with Parmatma and Jivatma depend on the context. For instance, they have one meaning when we use the words in the context of Swamy-Dasa relationship between the two, or the identity relationship between them. The latter comes about when both Paramatma and Jivatma shed their association with their respective prakritis—spp and tpp from Paramatma and rpp from Jivatma—in which case only consciousness is the common remainder of both the subtractions.

The procedure of associating secondary meanings with words seems convoluted when explained verbally, but we do it in practice all the time with effortless ease. The classic example that is cited is what happens while recognizing an old common friend called Devadatta. The recognition is instant although two friends have met Devadatta after the lapse of a number of years; they do not consciously set aside the physical features of the young Devadatta they knew and at the same time set aside the physical features of the old Devadatta they are meeting now in order to establish his identity. They temporarily remove the opposite attributes without any pretension to analysis of new and old. The filtered person is revealed through bhaga- thyaga- lakshana. Similarly, the mahavakyam should also be understood through a similar procedure.

When the intervening koshas of a human personality are dropped, the distortions in consciousness are also gone. Consciousness does not have attributes, superior or inferior. Divisionless consciousness is akhandam. It is sat, chit, and anandam. As understood by the student, it is aham brahmasmi.

Mananam

Mananam is the process by which all doubts arising from the teaching are eliminated. The doubts are of two types: a) doubts of a lay person and b) doubts raised by other philosophers. The first type is easily handled. Vidyaranya takes up the second type and he chooses to answer the doubts raised by the philosophers. When logicians raise doubts, the resulting debate often turns into

13 an intellectual wrestling match. Their question goes like this: You Vedantist say Parabrahma is revealed by mahavakyam through a guru. Once this happens, Parabrahma becomes an object and becomes a member of the triputi—guru- mahavakyam-parabrahma. Any member of a triputi is called savikalpaha. You are trapped in the field of dvaitam. In your own philosophy, dvaitam is mithya and so, it follows, Brahman is also mithya. What is the use of knowing Brahman which is a mithya?

The Vedantist should come up with a convincing answer to prove Brahman is not mithya but nirvikalpaha by demolishing the Nyaya philosopher’s argument. If Brahman is nirvikalpam, he cannot be an object of revelation revealed by mahavakyam. What is the Vedantin’s answer?

There are several methods of tackling a logical challenge; one method is to put a counter question to demonstrate the illogicality of the opponent’s argument. It demonstrates skill in logic. But the second method is to give a proper answer by not indulging in logical jugglery.

We will first give the answer based on logic. The Vedantin addresses the nyaya philosopher and says: you are talking about savikalpa and nirvikalpa and thus you have treated the division as an attribute. Does Brahman have the attribute of division or not? This question is based on the assumption there are attributes. You can never logically prove the existence of an attribute. An attribute must exist somewhere. In which substance? In order to prove the existence of a substance, one encounters various types of obstacles. These are: atmashraya dosha called the problem of self-reference like sitting on one’s own lap; anyonya ashraya meaning mutual dependence; chakrakam which means cyclic dependence; and meaning infinite regress. Since all these lead to logical fallacies, Vedantin asks the Nyaya philosopher not to raise a question based on attributes.

The answer based on logic continues. In Nyaya philosophy, the whole universe is classified into 7 basic principles or categories. Each category is called a padartha. They are: 1) guna (attribute or a property); 2) kriya (function); 3) jati (characteristic of generality) which is the unifying factor; for example, we are all human beings although individuals vary. Particularity, on the other hand, is a differentiating factor; 4) dravyam (substance); 5) (relationship between any pair); 6) viseshaha (particularity); and 7) abhavaha (non-existence). Probe into any one of the seven padarthas and we will encounter logical difficulties just as we encountered in the case of guna. Having met the objection of the Nyaya philosopher fairly and squarely on his own terms, the substantive question of the Vedantic student still remains. He wants to know whether Brahman is saguna or nirguna. Only an answer not based on dry logic can clear the doubt.

14 The answer of the Vedantin is clear and unequivocal. He asserts that Brahman is nirguna. All attributes are resting on the attributeless Brahman which, on the surface, appears like a contradiction. The Vedantin explains why it is not a contradiction from his special perspective. He points out that attributes belong to a lower order of reality whereas attributes of Brahman belong to a higher order of reality; this is a key insight of Vedanta. Because of the concept of different orders of reality, the seeming contradiction suddenly vanishes. This is because two contradictory things can coexist if they belong to different orders of reality. One example for illustrating the idea: a person goes to bed in pitch darkeness which is the reality of the waking state; but he dreams of broad day light which is the reality of the dream state. Teaching is done at the vyavaharika level where the tripartite divisions of guru, sastra, and Brahman have to be accepted. This is done with the understanding that Brahman is not associated with vyavaharika gunas.

Finally, is nirgunam an attribute? We use the word nirgunam as long as we are in the field of guna. Once we are out of it, we will stop using the word nirgunam. It is like one thorn removing another thorn; the second thorn is thrown away once its purpose is served. The word advaitam is dropped once all dvaitams are shed.

Nyaya philosophy does not have the concept of orders of reality and hence faces all the ensuing difficulties.

We again reiterate the meanings of sravanam and mananam. Sravanam means that with the help of upanishadic statements, the teaching given out by those statements is extracted. This process of extraction of the real meaning of the upanishadic statements is called anusandhanam. Sandhanam is linking, connecting. The primary teaching is called tatparya— anusandhanam. It has to be done repeatedly in order to remove all doubts. Mananam is the elimination of logical fallacies that are attributed to Vedantins. Such doubts have to be removed because doubtful knowledge is as good as ignorance and it cannot be put to use.

Nidhidhyasanam

The promise given in the Upanishads is this: clear knowledge that is obtained on the basis of sravana and will definitely give . But seekers do encounter difficulty attaining it even after going through the stages of sravanam and mananam. They don’t reap the benefits and instead continues to experience all the problems of samsara. Unfortunately, there is no consumer court for Vedantic products! Some common complaints that are encountered are: a) we have knowledge of Brahman but not its experience; the answer to that question is that there is no event called Brahman experience because it is ever experienced as the conscious principle; b) we have experienced Brahman but not without sarirams which is never possible Physical elimination of sarirams not possible. Pure Brahman understanding is pure understanding.

15

Problem with such basic doubts does not lie with any imperfections in the teaching. More often than not, the student would not have fulfilled the prescribed prerequisites—these are sadhana chatushtaya sampathi (scs) before starting his Vedantic studies. When the seeker is lacking in scs, jnanam will not be fruitful. Vidyaranya calls the obstructed knowledge as paroksha jnanam; it is also called apakva jnanam. Nidhidhyasanam is a process of setting right the deficiencies of the mind. The teaching remains unchanged. Benefits of knowledge start coming in although it is a gradual process. Peace increases and also the sense of insecurity decreases.

Deficiencies of scs can be rectified in several ways: satsanga, reading sastra again, sharing Vedantic teaching, alert life, imitations of a jnani are some of the methods. If a person has come to Vedantic teaching after successful completion of scs, he does not need nidhidhyasanam. One method that is often employed for correcting the inadequacy to the exposure of scs is Vedantic meditation which consists of the yogic method of meditation as prescribed in ashtanga yoga with some modifications. Vedantic meditation involves thought; it is not a thoughtless state. It is atma-satya-dhyanam; or anatma mithya dhyanam. Dhyanam requires the deliberate effort to turn into vedic thought whereas samadhi, meaning total absorption, will not involve any effort. Ekatanatvam is the convergence of all thoughts upon the same fact—same thought flow. This thought convergence is called nidhidhyasanam. The immediately preceding stage where effort is involved is dhyanam.

Meditation that is recommended as one of the methods of nidhidhyasanam is not meant for gaining knowledge. The knowing part is taken care of at the sravanam stage. Nidhidhyasanam is not confirming mystic experience. It is only meant for removing mental blocks obstructing flow of phalam. Shravanam should continue after mental blocks are removed. Thought flow should resemble a single unbroken thread. Every thought should have the same object—aham brahmasmi. Dissimilar thoughts should be avoided. This process results in nidhidhyasanam. It may culminate in absorption which is a natural faculty of the mind. Samadhi is a natural capacity of an individual. There is nothing mysterious about it.

Some further comments are made on the mechanism of samadhi where we focus on the inside thought and the outside object. In dream you meet a person. Is he a thought or an object? Person has become an object. You don’t feel you are thinking about him. This is called tanmayatvam. Similarly, in meditation, the process of dhyanam is forgotten; meditator as meditator is forgotten; only the object will be in focus. This is called nirvikalpa samadhi. Will power is not required to reach that state. Subject-Object division is not there in samadhi.

Are there thoughts in samadhi or not? Thoughts are very much there but they are not deliberately entertained. One does not feel thoughts are not there. Even in

16 susupti, thought is not there. Will is not involved. When one says `I slept well’, it is sukshma vritti and cannot be recognized while sleeping. In nirvikalpa Samadhi, there is sukshma vritti.

Spontaneous absorption is a distinct possibility in Vedantic thought. It is non- willed based sukshma vritti. They are not noticed at the time of Samadhi (compare with vrittis of susupti)—how does one know? One can infer on the basis of later memory when one comes out of meditation. When woken up from Samadhi, one gets smaranam. I was absorbed in Vedantic thought is an inference.

The stage of meditation where will power is required is called savikalpa Samadhi; when this requirement ceases in the continued process, that is, when will power is not required, this succeeding stage is called nirvikalpa Samadhi. What is the guarantee if the same vritti will continue after the effort is withdrawn? It will continue because of three factors: a) prathama —momentum of the initial vritti; b) adrishtam—spiritual punyam and c) samskara—spiritual inclination—atma vasana—because of repeated practice. Support of all these three factors will make sure the same vritti will continue.

In sage ’s yoga sastra, the dissolution of the mind is deemed to be a gradual process, whereas, in Vedanta, the question of dissolution does not arise. As stated earlier, Vedantic meditation is only meant for overcoming the deficiencies in scs. Nidhidhyasanam is not required if one has practiced scs sufficiently. The deficiency in scs is recognized if sravanam and mananam do not produce the expected result. Vedanta is a pramanam. Sravanam alone should be able to produce knowledge. As the student gains proficiency in scs, his capacity to benefit from sravana will increase. The progress is not in the pramanam but in the pramata. Pramata dosha is the obstacle.

Vidyaranya has adopted yoga sastra with some modifications for purposes of nidhidhyasana. But the differences in the two philosophies of Yoga and Vedanta should be borne in mind. In the Yoga philosophy, atmas are many; jivatma is different from paramatma; and both jagat and mind are satyam and they undergo gradual dissolution. Vidyaranya, being an acharya of Vedanta, rejects these ideas outright. The main Vedantic philosophy is that jnanam negates mithya once and for all. Jnanam destroys all the accumulated sanchita karmas. The freedom that one enjoys is not due to the absence of problems in anatma—it is in spite of the problems in anatma. jnanam (unaffected knowledge) is the result of the Vedantic pursuit once the deficiencies in scs are corrected.

SCS can be compared to ripening of the mind. There can be two-fold consequences: a) mind becomes sweeter just like a fruit when it ripens; b) it will be ready to get separated from the tree—delinking—need not pluck it even; a) and b) represent sweetness and separation. We generally focus on a). Take the mind as the fruit. Every adhikari should have a sweet mind. Every jnani should be

17 an adhikari. Moksha is defined as sweetness of the mind. But that is only a secondary definition of moksha which is a popular definition. What is the primary definition? It is freedom from connection with the mind—connectionless atma which is called freedom. Apply 5 points of definition of consciousness with respect to the mind. It is not a refinement of the mind; rather, it is freedom from the mind. Sweetness belongs to anatma.

Surveswaracharya states that nidhidhyasanam is repeated sravanam. Liberation does not have anything to do with the mind, whether sweet or not. It is atmasvarupam that determines it. Society determines liberation as state of mind—asangoham.

Nidhidhyasana becomes important because students do not come with the requisite preparation of scs. Some come with the preparation of scs from previous janmas.

Summary of chapter 1

Chapter 1 has 65 verses which are grouped under 5 portions. 1) Introduction; 2) Essence of Vedanta—Vedanta saraha; 3) Cause of samsara—samsara karanam; 4) Means of moksha—moksha margaha; and 5) Conclusion.

In 1), the author offers namaskara to his guru. He introduces the subject matter which is tatva vivekaha. The purpose of the text is to make the subject matter easy to understand for beginners.

In 2), jivatma-paramatma aikyam is discussed. Both are atmas and they are one and the same: sat, chit, and ananda. Discussion starts from daily experiences. Experience has two facets to it: consciousness which is the chaitanya amsha and thought which is vritti amsha. We have several experiences daily. Thoughts vary whereas consciousness does not. Plurality belongs to thought alone, not to consciousness. Thoughts are compared to beads of a garland; consciousness is compared to a thread.

This is true in all 3 avasthas. Consciousness is eternal and is called chit. Eternity is called sat. Freedom from mortality is ananda. Sat, chit, and ananda are the same in every jivatma. Only containers are different. Unlimited atma is paramatma. Jivatma-Paramatma aikyam is the essence of Vedanta. Atma is sat, chit and ananda svarupa.

The third portion introduces the concept of prakriti which is the basic matter principle—inertness. Satva Pradhana Prakriti (spp), rajas pradhana prakriti (rpp) and tamas pradhana prakriti (tpp) are the three divisions of prakriti. Consciousness is associated with spp and tpp together—Iswara. Brahman by itself is not either Iswara or Jiva. Iswara is both nimitta and upadana karanam of creation. SPP is nimitta—the intelligent cause; tpp is upadana—material cause.

18

Vidyaranya explains creation. Consciousness with rpp becomes jiva. Jivas are many in number—not so spp and tpp. RPP is the problem. If spp, omniscient; if tpp inert. Rajas results in partial knowledge—I know I am but I don’t know. I have raga which gives rise to struggle to acquire things and dvesa which makes me to run away from things. Life goes on from one janma to another.

Means of moksha

One must have done enough punyam to have the desire for moksha. One must have done plenty of sat- karma and adopted a life recommended by . Also, a seeker needs the help of a karunanidhi to lift him from the morass of samsara. From somewhere, a guru will appear to give his student a systematic sastra upadesa. The word upadesa is used in the karma yoga context as initiation by means of a mantra. In the context of , it means mahavakya . One way of distinguishing whether a guru is genuine or not is to find out whether he can give systematic teaching. The meaning of Vedanta is to dwell on jivatma—paramatma bodhaka vakyam. Acknowledging the superficial differences between them, they are, however, essentially the same. All statements of Vedanta are meant for the eventual understanding of the mahavakya statement. There are some statements on tvam, some on tat, and some on asi. Through pancha kosha viveka, we understand that our essential nature is not any one of the koshas since they are only external vestures. Through the process of bhaga thyaga lakshana—process of penetrating and dissecting vestures—we arrive at the conclusion that RPP is only a container.

Similarly, when we say Tat, we leave out spp and tpp and focus only on consciousness. Tat is the consciousness principle. Thus, Tvam and Tat, when understood in the proper context, lead us to only one consciousness principle. The student receives the message as aham brahmasmi. This is the upadesa part and the process is called sravanam. When the conditions are ideal, this should give the knowledge of moksha but the teaching may produce some doubts. The doubts are of a healthy nature. The unhealthy doubt consists of questioning the authenticity of the guru and the teaching. On the other hand, the seeker should take the deficiency on himself and say that he has not received the teaching properly. He should question his own understanding. When the understanding is clear, doubts will not be there. The doubts may also have arisen from modern science.

Sravanam: Vedanta vakya—tatparya nirnayam—central teaching. Mananam: Yuktitaha chintanam—logical analysis Nidhidhyasanam: tatparyatha anusandhanam

Nidhidhyasanam is for assimilation—deficiencies in scs are corrected. As assimilation increases, jnana phalam increases. Frequency in the intensity of menial disturbances is reduced. Also, there is reduction in recovery period.

19 Having gone through nidhidhyasanam, listen to sravana again. Be able to dissociate from the mind itself. I am not the mind at all. I am ever free. Nidhidhyasanam goes through two stages: first, improvement of mind; and secondly, detachment from my mind—aparoksha jnanam.

One must go through sravanam, mananam, and nidhidhyasanam to enjoy jivanmukti.

Ch 2: Mahabhuta Viveka

Introduction

The title of chapter 2 is Mahabhuta viveka pancadasa prakaranam. Mahabhuta refers to the 5 elements. Brahman is revealed through an analysis of these elements.

Brahman, in addition to being known as consciousness, is also known as eternal existence. This Brahman is arrived at through an analysis of the 5 elements based on the teaching of Upanishads. Specifically, Vidyaranya extracts the relevant information from the which has 8 chapters, the last three of which are on Brahman. In the sixth chapter, Brahman is revealed as pure non-dual existence and as such that chapter is itself famously known as sadh . The seventh chapter, which is equally famous, is on bhuma vidya, but our main focus will be on the message contained in the sixth where the mahavakya tatvamasi appears 90 times.

Overall meaning of the chapter

The overall meaning of chapter 6 of Chandogya is this. This universe, before its origination, was non-existent in the form of pure existence without any nama- rupa (name and form) based division. The existence after origination is divided because of names and forms. Before origination, Brahman alone was there without a second. Vidyaranya analyzes this universe which is the object of our experience.

The 5 elements are the main components of this universe. They are unique in character and there is increasing subtlety when one proceeds from earth to space. The 5 elements are earth, water, agni, vayu, and akasha. A subtler element has fewer properties. Earth has 5 gunas and is the grossest element— the word guna here means property. The five properties of sound, touch, colour, taste, and smell are associated with the elements. Water has 4 gunas, agni has 3 gunas, vayu has 2 gunas and akasha has 1 guna. Earth can be recognized by all the indriyas whereas akasha can be recognized by only 1 indriya. Akasha has the property of sound, vayu has sound and touch, agni has sound, touch and

20 colour (rupa), water has sound, touch, colour, and taste, and, finally, earth has sound, touch, colour, taste and smell.

Akasha has sabda guna only in a subtle form and therefore it cannot be experienced directly. In conditioned space—in enclosed space—sound can be experienced as echo. It is the sukshma akasha sabda. In meditation, we experience sabda (ahata is clapping). Sukshma anahata is omkara sabda.

In the same manner, we can carry on with the analysis of experience of the properties of the various elements. Every element has one special guna— visesha guna—and others are samanya gunas. They are cognized by the 5 sense organs belonging to the subtle body. The location of the sense organ is called golakam and the actual indriyam of the subtle body is invisible. For example, for touch, the entire body is the golakam.

We now return to the topic of Brahman as existence. The advantage of this analysis is that we do experience existence in every object of creation. So, the all-pervasiveness of Brahman is easier to comprehend compared to the analysis of Brahman as revealed in living beings. The basic 5 principles which describe consciousness are also equally applicable to existence. We appreciate the is ness part which is Brahman. Nama rupa is maya. Sat is existence with nama and rupa.

Creation consists of bhuta (5 elements) and bhautika (elementals) vastu which are made of 11 sense organs (indriyams-- 5 jnyanendriyas + 5 karmendriyas + 1 mind). Each indriyam requires an enclosure—a golakam.

Sense organs perceive the property. No sense organs can perceive a substance. A human being can never know a substance. Substance is beyond human perception--apourusesha vishaya. Brahman is the only substance.

How do we know we have sense organs? Indriyam is not available for sense perception. Sense organs are known through inference only. There are 5 different types of sensory experiences starting from the experience of sound-- sabda anubhava. There should be a relevant instrument generating that experience. From the anubhava, infer the sense organ. There will be only one unique sense organ for a sensory experience.

For inference, we need a relevant clue for further investigation. (An aside comment: sense organs are generally turned outside. At times, sense organs perceive within the body also. For instance, when the ear lobes are closed, you hear sound from within your own body. Movement of breath, noise when hungry are some other examples.)

21 Karmendriyas (organs of action) are not physically visible following the same pattern as jnanendriyas. Mind has 4 functions of the internal organ called anthakaranam.

Inquiry into the word Sat (existence)

Mahabhuta Brahma viveka—source: Chandogya Upanishad—chapter 6.2.1— dialog between Uddalaka the guru and Svetaketu, the student. Lessons on Self- knowledge can be given only when they are asked for.

Universe, before its origination did exist in the form of Brahman. Teacher uses the word —this—instead of the word universe, meaning something that exists before me. Vidyaranya comments on the word idam. Universe is objectifiable by 5 sense organs—golakams. Sukshma indriyas are located in sthula golakams. Indriyams and golakams are separately enumerated.

Mind has—5 paths—5 jnanendriyas. What these indriyas perceive come gushing into the mind and so it should be capable of allowing a particular traffic flow at a time. Other 4 organs function mechanically. Mind acts as the regulator. It is the presiding principle. Mind which is part of the sukshma sariram also requires a golakam. Hridayam—the heart—is considered to be its golakam. Scientists consider the brain as the golakam for the mind. Hridayam has 2 meanings: indirect meaning—lakshartha, and invisible mind is also called hridiyam in the vakyartha sense. Mind is called the internal organ. How do we say it is internal? Sense organs can access the world directly. Mind can only contact through sense organs—mediation necessary.

The second function of the mind, which, in fact, is the only function Vidyaranya mentions, is its role in evaluating things that enter the mind. For example, sweet is not good for me. Sensory organs do not make value judgments. Mind can only evaluate when sense organs present the object to the mind—co-operative functioning. Mind has 3 gunas which follows from the fact that the pancha bhutas have three gunas—satva, rajas, and tamas. Mind will constantly entertain thoughts.

Swamiji summarizes the 14th chapter of the Gita which deals with gunas. Although there are 3 gunas, the presence of their proportions differ. Thoughts will have distinct characteristics. In fact, by observing these characteristics, one can infer the dominant guna. Thought patterns differ when they are molded by their primary guna amongst the combination of three gunas. For a rajasic person, desires are numerous—he always feels the pressure to perform like a live volcano. He will have the greed to accomplish more and more. Each type has its own advantages. No value judgment is made. A tamasic person is a lazy person. Delusion, drowsiness, procrastination are some of his characteristics. But one needs tamas for recuperation. All three gunas are needed for spiritual development. When improperly handled, the gunas can be binding.

22

Binding how? Satva guna produces punyam but it can be binding in the sense it can ensure rebirth --punarjanma. Rajasic thoughts and actions produce papam leading to greed, value compromise and adharma. For a tamasic person, although the punya-papa bondage is minimized, he would be wasting a wonderful life. His old sanchita karma will give another janma.

Physical body is made of 5 elements. Subtle body consists of sense organs— golakams and indriyams—and the mind. The golakams are tangible and the indriyams and mind are intangible. Is mind merely matter or should it be classified as consciousness? In science, mind and matter are clearly separated. But Vidyaranya, consistent with vedic ideas, asserts that mind is also matter. The subtle body is matter born of 5 elements—bhautikam. Mind does not have consciousness of its own. What is the proof to show mind is matter? Science associates it with brain which, incidentally, belongs to sthula shariram in our classification! That mind is also matter cannot be proved by direct perception. Mind is not available for such an investigation. We need sastra and anumana pramanam for the proof. Materiality is clear with regard to those elements which have properties like rupa, sparsa etc. That the human body is matter, pure and simple, is clear. If body were to be intrinsic consciousness, it would never die. But when it comes to sukshma sarira, how do we infer its materiality? Sastras declare that mind is the product of annamaya prithvi; prana of water; vak of agni—which is to say they are all product of inert elements.

There is an interesting story in the Upanishads in the form of a dialog between Uddalaka guru and Svetaketu, his student, who is also his son. Uddalaka says mind functions when you eat food, and it will deteriorate after 2 weeks of fasting. To test the hypothesis, the student fasts for two weeks and when asked by his guru to chant the , he pleaded his inability. From this one could infer that food influences the mind; both food and mind belong to the same category. Therefore, mind is matter.

Entire universe is known through 11 elements. Objectifiable universe is referred to by the word idam. The general thinking is that a non-existent thing alone can be created. Universe was there before creation though not in this form; it was there in undifferentiated form—ekam, evam, advitiyam. It had no names and forms as obtaining now. A name goes with attributes. Pure existence does not have is as now. These are the words of Uddalaka in Chandogya Upanishad. A long commentary on ekam, evam, and advitiyam follows.

Uddalaka does not loosely use the three words. Assuming there are 3 types of differences possible in Brahman, he will then arrive at undifferentiated Brahman.

The three words negate 3 forms of differentiation with which every object is associated: svagata means internal differences, sajathiya means differences within a species, and vijathiya means differences in species. The example of a

23 tree is given to illustrate the ideas. The internal differences in a tree are manifested in the trunk, leaves, fruits etc. Sajathiya is illustrated when you consider one tree is different from another tree though belonging to the same variety. Vijathiya is illustrated when you indicate the difference between a tree and a man who belongs to another species altogether. Bheda thrayam is the word used for indicating the three-fold differences.

When sat is introduced, does it have bheda-thrayam? Sat is free from all three differences—upanishads say so. Words for negation: ekam, eva, advitiyam. Which word negates which difference? Ekam negates svagata; eva negates sajathiya; advitiya negates vijathiya.

Before creation, pure existence was there. What does existence mean without svagata, sajathiya, vijathiya mean?

Svagata: There are no internal divisions within existence. Why can’t we take nama and rupa as part of sat? Names and forms were not there before creation. They had not yet originated. Therefore, existence is partless from this point of view. How do we know nama-rupas were not there before creation? It is only after creation, names and forms appear. That is why, existence is svagatha bheda rahitam. In creation, space is suggestive of existence—akasha upasana is recommended on account of the suggestive identity of space with Brahman.

Does existence have sajathiya bheda? Is there another existence—obviously, no. In order to count two existences, one has to show a difference between one existence and another. Since there is no difference in existence, there is no sajathiya bheda.

Next, we show there is no vijathiya bheda even. Consider two things belonging to different species: let us say a tree and a non-tree. Note the second object can be described by the negation of the first. When this rule is applied to sat and asat, asat is non-existent. There could be vijathiya bheda only in worldly things. The ideas discussed to deny the bhedas can be put in the language of logic.

In logic, there should be two things to talk about bheda: cow is different from a horse. The difference must be from something. In this example, horse is called bheda pratiyogi—it is the reference point from which you say cow is different. Some object should function as bheda pratiyogi. If sat must have vijathiya bheda, one requires a bheda pratiyogi. But asat cannot serve as that reference point. Therefore, it cannot have vijathiya bheda.

Next, Vidyaranya takes a small detour to demolish the philosophical position of Madhyamika Buddhists with regard to existence. This discussion is not necessary for the main theme of the text; nevertheless, it is very interesting as an allied topic.

24 Sunyavada is a nihilistic philosophy. It argues that before creation, there was total emptiness—sunya—asat, and they also quote the scriptures in support of their stand. Chandogya unpanishad raises this question and answers it. They don’t accept pure existence because it is not available for transaction— avyavaharam. Whatever is not available for transaction is non-existent. For example, butter that is potentially contained in milk is not available and therefore it is non-existent. This argument of sunya vadis is refuted as follows.

Vedantins have already established pure existence. Buddhists are bewildered by it. They argue that before creation, there was sunyam. Vidyaranya gives a suggestive example for purposes of refutation. Suppose I dip in water and open my eyes. I will not have clarity of vision. Similarly, normal intellects of Buddhists cannot conceive of pure existence. It requires sastra-trained intellect.

Vidyaranya refers to who was a predecessor of Shankara. Advaita is wonderful but the preparation for its understanding is also great. Sruti suspends advaita temporarily. It allows dvaitam to accommodate the intense fear of dualists who are committed to saguna brahma.

In advaitam relations are not possible. A human being finds security through relationships. Typical samsara is by and mamakara (some one should belong to you).

Why do we call guru-shishya relationship sacred? Vedanta helps one to go beyond all relationships including sacred relationships. Immature seekers who have not gained the benefit of scs are afraid of a condition where there are no relationships.

If one wants to know Brahman, Vedas are necessary. Buddhism does not accept Vedas as an authority and ends up in sunya vada. Shankara calls Buddhists as confused people because they don’t use a proper pramana. Using logic without the support of sastras becomes dry logic. Logic requires data. Prathyaksha pramana is efficient with respect to anatma knowledge. There is no perceptual data for the investigation of Brahman. There cannot be loukika tarka with respect to atma. One has to collect information only from the sastras and employ sastriya tarka. It is not accessible to regular scientific reasoning. Those who question whether Vedanta is scientific do not know either Vedanta or science. Vidyaranya quotes from Survesvaracharya, an eminent scholar of advaita, who is the author of Naishkarma Siddhi who talks about the delusion of pramana. Ignoring sastra pramanam, many claim to be very rational. But we must have one eye for reasoning and another eye for sastras.

Vidyaranya takes on the sunya philosophers on the plane of logic also. He asserts that these philosophers have arrived at illogical conclusions by employing logic improperly. Vedantins claim that before creation existence alone was there whereas Buddhists claim that sunyam alone was existent. By sunyam we mean

25 non-existence. Therefore their position is tantamount to connecting non- existence with existence. Is existence a property of non-existence? What type of relation is this? Or is it the nature of non-existence? Non-existence cannot have existence as a property; neither can it have as its nature (svarupam).

Consider the relationship between sunlight and darkness. Darkness cannot be a property or nature of sunlight—neither guna nor svarupa. This is because sunlight and darkness are mutually contradictory.

The madhyamikas raise a counter question. After creation, isness consists of both Brahman and the world. They are happily coexisting. But the nature of Brahman is the polar opposite to the nature of the world. If this combination is acceptable to you, then why not the coexistence of sunyam and existence? The answer of the Vedantin to this question is clear and unambiguous: two things of opposite nature cannot coexist if both of them belong to the same order of reality like the examples of darkness and daylight, and sunyam and existence. But they can coexist if they belong to different orders of reality like in the example of dry sand and mirage water. There is no logical contradiction in the coexistence of satya Brahman and mithya jagat.

If, on the other hand, the sunya philosopher argues that his sunyam also belongs to a lower order of reality and therefore can coexist with Brahman, the Vedantin has no objection at all for the proposition. If sunya is asat, then reject; if sunya is mithya, then accept. Here, asat means pure non-existence negating sat which is pure existence. Mithya is neither pure non-existence nor pure existence. It is seemingly existent—experientially existent. Sunyavadi does not accept mithya.

Sunyavadi says: Why can’t we take Brahman also as mithya nama-rupa? Mithya is borrowed existence. If everything has borrowed existence, who is the lender? There has to be a lender who is not a borrower—an adhishtanam. Mithya alone without satyam is not possible. (False dream presupposes a real waker.)

The detour on sunyavada Buddhism is over. Vidyaranya returns to the main theme. He comments on the word atith in Chandogya. Upanishads say sat means existence, but the word atith that appears means existed. Is it referring to the same existence? If different, we come to duality. If it means one and the same, why do you then use two words? The answer given by Vidyaranya is that similar words are used in common parlance. They are seemingly repetitive expressions. Swamiji gives the humorous examples of ‘thanda cool drinks’ and ‘good ’ to illustrate the idea.

Another doubt about usage. Upanishad says that in the beginning sat alone was there. In that case, you are referring to locus of time and space. A verb requires a locus of time and space—kala vachaka sabda—a word conveying presence of time. Brahman and time were there. Vidyaranya says that Brahman and time were not there. Student’s mind is soaked in duality. How can we construct a

26 sentence devoid of dualistic interpretation? Scientists also talk about singularity at the time of big bang.

No verbal expressions are possible for conveying the innermost essence of advaitam. Language breaks down because the structure of grammar calls for dvaitam, subject and object relationship. Some compromise is absolutely essential for purposes of communication. This answer can be extended to our earlier discussion of the word atith.

We comment further on the word sat. Pure existence alone was there before creation. Yoga Vasishta describes it as motionless, profound, inconceivable (gambhiram), beyond light and darkness, all pervading etc. It is desa atitham, indriya agocharam (not accessible to indriyas), sarva pramana agocharam—not verbally expressed. That sat alone remains.

Debate with Nyaya philosophers—Questions: Among 5 elements, only 4 elements have birth and death—akasha is excluded. They were in the form of paramanus which are the smallest micro-matter of bhumi, agni, jala, and vayu. Paramanus are not visible. At the time of creation, paramanus combine amongst themselves. Combinations of molecules result in the formation of elements. Akasha, unlike the other four elements, appears to have no birth and death. But according to Vedanta, akasha also has birth and death; even science endorses it. Akasha does not have paramanus. Question 1: How does one say that pure Brahman alone was there before creation? The correct conclusion should be that both akasha and Brahman should be there. And question 2: Assuming space is gone, how can the human intellect conceive of pure existence?

Concept of sat is unique to advaita. Even though we experience existence of objects, it is an independent entity on par with consciousness and defined by the very same 5 principles which we have enumerated earlier; all that we have to do is to substitute the word existence for consciousness.

Existence pervades an object. In every object, experience and existence are both there. (Exercise: Learn to appreciate existence aspect alone without the object— formless light that pervades the object). Existence gets localized when associated with an object. A similar argument holds for consciousness. But, in the final analysis, consciousness is existence and it is difficult to visualize. Nyaya philosopher argues that space will remain after everything else is destroyed. The 4 elements excluding space which is the 5th element get disintegrated and their paramanus are not visible.

Answer to Q1: How do you know that space is eternal? Since Nyaya philosophy also accepts vedic authority, go to sastra to find the assertion. Akasha is a product of creation; even science endorses it. Once origination is accepted, destruction follows.

27 Answer to Q2: The Vedantin asks a counter question. In your philosophy, space is eternal. After pralayam, space alone will remain— space without a world, how can you visualize such a space? If you can do this, I can visualize existence without space. (An aside comment: Meditate with forms—then go to objects without forms: shivalinga, saligrama etc.—then meditate on akasha tatva—next step is pure existence.) You are the pure existence—the observer.

Nyaya and are closely associated. Their philosophy says that pure space is visible, but you cannot visualize pure existence. For this Vedantin asks: Where did you experience pure space? Eyes cannot experience it. Space is mixed with light or darkness (prakasha or tamas). And in your philosophy, you say, akasha is not prathyaksham—eyes can see forms or colours—contradicting your own conclusion.

Pure existence can be comprehended because of experiences. In sleep, all pancha bhutas are resolved, but I continue to exist. I am pure existence (spaceless, timeless, and objectless). Even in waking state, when the mind is silent, we have a similar experience. Nyaya philosopher makes the next comment: during the moment of silence, it is only sunyam, not sat, for which the Vedantin responds; at the time of silence, to prove sunyam, you need a sunyam thought. Both for presence and absence, you need cognition. In silence, sunyam vritti is also not there. You are experiencing pure existence. The Nyaya philosopher further comments that one cannot say existence vritti was there during silence. Vidyaranya says that everything else including sunya asks for a thought process to prove existence. But there is one exception—pure existence that is available during silence is self-evident—pure existence is self-effulgent consciousness. No perceptual process is necessary. Sat does not require sadh vritti. A thought is not necessary to reveal pure existence.

Thought need not illumine consciousness because consciousness is capable of illumining the very absence of thought. Samanya satta, I am, is common to all; in visesha satta, the individualities are added.

Before activation of the mind, pure existence remains unqualified. During sleep (no location), samanya satta is typified by the fact there are no transactions. Extend this micro-condition to the macro-condition. Bhagavan’s sleep is called yoga nidra—state at pralayam. At the total level, Bhagavan’s mind is called maya. In susupti, maya is in dormant form—pure existence only. This is what is meant by sat in chandogya Upanishad. In summary, before creation pure existence was there.

From this satt, the 5 elements were created: akasha, vayu, agni, jalam, and prithvi. Note that from pure Brahman, world cannot emanate. Turiya Brahman cannot become the karanam. Brahman along with mithya can become the karanam. What is maya? A long discussion follows.

28 Maya

What is maya? It is the power of Brahman, called sakti. Maya cannot be separated from Brahman and the word sakti indicates this. Sakti is inherent to Brahman. The inseparable relationship between maya and Brahman is therefore without beginning.

How does one know that there is maya sakti in Brahman? This question naturally arises because sakti is invisible. But the invisible can be known through inference. Sakti is inferred, not perceived. Inference needs a lingam, an indicator. What is the indicator for Maya? Creation becomes the lingam for the creative power which is called maya.

In vishitadvaita philosophy, Brahman and maya belong to the same order of reality. In advaita, maya is inseparable from Brahman, but belongs to a lower order of reality—nishtatvam. It is vyavaharika satyam. Why does advaita insist on order? The insistence is because maya undergoes change—savikaram. A change in maya will affect Brahman also if they belong to the same order. (Example: A truck passes on my shadow which is inseparable from me; but the shadow does not have the same order of reality and therefore we don’t cry.)

Mithyatvam—it is neither sat nor asat—seemingly existent. Brahman is the possessor and maya is the possessed and therefore they are different.

Brahman should become in order to become karanatvam— cause of the universe. Normally, a person and his power belong to the same order of reality. But in the case of Brahman and maya, their orders of reality are different.

Mithya does not come either under sat or asat. Maya has borrowed existence. Who borrows existence—is it an existent or a non-existent thing? If an existent borrows, one can point out there is no need to borrow. If a non-existent borrows, it is a figment of imagination since the borrower must be existent. Whoever borrows existence should be different from either sat or asat and that is called mithya. Maya has to be mithya since it has borrowed existence.

Is maya sunyam? It is not since the meaning of sunyam is non-existence and as such it cannot borrow existence from Brahman.

Every erroneous idea that we have comes under mithya. According to Vedanta, everything that you experience is mithya.

Mithya is not accepted by either visistadvaita or dvaita. In the former, everything that is existent is taken as real, and unreal is taken as non-existent.

29 Since maya is mithya, we don’t count it with Brahman. Therefore, it is unreal (sat-asat lakshana). An unreal thing can be compared to a non-existent thing, but a non-existent thing can never be experienced.

Without Mayasakti, Brahman cannot be the creator of the universe. Maya cannot exist as an independent entity. Maya cannot be identical with Brahman, nor as a separate entity. Can Maya be a part of Brahman? Brahman does not have parts. Parts are possible within space and time. Any modification in Maya will affect Brahman. Maya is superimposed on Brahman enjoying a lesser degree of reality (analogy of the dream world). All these are conveyed by the word mithya.

Q: How can you discredit ? Shakti makes a difference in the life of a person. Ans: Utility is not the criterion for reckoning, but reality is. The fact that maya is responsible for creation should not give it the entitlement for being reckoned as a separate entity. It is useful for transaction.

There is also another answer to the question. Shakti is not responsible for improvement of your life. Potential will be of use only when implemented. Therefore, shakti in potential form cannot be counted.

A further question: You have said shakti karyam is useful. Therefore, it can be counted according to your own statement—return of duality. Vidyaranya answers this question in the following way: Upanishad is talking about a state before the origination of the universe. In that state, shakti karyam is not there. Where is the question of dvaitam then? Maya cannot disturb the nondual state of Brahman.

Vidyaranya dwells further on maya which is interesting in its own right, but does not further bolster the argument he has already made in support of it by expounding its mithya character. He has already established maya’s inseparability from Brahman without ever affecting Brahman’s pristine independence. It is deemed important to establish the mithya aspect of maya beyond a shadow of doubt because it is a central concept of advaita philosophy. Students find it easier to grasp the concept of Brahman rather than the concept of mithya.

Sruti describes Brahman in two different ways: Brahman as karanam, and Brahman as not karanam. One needs to add the proper adjective in order to clear the ambiguity—maya sahita karanam (cause along with maya) and maya rahita Brahman (cause without maya). The usage maya rahita Brahman can be justified from paramarthika drishti. Maya exists from vyavaharika angle only in which case Brahman is referred to as maya sahita Brahman. Maya sahitam is karanam and is called Iswara. From Paramarthika angle, maya does not exist in which case the question whether maya and Brahman are together does not arise.

30 With this explanation, the discussion on maya is over. Next, we proceed to the discussion on creation.

Bhuta Bhautika Vivekaha

There are two topics on creation which are dealt in parallel. First: panchabhuta srishti and second: pancha bhuta Brahma viveka. The first evolute of maya is akasha—space. Its intrinsic nature is to accommodate everything; the second feature is that space is existent although this feature is borrowed from Brahman. In Chidambaram, akasha is worshipped. Accommodation which intrinsically belongs to akasha is called avakasha svabhava, and existence is a feature borrowed from Brahman. That existence pervades akasha also is understood from our experience.

Relationships are possible between two things belonging to the same order. Therefore, Brahman lending existence to akasha is incorrect. This relationship is called adhyasa-adishtana sambandha which is tantamount to no relationship. Instead of saying that akasha has the property of accommodation, we say that it has the intrinsic feature of sabda guna—pratidhvani (echo). Sabda guna is generally experienced as echo. This is not a property of Brahman. In highlighting this property of akasha, the author is anticipating his further development on the vayu element which also has sabda as one of its features lent from akasha.

Once akasha comes into being, existence gets mixed up with it. We forget existence is an independent principle and start appreciating it along with akasha, albeit, unknowingly. Who is responsible for introducing this confusion? Clearly, it is maya with its viksepa sakti. In the statement, ‘akasha is existent’, akasha is a noun and a substance, and the word existent is an adjective suggesting a property. The substance-property relationship, or the noun-adjective relationship of sat and akasha appear in the reverse order. In reality, sat should be the substance and akasha the property.

Existence was the basic substance that was there. Nama-rupa was added because of Maya’s vikshepa sakti—diversifying power. In the case of akasha, it is the non-substantial nama-rupa. Existence is independent while akasha is dependent. The first reversal is that existence which is the substance is converted into a property and akasha is treated as though it is a substance. The second reversal is existence which is independent entity is converted into a dependent; similarly, akasha is converted into an independent entity. Vedanta says existence is neither an adjective nor a verb; maya has brought about this reversal between akasha and existence.

Existence should never become an adjective. The reversal in role is the cause of samsara. Existence should ever remain a noun.

31 (An aside comment: the visishtadvaitins state that the world is a property of Bhagavan; the advaitins also endorse this observation. But there is a difference arising from the fact that, for a visishtadvaitin the world is as real as Brahman— the adjective and noun belong to the same order of reality. For an advaitin, on the other hand, Brahman belongs to a higher order of reality than the world. Therein lays the fundamental difference between the two Vedantic philosophies.)

The same role reversal (viparyaha) is committed with reference to consciousness also. Consciousness cannot be visualized as a substance which introduces further difficulty. The independent status for consciousness is based on sastra pramanam.

The role reversal has to be set right at an intellectual level. World should appear as nama-rupa instead of as substance. Reversal has to take place after Self- inquiry. Even the of the world are infected by maya. The only pramana that remains above such possibilities is the sastra pramana—the Upanishads. Existence and consciousness are the only substance. A student would fully qualify for Vedantic studies if he is interested in accomplishing this reversal at an intellectual level.

This strange phenomenon occurs even in normal karana (substance)—karyam (property) relations. The whole creation is a product and so will classify as property; it is a non-substantial world. World is a set of properties—rupam. The next effort is to ensure that existence which is seen as property should be seen as the ultimate property. Is ness is the ultimate substance. We think that the substance should be visible and tangible. Vedanta says that visibility and tangibility are temporary properties only; they have nothing to do with the substance. Non-visible, non-tangible existence is the ultimate substance. This is the first stage: -dharmi . We have thus far traveled from dvaitam to visistadvaitam.

Reversal is the prayojanam of sruti vichara. Brahman should be converted into prama. Inquire into akasha srishti. Right perception spares you from samsara. In the wrong perception, the ever-changing properties are viewed as substances. As an example, when the pot breaks, there is no change of substance; there is only an incidental change in form. This should be the right view.

The inquiry starts now.

Consider the example of a pot. Clay is the substance and pot is a property. This separation is not at a physical level but purely at an intellectual level. Similarly, in akasha, we have two amshas: the first one is akasha and the second is existence. Whichever is more extensive should be the substance; the less extensive amsha should be the property. Existence goes beyond akasha and pervades other elements such as vayu etc. On the other hand, akasha does not

32 exist in maya. This appreciation is the basis for the dissection at the intellectual level.

(Aside comment: Does the world enjoy the same reality as Brahman? In vishistadvaita, world is also paramarthika whereas in dvaita, it is vyavaharika. If the world is the real adjective to real Brahman, then, all the evils of the world are transferred to Brahman. If Brahman has to remain uncontaminated, it should belong to a higher order of reality.)

When you look at akasha, there are two factors: 1) akasha and 2) existence. We focus on akasha so much that we ignore the factor of existence. The same observation can be made with reference to other elements, koshas etc. Training one self to see the 2 distinct factors is the first stage. In the second stage, learn to appreciate 2) as the substance and 1) as a property. This is the reverse of what we normally say from the point of view of grammar. Brahman, the Sat, is the only substance. Stage 3 is the subtlest. Consider a clay pot. Clay and pot enjoy the same order of reality. But when it comes to the world and Brahman, the world is clearly of a lower order of reality—vyavaharika-- with respect to Brahman. Akasha, which is the property, is mithya.

Why are we so particular of mithyartham? Because it is only then that I can claim that mithya world cannot affect Brahma Satyam. It is important for claiming freedom.

Mithya has several definitions. Vidyaranya’s definition is different from the conventional definition. We shall first discuss the latter. Mithya belongs to a category different from both Sat and Asat; it belongs to the seemingly existent category. The conventional definition of mithya arising from the ontological considerations of Paramarthika and Vyavaharika planes has been discussed earlier in the text. Consequently, we proceed to a discussion of the second definition.

Consider the example of rope and snake. Since snake is experienced, it does not belong to the non-existent category. It does not belong to the Sat category also since the snake is negated on inquiry. Therefore it belongs to the third category of satasat. Let us assume only 2 categories: sat and asat, and abolish the third category. Vidyaranya says: Snake was non-existent before, and it has no existence later, and consequently, it cannot come under Sat category. Therefore, I am forced to classify it under asat category. The listener is not happy because a non-existent thing cannot present itself at all. Rabbit horns do not appear—it is asat. Asat should not be appearing. In that case, how do you explain the appearance? Vidyaranya says that there are two types of asat: a) non-appearing asat and b) appearing asat. All mithya come under the classification of appearing asat. Akasha comes under appearing asat—and so is the world at large. Rabbit horns are not mithya because they are non-appearing. The satya-mithya classification should automatically take place.

33

Student’s question: I have understood the concept of mithya. But I am not able to derive any benefit from this knowledge. I cannot apply this teaching and lead a happy life. For instance, I can see the difference between akasha and sat but, in spite of it, it does not get well established in the mind.

Vidyaranya has two questions to ask of the student. If the knowledge is unsteady, is it because the student’s mind is restless? Does it have one- pointedness? If he had a sufficient background preparation of scs, this problem would not have been there.

On the other hand, if the student says that he has a steady mind and he is not intellectually convinced of the teaching, the advice given by Vidyaranya is that he will have to practice more nidhidhyasanam. Repeat sravana and manana also. Meditation will not solve the problem of doubt. It won’t confirm the knowledge. Meditation will not give proof for advaitam. Sage Patanjali attained nirvikalpaka Samadhi and his philosophy was dvaitam. To recall ’s saying: meditation is not necessary to remind you that you are a human being.

Akasha is endowed with the capacity for accommodation. Brahman does not have that feature. Neither do we associate sabda guna with Brahman. Akasha reveals itself as a mithya to a jnani. Brahman the Sat also reveals without the property of akasha. Jnani will experience the world the same way as non-jnanis. The parlance reality is that the world is real in every respect. Jnani is wonderstruck by this vision. Truth is not decided by a majority vote.

Next, we go to a discussion of vayu viveka. IS ness in the world is Brahman and so is AM ness in me. The former is in the third person whereas the latter in the first person. Akasha has 2 borrowed properties: 1) borrowed from Brahman existence and 2) mithyartham borrowed from Maya. Its intrinsic property is sabda guna which is also termed the property of accommodation.

Vayu has 3 borrowed properties: 1) from existence; 2) mithyartha; and 3) sabda. Its intrinsic property is sparsa—touch and its other derivative properties like drying something that is wet, power due to speed etc. We can analyze vayu in the same way as we did akasha. We first separate existence on an intellectual level.

A student puts the question to Vidyaranya: Vayu is different from Maya which is avyaktam. I accept differences of vayu from maya. Since vayu is different from maya, vayu should be classified as satya.

There is a fallacy in the above question. When two things are different, there are two types of differences: a) sajathiya (differences within the same species like the difference between man and man) and b) vijathiya (differences between two species like between man and tree). It is a logical fallacy to establish b) on the

34 basis of a) between vayu and maya, differences are there. Maya is karanam whereas vayu is karyam. This is a sajathiya difference because both belong to mithya group of objects. They cannot establish vijathiya bheda. Let us not deviate from the main theme which is establishing satya-mithya difference. To sum up, existence inherent in vayu should be separated on the basis of definition of existence—sorted out intellectually. After this separation, the remaining features are mithya—borrowed existence. Further discussion is on the lines of discussion of akasha.

The next element is agni—fire. The inherent properties of agni are heat (ushnam) and prakasha (brightness). The borrowed properties are 1) existence, 2) mithya borrowed from maya, 3) sabda borrowed from akasha and 4) sparsa from vayu. Separating sat property from agni at an intellectual level constitutes viveka.

The discussion of water—jala—which is the fourth element follows in a similar manner.

The discussion of the fifth element—prithvi—earth, starts after the lesson on jala. As usual, the discussion proceeds in two stages: first srishti—creation—and viveka—discrimination, later. The intrinsic property of prithvi is smell. The rest are all borrowed properties transferred from the previous elements. The algorithm for separation is the same as for the previous elements.

The viveka inquiry is extended to bhautika prapanca—the world that is constituted from the 5 elements. In particular, it is extended to living beings also. If we consider the two segregated groups of existence and mithya, in the former category, there is existence all by itself, and in the latter category, there are nama, rupa, and karma. The world is assigned a lower order of reality than existence. In philosophical language, the science of degree of reality is called Ontology. Consequently, the difference in order ensures that worldly events do not affect the reality of the higher order. This change of status is brought out by Vedanta. This new vision does not vitiate the perception of worldly experience— bhanam.

There is a difference in the conclusions we draw from the consideration of the experiences of waking state and dream state, the former being considered to belong to a higher order than the latter. The dream experiences go away after waking up and so there is no question of their perception staying in the waking state. A jnani, although he is firmly entrenched in the knowledge that the world belongs to a lower order, nevertheless, experiences the world—that is the important difference. A second feature is that the differences among objects, for example difference between sabda and rasa, will continue. The third feature is that there is no change in function of objects—arthakriya, meaningful function of any object. In sum, the change in the degree of reality is not visibly perceived, but grasped only at an intellectual level.

35 The benefit is the attainment of the final goal of life, namely, moksha. I the consciousness remain unaffected by changes in the world. This vasana should take deep roots in one’s mind who has acquired the knowledge. Then only can one assert I, the consciousness, is non-dual. The conviction should not undergo a change.

In conclusion of our discussion of bhautika prapanca, we recall it has three components: 1) Brahmananda, 2) Loka, and 3) Deha. The method of inquiry that we adopted is the same as we did for the 5 mahabhutas. We first intellectually separate existence as an independent principle and classify the rest of the components as asat which are available for experience in mithya. As a result of this inquiry, a new perspective as to the orders of reality will emerge—the ontological status of I the consciousness will be higher. Even though there is a change in status, in all other respects the world will be the same. The experience, divisions of the world, and its functions will not disturb one’s knowledge of advaitam. Experience cannot disturb knowledge.

The maya prapanca is divided differently by different philosophers. The divide it into 7 divisions, the Nyaya philosophers into 16 divisions, the Sankhya philosophers into 25, the Yoga philosophers into 26, the Shaiva into 31, the vishitadvaita into 3 divisions and advaitins into 2. But Vedantins are not concerned about these divisions—they have no quarrel with them on this issue. For them all those divisions belong to the mithya category. They feel that because of the preoccupation of these various philosophers with dvaitam, they have ignored advaitam. The real preoccupation should have been with advaitam instead; it should have been with Satyam, not with mithyam.

Jnana viveka phalam

Vedantins give equal importance to assertion of atman and to the rejection of anatma. It is a clear binary choice. Once advaita jnanam becomes firmly established, the person will be a jivan mukta. Clear knowledge alone is jivanmukti. That is why clarity of understanding is emphasized. It is never too late in one’s chronological age to get this understanding. There is the story of Parikshit who got the understanding in the fag end of his life.

The changeless features of the world are: 1) experience, 2) divisions, and 3) function. The changing feature is the ontological status, namely, the degree of reality. Before gaining knowledge, the world, which includes the body-mind complex, had the same degree of reality as the observer where one can affect the other. After knowledge, the turiyam I is assigned a higher order.

The word antha kala that appears in the second chapter of the Gita is interpreted in two ways. First, it is interpreted as the final moment of misconception— delusion. Second, which is the more popular meaning is death; the Gita verse 2-

36 72 is from this perspective. Delusion will not return once the ontological status has changed and firmly anchored in one’s mind.

Jnani is not bound by dharma. He is also, like any other human being, is afflicted by prarabdha karmas which have to be gone through in the present life. He can give up his life in any condition and he has the confidence that he does not have delusion in any condition. Place and time of death do not bother him. Delusion can return only when knowledge disappears. Knowledge once gained thoroughly will not be erased. How can one forget knowledge about oneself? Literate people when they wake up, they wake up as literate people only. He does not become ignorant. The same applies to atma vidya also.

Epistemology deals with the analysis of knowledge, and of error. In secular studies, prathyaksha is the prabala pramana, and all others including anumana are classified as durbala pramanas. These pramanas that are meant for gaining valid knowledge of the external universe are not applicable for the inquiry into the non-manifest state of reality—consciousness or existence. And for that the only prabala pramana is Vedas. To repeat, prabala pramana is for confirmation whereas durbala pramanas are both for information and confirmation.

The term sabda pramana is used for Vedas; in that context, the word sabda is used as sastriya or vaidika sabda. This has to be distinguished from the ordinary meaning as loukika sabda. Vedanta is prabala like prathyaksha. (Meditation is not a pramanam; it is only for assimilation.)

Summary of chapter 2

Chapter 2 consists of 109 verses and can be divided into 6 portions. Verse 1 is on introduction—upakramaha. From verses 2-46, we deal with Chandogya vakya vicharaha—the inquiry into the word Sat that appears in that sentence of the Upanishad. Verses 47-59 dwell on maya vicharaha, verses 60-97 on Bhuta- bhautika vivekaha, verses 98-108 on jnana viveka phalam, and finally verse 109 on Conclusion—upasamharaha.

The introduction deals with the motivational material for the study of pancha- bhuta vivekaha.

The second portion focuses on a sentence that appears in Chandogya Upanishad because the word Sat—existence—appears there. Two important points: 1) Sat which means existence is not usually analyzed to the extent it is done in this text. Existence is all too often taken for granted; this is so even by the scientists. In contrast, the topic of consciousness is paid more attention. Other philosophers also do not inquire into it. Buddhists are an exception in this respect. Nyaya-Vaisheshika philosophy has made some attempts to analyze existence. Vedanta analyzes existence by itself. Chandogya vakyam discusses existence as a topic. Existence is defined by four principles.

37

1) Existence is not a part, product, or property of a substance. 2) Existence is an independent entity which pervades and enlivens others. 3) Existence is not limited by the boundaries of the object. 4) Existence continues to survive even when all the existent objects perish.

Existence is ekam, evam, and advitiyam. It does not have sajathiya, vijathiya, and sagata bhedas—differences. Existence does not have parts. It is nondual, attributeless Existence.

Portion 3 is on Maya which is a mind-boggling subject. We are experiencing a world, full of sajathiya, vijathiya, and sagata differences. From the sastric point of view, world is different from existence—sat vilakshanam. However, from direct perception—prathyaksha drishti—world cannot be non-existent which would then be classified as asat. Therefore, world has two properties, one from the pramana of sastras, and a second from prathyaksha pramana. Applying both pramanas, you have samanvaya drishti: world is both sat vilakshanam and asat vilakshanam. Prathyaksha is a prabala pramanam and so is sastra pramanam. One pramana does not have the power to negate the other. World, as a consequence, should have both sat and asat coexisting and would qualify for a unique category. This category is called maya.

Vidyaranya arrives at the same conclusion in a different way. He calls the world as asat. World has two features. Experiencable asat and non-experiencable asat. An example for the latter feature of asat is rabbit horns. He calls the experiencable feature as mithya.

Sat can never become asat of mithya type; mithya can never become sat or asat.

What happens to the world before srishti or after the pralaya preceding it? World is always mithya. Mithya world can be in a different condition since it can undergo a change— rupena mithya. This unmanifest condition of prapanca is called maya. Vidyaranya uses the word sakti. It does not exist separate from Sat Brahma: Sat is everywhere, and, secondly, maya enjoys existence only by borrowing from Brahman.

The next topic is on the discrimination of the five elements and the bhautikas. There are five bhutas and the bhautika prapanca. These include brahmananda, loka and deha. Eight items are introduced: sat, maya, panchabhuta and bhautika. Each later item occupies 1/10th less than the previous one (should not be taken literally). Each item lends its properties to the next one, in addition to one of its own. Mithyartham and borrowed existence are common to all. This intellectual operation of segregating sat from the rest is called viveka.

Next, we discuss the viveka phalam—benefits of this knowledge of sorting out sat from the rest. As far as the world is concerned, its experience will continue,

38 and the divisions within and their various functions will remain intact. The radical change in status is because of mithya. And what is mithya cannot be given undue importance. Jivan mukti consists of seeing sat Brahman the same as chit Brahman. Mithya can in no way affect Satya. Anything that happens to the world will not affect the consciousness I—asangatvam.

In conclusion, the author advises to study this chapter repeatedly.

Ch 3: Panchakosha viveka prakaranam

The text

This chapter has 43 verses. The source material is the second chapter of Taitreya Upanishad. Knower of Brahman attains freedom from finititude. Five features of Brahman are given: 1. Brahma lakshanam: satyam, jnanam, anantam—limitless existence- conscious principle. 2. Brahman resides within a cave—guha hitam. Mind is called the cave. Mind is dark because of ignorance. 3. Atma—very real I—Self (differentiate from ahamkara.) 4. Pancha-Kosha vilakshana 5. Ananda Swarupam.

Vidyaranya speaks of the above in a slightly different order. Introduction Inquire into pancha-kosha; the benefit of the inquiry is that we will be able to arrive at Brahman after intellectually dissecting the 5 koshas after identifying them with anatma. The word cave has a philosophical significance. Shankara interprets the mind as the guha—anthakaranam. But Vidyaranya says the entire panchakosha is the guha. The koshas are: annamaya—external prakara—temple wall; body is annamaya; Pranamaya is second prakara—guha; Manomaya is the third prakara—guha; Vijnanamaya is the fourth prakara—guha; and Anandamaya is the fifth prakara—guha. Taitreya Upanishad uses the description of guha to indicate pitch darkness. We have to penetrate it with the help of sastras. Annamaya For the beginner, body is the kosha because he identifies it with atma. It is called annamaya kosha because it is the product (karyam) of annam. Food is called annam which is the upadana karanam. Nimitta has to be conscious and so annam is not nimitta. How can one say that annam is the cause of the body? It is not sakshat but parampara karana, meaning that it takes on the meaning if the bodies of the parents are also taken into consideration. Without food there would

39 not be procreation. Annamaya deha is not the real I; body is impermanent, but I is a continuous, permanent entity. A dialog follows between a student and Vidyaranya to further clarify the nature of annamaya kosha. Q: Why do you say I am permanent? I could be equated with the body if both were impermanent. What is wrong? Ans: If the body is taken as atma, you cannot explain the cause for the birth of the body which is born of past karmas. In the past, this body was not there. It would be absurd to think that this body was born due to someone else’s karma. Alternatively, if you say this body was born out of chance, then cause and effect relations are invalid. Therefore, this body cannot be the atma. The assumption that the body is equal to atma strikes at the root of karma theory. No new jiva can be created if body is the same as atma. A future non-existent body cannot pay the price of the karmas of this janma; karta-bhokta required for the law of karma to function. An important point to be emphasized in the explanation of vilakshanam of the kosha analysis is that the difference is from within. We start with the definition of each kosha and arrive at the kosha vilakshanam. If the body is taken to be the real I, the usual questions that arise are: why do good people suffer and why do bad people have a gala time? My suffering in life has no direct relation with my life-style. The answer to such puzzling questions is provided by an appeal to the karma theory. We are told that our suffering in this janma is due to our purva-janma karma. God always keeps a proper account of it while we don’t and, in fact, we can’t because the account would likely have accrued from more than one janma. Because of this understanding, I cannot talk about it if I am equated to the body. If the theory of rebirth is not accepted, one can come to the conclusion that God is unjust despite the conviction that God is always just. A possible third answer is that in life, everything is accidental, that is, cause and effect relationships are not valid. Having pointed out the last two answers, we revert to the traditional answer based on the law of karma. Pranamaya Pranamaya is based on the vayu principle. It is identified with the personality based on energy. It gives power to the organs. Various types of pranas keep the mechanism going—the mechanism consisting of 5 jnanendriyas, 5 karmendriyas, and 1 anthakaranam which, in turn, has several functions. Pranamaya deals with the physiological system because it distributes energy to the entire system. The pranamaya is not atma because vayu is inert—achetana rupam. Manomaya Manomaya is identified with the psychological personality and deals with the general condition of the mind. It serves as an instrument for interaction with the external world. Mind goes out through the five sense organs and illumine the objects. The manomaya also is not atma because mind is subject to modification. Vijnanamaya We move on to vijnanamaya kosha. Mind is endowed with reflected consciousness. It is resolved during sleep. Localized individuality is absent.

40 During waking, the intellect will pervade the body in full measure. Vijnanamaya is not the atma since it is subject to modifications. Manomaya and Vijnanamaya, though both pertain to anthakarna, nevertheless, they have to be differentiated. The latter serves as the karta (remains within the body of karta), while the former, on the other hand, serves as the karanam—part of the mind which reaches out to the object in the form of vritti. Anandamaya The fifth and last kosha is anandamaya. It is also in the form of unique vrittis in the sense they do not go out to the external world, but confined to the internal universe. The vrittis of blissful quietude are antharmukham—introverted—and reflect atmananda. The rajoguna is suppressed. Rajas is the cause of sorrow. Reduction of rajas is ananda. For accomplishing this state, punyam is necessary. The introvert vritti resolves in the form of sleep. Anandamaya is different from Brahman. The feeling of quietude is available only temporarily. It is pratibimba ananda in the form of experience; bimba ananda is not an experience. Thus, one can differentiate experiential ananda from non-experiential ananda. Pratibimba ananda is not atma whereas bimba ananda is atma. Resolving doubts A student asks a question: ‘If I negate the pancha koshas, I must be able to see Brahmananda, but I see only blankness. I understand the vilakshana argument, but I don’t find Brahman.’ Vidyaranya answers: If nothing is experienced, you cannot conclude it is because of emptiness. What it really represents is a situation where the —the witness principle—is ever present. Total emptiness is illogicality. How can one negate the witness of blankness? The subject can never become the object of experience. You can never see your own face. The follow- up question is: How can I come across that Sakshi? The answer to this is unambiguous. You cannot come across Sakshi because you yourself happen to be Sakshi. And so we have to start from a different angle to continue the inquiry. If sakshi chaitanyam (S1) has to be objectified, one needs another sakshi chaitanyam ; S1 needs S2. But there is no S2 because sakshi is ekam. Does S1 remain unknown all the time? S1 cannot be objectified and it need not be objectified because it is ever experienced as consciousness. S1 is svayam prakasha chaitanyam—it is experienced as aham, aham—I AM, I AM. [aside comment: When experienced as aham, the body-mind complex is also experienced with it. If you include the latter, I am is called jivatma chaitanyam. If I exclude the body-mind complex—not as a physical process but as viveka—I am called paramatma chaitanyam]. We don’t require a new experience of Brahman. What we lack is the ability to exclude the body-mind complex from aham, aham. Nobody needs Brahmanubhava. What we need is the expertise to excise the limitation on it. Brahma jnanam is only vritti vyapti, not phala vyapti.

41 Process of knowledge is called epistemology. Let us examine the Vedantic theory of gaining experience of an object, say a clip. A thought mode goes out through the eyes and envelops the object. Since anthakarana vrtti enjoys pratibimba chaitanya, the clip also enjoys its transference. Reflected consciousness—RC—envelops the clip and the clip experience takes place. The conclusion, on the basis of this example, is that every experience is possible because of chaitanya sambandha. The next question raised was: How does one experience Brahman? Will it get Chaitanya sambandha? The answer: Brahman itself happens to be chaitanya— bimba chaitanya. There is nothing like Brahman being experienced at a particular time. An example to illustrate the idea. Milk becomes sweet because of sugar sambandha; it was not sweet before but became sweet only after it got mixed with sugar. How does sugar become sweet? Sugar does not need a sambandha to become sweet; sugar will always be sweet. Objects with intrinsic properties – like sweetness in sugar—lend their properties to other objects; like sugar lending sweetness to milk. Similarly, Brahman does not need a process. When one speaks of experience of Brahman, it is clearly due to a basic misunderstanding. Swamiji pointed out that this misunderstanding is too often prevalent in the case of meditators talking about Brahman experience. But it has to be emphasized that though Brahman is not an object of experience, it can never be negated. The constant experience of aham-aham that all human beings have is distinctly an echo of Brahman. We superimpose the attributes of our individual body-mind complexes on this aham experience. With these attributes, the aham experience will become jivatma. After Vedantic study, the seeker sheds the superposed attributes at an intellectual level. What is left behind is I AM. Attributeless I AM is paramatma. These are not speculations, but revealed in scriptures. Nature of consciousness should be remembered—the reference is to the four points which define it. Aham Brahmasmi. This atma is self-evident. Consciousness is experienced first as I; this experience is before experiencing anything. Even before desiring atma experience, the desirer atma, I, is there. Everything else is experienced because of the atma experience only. Experience of I is seldom enumerated when we talk about the experience of an object. The whole world is illumined by the light of atma. How can the subject ever be objectified? Chaitanyam cannot be known by itself; it cannot be known by any jada vastu; it cannot be known by a second consciousness because there is no such entity. With what instrument can it be known? Any pramanam can function only in the field of its prameyam. There are four things in creation: prameyam, pramanam, pramata, and sakshi. An eye cannot see the subject eye itself. An instrument cannot operate on the same instrument. An instrument cannot operate in the field of the agent. Pramana cannot have access to sakshi, but only to prameyam. An Upanishad saying is: Atma alone objectifies everything through the mind and sense organs. There is no one who can objectify the atma.

42 There is another saying which does not appear in this text. `That which is ever evident as I is Brahman.’ That atma is different from known or unknown. (All known and unknown come under the category of objects). It is of the nature of consciousness. One has to work for the negation of the attributes superposed on atman. The author, in seeming disgust, says that if a student still insists on working for Brahmanubhava, he is a gone case! A person can never say that he has not experienced consciousness. Every living being is a conscious being. When a student says that he is waiting for the experience of consciousness as an event in future, he is clearly contradicting himself. Other objects of the universe are experienced only at certain moments and not constantly. The experience of an object depends upon a relevant thought in the mind. When the thought goes away, experience also goes away. But we experience several objects with different thoughts but throughout there is one constant experience of consciousness which is independent of every other experience. Even when the thought of an object is gone in a particular experience, experience of consciousness will continue. So, in every experience of an object, two factors can be distinguished: first, the experience of the object, and secondly, the experience of self-evident consciousness. Any objective experience minus the object is the experience of consciousness— the constant factor, Brahman. Vedanta assists us to divert our attention to the constant factor. The next few verses dwell on dispelling the wrong notion of sunya proposed by madhyama Buddhism. The Vedantin claims that when all the attributes of the body-mind complex are jettisoned at an intellectual level, the remainder is Brahman; but the Buddhist claims that what remains is emptiness—sunya. This debate has occurred in many places because the commentators of Vedanta take upon themselves to bring an end to that debate once and for all by establishing the primacy of Brahman. The central argument depends on the assertion that emptiness should not be equated with non-existence. In the whole of creation, one thing that can never be debated is the element of constancy `I am existent is that thing’. Even to doubt, I should be there as the doubter. Subject I is beyond the pale of debate. Atma is not prathyaksha indicating this, neither is it a near object, nor is it paroksha, indicating that it is a distant object. Atma is aparoksha, neither this nor that. By this, we mean an object within the range of sense organs. By that, we refer to objects beyond the range of sense organs. Prathyaksha and Paroksha concepts are not based on distance but on sensory accessibility. A near object like something at the back of my head which I cannot see is classified as paroksha because it is not within sensory perception. Now, we move on to the fourth feature, namely, satyam, jnanam, and anantam. We have concluded that atma is aparoksha. If I have to experience sakshi, what

43 is it that I have to do to accomplish it? The redeeming fact is that no special effort is necessary for it. In which case, the question will naturally arise, why any one should study Vedanta if it is that easy to experience sakshi. The disconcerting fact, however, is that study is necessary in order to systematically negate the superimposed limitations on sakshi. Vedanta takes on the role of a cleaning up process. Once it is cleansed of the limitations, what remains is Brahman which is satyam, jnanam, and anantam. Why Brahman is called satyam? That which can never be negated is called satyam. Every anatma object can be negated—there was reference to it at the macro level in the form of pralaya and, at the micro-level, in the form of layam (sleep). Consciousness remains unnegated; in fact, it is a witness even of negation. Brahma chaitanyam is the ultimate witness of the negation of everything else. Witness of negation has no negation. This is satyatvam. Vidyaranya gives an example for illustrating the idea further. Imagine a room full of many objects which have to be cleaned. A supervisor says that the task has been completed and there are no objects in the room. But the person forgets to mention that what is left in the empty room is space that is occupying it. This is the intangible entity that is usually glossed over. Similarly, in Vedanta, nothing means unremovable consciousness; in parlance reality, nothing in this context means space. What remains and for ever will remain is Brahman. Sruti reveals Brahman in an indirect manner through negation. A positive approach for revelation is not possible because I am the sakshi. I can never be a pramata. The next feature of jnanam is not discussed because it has been discussed earlier under the topic of atmatvam. So, we move on to the third feature of anantam. Anantam Antam means limitation, and anantam means limitlessness. There are three limitations which are highlighted: 1) space-wise limitation—desha paricheda; 2) time-wise limitation—kala paricheda; and 3) object-wise limitation—vastu paricheda. Examples: 1) when an object is located in one place, it is not available elsewhere; 2) localization of time—exist within the interval of birth and death; and 3) property-wise limitation—when, say, the object is a tree, I am saying it is not anything else.

Brahman does not have the above limitations. It is pervading in the form of existence; it transcends the limitation of time because it is infinite; and there is no second object because Brahman alone is in the form of other objects. That Brahman you are.

Vidyaranya gives another elegant argument in support of the assertion that Brahman does not have the three-fold limitations. He invokes the argument that Brahman belongs to a higher order of reality than the three-fold constraints. The former is paramarthika satyam and the latter is vyavaharika satyam. Therefore,

44 the lower-order reality cannot act as constraints to the higher-order reality. Mithya cannot limit Sat.

Finally, the author adds another note to the earlier discussion: I the non-dual Brahman come down to vyavaharika wearing two costumes—upadhis—a) samashti upadhi and b) vyashti upadhi. With upadhi a) I appear as Iswara and with upadhi b) I appear as jiva. I am the same in both a) and b). Only the containers are different: a) has superior attributes and b) has inferior attributes. Whether a) or b), the very presence of attributes is a distortion.

There is a shakti controlling the universe that is evident by the controlled and harmonious way of the functioning of the universe. The laws governing the universe exemplify this order. The properties of the various objects—vastu dharma—are invariant; if they are unpredictable, chaos results. This order is due to maya shakti which is inert in itself. It can be compared to the various forms of energy. However, this shakti must have borrowed consciousness on account of the sentiency that exists in the universe. Brahman gets the status of Iswara when you look through its corresponding chidabhasa. Brahman gets the status of jiva when it is viewed through its reflecting medium. But, how can Brahman have two personalities? It is possible when the standpoints from which we view it are made clear. Drishti bheda results in nama bheda. When the standpoints are removed, the original non-dual Brahman will be recognized.

In conclusion of this chapter, the author talks about the benefits of jivan mukti and videha mukti.

Summary of chapter 3

The chapter consists of 43 verses. Pancha-kosha-vilakshana method is used to zero in on Brahman. Taitreya Upanishad is famous for this methodology and the author acknowledges that he has borrowed the ideas from Brahmananda valli of this source material. Knower of Brahman attains the highest purusartha. Brahman is described in the Upanishad as satyam, jnanam, anantam. It is figuratively mentioned that Brahman remains hidden in a cave encircled by the five koshas. First, the author establishes that Brahman is different from the koshas—this constitutes the process of discrimination or sorting out. Once this is done, the Upanishad says that Brahman is renamed as atman. All these are implicit in the Upanishad but the author makes them quite explicit in this chapter. After enumerating, upanishad says that atma is in the guha.

Vidyaranya deals with pancha kosha guha vilakshnatvam by first giving the definition of each kosha: anatomical, physiological, psychological, intellectual and dormant. He establishes that none of them is Brahman. Brahman is nirvikaram; it is infinite—not limited by time and space. The principal idea is that the koshas that are subject to change cannot be the changeless Brahman. Anandamaya kosha is karanam and other koshas are karyam.

45

The next topic is that Brahman which is different from the koshas is very much within the koshas. If the sakshi chaitanya is not there, pancha koshas could not have been objectified. Sakshi cannot be objectified. It has to be claimed as I the subject. At this stage, the four defining features of consciousness are recalled in order to define atmatvam.

Next, we discuss satyam, jnannam and anantam which are the intrinsic features of atma. The feature of satyam is established on the basis that Brahma chaitanyam is the ultimate witness of the negation of everything else. No detailed discussion is given for jnanam because it is discussed earlier in great detail. The method for establishing anantam as a feature of Brahman is based on a discussion of space, time, and causality. A second approach is given on the basis of orders of reality—an ontological approach.

The chapter ends with phala sruti where jivan mukti and videha mukti are mentioned as the benefits of the knowledge contained in this chapter.

Ch 4: Dvaita Viveka Prakaranam

Introduction

This chapter has 69 verses. It deals with two types of dvaitam: a) one created by Iswara—Iswara srishta dvaitam, and b) from a human being--jiva srishta dvaitam. The former includes jiva. The duality that exists from vyavaharika drishti—karya karana sambandha is created by Iswara. Jiva has many faculties akin to Iswara including powers of creation although the individual cannot answer questions of what and how.

The two dvaitams will be compared and contrasted. The two sets of mithyas involved in the two dualities will be discriminated. It will be shown it is the dvaitam caused by jiva that is the cause of all problems. In contrast, Iswara dvaitam does not cause any problems at all and therefore we can happily live with it. Iswara dvaitam has only to be understood while jiva dvaitam that is heyam has to be rejected. Jiva dvaitam results in bondage unlike Iswara dvaitam. If these two are not clearly discriminated, there is always the danger of mixing up the two. One should know the favourable duality from the unfavorable duality.

Iswara srishta dvaitam can only be understood on the basis of scriptures. No scientific proof can be given for the existence of Iswara. The author draws on several sources from the scriptural literature to drive home this point.

From Sveshaswara Upanishad: Maya is the material cause of the universe. Is Brahman the material cause? Both statements are correct when interpreted properly . Maya does not exist separately from Brahman. He is the possessor of maya shakti. That Lord creates the universe.

46

From Ithareya Upanishad: This universe was in the form of Parameswara. We don’t count the universe separately because, before manifestation, the earlier statement is true. Bhagavan decided to create through .

From Taitreya Upanishad: Space, air, fire, water, earth, plant kingdom, food etc., came from Brahman or Atman.

Bhagavan’s creation through his sankalpa—desire—is explained further. I the Lord want to multiply in this world. Let me become many. Let me produce this creation. With such a desire, he created this universe. Generally, we say desire is the root cause of samsara, and liberation is defined as freedom from desires. Is there any contradiction between Lord’s desire and desire of human beings? The answer to this is that there are two types of desires: 1) shudda — desire born out of a sense of completeness, and 2) desire brought by a sense of incompleteness—ashudda kama. The first one is for others’ benefits and so any number of shudda karmas is permitted. How did Bhagavan do ? Tapas for the Lord is a visualization of all the karmas of all the jivas which form the basis of creation. Bhagavan’s mind is called maya. If so, the question will naturally arise about the thought behind the first creation when there are no karmas to visualize. The answer to this question is that the idea of first creation is illogical since the cycle of creation, sustenance, and destruction goes on perpetually in a cyclic fashion. At any time, previous karmas will be there.

Sorting out the principal differences between Iswara srishti and jiva srishti has practical benefits. As stated earlier, the former is established on the basis of scriptural declarations. We will cite one more reference from . Brahman, in that treatise, is called aksharam. Various Upanishads use their own special terms to refer to Brahman. Chetana—consciousness— does produce chidabhasa which is the reflected consciousness (RC). But chetana and achetana are devoid of chidabhasa. However, achetana vastu— inert substance—like the human body is capable of borrowing consciousness. To emphasize again, consciousness—chit—is present both in the live human body and an inert object like the table, but the table does not have chidabhasa whereas the human body does have it.

World was existent before manifestation in dormant form as non-separate from Brahman. The unfolding of creation is referred to as vyakaranam a word that has another meaning—grammar. In this context, vykaranam means expansion. The expansion is in terms of manifold names and forms. These are experiential objects of consciousness. Consciousness, as such, is the ever-experiencing subject. The objects are nama-rupa drishyam and whatever is drishyam is mithya.

By themselves sukshma sariram are jada—inert. If they have to become chetanam—conscious—Brahman `enters them’ as bimba chaitanyam (RC). It is

47 called chidabhasam. The original consciousness (OC) shapes as RC. It becomes the jivatma version of Paramatma. Entry of OC into all the sukshma sarirams of the creation in the form of RC is called Anupravesam. We can understand this phenomenon with reference to the analogy of dreams. The waker consciousness enters the body to produce dream consciousness, thus establishing a lower order of reality of its own.

Why do we have separate names for Paramatma and Jivatma is a question that could be raised? One big difference between the two has to be pointed out. It is jiva that holds prana in the physical body. Chidabhasa is present in the sukshma sharira until death and it is taken away at the time of death. Prana holds to RC, not to OC.

How can the nondual Brahman become dual? The difference between jivatma and paramatma is because of their respective upadhis. Jiva belongs to a lower order of reality and the upadhi of avidya produces the mithya. In the case of paramatma, the upadhi is maya and the mithya is due to it.

Iswara srishti

Bhautika includes samashti and vyashti, the macro and the micro world. At the individual level, there are three bodies: sthula, sukshma, and karana. All these are born of the five elements. There are synonyms used for Brahman in the Vedas—atman, purusa are some such words. For maya, the alternative words used are avyaktam, prakriti, avidya etc. Anupravesha is the phenomenon whereby consciousness enters sukshma sarira in the form of pratibimba chaitanyam. The body-mind complex becomes live jiva because of the pratibimba. Live bundle is called the jiva. Jiva is also Iswara srishti. Sthula sharira is the outer garment while sukshma sharira is the inner garment. Jiva- Jagat srishti is Iswara srishti. Chidabhasa is the one that keeps pranas intact. Its closure means the closure of the body-mind complex, or more simply, death.

Jiva is a composite entity consisting of three components: 1) chidabhasa, the RC; 2) reflecting medium (RM), called upadhi, which enables RC; and 3) presence of something original—OC. RC requires OC.

RC presupposes RM and OC. RM is sukshma sariram, the primary reflecting medium. Karana sariram is in potential form and so it is not mentioned. It is not available for transaction. Sthula sariram is not mentioned because it can form a reflection only through sukshma sariram. It cannot directly borrow consciousness. Sthula sariram varies from one janma to another. It does not continue. But sukshma sariram continues throughout.

The important equation with respect to jiva, the composite entity, is RC+RM+OC=jiva. Adhisthana chaitanyam is OC; linga deha is the subtle body; and the chaitanya pratibimba is RC. An important sloka declares that if RC and

48 RM are the centre of attention, then jiva is mithya; on the other hand, if the focus is on OC, it is satyam. Since jiva is a composite entity, reference to it depends on the context where one has to be aware of the specific feature or features one is referring to. It is called bhaga thyaga lakshana, whose use is more common than we realize even when we talk about parlance reality. In karma kanda, the word jiva is used to indicate RC whereas in jnana khanda, the reference to jiva is OC.

Iswara is the master of maya and jiva is its slave. The two-fold powers of maya are: a) creative power—srishti sakti—vikshepa sakti, and b) avarana sakti— concealing power. Avarana sakti will not do any harm to Iswara; however, it becomes active in the case of jiva. Vikshepa shakti appears first and avarana shakti comes later. For example, a dream, which is the result of vikshepa shakti—power of diversification—appears first. Avarana shakti—the power of concealment—deludes jiva and this is the cause of samsara.

The objective world which is the creation of Iswara is not the cause of the human problem as one could expect. It is jiva-srishta dvaitam, the duality caused by jiva that is the cause of the problem. A change in perspective is necessary to rectify the situation. The object of experience need not be changed, but a change in the way we look at it is what is expected.

It is when anupravesha occurs, pratibimba chaitanya is generated, and, consequently, subject-object relations come into play. Creation is due to Iswara—Maya—and its vikshepa shakti. Avarana shakti is not operative in the context of Iswara. But this shakti affects jivas stripping them of their ability to know their own real natures. [A passing comment: In Soundarya Lahari it is said that any number of clouds cannot conceal the sun; thick layer of ignorance cannot be easily liquidated.] I identifies with the body because of avarana shakti.

Jiva srishti

The source material for this discussion in , satapata . Swamiji starts with an example to distinguish the role of Iswara and Jiva in the matter of creation.

Suppose one says that I have built a house in Srinagar and next week the griha pravesam is arranged. Obviously, there is a mistake in the expression. He cannot construct the house on his own. It is given to a contractor. Who built the house? Is it I or the contractor? Individual contributions are there for the project. My contribution is to have a desire to build the house and providing the financial outlay. I also designed the house. The contractor has implemented my design following my instructions. With this joint effort the house has materialized.

The world is a gigantic house. Construction requires two factors: first, the jiva which desires and second, Iswara who implements. Jiva srishti is due to infinite jivas through their karmas. Jivas are responsible for arrival of bhogya prapanca.

49 All the jivas getting liberated without giving a chance for creation is utterly a hypothetical proposition. Iswara does not have a desire of his own—Iswara karyam refers to the universe as a product of God. Who does griha pravesham? It is the jivas who enter the creation as enjoyers. Creation has the two distinct features: Iswara karyam and Jiva bhogyam. The annam that was mentioned in the beginning of the discussion refers to jiva bhogyam. Entire universe is jivasya annam.

There are 7 types of annam: 1) manushya—human being; 2) two types of annam for devatas—two types of oblations, one done on new moon day and a second done on a full moon day; 3) annam for pashu, the animal called ksheeram; and 4) last three are meant for jiva—for the mind, prana, and vak, that is, for the sukshma shariram. The main purport of all this classification is to emphasize that the whole universe is bhogya prapanca—jiva srishti. In sum, there are two types of dvaitam: first, due to Iswara srishti, and second due to jiva srishti. The first results in the creation of the universe and the second results in bhogya prapanca. Both Iswara and Jiva are srishti kartas. Joys and sorrows of the world are experienced by jiva alone.

What are the instruments for creation for Iswara and Jiva? The instruments are sankalpa-vrittis of the two. Iswara’s sankalpa vritti arises in maya, the cosmic mind. The sankalpa vritti of the jiva arises in the individual mind, manaha. (Passing comment: why can’t an individual have a nice thought at the time of death? The motivation for this, of course, is in the belief that this last thought influences the quality of the next birth. It is not possible since one does not know the precise time of death. That is why, in order to increase the probability of ensuring a good last thought, one should have started the practice of cultivating good thoughts throughout life.) We talk about maya vritti only on the basis of what is said in the scriptures. If asked about how the first creation came about, an event that is not preceded by maya vritti, the answer clearly is that there is nothing like first creation—the endless cycles of creation has no beginning and no end.

Now, we discuss differences arising from mano vrittis of individuals. When exposed to a scene in the universe, experiences of individuals will be varied and different. Some will feel happy, and others feel unhappy. And there will be some who will be totally indifferent to it. The scene will be a different bhogya padartha from jiva to jiva.

Such differences experienced by the jivas cannot be ascribed to the Lord. His choice for creation is assuredly on the basis of . One cannot even entertain the thought that the all-compassionate Lord would create a world with so much of pain and tragedy. He created the jivas also. From the viewpoint of the Lord’s creation, every object of the universe looks the same as karya prapanca, but every object makes different impressions on jivas whose domain is the

50 bhogya prapanca—this world where they have to experience both pleasure and pain.

The differences in attitudes can be broadly classified into three groups. Obstructed desire transforms into anger; fulfilled desire inevitably leads to greed; and a person who is absolutely detached looks at the previous two and enjoys the drama. This detached person is neither elated nor depressed—this attitude is called upeksha.

Consider the example of a precious stone. As an object in the universe in God’s creation, it is only one without any qualifications. But from the vantage point of jiva, it has many invisible attributes. Therefore, we can say that there is a second stone with several attributes.

Dialogue

A question is raised by a student: I can agree that the perception of the object differs from person to person. But why do you say the object is no more a single object because of differing perceptions? Surely, there are no changes in the object.

Vidyaranya gives an answer which is rather technical in nature. If you consider the object to be a woman, there are indeed two women—one external woman made of the five basic elements in flesh and blood who is objectively available; and a second with attributes. This is because, at the time of perception, an internal form of the woman takes shape in the observer which is called akara vritti. It is different from the first because it is made of thought generated in the mind. Similarly, there are different internal forms in the several observers. No attribute can be added to the objective woman whereas the internal woman is perceived with differing attributes.

The student further asks: But you can talk about an internal universe when the external universe is absent as is clear from the jagrat and svapna states of consciousness. Svapna is generated without the aid of projecting to the external universe. How does this square with your earlier statement? Furthermore, the states of jagrat and svapna are mutually exclusive.

The answer to this question is an essential part of Vedantic epistemology. Any experience of any object occurs only when the image of the object is formed in the mind—it is called vishaya akara vritti. This statement also applies to a dream which is remembered in the waking state. Two facets of this mental image that are necessary for experience are: a) Manasa vastu—formation of mental image that is necessary for experience and b) formation of mental image that is necessary for direct perception also. The first is with regard to memory and the second is with regard to perception. In perception, the mental image is generated by the external object—pramana janya. In the case of memory, the mental image

51 is generated by vasana—it is vasana janya. Mental image is common to both. This clarifies the puzzle posed in the question. Jiva dvaitam is in the mind of everyone when one experiences the external world. The corresponding inner world is formed which is necessary for the experience.

If consciousness is directly illumining the object, you don’t need the mind. But if the mind is on some other object, we need consciousness, mind, and vritti for perception. Even for Brahma jnanam, anthakarana vrtti is necessary.

Perception

In the Vedantic view of perception, both manasa vritti and pramana vritti contact with the prameya—object. The formless thought assumes the form of the object and forms the vishaya akriti; this is the shape of the object formed in the anthakarana vrtti. This has to take place in every perception. There is no scientific basis for this theory of perception. The author says that his guru parampara has dealt with this topic and cites upadesasahasri of Shankara and Manosollasa of Sureswaracharya for affirming the validity.

Manasollasa talks about three entities: 1) mata—pramata—mind along with RC, like the flash light; 2) manam—pramanam—anthakarana vritti—goes out, 5 beams corresponding to the 5 sensory organs possible; and 3) meyam— prameyam—any external object. The pramanam assumes the form of the object by its sweeping vision. The internal object, which is the thought object, is due to jiva dvaitam, and the original object is due to Iswara dvaitam.

In perception, there are two objects that are simultaneously existing, one external and a second which is internal. If the object is a pot, the external pot is made of clay while the internal pot is made of thought. We talk of vasanamaya prapanca, manomaya prapanca, and vrittimaya prapanca. How does one recognize these two pots? The external pot is recognized by pramana. Internal pot is recognized directly by sakshi. All internal events are known by sakshi and there is no process required for it. All external events are known by pramana bhashyam. The entire dream world is sakshi bhashyam.

Samsara

Jiva dvaitam alone is the cause of samsara. This is proved based on the logic of anvaya vyathirekha—based on the co-presence and co-absence of two things for which we are considering karya-karana sambandha—cause and effect relationship. For establishing co-presence, consider the waking and dream states. In the waking state, there is internal dvaitam due to sense organs. In the dream state, we have internal dvaitam due to vasanas. In both the states, the internal world is present. There is a co-presence of pleasure and pain. This is the anvaya part of the logic. Next, consider the deep sleep state where both the waking and dream states are absent—manonmaya is absent. There is a co-

52 absence of pleasure and pain. This is the vyathirekha part of the logic. Because both anvaya and vyathirekha are both simultaneously satisfied, we have proved that jiva dvaitam is the cause of samsara.

The same logic as above does not hold when applied to the external world. In susupti, although the world is existent, I don’t experience it—anvaya is violated. In dream state, the external world is not there. Therefore, we conclude the external world is not the cause of samsara.

Consider the following example to illustrate the idea that it is jiva-dvaitam that is the cause of samsara, and not Iswara-dvaitam. A son of the family is living in a distant country and the false news reaches the father that his son has died. In the father’s mind, the son has died. Is the event Iswara dvaita or Jiva dvaita? The emotion of the father is influenced by jiva-srishti, not by Iswara srishti.

A second example. Assume a boy has died in an accident. The news has not reached the father. It is purposely withheld for some reason and, in the absence of the sad news, the father is enjoying. In the Iswara dvaitam, the event has taken place; in the jiva srishti, the son is alive. Pleasure and pain are entirely governed by the internal world.

The lesson from the discussion of the two examples is that one has to learn to handle the internal world. The practical import of it is that one has to learn to correct oneself before trying to correct the world.

Now we enter into another technical discussion. There are some who hold that utility is the criterion of reality based on common experience. Dream objects are unreal and cannot be utilized. Mirage water is experienced but it is not useful. The objection that these people raise on the basis of the prior understanding is that since it is the internal world that is the cause of pain and pleasure and not the external world, the latter should be considered as unreal. The external world should be classified as pratibhasika satyam—subjective reality. If this argument is accepted we would be endorsing the thesis of vijnana vada Buddhism which proclaims that the external world is a mental projection like a dream.

The Vedantin firmly rejects the above suggestion. Vedanta does not hold that the external world is useless. In fact, it is absolutely necessary for the formation of jiva-dvaita. Therefore Iswara-srishti is real; it is vyavaharika satyam. We never say the world is a mental projection. Vedantin would say that the world is a projection of the atma whereas Buddhist would say it is a projection of the mind.

The fallacious argument that the external world is a projection of the mind could be taken further by pointing out that it is not necessary to form an internal image. In the rope-snake example, even when there is no snake as an object of the external world, an internal image is formed of the snake by mistaking the rope for the snake. The answer of the Vedantin is that it is due to purva vasana. The

53 assertion is that jiva dvaitam can be generated by purva vasana. Iswara dvaitam is unnecessary and unreal to explain the situation.

Vidyaranya gives a forceful and convincing answer to the above question. He asks the doubting student to assume that the external world is not useful for forming the image because it could form by the vasanas also. But, in any case, the reality of the world has to be accepted since it is revealed by prathyaksha pramanas and therefore, what they report is beyond a shadow of doubt. It cannot be negated by any other means. They can neither confirm nor contradict. However, the non-Vedantins add one more rider to the definition of reality—they say that it should reveal something that is useful. Their argument boils down to this statement: if you, Vedantin, say that the external world is not useful, it will mean that prathyaksha pramana has revealed a useless world thereby stripping the status of aprameyam to prathyaksham.

This definition of pramana is given by the purva mimamsikas in the context of the Vedas where there is a statement that says Veda is a pramana if it reveals something useful. The Vedantins sharply differ from the mimamsikas on this issue. They don’t accept a definition of pramana which includes a dubious condition of utility. For them, fact is a fact whether it is useful or not.

Removal of jiva dvaitam

We move on to the next topic which deals with the removal of jiva dvaitam and bondage on the basis of advaitic knowledge. The purva pakshi’s position on this is expressed in two steps: first, advaita jnanam is not required for the removal of jiva dvaitam; and second, advaita jnanam is not possible. Jiva dvaitam is the cause of the problem of samsara. It is in the form of vritti—thought. Vrittis are the cause of bondage and so removal of jiva dvaitam means removal of vrittis. The latter can be accomplished by astanga yoga of sage Patanjali. He teaches a practical method for accomplishing cessation of thoughts. Compared to this nostrum that is readily available, why do we indulge in needless Vedantic studies?

Vidyaranya’s answer is clear and emphatic. He tells the student that Vedanta and yoga should not be mixed up. In the former the emphasis on scriptural studies and in the latter it is on meditation. Yoga will help one to eliminate thoughts in nirvikalpa samadhi, in which case, the turbulence caused by jiva dvaita will quieten down. But how long will you sit in samadhi? Your will not allow you to sit for a long time. From the samadhi experience, you will per force return to the ordinary state which is a disquieting experience. Of course, we know of rumours of people sitting in samadhi for inordinate lengths of time. Assuming the stories are true, you have only avoided prarabdha by yoga. You cannot destroy sanchita karma. Future samsara cannot be avoided by samadhi. Karma can be destroyed only through Brahma jnana. Nothing else will succeed.

54 The Vedantin will accept the importance of meditation as a preparation for Vedanta but not as a substitute which is what the argument of the student is.

The next question that the student raises is this: Brahma jnanam itself is not possible meaning thereby the impossibility of getting advaita jnanam. It is not possible as long as dvaita prapanca exists—that is, as long as Iswara srishti exists. Elimination of dvaitam is an imperative necessity before embarking on gaining advaita jnanam. But getting rid of Iswara-srishti is an absurd proposition.

Vidyaranya answers the question as follows. I do not agree with your objection. Advaita jnanam does not require the removal of dvaita prapanca; it does not ask even for the removal of its experience. Let the dvaita experience continue as it must. In the experience of prapanca, we have the wrong notion that it is a reality; it is a misconception. For example, the experience of sunrise is not the problem, but the problem lies in the belief that sunrise is a fact. Experience is not proof of reality. Superposition of reality is not Iswara srishti. Remove the misconception by getting the proper knowledge of the sastras. Vyavaharika dvaita cannot disturb paramarthika advaitam. Misconception is removed by sastra pramanam. It is possible to have knowledge of advaitam even while experiencing dvaitam.

The student comes up with another brilliant question based on his conviction of the impracticality of mithya. He asks the Vedantin to wait for pralayam which is going to be a certain event though in the far distant future. At that time the entire dvaita prapanca is bound to be dissolved. That moment, he visualizes, is the propitious time to advocate advaita jnana. Vidyaranya has a ready answer for this seemingly correct analysis. In the pralaya, he says, all instruments of knowledge will be resolved. Since jnanam is received through guru and upadesa, their dissolution will make it impossible for propagating advaita knowledge. Furthermore, pralayams have taken place earlier also because of the cyclic nature of creation and dissolution and there is absolutely no indication of threat to advaitam knowledge on account of it. Furthermore, any knowledge has to take place in the mind; it does not figure at all in the suggested alternative solution for advaitic knowledge, in which case, the question might be legitimately raised why one should practice sadhana chatushtaya sampathi (scs). In pralayam, mind is not destroyed; it will be in dormant form in the form of causal body. The plain fact is spiritual knowledge has to take place in jagrat state only. The vritti corresponding to advaitic knowledge should arise in the mind. The Iswara shrishti dvaita cannot, need not, and should not be eliminated. It cannot because it is a ludicrous proposition; it need not for two reasons: first, it is not the cause of samsara and so it is not an obstacle to advaita jnanam. Secondly, taking Iswara srishti dvaitam as satyam is an obstacle and this wrong notion should be tackled. Finally, it should not be destroyed because it is positively useful for the seeker; guru, sastra, mind etc., are all part of Iswara srishti dvaitam.

Jiva srishta dvaitam is of two types: first type is the one that is supported by sastra which has to be practiced in the initial stages of the spiritual discipline; the

55 second type is the one that is prohibited by sastra and therefore it has to be given up at the earliest. May you, the spiritual aspirant, develop the first type? Develop it well, supported by the prescribed spiritual practices, until you get clear atma jnanam. Swamiji gives the example of a pole-vaulter who raises high with the aid of the pole and then drops it in order to cross the bar. The sadhaka will reach a point when he has to give up his attachment to sravanam, mananam, nidhidhyasanam, Vedanta vichara etc. Once the central teaching on atma- brahma aikya vichara is clearly grasped, let go your attachment to them in a gradual and steady manner. The sastra advices the sadhaka not to get attached to sastra also which is unusually objective. It says; use me in order to transcend me.

The above idea is taken from several Upanishads. One Upanishad says that an intelligent seeker should first get committed to sastram, sravanam and mananam. There is no Self-inquiry other than sastric inquiry; sastras are compared to a mirror in this respect. Indulge in repeated nidhidhyasanam until the jnanam is well assimilated. You must clearly understand what you really are—aparoksha jnanam which is I am Brahman. Thereafter, give up your emotional dependence on the sastram. Another Upanishad says that after practicing sravana, manana, and nidhidhyasana, give up attachment to sastric details. Have no confusion with respect to priorities. Tarka, Mimamsa, Vyakaranam were all studied. They are not an end in themselves. Jnanam is the end. Each sastram, meaning a philosophy that predated Vedanta is intellectually stimulating but it should be viewed as a means for understanding Vedanta.

Some quotations from Upanishads follow to reinforce the above conclusion. We give the purport of these quotations. Mundaka Upanishad asks the sadhaka to dedicate his life to the goal of advaita darsanam. It says that every action one does in life will be valid if it is designed to take one towards the final goal. It recommends karma yoga for this purpose. It says that such a design is entirely possible for the realization of the purusartha.

From kathopanishad: May you practice the discipline of the use of the mouth for both quality control and quantity control. Withdraw the vak indriyam and abide in your true nature. One experience painful experiences of the past coming to moments of quietitude—this is called kashayam.

We next deal with ashastriya jiva dvaitam which is not at all Vedantic friendly. It produces retarding effects in Vedantic pursuits. This category of ashatriya is divided into two subgroups. The first is called thivram which means there is a severe problem demanding immediate attention. The second is called mandam which is also not helpful for Vedantic pursuits but not to the extent as the first; these problems can be tackled at a more leisurely pace. The foremost obstacles that are part of the thivra category are kama and krodha. Because of these negative traits, an attentive mind will not be available for sravanam which is the first major step for Vedantic studies. Within kama and krodha, kama is singled

56 out for attention; if that is curbed krodha also will get curbed and so are other features like lobha, matsarya etc. In the manda category, the characteristic feature is that one builds castles in the air in one’s own internal universe. Here also, this tendency will inhibit the role of sravana for Vedantic teaching.

Desire, anger, wandering nature of the mind (malam, vikshepa) have to be eliminated before starting sravanam. Karma yoga is practiced for removal of these drawbacks. Upasana will help to transform a restless mind into a one- pointed one—this is how vikshepa is taken care of. But avarana nivritti—removal of the concealing power—can be achieved only by jnana yoga.

An adhikari will be in one of the three categories: manda, madhyama, and uttama. If manda, reception of jnanam does not take place. If madhyama, though jnanam is received, it cannot be retained—the adhikari does not become jnana nishta. If the adhikari belongs to the uttama category, sravanam itself is enough for both jnanam and jnana nishta.

We focus on madhyama adhikari because there is not much to be said about the other two categories. We need a process to convert jnana into jnana nishta. The obstacle that has to be removed is because of malam and viksepa. This condition strongly suggests that the prior preparation of scs is inadequate. A student is likely to ask: why should I work for jnana nishta? The answer is that the emotional benefit of jnanam can only be gained by becoming a jnana nishta. In order to enjoy jivan mukti, the obstacles in the way such as kama and krodha have to be overcome. The Gita explicitly suggests the method for achieving this step. It is the undisciplined sense organs and mind that nourish kama and krodha and so these organs have to be disciplined. Introspection is meant for constant correction.

The student raises another doubt at this stage of the discussion. Mind is often compared to a rogue elephant. How can I handle the mind? The answer given to this question by the Vedantin is that the efficacious method is to question yourself why kama and krodha crop up in your mind at all. You need to cultivate emotional intelligence. You have to develop the capacity to find the cause of the emotion. For this, the student makes a counter statement. He says that he will be happy with videha mukti instead of struggling for jivan mukti. Vidyaranya has not made this difference, but the student has. Vidyaranya does not question the student’s theory. He asks the student why he has opted for videha mukti; instead, he could have opted for svarga—heaven—where wonderful pleasures are available. Opt for punarjanma which increases the possibility of fulfilling this desire. Why should he bother about videha mukti? The student replies: all heavenly pleasures are finite; once the visa expires, I am sure to be deported to earth. What a fall! No, I don’t want to go to heaven. Vidyaranya answers the student as follows: If you are able to reject heavenly pleasures, then why can’t you reject worldly pleasures? Why can’t you handle kama, krodha and opt for jivan mukti. And finally comes the warning to the student. You will start claiming

57 you are a jnani. You don’t see the need for karma yoga, upasana and all the sastric disciplines. You may begin to lead a licentious life. After the study of Vedanta, if you don’t give up kama and krodha totally, you will be an unrestrained person leading an undisciplined life. If that happens, it will be a total abuse of Vedanta. The advice of the Vedantin to the madhyama adhikari is that ananda is more potent than bhoga ananda.

When kama and krodha are confined to the thought level, they are relatively harmless. Once the thoughts get saturated, they will express at the body level and take you off the path of dharma gradually and incipiently. This half-baked adhikari will intellectually be able to defend his perverted life-style. He will even justify it by quoting passages from Vedanta that suits him. Obviously these quotations are wrongly interpreted and taken out of context. Quite often they are quotations pertaining to transcendence from the vyavaharika level to the spiritual level, but interpreted as applicable to the former level only.

What is the principal difference between an animal and a human being? An animal lives according to its nature and instincts and it does not have to think about the welfare of others. A human being, on the other hand, can never live by his raga-dvesa unconditionally. He should consider the dharmic constraints in order to qualify as a manushya. If Vedanta advocates removal of the ethical constraints, it would have done positive harm. A restrained jnani pursues dharma as a will-based action, whereas a restrained jnani is the very embodiment of dharma. From this respect, the transition from an ajnani to a jnani is going from deliberate dharma to spontaneous dharma. And so the advice to the student is that the journey should not be from deliberate dharma to deliberate adharma.

Society places a jnani on a high pedestal and so he has to maintain standards expected of him. Otherwise, he will become a bad example for the sastras.

When man loses his dharmic restraints, he will plummet despite all his Vedantic knowledge. A higher being can inflict more harm than an animal can. When the restraints themselves become illusory, kama-krodha becomes real. In order to avoid this decline, follow the prescribed with diligence and go from jnana to jnana nishta. After becoming a nishta, you will become incapable of violating the constraints. Kama and krodha are the basic negative traits and so their management will automatically keep under control the other negative traits like lobha, moha, matsarya etc. All this teaching is supported by the Gita in the discussion on asuri sampath. The benefit of taking this path is that you will get jivan mukti.

The method of controlling kama is discussed in detail in scs. Essentially, it has got to do with the elimination of desire for objects. Right thinking is the only antidote. One has to learn how to handle expectations.

58 The manda variety of ashatriya jiva dvaitin is prone to create his own mental world—manorajyam. He will have a meandering mind and makes a habit of either living in the past or the future, thus overlooking the reality of the present. An interesting quotation from Swamiji: A human being lives in absentia. The student asks: what is wrong if I indulge in my imaginary pleasures? I can understand giving up kama krodha; but no one else is cognizant of my imaginary world. The answer of the Vedantin is that saturated thoughts hovering round imaginary pleasures get converted into action of the harmful type. When the thought patterns get saturated, they will overflow into the vak and indriya level and then physically act out. Manda variety will get converted into tivra. Gita also talks about the dangers posed by manorajya. It says that the increase in frequency of the imaginary thought leads to an actual thought and gives rise to a chain reaction giving rise to fancy, anger, delusion, and in the final analysis to the infection of sastric knowledge. Buddhi gets clouded and the adhikari will be spiritually destroyed. Therefore, it is absolutely essential that manorajya should be nipped in the bud. It is difficult to stop the unhealthy thoughts directly. One has to take recourse to healthy diversions and dismantle the wrong patterns of thought. Nidhidhyasanam is an effective antidote for it. Gita also talks about Samadhi abhyasa.

Don’t ignore tackling the manda variety. Astanga yoga will also help disciplining the thought patterns. See the irrelevance of the disturbing thought. Once manorajyam is bridled, you can enjoy silence resulting from the cessation of the chattering of the mind.

While commenting on jivan mukti in Yoga Vasishta, sage says that peace of mind prevailing under favourable conditions will not be permanent. And therefore, he advices the seeker to attain peace of mind even in the absence of favourable conditions which often is the case.

It is jnana-janya shanti alone that is not dependent on prarabdha karma. Sage Vasishta has talked about this.

How does jnana- janya shanti work? First, classify orders of reality. Any observed prapanca belongs to the lower order of reality. I the drik—observer—meaning satyam, belong to a higher order. This perspective will give quietude of the mind. In the final analysis, the world is a paper tiger. Raga dvesas which are the basis of a disturbed mind are produced by a misconception of the rank one assigns to the world of reality. Living in the present and enjoying the world as it is jivan mukti.

Consider two different situations in which jivan mukti is expressed in two different ways. In the first, I am alone in seclusion without interaction with others. In the second, I am interacting with people. Jivan mukti in the first case is generated because there are no disturbing thoughts; mind is a burden to one who does not have shanti but this person has self-adequacy. In the second case, when the

59 person is interacting, the world is not presenting according to his expectations and he has to face unfavourable situations. This person has to be cognizant of the frequency of disturbances of the mind (F), their intensity (I), and the person’s recovery time (R), FIR for short, for getting back to his normal frame of mind. The reduction of FIR must be the goal in this case. It is a sure way of testing the state of mind.

In the language of Tatva Bodha, a text by Shankara, manda or viksepa (restlessness) is due to lack of preparation of scs. The pramata—knower who operates the sastras—should be well-equipped. Without undergoing scs, he won’t be ready in which case sastra pramanam will not be able to fulfill its expectations. The problem is not because sastras are deficient in this respect, but the Vedantic student did not have requisite prior preparation. Sastra has worked well with students with proper preparation. The mind is brought to a restful state for the pursuit of Vedantic studies by resorting to nidhidhyasana.

Phalam

Having discussed the three types of jiva dvaitam, the last one being the manda variety, we are ready to talk about the benefits. When viksepa decreases to an inconsequential level, one who has acquired jnanam about jiva dvaitam and can expect to become jnana nishta. Knowledge belongs to ahamkara. Enlightened ahamkara is a healthy one. A person who belongs to this type loses identification with his own ahamkara. He does not even claim he is a jnani. When a person is physically healthy, he is quite oblivious to considerations of his health and has no identification with the body. It is only when ill-health sets in, he becomes conscious about it. Similarly, a jnani has no abhimana about his enlightened ahamkara. Even jnani’s status is dropped. To claim I am a jnani is ignorance because it means identification with ahamkara. The wise people declare that he is bereft of jnani-ajnani classification.

Such a jnani can consider life in this world as a sport and enjoy it. Generally, we value what we have by contrasting with those who do not have it. When jivan mukti is normal, the jnani doesn’t talk about it. Even videha mukti is also not a big event because of his present status. From the vyavaharika vision, he is a jnani but from the paramarthika vision he is Brahma eva.

Summary

Chapter 4 begins with an introductory verse. The subject matter deals with discrimination of two types of dvaitam: Isha srishta dvaitam (ID) and jiva srishta dvaitam (JD). The purpose of discrimination is to show ID is harmless, while JD, on the other hand, is harmful. Negation of JD alone is mukti. Verses 2-13 deal with ID, based on the srishti mentioned in the Upanishads. We consider passages from the various Vedas. Veda mantras are quoted because we are dealing with a non-manifest reality. Iswara is apourusheya and he is not known

60 through a logical proof of his existence. Bhagavan is a mixture of two principles: chetana principle and achetana maya principle. He creates bhuta srishti and bhautika srishti. The Lord lends his image to every sukshma sarira which is called anupravesam leading to production of jivas. It is anupravesam that is responsible for the formation of chidabhasas; each chidabhasa is a jiva. Jivas are infinite.

Verses 14-31 deals with jiva srishta dvaitam (JD). When Iswara creates the world, he makes use of the maya principle. Under Iswara, maya is humble and makes use of its viksepa sakti—the power of diversification. Maya’s other sakti, namely, avarana sakti—the power of concealing—is inactive so far. Jiva is still not there. Once jiva appears, it is ignorant of the fact that the body-mind complex is a false projection of maya. Thus, jiva gets trapped in spiritual ignorance, and such has been the story from anadi kala—timelessness. The jiva gets identified with the body and designated as a karta and bhogya. Jiva, with its punya –papa- karma, looks at the world and the world becomes bhogya prapanca. However, from Iswara’s angle, it is karya prapanca—a product. For Iswara, it is a wonderful drama—a leela. ID and JD are not two separate entities. One and the same thing is called ID from Iswara’s angle and JD from jiva’s angle. They are two visions from karya prapanca and bhogya prapanca. Since karmas vary from jiva to jiva, ID remaining the same, different views emerges. The world should enter one’s chidabhasa for the enjoyment of sukham and dhukham. It should become anthara prapanca. What does not enter cannot have an impact on the individual. The first step is the entry of the external world into the internal world through the sense organs, and the second step is the result of the internal world getting subjective coloration according to one’s vasanas. This is called JD.

JD alone is bandha karanam, not ID. A bhogya is the result of the two steps of entry and interpretation. The addition is due to several factors.

Brahma Jnanena JD nivrtti

One need not do anything about ID, only one’s response to it needs refinement. It cannot, need not, and should not be removed. But JD should most certainly be removed and it is entirely possible to remove it. There is only one method for its removal and it is through Brahma Jnanam. Is JD satyam or mithya? If satyam, it cannot be removed; what can’t be removed is satyam. A mithya vastu can be removed by knowledge. The rope-snake illusion can be resolved only through knowledge of the rope. Yoga, which is often recommended as a solution to the problem of removal of JD, is not a correct solution. Yoga is only a preparatory discipline albeit an important one; there is no intention to distract its importance in the field in which it is valid.

JD is divided into three types: SJD which can be tackled through Vedanta vichara, and the tivra and manda types of ASJD. As for Vedanta vichara, don’t

61 drop it immediately although, in the final analysis, it is also a bondage. After Brahma Jnana, there is no dependence on JD because it is not required.

As for mala nivrtti which is the first type of ASJD, it should have been taken care of even before taking up the discipline of Vedanta. When this is not done, even if the adhikari should acquire jnanam, it won’t be fruitful. Gita recommends some steps one should take to acquire the requisite preparation.

1. Vivekaha—understanding cause, nature, consequence of understanding of positive and negative emotions. 2. Pratipaksha bhavana: this recommends the practice of entertaining a relevant opposite positive thought. 3. prarthana—prayer 4. Sankalpa—auto suggestion: example—one can resolve that one will do good things. 5. satsangaha

As for the second type of ASJD, one should undertake the prescribed practice of Samadhi.

Once mala and viksepa are good, jnanam will turn into jnana nishta.

The phalam is jivan mukti.

Ch 5 Mahavakya vivekaha

This last chapter of viveka panchaka has only 8 verses and it is devoted to the analysis of mahavakyas. A vedic statement that reveals oneness of paramatma and jivatma is a mahavakya. Sentences which do not reveal oneness but only prepare for the revelation are called avantara vakyas. Pancha kosha vivekaha deals with JD, but not about aikyam and therefore would qualify as avantara vakyas. (Another example: Wedding preparations are avantara vyapara because they do not have a purpose on their own. But as part of the wedding function, they gain their meaning.)

A mahavakyam can be redefined as tatparya bhodaka vakyam; it is meant to produce aikyam jnanam. The benefit of aikya jnanam is removal of the misconception that there is a distance between God and me. Why do we want to remove this delusion? It is crucial because Bhagavan is the source of peace, happiness and security. We are running about like deers in search of mirage water in a desert. Maha vakyam gives liberating knowledge. For purposes of analysis, Jivatma is considered to be an entity consisting of 5 components and

62 similarly, Paramatma also consists of 5 components. Jivatma—sarira trayam (RM1, RM2, RM3), pratibimba consciousness (RC), and bimba consciousness (OC). Paramatma’s components are: prapanca trayam (sthula, sukshma, karana), macro RC, and OC.

Upanishad talks about aikyam of Jivatma and Paramatma. We can forge aikyam only at the level of OC. The first four components have to be set aside. These components characterize the differences. We give importance to abheda rather than bheda although it is one against four. Abheda is a reality. Bheda is there but only from the vyaharika angle. From this angle, Iswara has a function as laya karta to dissolve the world. If you want to cross over mortality, you have to overcome even Iswara -Jiva Bheda. Aikya jnanam helps one to transcend.

Veda is strewn with maha vakyams. But we choose one from each of the 4 Vedas. It shows uniformity in the teaching.

1. Prajyanam Brahma—Itereya Upanishad—Rg Veda 2. Aham Brahmasmi—Brihadaranya Upanishad—Shukla Yajur Veda 3. Tatvam Asi—Chandogya Upanishad—Sama Veda 4. Ayam Atma Brahma—Mandukya—Atharvana Veda

Two verses are devoted to each of the four mahavakyams. Without going through a detailed analysis as is traditionally done, only the final meaning of the vakyams is given. Applying bhaga-thyaga lakshartha, the mahavakyam of Rg Veda interprets prajnanam as the OC by which one sees every object. A student might very well ask whether it is the OC that illumines the world, or is it the RC, which is a legitimate doubt since our understanding is it is RC that is the key for perception. The suitable answer to this question is it is the OC alone that is available in the form of RC; in this context, RC has no separate existence. The student might further ask why one could not take the chidabhasa that is implied in the mahavakyam. The answer to this question is quite straightforward. If we take RC as what is implied, then aikyam will not be true. Brahma is limitless and chidabhasa will be confined to the jiva.

Without padartha jnanam, the vakyartha jnanam is not possible; the converse statement would be incomplete. Therefore, prajnanam is OC. OC and RC have some common features and in most other respects, they are different. There is a bheda-abheda sambandha between bimba-pratibimba. We highlight one aspect or the other depending on the context.

In the entire jiva rashi stretching from devas, manushyas, animals etc., there is one inhering consciousness. That ekam consciousness is Brahma.

The mahavakyam prajnanam Brahma does not have a preposition because that would indicate duality. When the two words are juxtaposed without a preposition it would indicate complete identity.

63

We next consider the second mahavakyam: Aham Brahma Asmi. Here also, aham refers to the original consciousness separated from RM1, RM2, RM3, and RC. I am Brahman is a pramana.

The Sama Veda mahavakyam Tatvamasi appears in the Chandogya Upanishad. Tat means That, Tvam means You, and asi means are—You are That. That refers to existence before creation—pure nondual existence. It indicates a remoteness both spatially and in terms of time. Tvam asi indicates present tense. In the mahavakyam, from vakyartha drishtaha, an identity between the future and present is suggested which, of course, is not possible. But when we remove the kala sambandha—time relationship—tvam would refer to existence unrelated to time. The word meaning should be taken as tvam referring to timeless consciousness and tat also referring to timeless existence. The mahavakyam means non-difference between tat and tvam. It is aparoksha jnanam. (A fact is not bound by time, whereas an event is associated with time).

Finally, we will study the mahavakyam that appears in : Ayan Atma Brahma. Here also vakyartha will not fit, but lakshartha will. Ayam is self-evident, intimately obtaining consciousness. Ayam atma is the innermost consciousness. Brahma, occurring here refers to the innermost essence of the cosmos. The vakya says that the inner essence is the same as the inner essence of the cosmos. The names and forms of the macro and micro worlds are set aside for arriving at the essence.

Ch 6: Deepaha Chitra Prakaranam

This is the first chapter in the second group of five chapters called Deepa Panchakam. It is a big chapter consisting of 290 verses and it also ranks high in terms of quality. It can be divided into two parts. Part 1 deals with Vedanta sangraha where the central message of Vedanta is given in a concise form, and part 2 is devoted to Vedanta vistaraha, meaning an elaborate treatment of the earlier part. In part 1, the example of chitra pataha—a painted canvas—is discussed as an example to illustrate the message of Vedanta. In part 2, akasha drishanta—example of space—is considered for expansion of the teaching. The title of this chapter is because of the first example.

Example of Painted Canvas

If you look at a painted canvas, four distinct stages can be identified which come in a progression from the raw canvas to the finished painting. The first stage consists of getting the canvas cleaned and kept ready. This pure canvas is called dhouta pataha.

In the second stage, the canvas is mounted on a frame. The prior preparation consists of dipping the pure canvas in starch so as to stiffen it. It is this

64 processed cloth that is ready for mounting. The stiffened canvas is called gattitha pataha.

In the third stage, the painter draws an outline of the picture he has in mind on the mounted canvas. This marked canvas is called lanchita patham.

In the fourth and final stage, the outlines are filled up with the details making use of appropriate colours. It is called purita pathaha.

A short summary of Vedanta

The example just discussed is used to illustrate paramatma chaitanyam. The first stage corresponds to shudda chaitanyam (karya-karana vilakshanam). The stiffened canvas of the second stage is compared to the stiffening due to Maya starch—antaryami atma chaitanyam. The third stage corresponds to Hiranyagarbha chaitanyam or sukshmartha chaitanyam. Finally, the fourth stage corresponds to virat chaitanyam with its manifold nama and rupa.

The comparison with chit starts. 1. Brahman by itself is the first stage. 2. When Brahman is associated with maya, chaitanyam is called antaryami. 3. When nama- rupas appear (comparison to drawing an outline on the canvas) indicating partial knowledge, it corresponds to Hiranyagarbha. 4. When tangible creation has emerged, sthula nama-rupa, chaitanyam is called virat.

All the above are the stages of manifestation of one and the same chaitanya.

The author extends the scope of the example further. The pure canvas by itself is advaitam. When varieties of figures emerge, you forget the canvas. There is no plurality in the canvas, but there are both chetana and achetana anekatva: eka would have become aneka. Amongst the chetana figures, there could be taratamyam—consider a man walking a dog: there is a swamy and dasa relation between them. In the canvas, there is no division. The jada padarthas are in the same category.

Discussion of chidabhasa: reverting to the painting, we notice that in certain places, where human beings are painted, the painter visualizes they are all clothed although there is pure canvas (now called adhara vastram) all over. We find the saffron dress of a sanyasi, the school uniform for a student etc., with appropriate additional vastra which is called abhasa vastra which is localized to the particular human being. Specifically, the abhasa vastra is not all pervading like the adhara vastra. Also, the paint used is appropriate to depict the people concerned. The colour of the adhara vastra is white and that of the sanyasi is orange, but both of them are overlapping. Viveka jnanam consists of separating the adhara vastra from the abhasa vastra at an intellectual level without attempts

65 at physical separation. By going behind the mind of the painter, one can see that adhara vastram is the avaranam and abhasa vastram is kashayam (attachment). When the painter is compared to Bhagavan, we can draw some lessons about creation from the example. Adhara vastram is all over; it is ekam. Abhasa vastram appears in special places—they are anekam. The colours that are painted belong to abhasa—attributes belong to abhasa. The next leap we make is to state that samsara is due to abhasa chaitanyam. This chaitanyam is mithya and so are its attributes. The question is: Am I abhasa chaitanyam or adhara chaitanyam? The answer should clearly be that I am adhara chaitanyam.

Explanation of the verses starts from here after Swamiji’s introduction.

Samsara

Adhara vastram is singular whereas abhasa vastrams are plural. Abhasa vastra is similar to adhara vastra; it is not even separately drawn but intellectually we see them as two vastras. The living beings superimposed on adhara chaitanya are gifted with abhasa chaitanyam. In a plant, abhasa is dull; in an animal it is better than in a plant; and in a human being, it is bright because of the refined sukshma sharira. Abhasa chaitanyam is called jiva—chidabhasa. Adhara chaitanyam is one and the same in all of them because it is all- pervading. The distance between abhasa and adhyasa is zero. The jivas run after the mountain on the canvas. Only canvas is there. Jivas travel from one body to another.

Does kashaya vastra belong to abhasa or adhara vastra? To answer, one has to know the intention of the painter. The colour is chosen within an outline and so we can infer that what was meant was abhasa vastra. belongs to abhasa. Similarly, samsara belongs to abhasa. It is only the ignorant that mix up the two chaitanyas.

Adhara vastra is all pervading. Abhasa vastras are many and localized. In the same way, Bhagavan does not give chidabhasa to every object in creation. For instance, inert objects do not have chidabhasa. The two chaitanyas, namely, OC and RC are unique to advaitic teaching. Chetana has two chaitanyas while achetana has only one chaitanya. The latter cannot sense the surroundings. Being alive to the surroundings requires chidabhasa.

Human problem is because of ignorance of the facts based on two misconceptions: a) that samsara belongs to abhasa and it should be rightly assigned a lower order of reality. But taking it as satyam, a higher order of reality is a mistakenly attributed to it. b) If samsara is said to belong to adhara chit, it is a false transference of guna to adhara. Mixing up satya and mithyam is the problem. When a) and b) are taken together, it amounts to delusion. This delusion can only be overcome through knowledge only.

Tackling samsara through knowledge

66

Step 1 of vidya, knowledge, consists of plucking out samsara from adhara chaitanyam. One who has this vision is a gunatita—one who has transcended the gunas. Step 2 consists of handing over samsara to abhasa chaitanyam. Satyam status of samsara will be changed to mithya. Establish the identity that I am the asanga adhishtanam. This vidya will destroy the avidya delusion— bhranti.

Diagnosing the disease and suggesting the cure for it would be incomplete if one does not know how to get the remedy. How does one get the vidya? Vidya is acquired from a consistent and systematic study of the sastra for a length of time under the guidance of a guru.

Very often one gets the advice that meditation is the means for gaining vidya. Meditation is important, but only for qualifying oneself for jnana. Sastra is the only means for gaining self-knowledge. It is only intellect that can access atma. Inquiry is required to negate mithya components of abhasa and samsara. When this is successfully done, what remains is adhara chaitanya.

Negation of the unreal comes under two types: 1) as in the case of dream universe, reality of the dream is negated because the dream world does not appear after waking up. 2) In the second type, we negate only the reality part of the world while the appearance of the unreal will continue. Some examples: we negate the reality of mirage water but its appearance will continue; we negate the reality of sunrise but its appearance will continue. In the case of self-knowledge, negation of the world comes under the second type of negation because the appearance of the world continues unhindered.

Jnanam does not terminate either the appearance or the experience of the world. We have intellectual conviction about its unreality from the standpoint of jnanam. A vritti has to take place in buddhi. (The claim that self-realization takes place in meditation as a result of transcendence is absolutely wrong.). Knowledge has to take place in the waking state only. It is a cognitive process. Negation of jiva and jagat does not negate perception and experience. Negation is based on a clear understanding that factually jiva and jagat are not true. If non-perception is negation, sleep would be enough for moksha—scriptural studies would be unnecessary.

After negating the mithya components, and having a vision of the nondual nature of satyam, advaita philosophy recommends abidance of the mind in this central fact. By abidance, what is meant is clarity of the understanding by constant dwelling on the fact. This discussion is brought up since yoga philosophy also talks about abidance; but in that context, abidance means silencing the mind. This interpretation is farthest from the Vedantic interpretation where the emphasis is solely on knowledge; all knowledge can take place only in the intellect and therefore there is no question of silencing the mind in this

67 development. The right royal road to Vedantic knowledge is through guru-sastra- upadesa. By Self-inquiry, what is meant is sastric inquiry.

Thus, with the example of the painted canvas, Vidyaranya clearly brings out the three main features of advaitic teaching, namely, adhara consciousness, abhasa consciousness, and samsara. Adhara is an asamsari. The next stage of the teaching is to understand that adhara is satyam and abhasa is mithya—this is the portion on viveka. The third stage is to point out that adhara chaitanya— paramarthika chaitanya—is not affected by abhasa chaitanya—also called vyvaharika chaitanya or ahamkara. The totally unaffected nature of adhara is called asangatva. The fourth and final stage is to claim that I am asamsari adhara chaitanyam. The spiritual journey consists of this sastra vichara.

Veda purva talks about jivatma travelling the lokas; in that context, the meaning of jiva is samsari vyavaharika abhasa chaitanya. Vedantic inquiry produces knowledge of two types, namely, paroksha and aparoksha. By paroksha what is meant is the reference to Brahman as an external reality; this knowledge is incomplete because it is incapable of liberating a person. If one stops at this stage, one can only become a spiritually literate samsari. But paroksha jnanam is the stepping stone to aparoksha jnanam which is the end of the spiritual journey—of claiming I with paramarthika consciousness. The word sakshatkara is another word for aparoksha jnanam; the word anubhava is sometimes used to suggest the same.

Swamiji dins in the idea of the difference between paroksha and aparoksha jnanam by stating that without aparoksha jnanam paroksha jnanam is incomplete; and without paroksha jnanam, aparoksha jnanam is impossible.

Vedanta vichara produces two types of distinct statements—avantara vakyani, and mahavakyani. The former produces paroksha jnanam and the latter produces aparoksha jnanam.

Second example: akasha

This second example is meant for a more detailed study of Vedanta.

Vidyaranya takes up the discussion of four types of chaitanyam on the basis of the example of space associated with a pot. This example is highly rated in the entire Vedantic literature. The four types of consciousness are: 1. Kutastha—adhara—consciousness at micro (vyashti) level 2. Brahman –adhara—consciousness at the macro (samashti) level 3. Jiva—abhasa (ahamkara)—consciousness at the micro level 4. Iswara—abhasa consciousness at the macro level

68 Of these, two of abhasa type will be negated as mithya and there is only a difference in name in the remaining two types (1 & 2). The four types of space corresponding to the four types of consciousness are: 1. Ghata akasha at the micro level 2. Maha akasha at the macro level 3. Jala akasha at the micro level 4. Megha akasha at the macro level

Of the above four, two abhasa akashas in 3 & 4 will be negated as mithya, and the non-difference of 1 & 2 will be shown.

Ghata akasha is the original space enclosed within a pot. Jala akasha is the result of pouring water into the pot and looking into it; water has a reflecting surface and the upper space with the clouds above is reflected in the pot. Two spaces are defined within the pot. Water is the sukshma sarira of the pot.

Next, we consider the OC & RC pairs at the micro and macro levels. Jivatma has that pair at the micro level and paramatma has the pair at the macro level. Micro RC is the ahamkara or chidabhasa and macro RC is the Iswara. At the end of the detailed analysis, the two RCs are set aside, and the remaining two OCs merge into one and only one OC. At that level there is only verbal difference between the two OCs.

A more detailed account of Vedanta

Four spaces can be enumerated with respect to the example. Micro OS is the original space enclosed in the pot called ghata akasha; Jala akasha is the RS, the reflected space—the upper space reflected on the jalam—it signifies jiva; Megha akasa is the RS signifying Iswara; and finally, Maha akasha is the OS signifying Brahman.

The next step in the analysis is to bring about vivekaha at the micro-level between kutustha and jiva in order to establish tvam pada. Similarly, the tat pada vivekaha is established by considering the pair Brahman and Iswara. These discriminations are carried on the basis of bhaga-thyaga lakshana (part implication): jiva disappears and so does Iswara which is disheartening at first because anything that is even remotely negative that is said about Iswara is shocking. But this is what the analysis does; Iswara is the macro-level RC and so does not figure when the reality is identified with Brahman.

The final step is to establish aikyam between kutashta and Brahman.

Original consciousness at the micro level is adhara chaitanyam. It supports both sthula and sukshma sariram. Since OC is all pervading, it must also be within the body. It never undergoes any change whatever happens to the body. The word in Kutastha which is the OC has two meanings. Anything that is stored in a

69 heap is called kuta and it also means an anvil used by a blacksmith. Adhara must have the strength to stay without changes like an anvil.

The RC at the micro level is jiva chaitanyam. The sukshma and sthula sarirams are created by karana sariram—by Bhagavan. In , the word kalpita is used to suggest that there is a subtle difference from what is normally understood as creation because these two sarirams will be designated as mithya later on. Sukshma has a fine texture and is capable of forming reflection.

It is jiva or chidabhasa that holds the pancha pranas within the body. This jiva is a samsari. Prarabdha karma decides how long chidabhasa will stay before going to another body. From the point of jiva, samsara is satyam. But from the standpoint of kutastha, jiva is mithyam. In general, from the standpoint of mithya, another mithya is satyam.

Avidya

It is not possible to separate vyavaharika jiva from paramarthika kutastha. Adhara and abhasa types of consciousness coexist. Consequently, we mix up satyam and mithyam without paying attention to their difference. Ghatakasha— the pot space—is concealed by reflected space. This impostor steals the original. As is invariably the case, the original does not know how to market itself. The process of mixing the two is called anyonya adhyasa; it mixes substance with property and creates mutual confusion. Despite going through innumerable number of lives jiva has not understood its adhisthanam. Avidya, the spiritual ignorance is without a beginning and that is why it is called mula avidya.

Mula avidya has two : first, the avarana shakti—concealing power and second, the vikshepa shakti—diversifying power. The concealing power generates a specific thought and a specific verbal expression. The thought is in the form of negation and the negation finds a verbal expression. Accordingly, the existence and the experience of kutastha is negated. Negation of this thought is called satva nisheda and negation of the experience is called bhana nisheda. Vedanta declares that sakshi chaitanyam is experienced all the time and so also its existence.

An ignorant person does not know anything about kutastha chaitanyam. He does not talk about it. It is invoked only when a jnani raises the question. The ignorant person responds to the question thus: at the mental level, I have never experienced kutastha and so it does not exist. It is an event only at the thought level. All this happens only when he encounters a jnani.

The fundamental problem is mula avidya and it has two facets: avarana and vikshepa. Avarana is the facet concerned with concealment and vikshepa is about distortion. Avarana finds expression in the form of a particular type of

70 thought and type of speech connoting negation. The ignorance that is expressed is due to avaranam. Avidya and avaranam are andhakara svarupam—darkness. If this has to cover kutastha, it has to be located on it. And therefore, avidya and kutastha must coexist. But how can we reconcile to this strange coexistence when light and darkness have opposite attributes? The paradoxical situation suggests that they cannot coexist.

The second objection that can be raised is about even entertaining the idea that kutastha can be concealed.

Vidyaranya answers these objections. He starts by saying that the fact that avarana and kutastha coexist is proved by our experience. Logic cannot question such evident experience. That I experience ignorance trumps all logical objections to the contrary. If there is a cleavage between logic and experience, which one should I choose? The student uses inference for raising his objection, but experience is based on direct perception. The latter is ranked higher than inference in terms of its validity; inference depends on direct perception for its existence. The second reason that Vidyaranya advances is to point out that the student has taken recourse to the logical method of inference without even bothering to collect data and therefore his position is tantamount to pure speculation. Based on these two reasons, Vidyaranya dismisses the student’s objections.

The student argues further by stating that he is not rejecting his experience but is looking for logic based on which he can assimilate the experience. Vidyaranya concedes this point and begins to give a satisfactory explanation. Consciousness is not only unopposed to ignorance but, in fact, is friendly towards it; they have lived together for ever. In fact, even ignorance is illumined by consciousness only. Even the existence belonging to ignorance is lent by consciousness. But here is the clinching argument that will shed light on the seemingly irreconcilable situation. Consciousness belongs to paramarthika satyam while ignorance belongs to vyavaharika satyam. If ignorance is also paramarthika satyam it can never be annulled. Opposite attributes can coexist if they belong to different orders of reality. Another example to illustrate the idea are the experiences of the dream and waking states; one is prathibhasika satyam and the second is vyavaharika satyam.

Another argument in support of the above conclusion is given which comes under the category of reductio ad absurdum. Suppose consciousness and logic are inimical to each other. They can never coexist. In that case, one can never be conscious of ignorance and therefore we cannot even talk about it. Guru- shishya-sambandha is possible only because we are conscious of ignorance. Then, what about chidabhasa chaitanya? Where is the hope of destroying ignorance if this one also is not endowed with the capacity? There are two types of chidabhasa: 1) anthakarana pratibimbaha chidabhasa and 2) vritti chidabhasa. The first one is the samanya variety which is the friendly type and

71 the second is visesha chidabhasa. It is the second that is inimical to ignorance. A specific vritti can counter a specific ignorance. Vrittijnanam is essential for countering ignorance. Based on this observation, we can come to the conclusion that kutastha akara vritti should be generated to destroy kutastha ignorance. It is vritti that makes the difference between jnani and ajnani.

There is no question of transcending the mind in order to attain vritti jnanam because vritti jnanam can only take place in the mind. This is a very important lesson of Vedanta.

We next consider the viksepa sakti in some detail. Recall that it is the mixing up of adhara and abhasa types of consciousness that gives rise to confusion and necessitates an inquiry into the truth. The mula avidya has two components: first, avarana, meaning concealment that gives rise to the wrong thought about kutastha chaitanya; this we have discussed already. The second component is viksepa which generates the false projection on reality—adhyasa. Upon the concealed kutastha, chidabhasa chaitanyam is superimposed. It is a projection of RC and RM on OC. RM consists of sthula and sukshma sariras. Karana sarira is not mentioned because that alone is another name for mula avidya! This projection is called viksepa. The two classical examples of rope-snake and silver shell are usually invoked to illustrate the idea of adhyasa.

We will deal with the mechanics of superimposition in detail. Considering the example of mistaking a rope for snake, the erroneous perception occurs when the rope is lying in partial brightness or partial darkness. Complete knowledge about the rope can occur only when the darkness is eliminated. In its absence, initially, one can only grasp from the scene the first part ‘This is’. Ropeness is not known. Intellect will have to project the hidden rope part by a projected part and form the idea that ‘This is a snake’. We will give some technical names: `This is’ is called samanya amsha (c1)—this is the uncovered common part when there is only partial light; ` Rope’ is the visesha amsha (c2)—avrita visesha amsha—concealed part. When c2 is concealed, mind replaces this with a new visesha amsha--`snake’ is projected; this is called `adhyasta visesha amshaha’ (c3).

Of the three components c1 is called samanya because it is a friendly amsha; it is able to join c2 or c3. At the time of ignorance, c1 will join c3 and thus adhisthanam transfers reality to snake; but when c1 joins c2, knowledge dawns on the observer.

When these technical terms are applied to the shell silver example, `This is’ is the samnya amsha (c1); shell ness (c2); and silver ness is (c3)—at the time of ignorance, c1 joins c3; at the time of knowledge c1 joins c2.

Similarly, in the human adhyasa experience, Self is kutastha (c1); Brahmanhood is (c2) and jivatma is (c3)—kutastha, specific nature of kutastvam, and adhyasa

72 visesa amsha, respectively. The transference is from c1 to c3 instead of c2 and therefore I am—localized individuality—viksepa. Kutastha nature is covered. Changeless, asangatvam, ananda svarupam when missed become sanga. Ananda becomes dhukham.

One other observation can be made from the above example. During the time of jnana, there is a union of conscious elements that belong to the same order of reality, but at the time of ignorance, there is a union of satyam and mithya. Only mithya is negated. The definition of erroneous perception—adhyasa—is that perception in which there is one real part and an unreal part. If both are real, it results in jnanam; if one is real and another unreal, it results in adhyasa.

In the case of self-knowledge, the three components considered are: kutastha, Brahmatvam, and chidabhasa. I, the chidabhasa, is the mithya vishaya. Kutastha and Brahmatvam are the samanya satya components belonging to the same order of reality.

Self

Vidyaranya embarks on a discourse that is logical in nature as to why he prefers to use the word ‘Self’ to refer to the absolute reality, the kutastha. In Sanskrit, he uses the word svayam. We will give only a brief summary of this discussion next.

In the analysis of jivatma, OC is the adhisthana—kutastha, RM is the body-mind complex, RC is the abhasa—jiva—all put together as an individual. Of these OC alone is true; RM and RC are mithya. In the jivatma, satyam and mithyam are together causing confusion; this is called adhyasa. The appropriate word for kutastha is svayam or self. Aham refers to abhasa or ahamkara. Two conditions are fulfilled by the usage of the word svayam: 1) It can coexist with the first person I, second person You, and the third person He; it goes well with chidabhasa at padartha level. 2) It can connect well at the padam level also. Therefore, the word self is ideal to connote kutastha. The word self does not occur with the word atma because they are synonymous. Synonyms do not occur in the same sentence.

Jivan Mukta

We will now return to the discussion of Vedanta. Consider the four factors: 1) avidya; 2) avarana shakti—avriti; 3) viksepa—projections; and 4) mixture of satya and mithya—tadatyam. When avidya is destroyed by jnanam, the rest of the three will also go away but not simultaneously. Avarana and tadatyam will immediately end but viksepa will continue until prarabdha karma runs its course in an individual’s life. It is the end of prarabdha that will signal the cessation of sthula and sukshma sharira. Such a person is called jivan mukta.

73 The student raises the question that when karana is gone karyam also should terminate momentarily. Because it is a cause and effect relationship, he argues, that the dawn of knowledge should momentarily end viksepa also; the presumption here is that the effect should not be delayed unduly. Vidyaranya gives two answers to this question. The first answer is based on the logic of the questioner, and the second one is a more serious answer rooted in Vedanta. The first answer is that once we agree that there is a time gap between cause and effect, one should not preclude the possibility of a length of time predetermined by prarabdha. After all, the scale of time is different in the macro and micro worlds. Having justified his position on the basis of the questioner’s logic, Vidyaranya proceeds to give the serious answer that he prefers on the basis of sastra, yukti, and anubhava.

As for sruti, he quotes from Chandogya Upanishad –6.14.2. It declares that a jnani will continue to survive as along as prarbdha- based body continues.

For yukti, the supporting logic for the above non-manifest reality, Swamiji points out that different have given different arguments. Shankara says that jnanam wants to be grateful to prarabdham because jnanam is possible only when body is there. Continuation of jnanam is also because of the body. Jnanam does not consider prarabdha as an enemy.

The reason based on anubhava—experience—is interesting. There are jnanis in the world. This fact is proof jnanam does not destroy prarabdham. Otherwise, guru-shishya-upadesa would not have been possible.

Taking recourse to sruti pramana, mahavakya, will ensure that the journey will be direct. If we don’t tread this path, there are likely to be innumerable obstacles in the way. There will be confusion and pitfalls galore. Mistaking ahanmkara as the real I, one gets totally lost. Instead of dropping ahamkara, one would be lending more potency to it. Varieties of philosophers have fallen into this pitfall. This observation applies to founders of systems of philosophy also. There will be a possibility of getting out of this type of confusion, if one is at least aware of the predicament they are in. The over reliance on their own intelligence will only postpone the day to heed this advice.

Even to say adhara chaitanya, one needs abhasa chaitanya. But the latter cannot exist on its own without the support of adhara chaitanya. The two go together. The third component is not often stated explicitly; it is the RM, the sariram which goes with abhasa chaitanya. It is very rare that an individual knows that he is a mixture of satyam and aham. He treats the mixture as one single entity. (Later, we separate these two components making use of bhaga tyhyaga lakshana.)

Misconceptions of non-vedic philosophies

74 Next, we deal with a wide array of erroneous views about the composite entity of jivatma, not for the sake of further understanding of the problem but for avoidance of mistakes in our own conception of it. The confusion is not only due to the laity but also because of confusion of informed philosophers. The fundamental mistake is due to the non-study of scriptures. There is also a second set of mistakes committed because of the wrong inferences drawn from the study of scriptures. There are six systems of philosophy of the nastikas—a nastika, by definition, is one who does not subscribe to the authority of the Vedas. In addition, there are five systems of philosophy due to astikas—those who do subscribe to the authority of the Vedas—but whose inquiries can be clearly designated as wrong; the nyaya, vaisheshika, purva mimamsa, sankhya and yoga philosophies come under this category. The Vedantin emphasizes the importance of a systematic study of the scriptures for a length of time under a competent guru. Just sampling the scriptures here and there and finding an assortment of scriptural statements bereft of their context will be misleading. If that is the purpose, one can always find a quotation from the scriptures that would support one’s fallacious position. It is a pity that people with such pseudo- knowledge of scriptures also parade as acharyas.

We shall briefly dwell on some of these erroneous philosophies merely because a Vedantin has to be aware of their existence. We first deal with the four groups of who progressively associate atma with the various koshas of the body and later deal with other limiting views which gradually seem to converge to the Vedantic view.

The philosophy is unabashedly a materialistic view and it is also called Lokayata darsanam. The first group of charvakas start at the grossest level and claim that there is no individual other than the body. They don’t believe in the subtle body. They declare that there is no scientific proof for the existence of punyam, papam, heaven and hell, Iswara, religious rites etc. They have no belief in the sastras and they laugh at the religious people. Their conclusion is that there is no such thing as atma. Annamaya kosha is the limit of their conviction and their sound advice is that one should enjoy thoroughly when the going is good in one’s life time. This philosophy is called dehatma vada. They accept only prathyaksha pramana. Although they do not subscribe to the authority of Vedas, for the sake of argument with a Vedantin, they invoke some statements that appear in the scriptures in support of their position which is that annam is the ultimate source.

The second group of Charvakas go one step further and, in the process, refute the stand of the first group. These people say that there must be a factor which makes the body sentient. If consciousness is the intrinsic property of the body, it would never die. Based on this observation, they claim that atma must be different from the body. This second group’s philosophy is called `Indriya atma vada’ since they claim that sense organs are the atma. In all the statements, ` I see’, `I hear’, `I smell’, the I experience has correlation with sense organs.

75

The next group of Charvakas associate prana with atma by offering their reason why they cannot agree with Indriya atma vada. They observe that the sense organs are made of pancha bhutas—the five elements, which are insentient. Since atma is sentient, it cannot be equated with the in sentiency of the sense organs. Further, they say that prana holds sway over all other sense organs and it is the very secret of the life-principle. They refer to a story appearing in the Upanishads where there is a mention of a quarrel amongst the five indriyas when prana threatens to leave to convincingly demonstrate the subordinate position of the indriyas. The conclusion from this story they derive is that prana should be sentient; otherwise, it cannot quarrel. One cannot donate prana like one would donate a sense organ. Associating atma with prana is called pranatmavada; samashti prana is called Hiranyagarbha.

The next group of Charvakas claims that the mind is superior to prana; this is called manatmavada. When mind is active, one can be a bhokta. That prana plays second fiddle to mind in this respect can be ascertained by observing that in the susupti state, prana is there but it is not a bhokta. Mind alone is the real I.

The next group considered is the Buddhists whose plank is `vijnanam atma’. There are striking similarities between this group and the Vedantins as also a conspicuous dissimilarity which makes all the difference between the two. Yogachari’s stand is that consciousness is temporary which is contrary to the position taken by Vedantins, namely, that consciousness is eternal. It is only chidabhasa that is of fleeting nature, not the original consciousness. Yogachari’s concept of consciousness is that it is constantly flowing made up of thoughts associated from moment to moment following the arrow of time. For them atma consists of the kshanika vijnana which serves both as subject as well as object. This is called alaya vijnanam. In order to strengthen their philosophical stand, they also quote from the Vedas although they are declared nastikas.

The Sunyavada Buddhists refute the stand taken by their sister sect of Yogachara Buddhists. Briefly, the refutation is based on the observation that between any two kshanika vijnanams in juxtaposition, there is a gap characterized by emptiness—shunyam. This gap is permanent. Anything else is not experienced by us. In susupti state, there is no experience of subject and object. There is only shunyam. They also quote Taitreya Upanishad which states that before the arrival of the universe, shunyam was there.

(Vedanta does not agree with the primacy of the concept of shunyam. A Vedantin would point out that non-perception should not be equated with non- existence. For him, there is a witness I illumining the shunyam also. Vedantins claim that everything except consciousness is mithya whereas shunyavadis claim that both the sentient and insentient elements are mithyam; for them emptiness is the ultimate reality—nihlism.)

76

Misconceptions in vedic philosophies

The philosophies which differed from Vedanta so far are not based on Vedas. They are based solely on direct perception and logic, and any time they quote from Vedas, the quotations are invariably taken out of context just to challenge the Vedantins. From now on we consider the contrary philosophical positions taken by the vaidika group, that is, those who do concede the authority of the Vedas.

Next we consider the position taken by the group of Nyaya-Vaisheshika philosophers who assert that atma is anandamaya. They refute the shunyavadi stand that both chetana and achetana are mithya. The argument is based on the premise that since mithya, by definition, has borrowed existence; there must be a sentient element to lend them this essential property. On this score, the assertion that all are mithya is absurd. Furthermore, the existence of the sentient element which is lending its existence renders the argument about shunya untenable. One cannot have an unreal world without adhishtanam. There cannot be superposition without adhishtanam. Atma must be that sadh vastu. Shankara states: Asadh means non-manifest, not non-existent. It is just that what is non-manifest is not available for transaction. Anything that is in potential form comes under this category. You can never talk about non- existence. To prove existence of non-existence, you need a witness for nothing. The Vedantic law is that both bhava and require a sakshi. Shunyam is possible in the presence of a sakshi. Suppose you say that there is no sakshi for shunyam; in that case, shunyam will never be experienced.

Next, there are various philosophical views centered around the size of the atma which becomes a point of contention. The classification comes under three sizes: a) anu parimanaha which is the smallest being the size of an atom; b) parimanaha which is the highest ; and c) madhyama parimanaha which refers to any size that comes in between the first two extremes. In addition to the views based on the differing size of the atma, there are also other views based on another level of confusion. The contentious issue in this debate is whether atma is inert, or whether it is in the nature of consciousness, or whether it is a mixture of both jada and chetana. Three different opinions emerge and all of them quote the scriptures in addition to their logical reasoning for reaching their conclusion. Interesting as these discussions are, we will skip most of them since they are not germane to the development of Vedanta. We will only discuss the Sankhya and Yoga view just to give a flavour of the discussions; in addition, the justification for its inclusion is that Sankhya philosophy is close to Vedanta but with some significant differences.

Sankhya philosophy also holds that atma is free from parts. Since atma is all- pervading, talking about jada and chetana parts would be meaningless. If it has parts it would be anityam—not eternal. So this philosophy proclaims that atma is

77 totally conscious which is a position close to Vedanta. But, according to the Sankhya view, atmas are many and the word purusa is used instead of atma. This becomes a point of difference from Vedanta where only one atma is admitted. The anatma is called Prakriti and all in sentiency belongs to it whereas atma is sentient. The two should not be mixed up. Prakriti is savikari which means it is subject to modification having been endowed with three gunas. Purusa is nirgunam. Prakriti works for Purusa. Purusas are many: some of them are liberated and some are not. This is again a point of difference from Vedanta which says that Purusa is the tvam padartha; it is asangaha, relationless; and so it cannot be connected to bandha and moksha. These latter problems belong to Prakriti.

Sankhya accepts Veda pramana but gives more prominence to tarka. In this respect, Veda becomes subservient to logic. This is exactly the reverse of the Vedantin’s thesis because atma does not come under the domain of logic. Veda is the appropriate means of knowledge for atma.

The Yoga system of philosophy due to sage Patanjali is very close to Sankhya; in fact, traditionally Sankhya and Yoga are considered as a pair. Yoga prescribes a system of meditation called astanga yoga which is universally acceptable to all philosophies. A principal difference between Yoga and Sankhya has to be pointed out. Sankhya does not accept Iswara at all although it does subscribe to the Vedas whereas Yoga does accept Iswara. Purusa refers to jivatma only. In Sankhya, we have Prakriti, chetana, jivatmas, but no Iswara. How did the creation take place without Iswara?

Sankhya says that the world has evolved from prakriti in the form of its various evolutes governed by the interaction of the three gunas. But Sankhya does not talk of an intelligent principle to govern creation; prakriti evolves by itself. Since the emphasis is primarily on the materialistic principle of prakriti, it is reminiscent of Darwin’s theory of evolution which is also based exclusively on a materialistic principle-- natural selection. Yoga disagrees with Sankhya on the matter of creation. It believes in an intelligent cause, nimitta karanam, for creation. It needs an omniscient and omnipotent purusa—a macro principle that is fully sentient. Yoga adds Iswara’s controller-control aspect—Iswara-jiva, Swamy- Dasa bhava. Note that this view of Iswara-jiva is completely acceptable to Vedanta from the worldly angle (Vyavaharika drishta), but Vedanta also emphasizes the second viewpoint, that is, from the Paramarthika angle, only the original consciousness is supreme.

Tvam Padartha: Paramatma

From the Vedantic perspective, the concept of Iswara is clear. For a complete understanding, we need the concepts of OC, RC, and RM. The reflecting medium in this case is the entire macro universe. The details of this discussion will be taken up later. For the present, we discuss the viewpoints of Iswara as

78 espoused in some of the non-Vedantic philosophies. This manner of discussion is to bring out the idea that these non-Vedantic views of Iswara are inadequate, but the Vedantic view that will come in detail at a later stage in the discussion is different from these but it is conducive for accommodating all other views.

The characteristic feature of the other orthodox systems of philosophy (astika darsanams) is that they also substantiate their views of Iswara on the basis of quotations taken from the scriptures, but only in a secondary sense. They first establish their theses on the basis of logic and then look for scriptural support which is exactly the reverse way of what Vedanta does. In Vedanta, we don’t quote Vedas for reinforcement; they are considered primary whereas logical analysis that follows is secondary. The theses of non-Vedantic astikas can be compared to a confirmed fatalist looking for karma theory for support of his position by completely neglecting what is said about freewill.

The discussion starts with the confusion regarding Iswara in yoga philosophy. It says Iswara is very similar to jiva; it is asanga sarvagatha chaitanyam. It holds jivas are many while Iswara is one. To bring out the difference between jiva and Iswara, more is said about jiva. Jiva is affected by four factors that characterize a samsari, namely, 1) kleshaha, 2) karma, 3) vipasaha, and 4) ashaya. Iswara is unaffected by these four factors and therefore described as a asamsari.

Kleshaha is pain caused by a 5-fold problem: a) avidya due to deha abhimana— the I identification to anatma (called adhyasa in Vedanta); b) asmita— ahamkaraha—false I which is the ego generated by avidya; c) ragaha—likes, attachments; d) dveshaha—dislikes; e) ahiniveshaha—instinctive attachment to the body and life—these are natural and universal ones as distinct from those acquired in time which are non-universal. Clinging to life is one such example of an instinctive attachment.

Karma is described by a group of four factors: a) dharma; b) adharma; c) misra; and d) vilakshana (spiritual practices).

Vipasaha means phalam. Janma, ayush (longevity of life) are examples.

Ashaya refers to vasanas generated by the experiences. They remain in mind for future actions; they stay hidden in the subconscious.

Jiva, the samsari, is under the influence of the above four factors. Iswara is not although he shares similarities with Jiva in being asanga, sarvagata, and chaitanyam. Iswara has lordship over the other atmas. Without Iswara, there won’t be any order in the world. Therefore, we have to accept this concept of Iswara, so says the Yoga philosopher.

(Some additional points of interest: Only Iswara can manage the karma accounts. Jiva and Jagat cannot take on this task. Only Iswara is karma-

79 phaladhata. Sankhya philosopher rejects Iswara at vyavaharika level whereas Vedanta philosopher accepts Iswara at the vyavaharika level. Vyavaharika jiva is different from vyavaharika Iswara. The aikyam of Vedanta is only valid from the Paramarthika angle. Law of bondage and liberation will be chaotic without vyavaharika Iswara. Iswara is the controller of all jivas, even of exalted ones— there is scriptural support for this conclusion).

An apparent contradiction in the description of Jiva has to be brought to the surface and answered. We had said that jiva is asangaha and we have also said that it is afflicted by the four blemishes. How do we resolve this contradiction? The way out of the contradiction is to recognize that the four problems are superimposed on the jiva because of spiritual ignorance. The problems really belong to prakriti; the attributes of buddhi have been wrongly transferred to atma. (Aside point: The yoga philosopher also talks in the same language as the Vedantist does about transference. But there is a difference between the two philosophies. The yoga philosopher talks of many jivas and highlights the concept of plurality. He defends plurality on the basis that there are different sets of attributes with respect to the jivas. At the same time he admits that the attributes are false in which case the differences between jivas also should be false. In which case, the notion of plurality of jivas is incorrect.

Nyaya philosopher refutes the viewpoint of the Yoga philosopher on the concept of Iswara. He cannot conceive of a controller without the counterpart idea of the controlled. There is a swamy-dasa relationship that exists between them. In which case, how can Iswara be asangha? This conflict does not arise in the Vedantic thesis because of its basic tenet of two levels of reality, namely, paramarthika and vyavaharika. From the former angle, Iswara is asangaha whereas from the latter viewpoint, Iswara has the controller-controlled relationship. From this point of view, Bhagavan is endowed with attributes; he is not asangha. He is the abode of all virtues—jnana, iccha, prayatna. These attributes are valid for jiva also. But Iswara is permanently omniscient—nitya jnana, nitya iccha, nitya prayatna. Jiva is not omniscient; he has to acquire knowledge generated through pramanas. Iswara’s desires and sankalpas are never invalidated; He is satyakama, satyasankalpa. Contrast this with jiva’s desires and sankalpas. (Aside point: Iswara of Nyaya philosophy is only nimitta karana; the upadana karana is the paramanus. In Yoga philosophy, Iswara is nimitta and prakriti is upadana. In Vedanta Iswara is both nimitta and upadana. In Sankhya, Iswara is absent. Purva Mimasa, which is committed to vedic rituals, does not accept Iswara; world is eternal and no creator is required.)

A major darsanam has to be comprehensive in nature. It has to deal with six topics: jiva, jagat, Iswara, bandha, moksha svarupam, and moksha phala.

Some minor philosophies and practices of worship

80 From here on, some minor philosophies are discussed apropos their views on Iswara. They are not of much consequence to the main theme of Vedanta but interesting in their own right. Positively speaking, they introduce us to some additional concepts which are in vogue in the major philosophies also.

We will first take up the Hiranyagarbha vadi. His position is as follows: if Bhagavan has nitya jnana, nitya ichha, nitya prayatna, he will be constantly creating the world. There will be no pralayam at all. He alleges this as a defect in the thesis of the Nyaya philosopher. He also quotes scriptures in support of his view that Iswara is Hiranyagarbha which is defined as samashti sukshma sariram—macro subtle body. This includes all the buddhis and pranas—the shakti, and the samashti jnanam. Hiranyagarbha is a lingam, an indicator. This nomenclature is assigned because consciousness is recognized because of reflection in sukshma sariram. Recall pure consciousness cannot be recognized without a medium. Hiranyagarbha is therefore an indicator of consciousness since it reveals the original. It is the chidabhasa dwara—the door of perception for the original consciousness. As is invariably the case, the minor philosophers also cite some appropriate quotations in support of their view.

Sukshma sariram is considered as the culprit, not the other two bodies, namely, sthula and karana sariras. Ahamkara, adhyasa, karta-bhokta etc., are all rooted in sukshma sarira. Moksha has a short definition: it is called linga bhangaha which means destruction of sukshma sarira and consequently, no samsara. This definition is popular in Vedantic circles. Linga sarira does not cause any problem for Hiranyagarbha. Jiva is a slave of maya whereas Iswara is a master of maya. Hiranyagarbha is free. It has no jivatma, samsara, free from karma etc. Therefore, Hiranyagarbha is Iswara.

Next, we consider the philosophy of Virat which asserts that Virat is Iswara. Samashti sthula sariram is called Virat. It is based on the premise that sukshma sariram cannot function without the support of sthula sariram. After the fall of the body, it cannot function without a medium. Sthula sariram need not be in this loka only. During the transition period, jiva cannot experience despite its possession of 17 elements. Consequently, sthula sarira should be given importance. Even travel of sukshma sarira requires a sthula sariram in a rudimentary form. Accordingly, the virat philosopher asserts that along with chidabhasa, virat Iswara should be given the prominence that is due to it.

And then comes the third philosopher, Chaturmukha Brahma upasaka. He ridicules the idea that samashti virat should be considered as Iswara. He says that, following the logic of the virat philosopher, even a centipede can become an Iswara because of its plurality of legs. Such plurality should not be cited as a virtue. His thesis is that Brahma with his four heads alone is Iswara. Not any other deity. Brahma is the creator.

81 Next, it is the turn of bhakta. His thesis is that since Brahma came out of a lotus—kamalaja—born of sukshma prapanca—he came out of from the navel of Vishnu. And so Vishnu is the karanam for Brahma utpatti. Vishnu is the real God.

And next comes the Shaivite. He says that your Vishnu could not determine the limit of . Shiva is the infinite. This accolade does not belong to Vishnu. Others are finite in nature. This argument is based on shiva agama, not on advaita.

Temples are not mentioned in the Vedas. They are not Veda pradhana but agama pradhana. Agami philosophies are rejected by vaidikas. However, agama achara is accepted. The jiva-paramatma aikyam does not hold at the level of agamas. There are 28 varieties of shiva agamas.

Then comes the Ganapathi upasaka. His lord has the reputation of being tripura samhara. He sent the cities flying which were ruled by asuras. Shiva took care of them and got the name Tripurari, but before embarking on that destruction, he did first. This proves our Ganapathy is superior to Shiva. Vighnesa is the remover of obstacles and Vinayaka is the ultimate God.

There are other upasakas like the Anjaneya upasaka. Each type of upasaka is definite about his mode of worship. Bhagavan is represented in many ways. All these diverse ways of worship can be understood when the Vedantic definition of Iswara is understood. Otherwise, the many ways are relegated to the status of cults. Advaitin’s definition of Iswara is that he is Antharyami—maya bimbita chaitanyam (consciousness reflected in the reflecting medium of maya). His attitude is not to indulge in criticism of the various types of upasakas but to come out with an understanding which can accommodate all the groups.

Overall perspective from advaitic philosophy

Now, Vidyaranya returns to the main teaching of the advaitic philosophy which asks for a logical analysis of the scriptures in its totality accompanied by yukti pramana vichara (appeal to experience to substantiate the analytical conclusions).

Iswara has three components: OC, RC and RM. The macro-medium which is the reflecting medium is maya. And the RC obtaining in this RM is Iswara. Iswara is defined as maya adhishtana chaitanyam. Iswara has superlative attributes.

The definition of Iswara is based on sruti, yukti, and anubhava. The source of this definition is svetaswathara mantra appearing in Krishna Yajur Veda. Maya is the material cause of the universe; it is the prakriti. Vikriti is the product born out of it. Entire universe is vikriti. How do we say that maya is the material cause and not Brahman who is both the nimitta and upadana karanam? Both are correct. Maya does not have existence separate from Brahman. The is ness behind maya is Brahman. Maya consists of the cumulative names and forms. Maya backed by

82 Brahman is the material cause or, alternatively, Brahman associated with maya is the material cause. Maya takes care of the nama-rupa part and Brahman, the existence part. Maya is the parinama upadana and Brahman is the vivarta upadana. Iswara is none other than Brahma chaitanyam reflected in maya.

Jiva reflected in the micro-medium is a slave of the medium; it is called dasaha. Iswara is the swamy of the medium. The OC does not have these attributes. Iswara alone is present in the individual jivas; these are the individual reflections which are part of the total reflection.

The mistake committed by the Nyaya and Yoga philosophers is that they establish Iswara on the basis of tarka only. Vedantin agrees with this Iswara but points out that it is not possible to establish this on the basis of logic only. From this vantage point, he finds the logical fallacies of the earlier theses. For the Vedantin, the primary pramanam is the sruti. After taking this step, he is more than willing to admit the necessity of logic for further support. He points out that the field of logic is limited to worldly events and not to the transcendental field.

Time and space should be understood as an integral part of creation. When one speaks of the cause of creation, one is per force entering the field of the cause of space and time. Cause of creation which is before the arrival of space and time is beyond space and time. Therefore, Iswara transcends the principle of time and space. Logic that is used in common parlance is based on the framework of space and time. Consequently, taking recourse to logic for proving Iswara is as unintelligent as using eyes for hearing. And so the Vedantin declares: get the correct Vedantic definition and try to accommodate other definitions of Iswara also such as those of Yoga and Nyaya.

The concept of maya which is so integral to advaitic philosophy is not discussed in the ten principal Upanishads. However, it is discussed in uttara thaponiya Upanishad in detail. Maya is of the nature of tamas. It is directly experiencable by all. And the most telling point is that whatever you experience is maya. Recall Brahman is chit; maya is insentient, achit. For example, if the experience of a clip is considered, the clip part is jada and therefore classified as maya, and the experience part is Brahman. Jadam is condensed maya and after pralayam, it is invisible maya.

When you close your eyes and suspend all mental functions, there will be total blankness. Maya is internally experienced as ignorance or darkness. The external part of tamas is called jada padartha and the internal part of tamas is called moha. The former is the manifest form and the latter is the dormant form.

Anything experienced is maya. One is conscious of external experience and internal blankness and this experience is not based on one’s level of intelligence. It is the all pervading nature of maya.

83 Next, Swamiji gives a concise idea of the nature of maya. Look at maya from three angles: 1) prathyaksha drishti; 2) viewpoint of reason—yukti; and 3) sastra drishti. From 1), maya comes under sat, upajivyam—it is because prathyaksha is a prabala pramana—primary source of knowledge. From the coordinates of 3), maya is not there because only Brahman is sat; therefore, maya is asat—again, this conclusion is based on the sruti being a prabala pramana—primary source of knowledge. Because both 1) and 3) depend on upajivya pramanams, 2) has no choice but to accept both of them. In which case, can we conceive of a reconciliation of the two pramanams leading to opposite conclusions and state that maya is sat-asat. This is obviously an incorrect conclusion because two opposites cannot coexist and so sat-asat has to be ruled out. Therefore, we say the world comes under a fourth category, namely, anirvachaniyam. It is intellectually grasped as sat-asat vilakshanam. This is called mithya. We say world is seemingly existent. The conclusion on Maya that is arrived in a crisp manner is further elaborated for reinforcing the idea.

Maya is an integral part of Iswara and that is why a detailed discussion of maya becomes extremely relevant. World is existent from the prathyaksha angle and it is experienced in all three periods of time. It comes under the sat category. Alternatively, we can state that the world is not asat—asat vilakshanam. World is not non-existent. Prathyaksha is a upajivya pramana. Secondary pramanas also will support this conclusion.

Next, we consider the Vedanta pramana which is also upajivya pramanam. Brahman is sat and everything else is asat. World is non-existent in all three periods of time. We can describe asat by the equivalent statement sat vilakshanam.

Two upajivya pramanams cannot come into conflict. We will have to accommodate both the pramanams. In yukti pramanam, the world is asat vilakshnam and concurrently, sat vilakshnam. It is sat-asat vilakshnam which is called mithya. It is seemingly existent. It belongs to a lower order of reality. We temporarily keep the sruti aside and accept the reality of the world. Mithya jagat cannot affect satya Brahman. Whatever you experience is sat-asat vilakshnam. You can be free.

Maya

Note that we don’t have to discuss the function of Brahman. We can enumerate the functions of maya. 1) Mithya maya holds the mithya universe in dormant form—all the names and forms are there in hidden form. Conventionally, potentially existent things are treated as though non-existent. For example, butter in milk is in dormant form and can be viewed as non-existent for all practical purposes. The world is functionally existent at the time of creation; before that it was non-existent. Maya brings about the existence and non-existence of the world by manifesting the world and becoming dormant at the time of pralaya. 2)

84 Maya is both dependent and independent. With regard to existence, it depends upon Brahman; even to prove its existence it depends upon Brahman. Jada needs chetanam to prove its existence. Sat of Brahman and Chit of Brahman are necessary to prove maya. 3) Functions of maya are their own and independent of Brahman; maya is swatantraha. 4) Maya shakti transfers asanga Brahman into saguna prapanca; anandam Brahman is transformed into a world replete with pain and pleasure. It converts non-frightening Brahman into a frightening world.

The question may be posed thus: Maya is dependent when viewed from one angle and independent from another angle; in which case, why can’t we say that maya is mithyam from the dependent angle and maya is satyam from the independent angle. This conclusion is not correct because mithya is not based on dependence; mithya is only dependent for its existence. Maya can be satyam only if there is independence with regard to existence. But Brahman alone enjoys the status of satyam in the cosmos. Satyam or mithyam depends on whether it is Brahman or not.

Divisionless Brahman changes into the three-fold division consisting of jagat, jiva and Iswara. Brahman does not have the status of these three divisions of savikalpa Brahman. It is maya that manages to bring about the change. Maya transforms the changeless Brahman into the ever-changing universe. Maya is anadi. (Swamiji makes an additional point: Does it mean Iswara was created by maya in time? Reflection does not come about at a particular time. Therefore, reflections of Iswara and Jiva are anadi and they are not processes in time. ) There is a logical problem in the statement that changeless Brahman is transformed into jiva, jagat and Iswara. Changeless Brahman cannot really be changed. It can only be apparently (as though) changed. The transformation is not Brahma parinama but Brahma vivarta.

Other systems of philosophy subscribe to Brahma parinama vada. But advaita subscribes to vivarta vada. Maya can bring about this apparent change by performing the impossible. Maya is designed to do extraordinary things. It is the svarupam of maya; illogicality is the intrinsic nature of maya. Intellect can only assimilate logical events. Intellect is overwhelmed in front of maya because of its illogical nature. Understanding maya is not possible.

Maya will continue to be a puzzle as long as one is ignorant of one’s higher nature. A dreamer can get out of the influence of the dream when he becomes a waker. He should get the awareness that I am the waker; it is called aparoksha jnanam. Until the higher nature is realized, maya will cast its spell on jiva. Brahma jnanam includes maya jnanam and jiva jnanam. The three put together constitutes spiritual knowledge. (Swamiji’s comment: Meditation on Brahma jnanam alone is not enough. Anatma dhyanam is also dhyanam by dwelling on its mithyartha. See it without reaction. It is an integral part of meditation.)

85 After the knowledge of adhisthanam, maya recedes. It is no more threatening. One perceives the universe without being affected by it. It is described as defanging the cobra.

The concept of maya is attacked by philosophers of all stripes. Varieties of questions are asked about the world and its cause. Every darsanam has to talk about six items: jiva, jagat, Iswara, bandha, moksha and sadhanam. Even an atheist has to discuss Iswara. Discussion of jagat is very natural. All philosophies give their own theoretical constructs and then turn to advaita for its explanation. Hundreds of questions are raised about maya. Note maya was not invoked to explain the theory of creation. An advaitin turns the tables on the eager critics by pointing out that they have all proceeded on the assumption that the world is real existent (jagat vastutva vadi). By introducing the phenomenon of maya, the advaitin says that he is questioning the nature of world’s existence. Accordingly, maya is not an answer. It is really a question mark. Therefore, he rebuts that the approach of other philosophers, which start on the assumption that the world exists and it is real which is fundamentally wrong. Maya is a question about the existence of this world and not an answer to the question about the world. On inquiry, we end up negating this world. As could be expected, the other philosophers are not satisfied with this answer.

When a purva pakshi says that he is unable to understand the definition of maya as sat-asat vilakshnam, Vidyaranya proceeds to give examples to illustrate the concept. He emphasizes that, much to one’s dismay, it is not difficult to find such examples which bring out the meaning of maya despite the confusion caused by its verbal description. It is the meaning which liberates, not the words. Vidyaranya gives the example of Indrajala which is magic. This is a typical case where the unusual experience of events is very much there for the observer without an immediate logical explanation. The nature of maya is vismaya (wonder) which cannot be comprehended by the intellect. We experience something which is inexplicable. The latter cannot be accounted for the deficiency in the intellect. No intellect will be able to explain without detailed inquiry.

We say the world is mithya but it is very much a vyavaharika satyam—a reality from the point of view of the world. If this were not so, we would have introduced a lot of confusion in our day to day transactions. Since the purva pakshi has difficulty in grasping the classification of anirvachaniyam with respect to the world at large, Vidyaranya makes use of the pedagogical simplicity of prathibhasika anirvachaniyam as a mode of explanation. Is the dream world existent or not? He shows that it is sat-asat vilakshanam. The argument proceeds something like this. Consider the two propositions: a) existent thing—not negated; and b) non-existent thing—cannot be experienced. Dream is experienced and so it is clearly not b); a dream is negated when one wakes up and so it is not a). Therefore, dream is sat- asat vilakshnam. Other examples are of the mirage water and rope snake. Once this category is grasped at this level, we proceed to vyavaharika state by extension. We experience vyavaharika satyam in the waking state and

86 pratibhasika satyam in the dream state. They are real in their respective states of reality. It is the sat-asat vilakshanam that can bring about the reconciliation of these two realities.

Living beings are also made out of matter just as inert objects are. Both the human body and the world are made out of the basic five elements. Yet, the behaviour of matter in living beings and inert objects are so very different. We don’t know how this happens. At the time of creation, only inert matter was there. The matter in living beings have organization, capacity to store information and possess numerous other attributes which inert objects do not have. Beyond pointing out this difference, we are not able to explain the origin of life or consciousness. It also means we can’t explain death also. The interim answer to this puzzle is that life has come from atma; there is no life other than atma. It is better to enjoy the cosmic magic show rather than probe into the ultimate mystery. Science cannot help but investigate the phenomenon of life, though fully cognizant of the limitations.

The mystery of life can be probed at two levels: first, beginning of life in creation— that is, the first arrival of a jiva in srishti; secondly, creation of a baby itself is a wonder—the process of conception, growth etc., is not readily understood. What greater magic could there be than the process of procreation? When does a baby become alive? According to sastra, even at the moment of conception, life is there but it is not enough for the manifestation of chidabhasa. A table, for instance, cannot manifest chidabhasa now or never. The potential to create a RM has to come from a live parent. How? This is maya. Jiva enters at the time of conception. Gradually, the child develops. (A table cannot replicate or duplicate. Some chemicals have the property and some don’t.) Sequentially, jivatma is surrounded by various phases in life—ideal conditions for samsara.

If we consider a seed of a banyan tree, there are several theories explaining creation. The of Sankhya holds that an existent tree in the seed manifests as a banyan tree. On the other hand, the Nyaya philosophy declares that the creation is due to asatkaryavada—a nonexistent tree emerges out of the seed. Because such perfectly understandable logical explanations exist, the sceptic raises the question why the concept of maya should be brought in at all since it is not considered logical by any stretch of imagination. But the defence of maya is that the logical theories are fallacious.

Brahman is not available for worship. Pure Brahman cannot bless. Maya alone, backed by Brahman, is the cause of creation. The siddhi granthas analyze other systems of philosophy also before establishing advaita in which maya is a key concept. The other systems, which depend primarily on logic keep sastra aside which explains the order of importance assigned to it. This is the distinguishing criterion between tarkikas and vaidikas; the latter place primary importance to sastric declarations and take recourse to logic to further elucidate their theses. The vaidikas are not only proficient in logic but they are acutely aware of its

87 limitations when it comes to their applicability to matters of the transcendental field.

There are many things in creation that are not accessible to logic for understanding. The ocean of doubt can never be crossed by logic alone. The design of jagat is inexplicable. In potential form, the world is in maya.

Next, we move on to the discussion of reflected consciousness—RC. Karana sariram (the causal body) must have RC. How do we infer this? Note that RC is experienced in sukshma sariram (the subtle body); if not, we would be inert. And it is obvious that sthula sariram (gross body) has chidabhasa. Because both sthula and sukshma sariram have RC, karana sariram (causal body) also has RC. It is the presence of the sthula and sukshma sarirams in potential form that defines the causal body.

Karana sariram includes sanchita karma which is what distinguishes one karana sarira from another. When karana sariram manifests, chidabhasa also becomes clear.

Recall the earlier example of ghata (pot) on the basis of which the four-fold akasha was defined, two at the micro (vyashti) level and two at the samashti (macro) level: 1) ghata akasha—adhara chaitanyam and 2) jala akasha—abhasa chaitanyam at the micro-level; and 3) maha akasha—adhara akasha, and 4) megha akasha—abhasa akasha at the macro level. The first two at the micro- level are called kutashta and ahamkara, respectively, and the last two at the macro-level are called Brahma and Iswara chaitanyam, respectively. All the vyashti anthakaranam is included in samashti.

The micro-level concepts are explained on the basis of the triad of states: waking, dreaming, and sleep. During sleep, mind goes into an unmanifest condition and so also does the chidabhasa (RC). In the waking state, all these are manifest and the problems of life also become real. It is karana sariram that germinates into the sukshma sariram—the mind. The localized consciousness—the chidabhasa— which is the reflection in the mind becomes clear. The location of the chidabhasa is in the mind which, in turn, is located in the body. Therefore, we can say chidabhasa is in the body.

At the macro level, it is maya which is the medium (RM) for the arrival of RC. Maya is responsible for both Iswara and jiva. Iswara is the RC associated with maya and jiva is the RC associated with the mind.

Iswara

The prominent part of Iswara is the total reflected consciousness and we concentrate on this aspect, setting aside the other two components, namely, maya

88 and the original consciousness. We list below some of the superior attributes of Iswara:

• Total reflection is the master of maya, the RM. Through maya, Iswara is the master of the whole creation. We know this from the sruti— Svethashwara Upanishad. • Maheshwara is the inner controller—antharyami. • Iswara is the material cause of creation—for srishti, sthithi, and laya; He is called the upadana karana. • Iswara is all-knowing; He is sarvagyaha.

After introducing the terms applicable to the individual level, terms such as pragya, anandamaya kosha, and karana sariram in susupti state, Iswara is next talked about at the macro level.

God can only be known through sastra pramana which is a primary pramana— upajivya. God is not accessible to either science or logic. Our reasoning—sruti sammata tarka as against kevala tarka (logic in harmony with scriptures as against the logic all by itself) is complementary to sastra.

At this stage, Vidyaranya raises the question as to how maya can serve as a reflecting medium for Iswara. He answers the question by first observing the prevailing facts at the vyasthi level and infers the validity of maya as RM through a process of inference. We note that sukshma sarirams are generated out of samashti karana sariram. At the micro-level, we know that mind can reflect consciousness. It is an experiential fact. It is a prathyaksha anubhava. And we know that maya is the repository of all sukshma sarirams—of all minds. Samashti chidabhasa which is the integral concept is taken as Iswara; we set aside the other two components of Iswara, namely, maya and OC. This line of reasoning which is in consonance with sruti is not advanced in isolation. It is reasoning complementary to sruti pramanam.

Iswara is the master of all and possesses unchallengeable power. No one can challenge what is visualized by Bhagavan. We don’t have control over creation—not even the devatas have control. Iswara means controller.

Lord is all-knowing; he is sarvagyaha (omniscient). Lord has maya as upadhi. All the intellects of all jivas are present in maya. Some jivas might be in potential form. Everything in creation is cognized by one intellect or the other as our knowledge of the external world progresses. All knowledge about creation is in maya. Iswara is omniscient. We arrive at this conclusion through inference. It is not perceptible. Nor is it directly experiencable. Anything that is potential is not perceptible. The understanding of the unknown karana RC at the samashti level, on the basis of known karya RC at the vyashti level, has to be inferred. At the individual level, there is only limited knowledge, but at the total level, there is unlimited knowledge. Anumana is the proof for

89 sarvagyatham. The intelligent cause is also called nimitta karanam, the effective cause.

Antaryami

We next comment on the aspect of antaryami, the internal controller. The proof for this are the sruti vakyams and the Gita. Brihadaranyaka Upanishad has a section devoted to this concept called the Antaryami Brahmanam. Universe is in 3 parts: adhi daivam—devata; adhi bhutam—forms; and adhyatmam— individual jivas. All three are functioning because of antaryami. Devatas come under exalted jivas; they have superior prarabdha. Lord is one who resides in everyone and controls them.

There are five features of antaryami. 1. Antaryami resides in the buddhi. 2. It is inside. 3. It cannot be known through buddhi. 4. Intellect is the medium for antharyami—no separate medium for interaction. 5. Antaryami controls the buddhi by remaining within the buddhi.

The same points are valid at all the three levels of adi daivam, adi bhutam, and adhyatman. By virtue of this, a general statement can be made about antaryami.

We can also infer that antaryami is the ultimate cause in the chain of cause and effect relationships. The logical reasoning proceeds as follows. A karanam should reside in every karyam. Take the example of cloth for illustrative purposes. In cloth, thread should be there; it is the upadana karanam, the material cause. But thread itself is a product made of fibres. Fibres are more interior to the thread. It is the cause of the cause. More interior to thread is cotton. The search will proceed like this endlessly. The ultimate cause which is not an effect is the innermost essence. The internal journey will end at this destination and it is the antaryami. The levels of internality are called antaratva taksha. The ultimate level is not visible. The philosophical conclusion is based on inference supported by sruti.

Antaryami is the one karanam that appears in various karyams. The nama rupas—names and forms—are veshas (masks) of that one single cause. The veshas are necessary for transaction. The three components of antaryami that we had mentioned earlier, namely, adhyatma, adhibhutam, and adidaivitam, are veshams of antaryami. During pralayam, the three veshams are dormant and therefore, antaryami cannot do any transaction. During the manifest state, antaryami, with the nama rupas has the entire universe as his body—viswarupa darsanam.

90 That antaryami controls everything can be understood by the cause and effect relationship preceding a piece of cloth. Cloth cannot have an existence of its own separate from the thread, and so on. Ultimately, it is the first cause that controls everything. The immanent principle is the antaryami. The antaryami sloka of Gita-- (18.61) declares that the Lord resides in the heart of everyone. The physical heart is the golakam for the mind. Through maya, he becomes a karta. Avarana sakti of maya will not delude Iswara. Jivatma is propelled by Iswara who is the karma-phala- dhata.

Iswara does not have a separate body. We share his body. Iswara claims all the bodies. There is reference to the famous verse of Purusa Sukta which figuratively conveys this idea. Iswara controls all the jivas through karana sariram through a gradual release. Sanchita karmas cannot be released; only prarabdha karma, which determines the bhokta aspect, can be released. Vasanas, which determine the karta aspect, are released. Different vasanas fructify at different places at different times. This release is not whimsical but is governed by the universal law of karma. Iswara operates through the sthula, sukshma sarirams and this reflects in jivas accordingly. The movement of the upadana karana determines the karyam.

It is often said that jiva has occupied a body after death. It is only a loose statement since the next physical body is received at the time of death of the immediate preceding physical body. There is no question of entering the body. It is only a figurative expression. Occupation means identification with the body.

The physical bodies may be drawn from any one of the living species available. Whether it is the body of an ant or an elephant determines the size of the office for the operation of bhoga ayatanam. Body is the office which is just the enclosure which is dropped at the time of death. Roaming of jiva means doing varieties of karmas.

Whatever activities arise must exist in potential form. There will be different vasanas, svabhavas etc., in karana sariram. Iswara with his maya sakti activates every jiva. He preserves the uniqueness of a specific jiva in a sea of diversity. That Iswara is the master is vyavaharika satyam. If so, the question may be raised, why doesn’t he ensure happiness to everyone? The answer to this is Iswara is samanya karanam—he does not decide the quality of activities. These are determined by one’s vasanas and they are called visesha karanam. Both karanams are important. And so there is no point in blaming God for good and bad of jivatma.

So far we have confined our discussion to the buddhi aspect only. This should be considered only as a sample; it is called thali pulakha nyaya— taste one grain of rice whether it is cooked or not and come to the general

91 conclusion about other grains in the pot. What is true with respect to buddhi is also true with respect to the other elements also.

Fate and Freewill

We now proceed to the discussion of God’s omniscience and jiva’s freewill. First, we note the difference between samanya karana and visesha karana. If a plant comes on earth, the rain that supplied the necessary water for the plant to come up is called samanya karana and the seed is called the visesha karana. The Lord is saved from the charge of partiality because of the role played by freewill.

The fatalist would argue that everything is predetermined, in which case freewill becomes redundant if Bhagavan has decided the future events in advance. Such a doubt should not arise. When Bhagavan manifests in the form of creation, every created object, by virtue of its special attributes, is endowed with freewill. It is not absolute freedom, but freedom with some constraints. Even an organizer has freedom to form the rules but not the outcome. A game requires relative freedom for both organizer and the player. We are all players endowed with relative freedom; Bhagavan is the organizer. • A fatalist is closer to an animal in human form. There is no point in carrying on a discussion with him. • Without freewill, there is no purpose served in teaching purusarthas. • Iswara manifests in the form of freewill also. • Absolute freedom to Iswara is one form of extremism—fatalism. The other extreme is to believe that everything is in my hands only without bringing the role of God in deciding the outcome which amouts to refuting the laws of creation. Don’t go to the extremes. • Iswara cannot create the world as he wants. He has to take into account the punyams and papams of all the jivas. Therefore, even He has relative freedom only. • I can claim absolute freedom at the paramarthika level. At the vyavaharika level, only relative freedoms prevail. They are mithya because they are part of creation. When karta and karma-phala dhata go away, the Paramarthika I will be restored. • Use the relatively free I to discover the absolutely free I. • After gaining knowledge of absolute freedom as atma, what is the position of relative I—ahamkara? Does the relative I continue to have relative freedom controlled by Iswara? Yes, the relative I applies to a jivanmukta also but he experiences it without the feeling of bondage. • Knowledge of my asangatvam is required for my liberation. Volunteering to submit to the rules is not bondage. The wise person at ahamkara level accepts restrictions. Acceptance of relative

92 bondage does not make it bondage—it is called dharma. One does not need absolute freedom at the ahamkara level. • The roles of antaryami and sarveswara can be distinguished: the former has suzerainity over the implementation of the laws of karma and the latter over the creation of the world and setting up the rules of the game.

The following question may be raised: If the Lord is the antaryami, then what is the role of purusa prayatna—freewill? This question is answered in terms of Iswara who is the samanya karanam, and the Jiva who is the visesha karanam. In the vyavaharika plane, both enjoy relative power. The compassionate Lord has to create hell also; he has no choice! But this is not due to a preference or partiality. Jiva has to go through its karma and Iswara’s actions are also constrained by the law of karma operating at the macro level. The very creation of the world presupposes existence of jiva and his karma. Both Iswara and Jiva are anadi—beginningless. There are six phenomena which are anadi according to advatic literature: 1) Jiva; 2) Iswara; 3) Chit—pure consciousness; 4) Vyavaharika difference between jiva and Iswara; 5) Avidya or Maya; and 6) Connection between avidya and Chit, the adhyasa sambandhaha which is defined as kala—time. (#6 gives a definition of time not found elsewhere). If there are six phenomena which are without beginning, the question can be legitimately raised as to what happened to advaitam. The advaitin anticipates this question and has a ready answer: out of the six items listed, five of them are mithya; only chit is Paramarthika anadi. In the wake of knowledge, the mithya items will be negated and only pure consciousness remains unnegated.

Jiva karmas based on freewill and Iswara (God’s will) operate on the relative plane. But this relative freedom is enough to know asanga atma. Paramarthika I has absolute freedom and is not controlled by either Iswara or Jiva. Relative I has to know the absolutely free I. Once I know the absolute freedom of the higher I, I come to accept the relative freedom of ahamkara I. The jnani voluntarily accepts his limitations. This is not to be construed as bondage. Voluntarily not eating is not starving but fasting.

Next, we differentiate antaryami from sarveswaram. Sarveswara is used to indicate sweeping powers without apparently no constraints on them. Sruti and are his commandments. They should not be disobeyed at any time, place, and circumstances. Whoever violates becomes his enemy. Even if such a person were to pretend as a bhakta, he is not a bhakta. Every commandment is a source of fear for a human being. Even devatas follow their svadharma. The differentiating factor is that after creation, operations are guided by

93 antaryami. Bhagavan lays down the rules of creation, the constitution governing it. After jivas appear, the implementation of laws at the micro level are taken over by antaryami.

Creation—Manifestation

It should be understood that what is meant by creation is really manifestation. Bhagavan is both the intelligent (nimitta) and material cause (upadana) of creation. The material cause is not away from the product and so it is prathyaksha whereas the intelligent cause is remote and difficult to decipher and hence called paroksha. Matter can neither be created nor destroyed which is also a physical law. By virtue of this fact, Bhagavan cannot create this world. By creation, what is meant is manifestation of the universe which was already in potential form. The jivas, jagat, freewill, karmas etc., were already there in dormant form. All these go from avyakta state to vyakta state. Srishti means manifestation. Laya means that the manifest universe goes into the unmanifest form. This cycle is figuratively called creation and destruction; the universe is eternal. There are different philosophies even within the vedic fold which give separate accounts of the laya phase of the universe. The Nyaya philosophy holds that the world resolves into its paramanu state—the atomic state. The Sankhya philosopher’s view is that the world resolves into prakriti—basic matter; incidentally, it resolves into something outside God. The Vedantin’s view is that the world goes back into Bhagavan himself. The Nyaya and Sankhya philosophers are called achetana karana vadi whereas the Vedanta philosopher is called chetana karana vadi.

In view of the above conclusion of the eternality of the universe, the onus is on the advaitin to explain his assertion about . His answer is simple: the universe is eternal from the vyavaharika plane but it simply does not exist from the Paramarthika drishti. Thus, he gives a satisfactory answer on the basis of his consistent stand on two levels of reality, namely, the Paramarthika and Vyavaharika.

The advaitin’s theory of creation is challenged by other philosophers. A detailed discussion of the adversarial theories and the advaitin’s defence is the subject matter of siddhigranthas. We will sample some of these ideas just to give a taste for such discussions.

The theory of creation of the Nyaya-Vaisheshika philosophers is called arambhavada, also referred to as asatkaryavada. The theory of the Sankhya-Yoga philosophers is called parinamavada, also called satkaryavada. The advaita philosopher’s theory is called vivarta vada. The basic ideas underlying these different philosophies are illustrated by the example of creating a pot from clay.

94

How does the pot originate from clay? Was the pot existent in the clay or not? If existent, why create? Pot is asat—pot was non-existent. A new pot was created. It is different from clay. Clay is one substance (dravya), and pot is entirely another substance. It is the beginning of a new substance; this is how the word arambhavada is coined for explaining the Nyaya-Vaisheshika philosophy of creation. The Vedantin’s objection to this theory is that a non-existent thing can never come afresh because matter can never be created.

Enter the Sankhya-Yoga philosopher. Pot is not produced afresh. It was already existing in the clay in unmanifest form. The old substance is transformed. Before transformation, it was called karana avastha and after transformation, it is called karya avastha—it just states the cause and effect relationship. It is only a parinama—a modification. This is how the theory gets the name parinamavada. Vedantin’s objection to this theory is that the reasoning breaks down when we talk of Brahman as jagat karanam. Brahman cannot transform into the world because it is nirvikaraha. Parinamavada may be acceptable to a changing karnam but not to the case of Brahman.

The advaitin’s theory of creation is called adhyasa vada or vivarta vada. It holds that the universe in neither a production of Brahman, nor a modified version of Brahman. Universe is an apparent manifestation of Brahman. Brahman has the unique power to bring about an apparent transformation with the aid of maya sakti. The same idea can be put differently: the real world is never created.

In the universe, we have both chetana and achetana objects. One can visualize that the samashti chidabhasa of Iswara contributes to vyashti chidabhasas of jivas and samashti achetana amsha—the total RM—for the creation of vyashti sukshma sariram. Iswara becomes the cause.

Vidyaranya points to the necessity for allaying the confusion caused by the vedic literature when in some places; it refers to OC as the cause of creation whereas in some other places, RC is referred to as the cause of creation. He cautions that the context of the vedic statements should be borne in mind before attaching the real meaning. Even though we have a clear understanding that Iswara is a composite reality consisting of three components, namely, OC, RC, and RM, identification of any one of the components with Iswara is inevitable in the vyavaharika plane. This mistake may be committed by the ignorant, or even by people who have the correct knowledge that it is the RC, the chidabhasa, that is the cause and not OC. On the other hand, very often, the word chaitanyam, or Brahman, is applied to both OC and RC. Brahman which is described as satyam, jnanam, and

95 anantham cannot be the karanam—the cause. Ultimate reality cannot be associated with cause and effect relationships.

Vidyaranya links this seeming confusion between the higher and lower levels of consciousness, called anyonya adhyasa, with his early example of canvas for painting. Recall he had spoken of the pure unadulterated canvas and the starched canvas; the former was linked to OC and the latter to RC.

Next, a question is raised when two Upanishads cause confusion in the use of the words Iswara and Brahman as is the case in Shvetaswara Upanishad and Taitreya Upanishad. In the latter, chit is referred to as the creator while in the former chidabhasa is. Whenever such a conflict arises, it is resolved by appealing to logic. Logically, chit doesn’t have the status of a creator. Karana has relationship with karyam whereas chit is free from such attributes. On the other hand, chidabhasa can logically be the karanam.

Anandamaya is the karana sariram at the samashti level. Iswara’s mind is maya. His thought is called maya vritti. He visualizes to multiply into jiva rasi. The transition takes place into samashti sukshma sariram which is called Hiranyagarbha. The parallel of this phenomenon at the micro level is the transition from susupti into svapna.

Will creation come about simultaneously or gradually? At the micro level, the changes in the waking state are gradual. On the other hand, changes in the dream state are simultaneous. But there is a possibility for some gradual changes also. Upanishad talks about both types of creation. Taitreya Upanishad talks about gradual creation. In the later portions, there is also reference to simultaneous creation. But these differences are not very relevant because advaita negates creation as mithya in the final stages of analysis.

Separating the three components of Iswara is only a cognitive process meant for intellectual understanding only. Jagat karana is RC pradhana. In the final analysis, only OC alone will stay both at the samashti and vyasthi levels.

The nature of sukshma prapanca is neither unmanifest like karana prapanca or manifest like sthula prapanca. It is vaguely manifest. The sukshma prapanca of one will not be available for a second person. It is only available for oneself. The evolution from karana to sukshma prapanca is illustrated by the marked canvas of the example discussed at the outset. Another example for sukshma prapanca is a seed that has sprouted into a tender plant. The further transition of a plant into a tree is called virat at the macro level. In virat, everything is clear unlike

96 in Hiranyagarbha. The marked canvas of our example is now completely painted.

Most Upanishads deal with srishti varnanam. Purusa sukta is frequently used for worship and it appears in more than one Veda. In the smriti also, the eleventh chapter of the Gita deals with Viswarupa darsanam or Virat varnanam. All the individual jivas starting from Brahma to an ordinary plant are part of Virat. Viswarupa darsanam brings about a change in attitude towards the cosmos. Everything in creation is part of Virat. We are all components of Virat. Virat is saguna samashti. From the vyavaharika drishti, every advaitin is a visishtadvaitin. Every limb of the universe is a part of Iswara’s body. Consequently, any form of the universe is acceptable for worship. Divisions that are brought about in the worship of various deities for worship are born out of ignorance. Any worship goes to virat. Hinduism’s tolerance is inherent in its view of worship. Unfortunately, this tolerance is being challenged because of intolerance on the part of others who believe in one type of exclusivity or other.

Tat and Tvam

Recall that both Tvam and Tat appearing in the mahavakyas have each three components. The components of Tvam padartha are: kutastha (oc), jiva (rc), and sarira trayam (rm). And the components of Tat padartha are: Brahman (oc); Iswara (rc); and prapanca traya (rm). The mahavakya selected for discussion is tat tvam asi. Asi is the term which establishes the identity between tat and tvam. Without this aikya jnanam, liberation is not possible. Liberation is possible only by Brahma tatva jnanam—through knowledge of Brahman only. The fifth chapter has already discussed this aspect of the mahavakya. The direct meaning of Tat is Iswara and the direct meaning of Tvam is Jiva. Aikyam is not possible at this level. In all significant respects, Jiva and Iswara are not different. But the concept of aikyam comes from the Upanishad. What is called for is a proper understanding of aikyam. From the standpoints of RM and RC, aikyam is not valid. RM refers to the reflecting medium, the upadhi, and there is, of course, a difference between the upadhis of macro and micro. As for RC, the reflections in the two media are bound to be different; the inferior medium at the micro level will have an inferior RC. By resorting to bhaga thyaga lakshana, we set aside RM and RC pertaining to both Tat and Tvam. Turning attention to OC, we have kutastha at the tvam level and Brahman at the tat level. They are both nirguna—with no attributes. Hence, the notion of a small OC and a big OC does not come up. The question can be raised as to why we use two words kutastha and Brahman if they mean the same. They are called differently because the nomenclatures come from the vyavahara drishti. Vyasthi and

97 Samashti levels are meaningful only from that plane of reality. Kutastha is the adhisthana of vyasthi—the micro upadhi. Similarly, Brahman is the adhisthana of samashti—the macro upadhi. There is one adhisthana chaitanyam ekam behind jiva and Iswara.

We had set aside the RM and RC components of vyasthi and samashti because of their inherent differences. But both are going to be dismissed as mithya from the Paramarthika angle. The abheda (non- difference) is satyam; the bheda (difference) is mithyam. The knowledge of satya abheda is the liberating knowledge. Without this knowledge, moksha will remain an elusive goal. All the dream problems can be solved by waking up to waker consciousness which is the adhisthana jnanam; in this case, the jagrat state is satyam and the prathibhasika state is mithyam. Dream is real from the point of view of the dreamer and unreal from the waker’s coordinates. Similarly, from the standpoint of the waker, the world is real; however, it is unreal from the coordinates of turiya chaitanyam. Jagrat prapanca is also a kind of dream. Included in this mithya are Jiva—vyasthi chidabhasa, and Iswara—samashti chidabhasa; it may be shocking to include Iswara in the mithya list and that is why it demands real understanding to grasp the meaning in the context in which the statement is made. But we do worship Iswara with utmost devotion because he is the stark reality in the vyavaharika plane.

If one misses Paramarthika satyam and pay exclusive attention to the analysis of jiva, jagat, and Iswara, one will be left with more and more unanswered questions. This is precisely what happens to scientific inquiries when taken to the limits of knowledge. Wisdom would behove that we don’t completely expend all our energy in steadily accruing unanswered questions. They have to be dissolved in a solvent called knowledge. Until then we will have only have interim answers to the basic questions on human existence. More logic will not lead us to the truth. Acceptance of sruti pramana is essential.

The Skeptics

The skeptics can be grouped under three headings: a) confusion about the definition of Iswara; b) confusion with regard to jiva; and c) confusion with regard to jagat. The first group remain unsettled about the issue of whether Iswara is both nimitta and upadana karanas. The second group have no confusion about Iswara because they do not subscribe to it at all. But they have many unanswered questions about jiva. The third group’s attention is primarily on creation of the universe. This is the confusion caused by the various cosmological studies without reaching definite conclusions.

98 Vidyaranya briefly dwells on the philosophies of Sankhya, Yoga, and Charvaka philosophies to illustrate the points he has made.

The Yoga philosophy accepts the authority of the Vedas and also subscribes to the notion of Iswara. But it causes confusion by giving Paramarthika status to Iswara. From the advaitic standpoint, Iswara is as real as this world. Both world and Iswara are less real than Brahman. Yoga philosopher’s confusion is about the degree of reality that is to be assigned to Iswara in the totality of OC, RC and RM. When this confusion about degree of reality creeps in, there is a concomitant confusion about the integrity of the concept of bheda—the difference. Bheda is valid only on the vyavaharika plane and not on the Paramarthika plane.

The Charvaka philosopher does not accept Iswara. Anything that cannot be directly perceived through senses or through instrumentation is outside the scope of his attention. For him mind is the brain and so the travel of sukshma sariram is an alien concept for him. This, and a host of other related facts where he is wedded to the reality of the body only, can be termed as confusion about the nature of jiva.

Anupravesha

Individual mind—the sukshma sariram—is the RM for jiva whereas maya is the RM for Iswara. Maya is anandamaya –karana sariram. We can experience maya at the vyasthi level during susupti. This is the closest experience of karana sariram. Both vijnanamaya (jiva upadi) and anandamaya (Iswara upadi) are mithya; they are caused by maya. Entire creation is kalpitam—an imaginary construct. Creation is a joint venture by Iswara and Jiva. Iswara’s role is visualization of the universe before manifestation based on jiva karmas which act as constraints on his freedom. Creation lasts until sukshma sarirams and vyashti RC fructifies. This is called Praveshaha—formation of individual minds.

Asi: Identity relationship

Returning to investigation of asi, the identity relationship between tvam and tat—aikyam-- its importance can be understood by noting that the Upanishads repeat it about nine times. It is backed up by several examples and so the reference to aikyam is not a casual statement. Since identity is only at the level of OC, two parts of Iswara and two parts of Jiva (RM and RC) have to be set apart resorting to bhaga thyaga lakshanam. Aikyam does not mean union. It means that both tat and tvam are one and the same and refer to the same entity.

99

Negation of RM and RC is from the standpoint of OC. The proof for this consists of establishing upadhi mithyartham (RM mithya) and pratibimba mithyartham (RC mithya). Together they are called Jiva- Iswara mithyartham. The analogy of the relationship that exists between the waker and the dreamer will help to understand this mithyartham.

Paramarthika Satyam

With excessive focus on Jiva and Iswara, it is possible to miss the main purpose of the investigation, namely, the Paramarthika satyam. It is only jnana khanda that can show a way out. The philosophers who are anchored to the vyavaharika plane either do not know the existence of an absolute principle or they don’t seem to recognize its importance. They suffer from what can be called an intellectual samsara in contrast with the normal emotional samsara. The intellectual samsara will not end until the principle of advaita Brahman is recognized. Liberation will remain an elusive goal for them until this truth is realized.

The student raises another question. He says that he does not mind rejecting jiva as mithya but it is too much to expect him to include Iswara also in the same category and dismiss him as mithya. Uttama Iswara and adhama jiva, according to him, cannot receive the same treatment. For this troubling question, the teacher says that the difference between jiva and Iswara is, of course, recognized from the vyavaharika angle, but their mithyartham is valid only from the Paramarthika angle. It is like a mighty king and a poor beggar, with their conspicuous difference in status, being grouped together as mithya when they appear in a dream; the dismissal as mithya takes place in the waking state.

The student is not completely satisfied with the explanation and probes further. He feels that the emphasis on the two orders of reality, the higer order at the Paramarthika level and the lower order at the vyavaharika level for the sake of establishing identity of jiva and Iswara when they are both higher order realities amounts to selective amnesia. For this, the teacher recommends more nidhidyasana to the student so that his contemplative mind gets an appreciation and abidance in the reality of Paramarthika drishti. The teacher further states that it is only then that the differences at the vyavaharika level become inconsequential. The uttama Iswara and adhama Jiva which are the realities of the lower order of reality cannot ensure the difference between satya and mithya. There can be gradations within mithya like in the example of the king and the beggar, but the

100 prathibhasika gradations did not affect vyavaharika satya. Similarly, vyavaharika gradations do not affect Paramarthika satya.

Vyavaharika life should be considered as a means for attaining Paramarthika goal. This goal should never be sidetracked. One should not spend an inordinate time analyzing jiva, jagat, and Iswara. They should not be accorded the same status of Paramarthika discussion. There should be a clear understanding that I am, I was, and I will be ever free. It helps one to claim this identity instantaneously.

Benefits: Advaitic Inquiry

Sastra says that knowledge gives some secondary benefits like emotional stability, refinement of the mind, resilience, FIR reduction etc. However, these are all vyavaharika byproducts though useful in day-to-day life. But we are cautioned not to be obsessed by chasing these benefits forgetting the main Paramarthika goal. After the study of Vedanta, there is no point in reverting to vyavaharika benefits as a primary goal. It is even pointless to ask whether one is a jnani or not based on the analysis of the mind.

Another obsession that haunts some is to ascertain which level of jivan mukti is sufficient to achieve videha mukti. For this to happen, sukshma sarira has to merge into Iswara which is the definition of videha mukti. There is not much to be gained in speculating over these possibilities. Further, the extended discussion on the subject is given in the form of a teacher’s reply to the student who entertains the obsession.

Jivan mukti is the status of mind of a jnani from the vyavaharika angle. Perfect freedom does not exist from the standpoint of mind. Stop your judgment. Don’t focus on it. Videha mukti is also a status of mind from the vyavaharika angle since it is defined as sariratrayam merging with samashti. It is only a byproduct. Focus on Paramarthika nitya mukta svarupam which is the aim of Vedanta. We don’t even know for sure at the time of death whether you have qualified for mukti. Leave the matter to Bhagavan since it is his lookout.

Some comments on Sankhya -Yoga School

Next, some comments are made on the views of the Sankhya-Yoga philosophers on the subject. The advaitin has a large measure of agreement with these when they claim that jiva is chaitanya svarupa and it is also asanga chaitanya besides being all-pervading. The Iswara of Yoga philosophy is also asanga and anantha chaitanyam. But Sankhya, which comments only on jiva, holds that there are

101 innumerable jivas with all-pervading consciousness. This thesis on plurality of consciousness sharply differs from the advaita view which subscribes to only one all-pervading consciousness. Furthermore, Sankhya believes that matter is also a separate entity and it is as real as consciousness. In other words, it conceives of a Tat consciousness and Tvam consciousness separately which again is a point of difference with advaita.

Questions and Answers

The student then asks the teacher why he is using two words, tat and tvam, when he believes there is only consciousness. The teacher replies that he uses the two words only as intermediary concepts to arrive at one unitary consciousness. It is the asi word in the mahavakyam which obviates the seeming differences between tat and tvam. The seeming difference between jiva and Iswara is taken as real by the ignorant. This confusion is caused by the beginnignless maya. The difference at the Paramarthika level has to be negated. This teaching is obviously different from Sankhya-Yoga which retains its dualistic outlook throughout.

The idea of identity between tat and tvam is further reinforced by citing the example of akasha which is one indivisible entity. Reference to space as inside space and outside space with reference to an object in space is meaningless. However, we do use notions of separation as in the earlier example: ghatakasha, jalakasha, megha akasha etc. Similarly, even though there is only one Self without qualifications, we do use the notions of tat and tvam as intermediary concepts before establishing their identiy.

For sthula, sukshma, karana sariras, and chidabhasa, there are micro and macro differences at these four levels. But at the fifth stage of original consciousness, such differences are not there. Since we are used to differences at the four levels, we tend to assume that the fifth stage is not exempt from such differences. This oversight is not confined to laymen only since it is prevalent amongst philosophers also. The Sankhya-Yoga philosophers are a case in point. The Upanishads temporarily goes along with this confusion. That is why the OC of jivatma is given the name kutastha and the OC of paramatma is given the name Brahman. These nomenclatures exist in the full knowledge that there are no differences at the micro and macro levels. The difference is negated when the identity relationship—asi—is introduced. The same argument holds good in the akasha example— there is only one akasha. The two adhisthanams of the example were meant only for the convenience of a progressive exposition leading up to a single adhisthanam.

102

The negation of differences in the above discussion of the Self includes jiva and Iswara also which needs particular attention. Jiva is the micro-chidabhasa corresponding to vijnanamaya kosha, and Iswara is the macro-chidabhasa corresponding to anadamaya. The former is dependent on the RM represented by the intellect, and latter dependent on the RM represented by maya. One needs to pause before negating Iswara but this is where advaita philosophy inevitably takes us supported by both sruti and logic; fortunately, this turns out to be the penultimate step before the assertion of the unitary consciousness which is the vedic declaration of ultimate truth.

The student asks the next question. Kutastha and Brahman are two separate names, connoting two different OCs, before they are finally equated. During this phase, the student’s mind is very much in consonance with the Sankhya-Yoga philosophies. From this respect, it can be argued that these latter philosophies are very useful. For this Vidyaranya answers that all philosophies will be useful at some level or the other. For instance, in the pancha-kosha viveka, it is said that annamaya kosha is atma. This isolated fact in the theory of Vedanta resonates with Charvaka’s philosophy. But in the further development of pancha-kosha theory, we have the concept of pranamaya which is not useful to Charvaka philosophy. The same argument applies to Sankhya-Yoga also. There are major differences of Vedanta with Sankhya-Yoga: 1) Atma bheda which is the difference between one jivatma and another; 2) Jagat satyam which is the assertion of reality of the world; 3) Paramatma is different from Jivatma—this difference is between Yoga and Vedanta only since Sankhya does not subscribe to Iswara. As long as these differences are present, there can be no agreement between Vedanta and Sankhya-Yoga.

A general statement can be made with regard to the above substantiation of Vedanta. When we compare systems of philosophy, we find several points of concurrence as also some disagreements. Thorough understanding calls for an investigation of both these aspects. What is the norm for agreement and disagreement? The agreements should be on the essential teaching and the differences should pertain to the non-essential teaching. Even within the advaita philosophy, minor differences do exist but there is complete agreement on essential matters.

Vedanta negates the three principal differences between jiva and jiva, jiva and jagat, and jiva and Iswara. It holds that, in the ultimate analysis, these differences are not real. They are called mithya. On the other hand, all other darsanams vouch for the reality of the differences.

103 There can be agreement with other darsanams only when they accept advaita as Paramartha satyam.

The student continues with resolving his doubts. He states that, granting the above conclusion, it is asangatvam (non-relatedness) that is the common ground for advaitam and Sankhya-Yoga. It is because both subscribe to the idea of asangatvam of jivatma, that is, jiva will become liberated by the discovery of asangatvam. The teacher’s answer to this question is clear and unambiguous. He says that as long as one accepts duality between jiva and jiva, jiva and jagat, and jiva and Iswara, each one in the pair will affect the others. Asangatvam in duality is impossible. One cannot pluck a flower without disturbing a star as the saying goes in order to emphasize the interconnectedness of the objects of the universe. Asanga jiva is illogical in Sankhya. In advaita, we talk about OC of jivatma; not of chidabhasa. Asanga status of jiva is an imaginary one. An imaginary status will not solve a real problem.

The student asks next why, instead of pursuing moksha as a goal, one should not work for permanent pleasures with the aid of permanent sense objects. The answer to this is simple and straightforward. There are no permanent sense objects. This is followed by a more powerful observation. It is not possible to pursue moksha in dvaitam. Wherever there is duality, there is anxiety.

We are accepting deha and prapanca. This means you are accepting antma. How do you account for the world? Advaita has to talk about Jagan mithyartham. It is absolutely necessary. For this the Sankhya follower replies: let the jagat and jivas be there as satyam. We don’t need advaitam. For moksha, we understand jivatma is asanga. Without falsifying the world—atma asangaha. Vidyaranya replies: as long as there is duality, asangatvam is not possible. Jiva, jagat and Iswara are interconnected. Therefore, we have to transcend this triangular relationship. Sankhya vadi replies: This sangha is caused by a misconception. The control exercised by Iswara is also unreal. Therefore, there is no problem. If the relation caused by the world is unreal, then the world is also unreal. If Iswara is mithya, then, it follows Iswara is also mithya. By force of logic, dvaita mithyam has been accepted by Sankhya philosophers.

Sankhya philosopher has to renounce: a) atma bheda—plurality; b) jagat satyatva; and c) Iswara separate from jiva. Atma ekatvam—the other two have already been discussed. Sankhya philosopher explains the need for plurality: samsari jivatma has to be distinguished from asamsari jivatma. Guru-shishya relationship presupposes the above difference. Otherwise, without allowing for plurality, we have to talk

104 about all being liberated or not liberated. Bondage-liberation explanation asks for atma-anatma difference. Once this difference is allowed, there are so many levels possible.

Vidyaranya does not accept the above proposition allowing for plurality of jivas. If the differences are caused by mithya bandha and mithya moksha, then the plurality of jivas is also mithya. What is talked about is only apparent difference. Maya is capable of arranging the differences between jivas. Except Brahman, everything else is mithya. In response to this the Sankhya student asks: how did maya arrange the plurality out of non-dual Brahman? Vidyaranya replies: It cannot be logically explained. There are several theories of creation like satkarya vada, asatkarya vada etc. But maya accomplishes the impossible. The Sankhya student rebuts: The answer does not satisfy me. Explanation on the basis of maya does not satisfy me because it appears illogical. Vidyaranya replies: If you don’t accept maya and mithya creation, then what is the alternative? The only conclusion we have to accept is that all these are all satyams, in which case, we are left with a greater logical problem. It is a conclusion which is opposed to both sruti and yukti. The Sankhya student asks: what are the logical problems? If you are disturbed by bandha and moksha, tell me what they are. They are both satyam.

Vidyaranya replies: You have greater logical problems. Real bondage and liberation are not valid both on the grounds of scriptures and logic. If you say bondage is real, then tell me whether it is anadi or not. If anadi, it does not have an end also. If bandha is anadi, how can you talk about its end? Moksha will not be possible—it will be inexplicable. It is fallacy #1. According to Vedanta, if it is mithya, it can have no beginning, but it can end. On the other hand, if bondage has a beginning, then it will also have an end. In other words, if moksha has a beginning, that moksha will also have an end. This is fallacy #2. If anadi bandha should end and nithya moksha should `begin’, ajnanam at the cosmic level is maya.

If a transformation has to take place, it will require time. If bandha is real and moksha is real, it means it is karma phalam born out of effort. Moksha is not a transformation. Transformation is always a karma phala. But sruti says moksha is jnana phalam. Knowledge does not transform, it only reveals a fact. I was liberated, I am liberated, and I will ever be liberated. Bondage is a superimposed mithya only. That I am bound is a notion. That is why knowledge is a solution. Vedas do not approve real bondage and liberation.

105 Vidyaranya quotes a verse from Amrita Bindu Upanishad and Mandukya karika, in support of the conclusion that eternal changeless atma alone is the reality.

Jiva and Iswara are calves born of the Kamadhenu called maya. They are not chronological events. Once the duality sets in, we have both bandha and moksha. Let them drink the milk of duality. For Iswara being a jnani, life is a leela. Jiva, being a ajnani, life is bitter. Let the show go on. Even when these dramas are going on, advaita Brahma— you remain that Brahman.

Brief review

Atama-Anatma bheda is negated. The duality between consciousness and matter is negated. Anatma is mithya. It cannot be counted. Don’t negate the experience of matter. Chetana atma alone is there. In the anadi maya, anadi jiva and anadi Iswara arise. Anadi Iswara manifests anadi prapanca and anadi jiva. Creation has no beginning. Creation is manifestation. Pralaya is unmanifestation; it is not destruction. It is a product of maya. Other than Brahman, everything else is mithya. Jiva experiences dvaitam; so does Iswara. Brahman is nirgunam.

How come Iswara is asamsari whereas jiva is samsari? Iswara is experiencing dvaita but he has the knowledge of advaita. Jiva does not have that knowledge. Dvaita anubhava is not the problem. Attaching satyatvam for dvaita experience is the problem.

Vidyaranya recalls the ghata akasha example that he has explained earlier and reiterates that the identiy relation is valid only at the level of kutastha OC and Brahman OC. At the Paramarthika level, the terms micro and macro are not valid for usage although we use them before the identity relationship is established.

Student-teacher dialog continued

Q: Enclosed space of the object is small whereas the unenclosed space is infinite. A: What is the definition of enclosed space? Space inside the spot is an illogical concept. In fact, all pots are in space. Similarly, consciousness inside the body is illogical. All the bodies are inside one indivisible space. The question of separating it in terms of micro and macro does not arise. Therefore, advaitam was, advaitam is, and advaitam there will be. Before creation, there was advaitam. It is only that avarana sakti of maya has given a wrong impression. What was seen as a threat will be seen as a mahima. What is required is understanding.

106 Q: When I look at a jnani, I don’t see anything that distinguishes him from an ajnani. His pravritti and nivritti continue to be the same. Why should I try and get spiritual knowledge if that is the case? A: The difference is not in the outward appearance and behaviour but it is in presence and absence of attachment. A jnani has internal detachment which is not visible for an onlooker. His raga-dvesa—likes and dislikes—are neutralized. The transformation is an internal one. It is a cognitive transformation which results in a change in perspective. There will be freedom from confusion. The two-fold misconceptions about aham the subject and dvaita anatma will disappear. A jnani will not attach reality to anatma. Also, the delusion of samsari I will be gone. These two deadly viruses will be eliminated from his vision.

The misconception of an ajnani is that the entire dualistic universe, consisting of this world and the next is the ultimate reality. He attaches the same order of reality to I the atma and to the anatma. Advaitam negates these wrong notions resorting to the method of drishya and drik. No one experiences nondual reality and so it is natural, in the absence of spiritual knowledge, to conclude that it does not exist. Such is a mistake is committed even by a scripturally literate ajnani.

On the other hand, a jnani is very definite about his wisdom. His clear knowledge is not shaken by the contrary experience just as the experience of sun rise does not introduce doubts about the motion of the earth round the sun. An advaitin is never perturbed by dvaita anubhava. Depending on the conclusion we have about atma and anatma, we are either bound or liberated. If drik and drishya are equally real, one will look upon oneself as a persecuted samsari. If subject and object are equally real, there is no freedom from the world. Time and space are part of the objective world—drishya prapanca. The innate conviction of I as satyam makes moksha possible.

An advaitic student complains to Vidyaranya: I have advaita jnanam, yet I have problems of a samsari. What is the gap between knowledge and liberation? On introspection, I don’t have direct experience of advaitam (aparoksha jnanam). I only have indirect (paroksha) jnanam. V: No. Advaitam is always directly experienced as the chaitanyam and it is always experienced. S: I am experiencing that chaitanyam but not the total all-pervading consciousness. I have only partial experience. V: In that case, the same thing applies to dvaita nischaya also. Are you having dvaita anubhava in totality? The universe is vast. If you can have dvaita nischaya without total experience, why can’t you have advaita nischaya? The partial experience is common to both. S: It is a good argument. I experience chaitanyam alright. But this consciousness cannot be called advaita jnanam. If I am experiencing

107 consciousness along with other things, it won’t qualify as advaita jnanam. A second thing should be absent for advaita jnanam to be valid. As long as dvaita anubhava coexists, chaitanya anubhava is not advaita chaitanya anubhava. Therefore, I have a problem. Dvaita nischaya is very strong. It is never threatened; the subject-object duality is always there. All the advaitic teaching has never shaken the feeling of duality. Your explanation based on partial experience of the dvaita universe does not square with my understanding. Only on that day, when I experience pure consciousness, I will have advaita nishchaya. V: The usual prescription for your problem is to suppress dvaita experience altogether through meditation. The Vedantic prescription of sravanam, mananam and nidhidhyasanam is overlooked. When one reaches the turiya state in meditation, all thoughts are eliminated. However, this is not sound advice since, by negation of thoughts; you have not eliminated objects of the external world. If the argument is elimination of thoughts amounts to elimination of objects, in that case, do absence of thoughts mean absence of objects? Nirvikalpa Samadhi can never remove objects. Chaitanyam will continue with objects. One cannot remove all objects of the world. It is absurd to think on those lines. In that case, how do you arrive at advaita nishchaya?

The only way to arrive at advaitam is to understand that everything other than chaitanyam is mithya. Negate your misconception that thoughts and objects are real. Dvaita anubhava will continue. Thoughts and objects are adhyasa on pure chaitanyam. Be sure that there is only one chaitanyam and two unreals, namely, thoughts and objects. Let this fact register in your mind.

S: I understand when you are articulating on the reality. But when I enter transactions of the world, duality arises in my mind. V: May you again make an inquiry until reality replaces unreality. He recommends nidhidhyasana to the student who has already become an adhikari. S: How long do I have to practice? V: You should not have asked such a question. My advice for repeated practice will lead you to dwell on your own glory. Satyam, Shivam, and Sundaram. Just enjoy life-long. Become an advaita- nishta. S: I have the problem of hunger and thirst. Physical needs have to be met. How can I say I am free from problems? V: Ahamkara is karta, bhokta etc. All these are present at the body level. Change the perspective. Look at them from the standpoint of the higher reality. Intellect has the power to reduce the pain by a change of perspective. Every Vedantin undergoes this.

108 Ahamkara and Sakshi are in close proximity. If by chance, problems of ahamkara get transferred to sakshi I—tadatma adhyasa—try not to get mixed up. Avoid transference on to you. Bring in the Vedantic teaching. Entertain sakshi bhava and do whatever needs to be done. The only remedy for adhyasa is viveka. The need for viveka can never be over- emphasized.

S: I know viveka is the antidote to adhyasa. But problems of samsara over power me without giving advance notice. My old vasanas bring out the reactions almost instantaneously. In that I have dvaita satyam. Ahamkara satyatvam is there. This is because I have nurtured these feelings for many janmas. The impulsive action is from the subconscious state of mind. Conscious mind is for deliberate action. I very often have the feeling that I reacted in a manner in which I should not have. This is because of the vasanas. V: The strategy should be to superimpose satyatvam on dvaitam. Develop a counter vasana by repeated practice. Action of the conscious mind percolates into the subconscious mind. Only practice will help to develop the right vasanas. S: There is another problem. The satyartha vasana of duality is stronger whereas its mithyartha jnana is weaker. The latter is formed on the basis of logic—it is only yukti siddham. Former is due to prathyaksha siddham—direct perception, which is stronger than logic. V: Don’t say like that. Dvaitha mithyam is also prathyaksha. The mysterious formation of dvaitam is anubhava siddham. We are witnesses for that fact. Does tree come from seed or vice-versa? The more you understand the external world, the more inexplicable it becomes. The frontiers of science keep receding all the time with no end in sight. S: Is inexplicability mithyartham? V: Inexplicability is technically called mithyartham. S: You say dvaitam is mithya because its functions are inexplicable. But chaitanyam’s function is also inexplicable. Therefore, we have to conclude that chaitanyam is also mithya. Even scientists are grappling with this question. Life appeared very late in the history of evolution. Matter, without any signs of consciousness, evolved first. V: I am willing to accept inexplicability for advaitam also. But the reasons are different. Dvaita achintyam (inexplicability) is because we don’t know how it got created; one need only to recall the various theories of creation like satkaryavada, asatkaryavada etc. In the case of advaitam, creation is inexplicable because it is anadi. Chaitanyam does not have a creation. Therefore, it would be a mistake to equate dvaitam and advaitam on the basis of their inexplicability. Dvaitam is anityam and therefore inexplicable; and advaitam is nityam—eternal— and therefore inexplicable.

109 With regard to evolution, consciousness was always present. But the manifestation of consciousness came later with the formation of the medium. Chit became chidabhasa with the availability of the appropriate reflecting media. We can only talk about the history of chidabhasa because of its association with time unlike chit which is anadi.

S: How do you say chaitanyam is not created but advaitam has origination? V: If chaitanyam has origination, you should be able to prove it was absent before origination. It is called praga bhava, something that is necessary to prove birth of a thing. But who will witness the absence of consciousness? To witness chaitanya pragabhava, you need chaitanyam resulting in infinite regress. Dvaitam has praga bhava, its absence before origination. Susupti, a non-dual state, precedes waking state where there is experience of duality. S: Because my knowledge is indirect, I am not able to get the full benefit. I continue to be in the grip of samsara. But you are calling advaita jnanam as direct knowledge. If that were so, I should have got moksha and boldly declare that I am liberated. Why it is there is such a gap between your assurance and my experience? V: The question is wrong. Jnanam and apurnam cannot coexist. It is inherently contradictory like the statement that an enlightened Charvaka claims I am the body. Your question is of the same nature and so it cannot be answered. The word enlightenment has to be used without contradictions in order to elicit a suitable answer. S: Charvaka does not have complete knowledge because he has deficiency in his intellect. V: After gaining knowledge, if he says he is a samsari, the inference is that his knowledge was not complete. The obstacle is in the use of words without application of the mind.

The word I connotes a mixture of both sakshi and ahamkara. But we use the word loosely. Sakshi is ever free but ahamkara is never free.

S: Sruti promises that desires will naturally be extinct as a result of jnana. But my mind is full of desires. V: All desires are located in the mind. Vedanta does not talk about removal of desires from the mind. Not all desires are bad. Before knowledge I had placed I in the mind. But I now know that I am not the mind but I am indeed the atma. Atma cannot have the desires. It is apurnatvam that is the cause of the desires. Mind has both binding and non-binding desires. Before knowledge, I transferred my desires as my desires. It is a false transference—called hridaya granthi. After atma jnanam, desires in the mind continue. But false transference of mental

110 desires upon me, a desireless one, is negated. Vedanta is asking us to remove the granthi. I am ever purnaha. Desires of the mind are unconnected to purnatvam. Let the mind have any number of non- binding desires as is the case with ahamkara which is mind with chidabhasa. There is no need for removal of the desires. What is expected is that one should not be transferring them to the real I.

S: Abheda (non-difference) is at the OC level. The problem of bheda (difference) will appear at the RC and RM levels if we don’t recognize they are mithya. V: There is no doubt about the classification of the three in terms of bheda and abheda. But recognizing RC and RM as mithya is one thing, but reckoning them as real is another thing. The only thing that should be counted is the sathyartham of OC.

Jnanam gives benefits to the mind. It results in the direction of FIR (frequency of upset feeling; intensity of the feeling; and the time for recovery from that state of mind). It is an important side benefit. Jnanam will also result in the refinement of the state of anatma. Anatma will continue until prarabdha lasts. Jivan mukti is a byproduct. Sarira trayam will merge into prapanca trayam. Videha mukti is also a byproduct. But at the level of the mind, the desires continue their presence; the aim is not to identify with them. The prime benefit is the awakening of the mind to the fact that I am not the mind, body etc.

There is a new type of meditation one has to practice. Reinforce atma svarupam. Look at ahamkara as an external object with its own problems. Let it have any number of non-binding desires.

The minds of jnanis can be very dissimilar contrary to the belief in their uniformity. The mind of an individual jnani is governed by his or her svabhava (intrinsic nature) and the composition of gunas. Considering the examples of Ramana maharshi and Shankaracharya, to name only a few, one could witness how differently they moved about in the world after becoming jnanis. Ramana had the desire for seclusion, but Shankara became a missionary for establishing vaidika marga and traveled all over the country.

Conditions of the mind will not contaminate the anatma of a jnani. Even before knowledge, he has the knowledge that he is not contaminated. This is known as granthi bhedaha. What is required is dropping the notion that he has to become free.

S: Upanishads are promising some freedom by the release of the knots of the heart. Tell me when the knots are snapped.

111 V: The understanding just discussed is precisely what is meant by snapping of the knot. It is only a figurative expression. What is true before knowledge and after knowledge is that ahamkara is never free and atma is ever free.

S: My question about knots was motivated by the confusion it causes to seekers who do not know anything about liberation. Reference to it is misleading as far as they are concerned.

V: It is not misleading them since they definitely do have a knot. The other samsaris do not know and that ignorance is precisely the knot. A person who is liberated and continues as a samsari knows that atma is ever free and anatma is never free. But the ignorant samsari does not know this fact. That is why ajnani looks upon freedom as a future goal whereas a janani is completely at home. He has no expectations with respect to freedom.

A jnani views his body as the property of the Lord and considers himself only as a trustee. This bhavana is the distinguishing factor between a jnani and an ajnani. For example, if fasting is done voluntarily, it would not be considered starvation; it is the bhavana of volunteerism that makes the world of difference with regard to the denial of food.

The difference between a jnani and an ajnani is only at the cognitive level. One should not mistakenly add a mystic dimension to it. Mysticism has nothing to do with liberation. Mind cannot transcend the three gunas because they are the very essence of the material cause of our existence. It is only atma that is gunathithaha, not the mind. A jnani’s mind, subjected as it is to all the sadhanas, is refined and therefore governed primarily by satva guna. A Jnani remains indifferent to conditions of the mind—asangoham.

S: The Bhagavadgita is not talking about Jnani’s granthibheda. It is talking about the sadhana to be followed by the seeker. The prescribed sadhana is to remain indifferent to what happens; it is not asking one to either run away or run after action. It is advising nivritti from all types of activities.

V: A jnani can be active also. There is no commandment to remain passive. S: There may not be a commandment for inactivity. However, even if he has the freedom for being active or inactive, he will remain inactive because of the power of his knowledge.

112 V: The description of a jnani you gave is incorrect; it is the description of a sick person, of some one who is suffering from a debilitating disease. S: I have sastric support for my observation in the story of Jadabharata. The description given of him conforms to the account given in the Gita. V: Why don’t you look into the stories of active jnanis instead of citing examples based on your inability to distinguish granthi bheda from withdrawal from all activities? It is not the presence or absence of transaction that distinguishes a jnani; even a jnani goes by his svabhava. Jadabharata’s lifestyle is not governed by any scriptural injunctions but by his nature. He did not give up taking biksha in order to stay alive.

Scriptural literature is full of jnanis who enjoy what the world has to offer albeit within the limits imposed by dharmic constraints. Their lifestyles depend on several factors including, of course, their prarabdha karmas. They do steer through their lives in all its fullness without being tempted by indulgence in adharmic pleasures. They will be alert enough not to slip from their jnana nishta status. Otherwise, their FIR gets affected. When sangha develops, it has the capacity to make mithya into satyam. Temporary clouding sets in as a result of this impaired vision. That is why he wants to cling on to scs (sadhana chatushtaya sampathi) without lapse. Handling sangha judiciously becomes a consideration.

S: What should I do to keep my mind in fit condition? Although mind is not connected to liberation, I am a trustee of the mind.

V: Pay attention to three factors--sadhanas: 1) vairagyam (freedom from attachment); 2) knowledge; and 3) quietude. These three reinforce each other. All three of these will be present in good measure if one has done his sadhana properly. But for those who come to Vedanta without adequate preparation, these three factors will be highly imbalanced causing imbalance in their behaviour. One can gain clarity about each one of these three factors on the basis of the following three considerations: a) hetu— cause of the sadhana; b) svarupam—nature of the thing; and c) karyam—the product.

Vairagyam: discuss criteria for clarity. First, the cause. Examine 1) dosha drishti—observe the defect in the object. It is the dosha darsanam of anatma prapanca (viveka). 2) Deciding to drop the hold on anatma prapanca as a means of gaining security. 3) Freedom from essential slavery with regard to anatma prapanca, and having dropped it, not going back to it (consequence).

113 Knowledge: 1) 3 disciplines essential—sravanam, mananam, and nidhidhyasanam. For atma jnanam, Vedas are the only pramana. 2) Distinct understanding of I as the union of tatvam and ahamkara; one is satya and another is mithya (svarupam). 3) After the cognitive separation of the amshas—OC and RC & RM, they should not again coalesce.

Quietude: 1) Practice of ashtanga yoga is the cause for the calmness of the mind. 2) Thoughts are subdued—freedom from disturbing thoughts. 3) Reduction of activities meant for Self improvement; this statement is about a jnani. These three factors are important for retaining a healthy mind.

Of the three factors listed above, there are seekers who rank ashtanga yoga higher than Vedantic sravanam in their order of importance. But it cannot be overemphasized that knowledge of tatvam is of primary importance because knowledge is the direct means for liberation. Vairagyam and quietude are no doubt important but they are supportive of knowledge only. They should be considered as necessary conditions for gaining liberation but not as sufficient conditions. Generally speaking, the sadhakas have the necessary conditions in various proportions resulting in gradations amongst them.

Consider a person with vairagyam and quietude in full measure. Suppose knowledge is not there in which case he looks upon mahavakyam as information only. It is only when the content of the information is a fact for the seeker, it becomes knowledge. Information does not liberate whereas knowledge does. However, the credits acquired in gaining vairagyam and quietude will not go waste. He starts his next janma with an advantage. If jnanam is not there, punyam will take over.

Now, suppose knowledge is full but vairagyam and calmness are obstructed. One is not saying that they are not there but only they are not there to a sufficient degree of adequacy. In that case, a jnani would have some deficiency to some limited extent. Even for him moksha will be there but he will have disturbances in the mind because of the deficiencies. They will be treated as problems of the mind and they do not vitiate the certainty of jnanam. The jnani will certainly address the issue. FIR can be reduced but not made zero.

Drishta dhukham: It is the name given to mental disturbance of a jnani which he observes objectively without identification. Others may not notice this.

114 At the height of Vedanta, everything up to Brahma loka must be seen without value, like one would see a dry blade of grass. Even attachment to dharma can bind. Summit of detachment is theoretically possible to attain.

Summary of chapter 6:

The text has 15 chapters classified into three groups of 5 chapters each. The titles of the first five chapters end with the word viveka; of the second with the word deepa; and of the third with the word ananda. Chapter 6 is called Deepa prakaranam and has 290 verses. From verses 1 to 17, the author gives a condensed version of Vedanta taking the famous example of a painted canvas. The four levels of painted cloth, namely, pure canvas, startched canvas, marked canvas, and painted canvas are compared to Suddha Brahma, antaryami Brahma, Hiranyagarbha Brahma, and Virat Brahma. Suddha Brahma has no sambandha with maya; antaryami Brahma has maya sambandha; hiranyagarbha Brahma represents the macro sukshma sarira; and virat Brahma corresponds to sthula prapanca where world becomes colourful like in the painted cloth and where all worldly transactions are possible. Two important lessons follow from this analogy: only suddha Brahma is real; the other three cannot exist independently of this—referring to the example, without the adhara cloth, the other three cannot exist independently.

The second lesson from the example has a more elaborate explanation. In the painted cloth, some colourful dresses are there. When one sees the colour, two vastras are identified: first is the adhara vastram and second is the abhasa vastram. The colours belong to the abhasa vastram. Adhara chaitanyam does not have attributes. Varnas belong to abhasa vastram only. Adhara vastram is only one whereas abhasa vastrams are many in number. So also is it true with respect to consciousness. Adhara chaitanyam is satyam; abhasa is mithyam. Every individual is a mixture of the two. These two chaitanyams when not understood as separate, samsara will be there. Separation is only at an intellectual level. I should claim I am adhara chaitanyam. Vedanta consists of the intellectual separation of the two chaitanyams. This is the condensed version of Vedanta.

For the expanded version of Vedanta, the author takes up the famous example of ghata akasha—of a pot partially filled with water, for discussing the micro jiva. For presenting the picture at the macro level, he takes up the example of akasha covered by clouds. At the micro- level, he talks of the ghata akasha and jala; at the macro level, maha akasha—the all pervading space and megha akasha referring to space

115 reflected in the RM of cloud water. In all, there are 2 original spaces and 2 reflected spaces. The analogy is now struck with the facets of consciousness. Micro OC is consciousness in the body-mind complex; macro OC is the all-pervading consciousness; micro RC is the consciousness reflected in the mind; and macro RC is the consciousness reflected in the maya medium which is infinitely vast. Micro OC is called kutastha; micro RC is ahankara; macro OC is Brahman and macro RC is Iswara.

From verses 22-103, the author deals with the topic of Kutastha Jiva vivekaha—micro OC and micro RC. Kutashta is without limits, division and attributes. Jiva is plural, has limits, attributes, and has both samchita and prarabdha karmas. Travel of jiva chaitanyam is the subject of karma khanda. Word I should be taken as jiva and the word Self is reserved for kutastha. The author elaborately justifies the latter usage. First person is different from the second and the third. I is a finite entity and therefore appropriate for referring to chidabhasa. On the other hand, the word self is common to first, second, and third person. It applies to both chetana and achetana objects. Therefore, the usage of Self for kutastha is appropriate. In Sanskrit, I is called aham whereas Self is called tvam.

• Kutastha is satyam whereas jiva is mithyam. • When kutastha is claimed, samsara is gone from me. Samasara is mithya and it is associated with chidabhasa. • The author discusses misconceptions of various philosophers. This discussion is not essential for the main theme but very informative. • Tvam padartha vivekaha—kutastha jiva vivekaha • From verse 104-209, the topic is Brahma-Iswara vivekaha. • Nature of Iswara is abhasa chaitanyam—RC; RM is maya. Jiva’s RM is mind. • From verse 125-151, the author elaborately discusses maya— sat asat vilakshnam, the seemingly existent category. The example is of a magician’s magic show. • Iswara’s glory—attributes. His glory is superior because of the associated RM. • Brahman is satyam; Iswara is mithya—omniscience, omnipotence etc. • Role of freewill. All jivas have freewill but it is functional in only humans. • From verse 210-246, kutastha-Brahma aikya is discussed. They are two names connoting the same thing. Only they are observed from two different angles. The micro-macro division is only relevant from the vyavaharika drishti. No such division from the Paramarthika drishti.

116 • Differences are there between jiva and Iswara. • In Veda purva, bheda is highlighted; in Vedanta, abheda is highlighted. Ch7: Tripti Deepa Prakaranam

This is the biggest chapter in the text consisting of 298 verses. Deepa means that which clarifies—enlightens on fulfillment. Here, tripti means jivan mukti— purnatvam. Jivan mukti is defined both positively and negatively. The negative version says it is freedom from all types of inadequacies. The positive version says it is the presence of happiness—sukha prapti. The text starts from a mantra of Brihadarnya Upanishad—4.4.12.

The meaning of the mantra is that every human being should know that atma is his real nature. Specifically, atma refers to turiya atma, kutashta chaitanyam. One should not try to know it as an object but as the subject I. One should negate the other meanings of I and retain the meaning of aparoksha atma jnanam.

A jnani will get total contentment, total freedom from all desires. Any desire is possible when there is a desiring subject and a desired object. The former is apurna ahankara (bhokta); desired object is bhogya prapanca. Both should be there for desire to be present. After jnanam, both bhokta prapanca and bhogya prapanca are gone. What desire is there after jnanam? For whose benefit is it? How can a jnani struggle in the world with the body? All the struggles are only to fulfill desires. When desires come to an end, struggles also cease and this is called jivan mukta. An elaborate analysis of this mantra follows in order to make clear the contentment of a jnani.

The first level of commentary of the text introduces 7 stages of sadhana. The word purushaha used in the text means jivaha. There is a brief commentary on srishti. Vyavaharika jiva and vyavaharika Iswara are both RCs. From the standpoint of OC, jiva is a micro reflection and Iswara is a macro reflection. Maya, the RM, provides 2 RCs. Maya is responsible for Jiva and Iswara. If maya were not there, there would be no RCs. Only OC would have been there. The evidence cited for this is a quotation from the Nritanga Uttara Tapaniya Upanishad. (An aside point: Iswara is not created in time and maya is anadi.) The word created is used to convey the idea of RM. Therefore, both Iswara and jiva belong to the vyavaharika plane—pratibimba chaitanyam. Rest of the creation is by Iswara and Jiva. It is a co-operative endeavour. Jiva’s contribution is karma. Iswara is the samanya karanam whereas jiva is visesha karanam. Iswara creates the objective universe. Jiva creates pain and pleasures out of it. Iswara’s creation begins with the visualization of the universe with the mind of maya. Visualization is maya vritti. After formation of sukshma sariram, reflection consciousness will appear and it is called anupravesham. Jiva comes to manifestation. According to the karma of a jiva, it will go through 3 avasthas: jagrat, sapna and susupti.

117

Next, the subject matter of jivan mukta through atma jnanam is dealt with. Mind has no real relationship with OC which is asanga. Hence mind is deemed unreal. Reflection is caused because of mutual transference of attributes. Atma seems to be located in the mind and mind appears sentient. Real I is OC only and it is changeless. OC alone takes avataram in the mind in the form of RC. RC is both identical and different from OC. It has bheda-abedha sambandha. This can be explained on the basis of a statue which resembles the live person but is, in fact, inert.

When we use the word jiva, do we include OC also? Or do we refer to RC only? Even though the distinction is made between the two chetanas, they are always together because of their inseparability. Jiva is the candidate for moksha along with kutastha. Mithya can never exist without the backup of satya. Until we study the sastra, because of our ignorance, we tend to equate jiva with chidabhasa exclusively. Thus, when the focus is on RC, there is the constant feeling that I am a samsari. In Vedantic classes, the student’s mind is steered towards kutastha and emphasis is laid on its satya aspect. In actual parlance, one always deals with the hybrid I. But Vedantic knowledge informs us that we should discount (thiraskara) chidabhasa I and give preference to kutastha I.

Despite the definition of jiva as chidabhasa, one should know it can never exist without OC. RC and OC always coexist as a mixture in all living beings. Unknowingly, many believe they have RC only. Jnani refers to OC only though he needs RC even for ignoring it.

Q: Who says aham brahmasmi? Is it chidabhasa or chit? Only chidabhasa is the knower but it can never say it is Brahman. Reflection cannot extend beyond its medium. Brahman is all pervasive. Chidabhasa cannot pervade even nail and hair. Can chit claim that I am Brahman? Chit need not know because it does not have samsara.

A: It is the mixture of chit and chidabhasa alone that can say that I am Brahmasmi. There chit does not exist in any of the avasthast.

Q: How can the mixture claim?

A: When the mixture uses the word aham, it can have 3 different meanings according to context: a) the mixture itself; b) chidabhasa part of the mixture ignoring OC; and c) OC ignoring chidabhasa. Of these three, b) and c) are secondary meanings depending on the context. One primary and two secondary meanings are possible when the mixture utters the mahavakya. The hybrid I which is a mixture of OC and RC is characterized by a mutual transference of attributes. Limitation of chidabhasa is transferred to chit and satyam transferred to chidabhasa. The hybrid I becomes a mixed chaitanyam.

118 A wise person, however, uses the two secondary meanings with great care because he is intensely aware of the difference unlike an ignorant person who has no knowledge of the nature of I. In all worldly transactions he uses I in the sense of chidabhasa and uses it in the sense of chit in sastric usage. It is the result of a cognitive process. At any time if chidabhasa goes away, the person would become an inert object.

Q: Knower status and ignorance status are both attributes. Both belong to RC only. Therefore, following the instructions of sastra, for going from ajnana to jnana, the seeker cannot claim OC. The knower cannot say I am OC. How can RC come to know I am the OC? Therefore, something is wrong in the suggestion of cognitive process for asserting that I am the OC.

A: The twin ideas of OC and RC can cause confusion although they are necessary for communication. A closer examination will reveal that RC is an empirical appearance of OC. OC is the very core of RC. Consequently, there is nothing wrong if RC says it is the OC. RC is the mask appropriate to the empirical plane. Knowerhood is my unreal mask and with this mask I am claiming that I am OC. So chidabhasa can claim it is chit. Chidabhasa’s substantiality is in OC only.

Q: Can mithya knowledge give liberation? Liberation is freedom from samsara. Samsara is not satyam. If so, it will be eternal. Moksha is elimination of mithya samsara and therefore it cannot be mithya. Liberation got by knowledge is also mithya. Why should I work hard for mithya liberation? It can never remove samsara. Why feel bad about it?

A: The nostrum prescribed by Vedanta is from the Paramarthika angle. But that is enough to cure our problem. Dream thirst cannot be quenched by water of vyavaharika satyam. Only dream water can remove dream thirst. The ailment suffered in a particular plane of reality can be cured by a prescription tenable in that plane only. Before knowledge, bondage is real. After knowledge, it is mithya. [An aside point made by Swamiji. A commandment is normally understood as applicable to an action only, not to knowledge. The claim that I am the OC is a pure cognitive process; no action is involved in asserting jnanam. There is a debate amongst advaitins about this issue. However, satisfactory explanations are also there which do not cast any doubt on the fact that jnanam, in the ultimate analysis, is the instant result of a cognitive process].

Q: The word `This’ is used for something that is directly experienced before me. How can this be used for kutastha which is not an object in front of me?

A: Even though kutastha is not an object, it is directly and continuously experienced as a subject. It is an aparoksha vastu. The words `directly experienced’ apply to both kutastha and an object of the world before me. Next comes a series of further questions.

119

Q1: If kutastha is ever experienced, you cannot talk about its ignorance. Ignorance of kutastha is a myth. Q2: If ignorance of kutastha is never possible, knowledge of kutastha cannot be talked about. Knowledge is defined as removal of ignorance. Q3: You can talk about indirect and direct knowledge only with regard to an object. Far away objects give us only indirect knowledge. Proxmimate objects give us direct knowledge. Since kutastha is not remote, you cannot talk about its paroksha jnanam. Q4: If you cannot talk about paroksha jnanam, you cannot talk about aparoksha jnanam either. (Example: black crow—black as an adjective is not necessary). Therefore, ajnanam, jnanam, paroksham, aparoksham, are all wrong expressions when used to qualify kutastha.

A: All those adjectives are valid for describing kutastha. Ajnanam and jnanam are possible and so also paroksha and aparoksha are also possible. The first two form one pair and the last two a second pair. Even though kutastha chaitanyam is always experienced, the two pairs of expressions to describe it are valid. I realize mere assertion will not satisfy your questioning mind. I will illustrate my answer with the famous story of the tenth man.

Ten boys go on a picnic and after crossing a river, the leader starts counting and finds there are only nine and the tenth man is missing. While he was grieving for the loss of the tenth man, a wise man appears on the scene and when told about the missing person, he assures the leader that he is, in fact, not missing and will appear. This comforting answer is given in seven stages:

1. The extroverted leader counts only nine people and he does not know he is the tenth man. This gives rise to a great deal of confusion. It occurs because of his total absorption in the nine boys. 2. Avaranam: Expressed ajnanam is called avaranam. Referring to the object, he says I do not know. I am not experiencing the tenth and so he is non-existent. 3. Vikshepa: Mind begins to imagine all possibilities—projection. The tenth man has died in the river and starts crying for the loss. He also bumps his head while grieving (prarabdha). 4. Praying to Anjaneya: A guru appears because of the grace of Anjaneya. Assures that the tenth man is very much alive. Grieving person gets paroksha knowledge. 5. Dashama: Teacher starts teaching. After counting the other nine, he points to the leader and says you are the tenth man revealed as himself. The notion that the tenth man is someone else goes away. It is a simple cognitive change. It is aparoksha jnanam. 6. Grieving stops. Shoka nivritti. 7. The leader is very happy. Sukha prapti.

120 • From verse 247-289, the sadhanas are commented on. A common feeling of a sadhaka is: how come I am not able to claim liberation even after all my learning? I seem to continue to judge myself from the standpoint of the mind. Claim your permanent freedom. • Improving the mind for loka sangraha. Don’t connect it to purnatva because there is no such connection. View the mind as Bhagavan’s property and place yourself only as a trustee. One must be free in spite of the mind. • Vairagya, bodha, and uparama are sadhanas for the mind. Mind should be looked upon as an object. • Verse 290 is the conclusion.

121