THE THREE BODIES

http://explorevedanta.com/vbc-the-3-bodies/
The Gross Body is made out of the 5 gross elements: space, air, fire, water and earth.
1. The scriptures divide the Gross Body into 4 components: head, hands, legs and central
body. The purpose of the Gross Body is to transact with the external world. The Gross
Body has limited natural life; when the Karma for a body ends, it dies.
The Subtle Body is composed of the 5 elements in their subtle form: space, air, fire,
2. water and earth. You can call the Subtle Body the engine for the Gross Body. It runs
the various physiological functions of the body. The Subtle Body receives sense data
from Gross Body, processes the data, and tells the body how to respond to the
external world.
There are 19 instruments in the Subtle Body: the 5 organs of knowledge, the 5 pranas,
3. the 5 organs of action and the 4 internal organs (collectively called the Mind). We
saw the significance of the Mind from the enlightenment perspective. Why it is
important to cultivate a tranquil mind. The Subtle Body has a longer life compared to
the Gross Body because it continues into future lives.
The Causal Body is made out of Causal Matter and contains the Subtle and Gross
4. Body in seed form. The Causal Body is indestructible and survives even the
dissolution of the Universe, to again sprout the Subtle and Gross Body during the next
creation cycle.
We also covered the topic of Vasanas. Vasanas are both the source of action (karma)
5. and the unseen result of action. All desires and fears are nothing but subconscious
tendencies in our mind. When we act out these tendencies, they reinforce the Vasanas.
There are both negative as well as positive Vasanas. To become enlightened we don’t
need to get rid of all Vasanas, we just need to render the binding Vasanas non-
binding.
Finally the topic of ego was covered. We learned about the 3 different concepts of
6. ego in Vedanta – the Jiva, Ahamkara and Abhimanam. We saw how transcending the
ego is not the same as “ego death”, which seems to be widely propagated in the
modern spiritual world. An enlightened person also has an ego, but he or she does not
identify with it.

The Ignorance that Isn’t – 1/8

1. Introduction:

We are all familiar with our gross physical body. It is available to our direct
perception and it gives us our ID. Vedanta tells us that we are blessed with
two more bodies — the subtle body comprising life-force, the mind and the
intellect), and a totally imperceptible third body, subtler than the subtle body.
It is called the causal body, the source of the other two bodies. Advaita
Vedanta avers, as we all know, that what we truly are is Pure Consciousness.
Consciousness is our nature. It is the very Self that knows “I AM.” It is not
that the Self possesses Consciousness. Self is Consciousness. We are actually
none of these bodies.

But for some unknown and indeterminate reason, the Self, instead of being
the Subject, the Knower or the Seer, got contaminated. We superimposed the
Self with the known and the seen, the objects. We shifted our ID from being
the Self to being a body – mostly as the gross physical body, but sometimes
to be the subtle body. That is a great fall for the Self – from Self to not-Self.
The strong association we experience with the three bodies stands as a proof
of the apparent fall. The severity of the fall could have been far less had we
considered the bodies to be “mine” instead of taking them to be “me,” and
identifying ourselves with them as “I am my body.”
The apparent fall of the Self to not-Self is said to be in the Vedantic literature
like the self-effulgent Consciousness being concealed by a veil. Much like the
Sun being obscured by a cloud. The name given to that covering is
“ignorance.” One cannot for sure say, though, that ignorance does exist, as
we shall see a little later. However, the concept of ignorance is central to the
teaching of Advaita doctrine. It is a useful explanatory device. As already
said, we are the Pure Self and our nature is Knowledge that shines like light.
Ignorance, comparable to darkness, cannot exist in the presence of Self-
knowledge. Nevertheless, the moment we become unaware or forgetful of
our true nature, ignorance takes over and rules the roost.

We face the unavoidable decay (ageing) and death because of the physical
body. We have the inescapable hunger and thirst because of the subtle body.
The inexorable delusion and grief haunt us because of the causal body. Using
the famous maha vAkya (Great Statement) “tat tvam asi” from
6.8.7, chAndogya Upanishad, Shankara reassuringly reminds us that what in
truth we are is brahman which is beyond the three bodies. Therefore, we do
not have to suffer those indignities resulting from our misidentification with
the bodies. He says in his short treatise, vivekacUDAmaNi:
षड्भिरूर्मिभिरयोगि योगिहृद्भावितं न करणैर्विभावितम् ।
बुद्ध्यवेद्यमनवद्यभूति यद्ब्रह्म तत्त्वमसि भावयात्मनि ॥ —
257, vivekacUDAmaNi.
[Meaning: That which is untouched by the Six Waves of Affliction; which is
realized in the heart of Yogis; which cannot be grasped by the sense organs;
nor the intellect can know; and which is of flawless excellence,
That brahman are you. Meditate on That in your mind.]
Taking help of the “neti; neti” (Not thus; Not thus) technique provided by
4.5.15, brihadAraNyaka Upanishad, an earnest seeker, through diligent
inquiry and contemplative meditation can relatively easily discover that s/he
is neither the gross body nor the subtle body. However, we find the causal
body (kAraNa sharIra), which is the seat of ignorance, is not so easy to
negate.

2. Purpose, Sources and Acknowledgements:

The discussion in this article is focused on appreciating that we are not the
causal body also. Hopefully it will be found useful in negating the causal body
and to understand that our true nature is Pure Consciousness. The arguments
and reasoning used in this discussion are centered on Shankara’s detailed
commentary on the verse 13.2 of Bhagavad-Gita. This write-up itself is based
on the three 90-Min talks by Shri Yellamraju Srinivasa Rao (YSR). The three
talks are a part of his Series on “Advaita SiddhAnta SamIkSha” (A Review of
the Advaita Doctrine). The links to the YouTube Audios in Telugu for the three
Talks (91- 93/192) are given at the end. We have taken considerable liberty
in editing and rearranging the material, while adhering to his text. If any
errors have crept in because of this process, they will entirely be our
responsibility and may not be attributed to Shri YSR. This article is prepared
by Smt. Neppalli Padma and Ramesam Vemuri. We are grateful to Vijay
Pargaonkar who read through the initial versions and offered valuable
inputs.

2. The Causal Body:

Sri Krishna says in the Gita that we are deluded because our Knowledge,
which is our intrinsic nature, is covered by ignorance. At another place, he
even says that it looks as though the Knowledge is stolen by mAyA.
अज्ञानेनावृतं ज्ञानं तेन मुह्यन्ति जन्तवः ॥ 5.15, Bhagavad-Gita
[Meaning: Knowledge is enveloped by ignorance; thereby mortals are
deluded.]

माययापहृतज्ञाना आसुरं भावमाश्रिताः ॥ 7.15, Bhagavad-Gita

[Meaning: Having Knowledge stolen by Illusion, following the ways of the
Demons…]

Strictly speaking, Knowledge can neither be stolen nor destroyed. It is only

from the viewpoint of our intellect (buddhi), it appears as though we have
lost the Knowledge. We have to be very vigilant not to forget who we are in
order to avoid being entrapped by ignorance.
Sage Sanatkumara tells Dhritarashtra in the text “sanat sujAtIyam” that
death is forgetfulness (pramAda) and forgetfulness itself is ignorance. For
eons, we have forgotten our real and original nature. All we have are the
memories from the relative world we are in now. These worldly object-
oriented memories are like the treasures accumulated in a dream. Objective
knowledge, worldly expertise, and accumulated information are no better
than ignorance. What is important is to remember the Self-knowledge, our
real intrinsic nature. Bhagavad-Gita in a preliminary manner
and brihadAraNyaka Upanishad more exhaustively explain the nature of
ignorance.
Birth and death pertain to the gross body and not to the individual (jIva). The
life-force (prANa) and mind are merely instruments available in the service of
the individual. Not knowing who we are in Reality because of ignorance, we
become everything else which we are not. A discrete analysis of our deep-
sleep state shows us that the causal body is responsible for veiling our
Knowledge of the Self.
Therefore, we have to understand the role of the causal body in relation to
ignorance.
4. Ignorance is Indeterminate:
Ignorance is like a gossamer sheath that covers up and conceals our true
Knowledge. An analogy may help. Think of a muslin cloth in which a few
pieces of asafetida are kept wrapped in. The smell of asafetida lingers on the
cloth even after the asafetida is consumed and the cloth is washed. Like the
smell persisting on the cloth, impressions from the past experiences get
stored in the causal body. Just like the smell of the asafetida that cannot be
gotten rid of easily, the clinging impressions on the causal body too are
difficult to be eliminated. These lingering traces of the effects of past actions
are called as the vAsanA-s. They get expressed as the desires in the mind,
including the individual’s likes and dislikes, proclivities, etc.
The Yoga system of Patanjali says that the causal body must be controlled so
that the machinations of the vAsanA-s could be neutralized. Shankara
advises us that the causal body must be completely annihilated because
suppression and control give scope for its return. He says that it must be
completely melted away leaving no trace of the vAsanA-s that engender the
names and forms. This process of dissolving the causal body is
called pravilApana.
Explaining how arduous it is to eliminate the vAsanA-s, Shankara in his
commentary at 13.2, Bhagavad-Gita refers to Sage Vyasa’s words in
Mahabharata:
सर्पान्कुशाग्राणि तथोदपानं; ज्ञात्वा मनुष्याः परिवर्जयन्ति |
अज्ञानतस्तत्र पतन्ति मूढा; ज्ञाने फलं पश्य यथा विशिष्टम् || — 14, Dialog
between Manu and Brihaspati, Mahabharata.
Veda Vyasa cautions that it is not easy to annihilate the causal body. He says
that it is like walking along a “way infested with snakes and thorny bushes.
The ground is treacherous with deep wells hidden under layers of grass. We
need to be extremely vigilant. Those who are knowledgeable and keep their
eyes open to these dangers will be able to successfully avoid them. But those
who are ignorant and unaware will be trapped by the impediments.” The
difference between one who is knowledgeable and well prepared and another
who wallows in ignorance is thus highlighted by the Sage.

Shankara adds further, to say: We live trapped in the body and misidentifying
ourselves with it as Atma. When we say “I,” it almost always has a reference
to our body and or mind. If we can put the body and mind aside and
recognize who we really are, we can free ourselves from worldly bondage.
But we stay obsessed with our likes and dislikes, and our self-made concepts
of right and wrong in our actions. Hence, we continue to live in captivity and
are born again and again to experience the results of our actions. Using
sound reasoning, if we separate ourselves from the body and mind and
recognize who we really are, in that recognition we will transcend the polar
pairs of opposites and get liberated.
Habituated to seeing only the unreal appearance of the world, we have
totally forgotten what Reality is. We superimpose a false image on what is
actually present. Instead of seeing Reality as It is — which is Space-like
Beingness and Knowingness (sat and cit) — we see a multitude of objects.
Krishna says in the Gita that He is the Self that resides in all bodies. That
means there is the same one Self in all. If so, why is it that every individual so
strongly identifies with a separate body and mind? Krishna himself answers
that it is due to ignorance. Because of our ignorance, the One that-IS appears
as though there is multiplicity. Consequently, we see bodies, minds, vital-
force, etc. If there is no ignorance, these multiple adjuncts would also not
have come into existence.

Every living entity, from an ant to the human being, is subject to ignorance.
It’s like mistaking a pillar for a thief in the dark and scream in fear. Only the
thief is seen by them; the pillar is completely missed. It is not that they see
the pillar first and then mistake it for a thief. They get carried away by what
they think they see. They fail to recognize the real ‘thing’ that is actually
present. This is called mithyAtma (the false-self). In mithyAtma, reality is
attributed to something without any verification. If they had prior knowledge
of the pillar, they would not have superimposed a thief on the pillar. To think
that “I am my body” or “I am my thoughts” is an example for the mithyAtma.
Our familiar ‘me-ness’ is mithyAtma.
In addition to a ‘me,’ we also claim many things/people as ‘mine.’ We take
their travails and tribulations to be our own and suffer with them and feel
happy when they are happy. Examples are my house, my property, my
family, my children, my nation, my prestige etc. This is called
as gouNAtma (the figurative or secondary self) in Vedanta. In gouNAtma, the
entity that is actually present is recognized but is attributed to something
else deliberately.
Much like the imaginary thief on the pillar, the body is superimposed by us in
the context of the jIva. Everyone is accustomed to seeing the non-existing
thief (the body/mind), and not the really existing pillar (substratum Reality).
From the time we are born until the time we die, we only see our body, mind,
and senses. We do not notice the substratum on which they appear. The
Substratum is space-like in which everything appears, including the Sun,
Moon, stars, and this body of ours! That space is sat, that which IS
(Existence). We impose names and forms on the open space. It is our
consciousness which imposes the names and forms! It looks as though that
Consciousness together with Existence created the illusion. By themselves,
Existence and Consciousness are pure and untouched. But somehow, by a
freak chance, for a reason that none knows, an illusion seems to arise.
There is no point in asking questions about why the illusion happened or
when. It is unknown and, indeterminable. That is why it is called avidyA or
ignorance. However, we don’t need to worry about such misapprehensions
because neither did the thief actually become the pillar, nor did the pillar
become the thief. They are two separate and unrelated entities whose
characteristics cannot be imposed on each other. Just because we impose a
body on Consciousness, the inert quality of the body does not stick to the
sentient Consciousness, nor does the sentient nature of Consciousness ever
come to the inert body.

5. Discriminating the Self (Atma) from the not-Self (anAtma):

That which cannot perceive, but can become an object of perception

is anAtma (not-Self). For example, our body is inert. It has no sense of “I am.”
It cannot perceive anything. But our consciousness can perceive the body.
Just as we perceive body and mind, we also perceive joys and sorrow, likes
and dislikes. The polar pairs of opposites like joy and sorrow, are also a
result of our ignorance. Consciousness Itself is untouched by them.
Consciousness alone is Atma. Everything else in the world is insentient. Not
only inanimate objects such as chairs and tables, but also our bodies, life-
force, and senses are insentient. Movement does not imply sentience. Wind
moves, but wind is insentient. The air around us, the light that travels
through space, and the five fundamental elements are insentient. Only
Awareness that can feel “I AM” is sentient. Every object is known to our
Awareness, but no object is aware of its own being-ness. A tiny spark of
Awareness that is aware of all the objects is within every one of us. It is the
Inner-Self (pratyagAtma).
Consciousness which is the subject “I,” perceives everything. It is the very
“seeing.” Before we consume the betel (Scientific name: Piper betel) leaf, we
fold the leaf, and firmly grasping it, we pull out its midrib to separate the
thick veins from the edible soft leaf. In a similar way, we must firmly grasp on
to the Self and distinguish it from all that is not-Self, as suggested at the
mantra 2.6.17, kaTha upanishad. If we fail to discriminate
between Atma and anAtma, the object and the subject get mixed up, and
chaos ensues!
Shankara makes an interesting observation with respect to the objects which
constitute the not-Self. He says that which is not-Self can either be accepted
and possessed by us, or rejected and discarded. For example, we may either
embrace the joys and sorrows or reject them. Doer-ship (kartRitva),
experiencer-ship (bhOktRitva), samsAra (the cycle of births and deaths), do
not exist in Reality. We merely superimpose these concepts on the formless
Self. We attribute qualities of the subject, Consciousness, onto the objects we
perceive because of our inability (or weakness) to discern them as not-Self
because of our ignorance (avidyA). Another example for the manifestation of
our ignorance is our attribution of blackness to deep space (or blue color to
the sky)! It is the ignorance that emboldens us in ascribing imaginary
descriptors to formless entities.
We think that a ‘me’ exists within us. The ‘me’ is also a result of our
superimposition. What really exists is brahman. When the Supreme Self is
Itself our Inner-Self, there is no scope for ignorance to exist within us. A
separate self (jIva) too does not really exist. Its apparitional existence is
merely a product of our ignorance. Consciousness Itself is untainted and
unaffected by our imaginary superimpositions like the apparitional water in a
mirage does not wet the sands.

6. Getting Rid of Ignorance:

We do experience a world. We do admit that there is ignorance within us. Our

interest is to be free from the cycle of births and deaths (samsAra) which is
the result of ignorance.
Shankara at this juncture helps us to examine the concept of ignorance with
a fine comb. He says that ignorance can manifest in three ways:

 it makes a thing to appear as something different than what it actually

is;
 it creates indecision and doubt in us;
 it completely conceals the Self, our true nature.
In short, ignorance affects the way we grasp (understand) a precept. For
example, what actually exists may be a rope only. We may perceive it to be a
snake. Or we may not be able to decide whether it is a rope or a snake. The
third possibility is that we may be totally oblivious to what is being seen.
These three states of the mind correspond to our waking, dreaming, and
deep-sleep states. We have a mistaken perception in the waking state.
Instead of seeing the Reality as Existence-Consciousness, we see various
objects – the bodies of our spouses and children, people and houses,
vehicles, joys and sorrows etc. We see multiplicity and heterogeneity and not
Oneness of Beingness-Knowingness.

The principal tool with which we perceive and understand the world around
us is our mind. It is not pure Consciousness. It manifests as a thought-
modification and is illuminated by the Supreme Consciousness. It projects
names and forms onto the indivisible Consciousness. The superimposed
names and forms is what we refer to as our awake world.

The dream state is a state of uncertainty. We are neither fully awake nor fully
asleep in this state. The deep sleep state represents a stupor – we are
oblivious to everything, including ourselves and the world around us. Root
ignorance (nescience) is causal for the appearance of all the three states,
hiding the Reality from us.

Though we are under the sway of ignorance in all the three states of awake,
dream and deep sleep, Shankara encouragingly says that it is not a helpless
situation. If we can stand as mere observers and stop identifying ourselves
with everything that ignorance projects on to our Consciousness, then
ignorance will not affect us in any way.

Things appear to us to be different from what they really are either due to a
lack of proper illumination or due to defective vision. Just as darkness gets
dispelled through proper illumination revealing the objects covered by it,
ignorance can be dispelled through discrimination.

We can be certain that “Ignorance” is not inherent to us. If it were to be,

ignorance would be our very nature and we would never be able to get rid of
it. It looks, as though, ignorance had come about suddenly out of nowhere! In
fact, ignorance has no reason to be. It is something that we assume to be
present in us without verification. It is merely imagined.

If ignorance cannot be with us, where else could it be? It may exist in the
apparatus we use for our perception. Mind, our principal tool for perceiving is
very conducive to ignorance. When things appear blurry due to a defect in
the eye, the problem lies in the eye and not with the man. Ignorance arises in
us when we identify ourselves with the faulty instrument and attribute its
defect to ourselves. Just as when the defect in the eye is removed healthy
vision gets restored to the eye, once our falsely imagined ignorance is
removed, Knowledge rises within us. If the mind is pure, our pure nature will
shine. Knowledge Itself does not undergo any change. It remains ever pure
and blemish-less.
The individual, the seer, is the subject. He is the Knowledge Itself and not the
instrument of knowledge. Likes and dislikes, good and bad appear and
disappear in the mind. We, as the subject, are untouched by them. Ignorance
can associate only with the instruments (mind and senses) and not the Self.

7. Self is The Knower of All Experiences:

Any feelings, like joys or sorrows, that we experience are not what we are.
They are experienced by us. Everything is known by that one no-thing thing
which is the Knower (Knowingness). It is we who experience even birth and
death. After all, death does not experience its death, nor does birth
experience its birth. Whatever experiences the birth and death cannot Itself
be born nor can that die. Once we are able to clearly discriminate and
understand this truth, we will stop identifying ourselves with the wrong
entities like the body. Knowing clearly who we are, and abiding as that
Knowledge is liberation from ignorance. Liberation is not something that we
attain in some heavenly abode, a remote Vaikunta or Kailasha. Nor it is to be
attained sometime in the future. It is right here and right now.

There is no separate self within us waiting to be liberated. Liberation is our

very nature. Joys and sorrows are not our nature. That which comes (Agama)
and goes (apAya) is not what we are. That which we perceive is not us. We
perceive a thing only if it is different from us. What is inherent to us, what we
are, namely the Self, cannot be perceived, nor is It something we can add on
to nor can be gotten rid of. We are It, spacelike, all-pervasive, formless, and
blemishless.
There is no samsAra for the one who is liberated. Scriptures and spiritual
practices are of no use for a liberated individual. samsAra will continue for
people who are still deluded by ignorance. samsAra will not impact the
liberated being.

8. Self is never in Bondage:

Knowingness and ignorance are like illumination and darkness. Darkness

cannot exist in light. So also, ignorance cannot be present in the Self which
by Its very nature is Knowingness. As ignorance cannot exist in the Self, there
is neither bondage nor liberation for the Self. Nothing can stick to AtmA nor
does It undergo any change.
Could it be assumed that the Self has to “attain” liberation getting rid of Its
bondage? Shankara examines the various logical possibilities of this issue in
his commentary at the verse 13.2, Bhagavad-Gita. He observes that it is not
possible for both bondage and liberation could co-exist in the Self just like
one cannot stand still and also be moving at the same time. The other
possibility is that the Self is in bondage to start with and is looking for
liberation. But Atma is only a witness. The witness cannot have either
bondage or liberation. M oreover, if bondage were to have preceded
liberation, it would mean that bondage has no beginning, but has an end
after the liberation is obtained. It would also imply that liberation will have a
beginning and has no end; and, bondage which has no beginning has an end.
This would take us to an illogical situation that bondage will continue forever
and Liberation will disappear just as suddenly as it appeared because
whatever has a beginning will have an end, and whatever has no beginning
will never end!
Moreover, anything that has a beginning and an end cannot be the Self. That
which is Real must be eternal, without a beginning or an end. Atma does not
have a beginning, a middle, or an end. It is unborn and immortal. It is Pure
Beingness Itself.
An ignorant individual runs after actions that produce specific desired results.
Actions and results are not-Self. The seeker on the Knowledge path does not
look for material gains. He is unconcerned with the do’s and don’ts of the
scriptures dealing with the ritualistic actions (karma). His interest is in the
Self only. Driven by fear and insecurity, it is the ignorant individuals who take
recourse to astrology, rituals, worship etc. Knowledge of the Self is secondary
for them.

Shankara says that only one among a million will be interested and qualified
to follow the path of Knowledge. Amongst them, only those who are fully
eligible with a mature and ripened mind, and have overcome their likes and
dislikes will be ready to renounce the material world and seek the Self.

Karma is of two types — shAstra vihita (actions prescribed by scripture)

and laukika (actions done as per natural instincts). The laukika karma arises
as a result of the prArabhdha, the carry-forward effect of the past actions
(genetic, epigenetic and memetic) and includes all activities that are
naturally required for the sustenance of life, such as eating, clothing,
breathing, speaking, moving, natural calls and so on. Even a liberated
individual has to perform them. What a Knower (jnAni) has to renounce are
the shAstra vihita karmas. A jnAni is one who has realized the truth declared
by the mahAvakyas – tat tvam asi (You are that, 6.8.7, chAndogya
upanishad), aham brahmAsmi(I Am brahman, 1.4.7, brihadAraNyaka
upanishad), ayam AtmA brahma (This Self is brahman, 1.2, mANDUkya
upanishad), pragyAnam brahma (Absolute Knowledge is brahman, (alternate
translation is Consciousness is brahman)” 3.3, aitareya upanishad).
The path of Knowledge is not for those who are swayed by likes and dislikes,
nor for those who are deeply attached to karma. Ritualists, worshippers,
yogis, and others attached to worldly objects get caught up in the vicious
cycle of performing karmas and reaping the results there of. Karmic actions
originate in ignorance. Only after several life times, one among a million may
cultivate a desire for Self-Knowledge and follow the path of Knowledge.
The Supreme Self is one without a second. There is not a trace of avidyA nor
of any of its by products in the Supreme Self. The causal body, which is the
source of ignorance (avidyA), drives the individual to perform actions in
accordance with his karmic vAsanA-s (tendencies / impressions). However,
like the waters in a mirage that do not muddy the earth, actions performed
in avidyA (ignorance) do not touch the formless and undifferentiated
Supreme Self.
The kaTha Upanishad compares the path of Knowledge to a razor’s edge.

क्षुरस्य धारा निशिता दुरत्यया दुर्गं पथस्तत्कवयो वदन्ति ॥ —

1.3.14, kaTha Upanishad.
The path of Knowledge is like walking on the sharp edge of a knife – a single
false or wavering step, the seeker is sure to lose his way.

Shankara is very categorical in his observation that “Very rare is the person
who attains discriminating wisdom. The ignorant don’t follow the man of
Wisdom, because of their attachments and evil passions which necessarily
lead to action.” He regrets that such people resort to even black magic. He
adds that “Therefore, samsAra is only based on avidyA and exists only for the
ignorant man who sees the world as it appears to him. Neither avidyA nor its
effect pertains to Kshetrajna, pure and simple.”

9. A Man of Erudition (paNDita) vs. A Scholar:

Shankara says that, not only many of the common people, even some of the
scholars (Experts in shAstra-s) fail to understand the essential message of the
scripture. Proud of their knowledge in the Vedic rituals, they think that they
are the doers (with a strong sense of a “me”) and believe they will attain
great merit (as “mine”) in this life-time so that they can reap the fruits of
their meritorious actions in the next world. They perceive their body, life-
force, senses, and mind, but are unable to grasp their innermost Self
(pratyagAtmA) which is the actual witness to all that they perceive. If they
are able to recognize their inner Self, they will easily cognize the Supreme
Self (paramAtmA) that is present everywhere and in everything. They will
come to realize that their inner Self is not different from the Supreme Self.
As the Gita says,
विद्याविनयसम्पन्ने ब्राह्मणे गवि हस्तिनि |
शुनि चैव श्वपाके च पण्डिता: समदर्शिन: || — 5.18, Bhagavad-Gita.
[Meaning: The truly learned, with the eyes of divine knowledge, see with
equal vision a brahmin, a cow, an elephant, a dog, and a dog-eater.]

Shankara explains at 2.11, Bhagavad-Gita that the word paNDita is derived

from the root word “paNDa,” which means the Knowledge of the Self. A
real paNDita, a man of erudition, is one who has developed a divine vision
that sees only the Universal in everything. Such an individual would not care
for the ephemeral results obtained through activities like yoga, rituals,
worship etc. He will have no interest in such activities because a sense of “I
am separate,” “I am the doer” lies behind them. A paNDita will not hoard
things. He sees a seamless Oneness and all things as a manifestation
(vibhUti) of his own Self.
In contrast to the paNDita, the scholar sees multiplicity in the One. Instead of
grasping the Supreme Self as the Consciousness that permeates the entire
universe at the micro- and the macro- levels, he holds everything as a
‘particular’ (viShesha) entity. Like a person who chases after castles in the
air in vain, the ignorant one runs after particulars trying to find the Supreme
Self. Only the one who realizes that there is no space in the entire universe
where the Supreme Self doesn’t exist, stops running after particulars. He
becomes still. That stillness is sahaja samAdhi. His entire being — body, mind
and senses included — will be totally attuned to and in alignment with the
Supreme Self. When his body/mind are still, he sees them as the Self, and
when they move to perform bodily functions, he sees those movements as a
manifestation of the Self. He feels that his Self is flowing from stillness to
movement and from movement back to stillness.
Some people grieve that they are stuck in samsAra. They think they should
perform spiritual practices, such as chanting (japa) and meditation (dhyAna)
in order to appease the paramAtmA, the Supreme Self, who, they hope,
pleased by their practices, will bestow upon them liberation. Such people not
only deceive themselves, but they also deceive others. They put the Supreme
Lord (Ishwara) on a pedestal at a distance from themselves. They conceive
the Lord to have a specific form and to be present in a particular place. They
do not see Him as the Supreme Self that permeates everything. Being
ignorant themselves, they promote ignorance in others. Such people are
heretics and must be ignored, says Shankara.
आत्महा स्वयं मूढः अन्यांश्च व्यामोहयति
शास्त्रार्थसम्प्रदायरहितत्वात् , श्रुतहानिम् अश्रुतकल्पनां च कुर्वन्
।तस्मात् असम्प्रदायवित् सर्वशास्त्रविदपि मूर्खवदेव उपेक्षणीयः ॥ —
Shankara writes at 13.2, Bhagavad-Gita.
[Meaning: He is the slayer of the Self. Ignorant in himself, he confounds
others, devoid as he is of the traditional key (sampradAya) to the teaching of
the shAstra-s. Ignoring what is directly taught, he suggests what is not
taught. Therefore, not being acquainted with the traditional interpretation, he
is to be neglected as an ignorant man, though learned in all shAstra-s.
(Translation: A. Mahadeva Sastri, 1923)]

10. Knowledge (vidyA) vs. Ignorance (avidyA):

vidyA and avidyA are like light and darkness. What appears as a snake in the
dark is not a snake at all. It is just an illusion. Similarly, jIva is only an
appearance, an illusion created by ignorance. Just like a house built in a
dream that disappears upon waking up, the notion of a
separate jIva disappears when the Knowledge of the Self arises. Like the
waves and foam that merge into the sea and lose their separate existence,
the separate self (jIva) and the separate world (jagat) must be melted into
pure Existence and Consciousness by the practitioner (sAdhaka).
Karmas will produce corresponding results, but will not lead to Self-
Knowledge. Like the water in the mirage that cannot wet the sun rays,
actions performed in ignorance do not touch the Supreme Self in anyway.
Shankara assures that since it is ignorance that propels the jIva to
perform shAstra-vihita karma-s, it is ignorance (avidyA) that is the problem,
and not the jIva. Only a scientific approach (inquiry) can lead one to Self-
Knowledge and not ritualistic karma. Repeated shravaNa, manana,
and nididhyAsana will culminate in the realization that “I am brahman.”

11. Ignorance is not in the jIva:

Shankara normally follows the technique of first describing things as

commonly understood by people. He reveals the actual truth later on
establishing that the popularly held notions are false. The line of argument
pursued thus far by him has been that the locus of ignorance is with the
individual jIva. But now, he explains that to be not the case. He declares:
न ; ज्ञेयस्य क्षेत्रधर्मत्वात् ,
ज्ञातुः क्षेत्रज्ञस्य तत्कृतदोषानुपपत्तेः| यावत् किञ्चित्
क्षेत्रज्ञस्य दोषजातम् अविद्यमानम् आसञ्जयसि, तस्य ज्ञेयत्वोपपत्तेः
क्षेत्रधर्मत्वमेव, न क्षेत्रज्ञधर्मत्वम् । न च तेन क्षेत्रज्ञः
दुष्यति, ज्ञेयेन ज्ञातुः संसर्गानुपपत्तेः । यदि हि संसर्गः स्यात् ,
ज्ञेयत्वमेव नोपपद्येत । यदि आत्मनः धर्मः अविद्यावत्त्वं दुःखित्वादि च
कथं भोः प्रत्यक्षम् उपलभ्यते, कथं वा क्षेत्रज्ञधर्मः ॥ —
Shankara bhAShya at 13.2, Bhagavad-Gita.
[Meaning: No! For, what is perceived is an attribute of kShetra (matter);
and kShetrajna, the Cognizer, cannot be vitiated by the blemish due to it. To
explain: whatever, blemish — not inhering in kShetrajna –you ascribe to Him,
it comes under the cognized, and therefore forms a property of kShetra, and
not a property of kShetrajna. Nor is kShetrajna affected by it, since such
intimate association of the Cognizer and the cognized is impossible. If there
should be such an association, then that blemish could not be cognized. That
is to say, if misery and nescience were properties of the Self, how could they
be objects of immediate perception? (Translation: A. Mahadeva Sastri, 1923)]
Therefore, Shankara holds that ignorance is in the object (anAtma) that is
perceived and not in the subject (Atma) that perceives the object.
What we have are clearly two entities. They are the kShetra, the field
comprising all that which is the knowable, and the kShetrjna, who is the
Knower. If ignorance and misery were to be the inherent properties of the
Self, it amounts to say that Self perceives Itself because the Self is able to
know them (the misery and nescience). That obviously is an absurd position,
“since one and the same thing cannot be both the agent and the object of an
action.” Whatever is perceived, as for example form and color, cannot be a
property of the perceiver.
Likewise, it is the Self that perceives joys and sorrows. They cannot perceive
themselves. They are objects to the Self; they are not the Self. For the Self to
perceive these, they must be different from the Self. Only then can they be
experienced. If the object is totally identified with the Self (me), it cannot be
perceived anymore. It itself becomes the Self.

Hence it is incorrect to say that “nescience and misery and the like are the
attributes and specific properties of kShhetrajna.”
The characteristic features of the Knower (the Self) can be easily
distinguished from those of the field (the known or the not-Self). The
differences are shown in the Table below:

Atma (Self) anAtmA (not-Self)

Sentient Insentient
(jnAnam) (jneyam)

Unformed Formed
(asmahatam) (samhatam)

Formless Has multiple forms

(nirAkAram) (sAkAram)

Exists on its own Cannot exist on its own

(svArtham) (parArtham)

Indivisible, without parts Contains parts within it

(niravayava) (sAvayava)

Perceives, but cannot be the perceived Perceived, but cannot perceive

In short, Knowingness (jnAna) Itself is the intrinsic nature of the Supreme
Self. Therefore, ignorance cannot exist in It. Like the light that cannot be
touched by darkness, the in-dweller (Self) cannot betouched by ignorance.
We have from IshAvAsya:
अन्धं तमः प्रविशन्ति ये अविद्यामुपासते । — mantra
9, IshAvAsya Upanishad.
[Meaning: Those who worship avidyA (karma born of ignorance) go to pitch
darkness.]
It is the individual (jIva), with his predilection to worship
through upAsana, bhakti, yoga, who is in darkness. His mind, life force, name
and form are all darkness. None of those defects pertain to the Self.
Much like darkness cannot exist in the presence of (or in contact with) light,
an object cannot exist in contact with the subject. The moment darkness
enters light or light falls on darkness, darkness dissolves into the light, and
light alone remains. Similarly, the moment anAtma (not-Self) is perceived by
the Self, anAtma melts into Atma. Then the not-Self will become the Self. As
Bhagavad-Gita says:
सर्वं कर्माखिलं पार्थ ज्ञाने परिसमाप्यते ॥ — 4.33, Bhagavad-Gita.
[Meaning: All action, without exception, O’ son of Pritha, is comprehended in
wisdom. (Translation: A.M. Sastri, 1923).]

Everything, bhakti, yoga, and karma will dissolve in Consciousness.

12. Whose is avidyA (Ignorance)?

Shankara has been able, thus, to establish very forcefully and convincingly
that the Self cannot be the seat of ignorance. But then no not-Self could have
arisen in the absence of ignorance preceding it. This leads us to the dilemma
who actually has ignorance, because all of us, the seekers, do feel that we
are covered by a veil of ignorance which obstructs us from knowing brahman.
Shankara at this point shifts gear from a narrative type of commenting to a
dialog style for emphasis. He dramatizes his commentary at 13.2, Bhagavad-
Gita in the form of a dialog between a discussant and the Vedantin to
examine who has ignorance.

[We reproduce below the actual words of Shankara along with an explanatory
meaning of the words.]

The puzzled Discussant: सा अविद्या कस्य इति ।

[(You say that the entire appearance of the world is ignorance. But you also
argue that the only One that exists, the Self, cannot have ignorance. If that is
the position, who has ignorance?) Whose ignorance is it?]

Vedantin: यस्य दृश्यते तस्य एव ।

[Whosoever sees ignorance, it is his only.]
Discussant: कस्य दृश्यते इति ।
[Who is that to whom avidyA appears? What is his ID?]
Vedantin: अत्र उच्यते — ‘अविद्या कस्य दृश्यते ? ’ इति प्रश्नः निरर्थकः
।
[Is your question about whom does avidyA appear to? Such a question is
meaningless. It is a waste of time to raise such a doubt.]
Discussant: कथम् ?
[How come? Why is it a meaningless question?]

Vedantin: दृश्यते चेत् अविद्या, तद्वन्तमपि पश्यसि ।

[If avidyA has been noticed by someone, s/he would also have noticed the
owner of avidyA right there. Wherever one finds avidyA, its owner will also be
present along with it.]
Vedantin (continuing): न च तद्वति उपलभ्यमाने ‘सा कस्य ? ’ इति प्रश्नो
युक्तः।
[When the owner of the ignorance is already visible along with the avidyA, it
is unwise to ask to whom does ignorance belong.]
न हि गोमति उपलभ्यमाने ‘गावः कस्य ? ’ इति प्रश्नः अर्थवान् भवति ।
[When the cowherd is seen right there along with the cows, would anyone
ask who owns the cows (in whose charge are the cows)?]

Discussant: ननु विषमो दृष्टान्तः ।

[Oh, no please, it’s not a foolish question. The illustration of cowherd and the
cows is inappropriate in the present case.]

Discussant (continuing): गवां तद्वतश्च प्रत्यक्षत्वात्

तत्सम्बन्धोऽपि प्रत्यक्ष इति प्रश्नो निरर्थकः ।
[The illustration given is inapplicable here because both the cowherd and the
cows are clearly visible entities. Both are concretely seen by us, hence we
will not question that.]

न तथा अविद्या तद्वांश्च प्रत्यक्षौ, यतः प्रश्नः निरर्थकः स्यात् ।

[But in the case here under discussion, neither can we see the entity that
possesses ignorance nor can we see the ignorance. Therefore, the analogy
cited is not helpful for us.]

Vedantin: अप्रत्यक्षेण अविद्यावता अविद्यासम्बन्धे ज्ञाते, किं तव

स्यात् ?
[What exactly is your problem? Suppose I give you an answer to your
question. What will you be able to make out of it?

You say that ignorance is not directly seen by you. The person having the
ignorance is also not directly visible to you. Hence the relationship between
the two — ignorance and the entity who has it — is also not known to you.
(Under these circumstances), what is it that you would like to achieve by
knowing the answer to your problem?
In other words, what is your true purpose in wanting to know the answer?
What will you do with whatever reply I give?]

Discussant: अविद्यायाः अनर्थहेतुत्वात् परिहर्तव्या स्यात् ।

[We know that ignorance is the root cause behind the appearance of the
world and all the ensuing downstream problems thereon. We would like to
get rid of the ignorance with your advice.]

Vedantin: यस्य अविद्या, सः तां परिहरिष्यति ।

[Why worry about where ignorance is located, or in what form it exists and so
on? Whoever has the ignorance, s/he will take necessary action to get rid of
it. Whoever is sick, only that person has to take the remedy. Why should you
be concerned?]

Discussant: ननु ममैव अविद्या ।

[Oh, no. The ignorance is mine only! (I would not have raised the question if
the problem belonged to someone else. If I can know the locus of avidyA and
in what form it occurs, I can take necessary steps to rid myself of it. This is
the plea of every seeker.)]
Vedantin: जानासि तर्हि अविद्यां तद्वन्तं च आत्मानम् ।
[Ha, that means you are already aware of your ignorance. In other words, you
are the one who possesses the avidyA. You feel it to be a burden for you.
Why should you ask about its locus etc. when it is so directly known to you?]
Discussant: जानामि, न तु प्रत्यक्षेण ।
[Yes, I am aware that I am ignorant, but not very clearly. I cannot find where
exactly it is located within me. I cannot see it directly. (I am unable to put my
finger on it).]

Vedantin: अनुमानेन चेत् जानासि, कथं सम्बन्धग्रहणम् ?

[Is that the issue? The ignorance is not directly seen, but its presence is
inferred by you. If you have just inferred it to be present, would it really affect
you? How can an inference have any effect on you? If it is directly noticed by
you, then only it could have an influence on you. But not if you merely infer
that it exists. It just amounts to be an imagination.]

Vedantin (continuing): न हि तव ज्ञातुः ज्ञेयभूतया अविद्यया तत्काले

सम्बन्धः ग्रहीतुं शक्यते, अविद्याया विषयत्वेनैव ज्ञातुः उपयुक्तत्वात्
।
[Please note that ignorance is always an ‘object’ to your ‘Knowingness.’

It is actually your Knowingness that senses and says “I have ignorance.”

Without that Knowing in you, you would not have known that there is
ignorance. That being the case, how could the ignorance be related to your
Knowing it?

Strictly speaking, ignorance cannot come anywhere near you as long as

Knowingness is with you.
There can never be any tangible contact between Knowingness and
ignorance. There cannot be any relation between the two. It is the
Knowingness that detects ignorance.

For example, if light falls on darkness, there is no possibility for both of them
to co-exist. Likewise, the moment you notice ignorance, it will be flooded by
the light of the Knowing. (And remember that the true you, who knows and
detects the ignorance, is that Knowingness only – you are not different from
that Knowingness).

However ancient the darkness that exists in a cave may be, the moment one
turns on a flashlight, the darkness will immediately disappear. It cannot
survive in illumination. Darkness cannot coexist with light.

Ignorance can never be a characteristic of “me” as I am the very

Knowingness. Hence, if one asks how does a world appear, we have to
understand that the appearance is illusory. It is not real).]

13. The Logical Fallacy of Infinite Regress:

While explicating further on the question of “Whose is avidyA (Ignorance)?”
Shankara points out that the contention “I am ignorant” is a logical fallacy
which would lead one to an infinite regress.
Shankara says:

न च ज्ञातुः अविद्यायाश्च सम्बन्धस्य यः ग्रहीता, ज्ञानं च अन्यत् तद्विष

यं सम्भवति ; अनवस्थाप्राप्तेः । न चज्ञातुः अविद्यायाश्च सम्बन्धस्य यः
ग्रहीता, ज्ञानं च अन्यत् तद्विषयं सम्भवति ; अनवस्थाप्राप्तेः । यदि ज्ञा
त्रापिज्ञेयसम्बन्धो ज्ञायते, अन्यः ज्ञाता कल्प्यः स्यात् , तस्यापि अन्
यः, तस्यापि अन्यः इति अनवस्था अपरिहार्या ।यदि पुनः अविद्या ज्ञेया, अन्य
द्वा ज्ञेयं ज्ञेयमेव । तथा ज्ञातापि ज्ञातैव, न ज्ञेयं भवति । यदा च एवम् ,
अविद्यादुःखित्वाद्यैः न ज्ञातुः क्षेत्रज्ञस्य किञ्चित् दुष्यति ॥
“How can you perceive the relation between the Self and avidyA? It is not
indeed possible for you to perceive your Self as related to avidyA, at the
same moment (that your Self cognizes avidyA); for, the cognizer (Self) acts at
the moment as the percipient of avidyA. (The Self cannot be both the
perceiver and the perceived at the same time).
Neither can there be a (separate) cognizer of the relation between the
cognizer (the Self) and avidyA, nor a separate cognition of that (relation); for
then you would commit the fallacy of infinite regress (anavastha). If the
relation between the cognizer (the Self) and the cognized could be cognized,
another cognizer should be supposed to exist; then another cognizer of that
cognizer; then another of that again; and so on; and thus the series would
necessarily be endless. If, on the other hand, avidyA or, for that matter,
anything else — is the cognized, then it is ever the cognized only. So also the
cognizer ‘is ever the cognizer; he can never become the cognized. Such
being the case, kShetrajna, the cognizer, is not at all tainted by nescience,
misery and the like.” (Translation: A.M. Sastri, 1923).
Discussant: ननु अयमेव दोषः, यत् दोषवत्क्षेत्रविज्ञातृत्वम् |
There is in the Self this blemish, viz., that He is the cognizer of kShetra or
matter which is full of blemishes. (Translation: A.M. Sastri, 1923).
Vedantin: न च विज्ञानस्वरूपस्यैव अविक्रियस्य विज्ञातृत्वोपचारात्
; यथा उष्णतामात्रेण अग्नेः तप्तिक्रियोपचारः तद्वत् ।
No. for, it is only by a figure of speech that the Self, the immutable
Consciousness, is spoken of as the cognizer, just as, in virtue of its heat, fire
is said, figuratively, to do the act of heating. (Translation: A.M. Sastri, 1923).

यथा अत्र भगवता क्रियाकारकफलात्मत्वाभावः आत्मनि स्वत एव दर्शितः – अविद्

याध्यारोपितः एव क्रियाकारकादिः आत्मनि उपचर्यते ; तथा तत्र तत्र 2.19,
3.27. 5.17 इत्यादिप्रकरणेषु दर्शितः ।
We have shown how here at 2.19, 3.27, 5.15, BG and other places, Krishna
has taught that the Self has in Himself no concern with action or with its
accessories or with its results, that they are imputed to the Self by avidyA,
and that they are, therefore, said to belong to the Self only by a figure of
speech. (Translation: A.M. Sastri, 1923).

14. Self is Existence-Consciousness:

Strictly speaking, we cannot define what this worldly appearance is. It is
indeterminate. It does not exist in Reality but it is available to our perception.
In other words, everything that we perceive is anAtma including jIva, jagat,
and Ishwara.
We may say that all that constitutes anAtma is the illusory appearance
(AbhAsa) of Atma. Prior to the creation, even what all now appears
as anAtma was in substance AtmA only. Atma appears in a multitude of
forms, including those of gods and demons. That which appears in all these
forms is real, but the forms themselves are unreal. It is similar to saying that
water is real, but its forms – waves, bubbles, whirlpools – are unreal.
Another important feature is the indestructibility of the original substance.
For example, gold cannot be destroyed whether we melt it or crush it. But its
forms (ornaments) can be destroyed. Appearances (forms) change
continuously (vikAra). Atma is nirvikAra, changeless. Sri Krishna tells us in the
Gita,
नैनं छिन्दन्ति शस्त्राणि नैनं दहति पावक: |
न चैनं क्लेदयन्त्यापो न शोषयति मारुत: || – 2.23, Bhagavad-Gita
[Meaning: Weapons cannot shred the AtmA, nor can fire burn It. Water
cannot wet It, nor can the wind dry It.]
Atma is sat–cit, Existence-Consciousness. It is the spark that strikes as “I
Am.” Like space, it is formless and all-pervasive. It is the witnessing
Consciousness that is present as the Self in every one of us. It is immanent
and transcendent. It is this witnessing Awareness that discriminates the real
(Atma) from the unreal (object).
Since the nature of Atma is sat and cit (Beingness and Consciousness), it has
no birth or death. It is eternally present. It can never be absent because
Consciousness (cit) is continuously aware of Beingness (sat). Birth, death,
and life are a movement. Atma is immovable (achalam), since It has no form.
Such a formless and changeless entity is present in this body-mind organism,
which continuously undergoes change. It permeates the entire universe of
infinite forms. If we become aware of Its eternal presence, we will be free of
all fears and sorrows. In the kaTha Upanishad, Yama teaches:
अशरीरं शरीरेषु अनवस्थेष्ववस्थितम् ।
महान्तं विभुमात्मानं मत्वा धीरो न शोचति ॥ — 1.2.22, kaTha Upanishad
[The Self is bodiless but is immanent in all the bodies. It is Eternal within the
impermanent. We only perceive the body and the mind, but not the
unchanging Awareness.]

The Absolute is real; the relative (multiplicity) is unreal. Even if we perceive

the relative and not the Absolute, we must understand that it is the Absolute
only that is appearing as the relative (Absolute as substance, but illusory as
form).

15. jIva and jagat are Notional:

Knowing the presence of a thing is described as bhAvarUpa and knowing the
absence of a thing as abhAvarUpa jnAna. Both types of cognitions are objects
to the Self. The object world is full of names (jIva – the summation of diverse
thoughts and emotions), forms (jagat), and interactions between them
(kriyA). Action or kriya is a movement or change. jIva changes continuously
as thoughts arise and subside. Thoughts arise and trigger the limbs and
senses to act and experience various objects, emotions etc. We assume
these changes are natural to us because we don’t perceive our Self as it
really is. Instead of feeling “I AM”, we feel “I do,” “I see.” With a particular
result in mind, we perform actions and become “the doers” and “the
experiencers” of the results. jIva is, therefore, a collection of thoughts and
feelings of doer-ship and experiencer-ship.
Since thoughts of doer-ship/experiencer-ship are created and destroyed
continuously, the jIva is only a concept; it’s not real. When a new thought is
born, the previous thought dies. Hence, like the waves in the ocean that rise
and fall endlessly, the jiva is (re)born and dies endlessly. Since thought-
waves and inhalations and exhalations occur in rapid succession, we continue
to live as jIva-s and engage in activity. If our breath or our thought-waves
stop, we die. This is prArabdha, the effect of past actions. We spend our
whole life in this vikAra — a continuous change and movement.
When Arjuna laments at the prospect of killing his loved ones in the war,
Krishna tells him, “It was not that I was not existing before nor will I stop
existing in the future.” That means there is no beginning or end, nor do the
birth and death exist. Life is merely a transitional form that arises in between
the unreal appearance of birth and death. Since birth and death are unreal,
we (as the Self) are already liberated.

न त्वेवाहं जातु नासं न त्वं नेमे जनाधिपा |

न चैव न भविष्याम: सर्वे वयमत: परम् || — 2:12, Bhagavad-Gita.
[Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor all these kings; nor
in the future shall any of us cease to be.]

In the very next verse, Krishna, however, says:

देहिनोऽस्मिन्यथा देहे कौमारं यौवनं जरा |
तथा देहान्तरप्राप्तिर्धीरस्तत्र न मुह्यति || — 2:13, Bhagavad-
Gita.
[Just as the embodied self continuously passes from childhood to youth to old
age, similarly, at the time of death, the self passes into another body. The
wise are not deluded by this.]
These two verses sound contradictory to each other. But the essence of
Krishna’s message is that if the individual identifies with the Supreme Self,
then the individual Self is no different from the Supreme Self. He will remain
as the Absolute Consciousness that is not subject to birth or death.

In contrast, if we identify with the various appearances (forms) of the

Supreme Self, we will continue to form and deform, die and be reborn again
and again. If we rise above relativity (particulars) and cultivate a vision that
sees Universality and not particulars, we will experience our Self as pure
Consciousness and become free of vikAra-s (modifications). Instead, if we
identify with appearances (mAyA), we will continue to be caught up in the
snares of samsAra.

16. Knowledge and the Knower:

Everything that Self perceives is an object that is known. Objects undergo
change (vikAra). They are perceived as “mine,” and not as “Me.” They cannot
touch our essential nature, which is pure Consciousness. For an object to be
known to the Self, it must be separate from the Self. For an object to lose its
separate existence, it must dissolve completely into the “Me” (Self as pure
Consciousness). It must become “Me”, not “mine.” If it continues to appear
separate from me, it will continue to change in form and can never be “me.”
Hence, our minds need to be still, devoid of vikAra-s, in order to experience
Self as pure Consciousness.

17. Self is Pure Knowledge:

The substance, the primary nature of the Self, is Pure Knowledge (vignAna
swarUpa). The “knowing” aspect of the Self is its secondary nature. When we
say fire and rain do not affect space in any way, it is we who say so on behalf
of space in order to establish the fact that space is formless and changeless.
Space itself does not make any such claims.
When the Upanishad says that the Self is “satyam jnAnam anantam, the
word jnAnam(Knowingness) is used and not the word jnAta (Knower). If the
Self were to be the Knower, it would have had some relationship with the
object that It knows. It would then imply that the Self had undergone some
change. But Self is Pure Knowingness. It does not undergo any change.
Therefore, when we refer to the Self as the Knower, it is only a manner of
speaking. For example, if we throw a piece of paper into the fire, we see the
paper burning. We attribute in our common parlance the act of burning (doer-
ship) to the fire and say that the fire burns the paper. But it is the paper that
burns. Heat is the intrinsic nature of the fire. Fire simply stands as itself in its
essential nature while the paper burns. Irrespective of the piece of paper
being thrown into it or not, the fire remains to be hot. Fire does not undergo
any change (vikAra), but the paper does. The statement, “fire burns,” is just a
metaphorical expression. Burning is a secondary nature that is superimposed
on fire.
Likewise, Self is pure Awareness-Beingness. It is changeless and unmoving. It
is the upAdhis (body/mind adjuncts) that are superimposed on the Self that
change continuously.

18. Knowledgeable Seeker and Ritualistic Action:

Shankara before concluding his commentary at 13.2, Bhagavad-Gita answers
one more question by the Discussant.

Discussant: हन्त । तर्हि आत्मनि क्रियाकारकफलात्मतायाः स्वतः अभावे,

अविद्यया च
अध्यारोपितत्वे, कर्माणि अविद्वत्कर्तव्यान्येव, न विदुषाम् इति प्राप्
तम् ।
Well, if the Self has in Himself no concern with action or with its accessories
(instruments like the body, life-force, mind etc.) or with the results (of the
actions), and if these are ascribed (to the Self) by avidyA, then it would follow
that the rituals ( karmas ) are intended only for the ignorant, not for the wise.
(Would this not be violating the shAstra which tells us that one should
perform the sacrificial rituals with knowledge?)
Vedantin: सत्यम् एवं प्राप्तम् , एतदेव च,
18.11 इत्यत्र दर्शयिष्यामः । सर्वशास्त्रार्थोपसंहारप्रकरणे च (18.50)
इत्यत्र विशेषतः दर्शयिष्यामः । अलम् इह बहुप्रपञ्चनेन, इति उपसंह्रियते
॥
Yes. It does follow, as we shall explain when commenting on 18.11 and in the
section at 18.50 where the teaching of the whole shAstra is summed up. We
shall dwell more particularly on this point. No need here to expatiate further
on the subject; so, we conclude for the present.
Shankara is very categorical and does not mince his words in his expression
at the end of the verse 18.50. He observes:

“Those who hold that cognition (jnAna) is formless and is not known by
immediate perception must admit that, since an object of knowledge is
apprehended through cognition, cognition is quite as immediately known as
pleasure or the like.
Moreover, it cannot be maintained that cognition is a thing which one seeks
to know. If cognition were unknown, it would be a thing which has to be
sought after just as an object of cognition is sought after. Just as, for
example, a man seeks to reach by cognition the cognizable object such as a
pot, so also would he have to seek to reach cognition by means of another
cognition. But the fact is otherwise. Wherefore cognition is self-revealed, and
therefore, also, is the cognizer self-revealed.
Therefore, it is not for the knowledge (of brahman or the Self) that any effort
(with a view to bring into existence something that does not already exist by
means of an act enjoined in the shruti) is needed; it is needed only to prevent
us from regarding the not-Self as the Self. Therefore, Devotion to Knowledge
(jnAna–niShTha) is easily attainable.” (Translation: A.M. Sastri, 1923).

19. Conclusion:
Advaita Vedanta tells us that we are not the Gross, the Subtle or the Causal
body with which we mistakenly identify ourselves and consequently suffer
their fate as ours. It reminds us that what we are in truth is the Self, the Pure
Consciousness. For some inexplicable reason, the Self appears as though
contaminated and fallen from Its pristine nature. The apparent fall of the Self
to not-Self is described in the Vedantic literature as a veiling of the self-
effulgent Consciousness by “ignorance.” Shankara avers that ignorance
really cannot exist. He leaves no scope to doubt if ignorance is more than
anything but a convenient placeholder to explain the appearance of the One
Self as a multiplicity. Because of our inability to discern the Self from not-Self,
we attribute the qualities of Consciousness, the subject onto the objects that
are perceived.

Shankara says that if we stop identifying with the not-Self, ignorance will not
affect us. Ignorance is not inherent to us; it is imagined. It is cannot exist in
the subject that is perceiving an object.

Knowingness and ignorance are like “Illumination and darkness” – ignorance

cannot be present in Knowingness or the Self. No spiritual practices are
required to get rid of ignorance; Self-inquiry alone will lead to Self-
Knowledge.

Both jIva and jagat are notional; everything we perceive including

the jIva and jagat is anAntmA. ‘jagat’ is nothing but an ensemble of variable
forms; ‘jIva’ is a collection of thoughts and feelings along with a sense of
doership and experiencership. Atma is sat-cit(Presence-Awareness) that
permeates the entire universe of infinite forms. If we recognize that Universal
that is all-pervasive as what “I” truly am, we will be free from sorrow and
fears.
prANa (life-force) entices manas (mind) to act. Mind thinks of myriad ways to
act (kriyA shakti) and experiences the results of its actions. It is samsAra. It
is ignorance to identify oneself with the body and mind and assume doership
for the actions. One would then necessarily become the experiencer of the
consequences of the action done. If one does not identify with the body/mind,
and stands as the unconcerned witness to the changes that the body and
mind undergo, with a firm conviction that “I am not the doer or the
experiencer,” the separate self (jIvAtma) expands into being the Supreme
Self (paramAtma). Shankara impresses on us that no effort is needed for
obtaining Self-knowledge. What is needed is to prevent ourselves from
regarding the not-Self as the Self. He assures us that abidance as “the Self
(jnAna-niShTha) is easily attainable.”

The End