Introduction to Vedanta

Dr. K. Sadananda

Edited by Dennis Waite

Introduction to Vedanta
Copyright © 2017 by Dr. K. Sadananda
All rights reserved. This book or any portion thereof
may not be reproduced or used in any manner whatsoever
without the express written permission of the publisher or
the author, except for the use of brief quotations in a
book review.

First Edition, 2017

ISBN-13: 978-0-9991704-0-3 Paperback
ISBN-13: 978-0-9991704-2-7 Hardcover

Library of Congress Control Number: 2017947891

Publisher:
-
Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 52402
United States

srath@srath-visual.com

Note: Editing for publication has Americanized the original English version. If any errors crept in, it
is to be attributed to the publisher and not to the Editor of the original material.
 Foreword
I first encountered Dr. Sadananda back around 1994. At that time, I
was actively researching Advaita via the Internet (the only source I had at
the time) and I found his article ‘Who is the Deep Sleeper I?’ on the
Chinmayananda website. It was so clear and helpful that, eventually, I had
to write to him to ask him several questions prompted by the article. Thus
began a long association via Internet discussion groups and emails, though
we did also meet when he came over to England for a conference.
He is a prolific writer, producing many series of articles and talks on
specific topics or scriptures as well as always being available to answer
questions posed by seekers. The only problem is that his typing cannot
always keep up with his bountiful flow of ideas so that, when I eventually
asked if I could publish some of his material on my website
(www.advaita.org.uk), to which of course he agreed immediately, I was also
obliged to spend significant time editing! But this was to my advantage!
The editing process naturally necessitated careful analysis of what had been
written, so that it proved an invaluable learning process also! This was
especially the case with the series on ‘Knowledge.’ This is a
commentary/elucidation of ‘Vedanta Paribhasa of Dharmaraja Adhvarindra’
and, quite frankly, the original text is virtually unreadable and extremely
difficult to follow. There was simply no way I would ever have followed the
original, so Dr. Sadananda having done the principal work already was
extremely helpful!
The present series ‘An Introduction to Vedanta’ was originally
serialized on the Advaitin discussion group where it was justifiably well-
received. As they say in the advertising media: ‘it does what it says on the
box.’ It covers all of the material needed to introduce the subject to a new
seeker, clarifying aspects that could otherwise prove difficult or even
dampen enthusiasm. He never talks down to his listeners but speaks directly
to them using everyday examples that resonate immediately. No doubt he
benefits from having been taught directly by Swami Chinmayananda and
more recently by many other teachers including Swami Tejomayananda and
Swami Paramarthananda, but his scientific background also brings naturally
clear reasoning ability to his analysis of the subject with the result that he
seems able to explain the most difficult topics.
Anyone looking for an overview of the essential teaching of Advaita
could not do better than to read this Introduction.

Dennis Waite
June 2017
Bournemouth , UK
 Preface
This text “Introduction to Vedanta” took a form when my friend
Dennis Waite became a Chief-Moderator of the Advaitin list that started
many years ago. It is an open on-line forum for discussions on Advaita
Vedanta. Many questions were raised by those who wanted to know, and
many people came forward to answer these questions. When Dennis
became the chief moderator, he observed that questions from novices on
Advaita Vedanta were somewhat similar. He felt the need for introductory
articles that clarify many concepts of Advaita Vedanta and to help those
who joined the list at a later time to look up the article archives and get their
answers. The series of essays compiled in this book were written to fulfill
that need. Dennis volunteered to edit them and also post them on his
website. Hence in a way, Dennis Waite is responsible for these series of
articles. I thank Shree Sethu Rathinam for coming forward to publish these
series in book form making it available for generations to come.
I want to take this opportunity to thank Dennis for his painstaking
efforts to edit the series, and Shree V. Ram Chandran, Prof. V.
Krishnamurthy, Shree Sunder Hattangadi, and all the Advaitin list
moderators who were instrumental in the formation and maintenance of the
Advaitin list. They all provided continuous interactions when these series of
essays were being posted. Coming from a science background, I had to
examine the issues or topics discussed from the rationalistic point of view.
The series reflects that approach, which I follow in all my writings. My
interest in Vedanta has been inculcated and encouraged first by my mother,
then by my father who was a staunch follower of Vishishtaadvaita
philosophy, and later by many of my Vedantic teachers starting from my
Guru, Swami Chinmayananda. I bow down with reverential gratitude to all
my teachers who shaped my thinking. Finally, I have to thank my life
partner, my wife, Mrinalini, who is the embodiment of compassion and
love, and who taught me that love and compassion come first before logic.
I take this opportunity to offer these series of essays with reverential
attitude to all my teachers.

Hari Om!
Sadananda
June 2017
Washington D.C., USA
Contents
Foreword
Preface
Part 1 – The Fundamental Questions
Part 2 – Search for Happiness
Part 3 – Questions about Religions and God
Part 4 – Belief that we are Mortal, Unhappy and Ignorant
Part 5 – You are Not what you take Yourself to be
Part 6 – Problem Definition
Part 7 – Vedanta as pramANa
Part 8 – shravaNa, manana and nididhyAsana
Part 9 – Experience versus Knowledge (How do I know I exist?)
Part 10 – Who am I or what am I not
Part 11 – Ego or ahaMkAra
Part 12 – All about the Universe
Part 13 – Creation according to Vedanta
Part 14 – Description of Brahman
Part 15 – Progressive Teaching Method: svarUpa lakShaNa
Part 16 – Carpets and Schrödinger's Cat
Part 17 – Attribute and Substantive
Part 18 – Does the World exist Independent of an Observer?
Part 19 – Brahman and the World
Part 20 – The Cognitive Process
Part 21 – Perception of the World
Part 22 – What does Negation involve?
Part 23 – Errors in Perception
Part 24 – adhyAsa or Error Superimposition
Part 25 – What is Real?
Part 26 – Transformation-less Transformation
Part 27 – The Mind of God
Part 28 – The Paradox of Space and Time
Part 29 – Living in the Present
Part 30 – Relationless Relation
Part 31 – Concept of Ishvara or God-Hood
Part 32 – Self realization or God realization
Part 33 – Self-Realization and the Attitude of the Mind
Part 34 – Consciousness and Reflected Consciousness
Part 35 – Conscious and Unconscious entities
Part 36 – Real Self and False Self
Part 37 – Transmigration of Soul
Part 38 - Witnessing consciousness and Reflected Consciousness
Part 39 - Analysis of Mind: Introduction Part I
Part 40 - Analysis of Mind: Introduction Part II
Part 41 - Mind and Matter Part I
Part 42 - Mind and Matter Part II
Part 43 - Classification of the Mind Part I
Part 44 - Classification of the Mind Part II
Part 45 - Classification of the Mind Part III
Part 46 - Classification of the Mind Part IV
Part 47 - Fundamental Human Problem Part I
Part 48 - Fundamental Human Problem Part II
Part 49 - Fundamental Human Problem Part III
Part 50 - vAsanA-s Part I
Part 51 - vAsanA-s Part II
Part 52 - Viewpoints of Reality
Suggestions for Further Exploration
 Part 1 – The Fundamental Questions
In these essays, I will be presenting an understanding of what Vedanta
is and why it is important to know Vedanta. This presentation is aimed at
the freshman in Vedantic study who has little understanding of Sanskrit. It
must be recognized, however, that we have to use some Sanskrit words to
bring out the full impact of the terms that are defined. A typical example is
the word ‘vAsanA’[1]which is a technical word with no appropriate
equivalent word in English. One can say vAsanA-s manifest as ‘likes and
dislikes’ both at individual level and at collective level. Thus we have
individual vAsanA-s as well as collective vAsanA-s that propel us to act the
way we act, individually or collectively.
Another Sanskrit word is ‘mAyA,’ which is poorly translated as
‘illusion.’ It can be considered as that ‘power’ because of which one
appears to become many. While more of these terms will be introduced as
we proceed further, the point I would like to make is that there are many
technical words in Vedanta with which one should familiarize oneself early
in the game, if one wants to understand and participate in Vedantic
discussions. Like many of these things, it is not essential that one should
understand all these terms to know Vedanta, but it will be helpful. It is not
really a big deal, since we do use many technical or mathematical terms
without fully appreciating their significance. For example, we learn the
symbolic language of mathematics in early schooling without questioning
their meaning or validity. We use two parallel lines to signify an equals
sign, symbolizing an equality of what is on the left hand side with that on
the right hand side of the equation. Symbolically the equals sign establishes
a relation between the two sides of the equation.
Later we learn in mathematics that a symbol of three parallel lines is
used to establish an identity equation, that is, to declare that what is on left
side of the equation is identically equal to what is on the right side of the
equation. No, I am not writing on mathematics, but I want to lead you to
simple but profound statements of Vedanta that establish some relations; not
relations establishing equality, but statements confirming identity-
relationships. The first one (equal sign) provides a relation of two entities
that appear to be different. The second one (identity equation) provides a
relation (in fact, a relationless relation) of two entities that appear to be
different, but, in truth, are one and the same. Vedanta zeros in on the second
aspect.
Before I discuss about the above aspects, I want to identity those who
are the beginners to Vedantic study, since this writing is intended for them.
A serious study of any subject would require a student to have met some
prerequisites. Vedantic study is no exception. Shankara defines these
requirements as ‘The four-fold qualifications’ – collectively called the ‘4-
Ds.’ These are:
1. Discrimination between what is eternal and what is ephemeral
2. Dispassion to reject that which is ephemeral in order to gain that
which is eternal
3. Discipline of the mind to divert it from trivial or ephemeral pursuits
in life in order to conserve the energy to pursue that which is eternal, and
finally
4. Desire strong enough to motivate one in that pursuit without
getting discouraged by any type of obstacles that arise.
They are somewhat interrelated, with each one reinforcing the other.
Hence, from Shankara’s point of view, if one does not have these four-fold
qualifications, he[2] has not prepared his mind for the knowledge of Vedanta.
The mind that has acquired these four-fold qualifications is a ‘pure’ mind
that is ready to ‘take off’ when the Vedantic teaching is imparted by a
competent teacher. The discipline of the mind (the third ‘D’ above) involves
six subsidiary disciplines for uncompromising commitment to the study.
The most important among these is complete faith in the import of Vedanta,
as explained by the teacher. Each word and idea in this paragraph is
important and elaborate discussion of these is available in texts such as the
vivekachUDAmaNi – they will be discussed as needed, later.
Hence, a beginner in Vedantic study is one who has acquired the four-
fold qualifications for the study. If one has the prerequisites, then the study
will be fruitful. I will address some of the misconceptions of Vedantic study
later, but suffice to say here that, if one experiences that the study has not
been fruitful, it is not the fault of Vedanta but only signifies that the
prerequisites have not been met adequately.
 The next question that arises then is: should one study Vedanta
without these prerequisites? Vedanta itself address that issue, saying that
one has to listen to Vedanta from a competent teacher (shravaNam) and
reflect on it until all doubts are fully resolved (mananam) and finally
contemplate on this until the teaching has been fully assimilated
(nidhidhyAsanam). Listening to the teacher is sufficient if one has all the
prerequisites. For those who do not have the prerequisites, the other two are
required until conviction takes place in the mind - a conviction that what
Vedanta says is indeed true to the letter.
To illustrate this point, we can remind ourselves the story of our
friend, Mr. Jones and the rat. Mr. Jones got the feeling that he was rat and
not a man. Do not ask me when that feeling started for Mr. Jones. As far as
we are concerned, it was there from the beginning. So Mr. Jones used to
hide in a closet whenever he saw a cat since, being a rat, he needed to
protect himself from that terrible looking cat. Mrs. Jones saw this and,
somehow recognizing his problem, took him to a psychologist who tried to
convince Mr. Jones that he was in fact a man. After many hours of sitting
with his psychologist, Mr. Jones understood that he was indeed a man and
not a rat, as he had previously thought. With that clear understanding he
returned home to discover to his horror that the terrible cat was still sitting
there and waiting for him. He rushed back to the doctor and asked: “Doctor,
I now know that I am man and not a rat, but I am afraid that the cat does not
yet know this.”
We may laugh at this but our situation is not much different from Mr.
Jones, as we will see later. What Mr. Jones needed to understand was about
his true identity, not just ‘as a thought’ but ‘as a fact’ - that he was always a
man and never a rat, even when he doubted this. Shankara says that, with
adequate preparation of the four-fold qualifications, the Vedantic teaching
from a competent teacher would become immediately fruitful. Otherwise,
one has to develop that clarity of understanding through constant reflection
and contemplation on the teaching until it is assimilated, or until what
Bhagavan Ramana calls ‘firm abidance in that knowledge’ is reached.
What constitutes clear understanding of Vedanta? We will discuss this
more extensively later but here it is sufficient to know that it involves two
essential aspects. The first is a clear understanding of the INDENTITY
relations or relationless relationships called mahAvAkya-s or great
aphorisms, and the second is to realize that nothing else is required other
than the clear understanding of the identity relations. The significance of
these two aspects will become apparent when we discuss the identity
relations, and their implications. From the Mr. Jones and the rat story, we
should now have a clear understanding of what clear understanding means!
If we do not have a clear understanding of Vedanta it only means that,
either we have not had proper exposure to Vedantic study (with the
emphasis on proper), or our minds are not adequately prepared, in which
case sAdhana is required to purify the mind for the teaching to sink in.
Hence, from the point of view of Vedantic study, most of us are beginner-
students requiring listening, reflecting and contemplating on the teaching. If
one has the four-fold qualifications, then Vedanta declares that such a
student will be led to an appropriate teacher needed for his evolution. Now
we can ask ourselves if we have those four-fold qualifications or not, and
who is going to evaluate if we have them to qualify us to study Vedanta? In
olden days, the teacher normally used to observe the students individually
for a prolonged length of time and determine who was qualified and who
was not. In modern days we do not have such system of teaching. A student
has to develop these qualifications through association with the wise and by
following karma, bhakti, and j~nAna yoga-s. These aspects are extensively
discussed in the Bhagavad Gita as preparatory for brahma vidyA or
Vedantic study.
Not all minds are ready for such kind of study. Krishna gives out
statistics in the Bhagavad Gita: of thousands of people, very few are
interested in this study, and of those who are interested, only a few have the
commitment to study, and of those even fewer have the commitment to
pursue until they realize that identity emphasized in Vedanta. However,
once one is exposed to Vedantic teaching, there is no fall back in the sense
that the teaching will start to germinate slowly but steadily, once the mind is
purified through normal life’s trifles. Krishna says that, even if one dies in
the Vedantic pursuit, he will be born in the next life into an environment
conducive for his rapid growth. It also means that our preparations will
never go to waste and we do not have to redo everything in the next life. It
is a continuous evolution. Examination of the life stories of some great
souls indicates that they took off rapidly without any preparatory
disciplines. All that means is that they had already done all those
preparations in their past life or lives. Hence nothing will be wasted as per
the law of action and result. It also means that nothing is given free - one
has to work for it. This is true for any field of study, and so is true for
Vedantic study too.
Shankara says that to be born as human being is very rare indeed
when there are millions of life forms available for birth. Having been born
as human being, the desire for liberation is even more rare, as emphasized
by Krishna’s teaching. Finally, getting exposed to teaching of Vedanta
through the association of great masters is extremely rare indeed. In that
sense, we are blessed to have that opportunity to learn and those who can
avail themselves of this opportunity are blessed indeed.
With this sense of optimism, let us begin our study of Vedanta.
 Part 2 – Search for Happiness
There are essentially two things in this universe: I, the subject, and
the world or universe, the assembly of objects with which I interact or
transact. Objects of my interaction or transaction include sentient beings as
well as insentient objects. From birth to death, I continuously evolve from
being a child to a youth, an adult, an old man and, one day, I leave this
world, never to return again. I do not know where I came from nor do I
know where I am going. I have no knowledge of the life before or life after.
Religions tell me that I go to heaven or hell, depending on whether I follow
them or not. The only thing that I am sure of is that I am here and the world
is there, and I am forced to deal with it throughout my life. In fact, life is
nothing but transacting with the world from birth to death.
The fact of the matter is that no one has ever asked me or consulted
me beforehand as to whether I would like to be born or not, where I should
be born, who should be my parents or siblings or even what type of body
that I want - male, female or any other life form, et cetra. Is life just an
accident that begins and ends when circumstances are favorable or
unfavorable? If everything is predestined, then I am just a pawn in the game
of life. But who is playing that game at my expense? He should know that I
too have feelings of what I like and do not like and definitely I do not want
to be a pawn for somebody’s pleasure. Whatever may be my complaints,
there is nothing that I can do. I just find myself in this world struggling to
find my identity, competing like everyone else to gain things that I like and
get rid of those things that I do not like. Life does not seem to be fair at all.
This is not only my conclusion but seems to be the conclusion of everyone.
Nobody says that I have everything that I want and I am happy as I am and
do not want for anything else. Most of them have complaints, about their
health, wealth or someone’s misconduct. When two people meet and talk,
they only talk about how great they are and how unfair others are towards
them.
When I look at my life (impartially!), most of the time I find myself at
a disadvantage, unable to compete fairly in the world to achieve what I
want. I see that there are some people who have all the luck that they really
do not deserve (at least from my perspective). I am always envious of those
who are luckier than I am, particularly of those who are born rich or
become rich by hook or crook or have everything that I like to have,
without much effort on their part. Of course they say they do not have
enough, but I think they are just greedy, and I would be happy if I had what
they have.
There are of course some who make it a point to let me know that I do
have a lot compared to millions of others who do not have even a meal a
day, a shelter over their head or pure water to drink. These people are just
jealous. Of course many times, I try to show off, in whatever way I can,
about things that I have or even things that I do not have but make believe
that I have, since I find that they respect me more based on what I have than
what I am. But that is life and everybody does that. Personally, I am always
more concerned, however, about things that I do not have, that I would like
to have, than about things that I have. I forget what I have but remember
well what I do not have and would like to have. I always want something or
other so that I can be happier than I am right now.
I must confess that I somehow struggled hard to achieve some of the
things that I like, and that made me happy. The funny thing is that, until I
got them, I was longing for them. But when I got them I found, although
they are OK, I nevertheless need more for me to be happy. I still feel that
things that I have are not adequate to give me that happiness that I want and
I want bigger and better things or to achieve greater things in life so that I
can be happier. However much I achieve or gain, I find myself to be in a
disadvantaged position or an inadequate person, always needing more
things than I have.
I would like to have everything so that I can be happy and contented.
I would like to reach a state of fulfillment in my life, a feeling of
completeness, a feeling that I have all that I want and that I have achieved
all that I would like to achieve. But that seems never to happen in this life. I
remain always an inadequate person, however much I have. While I am
proud of everything that I have accomplished, there is always that ‘but,’
with something more than I already have or have achieved. I always find
someone or other who is luckier than I, who has more than I have and has
achieved more than I have achieved. I find many of them that have
achieved more than I could but by unfair means. That really bugs me and
believe me life really stinks! If only life had been fairer, I could have
achieved a lot more in my life and I would have been very happy person!
 Part 3 – Questions about Religions and God
Some suggested that I should turn to religion in order to find the
happiness that I want. But I do not need religion nor do I need God in order
to be happy. Whatever happiness that I get is because of my achievement
and as a result of my hard work. Who needs a religion or God to find
happiness? If there is a God who is fair, then life should not be this unfair.
There are millions of children who are born with nothing to eat and many
who do not have the basic amenities of life. They have only just been born
and have not done anything in this life to deserve such hardship. Some are
born deaf and some are born lame. How can there be a God who is fair and
yet tolerates this kind of extreme disparity in life? No, I do not believe in
that kind of God in heaven or up in the sky watching over me and every
action that I do. You cannot be free if someone is watching you all the time,
can you?
This is all just brainwashing to keep religion in circulation by duping
all the gullible ones. Some promise me eternal heaven if I follow them and
threaten that I will go to eternal hell if I do not. I did not have a past life but
I am supposed to have eternal life in heaven or hell after I die. No one ever
come back after death to tell us if they are in heaven or hell because they
followed or did not follow such and such religion. As someone said,
everybody is heading towards a hell, since according to each religion, other
than those who believe in that religion the rest are going to hell. So, by a
process of elimination, everybody is going to hell. This is what happens
when one believes in any religion.
I do not need any religion or belief in heaven and hell. In fact I am
better than most of these religious fanatics, whom I find are hypocrites,
teaching something that they themselves do not follow. I am an ethical
person. I mind my own business. I do not hurt anyone unnecessarily or
intentionally. I respect others’ rights and privileges. I try to help whenever I
can. I am a good person by any standards. I do not need any religion or God
to reciprocate kindness to fellow human beings. If there is a God in heaven,
which I doubt, he should know that I am a good and decent person. I live a
good life and will die one day. Well, this is my autobiography and as far as I
know, is that of many in the world, who just live to make the best out of
their lives and one day kick the bucket.
The fact remains however, whether or not I am religious, Hindu,
Muslim, or Christian, what I am looking for is happiness that comes with
fulfillment in life. The effective promise of heaven is to have this happiness
through fulfillment of life itself. Who wants heaven if there are going to be
disparities there also, where some are luckier than others; some are closer to
God on first name basis compared to others who are treated as third class
citizens (of course on the basis of heavenly standards). Some religions and
even Vedic philosophers claim that there are hierarchies in heaven too and
there are some who are eternal servants of God. If the lot of some is better
than that of others, all we are doing is transporting all the problems of this
world to heaven too, but of course with the promise that we are going to be
happy there since we are nearer to God. Everybody is happy in heaven, but
some are happier than others since their lot is better or they are closer to
God. Do not ask me why, but that is so. My apologies if you are offended
for the way I have expressed myself. These are some of the thoughts that I
went through before I was exposed to Vedanta.
Although I presented my state of mind as I live through this life, I still
have lot of questions in my mind: Is there a soul that is different from
matter? Where was I before I was born and where I am going after death? Is
there life after death or life after life? Is there really a heaven or hell and
God that religions talk about? Who is supposed to be controller of all these?
Why I am born to particular parents and go through certain experiences that
others do not? Is there a meaning to life?
I need convincing answers that my rational intellect can accept, not
some beliefs and dogma that I have to believe in with the threat that I will
be dammed if I do not.
I find in the world to some extent that there are cause-effect relations.
That is the fundamental postulate of all objective sciences, too. They make
controlled experiments and observe how the system responds and, from the
effects that are observed, they determine the cause. Many of the effects in
Nature previously thought to be mysterious are being resolved by rational
analysis. Many of the superstitions are removed by the progress of scientific
thought and analysis. Scientists are examining the origin of the universe and
the nature of the fundamental particles of which the universe is made up.
But, when it comes to psychological analysis of human beings, questions
such as: why am I born? is there a soul? what is happiness? why is life so
unfair? why cannot I be happy all the time without any worries? et cetera,
remain a puzzle. People are more comfortable with modern amenities, but
are not necessarily happier. I need to find out why and what is this life or
the purpose of my existence. Is there a God that controls everything? What
is he, who is he, and why is he? et cetera, are some of the puzzling
questions that need to be solved to my satisfaction.
With this kind of background we will look at the Vedantic approach to
life and see what Vedanta can provide to address the issues that are raised
by a rational intellect which is always skeptical about religious beliefs and
dogma.
 Part 4 – Belief that we are Mortal, Unhappy and
Ignorant
It appears that everybody is struggling hard to find happiness. The
desires are different for each human being. What I want or what I think that
makes me happy is different from what others want or think that makes
them happy. Thus each one’s likes and dislikes are different. However, the
bottom line for all human pursuits is that we are all searching for happiness,
thinking that fulfilling this desire or that desire will eventually bring the
happiness that we want. However in every gain, by fulfilling the desire,
there is always a loss. I thought I was going to be happy when I got
married, but with marriage I lost the freedom of my bachelorhood. Thus
every gain involves a loss; every achievement involves a sacrifice of one
thing or another. There can never be a complete gain without a loss.
Therefore, whatever happiness that we get by fulfilling desires is not
ultimately fulfilling, since every one of them leaves us in the end unfulfilled
or desiring something else to be full. So life itself seems to be a losing
proposition, trying to find eternal and inexhaustible happiness through a
variety of means, but not achieving what we want and ending our life
miserably. The tragedy is that, even after realizing this, we still cannot stop
ourselves from following our desires. Our desires may get sophisticated or
cultured but the bottom line remains the same.
It looks like we are trapped, forever chasing after happiness in the
game of life. Everyone thinks that those who have more material
possessions are happier, while those who have more still feel that what they
have is inadequate and continue longing for more to be happy. Even if one
is wealthy, he is not healthy. We wanted wealth for security but now we are
worried about the security of the wealth.
Some seek religion for solace, since there is a promise of happiness in
the afterlife. Most religions promise eternal, inexhaustible happiness in
heaven after death. Vedanta recognizes this as the fundamental human
problem. Everyone is seeking happiness and Vedanta says that, as long as
you are seeking you will never find it. Some are longing for experiences
and the very longing prevents them from having or recognizing that
experience. Our experiences confirm this since no one has ever become
happy and contented and stopped seeking once they have gained what they
initially wanted. Life has become an endless struggle. Vedanta says that the
solution lies in the correct understanding of the problem. It declares: ‘any
dependence on something other than yourself is slavery, while dependence
on only yourself is freedom.’ All desires - whether for a thing, a person, a
position, name or fame - make you dependent, since your happiness
depends on the fulfillment of those desires in the way you want. Slavery is
ensured as they control you rather than you controlling them. Some contend
that accepting this slavery is itself happiness. But how can a slave be free?
Freedom involves independence. That ‘any dependence, however glorified
it sounds, is bondage’ is the true teaching of Vedanta. Freedom or liberation
or mokSha cannot be gaining something, or going somewhere since
anything that one gains, one can also lose and anything that has beginning
has an end. The state of limitlessness alone is freedom from all limitations;
it should be space-wise limitation (non-finite), time-wise limitation (eternal)
and object-wise limitation (unqualifiable or undefinable).
Let us examine how Vedanta approaches this problem. After
examining all human pursuits throughout their lives, all over the world, at
all times, it concluded that they all originated from three fundamentally
erroneous conclusions. A human being is not only a conscious entity but a
self-conscious entity. He is not only conscious of the world, consisting of
things and beings around him, but also conscious of himself too. Because
he is self-conscious, he examines himself and comes to a conclusion about
himself or makes judgments about himself. He makes three fundamental
conclusions about himself:
1. He is mortal or his life span is limited,
2. He is unhappy, and
3. He is ignorant.
He is not comfortable with these conclusions since he has an inherent
longing to be an eternal, happy, and knowledgeable being. All his pursuits
in life are essentially trying to establish himself as eternal, happy and
knowledgeable. Fear of death is fundamental for all human beings, arising
from the conclusion that he is mortal. This conclusion is supported by the
assertion that he is born on such and such a day and will die one day,
whether he likes it or not. Thus his existence is time-wise limited by birth
and death.
This was the root cause for grief of Arjuna, in the Bhagavad Gita. In
spite of this evidence, there is an inherent desire for everyone not to die or
not to cease to exist. The promise of eternal life, at least in heaven, became
the basis for many religions because of this fundamental conclusion. On the
other hand, Krishna is emphatic in stating the law of Nature: ‘that which
has a beginning has an end or that which is born has to die and that which
dies has to be born again.’ If my heavenly abode has a beginning then it
should end one day, as per the law. This applies even to liberation. If I am
going to be free or liberated one day or at some time in the future, then it
should also end too, since that which has a beginning must have an end.
Hence freedom or mokSha cannot be of the type of gaining something that I
do not have. If that freedom is not intrinsic to my nature, and I have to gain
it by some process or by some grace, then it is equally likely that I will lose
it. Hence Vedanta asserts that there is problem in the fundamental
conclusions I have made about myself starting with the one that I am
mortal.
Let us examine the second conclusion about myself, that I am
unhappy. I do not like this conclusion either and I am therefore seeking
happiness by acquiring this or getting rid of that. I want to be happy since I
feel currently I am not happy with myself. Therefore I seek happiness
outside by gaining something that I like and getting rid of something I do
not like. Experience shows that any amount of seeking will not give me the
eternal inexhaustible happiness that I want. I become desperate since I
cannot get what I want and yet I cannot stop seeking either. This is the
tragedy of every life form. Vedanta says the fundamental conclusion that I
am unhappy is inherently wrong.
Finally, let us look at the third conclusion, that I am ignorant. This is a
strange conclusion that a human endowed with intellect should reach about
himself. Nobody wants to be ignorant, particularly about himself. Everyone
wants to know what others think of him, or what others gossip about him.
This longing to know is an inherent desire to be all-knowledgeable, since
knowledge is also power. The funny thing is that, the more one knows, the
more ignorant one becomes. The reason is that, the more one knows, the
more he learns that there is lot more to learn. Any objective knowledge
makes one more ignorant. He becomes humble since he knows that what he
knows is very limited.
In any objective knowledge one becomes a super-specialist in a
narrower and narrower field. Such is the nature of objective knowledge. In
one Upanishad, a Vedantic student asks his teacher, “Sir, please teach me
that, knowing which I will know everything.” It is a tall request. People
spend their whole life trying to specialize in one subject. Here the student
wants to know that, by knowing which he knows everything, and
everything means every thing. This cannot be about any objective
knowledge, since knowledge in each area is inexhaustible. One cannot
know fully one subject, let alone become an expert in all subjects. On the
other hand a Vedantic student wants to know that, knowing which he will
know everything that needs to be known, so that his longing to know is
fulfilled.
Vedanta says that all pursuits ultimately fail miserably until one quits
his life. One can neither gain what one is seeking in terms of the three
fundamental pursuits nor can one give up the pursuits. This is the problem
of all beings, in the past, in the present and will be in the future. This is
what Vedanta calls ‘saMsAra.’ Then the question is: ‘what is the solution to
this human problem?’ Let us evaluate ourselves whether the above analysis
fits us or not. Are we seeking in life something different from that which
can be reduced to the above three fundamental pursuits? Are we finding
what we want by seeking? One has to evaluate impartially one’s life
experiences and come to a conclusion. Only when we have fully and
categorically resolved that we cannot get what want by any pursuit, will the
teaching of Vedanta become meaningful. Otherwise it will be like any other
academic study.
Veda means knowledge and Vedanta means ‘end of knowledge,’ or
the ultimate knowledge or the knowledge of the ultimate. It has meaning
only when we have become committed to understand the ultimate purpose
of life itself. This is what was meant by ‘prerequisite’ in terms of
qualification to pursue Vedanta. Our study of Vedanta is not for academic
interest – for that we need knowledge of Sanskrit. Here we are not trying to
become experts in Vedanta but simply trying to realize the truth expounded
in the Vedanta. For that we need a certain discriminative faculty to
recognize what is ephemeral and what is eternal and a certain dispassion to
reject that which is ephemeral in pursuit of eternal. Most importantly we
need faith in the declaration of Vedanta and in the teacher who can explain
the teaching in a way that we can understand.
 Part 5 – You are Not what you take Yourself to be
Vedanta is unique and it provides a daring declaration that differs
from all others. It says you are trying to solve a problem where there is no
problem to start with - and that becomes a problem. The fundamental
conclusion that you reached about yourself is fundamentally wrong. You are
not mortal, you are not unhappy and you are not ignorant. You take yourself
to be what you are not and try to solve a problem which is not there, and
therefore there cannot be any solution to that problem other than the
recognition that the original conclusions about yourself are wrong. The
problem is unreal and therefore any number of pursuits will not solve a non-
existent problem; hence all human pursuits fail miserably. Vedanta says:
You are immortal (sat), you are happy (Ananda or limitless) and you are
knowledge itself (chit) – your nature is sat-chit-Ananda.
How can that be? I feel I am a limited mortal who is unhappy; I am
born on a particular day and will die one day. How can I be immortal? I do
not know many things – I do not know many subjects starting from physics
to chemistry to astrology to many other -ologies. How I can be
knowledgeable entity. Apart from the occasional happiness that I get when
my desires are fulfilled, I am miserable most of the time. How can I be
happy? Vedanta says that the fundamental problem is that you do not know
your true nature and, because of that ignorance of your true nature, you take
yourself to be other than your true nature. This is what is called adhyAsa –
a superimposed error. You do not know what you are or who you are; you
take yourself to be what you are not and suffer the consequences of that
identification.
It is like this: I am relaxing after a scrumptious dinner sitting on a
comfortable chair in an air-conditioned room and intently watching a movie
on the television. I am so involved in the movie that I start sweating and
crying since the hero and heroine in the movie are miserably suffering,
running away to save their lives in the hot sun without food and shelter.
There is no reason for me to cry since I just finished my dinner and am
comfortably sitting on a chair and yet I am crying for no valid reason.
 This is what is called adhyAsa. I have nothing to do with the story on
the television but I superimpose the problems of the hero and heroine on
myself by identifying with them and suffer the consequences of this
identification. First it is a just a story, second the problems belong to the
hero and heroine and third I have nothing to do with their problems. But the
identification is so intense that I am unable to separate the problems of the
seen from that of seer, myself. I am the seer, the subject; the movie with the
hero and heroine comes under the seen, the objects. The seer is different
from the seen. Yet, because of intense identification with the characters that
are seen, I superimpose their problems on myself. I am not even aware that
I am superimposing that which does not belong to me.
In the same way, Vedanta says that you are the subject - the seer - and
the rest of the world that includes whatever is seen, are objects. Objects are
limited – time-wise and space-wise and of course object-wise. I am not an
object but a subject. Whatever I see, whatever I have, whatever I transact
with are all objects. That includes this body that I claim as my body, my
mind and my intellect. Whatever is mine is not me, the subject. I have a car,
but I am not the car. I have a body but I am not the body. The subject I is
different from the object ‘this.’ Yet I transact in the world fully and
consciously as though I am the body. The body is born and the body dies.
The modification of the body I take as my modifications, due to intense
identification of myself with the body. The body continuously changes - the
body that I had when I was a child is different from that when I was youth
and that when I am old. But I am the same entity who claims that this is my
body when I had child body, or that this is my body when the body slowly
changed into a youth and that this is my body when it becomes old. The
body changes but I am the changeless entity in the changing body. I am the
owner who is different from the owned and I am a conscious entity (chit
svarUpa) different from the body, which is matter and is an unconscious
entity.
How can I be ‘this,’ the object of my perception? Yet I take the
qualities or attributes of the body as my attributes. The body is limited;
therefore I feel I am limited - and any limitation is a source of unhappiness.
I do not like to be limited and I try to solve this superimposed problem by
acquiring this or that to make myself limitless, without realizing that any
amount of limited additions cannot change a limited I into an unlimited I.
That is I cannot become infinite by adding finite things. Therefore any
amount of addition will not result in the eternal infinite happiness that I am
seeking. Vedanta says that you are limitless or infinite (Brahman) and that is
your essential nature. Seeking your essential nature is natural and therefore
seeking happiness, assuming you are unhappy, becomes a natural struggle.
But any amount of seeking will not solve the problem; in fact it will
aggravate the problem, since in the very seeking you are solidifying the
problem. Therefore, the solution to the problem is to recognize your true
identity. You are that sat chit Ananda that you are seeking in terms of
immortality, knowability and happiness – the three fundamental universal
pursuits of all beings. This is the essence of Vedanta as explained by
Advaitic doctrine.
Although this is revealed, I am still not ready to accept the teaching.
Here are my problems in my understanding; here are some questions that I
have: Sir, I can appreciate the fact I am the subject and not an object. I do
not need Vedanta to tell me that. I can also logically understand that
happiness does not really come with any object per se but is my intrinsic
nature. I can understand that happiness is not an object out there and also it
cannot come with any object either. If I am happy with a hot cup of coffee
in the morning, this does not mean that happiness is in the coffee. I can
understand the fact that, with a hot cup of coffee, my longing mind is no
longer wanting or demanding in those moments and is contented with itself
until another desire pops in. I can appreciate all that teaching. However,
how can you prove that I am infinite even if I am not the body?
How about the other beings? They should also be infinite and we
cannot have two infinities, or multiple infinites, can we? How about the
knowledge? I somehow managed to graduate with minimum grades and
you say I am all knowledge – you should have been my examiner! Let’s
face it. What I know is limited and I cannot believe my true nature is that I
am an all-knower. You say that ‘if I know myself, I have solved all my
problems.’ What about the problems that I have right now? I am worried
about tomorrow’s dinner on the table. If I am worried about the education
of my children, the health of my nearest and dearest, my bank balance, my
mortgage and worried about whether I have enough insurance to cover all
this when I die (even though you think I am eternal). I am happy if all these
problems are solved and yet you say I am trying to solve problems that I do
not really have. Sir, these are real problems! I can sit and dream that I have
no problems, if I keep getting my paychecks regularly without working.
The next question is, what about the world? You have not explained to me
how the world, with which I have to deal, came about for me. Why am I
born to these particular parents with this particular body, even though you
say I am not the body? Why have I got this body and not the body of
Mr./Miss Universe? Can Vedanta provide answers to all these?
 Part 6 – Problem Definition
We mentioned in the last part that all human pursuits reduce to
1. longing for inexhaustible happiness,
2. longing for eternal existence, and
3. longing for knowledge absolute.
How a person pursues to achieve these will depend on one’s likes and
dislikes, but the bottom line is the same. In the bRRihadAraNyaka
Upanishad, Yagnavalkya teaches his wife Maitreyi: “a husband does not
love his wife for wife’s sake; what he loves is only the happy state of mind
that she brings, and he loves her as long as she is the source of that
happiness. Similarly a wife does not love her husband for the husband’s
sake, what she loves is only her happy state of mind that he brings and she
loves him as long as he is the source of that happiness.” The relationship
can become sour when they do not gain any more happiness from each
other and the intense love can even become intense hatred for each other.
In fact, nobody loves any object for the object’s sake but only loves
the happy state of mind that the object brings. Thus, longing for happiness
becomes the bottom line for all desires and actions prompted by desires.
While these three fundamental pursuits form the basis for all life activities
as well as inactivity, Vedanta observes that no one can achieve what they
are longing for through any pursuits. Any pursuit, by definition, is finite and
the result necessarily will be finite. Even if the finite results give a glimpse
of happiness, a series of finite results cannot add up to the infinite happiness
for which we long. If and when one recognizes this, Vedanta advises him to
approach a competent teacher, with a proper attitude of learning to gain the
knowledge that is required to solve the problem. A competent teacher is one
who himself was a sincere student who, having recognized this fundamental
human problem through the process of retrospection and analysis,
approached a teacher who was competent enough to teach. Thus Vedanta is
taught from a teacher to the taught and is a perennial philosophy that is
passed on from generation to generation starting, as Krishna says in
Bhagavad Gita, from the original teacher himself. The obligation of every
student, who learned from his teacher, is to pass this knowledge on to the
next worthy student, so that the light of the torch is handed over to the next.
This obligation to the teacher is called in Sanskrit as ‘AchArya RRiNa or
RRiShi RRiNa’ [RRiNa means ‘obligation, duty or debt’].
‘Why do we need a teacher and why can’t we just study Vedanta
ourselves in the library?’ are the questions generally people ask. These are
valid questions. When Swami Chinmayananda was asked that question, he
answered, “Ask that question to the library.” After a long pause, he then
answered - There are several reasons why one should study Vedanta under
the guidance of ‘Live’ guru. The first reason is that Vedanta is not an
objective science, but about the subject, about ‘oneself.’ Hence it cannot be
objectified or quantified or described. In principle, words that are finite fail
to describe that which is infinite. However, ‘words’ become proper tools in
the hands of a competent teacher who can uplift his student’s mind, which
has been properly trained in the contemplative thinking, to leap forward
beyond the words in the direction indicated by the words. Thus words are
only pointers and pointers are different from that which is pointed to.
In order to leap forward (actually it is a leap into the PRESENT, as
we will see later), one has to have a proper frame of mind, which Shankara
described as the four-fold qualifications required to study Vedanta. Most
important, as was outlined earlier, is the shraddhA or full faith in the words
of Vedanta as interpreted by his teacher. One’s mind should be ‘in-tune’
with that of the teacher for teaching to be fruitful. The second reason is that
the study of Vedantic scriptures without a proper guide is like entering the
forest without a proper guide. One can get lost completely without a way
out. The problem gets compounded if the teacher himself does not have
clear understanding of the import of the scriptures. Hence, the emphasis is
on the competent teacher. How does one know a priori ‘Who is a competent
teacher?’ Here is a Catch-22 situation. For that, Vedanta says: one is lead to
a proper teacher when one is ready or, in a more polite way, it can be said
that only by the grace of God one is led to a proper teacher. In the avadhUta
gIta, Bhagavan Dattatreya says that only by the grace of God will one have
an inclination to Advaita Vedanta (IsvarAnugrahAt eva pumsAm advaita
vAsanA).
As Swami Chinmayananda says: ‘One does not need to go and hunt
for a teacher. An appropriate teacher will come when one is ready; just as a
flower need not go in search of a bee - all it has to do is to bloom itself to its
full glory and a bee shall come wherever the flower is.’ The way to bloom
is through karma yoga and with constant company of the good so that the
mind will slowly bloom to recognize the higher values. Satsang or company
of the good is emphasized throughout by Shankara.
 Part 7 – Vedanta as pramANa
For any knowledge to take place we need a means to know, just as to
get an academic degree we need to register and complete its requirements at
an accredited University. The means of knowledge is called ‘pramANa.’
For example, I can gain the knowledge that there is book on the table by
seeing it directly. This is called perceptual knowledge. I need eyes to see the
objects. Hence the eyes become a pramANa or means of knowledge for
seeing objects. Similarly the ears become a pramANa for recognizing the
sounds. Sometimes I need to touch a flower to know if it is Japanese
origami paper folding or real! Only through the tongue can I taste. Thus
each of the five senses are not only means of knowledge but are very
specific in the sense that I cannot use ears to see or eyes to hear.
All perceptual knowledge is direct as long as the senses and the mind
behind the senses are in operation. In fact I cannot help but see an object
when the eyes are open and the mind is functioning. When I cannot see, I
can infer existence by means of logic or anumAna pramANa. The classical
example is the knowledge that there is a fire on a distant hill. I cannot see
the fire, I can only see the mountain and the smoke on the mountain but I
can infer that the mountain is under fire. The logic is based on a rule
established previously that wherever there is smoke there must be a fire.
This rule is based on previous perceptual knowledge or data. Thus logical
deduction is indirectly based on the rules established by perceptual
knowledge in the past.
The third means of knowledge is shabda pramANa – words of
trustworthy people. I can learn what is happening in Iraq by listening to
television news. If a reporter is describing what is happening in Iraq, the
knowledge is not based on perception or inference but on our trust in the
statements of the reporter. Why should we trust the reporter’s words? It is
simple faith that the reporter is paid to tell the facts that are happening
there. As long as we have full faith in the reporter’s words, we can gain
knowledge based on his reporting, supported by the evidence that he
presents.
 For the spiritual knowledge that we are seeking, perceptual and
inferential knowledge are both useless. At the best they are secondary or
supportive but do not give direct knowledge because the subject ‘I’ cannot
be objectified. If it can be objectified then it is no longer a subject. Hence
the only means of knowledge to know about the self is shabda pramANa
(words of dependable reporters), which in this case is Veda pramANa or
shAstra pramANa. The Vedas are considered as the recordings of the great
RRiShi-s who gained knowledge through their own experiences, revealed to
them in the seat of meditation. They are dRRiShTa-s or seers of the truth
who recorded what they discovered for the benefit of their disciples. Just as
a scientist sees the truth or a law of Nature by constant reflection on the
cause-effect relations relevant to the data that he has collected, RRiShi-s are
the subjective scientists who, by their direct experience and analysis,
realized the truth as revealed to them in the seat of meditation.
Thus, the Vedas are revelations not inventions, just as Laws of Nature
are revelations to the meditative scientists. Scientists only discover the
laws; they do not invent them. The truth is self-existing and eternal and
therefore the Vedas are also considered as revelations about the absolute,
revealed to those minds that are ‘in-tune.’ Since truth is beyond perception,
no amount of objective investigation would reveal the truth. Objective
investigations rest squarely on perceptual knowledge. Even deductive and
inductive inferences ultimately rely on perceptual knowledge for support or
validation. Hence objective scientific investigations can never reveal the
truth or, to put it technically, they can never be a pramANa for the ‘subject
I’ or consciousness that I am.
The Vedanta or Upanishads should be studied under a teacher. What
about the other scriptures? Are they not valid? The answer is yes, they are
all valid means of knowledge as long as they agree with Vedanta. In fact,
we accept all the scriptures that are in tune with Vedanta and reject those
which disagree with Vedanta. This means that Vedanta becomes the
ultimate pramANa for knowledge of the ultimate. What about the other
teachers or prophets? The answer is simple. We accept their words and
teachings as long as they agree with Vedanta. In fact a proper teacher or
guru is one who directs his disciples to Vedanta as the authority and not to
themselves. Hence, Shankara defines faith as the belief that the words of the
Vedanta as interpreted by the teacher are true and absolute. In that sense we
accept all teachers so long as what they teach is in tune with Vedanta.
Therefore what is pramANa has to be clear – it is the means of knowledge
and Vedanta provides that means of knowledge about the Absolute.
We have already described how the words of Vedanta describe that
which is indescribable by providing the appropriate pointers, for
contemplative minds. It uses sometimes contradictory words to take the
mind beyond the contradictions – for example it says ‘it is smaller the
smallest, at the same time bigger than the biggest.’ This is to take the mind
beyond the comprehensions or concepts with which the mind might
otherwise want to settle down. It is the eye of the eye, ear of the ear, or
mind of the mind. The meanings of some of these profound teachings
become valid means of knowledge only for a prepared student, who can
think sufficiently deeply to go beyond the concepts or conceptualizations.
 Part 8 – shravaNa, manana and nididhyAsana
Before we go into the teachings, we discuss some of the
miscomprehensions that are circulating in the spiritual arena. These may
provide some solace for the aspirants but not the spiritual knowledge for
which we are longing. In addition to perception, inference and scriptures,
there are three more means of knowledge. These are: comparison
(upamAna) - in the example ‘her face looks like a moon,’ we are comparing
only the beauty and nothing else; presumption (arthApatti) – for example,
we presume that the train is late, since he has not yet come; non-
apprehension (anupalabdhi) – for example, there is no book on the table,
since I cannot see it. Here non-apprehension is also a positive knowledge. ‘I
was there during the deep sleep state, since I was aware of the absence of
everything’ is another example. Some philosophers argue that these last
three means of knowledge are only variations of inferential knowledge or
anumAna pramANa. Thus at least we have three major means of
knowledge: perception (pratyakSha), inference (anumAna), and scriptures,
that is, Vedanta (shabda). Knowledge can only take place by these three
means and there is no other valid means.
What about Meditation? Is that not a means of knowledge? Many
think that we have studied enough Vedanta and this is all intellectual stuff.
The truth is beyond the intellect. We do not want intellectual gymnastics.
What we want to do is Meditate from now on to gain the self-knowledge.
All we need to do is to sit in the seat of meditation and find out ‘who we
are’ by asking ‘who am I?’ – ‘who am I?’ All we need to do is upAsana,
meditation on Ishvara or Lord Narayana or Lord Shiva et cetera. If Ishvara
in the form of Lord Narayana or Lord Shiva does appear to the seeker, what
will he do – since he cannot stay there permanently? He can only give
knowledge of the truth. In fact Krishna says one who is knowledgeable
alone is his greatest devotee. Hence meditation has to culminate in
knowledge for liberation. Knowledge can come only through a means of
knowledge or pramANa. Hence it is knowledge that we are seeking not
Lord Narayana or Lord Shiva or God in any form. It is the knowledge
behind all forms. Then what is meditation? – Meditation is inquiry by the
intellect along the lines indicated by Vedanta.
Hence the Vedas declare: for mokSha or liberation, one has to learn
vedAnta at the feet of a teacher – that is called shravaNa. The definition of
shravaNa is the consistent systematic learning of Vedanta from a competent
live teacher for a prolonged length of a time. The teaching has to be
reflected upon until there are no more doubts left in the mind, and that is
called manana. I am not going to touch a wire until I know for sure (100%)
it is not a live wire. Even if there is a slight doubt, I would hesitate to touch
it. Similarly the purpose of manana is to insure that the mind is completely
doubt-free. Meditation is contemplating on the teaching until it is
assimilated and that is nididhyAsana. Hence Meditation is not a substitute
to learning Vedanta; it is assimilating the Vedantic teaching by inquiry
within, until the teaching becomes one with the seeker.
Knowledge can only come through the intellect. Hence, through
intellect alone one can realize the truth. Yet, it is not an intellectual
understanding as a concept. As in our ‘Jones and the Rat’ story (see Part 1),
‘I am man and not a rat’ is not an intellectual understanding as a concept. It
is an understanding as a fact that needs to be assimilated in the intellect. It
is internalizing the conceptual understanding as factual understanding. That
is nididhyAsana or Meditation. For meditation to be effective the learning
has to take place until there are no more doubts about oneself as declared by
Vedanta. For manana to be effective one has to listen, and study, Vedanta
under a competent teacher. It is not a substitute for learning. But it helps in
manana and nididhyAsana for reflection and assimilation of the knowledge
learned through listening to the teacher.
 Part 9 – Experience versus Knowledge (How do I
know I exist?)
Another problem is the confusion of self-knowledge with experience.
People say I have studied Vedanta and now I want to experience it. Is it an
experience or is it knowledge? Let us understand this difference. It is not
‘knowledge of’ something nor is it an ‘experience of’ something. The
experiences that we know are time bound. There is an experiencer,
something experienced and the act of experiencing – this is called a triad or
tripuTi in Sanskrit. All experiences have a beginning and therefore have an
end. Anything that has beginning has to have an end and that is the law.
Now let us ask a question - Is there any time that I do not experience
Brahman? If Brahman is infinite and eternal, I have to ‘experience’
Brahman all the time and everywhere. The problem that I have is that,
although I experience Brahman all the time, I fail to recognize it. In fact,
Vedanta says everything that I experience is nothing but Brahman, but I
take it as ‘this’ or ‘that.’
Not knowing what Brahman is, I take whatever I experience as other
than Brahman and therefore I set out to experience Brahman. Do I have
knowledge of Brahman? If I understand Brahman intellectually by studying
Vedanta, I have only conceptualized Brahman. Whatever is conceptualized
is not Brahman – that is exactly the teaching of Vedanta. Forget about
Brahman. Do I know myself? Not many will ask that question, since
everybody takes for granted he knows himself – that is evident when he
tries to introduce himself to others. But if one examines carefully, he is not
introducing himself but what he thinks about himself. Vedanta says you are
not what you think you are - you are sat chit Ananda or existence-
consciousness-bliss. How can I know I am sat chit Ananda? Vedanta says it
is not something to be known but something to understand. Let us give a
simple example:
Suppose I am sitting in a pitch-dark room and I cannot see anything. I
am unaware of the existence of any object, since it is pitch-dark. If someone
calls me from outside and asks me if I am there in that dark room – what
should be my answer? I cannot say ‘I do not see anything here; it is pitch-
dark. Therefore I do not know if I am here or not.’ Should I say ‘I believe I
am here’? Or should I say, ‘I can hear you, therefore I must be here
somewhere’? How do I know, or what is the means of knowledge
(pramANa) for me to know, that I am there and I am conscious? Do I have
to see myself (perception) to know myself? Do I have to experience myself
to know myself? Is it a belief that I am there because the scriptures say that
I am there?
No means of knowledge is required to know that I am there or that I
am a conscious entity. I am a self-evident and self-conscious entity, which
Vedanta calls aprameya (prameya is a thing to be known, or an object for a
‘pramANa’; aprameya means I am not an object for any pramANa). In fact
all pramANa-s, including Veda pramANa are validated by me since I am
there and I am a conscious entity able to validate them. A self-existent and
self-conscious entity need not be known or experienced. Or should I say ‘I
cannot be known or experienced either, since whatever can be known or
experienced is an object or inert entity?’
Vedanta says it is different from ‘knowledge of’ or ‘experience of.’
The problem is that I, the self-existent self-conscious entity that I am, take
myself as something other than myself. There is an error involved in the
operations or transactions. The error is called ‘adhyAsa’ or superimposed
error – wherein a self-existent self-conscious entity, I, take myself as an
inert or unconscious entity, this (‘this’ being the body-mind-intellect (BMI)
complex). The solution therefore is to know myself as myself by rejecting
all notions about myself such as ‘I am this or that.’ It is therefore not a
‘knowledge of’ in the sense of an objective knowledge but knowledge of ‘I
am that I am’ and not ‘I am this or that.’ It is a peculiar knowledge in which
the knower-known-knowing triad is not there but all converge to one, which
we can refer to as pure knowledge without any attributes. So it is neither
knowledge nor experience that we are familiar with – it is self-knowledge
or recognition of who we are by discarding who we are not.
In the pitch-dark room example there is another interesting point to
note about my true nature. If I say it is pitch-dark and therefore I cannot see
anything there, this means that there is no illumination of the objects to
reveal the objects that are there. Hence, the existence of any object cannot
be ascertained unless it is illumined. The objects may be there or may not
be there – there is an inherent uncertainty about their existence or non-
existence until they are illuminated and seen.
Up to now, it is commonsense. Now let us ask another interesting
question. How do I know it is dark? Of course, I can see that it is dark and,
in fact, it is so dark that I cannot see anything else. But what illumines the
darkness in order for me to see that it is dark, when I cannot see anything
else? Suppose I shine a light to see the darkness, would I see darkness then?
The external light that is needed to illumine all objects cannot illumine
darkness. An external light is opposite to external darkness. But there is
another light that illumines darkness too, in the light of which I know it is
dark. That other light, which illumines darkness, is not opposite to darkness.
The light that illumines the darkness is my own light of consciousness,
which is not opposite to the darkness outside like the outside light. In fact, I
am the light of all lights that illumines not only the darkness but even the
lights outside too. I can see anything or any object including the sun, the
moon and all the lights, et cetera, as well as the darkness too in the light of
illuminating consciousness that I am.
I am the consciousness because of which I am conscious of all the
objects – even all the thoughts, including my notions that ‘I am this’ or ‘I
am that’ et cetera. Everything else shines (gets illuminated) after me. What
light illumines me so that I can see myself? The fact of the matter is that I
do not need a light to see the light. That is what is called self-luminous. I
am the light of consciousness that illumines everything else and I do not
need another light to illumine me. That is the reason why I know I am there
and I know I am conscious even in the pitch-dark room, when there is no
external light to illumine me. Hence Vedanta says ‘I am a self-luminous
entity’ (svayam jyoti) and I am light of all lights (jyotir jyoti). These are the
words that take us beyond their meaning for a contemplative student to see
myself as myself.
 Part 10 – Who am I or what am I not
What we have done so far is to clarify some of the misconceptions
and in the process introduced some of the Vedantic assertions too. We will
now address some of the questions we have raised earlier.
We started our inquiry recognizing that there are two things in this
Universe: I, the subject, and the world of objects constituting the rest of the
universe. We have been examining the subject to find out our nature. We
learned that according to Vedanta, the realization or understanding or
experience of my true nature involves convergence of the knower and the
known, or of the experiencer and the experienced, into one. In that sense,
experience of the true self that I am is not different from knowledge of
myself.
In fact, we have stated that knowledge of myself is not an objective
knowledge as ‘I am this’ or even as ‘I am brahman’ (unless I know what
that Brahman stands for), but as ‘I am as I am’ (and there is nothing other
than I am), by negating what I think I am. Therefore assertion of ‘what I
am’ involves negation of ‘what I think I am,’ since whatever I think that I
am is only objectification, which is different from the subject that I am.
This, in Vedanta, is expressed as ‘neti, neti,’ meaning I am ‘not this, not
this,’ where ‘this’ means anything that is objectified.
The negation process begins with the body-mind-intellect complex
and ends with the entire world of objects that I experience or that I know.
Krishna calls all this the ‘field of experiences’ or kShetra, and Krishna
further declares, “Know me as the knower, the conscious entity, in all the
fields of experiences.” Therefore, the ‘inquiry into the self that I am’
essentially involves rejection or renunciation of all that stands for ‘this.’
Whatever I say I am, in qualifying myself, as ‘I am this,’ or ‘this’ or ‘this’-
all needs to be renounced in order to arrive at my true nature. This
renunciation, as the path of salvation, is emphasized throughout Vedanta; it
is the renunciation of all the notions about myself in order to arrive at the
truth of myself. Only through renunciation one can attain liberation says
Vedanta (tyAgenaike amRRitatvamaanasuH).
 It is not physical renunciation of objects as some wrongly assume
(although that does helps), but mental attachments to objects (as ‘I am this’
– ego or ahaMkAra and ‘this is mine’ - mamakAra). I can only negate that
which I am not; I cannot negate the true self that I am, since I have to be
there even to execute negation. Hence what remains, after all negations are
accomplished, is the negator, I, who cannot be negated. I cease to be even a
negator, when all the negations are accomplished – I just remain as I am.
 Part 11 – Ego or ahaMkAra
Our current notions of I am ‘this,’ where ‘this’ is an object, constitute
the ego or ahaMkAra in Sanskrit. Ego is the notion of I that arises by
identification of myself or the true self that I am, with an inert entity - this
body, or this mind or this intellect (BMI-complex). When I say ‘I am this
body,’ I am identifying myself with the body. Therefore the body’s
modifications become my modifications. When the body is fat, I am fat and
when the body is dying, I feel I am dying. Thus it is the false I that arises
out of the consciousness in association with inert entities in the form of the
BMI complex. It is referred as ‘reflected consciousness’ (chidAbhAsa or
pratibimba) when I identify myself with the body, mind or intellect. For all
practical purposes we exist only in this plane where the reflected
consciousness is taken as real, without realizing that it is the pure
consciousness and not the reflected one that is my true identity.
Therefore inquiry into ‘who am I’ involves negation of the ego,
negation of the reflected consciousness that I think that I am in order to
claim my true identity. Some Neo-spiritualists (I do not want to use the term
Neo-Vedantins or Neo-Advaitins, since it is a contradiction in terms) think
that all we have to do is to meditate and inquire ‘who am I’ by rejecting
who I am not. Unfortunately, it is not as simple as it appears. The reason is
that it is the ‘ego’ trying to reject the ‘ego’ – a thought rejecting the thought
that ‘I am not a thought.’ Therefore, any attempt to reject the ‘ego’ will end
up crystallizing it in a different form, for example, I am a yogi now, instead
of a bhogi (one who enjoys sense objects). The ego has only changed its
costume. Renunciation of ego actually involves its complete surrender and
we will address the nature of surrender later when we address the subject of
sAdhana or spiritual practices.
In order for me to reject something, I need to know what exactly it is
that I am rejecting. Hence, the process of rejection should also involve
understanding of ‘what is this’? ‘This,’ or idam in Vedanta, constitutes the
entire Universe that can be pointed to as ‘this.’ We need to understand what
this universe (jagat) is and where it came from in order to help us
understand what exactly I am rejecting when I say, “I am not this.”
Here are some rules for negation:
That which is real cannot be negated, since it is real - that is
the definition of ‘real.’
That which is unreal need not be negated, since it is non-
existent. (There is no locus for existence at any time – this is
the definition for ‘unreal.’
What can be negated or should be negated is that which we
think is real but is not really real.
That which appears to be real but is not really real is what is
called mithyA and the power that makes it look real, even
though it is not real, is called mAyA.
 Part 12 – All about the Universe
How did the universe come into existence? Let us see what science
says to begin with. It all started with a big bang – an accident at a universal
scale. What is it that banged? What was there before the bang? All one can
say is that concentrated matter reached a critical mass and hence exploded,
spreading itself into space. Where did that matter come from and was there
space before the bang for the broken segments to spread into? How did that
space come into existence? What were the governing laws for the bang to
occur and how did the laws of the bang exist before the bang? Sorry, you
cannot ask all those questions because we can only talk about after the bang
not before it! We can talk about microseconds or even picoseconds after the
bang; there is no ‘before’ as we start counting time only with the bang.
However, there should be matter concentrated for the bang to occur. Where
did that matter come from, since matter can neither be created nor
destroyed?
Since you are asking too many questions, we will give you another
theory. The universe follows a cyclic process. It continuously expands up to
a critical state and then starts contracting to a point when the bang occurs.
With the bang the expansion again starts. We are currently in the expanding
part of the cycle. How or when did this cycle start? A cycle does not have a
beginning or end; that is why it is called a cyclic process. Where did the
matter come from, for it to expand and contract? How did the laws of
expansion and contraction or all the physical laws come into existence?
Matter as well as the governing physical laws cannot come from
nowhere. Matter and the laws were there from the beginning – oops – there
is no beginning or end! - As you can see, science cannot provide answers
anymore, other than make the answers more and more sophisticated to
understand the beginning of the Universe. Now, how about consciousness?
How did it arise? Well, we are still investigating how consciousness
manifests itself in matter! All we can say is that, when appropriate
conditions are met, bang – consciousness arises from the matter. You mean
it is a product of the matter? Yes, you can say that, but we are still working
on trying to understand how consciousness arises in matter. How about life?
What is life and is it different from consciousness? We do not know what
life is, but we know it manifests in terms of physiological activities that
include being conscious of things or the environment around. How about
matter? What is it made up of? Of course, it is made up of fundamental
building blocks - we do not know what it is, but we have different theories
to explain it. Well, this is our current state of understanding of the universe
made up matter and life forms.
Actually, some of the statements of science are not far from the
Vedantic truth. Let us look from the Vedantic perspective to see if it has any
better answers. Most of the religions start with the presumption that the
universe is a creation. How can you say it is a creation? Before answering
that let us ask another question - what is creation?
If I collect a big stone from the street and show it as my creation, you
may laugh at me or throw me out of the window. Suppose, I carve a
beautiful Ganesha out of that stone, immediately you will start admiring as
a beautiful creation. How did a simple stone, which was not considered a
creation, now turn out to be a beautiful creation? What I brought out of the
basic matter – stone – is an order and a beauty to qualify it as a creation. In
creation, there is an order and a harmony, contributing to aesthetic beauty.
Look at a flower – there is beautiful order and aesthetic beauty. According
to thermodynamics, any ordered system involves high energy or low
entropy. In order to create and maintain order, work has to be done.
Thermodynamically, nature moves to a chaotic state to lower its energy;
that is increase its entropy. To create an order, work has to be done which
involves expenditure of energy. The universe operates within well-defined
Laws. Even to discover these laws of nature, intelligence is required. Then,
what can we say about the universal order along with laws to create and
maintain that order? Since order can only come out of intelligence, creative
order involves an intelligent action. This much, we understand by
examining the laws of thermodynamics.
Now look at the Universe. Close examination reveals that the
universe is cosmos or a well ordered and regulated system. Look at the
structure of an atom, a molecule, a crystal, a solar system, the Milky Way,
the galaxies, and the whole universe in perspective – it is a gigantic, well
ordered system with physical and fundamental laws governing that system.
From the electron orbits to planetary motions to movement of stars to
galaxies, all follow very rigid physical laws.
The size of the earth is insignificant in comparison to the solar
system. The solar system itself is insignificant in relation to the size of the
Milky Way. That a scientist sitting in a corner of this tiny earth is able to
deduce universal laws that are applicable to galaxies, which are so distant,
shows that the universe is a well-behaved system. Work has to be expended
to create and maintain such an order. It is an intelligent creation, as one may
observe from our own physical body functions, starting from breathing, to
circulation, to digestion, to excretion – there is perfect order, beyond human
comprehension. It is awesome even to imagine how a tiny cell replicates
itself to produce such a gigantic body, with all functional elements formed;
it is mind-boggling. The nearest star to the earth is four and half light years
away – that is light travelling at the speed of 300,000 kilometers per second
takes four and half years to cover that distance. Distances between the stars
are incredible in relation to the size of the stars.
The nearest galaxy is two million light years away from us. When we
look at the sky, we are having a glimpse of the past in the present, since
light must have travelled from millions of years ago to reach us now. Such a
well behaved, ordered system cannot happen by accident or as the result of
a random event. Hence the universe has to be a creation, just as the Ganesha
carved out of stone has to be a creation. There has to be intelligence behind
the creation. That intelligence must have all the knowledge and skills
needed to create this entire universe. Thus once we have accepted the
existence of universe, we cannot but bring in a third factor, a creator to
create this universe. All religions call that GOD. God according to all
religions is the one who created this entire universe. Thus, we have now
three things to be concerned with – jIva, an individual, jagat, the universe
and Ishvara, the creator. The creator has to be a conscious entity, since an
unconscious entity cannot create. This much, all religions agree. Vedanta
goes one step further.
 Part 13 – Creation according to Vedanta
Vedanta says that any creation involves two factors. In the above, we
have talked about the first one, called the intelligent cause or nimitta
karaNa. In addition to the intelligence or know-how, we need material for
the creation. For me to carve out a Ganesha idol, even if I have the know-
how, I must have some material in hand, the stone. In my case, I could go
out and collect a stone from the street to create Ganesha. Similarly for the
intelligent cause, God, to create this entire universe, he needs the material.
He does not have the luxury to go out and get the material for his creation.
He has to create the material too.
This is a peculiar creation wherein the two causes – the material
cause and the intelligent cause have to be one and the same. The muNDaka
upaniShad gives an analogy: The spider projects and withdraws the material
for the creation of its web (‘yatho nabir sRRijate gRRinhate ca’); that is, it
is the material cause for the creation. And the intelligence to create the web
rests with the spider, too. Thus material and intelligent causes for the
spider’s web are one and the same.
Let us ask further questions. What is the size of this universe? If there
is a creator where is he? Why or what is the purpose of this creation? Why
did he create me? What is my relationship with the creator?
First, creation has to be infinite. If it were finite, we would want to
know what is there on the other side of the finite universe. Any boundary
defining the finiteness of the universe would have to separate it from
something else which is not the universe. If something else is there, then
where did that outside come from? It has to be created too. If so, it implies
that creation has to be boundless or infinite. Vedanta says pUrNam idam -
idam or this, standing for the entire universe, is pUrNam or limitless or
infinite.
Next, where is the creator now, after creating the Universe? The
creator cannot be inside the creation or outside the creation. He cannot be
outside the creation since any outside would also have to be created; then
that outside would be inside the creation. Hence there is no outside of the
creation. He cannot be inside the creation either. In fact anything inside the
creation cannot create this entire universe. In addition, if He were inside, He
would be limited by the creation. Hence, he can neither be inside nor
outside the creation. The only alternative is that He and the creation cannot
be separated. Not only is he the material and intelligent cause, it also
follows that he is inseparable from the creation. If the creation is infinite,
He has to be infinite too. Hence Vedanta says: He pervades the entire
universe, both inside (here inside referring to the body of the individual) as
well as outside (antar bihischa tat sarvam vyApya nArayana sthitaH).
What is the nature of this God principle that we have defined as the
cause for the entire universe? Since he is the creator and a creator cannot be
an inert entity, He has to be a conscious entity. How and why did He create
and why did He create this kind of Universe with such disparities that we
talked about earlier? Why did He create me? Vedanta addresses each of
these questions in a logical fashion. Here we need to understand the role of
Logic or anumAna pramANa. Vedanta talks about the truth of the creation,
which is beyond the logic. That is, logically one cannot deduce the truth –
says Vedanta (naiShA tarkena matirApaneya). Yet Vedanta is not illogical,
as we shall see.
In Vedanta, the ultimate truth is called Brahman. Brahman comes
from the root, bRRihat indicating ‘growing’ or ‘expanding’ or ‘big.’ Big is
an adjective qualifying a noun. But Vedantic seers found out that the noun
qualifies the adjective too. Take for example a big mountain wherein the
bigness of the mountain is defined relative to a normal size mountain. If we
say big mosquito, its bigness is different from that of the bigness of the
mountain. Thus the noun that it qualifies also qualifies the adjective big. All
these qualified ‘big-nesses’ are finitely big. If we want to designate
something, which is unqualifiedly big or infinitely big, the adjective big
itself is made into noun and that is the word Brahman.
Brahman is infinitely big or unqualifiedly big, with the meaning of
absolutely infinite or infiniteness from every aspect. Hence Vedanta says
there is nothing other than Brahman or it is one without a second (ekam
eva, advitIyam). If there is something other than Brahman, Brahman ceases
to be Brahman since its infiniteness is compromised. Infinite cannot have
parts because then also infiniteness is compromised. Vedanta says that,
normally, objects can differ in three ways – called vijAti, sajAti and svagata
bhedA-s. What is called vijAti bheda is the difference that exists between
two different species, like cows and horses; sajAti bheda is the difference
that exists between different units in the same species – like white cow
versus black cow; svagata bheda is the internal difference within one unit –
like legs are different from the hands, ears, eyes, et cetera. Brahman cannot
have any of these three types of difference since it is one without a second
and is part less. Brahman is indescribable, indefinable and unqualifiable –
we will examine some of these descriptions in the next part.
 Part 14 – Description of Brahman
‘God defined is God defiled,’ says a popular proverb. We want to
know what the cause is for this Universe. Vedanta says that, for any
creation, there are two causes:
the intelligent cause consisting of know-how or the
knowledge and the skills for the creation, and
the material cause or matter out of which the creation is
made.
The intelligent cause can only be a conscious entity while the material
cause can only be an inert entity. In the case of the Universe both causes
rest in one, just as in the creation of a spider’s web, both the intelligent and
the material cause are one: the spider. But in the case of spider, the web
becomes separate from the spider. In the case of the Universe, Vedanta says
that the creator cannot be separated from the creation, since he is all
pervading, omnipresent or antaryAmin, in-dweller of everything.
In addition, creation is an action. If Brahman is infinite, as the very
word indicates, then He (we are using the word in a generic sense) cannot
be the agency of an action, which means that He cannot create. This is
because only the finite can do action, since every action involves the triad
of actor, action and acting - and each one limits the other. In addition, action
involves a modification, a change of status for the agency of action.
Brahman, being absolutely infinite, cannot undergo a modification, unlike
any agency of action. In Sanskrit this is called avikAraH (vikAra means
modification and avikAra is without modification). At the same time
Vedanta says He is the cause for creation. How can that be? Here we need
to understand how Vedanta teaches that which cannot be taught and why it
is considered as a pramANa or means of knowledge.
 Part 15 – Progressive Teaching Method: svarUpa
lakShaNa
When we were studying atomic structure, we first learned the
Rutherford model. Later we learned what is wrong with that model and how
Bohr’s model provides a better description of an atom. We may have
wondered why we were taught Rutherford’s model at all when we know
that it is not correct. Looking back it is clear that we needed to learn that
before we proceeded to learn a better model. Vedanta also provides a
progressive teaching method called in Sanskrit adhyAropa apavAda. That is
it takes us forward a stage in order for our intellect to give up some of our
previous notions, and once we think we have now understood, it negates
that also (as though pulling the rug from underneath us) in order to lift us up
to the next level. Previous concepts are discarded in stages until the mind
becomes free from all concepts.
Hence, from what reference level a given statement is made has to be
clear. Otherwise the student will get thoroughly confused - another reason
for insisting on the need for a competent teacher. (Most of the back and
forth discussions sometimes reflect this lack of a common reference.)
Brahman is first introduced as the cause for the creation. The Taittiriya
Upanishad defines Brahman as that because of which the whole universe
arose, by which it is sustained and into which it goes back – know that to be
Brahman.
By declaring that Brahman is the cause for the Universe, it confirms
to some extent some of the deep-rooted concepts we have about God, who
is the creator, controller and destroyer. Furthermore, this definition provides
a clear description for the material cause by saying that the universe is
sustained by Brahman and it goes back into Brahman when it dissolves –
just as gold is the material cause for all the gold ornaments. Thus we can
say, that from which all the golden ornaments arose, by which they are
sustained and into which they go back – know that to be gold. Without gold,
gold ornaments cannot be sustained – it has to be the material, which is
inseparable from the effects, the ornaments.
 But a chemist or physicist does not define or identify gold, the
element (Au), in this way. He uses some tests to confirm that it is gold and
nothing but gold. We are all familiar with the ‘Eureka-story’ of
Archimedes, when he discovered the density method to identify gold.
The definition of an object that helps temporarily to identify the
object, but which is discarded later for a better definition is called incidental
qualification or taTastha lakShaNa; for example, John’s house is the one on
which a crow is sitting right now. Brahman, defined as ‘creator of the
universe’ is an incidental qualification. If we examine our analysis, we
introduced Brahman only when we tried to find out a cause for the Universe
that we are experiencing. Otherwise there is no need for us know about
Brahman. Since I feel I am limited by this vast universe, I need to know the
cause for this Universe that is limiting me and why am I stuck here in this
Universe. Since we see the Universe, which we considered to be a creation,
we needed a creator to create it. In a way, we created a creator in order to
create the creation that we see or experience. If we do not have any
creation, then the function of creator is also redundant. That is how
Brahman has been introduced in Vedanta - as the cause for the universe. But
this is only an incidental qualification just as the crow sitting on John’s
house helps us to identify the house. But once we know the house, we do
not need the crow any more to identify the house. Similarly Vedanta
discards the earlier definition to take us further into the inquiry of Brahman.
Vedanta provides the next level of definition for the earnest seekers. It
is called ‘intrinsic qualification’ or svAbhAvika lakShaNa. This definition
is one of the four aphorisms or great statements or mahAvAkya-s, for
Brahman. There are four great statements, one from each Veda, and they
provide us with the next level of operating definitions for Brahman. The
one we are interested in here is “praj~nAnaM brahma” – consciousness is
Brahman.
To appreciate the depth of this definition, we need to understand little
bit about intrinsic qualifications or inherent qualifications of an object. The
relation between an object and its qualifications is a topic of great interest in
Indian philosophy. The foundations of vishiShTa advaita rest on this.
Without going into too much detail we will present that which is relevant to
our discussion from the point of Advaita. Here we distinguish two types of
intrinsic qualifications: a necessary qualification, and a necessary and
sufficient qualification. Those who have some exposure to math may know
the difference between the two.
To illustrate this, we take the example of sugar. When we say sugar is
sweet, the sweetness of the sugar is a necessary qualification. If it is sugar,
it necessarily should be sweet. If it looks like sugar but is not sweet like
sugar, then it is not sugar- it may be salt. But we all know that sweetness,
although a necessary qualification, is not a sufficient qualification to define
sugar. To prove the sufficiency requirement, a converse definition has to be
valid. The converse statement for ‘sugar is sweet’ is ‘sweet is sugar,’ that is,
if something is sweet it has to be sugar. We know that if it is sweet, it need
not be sugar; it could be saccharine or aspartame. Therefore sweetness is a
necessary but not a sufficient qualification to define sugar. For a sufficiency
requirement, the converse statement has to be valid. Now let us examine
how Vedanta defines Brahman in the aphoristic statement ‘consciousness is
Brahman,’ implying that ‘consciousness’ is both a necessary and sufficient
qualification to define Brahman. It means if there is a conscious entity
anywhere, it must be Brahman. A necessary and sufficient qualification
defines what is known as ‘svarUpa lakShaNa.’ H2O, for example, is a
svarUpa lakShaNa of water – that is it is both a necessary and sufficient
qualification for water. If it is water it has to be H2O and if it is H2O it has
to be water – there is no question about it. The svarUpa lakShaNa
essentially defines the intrinsic structure or form for the object that one is
defining.
Vedanta therefore is very precise in its definition for Brahman by
providing it in a converse form ‘praj~nAnaM brahma’ or ‘Consciousness is
Brahman’ and not ‘Brahman is a consciousness entity.’ That means
‘Consciousness’ is therefore both a necessary and sufficient qualification
for Brahman or it is its svarUpa lakShaNa, as Shankara discusses in his
analysis of the above Vedic statement. The definition has very profound
implications; hence it is considered to be a mahAvAkya or great aphorism.
Brahman, who is both the intelligent cause and material cause for this entire
universe, is ‘consciousness’ itself as its very structure. Since it is a
necessary and sufficient qualification, it implies that if I say I am a
conscious being, that consciousness aspect of the being is Brahman alone.
Consciousness being the very structure of Brahman implies that
consciousness is not really a qualification, since a qualification needs a
locus for its existence. ‘praj~nAnaM brahma’ is an identity relation where
consciousness is identically equal to Brahman – this is also the meaning of
svarUpa lakShaNa.
 Part 16 – Carpets and Schrödinger's Cat
As a side note, we learn by careful analysis that no object in the world
(inside the universe) can have a svarUpa lakShaNa. In the example cited,
when we say H2O is its intrinsic structure, it is only at a transactional level.
It is a compound made up of parts, H 2 and O, and therefore divisible.
Everything that is divisible into finer parts cannot have absolute structure
since, by reassembly, one loses that svarUpam. That is, its structure is valid
only at some relative plane. Hence all objects have relevance and validity
only at their transactional level, since they are all assemblages of some
other finer structural units.
Let us take the example of a modern carpet. We all think we know
what a carpet is. Yet if we examine not casually but carefully, we find that
we do not actually know what a carpet is! The problem is there is no
‘substance’ called carpet. More technically, there is no necessary and
sufficient qualification that differentiates a carpet from any other object in
the universe. If one looks carefully, what we call a carpet is just an
assemblage of polymer fibers, arranged in a particular fashion. If we
rearrange the fibers in the form of a heap, it is no longer a carpet. The
reason is that there is no substantive called ‘carpet’ apart from a name given
for a form assembled using, say, polymer fibers. The fibers, in turn, are an
assemblage of some other finer entities called ‘polymer molecules.’ And, in
principle, one can go on with no end in sight.
Does that mean there is no carpet? Of course, there is carpet; there are
fibers and there are molecules, and so on. Each of them has a relative
validity in their own plane of reference. Besides, we cannot fully dismiss
the carpet, since there is big market for them! Carpet has its utility value or
transactional value. We know now that all materials are fundamentally
made up of electrons, protons and neutrons. But we still distinguish food
from garbage, even though we know that fundamentally they are made up
of the same fundamental units, which are just assembled differently. The
point to note is that there is no confusion in understanding as long as we are
fully aware at what reference level the discussion is taking place. For the
purpose of our discussion, we have a reality at the transactional level and
the absolute level, called in Sanskrit vyAvahArika satyam, and
pAramArthika satyam, respectively. We will come back to this discussion
later when we discuss liberation.
Coming back to our discussion of the svarUpa lakShaNa of any
object, there is no intrinsic substantive for any object since every object is
an assemblage of simpler units. In the case of water, H2O, it can be
decomposed into atoms and then smaller particles, and if one continues
further we will soon end up at the quantum level. Then we end up breaking
into finer and finer component particles using high-speed accelerators to
understand the fundamental building blocks of all matter. In the limit, we
run into the peculiar situation wherein the very investigation, which
necessarily involves the conscious entity as an observer, affects the
observation of the system observed. Essentially, we come to a limiting case
where observations of the fundamental material content depend on the
observer, a conscious entity.
Thus the observed object depends on the observer, but the observer
does not depend on the observed. That is, the consciousness of the observer
is unaffected by the observations. The implication of this limiting case in
science is that an investigation of the fundamental building blocks of the
universe is futile unless one takes into consideration the role of
consciousness. At the quantum level, the concept of a particle becomes
blurred with the concept of a wave, or a probability wave. The ‘thought
experiment’ of Schrödinger’s cat in Physics illustrates this. A cat is sealed
in a box with a flask of poison, a Geiger counter and a radioactive source.
In an hour, there is a 50% chance that the source will emit radiation. If it
does, the Geiger counter will detect it and cause the flask to break, releasing
the poison and killing the cat. If not, the cat will still be alive. Theoretically,
the particle is in both states but the cat cannot be both alive and dead so this
has to translate to a probability of the cat being alive or dead of 50%. It only
becomes 100% alive or dead when the conscious entity, that is, an observer,
interferes with the experiment by opening the chamber for examination.
Here we are zeroing in on the essence of the problem. We raised a
question before – whether consciousness is a product of matter, as objective
scientists seem to insist, or the other way around as Vedanta proclaims.
From the point of view of Vedanta, by proclaiming that Brahman is the
material cause for the universe, it is negating the validity of the world of
plurality, the universe. It is not the plurality that is negated but the validity
of the plurality (or reality of the plurality) that is negated. What this means
is that plurality is accepted at a relative plane (vyavahAra state) but negated
as real from an absolute plane (pAramArthika state). So is the world real or
not real? The answer depends on from what point of reference the question
is asked. From the point of view of the carpet salesman, carpets are real.
But from the point of view of the Chemist, there is no material called
carpet, even while he is paying a high price for the carpet that he is buying.
 Part 17 – Attribute and Substantive
When there are two things, A and B, and they are related, we can
have several types of relationship between the two.
Suppose we say: ‘The jar is on the table.’ The association of jar and
table with each other is called conjunction, saMyoga, where they are
separable and each can exist in its own right. Each qualifies the other,
although temporarily as an incidental relationship. The table is qualified by
having a jar on top of it and the jar is qualified by being present on the
table. Here the qualities that jar and table possess as a result of their mutual
association are temporal.
The relation between an attribute or a quality and the substance has
been elaborately discussed by Indian philosophers. Taking the example of a
blue lotus, the blueness is inseparable from the lotus and, in addition, the
blue color cannot exist, without a substance such as the lotus as its locus.
On the other hand, a lotus can exist on its own without being blue. This
inseparability of the quality from the substance is called samavAya by
logicians (the tArkika-s – particularly nyAya-vaisheShika philosophers).
Others question the need to bring in a separate relationship to relate the
quality and the substance. But everybody, in one way or another, accepts the
inseparability of the quality from its locus, the substance.
When the lotus is perceived through the eyes, the blueness is
perceived inseparably from the object. vishiShTAdvaita calls this
inseparability apRRithak siddhi – pRRithak means separate and apRRithak
means inseparable and siddhi here means two things. So the name indicates
that the quality and the substantive cannot be perceived separately. Advaita
subscribes to the concept of adhyAsa or superimposition – one is dependent
and other is independent.
You may be wondering why we are discussing all this. We want to
know, ‘what is the relationship between the sets of things that we have
discussed: Brahman and the world, individual self and the world, and
individual self and Brahman?’ These epistemological issues are in order to
appreciate these relations. Let us first discuss the relationship between
Brahman and the world. We have arrived at the following facts:
a) Brahman and the world – both are infinite;
b) The world consists of objects and the ‘space’ containing the
objects is also infinite;
c) Brahman is both the intelligent and the material cause for the
universe;
d) Brahman is pure consciousness. Therefore consciousness has
to be infinite.
e) The world is an inert or unconscious entity.
There seems to be some incompatibilities in these statements. How
can an inert world come out of a cause, which is pure consciousness? How
can consciousness and the world both be infinite, since, if one limits the
other, then both cease to be infinite? Essentially what exactly is the relation
between Brahman and the world of objects including space?
Brahman is not an object. Any object is finite, and is distinguishable
from other objects in the world. Each object is distinguishable from other
objects in the world by its distinguishable attributes, which differ from
those of other objects. Only through its attributes can an object be
distinguished from other objects. Without its attributes even the existence of
the object cannot be established. The precise definition of an object
therefore rests on the precise definition of its distinguishing attributes.
Brahman being infinite cannot have attributes, just as space does not
have any attributes. Vedanta calls it nirguNa, an attribute-less entity. Since
attributes distinguish one object from another and Brahman is one without a
second, there is nothing to differentiate Brahman from any other entity. (In
this sense, advaita differs from vishiShTAdvaita as well as other Vedantic
interpretations. These philosophies treat Brahman as all pervading, infinite
but with infinite auspicious attributes). Consciousness is not an attribute of
Brahman as some philosophers assume. As it has been pointed earlier, it is
its intrinsic structure to differentiate it from all unconscious entities. Then,
are there two types of entity – conscious and unconscious? In addition, is
there one conscious entity or as many conscious entities as there are beings
in the world? These are very deep philosophical questions that need to be
analyzed systematically.
 Part 18 – Does the World exist Independent of an
Observer?
First, let us ask some basic questions, which might have escaped the
attention of many. How do we know that there is a world out there?
What kind of question is that? I know the world because I experience
the world every day, in fact every minute. I am in the world; everything
reminds me of that fact including your question.
Good. Let us pose the next question; does the world exist if we do not
experience it?
Of course it does, whether we experience it or not. We come into this
world and we exit from the world; the world has always been there from
our forefathers’ time and it will be there even after we leave. We exit from
this world, but the world will always exist.
Is that so? But, how do you know that? Does the world tell you that it
exists? Or do you infer that the world exists based on the information you
have gathered from books or listening to others?
If there is no conscious entity to report the fact, can one prove that the
world exists? The world cannot declare that it exists, since it is inert.
Others, including historians, report that the universe has existed from the
time of the big bang and there is no reason why it should disappear. In fact,
matter can never be destroyed – that is the law.
But we are not discussing here the destruction of matter; we are
questioning the very existence of matter, before we talk about its
destruction. Can one prove the existence of matter or any inert entity
without a conscious entity to establish its existence? Essentially, can one
establish the existence of the universe independent of a conscious entity?
Histories and theories et cetera, are all products of the conscious
entity based on observations and deductions. The fact of the matter is that
the existence of the world can never be proved without a conscious entity
being present. Let us pose the question in a different way. Does the world
exist when you go into the deep sleep state?
 Of course it exists - when I get up in the morning, everything is in the
same place that I left it in the night, including all the problems that I had.
The world was there before you went to sleep, since you were there to
experience it. The world is there in the morning, since you are there to
experience it. The question is: without the presence of an experiencer, a
conscious entity, can one prove the existence of the inert world on its own?
Remember we posed a similar question when you are in a pitch-dark
room. You are there independent of any means of knowledge or pramANa
since you are a self-conscious entity and therefore a self-existent entity. But
you were not sure about the presence of any objects in the dark room since
you could not see them or experience them. The question is the same, but is
now being asked in terms of the world of objects, in fact the whole universe
that includes not only objects but other beings as well. (From my reference
point, all other beings are only objects, since I can only perceive their body
and at best make inferences about their minds or the manifested aspects of
their consciousness).
The existence of the world independent of a conscious entity is not
possible since the world is not self-conscious and therefore not a self-
existent entity. One can infer its existence based on the continuity principle
but even to infer that, I have to be there. Whether the world can exist
independent of me becomes a moot question since there is no way to prove
that existence. Hence Shankara calls it ‘anirvachanIya’ – inexplicable. In
the world of math it is called an indeterminate problem. That is, one cannot
say the world is nor can one say the world is not; and to say ‘is’ or ‘is not,’
I, the conscious entity, have to exist first.
Furthermore, I should also illumine the world for me to be conscious
of the world. This is in addition to any other illuminating factors needed to
illumine the objects for me to be conscious of them. Recall the example of
the pitch-dark room. I am there all right, but I also need another light to see
the existence or non-existence of the objects in that room. Otherwise I can
only illumine the darkness that envelopes all the objects. Until I illumine
the objects too, in the presence of a light, I cannot say whether the objects
in the room exist or not - their existence is indeterminate. Suppose I am not
there, but there is a bright light burning in that room. I still would not know
if there are any objects in that room or not. This means that two factors are
needed to establish the existence of the universe. One is a conscious entity
that I am, and the other factor is presence of all the factors needed for
complete operation of the means of knowledge or pramANa. If I am there
but the light is too dim for me to see clearly, I may see snakes instead of
ropes. The bottom line is that, without the presence of ‘I am,’ the existence
of the world cannot be established.
You can postulate that the world is real and is always present, as some
philosophers propose. But even to postulate that, I have to be there. I can be
there even when space is not there, as in deep sleep state. To recognize the
presence of space, I and my mind should be present. Hence, Vedanta says in
fact the opposite of the postulate, in tune with the above analysis. But the
fact of the matter is that, even to validate what Vedanta says, I have to be
there. The Vedas are also part of this world, not out of this world. No – they
are apauruSheya, not written by a human being and they eternally exist.
Yes, even to believe that I have to be there first. This is blasphemy. No.
Vedas are scientific truths and they themselves declare that they come under
apara vidyA [superior knowledge], like any other scientific truths, which
are eternal. However, I have to be there even to validate the existence of the
Vedas too. In short, ‘I am’ comes before the world comes into existence.
This is really weird. You have mentioned before that the Vedas are
only pramANa or a means of knowledge to know the absolute. And now,
you are dismissing the Vedas too, along with the world. You are
contradicting yourself. How can the Vedas, which are part of the world, be a
means of knowledge for that which is beyond the world of plurality? This is
not Vedanta.
Sir, contradictions are only at the level of the mind. Vedas are
pramANa for POINTING in the direction of the truth that is beyond any
means of knowledge. The truth as we said before is ‘aprameyam,’ beyond
any means of knowledge. What we said is that Vedanta, in the hands of a
teacher, becomes the means for a well-prepared mind to take off to a ‘state’
beyond any description and beyond that even Vedas describe as
indescribable – ‘adRRiShTam, avyapadeshyam, agrAhyam, achintyam, -
imperceptible, indescribable, unattainable, unthinkable et cetera.
 Part 19 – Brahman and the World
In proclaiming that ‘consciousness is Brahman,’ as an aphoristic
statement, Vedanta essentially provides a fundamental definition for
Brahman. Brahman being infinite, it cannot be defined since whatever can
be defined becomes an object, and thus limited by other objects. Object is
different from the subject and that which is objectified can only be an inert
entity, jadam. The definition provided by Vedanta is therefore not meant for
objectification, since it is the very consciousness that cannot be objectified.
Then what is the meaning of this so-called aphoristic statement
“consciousness is Brahman,” if one cannot objectify or even meditate on it?
Careful analysis indicates that it is a pointer to arrive at the
knowledge of Brahman by negating all that which is inert as not Brahman.
All that which can be objectified is ‘this’ - and ‘this’ is not Brahman. One
cannot say ‘this is consciousness’ or ‘this is Brahman,’ since the very
statement makes it an inert entity, which is not Brahman. This is the reason
why ‘science’ cannot objectively study consciousness, as some of scientists
are attempting to do, since the very study makes it an object and thus
different from ‘consciousness.’
We have discussed the fact that the existence of an inert object or
even the world cannot be established without a conscious entity being
aware of it. That is, inert should be within consciousness, for one to be
conscious of the inert. The statement is similar to the one that an object
should be flooded by light in order for one to see it. Hence, the inert has to
be pervaded by consciousness or within consciousness, if one is to be
conscious of the inert. If one is aware of the world, which is infinite, then
the consciousness because of which one is aware of the world should be
infinite too.
Question: I do not understand this concocted logic. You say the world
is infinite on one hand and on the other hand, you say consciousness is
infinite. In addition consciousness should pervade the inert, if one is to be
conscious of the inert. How can you have two infinite entities diagonally
opposite to each other and one pervading the other? In addition, you have
also not explained how Brahman, who is of the nature of infinite
consciousness, can be the cause of an inert universe. All you have
established so far is that an inert entity cannot exist independent of
consciousness. You have also mentioned that Brahman cannot be the creator
either, since creation is an action and the infinite cannot act. At the same
time Brahman is supposed to be the both the material and intelligent cause
for the universe. What exactly is the relation between consciousness,
Brahman, and the Universe, which is inert?
Answer: OK. You caught me. Please follow me closely. Let us go step
by step and everything should ultimately fit in. First, we will use a rational
analysis and then the scriptural analysis.
Knowledge of an object: We now know that without consciousness,
the existence of the world cannot be established. The world has two
components – one is the finite objects and the other is the subtler one,
space, which is infinite. There is also a third one that is part of the universe,
which arises with the interaction of Universe with the mind – the time
concept. Understanding the Universe therefore involves not only
understanding the objects, but also Space and time. Einstein showed that
both space and time are relative or essentially related. Movement in space
creates time and movement in time creates space. Space and time somehow
are interlinked with the mind. Let us analyze these slowly.
Object – Does it really exist? Existence of the object is intimately
related to the knowledge of the object. I cannot talk about the existence of
any object without knowledge of its existence, if not physically at least
conceptually. Therefore ‘object is’ (is-ness is associated with its existence)
means knowledge of the existence in terms of ‘the object is.’ Let us
illustrate this with an example. Let me ask you, ‘Can you bring the ‘gaa gaa
buu bu’ that you have in your room?’ – ‘What in the world is this ‘gaa gaa
buu bu’ that I have in my room? What is that weird stuff, gaa gaa buu bu,
anyway, and what is it doing in my room?’ – ‘Well, I do not know what it is
or what it does either, but I heard that you have it in your room. Can you
bring it?’ - ‘You are crazy, you are asking me to bring something neither
you nor I know what it is.’ – This crazy conversation is just to point out that
we cannot talk of the existence of an object, without the knowledge of its
existence. Hence ‘world is’ or ‘the world exists’ means I or some conscious
entity has the knowledge of its existence. Thus, knowledge and existence of
an object go together. They, in fact, are essentially the ‘chit’ and ‘sat’
aspects of Brahman.
What is knowledge? Interestingly, ‘knowledge’ cannot be defined. All
I can talk about is ‘knowledge of’- of this or that, which is nothing but
knowledge of objects. For example, knowledge of Chemistry, knowledge of
Physics, knowledge of Vedanta, and knowledge of the World; all that is
informative knowledge. He is very knowledgeable means he has lot of
information stored in his memory. Can I define knowledge devoid of any
objects? Knowledge devoid of objects cannot be defined! Knowledge
devoid of objects is nothing but the knowledge of the ‘subject,’ I, which
cannot be defined. Why can ‘I’ not be defined? Because, any definition is
objectification, and ‘I am’ is the subject that cannot be objectified. At the
most one can define ‘I’ only by means of a negative statement; ‘I’ is that,
which is not subject to objectification.’
Question: Oh! This is all so intellectual. I am interested only in Self-
realization, not in this mind-boggling logic.
Answer: Existence of I and therefore knowledge of I is neither
intellectual nor non-intellectual – it is factual knowledge. That I am a man
is not intellectual understanding – it is a factual understanding. It is not by
accident that it is the same definition that we can give to Brahman.
Therefore pure knowledge devoid of any object is the ‘consciousness’ that I
am. I am conscious of all the objects that I know. I am also self-conscious,
as we discussed before, which is not ‘knowledge of’ but pure knowledge. In
other words that is my very nature or svarUpa lakShaNa of myself – which
Vedanta calls as ‘chit’ svarUpam. I am the nature of consciousness. This
statement should not be a statement of thought at the intellect level but clear
understanding that I am conscious entity because of which I am even
conscious of this statement of thought.
 Part 20 – The Cognitive Process
Question: We have already defined consciousness as ‘infinite’ and as
‘Brahman.’ ‘I’ am also of the nature of consciousness. Another identity
relation - ‘I am Brahman’ - should follow. But the problem is, I am not
infinite like Brahman, at least I do not feel like I am infinite. I will be
deluded if I think I am infinite, while being finite. I am limited by this
universe of objects all the time. In fact, I am limited by space, time and by
other objects in the universe. That is my fundamental problem - the
limitations that I experience all the time. And you say I am Brahman – how
can that be? I am not the object – neti, neti – et cetera, that you mentioned
before; I am not this and not this – and that is how I am supposed to arrive
at myself. This means I am different from this and this. Being different
from all this, this, and this, I am limited by all the objects, nay the whole
world, since they are all different from me. At the same time you say I am
Brahman, the all-pervading infinite consciousness. There seems to be some
internal contradiction here. Please explain.
Answer: We stated that the existence of an object ‘out there’ depends
on the knowledge of its existence. Knowledge of the object, however,
involves a knower (the conscious entity that I am), the object that is being
known and the process of knowing (which involves a pramANa, the means
of knowledge). Knowledge can only take place in the intellect. Let us
examine closely the mechanics of how this knowledge takes place. Objects
have attributes that can be measured by our five senses. Eyes can only see
form and colors, nose the smell, tongue the taste, ears the sound, and skin
the texture (soft or hard etc.). These are attributes only and not the
substantive, which is the locus for these attributes. None of the senses can
grasp the substantive of the object (substantive is the matter of which that
the object is made).
Perception involves sense input to the mind. The mind gathers the
input from the senses, integrates all the input and projects an image in the
mind with all the attributes it has gathered (form, color, smell, texture, etc.).
This is the cognitive process that occurs in the mind. The cognized image is
then compared with the previous images stored in the memory by the
intellect. If there is match, then the object is recognized (re-cognized).
During the learning process, the mother shows a child a cow and says
that is a cow. The child stores not only the image but also the name for that
form or image. Next time when the mother shows another cow which has a
different color, the child starts understanding the common features of the
two cows (called jAti) as well as individual (vyakti) differences between the
cows (e.g., one is black and the other white). That is how the knowledge of
objects is gathered and stored in the memory bank. What is perceived are
the attributes through the five sense inputs. An image is formed in the mind
using the sense input. The image is stored in the memory along with a name
associated with that image.
Thus we have a name and form (nAma and rUpa) associated with the
stored image of an object. Next time when the child sees a cow, he
immediately recognizes it as a cow, based on his memory. Mental images
are nothing but thoughts in the mind. If someone says a word ‘cow,’
immediately an image of a cow is brought in from the memory, even when
there is no cow outside. The name cow and the image cow are now
intimately associated with each other, as both are stored in memory. All are
thoughts. What I think about myself is also images of myself as ‘I am this’
or ‘I am that’ et cetera, which are again nothing but thoughts. This is also
the form of my ego. What I project about myself in all my transactions is
also the image of myself as I see myself, or sometimes how I want others to
see myself.
All our transactions are at these image levels. This is all part of
vyavahAra or the transactional self, which is different from my true self.
My true self is the consciousness that I am, because of which I am aware of
all these transactions at the image level. Descartes’ statement ‘I think,
therefore I am’ – is essentially the egotistical self that I am, which is related
to the images of myself in the mind. The recollection of the image of a cow
from the memory based on the word ‘cow’ is called pratyabhij~nA. I can
only recollect what I have stored in my memory. What I store in my
memory is based on the knowledge of the objects gathered through various
means of knowledge (pramANa). Thus our life runs at this thought level all
the time.
When I say the object is ‘out there,’ it follows from the above
description of the cognitive processes that there is an image of the object in
the mind and that it is the image as ‘a thought’ that I am conscious of.
When I perceive the object, it is important to note that I do not perceive the
substantive of the object. The vishiShTAdvaitins as well as dvaitins
wrongly assume that one perceives the substantive too when the senses
gather the attributes, since the attributes are inseparable from their locus.
The mind makes an inferential statement, which is established by
experience that attributes cannot exist without a substantive. Therefore it is
inferred from the image of the object as perceived through the senses that
‘there is an object out there with these attributes.’ The reason we cannot
also perceive the substantive is in tune with the Vedic assertion that the
substantive is nothing but Brahman, since Brahman is the material cause for
the universe and Brahman cannot be perceived. This is categorically stated
again and again by Vedanta, that there is nothing (no thing) other than
Brahman (neha nAnAsti ki~nchana), and in deed everything is nothing but
Brahman (sarvaM khalvidam brahma).
 Part 21 – Perception of the World
As we discussed before, when I say there is an object ‘out there’ that
‘out there’ is only in the mind as a thought of the object. Mind is nothing
but a flow of thoughts. Every thought is essentially centered on an object,
which may be ‘out there’ or projected in the mind based on memory. In
addition, for me to be conscious of the object ‘out there,’ I have to be
conscious of the thought of the object in my mind. Therefore the world out
there is reduced to the thoughts in my mind. Hence, when I say I am aware
of the world out there, it actually implies that I am aware of the thoughts in
my mind. If I am not conscious of the associated thought in my mind, I
cannot be conscious of the object out there either.
Thought is like a wave in my consciousness – a name for a form.
However, the contents of every thought wave are nothing but consciousness
itself. When I say a table is there, I have a table thought and when I look
around and see a chair out there, instantaneously there is a chair thought in
my mind. It is not that a chair thought is superimposed on a table thought.
Thoughts arise in my consciousness, are sustained by my consciousness and
go back into my consciousness. But consciousness is unaffected by the
observed thought. In fact, I am the consciousness in which all the thoughts
rise, are sustained and go back.
Now, let us ask the question again: ‘Where is the inert world?’ Oh! It
is out there.
‘How do you know it is out there?’ Oh! I can see and I can experience
it.’
What you can experience or see is only your thoughts in the mind.
Therefore, ‘out there’ is in your mind, which is nothing but thoughts and the
thoughts are in your consciousness. Consciousness has to pervade every
thought for me to be aware of the thoughts. Hence from my point, the world
is perceived though the mind as thoughts rise in my mind, are sustained by
my mind and go back into my mind. My mind is illumined by my
consciousness. Then only I can say I am conscious of the world. If there is
no thought and thus if there is no mind active, it appears that the whole
world has no existence.
We can say it is absorbed in my mind which itself is absorbed into
me, the consciousness that I am. This, in fact, is our daily experience. When
we go into the deep sleep state, there are no thoughts and therefore no
objects and no world either. This illustrates that there cannot be any world
that can be separate from my mind. I enliven the mind, or I can say I am the
mind of the mind. I am that, because of which the mind itself is minding.
This is not intended for conceptualization of who I am, but to negate any
wrong notions that I have about myself. I am not the mind but I am the
mind too in the sense that I am conscious of the mind or the thought flow. ‘I
am this body’ is only a notional thought in my mind. ‘I am not this’
therefore implies that I am not the name and form that is associated with the
notional object ‘this’ but I am the very consciousness that supports even
that notional thought in my mind.
We mentioned that existence of the object involves knowledge of its
existence. That is the primary requirement – in fact as we shall see later,
that is the very fundamental basis for the object and that existence can never
cease to exist as Krishna says in Bhagavad Gita (nAbhAvo vidyate sataH),
and that existence itself is of the nature of Brahman as declared in the
Chandogya Upanishad (6.2.1) as ‘Existence alone was there before any
creation’ (sat eva saumye idamagra AsIt). The existence is common for all
the objects. What differs for each object is of course detail – the other
attributes which differentiate one object from the other. ‘I want to know the
mind of God and the rest are all details’ said Einstein – obviously he is
inquiring into the truth of the world itself.
 Part 22 – What does Negation involve?
Some are concerned why we cannot provide a positive definition for
‘I’ instead of a negative definition such as ‘I am not this.’ First, I cannot
define the subject at all since any definition objectifies the subject and
therefore can never be a subject. Here are some rules: (a) the subject is
different from any object; (b) the subject can never become an object; (c) an
object can never become a subject; (d) the subject can only be single that is,
there is only one subject, I, in the universe; (e) the subject is a conscious
entity; (f) an object is an inert entity.
Hence, in principle, any positive definition makes the subject inert or
‘not I’ (anAtma). Instead of definitions, Vedanta uses pointers to indicate
that which cannot be pointed to. I am the very core of my individuality that
transcends all relations and all relatives. I am the witnessing agent in all my
experiences. Positive definitions are avoided, since the mind has a tendency
to conceptualize that which is being pointed out, and make it an object
rather the subject ‘I’. Ramana Maharshi puts this beautifully as ‘analyze the
analyst’ – that eventually will lead to just silence, free from all analysis, and
free from any definitions or conceptualizations. In the case of ‘I am not
that’ or ‘neti,’ what is negated is only the name and form and not the
substantive.
Objection: The analysis of the perceptual process has indicated that
senses only grasp the attributes and that volition, cognition and recognition
occur in the mind. Therefore you have concluded that there is no valid
object out there since all the objects are reduced to images in the mind,
which are nothing but thoughts. The thoughts themselves are pervaded by
the consciousness that I am. Therefore you argue that all object-thoughts
and therefore the world itself is pervaded by the consciousness that I am.
This is also what vij~nAnavAdin-s of Buddhism argue. However, this does
not dismiss the objects out there even if we do not grasp the substantives by
our senses.
When I eat good food, do not tell me that it is just thoughts in my
mind and there is nothing for me to eat. Try to lift 1000 pounds and say that
is in your mind. How can you dismiss the objects out there, saying that they
have no reality at all other than as thoughts in my mind? The fact that
senses are able to grasp the attributes implies that attributes are not created
by the mind. They are out there, with the locus on the objects out there. I did
not create the objects out there whose attributes I can measure by my
senses. Therefore objects and the world should exist independent of me.
Therefore, that there is only the consciousness ‘I am’ has not established by
the above arguments.
Response: Beautiful. You are right. In order to establish that ‘I am’ is
the source of the objects out there, we need to examine the three states of
consciousness that every human being experiences. This analysis has been
provided in the Mandukya Upanishad, which provides the most scientific
explanations for all human experiences. In order to understand these aspects
clearly we need to bring in the total analysis from the microcosm and
macrocosm aspects. Before we do that we need to discuss the source of
error in the mental evaluation of the objects out there. This will also help to
understand the subjective objectification in contrast to objective
objectification.
 Part 23 – Errors in Perception
Because we perceive only the attributes and not the substantives
along with the attributes, there is a possibility of making an error of
judgment in the mind. If the substantive is also gathered by the senses, as
other philosophers assume, then there is no likelihood of making any errors
by the mind. Let us illustrate this by taking the famous example of a snake
perception, where there is a rope. Suppose that the light was not bright. As I
was walking in the bushes, suddenly I felt something soft and long on the
pathway. I jumped with fear that it may be a snake, since I heard that there
are lots of snakes around. I ran as fast as I could to save myself from the
snake. It took some time for the adrenaline effects associated with fear of
the snake to subside before I could breathe normally. The fellow who
passed that path informed me that it was a rope rather than a snake. If it is a
rope, ‘why did I see a snake?’ - I questioned. We both went back and after
shedding light on the object I learned that it was indeed a rope and not a
snake.
Let us analyze this clearly. I perceived an object on the pathway
through my senses. Because of the dim light, the senses could perceive only
certain attributes of the objects that are common to both snake and rope.
Based on the attributes that are gathered by the senses and by the cognitive
process discussed earlier, my mind made a judgment call that it was a
snake. Because I thought it was a snake, the rest of the biological reactions
followed – fear, running away from the sources of fear and heavy breathing,
et cetera, all followed. If the substantive also had been perceived along with
the attributes of the object, then there would have been no reason to mistake
the rope as a snake. Because the attributes that the senses were able to
gather were not discriminative enough to distinguish rope from a snake, the
error was committed in making the judgment call by the mind.
At this stage, there were no other means available for me to know that
I was making an error of judgment. When I encountered another experience
which contradicted the first, I had to make an inquiry to resolve the
contradictory experiences about the object. In our case, the statement of
another passer-by, who declared that it was a rope rather than a snake,
provided the contradiction. The enquiry started because of the conflict of
two contradictory experiences – one is the intense fearful experience of a
snake and the other is the word of a dependable guy (Apta vAkya). Enquiry
is done using a pramANa (using a torch light here) that reveals the true
nature of the object, namely that is a rope.
When I see the rope in the light of the illuminating torch, I discover
that it is indeed a rope and that the snake that I saw was my mistaken
notion. When I saw the snake first, it was a real snake (as far I was
concerned – I usually do not run from false snakes). It would have remained
as a snake until I had a contradictory pramANa about the object that I
perceived. Because of my faith in that pramANa, I proceeded to inquire
further to find out whether it was a snake or a rope. Only after inquiry, do I
see clearly that it is a rope and not a snake. Unceremoniously I dropped my
previous notions about the object as snake.
Where did the snake go? – It went back into the same place that it
came from – into my mind! Was the snake in the mind? No, it was out there
where there rope is. How can a snake 'out there’ disappear into the mind? -
Sir you are confusing everybody. When I say there is an object, I have
knowledge of the existence of the object – ‘there is an object’ or ‘there is...’
providing the knowledge of the existence of an object out there. Based on
the attributes that I could gather by the sense of sight (it is five feet long and
1 inch diameter, etc.) and sense of touch (soft like a rope or snake), my
mind made a judgment call that ‘there is a snake.’ ‘There is a snake’ is a
thought in my mind. The rest of the body reactions followed to protect
myself. (This also proves the Upanishadic statement that fear arises from
duality).
When I made a further enquiry I found that it was a rope and not a
snake – hence ‘there is a snake’ knowledge is replaced by ‘there is a rope.’
In both cases the ‘there is...’ part remained unchanged. That is, the
existence part remained. What changed was only the detail - a snake to a
rope. It is not that the snake became a rope. It was a rope all the time, even
when I thought it was a snake. But based on my perception, I wrongly
concluded that it was a snake. It was my conclusion that was wrong.
By the process of discriminative inquiry, I am able to learn that the
snake was not real since it was a rope. The fear of the snake is also gone
through the discovery of the truth. Since I alone saw the snake while others
saw it as a rope, the snake knowledge existed only in my mind. That
knowledge in my mind is replaced by the rope knowledge in my mind. The
innocent rope remained innocent in all these perturbations in my mind. Was
the snake real? – It was real to the extent that I could see it or experience it.
If there had been no other contradictory pramANa to the effect that it was a
rope rather than a snake, my snake knowledge would have remained as the
real knowledge in my mind.
This establishes one fact: experience alone is not the basis of the
reality of the object. Therefore, because we experience the plurality of the
world does not mean that we can conclude that the world is real. Since the
snake experience is only in my mind, the knowledge of the snake or reality
of the snake is called ‘prAtibhAsika satyam,’ since the error occurred only
in my mind. In contrast, there is vyAvahArika satyam or transactional
reality as mentioned before and related to the relative knowledge of the
world of objects. We took the example of a ‘carpet’ to illustrate the relative
knowledge. Let us take another example of error at the level of
vyAvahArika – the famous examples are mirage water or even sunrise and
sunset. Everybody on this earth experiences sunrise and sunset yet we know
from science that sun neither rises not sets. Here the true knowledge of the
reality of the sunrise and sunset does not dismiss the sunrise and sunset.
While knowing fully that the sun neither rises nor sets, I can still enjoy the
beautiful sunrise and sunset.
This error is in contrast to the snake knowledge, which disappeared
when I saw the rope. The transactional truth at this collective level is called
‘vyAvahArika satyam’ in contrast to the truth at individual level -
‘prAtibhAsika satyam.’ The absolute truth of course is ‘Brahman alone is
real’ and that is called pAramArthika satyam. Thus we have an absolute
truth, which is Brahman, and we have relative errors: the one at the
collective level (macro level) is called vyAvahArika satyam and the other at
individual level called prAtibhAsika satyam. The error of the snake is at the
individual level and we can call the snake a ‘subjective objectification’ or ‘I
see it, therefore it is’ – I see a snake there and therefore it is a snake. The
error at the collective level we can call ‘collective objectification’ or ‘it is,
therefore I see it.’ Even if I know that there is no real water in the mirage
water, I still seem to see it, since the effects that caused the mirage did not
disappear with the knowledge. The same analysis applies to the sunrise and
sunset since the source of the error is not eliminated with the knowledge
that the sun neither rises nor sets.
 Part 24 – adhyAsa or Error Superimposition
In the discovery of the reality of the object – that it is a rope and not a
snake – the existence of the object or the knowledge of its existence is not
negated. What is negated is that the object is a snake, by the correct
understanding that it is a rope. Thus, by gathering more attributes of the
object, we are negating our previous knowledge of the object as a snake by
affirming that it is a rope. Thus ‘there is a snake’ is replaced by ‘there is a
rope.’ The ‘there is’ part remains and only the ‘snake’ part is replaced by
the ‘rope’ part. That which remains the same or remains changeless is the
truth and that which changes is the false. This error is called adhyAsa or
error of superimposition. On the ‘there is’ truth part, ‘there is a snake’
knowledge is superimposed. Shankara defines adhyAsa as the ‘mixing up of
that which is partly true with that which is partly untruth to arrive at a
unitary experience’ – ‘satyAnRRita mithunIkaraNam adhyAsam.’
The importance of adhyAsa or error of superimposition becomes
obvious if we understand that Brahman, which is changeless, alone is the
truth. The world of plurality is just a superimposition on that truth and is
constantly changing. When we say ‘the world is,’ it is a notion in our mind
that ‘the plurality that we see is real,’ and ‘the world is out there’ is real.
The world of plurality or the objective world (in the waking state) is not my
mental creation, although I perceive the world only through the mind. The
world is a creation at the collective level or macro level and therefore
knowledge that the world is only superimposed on Brahman does not
negate the world. What it negates is only that reality assigned to the world.
A j~nAnI or a realized soul operates in the world, with a different attitude
since he knows it has only a notional significance in relation to the absolute
truth. [Note: If the meaning of this paragraph is unclear, don’t worry – the
subject will be covered in more detail later.]
Thus, the world is ‘real’ based on our day-to-day experiences, just as
sunset and sunrise are real based on our day-to-day experience. Vedanta as
an independent means of knowledge says: sarvaM khalvidam brahma – all
this (the world) is verily Brahman. When I realize the falsity of the world
by recognizing the substratum Brahman through the process of inquiry, then
the false knowledge falls away. Just as, knowing that there is no sunrise or
sunset, one can still enjoy the sunrise and sunset, one can recognize that
there is nothing other than Brahman (neha nAnAsti ki~nchana) and can still
enjoy the plurality of the world. The knowledge will eliminate only the
delusion that the world of plurality is real. What is recognized is that the
plurality is only apparent and apparent plurality is not reality. The person
who has gained that knowledge is called a jIvanmukta. By analogy, a
scientist, knowing very well that everything is nothing but electrons protons
and neutrons, can still enjoy the food while discarding the garbage. The
nature of the absolute reality can be understood, without confusing it with
the relative reality of the world. ‘Punishing the wicked while protecting the
good’ can go on without discarding the truth that all are in me, the
unmanifest.
The teaching that ‘everything is just one’ can go on without any
confusion, with the teacher not discarding the knowledge of the unifying
principle. Some of the objections raised against advaita Vedanta stem from
incorrect understanding of advaita. Advaita is non-duality in spite of
duality. Duality is not negated; what is negated is the reality assigned to the
duality. Krishna himself says ‘I am Arjuna’ while teaching Arjuna that
everything is in Him only. What it amounts to is that there is no confusion
in understanding the pAramArthika satyam while still acting at the
vyAvahArika level. What is negated is only the reality assigned to the
vyAvahArika satyam. It is apparently real but not really real.
 Part 25 – What is Real?
We now provide an operating definition for real: ‘that which remains
the same in all three periods of time’ or ‘that which cannot be negated is
real.’ Unreal is that which has no locus for existence at any time, for
example the son of a barren woman. The unreal can never be experienced.
Then what about the world? The world is experienced, therefore it is not
unreal. But the world itself (jagat) continuously changes and hence it is not
real either. We have to come up with another word that means neither real
nor unreal – this is the definition of mithyA. Some AchArya-s argue that
there are only two entities – that which is not real has to be unreal and that
which is not unreal has to be real and there is nothing that is neither real nor
unreal that meets the criteria of mithyA. This criticism is wrong. Advaitic
definitions are precise and are in tune with the Vedanta.
The apparent superimpositions are not real since they are only
apparent. But the substantive for the superimpositions is real since it is
changeless. We have illustrated this with the snake-rope example: the ‘there
is’ part is real, since it is changeless; what changes is only from snake to
rope in ‘there is a snake’ to ‘there is a rope.’ Similarly, the existence of the
world is not negated. What is negated as apparent are the superimpositions
‘this’ and ‘that,’ which are names and forms, nAma and rUpa associated
with the world of plurality.
All the perceptual knowledge that we discussed above comes under
the category of names and forms – therefore it is neither real nor unreal and
is rightly called mithyA. To say that there is no such thing as mithyA shows
a lack of correct understanding of the reality of the world. Shankara puts
this crisply: the world is mithyA because I see it – dRRisyatvAt – that is,
whatever I perceive through the five senses is only mithyA and is therefore
neither real nor unreal. For any mithyA there has to be a substantive, which
is unchanging, and that is Brahman. The law of conservation also states that
if something is changing, there has to be a substantive that remains
changeless. If A + B changes to C + D as in a simple chemical equation,
there has to be a changeless entity as per the law of conservation. In such
chemical equations, the mass and energy are conserved, which students of
Chemistry learn as ‘balancing the equations.’ Krishna states the absolute
law of conservation in Bhagavad Gita Ch.II-16) as ‘existence’ is conserved.
Chandogya Upanishad defines Brahman as pure existence. Thus, for the
changing world, which is mithyA, there is a changeless entity which is the
truth. That is Brahman which being infinite remains as changeless
substratum. Hence all of the scriptural statements:
Brahman is the substantive for the world (material cause);
the world is mithyA and therefore is only apparently real but
reality of the world is Brahman only;
everything is nothing but Brahman (sarvaM khalvidam
brahma);
there is nothing other than Brahman (neha nAnAsti
ki~nchana).
are all self-consistent along with our analysis of how the knowledge of an
object is nothing but the image of the name and form in the mind.
 Part 26 – Transformation-less Transformation
In science, we study two types of transformations, a reversible
transformation and an irreversible transformation. Ice becoming water and
then to steam is an example of a reversible transformation. By cooling, the
process can be reversed. Milk becoming curds or yogurt is an example of
irreversible transformation. In all these transformations, matter is
conserved, that is, the net amount of matter is unchanged. Vedanta explains
creation as a transformation-less transformation – like gold becoming
ornaments, like mud becoming pots and like iron becoming machine tools,
et cetera. Three examples are chosen to drive the point across in Chandogya
Upanishad (Chapter 6).
In the process of gold becoming ornaments, from the point of the
ornaments, a ring is different from a bangle, which is different from a
necklace, et cetera. Hence a ring is not a bangle, which is not a necklace.
Each one is different and has distinguishing characteristics or attributes that
differentiate that object from the other ornaments. But they all have one
common factor – the material cause for all is Gold. In fact, from the point of
view of the gold, there is no transformation but from the points of view of
the ring, bangle and necklace, there is creation, existence as well as
separateness from other objects in the world. We cannot but admire the
precision with which our sages have provided the description of the
creation. This is the glory of Vedanta. The transformation is a
transformation-less transformation.
The Upanishad says ‘vAchArambhanam vikAro nAmadheyam’ – It is
the creation of a name for a form. A ring is a name for the form in the shape
of a ring but the material cause is Gold only. From the Gold point of view,
there is no creation: it was gold, it is gold and it will be gold, even if one
melts the gold ornaments to make something else. Gold has not become a
ring. Yet from the point of view of names and forms, there is a creation of
names and forms. If the ring had a mind of its own, it could say that I am
only a ring, with a date of birth, different from the bangle and necklace. I
am of course in many ways better than those other fellows since I am
required for people getting engaged, married, et cetera. I feel, however, very
unhappy when the owner uses his hands for washing the dirty dishes, et
cetera, without removing me from his/her fingers. During those times I wish
I were a necklace instead, close to the heart of the owner. Of course, the
necklace has its own complaints. It may wish to be different from what it is
right now for it to be happier. If each one of them realizes that I am nothing
but that one entity (tatvam asi – that thou art) which pervades all the golden
ornaments - from which they all arose, are sustained and go back into; the
very core of their personality, which is beyond all names and forms; that
which remains as formless yet pervading all forms in all ornaments; which
has no birth, growth, disease, decay or death; that which is the substantive
of all ornaments; that I am the gold and gold alone – then all its saMsAra
associated with the identification with the name and form would be
instantaneously dissolved.
It is not that the ring is going to become gold. The ring is already
gold, yet it is different from gold in the sense that they are two different
nouns each with a different meaning. Ring has a name (padam, in Sanskrit)
for a form, but there is no substantive of ring as ringly substance
(padArtha). That is, there is no ringly material to sustain a ring – no
substance called ring for the name and form to support. What is there is
only that which it is made up of – the gold. Actually there is no ring at all, if
one wants to examine it carefully. It is only gold in that form, which we call
‘ring.’ All the attributes that belong to the ring and that differ from those of
the bangle or necklace have nothing to do with gold. Yet for transactional
purposes (vyavahAra), a ring is different from a bangle and a necklace and
their utilities are different. Vedanta says creation is nothing but name and
form, and the substantive of the world is nothing but Brahman. There is
really no world to call as worldly substance. It is only Brahman in a variety
of names and forms. Existence is the essential ingredient in all objects when
we say ‘there IS an object with these attributes.’ That ‘IS-ness’ is the
existence part. That is-ness is associated with the knowledge of its existence
where ‘consciousness as though enters’ for me to be conscious of the
existence of say ring or bangle, et cetera. This is the precisely the way
Vedanta describes the creation as name and a form. Naming involves
knowing, and knowing involves conscious entity; and form refers to
attributes of an object. Hence existence of the world involves knowledge of
its existence by a conscious entity, the subject, as we have discussed before.
 The attributes of these worldly objects help to distinguish one object
from another but do not help to identify the substantive, Brahman. Vedanta
keeps screaming at the top of its voice – there is nothing other than
Brahman. All objects, nay the whole world, arise from Brahman, exist in
Brahman and go back into Brahman just as the ornaments do from gold. Yet
gold has nothing to do with ornaments. In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna says
the same thing in a different form – ‘I pervade this entire universe in
unmanifested form; all beings arise from me but I have nothing to do with
any of them – Look at my glory Arjuna.’ Just as it is the glory of gold to be
able to exist in varieties of forms with names, so it is the glory of Krishna to
be able to exist in different names and forms; but the misconceptions of
each form have nothing to do with me. People suffer because of their
misconceptions. The only solution to the problem is to recognize their true
nature.
 Part 27 – The Mind of God
Brahman being pure consciousness there cannot be any true creation.
Matter cannot be created or destroyed, nor can energy. Krishna states this in
an absolute law of conservation: that which exists cannot cease to exist and
that which is non-existent cannot come into existence (nAsato vidyate
bhAvo nAbhAvo vidyate sataH).
If there is any creation it is only a transformation of one form into
another. But Brahman, which is infinite, cannot transform either – this was
stated before, as ‘Brahman cannot create, since creation involves an action.’
This can be also be stated in terms of cause-effect relationships, which are
only possible in the realm of time. Even the concept of time is the product
of creation. That which is beyond time - that which is beyond any cause-
effect relationships - cannot be the cause of any universe.
Hence Vedanta declares that creation is only apparent and not real.
Gaudapada puts this neatly and says that what we call creation is the
‘svAbhAvika’ – natural state of Brahman, just as existence in varieties of
name and form for gold is its very nature (or to put it more technically, gold
is malleable and corrosion-resistant enough to be made into varieties of
ornamental forms). If you know the essence of one ornament, you know the
Gold. If you know gold, you know the truth of all gold-ornaments.
Similarly if you know Brahman, you know the whole creation, the world of
names and forms.
Hence when the student says to his teacher, “Sir, please teach me that,
knowing which I know everything” – “kasmino bhaghavo vij~nAte sarvam
idam vij~nAtam bhavati,” the teacher says it is not an objective science, but
yet it is the science of every object in the whole universe and that it is
Brahman, knowing which you have essentially known everything. I do not
need to know this ring, that ring, this bangle, and that bangle et cetera, –
that is all superficial knowledge (or knowledge of superimpositions on
gold) – there are unlimited numbers of ornaments. However, once I know
that all are nothing but gold and gold alone, which remains unchanged in all
changes, then essentially I know all those ornaments in the past, all those in
the present and all those that will be there in the future. Knowing that which
is changeless in all changes is Brahman, the very material cause for the
universe of names and forms, I have known the essence of all that was there
in the past, all that is there now and all that will be there in future. As
Einstein puts it, “Once I have known the mind of God, the rest are all
details.”
Thus, at the level of vyavahAra, the world appears to be real but from
the absolute point of view there is no creation. The appearance of a
multitude of forms with names is just the Glory of Ishvara, as Krishna
declares ‘pashyam me yogamaishvaram.’ Creation is just the names and
forms without any substantive other than Brahman. Just as ring, bangle,
necklace, et cetera, are the name and form without any substantive other
than gold. Therefore all that you see is nothing but Brahman in varieties of
names and forms (sarvaM khalvidam brahma – all this is Brahman) and
there is nothing other than Brahman (neha nAnAsti ki~nchana). From the
point of negation, what I am negating at the seat of meditation as ‘I am not
this, not this’ et cetera, are only the superficial names and forms that are
superimposed on Brahman. In the process of negation, I have to see the
substantive of all this; this and that are nothing but Brahman. Since
Brahman is not an object to see, ‘seeing’ here means an understanding as in
the statement, ‘Yes, I see your point.’ From the analysis of the perceptual
process also we have concluded that all objects are perceived only as
thoughts in our minds and the mind is illumined by the consciousness that I
am. Thus, thoughts and objects out there are like the perturbations of waves
on the surface of the Deep Ocean of consciousness that I am. The whole
analysis is self-consistent and logical too, yet points to the truth that is
beyond logic or perceptual knowledge.
Let us summarize now the nature of Brahman from the Vedantic
perspective. It defines Brahman as the material cause as well as the
instrumental cause for the universe. We mentioned that this is the incidental
qualification (taTastha lakShaNa) of Brahman. We have shown that creation
is infinite and hence Brahman also has to be infinite. Next, Vedanta
provides svarUpa lakShaNa – Consciousness is Brahman and therefore it is
infinite. But being infinite, Brahman is free from any modifications and
therefore Brahman cannot be the cause for creation. The apparent
contradictions are resolved by understanding the nature of the creation – it
is only a transformation-less transformation like gold becoming ornaments.
Ornaments are at one order of reality, which we can call ‘transactional
reality’ or ‘vyavahAra satya,’ like the existence of ring, bangle, necklace, et
cetera. Gold is at a higher degree of reality. Ornaments change but gold is
changeless. The truth of all ornaments is nothing but name and form of only
gold, which is the material cause for the ornaments. Similarly Vedanta says
Brahman is the substantive for both seer and seen, the subject and the
object. They merge into one in the realization of the oneness of the world
and I, the conscious entity. From the point of view of Brahman, there is no
world of plurality, just as from the point of view of gold there is no world of
ornaments. Yet there appears to be the inert world of plurality with varieties
of objects, each with distinguishing features or attributes. All that
constitutes the entire world is only a lower level of reality. From the
absolute point of view or pAramArthika satyam, there is only Braham -
existence-consciousness-limitlessness Brahman (satyam-j~nAnam-anantam
brahma).
Using converse types of statement for definition, Vedanta declares
categorically that existence-consciousness-limitlessness are its necessary
and sufficient qualifications or the svarUpa lakShaNa-s for Brahman. Nay,
they are not even qualifications of Brahman; they are only pointers to that
which cannot be known. A finger pointing to the moon is not the moon;
similarly Vedanta as pramANa or means of knowledge points to the truth
that is beyond any pramANa (aprameya).
 Part 28 – The Paradox of Space and Time
Can we see space or more accurately can we perceive space? Space is
the distance between objects or between two points that are separated. If
there are no two points, will there be space as an entity by itself? Infinity
and eternity are beyond the concepts of space and time. In discussing the
big bang theory, we raised the question: did the bang occur in space or was
space created with the bang too, as one became many by fragmentation?
One cannot be fragmented unless one consists of fragments. Space cannot
be fragmented, although we try to divide it into my space and your space, et
cetera.
The senses cannot perceive space directly and the mind infers it,
based on the object-object relation. In fact, due to the separation of the two
eyes, I get a stereographic image of the object and thus a perceived
dimension of depth. This aspect is used in 3-D movies, where polarized
light is used to take two images and rotate each and project them onto the
screen simultaneously. Polarized glasses are provided, by using which the
left eye sees only one image while the right eye sees the other. Both are
resolved in the mind as one image giving a 3-D perspective. If you close
one eye and watch the 3-D movie, you will not see the 3-D. Space and a
third dimension are visualized because of the way the eyes are located.
But just as objects still exist outside, the space between the objects
also exists. Hence space can be deduced by the movement in time. Even a
blind man can feel space by moving his hands and thereby getting a sense
of separation between the objects. From Physics point, space is defined as
the gap between two simultaneous points observed, and time is defined as
the gap between two sequential observations. Hence if there is only one
observation, then one cannot define space or time. In either case the
observer, who has to be a conscious entity, is independent of observed
events; hence he is beyond space and time too. According to Vedanta, space
is the subtlest creation from Atma (AtmAnam AkAShas sambhUtaH ...).
There are essentially five primordial elements: space, air, fire, water, and
earth. These cover the fundamental states of matter, vapor, liquid, and solid,
plus energy, a subtler form of matter and space. Krishna says they are my
lower nature (vyavahAra) and my higher nature is that which supports all
these (pAramArthika). Space pervades everything but is unaffected by
anything. But even this space is in my consciousness, which means that the
consciousness that I am pervades the space too. Hence, during the deep-
sleep state when the mind gets folded, the objects as well as the space that
separates the objects get folded too. I do not have any concept of space and
time in deep sleep. But I am there to sleep well. My existence is never
dismissed. Along with space, the concept of time is also dismissed. I am not
located in space but space is located in me, since I can exist without space
but space cannot exist without me.
The paradox of time is even more revealing. Einstein’s definition of
Time is a gap between two sequential events in space, observed by an
observer who does not change with time. Two simultaneous events define
space and two sequential events define time. Vedanta defines time more
subjectively, since ‘subject’ is included in the perception of time too. Time
is the sequence of two experiences by the same experiencer who does not
change with the experience. Each event-observation is counted as one
experience. By bringing the experiencer and the mind associated with it to
observe and record the experience, time is reduced to a concept in the mind.
Hence perception of time depends on the mind too. When there is no mind,
or to put it more accurately when there are no thoughts, there is no time
either. This is what we experience in the deep-sleep state, where sleep is
considered as only one experience and not two. Hence there is no time or
space in the deep-sleep state. Do time and space have any validity, then?
They are valid as long as thoughts are there. The paradox of time arises
strangely with the notions in the mind. There is objective time and
subjective time. The world continuously changes – starting from sunrise to
sunset – two sequential events. We completely forget the time when we are
fully involved in one event, particularly when we are happy, since we are
with ourselves.
 Part 29 – Living in the Present
We can live only in the present. We cannot live in the past, since the
past is always gone. The future has not yet come. The present alone is given
for us on a silver plate to act in and to enjoy. How big is the present? The
present is a thin line where the past meets the future. The gap can be
reduced as small as possible - a second, a microsecond, a nanosecond or a
picosecond – ultimately the time concept itself is dissolved to the very
present where we can live or accomplish and where the very life exists.
There is no time in the present. But that is where we spend all our lives. In
the present, what is there is only our presence – the very life that we are;
that, because of which, we say we are ‘beings,’ the existent conscious
beings that we are; where the dynamic life exists not as a concept in the
future and not as memory of the past, but as the very existent-conscious-
being that we are.
That is the living present where the action is; where the acting itself
reduces to being or where acting and being merge into one. In the present
we transcend time itself. There is an objective time for things to be done
and things that were completed and for the on-going things – but that is
only transactional time or objective time for transactional purposes, just as
the reality that we assign to objects is only for the purpose of transaction.
Krishna, in declaring the law of action and results, essentially says
that we are only given a choice to act (karmanyeva adhikAraste) but not in
framing the results (mA phaleShu kadAchana). This is because we can only
act in the present and the results are always in the future. A karma yogi
therefore lives in the present; the present is not a means for the future,
which never comes - the present is the end in itself. Unfortunately we do
not live in the present – that is the source of our bondage. We drag the past
into the present or we dream about the future. If we examine every action,
every thought, it either concerns the past or the future. Our ego itself is
based on these two concepts and has very little existence in the present.
The bio-data about each individual is about what he has accomplished
in the past and what he wants to do in the future. There is nothing wrong
with this. The only problem is that, in the process, we miss the very present
where the whole action is. For us, the present is only a means to accomplish
or to gain something in the future but very rarely the end in itself. On the
other hand, when we are doing an inspired action, the very acting becomes
an end in itself – that is living a dynamic life; a dynamic present where the
time concept itself is transcended. During an inspired action, one is not
conscious of time. Time flies. That state of being becomes a transcendental
living or meditative living where one does not care what happens – the
future takes care of itself. In fact, the future never comes. What is there is
only the present – a dynamic present where the Lord resides, where the life
is, where conscious-existence exists. That is Brahman.
Surrendering to the present becomes a key to self-realization. Many
sAdhaka-s get trapped in this conceptualization of the future and
conceptualization of even self-realization. I want to realize one day or I am
going to become realized soon – the wanting mind never ceases to want and
this is always a future expectation. Vedanta clearly declares that you can
only realize NOW (ehaiva – right now and right here) – where there is no
space or time, since both are concepts in the mind. Longing for something
in the future itself becomes an obstacle for self-realization, since the
longing mind or wanting mind is the ego-based mind, which assumes I do
not have what I want, and I am going to get what I want. For a longing
mind, the present is only a means to an end and not an end in itself. Life is
in the living present and not in the dead past or in an unborn future. How to
live in the present is the essence of yoga shAstra, where the surrendering or
witnessing presence is the key to freedom from the past and future or
freedom from ego.
As we analyzed earlier, the ego bases its firm existence in the
memories of the past and expectations for the future. It has little to do with
anything in the present other than as a means for an end in the future. Ego
therefore is centered on the wanting mind or longing mind. The wanting
mind never stops wanting regardless of what it has gained, since it always
sees itself as incomplete. To reach fullness or infiniteness is the very goal in
life. To be fulfilled or longing for self-realization becomes an obstacle to
self-realization. This is the final hurdle a seeker has to go through during
his spiritual journey. This is expressed as ‘I want to meditate’ or ‘I want to
take up saMnyAsa or renunciation’ or ‘I want to withdraw myself’ et
cetera. These are all forms of expression the ego assumes in wanting to
realize. In fact, no ego will be able to achieve self-realization, since the very
self-realization involves transcendence of the ego, which lives in the past
and future. Any attempt to eliminate ego itself crystallizes ego in a different
form. The only way to eliminate ego is to observe its action in the present.
This in Vedanta is called ‘sAkShi bhAva’ – the attitude of a witnessing
agent. Witnessing is a present action and in fact it is an action-less action. In
the process, one lives in the present where ego has no place. What is there is
only ‘I am’ or from the bhakti point, what is there is the presence of the
Lord.
 Part 30 – Relationless Relation
Vedanta provides different descriptions of the creation process
depending on the maturity of the student. Existence alone was there in the
beginning, and that existence was one without a second. It saw and wanted
to become many and became many, it says in the Chandogya Upanishad. It
also describes how one became many – as discussed before it is similar to
gold becoming many ornaments. Since the existence that was there before
the creation has the capacity to see, it implies that existence is of the nature
of consciousness. Since there is nothing other than itself to see, seeing also
implies that it is a self-conscious entity. Thus Brahman is a self-existent and
self-conscious entity. In fact, a self-conscious entity alone is a self-existent
entity since, as we discussed before, existence and knowledge of the
existence have to go together. In addition, Brahman cannot be conscious of
anything other than itself since it is one without a second, and there is no
other thing for it of which to be conscious. That is, there are no inert things
for Brahman of which to be conscious. Brahman cannot have parts either, to
have some parts that are inert and some parts that are conscious entities.
Thus it is not an assemblage of things as some philosophers argue. It is a
homogenous mass of consciousness – praj~nAna ghanam – or simply
“praj~nAnam brahma” – “Consciousness is Brahman.”
Another Upanishad says that what was there before the creation was
only the self, Atma, and it decided to become many. In the Bhagavad Gita,
Krishna says that, under my presidentship, the prakRRiti projects itself into
movable and immovable entities. In another Upanishad, the prakRRiti is
described as nothing but mAyA – that which appears to be there, but is
really not there (mAyantu prakRRitim vidhyAt). Krishna himself says that
prakRRiti is nothing but his lower nature or lower order of reality. That
which supports all this lower nature is his higher nature. Krishna says: ‘I am
the source, support and locus for dissolution of the whole world.’ This we
discussed as the material cause for the universe. Along with these
statements, the description of Brahman as infinite (which is attributeless
and therefore free from space-wise, time-wise and object-wise limitations),
and is of the nature of existence-consciousness-limitlessness (satyam-
j~nAnam-anantam brahma), should provide us with a consistent description
of the nature of reality and its relation to the world of plurality.
From these descriptions we gather that the relationship between the
world and Brahman cannot be of the type that with which we are normally
familiar. Some philosophers have described this relationship as that
between attributes and their locus, inseparable but yet different. Some have
described it as that between two different entities, one dependent and the
other independent. Advaita provides the correct description of the relation
between the two. One is real and the other is mithyA – the relationship can
only be of the type described as adhyAsa or superimposition. The word
‘Advaita’ itself means ‘non-dual.’ It is not the same as monism; the very
description involves the negation of duality as reality. Such a description of
the truth as ‘non-dual’ has validity only to those who see or experience
duality in their day-to-day life, that is, for most of the seekers who are
trying to gain knowledge of reality.
How can the truth be non-dual when we experience duality all the
time? It is similar to a student asking a question, “How can you say that
there is no sunrise and sunset when I experience them everyday?” Hence,
Vedanta emphasizes that experience is different from knowledge.
Knowledge involves understanding of the truth behind the experience.
Hence Advaita Vedanta says the relation between Brahman and the world is
that of superimposition or adhyAsa. It is like the relation between gold and
its ornaments – a relationless relation. One is vyAvahArika satyam,
transactional reality and the other is pAramArthika satyam, absolute reality.
The ring can change into a bangle or necklace but gold remains the same
during these changes. Ring, bangle and necklace are different names for
different forms, yet they are the nothing but gold. Gold is not the ring, not
the bangle not the necklace - neti, neti, not this, not this - yet it includes the
ring, bangle and necklace, as well. It is the essence of all names and forms
too. One is the substantive and the other is a superimposed name and form.
One is permanent and eternal while the other is changing continuously.
What is perceived through the senses is only the attributes that belong to the
name and form, just as what is perceived is ring, bangle or necklace. What
is not perceived is Brahman, which is the very consciousness because of
which all perceptions are possible.
 This aspect is beautifully described in the kenopaniShad (I.4-7
paraphrased):
Brahman is that which the eyes cannot see, but that because of which
the eyes have the capacity to see; know that alone to be Brahman and not
this that you worship. It is that which ears cannot hear, but that because of
which ears have the capacity to hear; know that alone to be Brahman and
not this that you worship. It is that which you cannot speak about but that
because of which all speech is possible; know that alone to be Brahman and
not this that you worship. It is that which the mind cannot think, but that
because of which the mind has the capacity to think; know that alone to be
Brahman and not this that you worship.
Thus the Upanishad indicates that Brahman expresses as very life
principle in all of us because of which all physiological activities are
possible, know that alone to be Brahman and not this that you worship.
Thus by negating all that which can be objectified as not Brahman, Vedanta
uplifts the mind to something beyond words and descriptions, to the very
core of one’s individuality, the very life principle in each one of us, to that
which can only be expressed as ‘I am’ – the existent-consciousness entity
that I am.
 Part 31 – Concept of Ishvara or God-Hood
Since we see the creation (and Brahman being infinite does not
create), we bring in a third factor - Ishvara, God or the Lord, who is
empowered to create. He is a mAyAvin (possessor of magical powers), the
wielder of mAyA, that is, he is not affected by mAyA. What is mAyA? The
mAyA is that power because of which one appears to be many. In the
example of the gold, we can say it is that power that makes gold to appear
in varieties of ornamental forms. The mAyA is a factor brought in to
explain how one becomes many. Krishna says in the Bhagavad Gita, “This
mAyA of mine is of divine origin, it is very difficult to overcome this power
of mAyA. Only by surrendering to me one can cross over and realize.”
When we recognize and understand that there is really no creation at all and
all this is nothing but Brahman, the concept of Ishvara, a creator-sustainer-
annihilator is no longer needed. A creator comes into the picture when one
supposes the existence of creation.
When did this creation start? Creation-sustenance-annihilation is a
cyclic process and therefore there is no beginning. To account for the
creation, for those who are perceiving a creation different from themselves,
a God principle is posited who is both the material and instrumental cause
for the creation. This is also described in the from of a trinity: Brahma (note
Brahma is not the same as Brahman, the infinite consciousness), Vishnu and
maheshvara or Shiva. This is further fragmented in order to understand the
process of creation. Brahma is in charge of creation. For creation,
knowledge - the know-how of how to create - is required and therefore he is
married to sarasvatI, the goddess of knowledge. Vishnu is in charge of
maintenance, which is an expensive affair. He is married to the goddess of
wealth, lakShmI. Lord Shiva is in charge of dissolution, which requires all
the missile power, and therefore he is married to shakti or pArvatI.
The concepts of Gods and Goddesses are mostly pourANic (from the
class of scriptures called the purANa), where the processes of creation et
cetera, are explained in mythological story form. Gods and goddesses are
also symbolic to help the mind to go beyond the plurality. All phenomenal
forces in nature are symbolized in the form of Gods and Goddesses.
Krishna says that when we perform work to its fulfillment and offer it to the
Gods, they give the results. The production potential in the field of action is
related to the Gods. Hence the gods are pleased when the action is done to
its fulfillment and they have to rain down the results for the actions
performed. These are the laws of Nature that Krishna brings out in his
analysis of action and results and the role of the gods in giving the results
for the action. All the phenomenal forces are conceptualized in the form of
Gods.
Since conceptualization is the only way our limited minds can
understand any concepts, Gods are also symbolized to help a seeker who
needs a springboard to make a leap into the present, where his ego is
completely surrendered. Since everything in the creation is nothing but
Brahman, which is formless, Brahman can be invoked in any form, as long
as one understands the form is only a symbolic to denote that which cannot
be denoted. It is similar to assigning a flag to symbolize the nation. When
we salute a flag and chant a national anthem, it is not the piece of cloth that
we are saluting but the nation for which it stands. Similarly, a Hindu does
not salute a piece of stone or figure but that which it symbolizes: the infinite
consciousness that pervades all forms and names. Hindus are not idol
worshipers but worshipers of the ideals behind the idols. The Vedic rituals
that are performed all have a deeper meaning than at first sight. Since that
which pervades all forms can be invoked in any form for the purpose of
symbolism, we have many gods and goddesses. The ultimate truth of course
is beyond any name, form or symbol.
 Part 32 – Self realization or God realization
If one asks the question: ‘what do I have to do to realize that I am
Brahman?’ – What should be the answer? I am Brahman whether I realize it
or not, just as the ring is gold, whether it recognizes it or not. What does the
ring have to do to become gold? Does it have to sit down and meditate that
‘I am gold; I am gold’ et cetera? Does it have to do some selfless service or
karma yoga, perform some religious activities, take a dip in the Holy Rivers
or perform sacrifices, et cetera? None of them make a ring into gold. It has
to simply understand what it is – it is nothing but pure gold and ‘ring’ is
only a particular form with that name. There is no substantive other than
gold. One can use some fancy words to take the ring’s mind off its
identification with its form and name. It is the very essence, very core of its
personality or the very self (antaryAmin) of the ring or in-dweller of all the
ornaments, which is beyond any modifications and beyond the birth,
growth, decay and destruction of all names and forms, et cetera.
What is known as mokSha is freedom from limitations. It (mokSha)
cannot be gained or given, nor does it involve going somewhere,
vaikuNTha or kailAsa or eternal heavens, et cetera. These all come under
the criteria of gaining something that I do not have. To gain anything that I
do not have, work has to be done. Or it should be given freely by the
compassionate God. If God is an infinite compassionate being, He should
give mokSha to everyone, so that nobody needs to suffer in this universe.
No, No, No! God is full of compassion, but He can give mokSha only
to those who deserve it. It essentially implies that one has to earn it. The
problem is similar to the one where my boss distributes promotions to those
who deserve them. If I have to earn or deserve it, then it depends on my
efforts to be on His good side to deserve His grace. That which can be given
can be taken back too. One who can promote can demote or dismiss you
too. If God is some superior being who punishes those who do not behave
and favors those who follow His will, we reduce the problem back to a
temporal one. The solution, by definition, will be also temporal only; that
is, limited by space and time. Obviously these are very elementary
concepts. Liberation or mokSha, on the other hand, is freedom from all
limitations. Therefore it cannot be gained or given.
When Vedanta says that you are Brahman, tat tvam asi, there is
nothing to gain and nowhere to go. The mokSha is not of the type of
gaining something that I do not have (aprAptasya prAptam). It can only be
prAptasya prAptam or gaining something that I already have, which implies
that it is intrinsic to my own nature; that is, nobody can give it, and no one
can take it away from me. If I already have it, then why should I gain
mokSha? True - unless I do not know that I have it. In that case gaining
truly involves understanding or recognizing or realizing that I am already
Brahman or I am ever Brahman. Therefore it is not something to do but
something to understand or recognize. Like any other knowledge, in order
to gain self-knowledge or understanding of one’s true nature, intelligent
inquiry into the nature of the self is required. Here the inquiry is more
subtle than an inquiry used in the analysis of any objective science, for it is
an inquiry about my true nature or inquiry into the subject, I, which cannot
be objectified. Therefore to realize I am Brahman, I have to inquire within,
using the methodology outlined in Vedanta. Hence realization of Brahman
or the self within does not involve any action. Besides, any action being
finite, the result will also be finite. What we are seeking is infiniteness itself
and therefore it cannot be the product of any finite action or even a series of
finite actions.
Hence, the process involves gaining the knowledge of the reality of
myself and the world that I experience. It involves recognition that I am that
reality, the substantive for both the subject I, and the object, the world. One
cannot become Brahman; finite cannot become infinite. Hence, the Vedas
declare the truth in the form of an aphorism: -
– . It is only the recognition that ‘I am’- the existent-conscious
entity that I am – is in fact Brahman. Hence Vedanta says ‘the knower of
Brahman becomes Brahman – brahma vit brahmaiva bhavati.’ The knower
of a thing cannot become that thing. However the scriptures say that the
knower of Brahman becomes Brahman. This can happen only if knowing
Brahman is knowing oneself. Hence, it is the self-knowledge or recognition
that ‘I am Brahman - aham brahmAsmi.’
 Part 33 – Self-Realization and the Attitude of the
Mind
In order to recognize what I am, I have to drop all the notions I have
about myself, such as ‘I am this body, this mind, this intellect,’ et cetera. I
have to shift my attention from all names and forms to the very substantive,
because of which all names and forms are known or can even possibly
exist. This helps the shift of my attention, from what I think I am, to
recognize what I actually am. Vedanta says that you, as the conscious-
existent entity, are the very substantive for the whole world of plurality of
objects.
Thus self-realization involves three aspects:
1) a recognition that Brahman alone is the absolute truth,
2) a recognition that the world of plurality that we experience is
mithyA or is only relative and not absolute, whose substantive is
nothing other than Brahman, and
3) a recognition that ‘I am’ is none other than Brahman and
Brahman alone.
Shri Shankara states these in cryptic form:
1) brahma satyam,
2) jagat mithyA, and
3) jIvo brahmaiva nAparaH.
This is the essence of advaita Vedanta emphasized in the scriptures.
For the realization of who am I, all these three aspects are involved. It is not
just the simple inquiry of ‘who I am’ but involves clear understanding of
the nature of the absolute reality, understanding the nature of the world that
we experience and finally the identity of the self as the universal self.
Krishna expresses this aspect in two forms (Bhagavad Gita VI 29): Self-
realization involves recognition that I am the self in all beings and things,
and all things and beings are in myself -
sarva bhUtasthamAtmAnaM, sarva bhUtAni chAtmani.
From the bhakti point the same statement is expressed as (VI 30): ‘He
who sees me in everything and everything in me, he alone sees
(understands) –
yo mAm pashyati sarvatra sarvaM cha mayi pashyati
Thus, the ‘Who am I?’ enquiry has to culminate in this knowledge.
That enquiry has to be done using the understanding of the scriptures as the
basis. Hence Vedanta emphasizes three aspects in terms of enquiry:
listening to the scriptures (shravaNam), reflecting on the meanings until
there are no more doubts (mananam), and internalizing the teaching until it
becomes one with the seeker (nidhidhyaAsanam). It is not an intellectual
inquiry but it is an inquiry with the intellect. For that inquiry, the mind
should be made suitable. What is needed for this inquiry is not a sharp
intellect (tIkShNa buddhi) that divides, but a subtle intellect (sUkShma
buddhi) that integrates.
It is not the mind that analyzes but the mind that synthesizes; not the
mind that classifies but the mind that unifies. It is the mind that sees
oneness in the multitude of plurality and not that which sees multitudes as a
reality. For that, one needs to develop a certain amount of dispassion and
discrimination to pursue that inquiry. Vedanta itself guides the seeker
progressively with a methodology of teaching as the seeker matures in his
understanding. Hence, as discussed before, an appropriate teacher is
required to provide that guidance based on his own experience as a seeker.
One is led to an appropriate teacher in the course of one’s evolution towards
the higher goal in life, provided one is sensitive enough to recognize those
opportunities. One recognizes that ‘this person is my teacher,’ when one
recognizes the intense benefit that one is gaining by the teaching that one is
receiving. Vedantic teaching is not just verbal communication but through
the very life that one leads. It is like parents teaching their children not only
verbally but also by their very living of those values that they teach. A
teacher who is well established in the understanding of oneself cannot but
demonstrate that understanding that “He is in all beings and all beings are in
him” – through his very life that he lives. Once you are exposed to advaita
Vedanta, it would not leave you even if you take a detour for some reason.
Hence Dattatreya says in the avadhUta Gita – ‘IswarAnugraht eva pumsAm
advaita vAsanA’ – only by the grace of god does one get the inclination to
learn advaita Vedanta. It is a graceful way of saying that one has to earn it
by contemplative living.
 Part 34 – Consciousness and Reflected
Consciousness
We have discussed above the relation between the Brahman and the
world. We introduced the concept of Ishvara or God-Hood; lord of the
entire universe, a creator-sustainer and annihilator. Ishvara is there as long
as the creation is seen as separate from the seer, I. Since creation is seen as
separate from the seer I, the creator who is the cause for the creation is also
separate from I. Advaita does not say ‘I am Ishvara or God.’ In the
statement of ‘tat tvam asi,’ that thou art, what is equated is the essence of
Ishvara, the existence-consciousness, and the essence of myself which is
existence-consciousness are one and the same, since there cannot be
divisions in the existence nor in the consciousness. This equation is actually
arrived at by using what is known in Indian logic as ‘bhAga tyAga
lakShaNa.’ It involves discarding parts that differentiate the two and only
taking those that are common to both. What are discarded are superficial
qualities (names and forms) and what are equated are the essential or
svarUpa lakShaNa-s. Thus Ishvara is all pervading, all knowledge, all
skills, controller of mAyA et cetera. On the other hand I am a localized
entity with very little knowledge and skill, and being affected by mAyA.
The identity of both is recognized by discarding all these superficial
qualities and equating only their essential qualities.
A simple example is a statement, ‘He is that Devadatta.’ That
Devadatta whom we met many years ago (time and space wise remote)
when he was a cute little boy, is this fat, ugly looking Devadatta. In this
identification we are pointing to only one and not two (advaita); that is one
and the same individual called Devadatta. There are no two Devadattas
here. In the identity relation, one drops all the superficial qualities of this
Devadatta that we are seeing right now (this fat and ugly looking) and that
Devadatta whom we met at a different time and space (cute little boy), and
equates only the svarUpa lakShaNa-s of both - the essential core because of
which one is Devadatta and without which one is not Devadatta. This is
called bhAga tyAga lakShaNa or discarding partial superficial data and
equating the remaining.
Thus as long as I feel I am separate from the Universe that is seen or
experienced, there is a creation and a creator, Ishvara or God. Does God
have a form? If I think I have a form, then God can have a form too. What
type of form has he? Whatever form that is conceptualized by culture,
tradition and one’s imaginations. In Hinduism Gods are symbolized in
forms that capture the imagination and invoke devotion in the individuals.
For example, He is blue in color or lying down in the snake bed with all the
seven hoods turn towards Him. Blueness is indicative of infinite nature just
as the sky or ocean appears blue. Snakes in all religions are symbolic of
vAsanA-s (which will be discussed later). The seven hoods represent the
five senses, mind and intellect all turned inwards looking at the Lord who is
in yoga nidrA or contemplative sleep. His consort lakShmI, symbolic of the
prakRRiti or nature is at his service. Forms are useful for the mind to
conceptualize the infinite nature of the Lord. These are intended to convert
the extroverted mind to an introverted one. But once the mind is available
for contemplation, Vedanta provides clear pointers for further
contemplation to the higher, which is beyond names and forms. He is not
the forms that you worship but He is that, because of which perception of
all forms is possible. When there is no name or form, one can call it by any
name or imagine any form, if one understands that the truth is beyond all
names and forms.
 Part 35 – Conscious and Unconscious entities
In the realization of oneself, the creator-creation and the self all merge
into one that is Brahman that I am. We will now address the question of
how the notion that ‘I am an individual’ arises, or what is the nature of the
individual (jIva) and what is its relation to Brahman.
When I say ‘I am’ (aham asmi), the ‘I’ refers to the consciousness
aspect and the ‘am’ refers to the existence aspect. However, when I
introduce myself, who I am, I will start with ‘I am’ plus additional
information that distinguishes myself from all others beings in the world.
We have already noted earlier that being a subject, ‘I’ cannot be defined,
since any definition objectifies the subject. Hence, all the distinguishing
features that are used for ‘I’ to define myself do not belong to ‘I’, the
subject, but belong to ‘this’ - this object that I can point out.
When I say I am this body, this mind or this intellect, I am equating
the subject I with the object ‘this.’ There is obviously an inherent confusion
in the very definition for ‘I’ that I use, since I am equating a conscious-
existent entity, ‘I’, with an unconscious entity ‘this.’ ‘This’ normally refers
to either to my body, my mind or my intellect. For example, when I say I
am five and half feet tall, weigh 150 pounds, was born in India, studied and
worked as a scientist in US, am married to so and so, and father of so and
so, orbited 62 times around the sun, et cetera - these all refer to this body,
mind, and intellect complex of which I am fully conscious.
I can go on with my bio-data, providing pages and pages of
information ‘all about myself,’ but in reality nothing about myself. All these
pages only contain attributes at my body level, my relationships at
emotional or mind level and my accomplishments at an intellect level. I can
say nothing more about myself beyond that. I also cannot stop my
introduction just with a statement ‘I am’ period, although that is all that can
be said about the subject I. Hence, in my understanding of myself as an
individual ‘I am,’ I combine two things: ‘I am’ – an existent-conscious
entity that I am; and ‘this’ – an inert entity that corresponds to body, mind,
and intellect (BMI) with which I identify at that instant.
 By definition, that which has attributes is an inert entity. Hence, all
my bio-data correspond to my BMI, which are inert entities, while ‘I’ am a
conscious entity. Here, we have a peculiar combination of ‘I’ the conscious
entity identifying with local equipments BMI, which are inert. This unholy
combination results in an individual ‘I’ that is different from all other
individuals in the universe. We are able to live in this confused world only
because everybody is equally confused and is making the same mistake of
false identification of ‘self’, ‘I’, with the non-self, ‘this.’
 Part 36 – Real Self and False Self
The individual or jIva arises as a combination of ‘I am’ plus the
localized entity of body, mind and intellect with which I identify myself.
This false identification of myself (a conscious entity) with ‘this’ or non-
self (an inert entity) is called an error of superimposition or adhyAsa. This
was discussed earlier with reference to Brahman and the world. This false
self is called ‘ego’ or ahaMkAra or localized I.
For the purpose of analysis, Vedanta classifies the body as made up of
gross elements in the form of the body (sthUla sharIra) and subtle elements
in the form of the mind and intellect. Body or sharIra, actually means that
which slowly disintegrates. Thus all the bodies are ultimately perishable in
time. The subtle body consists of thoughts or more accurately the flow of
thoughts, just as a flow of water is called a river.
Based on functions, the subtle body is further classified into four
components:
1) mind or manas, the emotional center
2) intellect, buddhi, the discriminative center
3) ego or ahaMkAra, and
4) memory or chitta.
We can group all these together and refer to them as mind.
We discussed some aspects of ego before in respect of identification
of ‘I am’ with thought patterns or thought-content. In all my worldly
transactions at the level of vyavahAra, when I say ‘I am,’ it is the ego that I
identify with as the individual. Since the ego is centered on the existent-
conscious entity that I am, it behaves like a conscious entity, although the
consciousness is actually similar to a reflected consciousness. It is similar to
moon’s light, which is nothing but a reflected light from the sun. Hence it
has no existence of its own, that is, there is no moon-light other than the
sun’s light. In other words, it has no substantive of its own, other than the
light of the sun.
Similarly, this body-mind-intellect complex acts as a conscious entity
in all of the worldly transactions, but that transactability is not of its own
but comes from the conscious entity that ‘I am.’ Thus because of
identification with the BMI complex, a false ‘I’ is created by identification
of the true self with a false self.
Are there two selves then – a true self and a false self? No. The false
self is false and therefore has no validity of its own. The ‘true self’ is the
only reality. But at the transactional level, the false self acts as though it is
the true self, since one has no knowledge of the true self that one is. The
error is again of the type ‘adhyAsa’ where a false self ‘I’ is superimposed
on the true self, ‘I’. Hence when I ask you, “Are you a conscious entity?” or
“Are you an existent entity?” - your immediate response is “Yes I am.” But
what you are actually implying is: “I am an existent entity as ‘this’ and
‘this’” or “I am a conscious entity as this individual ‘I’ with the BMI
complex.” You do not ask yourself: “How can I be this, where ‘I am’ is the
subject and ‘this’ is an object of my perception?”
Thus, the total consciousness that I am (which is all pervading) is ‘as
though’ reflected in the local medium of reflection, the subtle body, which
then behaves as though it is itself a real conscious entity. This reflected
consciousness (chidAbhAsa), is called jIva or the individual self. Some
refer to this as ‘soul,’ although what exactly this implies is not known.
From our analysis, it is the all-pervading consciousness, as though reflected
in the local medium, subtle body or inner equipment (antaHkaraNa)
constituting of the mind, intellect, ego, and memory. An individual ‘I’ arises
by identification of total consciousness with the reflected consciousness.
 Part 37 – Transmigration of Soul
Pure consciousness is all pervading and eternal. Its reflection through
the medium of subtle and gross bodies is the expression of life.
Identification with the reflection is the notion of the jIva. The reflection
depends on the medium of reflection. It is similar to convex, concave or
plane mirrors where the reflection is distorted due to the lack of
straightforwardness (Arjavam) of the reflecting surface. Hence when the
mind and intellect are crooked, the reflecting consciousness also appears
crocked. When the mind and intellect are impure, the reflection is also dull.
If the mind and intellect are pure the reflection will be pure and shine in all
its glory. Thus the BMI surface acts ‘as though’ a prism refracting the pure
light of consciousness into the VIBGYOR (or ROYGBIV) color pattern of
different individuals, each with a different wave length. But the essence is
one and the same consciousness-existence entity that “I am” – without any
reflections or distortions.
Here, we note that reflection or refraction is not the problem. The
VIBGYOR pattern is not the problem; the existence of BMI complex is not
the problem. Even their crookedness is not the problem. They are part of the
nature just as existence of gold in varieties of ornamental forms is its
nature. Then where is the problem? The problem arises with the
identification of ‘I am this.’ That problem arises when I take the image of
reflection or reflected consciousness as the original I, the all-pervading
consciousness. Since ‘I am’ is ‘I am’ and ‘this is’ is ‘this is,’ the existence
of either of these two is not a problem just as gold is gold and ring is ring.
When gold feels ‘I am a ring’- that identification with a name and form
contributes to suffering or saMsAra.
In that very identification, the problem of the names and forms
becomes my problem. The BMI is limited and the limitations of BMI
become my limitations, although the existent-consciousness entity that I
really am is limitless. The BMI continuously changes with what Vedanta
calls the six-fold modifications consisting of presence, birth, growth,
disease, decay, and death, while ‘I am’ is changeless and eternal. But due to
identification, I feel I am undergoing these six-fold modifications and suffer
as a consequence of this identification.
Death is nothing but the separation of the subtle body from the gross
body. The subtle body, consisting of the flow of thoughts constituting mind,
intellect, ego, and memory, gathers all its faculties – the faculties of senses,
et cetera, - and moves to different fields of experiences (lokas). It takes a
new gross body by entering into the womb of a mother which we call
‘birth.’ Birth and death are therefore the association and disassociation of
the subtle body with a gross body. In the gross body, the consciousness
reflects as existence – as ‘the body is.’ In the subtle body, the consciousness
is reflected as a being with notions of ‘I am this.’
 Part 38 - Witnessing consciousness and Reflected
Consciousness
Since the problem of suffering arises with the identification of the
total consciousness with the reflected consciousness, the problem can be
eliminated when this identification ceases. This solution sounds very
simple, but the difficulty arises in the execution, since this identification
that ‘I am the body, mind, or intellect’ is very intense, reinforced perhaps by
several lives.
The problem is compounded, since any effort to dis-identify only
crystallizes the ego further. Who is trying to dis-identify? Is it pure
consciousness? Pure consciousness is always pure and one without a
second. Reflected consciousness exists as long as the reflecting medium
exists, that is, as long as the BMI complex exists. Neither one has any
problem. Only the by-product of these two – a notional I that arise in the
mind as the ego; as ‘I am this’ – is the false person and has to realize that he
is not the true self but a false one. No ego can realize that he is a false
person and still exist – since the very realization involves its own
destruction. He only adopts a new language, for example, ‘I am now a
spiritual seeker and want to meditate and realize who I am.’ There is still
that wanting mind or longing mind, now wanting to realize. The wanting
mind therefore remains in the process, which is nothing but another
expression of the ego.
The ego wants to have but it is never satisfied with what it has. Hence
Vedanta suggests that once one recognizes the problem, the best method to
solve the problem is just to be an observer of the operation of the ego. It is
then no more a wanting mind but an observing mind or a conscious
observer of the wanting mind. This is the ‘witnessing mind,’ which does not
do or want but is a non-interacting witness of the very operation of the
egoistic mind. Thus, during the sAdhanA stage, we have the witnessing
consciousness ‘I’, which is not involved in any action or in any enjoyment,
and the egoistic mind which wants to enjoy or act to fulfill its wants. This is
illustrated in the muNDaka upaniShad as the two birds sitting on the same
branch of a tree, one enjoying the fruits (fruits of the actions) while the
other is just observing as the witness (dvA suparNA sayujA sakhAya...).
Krishna puts this in a different way: “I am the all-pervading consciousness
and all beings are in me. However, I am not affected by their modifications
- look at my glory, Arjuna.”
This duality is only notional as long as the identification is present.
The notional duality is taken as real due to this identification. The problem
can only be solved by detaching oneself from all these identifications. But
this detachment cannot involve another action or another process, since any
process will only reinforce the attachment, providing further reality to the
false. The falseness arises only because there is no substantive for BMI
complex as well as the world of objects around. BMI is part of the world
since it is this body, this mind, this intellect, and this world of objects.
Hence all ‘this’ constitutes inert objects. Krishna states emphatically that
‘this body and this world provides a field of experience’ or kShetra (idam
sharIram kaunteya kShetram ityabhidhIyate) and gives exhaustive details of
what constitutes the ‘this’ or idam. Since all this is pervaded by me, the
knower of the field, kShetra, I am that total consciousness that enlivens all
these fields of experiences. Hence, the recognition that ‘I am not this’
should involve shifting myself from the notional ‘I’ or reflected
consciousness to the witnessing consciousness with the clear understanding
that ‘I am neither a doer nor an enjoyer – akartAham abhoktAham.’
 Part 39 - Analysis of Mind: Introduction Part I
Mind has been the subject of analysis both by psychologists as well as
philosophers. There is a multitude of books dealing with the mind, trying to
unravel the mysteries of the mind. Here I present my understanding,
examining the mind from various angles along with how Vedanta looks at
the mind.
Those who have been exposed to J.Krishnamurti's lectures will be
familiar with his statement that one's mind is ‘conditioned’ by one's culture,
tradition, religion, up-bringing or, so to say parental or society's
'brainwashing.' One is a believer or non-believer, Hindu, Muslim, Christian
or any other denomination, one is a dvaitin, advaitin, or vishiShTAdvaitin,
either by default or by choice, all due to one's mental conditionings brought
out by where, when or to whom he is born, and the environment or
surroundings in which he grew up. There is no truth in any of these
conditionings, since they are conditionings that take one away from the
truth. The mind gets cocooned in a shell or moves from one shell to another.
Even if one makes a choice of selecting a path or system to follow, say
advaita philosophy, even that choice is influenced by the value system that
has grown out of some conditioning. Subjectivity gets involved in and
through conditioning. My beliefs or my conditionings become an integral
part of 'i', the individual. All systems of philosophies that essentially rely on
'belief' systems will eventually lead to reconditioning of the mind. The
biggest problem that arises as a result of conditioning is that pure
knowledge cannot take place in a conditioned state of mind - mind is not
free to learn. Mind can learn only when it surrenders all its beliefs.
The essence of this teaching is that 'any process used to uncondition
the mind, itself conditions the mind,' since there cannot be any 'process' that
is free from conditioning. Hence J.Krishnamurti declares 'truth is a path-less
land.' Truth is not a belief; it is a fact. Hence his famous statement: 'truth is
not an understanding as an understanding as thought, but an understanding
as an understanding as a fact.' In other words, 'truth' is not conceptualization
as a thought, but needs to be assimilated as a fact. Let me illustrate this by a
simple example. If I say 'I am man and not a dog or horse or a floor mat to
step on' - is this a thought or a concept or an 'idea' that I have to repeat
many times until it sinks into my belief system? It is the truth, whether I
belief it or not, is it not? That is the understanding as a fact and not a
thought. Once understood, there will never be a confusion regarding my
identity as a man, even if a hundred theories try to disprove that I am not a
man! That firm abidance in the knowledge of the truth happens since it is
the truth.
Science deals with facts or truths and therefore does not rely on
'beliefs,' even if it questions the basis for beliefs. It is purely objective and
therefore independent of whether one believes it or not. No physics teacher
needs to come or will come to my house on Sunday mornings, like some of
religious fanatics do, to say that I should belief in Newton’s laws of motion,
otherwise I will go to eternal hell. Scientific facts are revealed though
deductive or inductive reasoning based on observed experimental data.
Here we are dealing with objectifiable facts that are distinct from the
subject, who is investigating. Scientific truths are verifiable by controlled
experimentation.
However, philosophies as well as religions are concerned with the
ultimate truth that cannot be objectively verifiable, for example, the
existence of heaven or hell. Questions such as: ‘is there life after death or
life before the birth?’, ‘is there a God who is the ruler of this world?’ et
cetera, cannot be established by objective experimentation. Objective
scientific investigation that relies on perception and inference as the basis
for establishing scientific truths cannot be relied upon to establish the
ultimate truth. In addition, it is also understandable that any truth that is
established based on conditioned mind cannot necessarily be true. How then
can we discover this ultimate truth, using the mind that is free from any
conditioning? That 'how' question itself becomes invalid, if one is seeking a
methodology to discover that truth that is pathless.
That ‘the truth is pathless land' can be true only if that truth is
absolute and infinite and not relative. There cannot be any path for the
infinite. Infinite includes all paths and cannot be reached by any path.
Hence Vedanta calls the truth 'agrAhyam (incomprehensible), adRRiShTam
(imperceptible), avyapadeshyam (indescribable), avyavahAryam (non-
transactable), achintyam (unthinkable), aparameyam (unknowable), et
cetera.'
 Part 40 - Analysis of Mind: Introduction Part II
Examples, such as removing a thorn by a thorn or removing the
poison in the body by controlled medicine, which by itself is harmful for
the body are provided to show how deconditioning of the mind can occur
with proper sAdhanA or process, which is nothing but a judicious
controlled conditioning. If the truth cannot be known by any means, since
all means are finite, then it must be a self-revealing and self-existing entity.
However, from the Vedanta perspective, even though the truth is self-
evident, and self-revealing, a conditioned mind cannot recognize the truth
due to its conditioning. Therefore the mind should be processed or prepared
to 'absorb' that revelation. A 'Hare-Krishna' devotee remarked, “Brains need
to be ‘brain-washed,’ since they are muddled with wrong concepts, which
obstruct the freedom of the mind.” However, the process that cleanses and
purifies the mind should be such that it should free the mind rather than
recondition it. It should not take the mind from 'iron shackles to gold
shackles.' In essence, the process that deconditions the mind should be self-
destructive without conditioning the mind again by that very process.
In addition, if the truth is infinite and absolute, the mind that
discovers the truth cannot itself be away from the truth, since nothing can
be away from the absolute-infinite. That is, the mind itself should be part of
the truth, since truth being infinite cannot exclude anything. Finally, the
infinite cannot be made of parts (infinite, plus or minus infinite, is still
infinite only). Therefore, mind cannot be part of the infinite either. Thus we
have a peculiar situation, where the mind needs to discover the truth, and
that truth cannot be discovered by any means since it is not an 'object,' for
discovery, conceptually or otherwise. In addition, since the mind is part of
the truth which has no parts, the very realization of the truth should dissolve
the notion of separateness of the mind from the truth. Hence the truth is
sometime called 'of transcendental nature' implying that is not of the kind
with which objective scientists are familiar.
Hence, the realization of the truth involves a delicate process of
deconditioning the mind. This is called yoga, and requires a guide, teacher
or guru (gu stands of ignorance and ru stands for the one who removes it),
as emphasized by Vedanta. It is well accepted that a guide is required to do
advanced research in any field of science. It is therefore understandable
why Vedanta insists on guidance by a teacher who is well qualified. A
teacher must be well established in the truth (brahma niShTha), and also
have gone through the mental discipline needed to guide others to proceed
on the pathless path. For insurance, Vedanta insists on particular time-tested
methodology (called sampradAyam) so that process of deconditioning the
mind occurs slowly in steps without getting locked up in the process itself.
This is technically called adhyAropa apavAda. The adhyAropa is the
conditioning of the mind and apavAda involves deconditioning the mind in
stages. Conditions or adhyAropa are superimpositions that distract the mind
from seeing the truth as the truth. Since a student comes with preconceived
notions (or a conditioned mind), the teaching involves removal of those
notions (deconditioning) in steps. When the mind is pure, the self-evident
and self-existing truth gets self-revealed.
Not only the truth is the pathless land, as J.Krishnamurthi declared,
Vedanta goes one step further to indicate that the self-existent, self-
conscious and infinite entity is nothing but your own self, where the seeker
and the sought, or the subject and the object, merge into one infinite-
existent-conscious entity. That is nirvana; that is liberation; that is mokSha;
this is the Kingdom of Heaven in one’s own heart. This is what all the
religions sing and glorify in various ways and is the absolute freedom from
all limitations. It is the infinite eternal happiness for which one is longing,
consciously or unconsciously, through various pursuits in life, whether
religious or irreligious, whether holy or unholy, knowingly or unknowingly.
In essence, the human mind is always seeking freedom from limitations,
always wanting and desiring to reach that infinite absolute happiness,
without knowing that it cannot be gained by any path or pursuit. If one
examines one's mind carefully we find that our wanting mind is not happy
in having what it wanted, since 'the want to have more' always remains,
however much one has. Thus it rather wants to want than wants to have.
That is the reflection of the conditioned state of mind.
The mind wants to be free from wanting and that desire for eternal
freedom is intrinsic or inborn with the mind. It cannot but seek that
unlimited happiness, though it cannot find it by any seeking. Longing for
limitless freedom is inherent in all beings, but expressed more vividly in the
human form, where 'conceptual thought' has reached its pinnacle by
evolutionary process. Thus there is a fundamental human problem or
dichotomy: he cannot but pursue a path to gain absolute inexhaustible
happiness or freedom from all limitations, and he can never gain that
happiness through any pursuit, since it is a pathless land. This is where
understanding the mind, its conditioning and how to transcend those
conditionings so that the mind is ever free from all conditionings becomes
important and this forms the fundamental or essential pursuit of human life.
It is interesting to note that any process of deconditioning the mind
itself involves the mind or mental activity. That is, the mind itself
conditions the mind, and it is also capable of deconditioning itself. Hence,
Vedanta says 'mind is the problem and mind is the solution' (mana eva
manushyAnAm kAraNam bandha mokshayoH - amRRitabindu Upanishad).
'How a mind can be both the problem as well as solution to the problem'
requires analysis of the problem along with analysis of the mind that creates
the problem. We shall examine first the mind from various angles and
address the problem of its conditioning and the solution to decondition itself
to be free from its problems.
 Part 41 - Mind and Matter Part I
Is mind matter, or is it separate from matter, or does it matter in our
pursuit of happiness?
Such questions have troubled philosophers as well as psychologists
from time immemorial. Western philosophers give credit to Rene Descartes
(17th Century) for proposing that mind is not physical matter, since it has
no spatial (or physical) dimensions, and it is identified with consciousness
and self-awareness. Even though it is not physical matter, it closely interacts
with physical matter, particularly with the physical body. For, it is noted
that the 'mental moods' of passions such as love, hate, jealousy, fear,
happiness, sorrow, et cetera, and sometimes even strong emotionally rooted
beliefs, can have notable and significant interactions at body level. Mental
depressions can affect physical health. Psychosomatic diseases are
common. Addictions and drugs can bring about mental imbalance and
strong mental disturbances can generate poisonous chemicals in the body.
Thus mind and matter appear to be interconnected, since each affects
the other. What exactly is the relation between the two is not known
although many theories have been proposed. There is a theory called
'Substance Dualism' that states that mind is an independently existing
substance separate from the physical matter constituting the body (the
brain), but its substantive is not known. There is another theory called
'Property Dualism' which states that the substance of the mind is not
different from physical matter, though its properties are different. There is
also a theory called 'Monism' that states that body and mind are
ontologically the same. Thus many ‘-isms’ have been proposed, each
postulating the relation between the mind and matter. From the clinical side,
it is evident that mind can be affected by certain chemicals and addiction to
drugs has become a worldwide problem. In the dualistic models, starting
from that of Descartes, mind is considered as 'consciousness' or 'self-
awareness' or at least 'somehow' related to consciousness. Hence mind-
matter duality is ultimately reduced to consciousness-matter duality. The
current western thinking is that consciousness 'somehow' arises in matter in
just the same way as the mind operates in the physical body. Many of these
concepts are really not new and are borrowed from age-old philosophies,
but are presented in an acceptable form to be marketable as new theories.
From a Vedantic perspective (philosophical truths discussed in the
end part of the Vedas called Upanishads), mind is considered to be subtle
matter different from gross physical matter. The subtle part of the gross
food that we eat sustains the mind. Hence the food that we eat can also
affect the mind. For example, mind can be made be aggressive, passive or
lethargic, et cetera, depending on the type of food we eat. To enhance the
contemplativeness of the mind certain foods, called sAttvika, are
recommended, while certain others - rAjasika and tAmasika - are to be
avoided. Similarly, for the mind to be active or aggressive, for example, for
warriors, rAjasika foods are recommended. Thus it was recognized that
gross matter does affect the subtle mind and its properties.
Consciousness and mind are considered separate by some
philosophers while others consider ‘conscious mind,’ where the mind is
conscious of objects as in the waking state, to be equated to consciousness.
It is recognized, therefore, that there is an interrelationship between (or
among) consciousness, mind and matter. What exactly is the relation
between the two or the three is not known, although there are many theories
and postulates. A person can be made unconscious by chloroform or placed
into different degrees of unconsciousness by addictive drugs like morphine.
Is consciousness a special property of matter that arises when certain
conditions are met, or is it the other way, that is, does matter arise in
consciousness? The former is more acceptable for physical or material
scientists, but the latter may be closure to the truth.
Is there really matter separate from the conscious mind? There is a
philosophy called Idealism, which maintains that the mind is all that exists,
and the external world is either a mental projection or an illusion created by
the mind. (This theory of Idealism, which is somewhat similar to the
vij~nAna vAda philosophy of Buddhism, is different from Advaita Vedanta,
although there are some who vehemently argue that they are the same.) For
the mind to exist, there has to be a locus for its existence, which has to be
the body made of matter. This will reduce to a circular argument if,
according the Theory of Idealism, matter is a projection of the mind, since
mind then depends on matter while matter is a projection of the mind.
 Another important question is whether consciousness of 'an object' or
of 'the world' is different from self-consciousness (i.e., awareness of one's
own self, where the subject itself is an object of consciousness, i.e., I am
conscious of myself). Some Vedantins (particularly vishiShTAdvaitins)
argue that there are two types of consciousness: one is self-consciousness
and the other is object-consciousness. These are called dharmi j~nAnam
and dharma bhUta j~nAnam, respectively. Fundamental to this
classification is that the subject, 'I', is different from the object, 'this.' The
self-consciousness (dharmi j~nAnam) is always present, since it is intrinsic
to oneself, while the object-consciousness manifests in a conducive
environment, when there is an object present of which one wants to be
conscious.
A question that arises at this juncture is whether I can be conscious of
myself, that is, self-awareness that I am as 'I am,' without having an object
of consciousness. When I am conscious of an object 'this,' I am conscious
that 'I' know 'this' where the subject thought 'I' and the object thought 'this'
are present simultaneously in the mind. This subject-object duality forms an
essential ingredient of the mind. Can I have awareness of the subject 'I'
without the associated object awareness of 'this' in the mind? If there are no
'this' thoughts, could the mind still be called mind? These are some
fundamental philosophical questions in trying to understand the structure of
the mind.
The above question boils down to: can the mind operate having just
subject consciousness or self-consciousness, without simultaneously having
object consciousness? That is, does the mind always operate in the subject-
object dualistic mode or can it have just subject alone without an object.
Can there be a thinker (subject) alone without having thoughts (of objects)
or does the thinker ceases to exist without the thoughts of the objects? Rene
Descartes stated 'I think, therefore I am' implying first that 'I am' is
associated with thinking faculty. Can the conscious entity that 'I am' exist
without having to think? Since the subject-object relation arises with the
mind or in the mind, the ontological status of each or both of them is a
philosophical question that is closely related to the analysis of the mind.
 Part 42 - Mind and Matter Part II
It is taken for granted that everybody knows who they are. Most of
them have a high opinion of themselves (superiority complex) and some
have a low opinion of themselves (inferiority complex), but everyone has
some opinion about himself. Since everybody knows who they are (or at
least they think they know who they are), no educational system offers
courses on this. All the educational systems are only trying to teach us
about 'this,' this being any of the objectifiable sciences, such as chemistry,
physics, psychology, medicine, how to do? et cetera. It sounds ridiculous to
say that we can become experts in 'this' without knowing much about
ourselves. The ironic thing is that we ourselves misunderstand ourselves,
although we complain most of the time that it is others who do not
understand us.
In one of the Upanishads a student gives a huge list of his expertise in
many fields (in our terminology more than 60 PhDs), yet repents that he is
still restless and does not have peace of mind. The teacher says you know
everything except yourself. Essentially, knowledge of 'who I am' is not for
academic interest like knowledge of any of 'this.' The teacher says that it is
the very foundation of life itself. Without knowing yourself, it is impossible
to have proper contact or relationship with the world. All mental suffering
(suffering is mental only) results from this lack of understanding. Hence
Vedanta says ignorance of one's own true nature is the root cause of human
suffering.
If we ask anybody 'who are you?', we get a big account of who he is.
Some people have pages and pages of their bio-data, in response to the
above question. If we examine any bio-data, including our own, all it tells is
- I am 'this', I am 'that', et cetera, starting from physical dimensions to
intellectual accomplishments - pages and pages of information about 'this
and that,' but nothing about our self. The subject 'I' is different from the
object 'this' - and our fundamental confusion arises from identifying the
subject 'I' with the object 'this.' Analyzing this problem, Vedanta says that,
when I do not know who I am (self-ignorance), then I take myself to be
what I am not - I am 'this or I am 'that.'
Subject consciousness or self-awareness is intermixed with object-
consciousness, awareness of this. This confusion arises due to the lack of
correct knowledge about 'who I am.' Now the question is: does this
confusion arise because the subject consciousness and object consciousness
cannot be easily separated in the mind? Is this inherent in the structure of
the mind? If someone says, after reading this, that he definitely knows who
he is, then Vedanta says that only means he does not know who he is. This
is because, he is only conceptualizing or objectifying who he is and in the
very objectification, he misses the subject, himself. Then how does one ever
know who he is? Vedanta provides definite clues by which one can evaluate
his self-knowledge. These clues are for self-evaluation and not for others to
evaluate him about his self-knowledge.
In the western theories starting from Rene Descartes to Sigmund
Freud, conscious mind is identified with 'ego' or notional 'I', which is
nothing but the notion that 'I am this' - this being whatever I think I am at
that time. Hence the famous statement of Descartes, 'I think, therefore I
am.’ Hence we posed the question before - Can I ever be conscious of
myself without simultaneously having objective consciousness – that is,
without the duality present in the form of I and this, as 'I know this' and
ultimately 'I am this'? Related to this, can the mind operate in the realm
where there is subject consciousness alone without simultaneous object
consciousness? 'I am'... 'I am'... 'I am'... period, without any 'I am this'... 'I
am this'... 'I am this'... et cetera.
This identification or equation of the subject 'I' with an object 'this'
forms the fundamental conditioning of the mind discussed in the
introduction, where 'this' that I identify with depends on the conditioning of
my mind. Thus I am an Indian, I am an American, I am a theist or atheist,
Hindu, Christian, Muslim, dvaitin, advaitin, believer or non-believer, et
cetera - identification with concepts, traditions, theologies, beliefs, et cetera.
Deconditioning therefore involves declutching or removing this confused
understanding about myself. How to do the deconditioning without
reconditioning myself with different notions is the secret of Vedanta -
therefore Vedanta is not another religion or path but is like a mirror which
shows who you are in contrast to who you think you are.
 This is not a fanatical statement but a statement born of the
experiences of many sages, since time immemorial. The beauty is that the
solution is not up there in heaven or after the death et cetera, but right here
and right now. Since the truth that is infinite has to be eternal, that also
includes here and now. Hence Vedanta is the means of knowledge
(pramANa) to know the truth of oneself, since any other means of
knowledge including all scientific investigations relies on objective analysis
or analysis of 'this' and is therefore not valid for the analysis of the subject
'I'. Science can never prove or disprove the truth about myself, since its
field of enquiry is limited to objective analysis or analysis of 'this' and not
about the subject, I. This also establishes that western method of analysis of
even the mind as an object of investigation will never give the total picture
of the mind, since it can only deal with the 'this' aspect of the mind which is
the inert part and not the consciousness aspect of the mind that deals with
self-consciousness and object-consciousness.
It is clear from the perpetuation of many theories and postulates about
the nature of the mind that it is not amenable to grosser objectification and
analysis by conventional scientific tools. The inherent problem is that we
are using the mind to investigate the mind. The tools that are normally used
in scientific experimentation are not fully useful in the inquiry into the mind
other than at the gross or clinical level. There is also confusion in that
mapping of the brain is equated to mapping of the mind - it is like
investigation of the hardware to find out about the problems in the software.
Experience of pleasures and pains, emotions of love, compassion, fear,
anxiety, hatred, et cetera, are not easily quantifiable to determine cause-
effect relations since they are subjective.
Understanding the mind would help us to control our mind or redirect
the workings of the mind, instead of the mind controlling us. This is more
important to maximize the efficacy of the mind than trying to change the
'set-up' or the world at large to improve the standard of living. Pressures of
modern society are contributing to more and more mental problems. Man
may be more comfortable with modern gadgets but they make him only
comfortably unhappy. Absolute eternal happiness is the goal of every being
and the key to accomplish that lies in understanding and utilizing the mind
properly. In the following we present various classifications of the mind
based on its functions and utilities, since understanding of the working of
the mind is the first step in controlling it and redirecting it properly.
 Part 43 - Classification of the Mind Part I
'Mind' is a general term used to designate the thinking aspect involved. In
computer terminology it can be thought of as software in contrast to the
hardware, namely the brain. In Vedanta, mind is considered as 'flow of
thoughts' (vRRitti dhAra) or more correctly the basis on which the thoughts
flow, rather than the flow itself. Just as a flow of water is called ‘river,’ a
flow of thoughts is the ‘mind.’ We can have stagnant water but we cannot
have stagnant thought, since thought itself involves a movement, although
we could have regurgitated thoughts or a whirlpool of thoughts, when we
are intensely attached to a particular theme. Mind can only think one
thought at a time, but it can jump from one thought to the next like a
monkey jumping from one branch to the other, without coming down to the
ground. These are interconnected thoughts.
Interestingly, the very sequence of thoughts defines the time and
occurs in time. Thus, time becomes part of the embedded system in the
definition of the mind, since a flow of thoughts involves the flow of time.
Dr. Ananda Wood[3] thinks that, since two thoughts are not perceived
simultaneously in the mind, 'space' that is based on simultaneity is more an
imagination by the mind than 'time.' However, according to Vedanta 'space'
is the first 'subtle element' in the sequence of creation, although sequence
itself implies a time-factor. The fact is that 'space and time' are inseparably
interrelated, as movement in space defines time and movement in time
defines space; this is recognized by modern science as the ‘space-time
continuum.’ The point of our concern here is that both are intimately
connected with the operation of the mind. Thus, subjectivity enters in the
perception of 'time and space.' We will address this issue later when we
discuss the perception of spatiotemporal objects and thus the world seen
through the mind.
Mind has been classified depending on its function and field of
operation. Understanding of this helps to identify its role in each operation.
We will present some aspects of it to unravel the mysteries of the mind.
Freudian Classification:
 Sigmund Freud (early 20th Century) provided a topographical view of
the mind in terms of (a) the perceptual aspect of the mind, called conscious
mind, (b) autonomous functional mind called 'subconscious mind,' and (c)
'unconscious mind,' a storehouse of suppressed or oppressed thoughts and
memories from the conscious level that may still influence the conscious
mind.
The conscious mind constitutes the 'ego,' which plays the role of a
deliberate agent in all our actions and enjoyments. The unconscious mind is
involved in instinctive or impulsive desires and reactions. Conscious,
subconscious, and unconscious minds form a hierarchical architecture,
wherein actively repressed thoughts from the conscious mind form the
contents of the unconscious. These can be tapped by psychoanalysts or
under hypnotic states or through what are known as 'Freudian slips.' The
most important constituent of the mind is the 'ego,' but according to
Freudian analysis, it constitutes only a peripheral conscious state, in the
waking state. The unconscious mind plays a more dominant role in the
dream state. Freud recognized that prior thoughts, desires, suppressive and
oppressive thoughts in the past can leave behind subtle impressions buried
deep in the mind, which he calls ‘unconscious’ (meaning one is not keenly
conscious) and they could find expressions in the conscious mind when one
is not vigilant - which psychoanalysts call 'slips.' In comparison to the
Vedantic analysis of the mind, as we shall see below, these classifications
sound very elementary, nevertheless are given a prominence in western
psychology, particularly in relation to mental disorders.
Four components of the mind:
Vedanta provides a different classification for the mind, which is the
basis for the flow of thoughts. It is divided into four components based on
their functions: a) mind (manas), b) intellect (buddhi), c) ego (ahaMkAra),
and d) memory (chitta). All four components together are generally referred
to as just 'the mind.'
Thus, there are
a) the four components of the mind;
b) five faculties of sense (that is the power of seeing, power of
smelling, et cetera - that give rise to knowledge);
c) five faculties of action (motor driving faculties related to
hands, legs, speech, two excretory organs - that produce results);
and
 d) five physiological functions called prANa-s (power of
breathing, digestion, circulation, et cetera, - that sustain life).
All together we have nineteen entities (4+5+5+5 =19) constituting
what is called the 'subtle body' (sUkShma sharIra). This is in contrast to the
gross physical or material body (sthUla sharIra) consisting of skin, flesh,
bones, fat, blood, et cetera, along with all the physical organs of the body,
including the brain. Thus, the subtle body is considered to have 19
gateways through which it interacts with the gross body and through the
gross body with the external world. Thus mind is considered as locus for all
faculties for physiological functions.
 Part 44 - Classification of the Mind Part II
Death is defined as the separation of this subtle body from the gross
body. The process of death involves mind collecting all its 19 physiological
functions and exiting the body. In common parlance, we say 'He is dead and
gone' - implying that someone who was residing in the body has now left it.
Thus, the gross body, which is the product of food, is sustained by food and
will eventually go back into food (for other life forms), is left behind when
the subtle body leaves, stopping all associated physiological functions.
Doctors cannot define what life is, but can only know if a person is
alive or dead as a result of expressions of life through the physiological
functions. According to Vedanta, death occurs when this subtle body finds
the gross body no more conducive for its residence. Hence, in simple terms,
death is described as the subtle body changing its worn out clothes or
shifting its residence. ‘Worn out’ does not necessarily mean that the body is
dilapidated and hence not useful. It could be any body that is no more
conducive for the subtle body to express itself for one reason or another.
Extending this argument then, ‘birth’ is the subtle body entering with its
package at conception. Parents give birth only to the physical body and not
to the subtle body; the subtle body enters taking its new residence. As the
new body matures, the faculties get expressed more and more vividly to
experience the world of objects, feeling of emotions, and intellectual
thoughts. Biologically, one can only account for the physical body in terms
of chromosomes and genetic codes, but expression of life through the mind,
physiological functions, and individuality come with their own inherent
traits that differ from one child to another, even when born of the same
parents. Even if one clones and creates an offspring duplicating the mother,
the individuality of the child is different from that of the mother and they
can even compete with each other for their survival. Hence genetically they
may be the same, but their subtle bodies are different.
The subtle body is considered to be made up of subtle matter, which
is not perceptible to the sense organs. Even the existence of mind cannot be
established by direct perceptual or empirical means. It has to be inferred
since it is subtle. But we all accept that we have a mind of our own and we
can theorize about its nature based on its functions and working; but none
of the theories can be validated by any objective scientific means. The tools
of validation that we normally use in the field of objective sciences are
inadequate to handle subtle matter. Validity or invalidity, therefore, cannot
be established by objective means. Hence one can only infer based on
individual behavior to the external stimulus, just as a physician uses
external stimuli to infer the working of physiological functions. In fact,
according to some idealists, existence of objects and the world 'out there'
also cannot be established independent of the mind. 'Can the world be
established independent of the mind?' and conversely 'Can the mind be
established independent of the world?' are questions that concerned many
philosophers. Here, we only recognize that there is interdependency of the
world and the mind and it appears that one cannot be established
independent of the other.
Of the four components that were defined - mind, intellect, ego, and
memory - each has its field of operation. The mind in the above is the locus
of emotional thoughts, classified as nine moods or feelings of expression
(nava rasa-s) consisting of love, passion, anger, jealousy, et cetera. In
addition, the mind is also a clearinghouse for input from the senses and
output through the organs of action; it can be thought of as a receiving and
dispatching clerk. Furthermore, it is also a 'doubting Thomas,' entertaining
all the doubts and the associated worries and indecisions. Some people
cannot make up their minds easily, because they are dominated by this part
of the mind, which is indecisive. This emotional component of the mind is
where intense attachments and emotions play a major role, often
overpowering logic and reason. Some constantly doubt their capabilities,
worrying at every step: whether something will materialize or not, whether
the house is locked or not, whether the stove is on or off, whether he is
going to be successful or not, et cetera. Constant worrying can even cause a
nervous breakdown. At the same time it is also a center of beautiful
expressions of love, admiration, compassion, et cetera. In general, nature
appears to maximize this component more in women, perhaps for the
protection of the offspring. I am reminded of the song by the professor in
'My Fair Lady' - 'Why can’t a woman be more like a man?'
 Part 45 - Classification of the Mind Part III
The second level of the mind is the 'intellect' (buddhi) which is the
locus for:
discriminative thoughts, such as distinguishing right from
wrong;
decisions;
field for logic, reason, judgment, et cetera.
In contrast to the lower mind, the intellect can be considered as the
‘officer in charge.’ Being both analytical and synthetic as well as objective,
it can hop from the known to the unknown in order to gain knowledge.
Those that are predominately intellectual (where this component of the
mind is well developed) are less emotional, more analytical, decisive,
logical, reasonable and determined. They have the 'will' to proceed and a
goal to reach, with attachments playing less of a role in their actions.
The third component is the ego. In Sanskrit it is called ahaMkAra. It
is may be defined as: 'aham, aham, aham, iti karoti, ahaMkAra' - the one
who claims 'I am - I am - I am' in all our transactions involving, of course,
our mind. In our discussions of 'who am I?' it is this 'ahaMkAra' that
responds with the answer. In western psychology, it is the 'ego' that is
considered as the conscious mind. However, according to Vedanta, ego is
just a pattern of thoughts of 'I-ness' that arise in the mind; the identification
with the set of thoughts 'I am this' and with another set of thoughts 'this is
mine' (mamakAra) as ownership.
Thus, the ego involves two aspects - 'I am this' (ahaMkAra) and 'that
is mine' (mamakAra) or simply 'I and mine.' In the identification of 'I am
this,' there is an inclusiveness of 'this' as part of I. In this very inclusion,
there is also exclusion involved, as 'this' is separate from 'that' so that 'I am
not that.' We thus differentiate 'this' from 'that', and 'mine' from 'not mine.'
By inclusiveness and its mirror image, exclusiveness, the ego tries to define
itself through differentiating ‘I’ from you, he, she, it, or they et cetera, and
‘mine’ from yours, his, et cetera. According to Vedanta, this ego is a fake or
false 'I', since as we discussed before, it involves identification of 'I am,' the
subject, with an object 'this,' where 'this' keeps changing from body to mind
to intellect. Thus the meaning of 'I' keeps shifting when I say 'I am six feet
tall’ or ‘I am black or white or brown' (where identification is at the gross
body level) to 'I love her,' 'I am envious of him,' or 'I hate this,' (where
identification is at the emotional level of the mind) to 'I am an engineer,' ‘a
doctor, scientist’ et cetera, where the identification is at the intellectual
level. The locus of 'I' shifts from gross body to emotional mind to intellect
level. The essence of ego is this identification of 'I' with 'this,' where ‘I’ is
an invariable but 'this' is a variable; ‘I’ am a conscious entity while 'this' is
an inert entity.
In the statement of Descartes 'I think, therefore I am,' my existence is
ascertained by the thinking process. This was criticized later by Immanuel
Kant (18th Century), whose arguments were no better. According to Kant,
the self-consciousness or subject consciousness 'I am' is established by the
consciousness of objects - 'this is.' Thus, 'this is' is required to establish 'I
am' since the mind can operate only in a subject-object duality. The problem
here is not the duality per se but what is considered to be the independent
variable and what the dependent variable. That is to say: is consciousness of
'this is' required in order to establish 'I am' or is it the other way around? At
the ego level, we do operate without being keenly aware of it, when we say
'I am this.' Without 'this' to identify with, I do not seem to have any other
existence. Nobody stops his or her introductions saying 'I am' without
attaching an object 'this' to it.
Hence Kant's conclusion that self-consciousness appears to arise only
with the object consciousness seems to be justified. However, we just noted
that the locus of 'I am' keeps shifting from body level to mind level to
intellect level, and the adjectives that we add keep changing with the
changing bio-data. Thus, there is a changing part and a changeless part in
this duality of 'I am' and 'this' in the equation of 'I am this.' It is obvious
from this analysis that 'I am' seems to be more substantial than 'this' since
'this' keeps changing while 'I am' remains the same. In the case of
dependent and independent variables in mathematics, the one that is
changeless is independent and the one that is changing is dependent. Hence
Kant's conclusion is wrong.
 Part 46 - Classification of the Mind Part IV
In Descartes’ statement 'I think, therefore I am', 'I' is there before the
action verb 'think.' Hence by implication the subject 'I' should be there
independent of what 'I think.' What I think keeps changing (i.e., is a
dependent variable) while the thinker I appears to be constant (and is thus
independent). An additional implication of Descartes’ statement is the
requirement that I need to keep thinking in order to constantly reassure
myself that 'I am.'
Thus there are two aspects involved with regard to the above
discussion: 'I am this' and 'I think, therefore I am.' Vedanta rejects both
these assertions on the basis that 'I am' is independent of 'this' and 'I am' is
present before I can think (i.e., thinking is dependent on 'I', rather than 'I
am' being dependent on thinking). Vedanta arrives at 'who I am' is by
rejecting all assertions with 'I am not this' 'neti, neti, not this, not this.' Thus,
according to Vedanta, the ego is a false 'I' in which the subject is confused
with an object 'this,' in the 'I am this' identification. Vedanta does not say
that you are 'some thing' other than 'this,' since any 'something' is simply
another object 'this.' The only way to arrive at the real nature of 'I' is by
intuition, through rejecting any thing that can be objectified as ‘not I am’;
as 'I am not this.' I can reject anything and everything as not 'I' but I cannot
reject 'I’ itself, since I have to be there in order to reject anything. This
process of sublation or negation is called meditation, where I drop the false
I in order to ascertain my real nature. That is the true conscious entity 'I
am'- without any ‘this’ or ‘that’ attached to it. This is the meaning of the
biblical statement 'I am that I am.' This is concerning the first statement ('I
am this').
Relating to the second statement ('I think, therefore I am'), Vedanta
ascertains that 'I' exists in deep sleep state without any thinking, since I am
there in the deep sleep enjoying the sleep, where there is absence of any
'this' or 'that' with which I can identify. I get up from sleep, saying that 'I
slept very well,' implying that I was there in deep sleep, sleeping very well.
Vedanta points out that if 'I' really ceases to exist in deep-sleep, then nobody
would want to go to sleep. However, everybody longs for a good night’s
sleep, after tiring oneself like a rat, racing for 'this' and 'that.' People are
prepared to take pills in order to get to sleep. Hence, the deep sleep
experience points out, according to Vedanta, that one can exist as pure 'I'
without any identification with an object. The only problem in deep sleep is
that I am not conscious of myself in that state.
All problems cease in the deep sleep state; everybody is happy and
nobody complains (they only complain if they do not get sleep), whether a
king or a pauper on the street. All subject-object (I and this) duality ceases
in the deep sleep state, with ‘I’ alone remaining without any inclusions or
exclusions, since there is no 'this' and 'that' that I can perceive. Vedanta says
that cessation of identification of 'I' with any 'this' is the key to happiness.
This can be done by removing all 'this' as in the deep sleep state. However
that is only temporary, since once I am awake, all the 'this' and 'that' will
also arise and I am back to the miserable state of false identification as 'I am
this' or 'I am that,' suffering the limitations of 'this' and 'that.' Therefore, the
deep sleep experience points out that there is a possibility of existing as
pure ‘I’, as consciousness and existence, without any identification with this
or that.
Vedanta says that this cessation of identification with this and that can
be accomplished in the waking state too, in spite of the existence of 'this'
and 'that'. 'I am' is a self-conscious and self-existent entity, independent of
any 'this' and 'that'; independent of the external world. Hence, the Kantian
statement that self-consciousness depends on object consciousness is to
ascribe reality to the false I, the ego. Vedanta says that this is the other way
round: the object consciousness depends on 'I am.' Thus, the 'ego' or
ahaMkAra is a component of the mind with a false notion that 'I am this.'
This 'ego' component, ahaMkAra, is called the notional mind, since the
identification 'I am this' is only a notion in the mind. When I realize my true
nature, these false identifications or notions drop or, more correctly, the
reality that I assign to the notions is withdrawn. Then, I will be 'as though'
operating as pure self, without any false identification, treating the mind as
just a subtle body that I can use to transact with the world, through the 19
gates discussed earlier. We will address this aspect again when we discuss
our true nature and the nature of the world with which we transact.
Going back to our classification, the last component of the mind to be
discussed is memory, chitta. All objective knowledge that is gained is stored
in the memory, which forms the basis for all recognitions. We can build up
our memory bank by gaining knowledge, storing the information and
retrieving it whenever it is needed for communication and transactions.
New knowledge is built based on the past knowledge stored in the memory.
There are two aspects involved: the capacity to store and the capacity to
retrieve that knowledge. Retrieval and re-storage keep the knowledge fresh
in the memory and those that are retrieved less and less will get buried in
the memory and retrieval will also become increasingly difficult. With age,
the capacity of the hardware degrades and therefore memory fails, retaining
mostly the long time memory, while losing the short time. As we get old,
we remember all our childhood experiences and declare to every listener
how things were great in those days, while forgetting where we put our keys
or checkbook an hour ago. Thus we have four components of the mind that
are involved whenever we transact with the world, 'out there' - mind,
intellect, ego, and memory.
The working of the mind can be classified in various other ways, and
these will be discussed next.
 Part 47 - Fundamental Human Problem Part I
We have discussed two aspects, the mind and the subtle body. Of the
mind, the important component is the Ego, involving 'I am this,' which is
the essence of the individual 'I', which ‘does’ all the transactions. It involves
the conscious-existent entity, 'I am' identifying with inert entities such as
body, mind and intellect to facilitate all transactions in the world. The ego,
although a necessary vehicle without which I cannot transact in the world,
has become as if the essence of myself, since I do not know what my true
nature is. Thus a false person, ego, has become a real person, since the real
person is not known.
When I take myself as 'this,' the limitations of 'this' become my
limitations. 'This' is always limited by 'that,' while freedom is to BE beyond
all limitations, absolute infiniteness, Brahman (the word Brahman itself
means infiniteness). Any limitation causes unhappiness, and no one wants
to be unhappy. Unlike the many infinities that are described in mathematics,
Brahman is absolutely infinite or unconditionally infinite or unqualifiedly
infinite and therefore unconditionally limitless which is the same as
absolute happiness.
Limitless though I am, I take myself to be limited; notionally, 'I am =
this.' This leaves me with three fundamental limitations, which can be
expressed as, a) I am a mortal, b) I am unhappy, and c) I am ignorant. I do
not like these presumed limitations that I have. Hence, I struggle hard to
gain my true nature. If we examine our lives we find that all our struggles in
life can be reduced to two broad categories, a) trying to gain something
(pravRRitti), and b) trying to get rid of something (nivRRitti). All these
struggles are to overcome the three fundamental limitations stated above.
Thus from birth to death or from womb to the tomb, every living being is
trying to solve these three fundamental limitations by way of trying to gain
something or trying to get rid of something, pravRRitti and/or nivRRitti.
This is true across the board and from time immemorial. The tragedy of life
is that no one can solve these problems of limitations, now or ever. Let us
look at each one carefully and see where the problem lies.
 When I take myself to be the body, then body problems become my
problems. The body, by its nature, undergoes six modifications: existence in
the womb (asti) for several months; birth as a baby (jAyate); growing pains
as a child to an adulthood (vardhate); modifications of the body
(vipariNamati, i.e., problems of the grownups); slow disintegration with all
the health problems in the world (apakshIyate), and ultimately kicking the
bucket (vinasyati). That which is born has to die or that which has a
beginning has to have an end, (jaatasya hi dhruvo mRituH), says Krishna.
That is the Law of Nature. No body or nobody is permanent here.
Civilizations have come and civilizations have gone. The world is always in
a continuous flux, never in a static condition. Hence the Sanskrit word for
the world is 'jagat' and etymologically it means 'jAyante gacchate iti jagat'
that which is continuously coming and going; that is the nature of the
world. What comes must go, like the slogan, what goes up must come
down.
In a dialogue between a celestial being (yaksha) and King
YudhiShTara in the MahAbhArata, the yaksha asked the king, 'What is the
greatest wonder in the world?' Obviously, the King had no idea of our seven
wonders of the world. He responded, "We see people being born and people
dying every day, yet everyone acts as though he is going to be permanent in
this world; and that is the greatest wonder of the world." Incidentally,
related to the mind there was a question too. Yaksha asked the king, "What
moves the fastest in the world?" The king replied without knowing that the
velocity of the light is the fastest we can reach, "mind moves the fastest in
the world."
The body cannot but be mortal. When I identify with the body, I feel
that I am going to die one day. The fear of death is the greatest fear that a
human being faces. No one wants to die. Even those who want to commit
suicide do not want to die, but they think that by ending their life they will
solve their problems. They do not want to die if the problems of their mind
can be solved without dying.
Those problems arise because of the ego or identification with the
body, mind, and intellect. Therefore we can never solve the problem of
mortality, whatever pills or medication we take or however much we try to
hide our age by coloring or making up the deficiencies, et cetera. Man's
longing to live eternally is inherent, whereas finite life seems to be the fact
of life. To solve this problem some turn to religion. Some religions promise
eternal life, not now, but after death; of course only if you believe in them.
After your death, no one would know if you lived happily ever after. There
is a day of judgment when you will be taken to eternal heaven or pushed to
eternal hell - either way eternity is guaranteed. All these beliefs sprang up
since there is an inherent desire to live eternally. No life form wants to die.
Preservation of one's life at any cost is instinctive. Hence mortality is a
problem, since I identify myself with the body. It has become not merely
the body's mortality but my mortality. But whatever we do, we can never
solve or escape the jaws of the death. I want to be eternal, but with the body
I can never be. Hence all attempts to live happily ever after with the body
will be futile.
 Part 48 - Fundamental Human Problem Part II
The second problem arises with the notion that I am unhappy. This
arises with the identification with the mind (as ‘I am the mind’). The mind
is never happy with what it has and therefore it always wants to make itself
more full by acquiring this or that. Life becomes a rat race and twenty-four
hours in a day is not sufficient. However much we accumulate, the
inadequacy that I feel (that ‘I am not full’) still remains. Only way to solve
this problem of inadequacy is to be fully adequate. But that would mean to
have everything in the world, possessing limitless entities. One can never
reach the limitless by adding limited things. Addition of finites cannot
accumulate to infinite. Hence, the problem of inadequacy of the mind or
unhappiness of the mind remains as an unsolved problem.
The third problem is based on the identification that ‘I am the
intellect,’ which is always limited. We cannot stand this limitation either.
Hence, the longing or curiosity to know remains. Unfortunately, the more
we learn, the more things we find that there is to learn; things that we did
not even know that existed before. However much we learn, we are left
with an uncomfortable feeling that what we know is very little compared to
what we do not know. Our ignorance grows exponentially with our
knowledge. Hence, the ignorance problem is one we cannot solve. Man
becomes desperate. In one of the Upanishads, the student goes to a teacher
and asks, "Sir, please teach me that, knowing which I will know
everything." The Upanishads recognized that there is an intrinsic desire to
learn everything.
Vedanta says there is a fundamental problem in our understanding
about ourselves. Since I am a self-conscious entity, not knowing who I am,
I take my self to be what I am not - that is ‘I am the limited body, the
limited mind, and the limited intellect.’ Equipment, body, mind and intellect
remain limited irrespective of who I am. As a result of this identification, I
take myself to be mortal, unhappy, and ignorant. All struggles in life are to
solve these fundamental problems. The analysis shows that all our attempts
to solve these three fundamental limitations fail miserably. For the majority
of us these struggles temporarily end one day – when we die. This seems to
be the autobiography of everybody – the billions of people that live on this
planet earth; only the details of how they failed in trying to solve these
fundamental problems vary.
Vedanta says that everybody fails only because everyone is trying to
solve a problem where there is no problem to solve. Why should anyone try
to solve a problem when there is no problem to solve? According to
Vedanta, the problems are not real but imaginary, since we started with a
wrong assumption about ourselves. Imaginary problems can never be
solved. Since we do not know who we are, we take ourselves to be
something other than who we are. Intrinsically there is a natural drive to be
who we really are. Hence the longing to be immortal, absolutely happy and
having infinite knowledge are inherent drives to become what we are.
Hence, according to Vedanta, there is really no problem to solve but only
the need to recognize our true nature. We are ignorant of our selves and the
solution to this problem is to know who we are.
Who are we then? According to Vedanta, we are sat-chit-Ananda
svarUpa; that is we are of the nature of existence-knowledge, limitlessness
and happiness. Hence, Vedanta is considered to be a mirror that shows us
who we really are compared to what we think we are. 'I think, therefore I
am' - was the statement of Descartes. Vedanta says, I am - therefore I think.
That is I am an existent and conscious entity. Existence has to be infinite.
Finitude would make the existence bounded. A question then will arise:
what is there beyond the boundaries of finiteness that is different from
existence? Difference from existence is only non-existence; and we cannot
say non-existence exists on the other side of the existence. That is a self-
contradictory statement. Therefore existence has to be infinite. I am not
only an existent entity but also a conscious entity. Consciousness has to be
existent, since we cannot talk about non-existent consciousness. Hence
existence and consciousness are not two separate entities but one and the
same entity viewed from two different perspectives. I cannot qualify myself
- since any qualification belongs to an object, which is inert. Hence Vedanta
says: I am unqualified, absolute, infinite, existence-consciousness - which
the bible renders as ‘I am that I am,’ since I cannot add anything else to ‘I
am’ to qualify myself.
There are two things that are unqualifiable. One is Brahman, since it
is absolutely infinite. The reason is simple. Only finite things can be
qualified since a qualification is that which distinguishes the qualified
object from the rest of the objects in the world. The absolute infinite has to
be only one, since if they are two, each limits the other and neither one will
be Brahman. Hence, there cannot be anything else besides Brahman, in
order for it to have qualifications to distinguish it from anything else. Hence
whatever descriptive words are used are only indicative of Brahman
(lakShyArtha) and not literal descriptions (vAchyArtha), similar to the
word infinite, to indicate that anything finite cannot be Brahman. The other
thing that cannot be described is the subject I, since I am a subject and not
an object, and objects alone have qualifications. Hence when I state my
qualifications using my bio-data, I am only describing all 'this' that I
identify with, which are qualifications of 'this' and not 'I'.
Now we arrive at the famous equations that Vedanta calls
mahAvAkya-s (great aphorisms). Since Brahman is one without a second,
absolutely infinite, existent and conscious entity and I am also an
unqualifiable existent-conscious entity, we are left with no possibility other
than the identity relation: I am = Brahman (aham brahmAsmi). Our
problems started with our presumed identity equation ‘I am = this’ but
Vedanta says the correct equation is: I am = Brahman. The first equation is
invalid, since I am equating a conscious entity with an unconscious entity.
On the other hand, in the second equation I am equating two conscious
entities, with the clear understanding that there cannot be any divisions in
consciousness or in existence.
 Part 49 - Fundamental Human Problem Part III
Looking at our struggles to solve the three fundamental problems
stated above, Vedanta declares that we are trying to solve a problem where
there is no problem; and that has become the fundamental human problem.
All attempts to solve this problem fail. The only way to solve this problem
is to recognize that I am not the limited entity that I think I am. The
limitations are the result of my superimposing qualities that do not belong
to me - the qualities of the body, or the mind or the intellect or all of the
three.
Hence Vedanta says: (tat tvam asi). I am referring to
the unqualified existence-consciousness that I am and Brahman is
absolutely infinite existence-conscious, which cannot be away from me – in
fact it is me. This teaching is direct and immediate like seeing an apple in
my own hand, which is by direct and immediate perception. I do not have to
think; I do not have to run to the Himalayas to sit and meditate or
contemplate in order for me to see the apple in my hand. As soon as I open
my eyes, I cannot but see it. Similarly I do not have think or contemplate or
meditate or analyze to find out whether or not I exist. I do not have to prove
to myself that ‘I am.’ I am a self-conscious and self-existent entity. I might
even say that I am the only one that is self-conscious and self-existent. As
far as I am concerned, I have to be there in order to establish the existence
of any other.
That I am a conscious-existent entity is direct and immediate, and so
is Brahman, since it is absolutely infinite. Whether I can accept this
equation or teaching immediately or not depends on my faith in the
teaching as well how seriously I am interested in discovering my true
nature. It is logical, yet the truth is beyond logic. That I am an existent-
conscious entity is not logic - it is a fact. That Brahman is infinite existent-
consciousness is what Vedanta declares. The identity of the two is pointed
out by Vedanta and that is logical too, since it is illogical to divide
existence; it will be like dividing space. Just as space cannot be cut, made
wet or dry or be burnt by fire, Krishna teaches in the Bhagavad Gita that the
existence-consciousness that you are cannot be cut, made wet or dry, or be
burnt by fire; that you are indestructible and immortality is your very
nature. It is amazing that we readily accept that we are the inert body, mind
or intellect but are not ready to accept we are limitless existence-
consciousness, says Shankara, the one who formulated this advaita
philosophy on firm grounds using Vedanta as the means of knowledge.
The question that remains then is: why is that I do not know who I
am, since I am taking myself to be what I am not? Essentially, when did this
ignorance of myself begin? The related questions are: what is this world, if
Brahman is everything? Why did Brahman become this world since, unlike
Brahman, the world appears to be an unconscious entity?
In addressing these issues, we are going beyond the boundaries of
logic. Hence, Vedanta alone becomes a means of knowledge for these
things, even though the answers that Vedanta provides are not illogical. The
reasons why logic fails is that the answer is not in the domain of the
intellect, with its cause-effect relationships. Causes and effects are in the
realm of time. We are asking questions that transcend the concepts of time
and hence the intellect cannot find the answer by itself. This is the same
reason why science also will fail to address these issues, since science is
logical and objective while the truth is beyond logic and deals with subject
‘I’.
When did I become ignorant of myself? Vedanta says that ignorance
has no beginning. Suppose that, not knowing anything about Anthropology,
I ask myself: when did my ignorance of Anthropology start? I must say that
from the beginning I did not know Anthropology. However, even though
my ignorance of Anthropology is beginningless, that ignorance can end
once I learn that science. Similarly, self-ignorance has no beginning but can
end once I learn that my true nature is limitless existence-consciousness.
This beginningless self-ignorance, which is the root cause of all human
suffering, is called primordial sin by some religions.
Ignorance or lack of knowledge is only one aspect. The related aspect
is projecting myself as something other than myself. The classical metaphor
is that of the rope and snake. I do not know that the long thin soft object
that is lying on the partially dark road is a rope and I project it to be a snake.
Because of that projection, I sweat; my blood pressure goes up and I may
even faint. The innocent rope does not have anything to do with all these
secondary reactions that arise from my misunderstanding. Vedanta says the
problem is exactly the same when I do not know myself. I project myself to
be something other than myself and suffer the consequences of that false
projection. The ego that we discussed earlier is the starting point of that
misrepresentation of myself.
Next we ask: when did the ego start? When did I start seeing the
snake in place of the rope? The moment I saw that there is something on the
road and did not realize that it was a rope, I saw it instead as a snake. It was
not the case that I first saw the rope and then the snake. Similarly, the
moment I know I am here but do not know my true nature, that very
moment I take myself to be 'this,' which is different from ‘I’. Taking myself
to be ‘this’ will start a set of chain reactions involving the three
fundamental pursuits in life - to be immortal, to be full and to be
knowledgeable, as discussed above.
It is common knowledge that what I do now will affect what I will
have or what I want to be in future. That is, what I am now must be the
result of my past actions. Within the transactional reality, the laws of cause
and effect are perfectly valid. If I am an engineer today, it is only because in
the past I went and studied engineering. Similarly, all the effects that I am
experiencing now are the product of my past actions, whether I remember
them or not. Likewise, the future that I experience will be the result of my
past actions modified by my present action. Having become an engineer, if I
now study medicine, I may one day become a physician but with an
engineering background. Thus I am the prisoner of my past, and also master
of my future. If this is perfectly logical, then Vedanta says that where I am
born, to whom I am born and the type of body with which I am born - all
these results - cannot be due to random choice but must be effects caused by
my previous actions. I do not accept that I become an engineer or a doctor
randomly; I believe that I am what I am today as a result of my deliberate or
willful action in the present or in the past. (As a scientific aside,
randomness does not operate at an individual level. All the statistics that we
use relate to group behavior and do not predict the behavior of an individual
entity. We cannot use statistics to predict the behavior of an individual. At
an individual level statistics can only tell us about the probability of my
becoming this or that. In technical language, the deterministic behavior of
an individual cannot be predicted by the statistical randomness of a group.)
This means that my birth in this life is dictated by the actions that I
must have done in the past and the birth in the previous life must have been
dictated by the actions that were done in the life before that, et cetera. Then
how is my first birth determined? Since ignorance is beginningless, my
misunderstanding that ‘I am this’ is also beginningless, in the sense that it is
also beyond the concept of time. As stated above, intellect itself is the
product of the birth, which is due to ignorance. One cannot provide an
intellectual answer to the question of the very first birth. Vedanta says birth-
sustenance-death is a cycle with no beginning. It can have an end once we
have knowledge of ‘who I am,’ since there are then no more struggles
related to taking myself to be who I am not. Knowledge of who I am can
end the ignorance of myself.
Then who is that takes rebirth life after life? We discussed before that
we have a gross physical body consisting of gross matter - called the food-
sheath; that which is born of food, sustained by food and returns to food.
We have a subtle body consisting of a total mind that has four components:
1) an emotional center, mind; 2) rational intellect; 3) a memory, and 4) an
ego, together with five physiological functions, five senses, and five
faculties of organs of action – altogether making 19 entities. In addition to
these two bodies that we discussed before, there is a still subtler one called
the causal body (kAraNa sharIra). It is called ‘causal body’ since it is the
cause for the other two bodies. Since we just mentioned that it is the
primordial ignorance that is the cause for our birth, that ignorance
constitutes the essence of the causal body. We need to discuss now the
contents of this causal body since it is the cause of the divergence into
different types of birth and accounts for why I am born with such and such
body, in a particular place, to particular parents and the environment into
which I am born.
 Part 50 - vAsanA-s Part I
The life of everyone is driven by their desires to do 'this' or to have
'that' or to get rid of 'this,' et cetera, so that they can be happy. In all of these
pursuits one is looking for happiness. 'This' can be a person, a place or a
thing. My desires are different from yours, which are different from his.
Some people want to become something great or famous; some want to
become artists, some actors or actresses, some dancers, musicians,
scientists, doctors, or multimillionaires or football players and some even
vagabonds; some just want to sit around and drink. A mother knows that the
likes and dislikes of two look-alike twins are different even when they are
babies, as though each one has brought his likes and dislikes with him.
Likes and dislikes (rAga and dveSha) are two sides of a coin, but
different for everyone. Where do these likes and dislikes come from? Let us
illustrate with an example: When I drank a delicious cup of South Indian
coffee for the first time, I liked it so much that I want to have it again the
next day. While the cup of coffee gave me pleasure, which is an immediate
tangible effect, it also had an intangible effect. It left behind a subtle
impression in my mind, to have that experience again. That subtle
impression is called vAsanA, meaning ‘fragrance’ of that action in the
mind. Since I liked it so much, I went to the shop, bought all the ingredients
needed, and started making it at home, first thing in the morning. I began to
enjoy that hot cup of coffee in the morning, everyday. Every time I enjoy
the coffee, the subtle impression in the mind or that coffee vAsanA
becomes stronger and stronger, day-by-day. It comes to a stage that as soon
as I get up, I have to have a cup of coffee and without it I cannot do
anything else. My happiness depends on having that cup of coffee,
otherwise I feel miserable, the whole day. Sounds familiar? If I run out of
coffee, I will run from place to place restlessly to get that cup of coffee.
Looking at the mechanics of this process reveals that deliberate or
egocentric actions will leave intangible impressions of likes or dislikes
called vAsanA-s in the core of the mind. These vAsanA-s, in turn, cause
desires at the intellectual level, agitations at the mind level, and actions at
the body level. Unless those desires are fulfilled, I become restless. I go in
search of environments that are conducive for the fulfillment of my desires
or vAsanA-s. All egocentric desires are grosser manifestations of the subtler
impressions in the mind, the vAsanA-s. When vAsanA-s manifest as
desires, they cause agitations in the mind, and the mind becomes restless
until those desires are fulfilled. When the coffee vAsanA manifests as
desire for coffee, my mind is no longer free to think of anything other than
that hot cup of coffee that I think I need in order to be happy. I can suppress
the desires temporarily, but they will spring up again eventually with
greater forces, in one form or another. They will express as anger,
frustration or irritation, et cetera. We are all familiar with these experiences.
On the other hand, when a desire is fulfilled, my mind becomes calm and
quiet, and I am happy until, of course, the next set of vAsanA-s drives me
to do something else. I will be tossed from one desire to the other. Life
becomes a rat race, trying to fulfill one desire after another.
From this example, we arrive at some important conclusions.
vAsanA-s are accumulated by deliberate willful actions - we call them as
egocentric actions. Egocentric means 'I’ and ‘I want.' vAsanA-s can be
favorable or unfavorable; that is, they include both likes and dislikes. They
are subtle impressions in the mind, perhaps even deeper than the
unconscious mind in western psychology. Even though actions are over,
their effect in terms of these subtle impressions will be long lasting. That is
one of the reasons why one should be very careful of how one acts or with
what attitude. An action can also be done in such a way that it does not
leave a vAsanA and it may also nullify or neutralize the previous vAsanA-
s; and that attitude in action is called karma yoga or yoga of action, which
we will discuss later.
When vAsanA-s cause desires in the intellect and agitations in the
mind, the mind becomes restless. In the coffee example, unless I have that
hot cup of coffee in the morning, I am agitated and restless and cannot do
anything else. When the coffee comes, I am back to myself, and say that I
am so happy that I have my cup of coffee. Happiness did not really come
with the coffee, but when the desire for coffee is fulfilled, all the agitations
of the mind subside and I am back to myself - I am free from a wanting
mind or desiring mind. In those moments, the mind is calm and I say I am
happy, and I think that the coffee gave me happiness. In fact, the happiness
is actually being tapped from myself – because, as we discussed before, I
am in reality complete and full or limitless – and that is the state of
happiness. Hence, happiness is my intrinsic nature. Fulfilling the desire for
coffee has brought me ‘back to myself,’ and I am content with myself, at
least for those few moments until another desire pops up in my mind.
One can get the happiness that one is longing for in this way, by
fulfilling the desires, all the time. But one serious caveat is: as I fulfill my
desires, the stronger those vAsanA-s become and there will be situations
where I will not be able to fulfill my desires. That is the time when anger,
frustration and other psychological problems will arise. I lose my freedom
since I depend for happiness on something other than myself. Essentially I
have become a slave to my own vAsanA-s. As a corollary, we can now
define ‘absolute freedom’ as freedom from all our vAsanA-s. All other
freedoms that we talk about are only circumstantial or temporary freedoms.
More vAsanA-s means more desires, more agitations; I am
continuously busy and restless and 24 hours in a day are not sufficient to do
what I want to do. In the same vein, if there are fewer vAsanA-s, there will
be fewer self-centered actions; the mind will have fewer agitations, and I
will be more peaceful with myself; my happiness will depend less on things
other than myself. Suppose I have no vAsanA-s. There will then be no self-
centered desires; I will have no agitations in my mind, and I will be happy
all the time with myself as I am. Krishna calls ‘one who revels in himself
by himself’ a j~nAnI or sthita praj~nA [standing in wisdom] or a realized
soul. In that state of fulfillment, any action that I do then is not for the
gaining any personal fulfillment (since I am happy regardless), but for the
benefit of the society at large. Such a person is called mahAtma or a great
soul, and is revered for generations to come. They leave a mark in the
society with their selfless service. Annie Besant called Mohandas K.
Gandhi a mahAtma, and that became his title when people subsequently
called him affectionately Mahatma Gandhi.
 Part 51 - vAsanA-s Part II
If we examine our lives, we go from one environment to the other to
fulfill our likes and dislikes. We are driven by our vAsanA-s to seek
environments that are conducive to fulfill our vAsanA-s. In the process of
fulfillment, we only reinforce those vAsanA-s. Thus we get caught up in
this whirlpool of vAsanA-s - desires - agitations - actions - vAsanA-s -
more desires, et cetera. Every egocentric action that we perform will leave
its characteristic vAsanA-s in the mind. There are vAsanA-s that cannot be
exhausted in this life and they are stored into our total account. The total
account of vAsanA-s that each person has is called saMchita karma. Of the
total account, we can only bring into this life those that can be exhausted or
those that are ready to germinate. The ones we bring with us are called
prArabdha karma and one can loosely translate it as our destiny.
We always seek an environment that is conducive for the fulfillment
of our vAsanA-s. Thus, we seek birth in a particular place and to particular
parents so that we may exhaust the set of vAsanA-s that are ready to
germinate. In the course of living and being a ‘will-full’ person, we act. In
the process of acting, we accumulate a new set of vAsanA-s that can, in
turn, either be exhausted in this life or put back into our total account. The
new set of vAsanA-s that are being deposited into our account are called
AgAmin karma. Thus we have a total account (saMchita karma) and, from
this, we have brought only those elements that can be exhausted and can be
regarded as destiny (prArabdha karma), and the new ones, that are being
freshly accumulated and deposited into our account, are called AgAmin
karma.
The vAsanA-s are also called the ‘causal body,’ since they are the
cause in determining what type of body, what type of parents and what type
of environment or world that I need around me in order exhaust my
vAsanA-s. In this model, every cause and effect is perfectly accounted for.
No one gets anything to which he is not entitled. If there is a God up in the
sky, he can only be God if he gives each one what he or she deserves. Or, to
put it bluntly, everyone gets what he deserves, whether one wins millions in
a lottery or looses them when the stock market crashes.
My vAsanA-s determine the sort of world that is needed to exhaust
those vAsanA-s. The world that you need is determined by your set of
vAsanA-s; her world is determined by her vAsanA-s. Hence, the total world
is determined by the total vAsanA-s of all beings in this universe. Now
whom should we blame for the type of the world that is created? If we do
not like the world we are in, we must blame ourselves, since it is the world
that is required to exhaust each of our vAsanA-s, including the vAsanA-s of
a mosquito that is trying to get its share of the food that it needs for its
survival. If I change my vAsanA-s, if you change yours, she changes hers,
and everybody changes their vAsanA-s then we create a new world that is
more conducive to our new set of vAsanA-s. If there is a God up in the sky,
He is bound to bless the type of environment that incorporates all the
demands of all the vAsanA-s of all beings in this universe. The total
vAsanA-s become the cause for creation for the total world.
Now we can define God or Ishvara. Total consciousness or Brahman
takes the role of Ishvara and creates the total universe based on the total
vAsanA-s of all beings in this universe. It is like coffee shops springing
forth all over the country, in order to satisfy the coffee vAsanA-s of all
coffee lovers in the country. If nobody wants to drink coffee, all the coffee
shops will close in no time. Just as the individual has vAsanA-s, so the
family has collective vAsanA-s that brings them together to exhaust their
mutual vAsanA-s. The same principle applies to groups and to nations at
large. Hence Vedanta says, if you want to change the world, begin that
change first in yourself.
Now we are ready to define what a soul or jIva is. When I die, I take
with me my subtle body (consisting of all the nineteen entities that we
discussed), along with my causal body, which is nothing but my vAsanA-s,
and gravitate towards a field that is conducive to experience my next
powerful vAsanA that is ready to fructify. To look at this total scenario
correctly, we need to look at the problem from both the totality or macro-
cosmic viewpoint (or total vAsanA-s viewpoint), and from the individual or
micro-cosmic viewpoint.
To address this issue correctly, we can examine the subject from three
reference points. Firstly, from the absolute standpoint, 'I am' stands for the
absolute, immutable pure consciousness-existence that I am. This is what
Vedanta calls ‘Brahman’ - infiniteness or limitlessness is my nature. 'I am =
Brahman' is absolutely infinite; it is one without a second, advitIya. We
cannot say anything more since words, which are limited, and mind, which
is also limited, cannot describe that which is unlimited. The only
descriptions that are possible are ones such as indescribable, infinite,
imperceptible, et cetera; that is, all negative descriptions to negate what it is
not.
Even these descriptions are only from the point of view of finite,
mutable and perceptible things. Brahman is beyond all words and there is
nothing beyond this. It is the very substratum of the entire universe, since it
is an ever existent, conscious and infinite entity. From that reference point,
there is nothing other than it. Since it can only be one, there is nothing else
to differentiate it from. This can be stated as follows:
Brahman is free from three fundamental possible differences - called
in Sanskrit - vijAti, sajAti, svagata bheda-s.
The word jAti means family or class of the same type. We can say
chairs are one family or jAti, which is different from the jAti of tables. The
differences between different jAti-s are called vijAti differences. The
differences within the family are called sajAti differences. For example,
within the family of chairs, there will be differences between one chair and
another. Finally, within the chair itself there could be internal differences
called svagata bheda-s. For example, arms are different; legs are different,
et cetera. These internal differences, svagata bheda, are possible, since a
chair is an assemblage of parts. Brahman is a homogeneous mass of pure
consciousness, which has no parts for it to be parted. Vedanta says ‘I am
that Brahman’ and that is the absolute truth. Since Brahman is infinite or
limitless, Vedanta calls its intrinsic nature satyam, j~nAnam, and anantam.
It is of the nature of pure existence-knowledge and is limitless. Realization
of that as my intrinsic nature is called self-realization, God realization,
mokSha, nirvANa, liberation or freedom from all differences and
discriminations - it is the very goal of human life itself. It is a fearless state
since fear comes from something ‘other.’ Vedanta defines this absolute
reference point as pAramArthika satyam, supreme reality.
 Part 52 - Viewpoints of Reality
The other main reference point with which we are concerned is called
vyAvahArika satyam or transactional reality. From this reference we can
look at the situation on a micro scale, that is, the individual’s point of view,
or on a macro scale or the collective totality viewpoint. Somehow we need
to connect all of this (at least conceptually) to the absolute reference.
From the individual’s viewpoint, the existent-consciousness that
advaita tells me I am, that is, one without a second, appears to be associated
with varieties of individual bodies, minds and intellects. How can one 'I am'
become many? We gave a dream example before: how I, a waker, create a
dream world consisting of varieties of objects as well as beings with their
own bodies, minds, and intellects (BMI) as well as myself with my own
BMI. That power by which one appears to become many we have defined
as mAyA.
At an individual or micro level, the consciousness-existence that I am
appears to be limited by my BMI and I become a jIva or individual soul. We
use the phrase ‘appears to be’ since consciousness-existence cannot be
limited, just as space cannot be limited. Even though space is limitless, we
divide this indivisible space into compartments as with different countries,
states, cities and even different houses. Within the house we have different
rooms where the bathroom is different from bedroom and kitchen, et cetera.
Even the dividers that divide the space are also within the space. But these
divisions are valid for transactional purposes or for our vyavahAra.
Therefore transactional reality need not be absolute reality, although it is
inherently absolute reality, just as indivisible space is inherent in the all
divisions that we have made for our convenience or transactional purposes.
The situation is identical. All pervading consciousness appears to be
divided into multitudes of things and beings just as in the dream. We have
both insentient as well as sentient things and beings. In the dream, the
differences (three types of differences stated above - sajAti, vijAti and
svagata bheda) appear to be real, as long as I am dreaming. However once I
am awakened, all things and beings resolve into me, the waker. In the same
way, the plurality of things and beings appears to be real in this waking
world, and only when I am awakened to the absolute state of reality or
pAramArthika satyam do all differences resolve into me, the absolute
existence-consciousness.
Just as the dream is due to projection of suppressions and oppressions
of the waking mind, an exactly identical situation occurs for the waking
world. The total vAsanA-s become the root cause for the projection of the
total world and individual vAsanA-s become the cause for the individual
BMI. At the individual level, the total consciousness is reflected in the
intellect as the ego - or individual I, which transacts with the individual
BMI, without realizing that I am the pure existence-consciousness. Likes
and dislikes or vAsanA-s of the individual manifest as desires in the
individual intellect, agitations in the individual mind level, and actions in
the individual body.
The jIva or individual I, or soul, ‘appears’ when the reflected
consciousness in the BMI takes itself to be real, transacts as if it is real, and
takes responsibility for the actions that go on in the BMI. It is like the
villager who is sitting in the train but carries his luggage on his head so as
to relieve the burden on the train. I, as an individual ego (as ‘I am this’),
take the responsibility for the actions that are being performed. These
egocentric actions will leave vAsanA-s and the rest of the repercussions
follow. I, the reflected consciousness (chidAbhAsa), move from birth to
birth, from one field of experience to another, along with my subtle body
and causal body in order to exhaust my vAsanA account.
Just as I go into deep sleep everyday (called nidrA or laya), folding
everything into myself without any identification with BMI, so the totality
(consisting of all jIva-s and things) goes into a ‘deep sleep state’ called
pralaya. Similarly when I get up in the morning, all the things that were
there before I went to sleep are projected again. And, in exactly in the same
way, after pralaya, when the Lord or totality gets up (his sleep is called
yoga nidrA), the whole universe, which was in the subtle form during sleep,
is projected back into grosser form.
This transformation from subtle to grosser form is called ‘creation’ in
Vedanta. The totality or macrocosm supported by the consciousness-
existence 'I am' is called Ishvara or the Lord or the creator. The same
existence-consciousness reflected in the individual intellect is called jIva or
soul. It is important to recognize that we are not equating the individual
soul or jIva with totality or God. What we are equating is the essence - the
existence-consciousness that I am. This existence-consciousness is the
same, whether reflected in the microcosm or in the macrocosm. As long as I
think I am only an individual with local equipment of BMI, then the world I
see or with which I transact is different from the creator of the whole
universe; God is different. Hence, if and when I view the creation or the
world as different from me, then there is a creator or the father in heaven,
who is different and who is omniscient and omnipresent.
The dream world of plurality is real for the dreamer. The material that
the dreamer sees appears to be very real. It is difficult to convince him that
the building that is on fire, together with the fireman that is trying to put out
the fire, the water and the hose that are being used, and the spectators that
are all watching are not really real. The reality of the dream is only for that
particular dreamer, since it is projected by a single waker's mind. The other
beings have their own dreams to deal with. This reality at the subjective
level is called 'prAtibhAsika satyam,' or subjective objectification.
When a dreamer wakes up, all the dream world of things and beings
resolve into the waker's mind. Only then will he realize that all the dream
world is only subjective - not really objective and therefore not really real.
However for that waker, the waking world of things and beings is real and
have objective or transactional reality. He would not accept that this is also
like a dream. He looks for some scientific proof, without realizing one
cannot prove to a dreamer that the dream world is not real. He forgets that
even the dream world was objective from the point of view of his mind in
the dream, as with the fireman who was trying to put out the fire in the
dream. The analogy is exact. We classify the waking world as objective
reality, while the dream world we think is subjective reality. But that is only
the waker's notion. From the point of view of absolute reality, both worlds
are only different degrees of reality but neither is really real.
We can now go one step further. I consider myself to be an individual
different from others. I have to deal with the world around me, from birth to
death. I do not know where I came from, nor do I know where I am
heading. I am forced to deal with the world around me - things that I like
and things that I do not like. I came into a world that is already here,
wondering why I am here, what is this world and who created it, and why I
have to deal with it. All these questions were posed in ‘Analysis of the
Mind Part I.’ Now we have a better idea of who I am and what is this world.
 We posed the next question as to whether the mind is matter or not. It
is like the dreamer asking the question “is the dreamer's mind made of
matter similar to that of his gross body?” The dreamer can learn about
different theories – Dream-Kantian philosophy or Dream-Descartes' theory
or Dream-Freud's analysis of the mind, et cetera, all about the nature of the
dreamer's mind (remember that he does not know that he is dreamer and, as
far as he is concerned, he is a waker and the world and the matter in front of
him is real). But when he awakens from this dream, what will be his
attitude to all these questions and answers about the mind and the matter of
the dream body and dream mind?
Vedanta points out that any theory that is based on partial data is
inconclusive. Hence, all western theories about the mind are based on
partial data of the waker's mind and therefore they are speculative at best.
Vedanta says that any analysis can only be complete and full if all the data
pertaining to human experience is considered. Hence, not only the waking
state but the dream state and deep sleep states have to be analyzed in order
to arrive at a correct conclusion. Such a scientific analysis is done by
Vedanta in the Mandukya Upanishad, considering all the three states of
human experience - waking state, dream state, and deep sleep state. It
concludes that I am none of the three states. I am there as a waker, I am
there as a dreamer, and I am there as a deep sleeper. I am there in all the
three states and yet I am beyond all the three states. I am that limitless
existent-consciousness, since there is nothing other than ‘I am.’ That is the
pAramArthika satyam - the absolute reality, independent of any religious
doctrines, philosophies or theories.

*********
 Suggestions for Further Exploration
It is said that Vedanta should be studied under the guidance of a
teacher. For those who cannot get to a competent teacher, the following list
of books and material is suggested. Many commentaries are available on
the suggested material. For consistency, commentaries by Swami
Chinmayananda are recommended. These books are available at Chinmaya
Mission. Talks on many of these texts are also available on YouTube under
Acharya Sadaji.

In addition, Dennis Waite’s “Advaita Made Easy” provides a section

on “What should you read to find out more?” with extensive commentary.
The Vedanta literature and commentaries on them make for quite an
extensive collection. Here’s a short list:

Tatva Bodha (an Introductory Text providing definition of the terms

used in Vedanta)
Atma Bodha
Bhagavad Gita
Upadesha Saara
Mundaka Upanishad
Kena Upanishad
Kaivalya Upanishad
Ishavasya Upanishad
Kathopanishad
Prashnopanishad
Taittiriya Upanishad
Mandukya Upanishad
Aitareya Upanishad
Sad-Darshanam
Yoga Vasishtha Sara Sangraha
Advaita Makaranda
Dakshinamurti Stotram

*********
 ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Dr. K. Sadananda is a Materials Scientist by profession, and worked

at United States Naval Research Laboratory as Head of Deformation and
Fracture, published extensively in Scientific Journals and received many
awards. He retired in 2005 and now works as a private consultant in the
United States for six months of the year, and spends the rest of his time in
India. He was also a visiting professor at Indian Institute of Technology
Madras, Chennai, India. He is a disciple of Swami Chinmayananda, was a
founding trustee of the Chinmaya Mission’s Washington Regional Center as
well as the Siva Vishnu Temple in Lahnam, Maryland, USA. He served as
Secretary and Treasurer of SEVA, Inc., a philanthropic organization formed
around 1980 to fund projects in India and elsewhere.
In 1988, Swami Chinmayananda asked Dr. Sadananda to start
teaching Vedanta in Virginia, and he became a formal Acharya or spiritual
teacher of Chinmaya Mission in 1997. While in India, Dr. Sadananda works
on webcasting of Vedanta topics for Advaita Academy, and while in the
USA, he teaches Vedanta classes and conducts spiritual camps for
Chinmaya Mission. His audio talks are available at Chinmaya Mission
Washington Regional Center website and video talks are available on
YouTube under Acharya Sadaji. He is one of the founder-moderators of the
Advaitin mailing list, where extensive discussions on Advaita are being
conducted. He is married to Mrinalini Sadananda, who is a well-known
Kuchpudi dancer and Choreographer.
[1]
The Indian Languages Transliteration (ITRANS) scheme is used to express the Sanskrit words,
resulting in mixed case words.
[2]
Used in the sense of he or she, throughout this book.
[3]
Author of several books on Advaita and a moderator of the Internet Advaitin list.