15.2 Various Opinions On The Origins Of Creation

In connection with the world and its creation, various scholars have presented many and varying opinions.
 
1. One opinion says that the world remains the same at all time, and it does not undergo creation and destruction. From the beginning of time, the world is running as it is now, and will continue to do so in the future. The same earth, the same sun, the same moon, the same men and women, and the same process of their creation. For them, there is no question about the birth etc. of this world. All curiosity is wiped out. Why is there need to investigate when the world always remains the same? This opinion is firmly unacceptable to the Upanishads, since they prompt us to investigate the world's cause.
 
2. One opinion says that there are four aspects to the material cause of the world: earth, water, fire and wind. There is no intelligent cause of this world. There is matter which is inert, but no knowledge. Knowledge arises from matter alone. This is the materialistic or Chaaravaaka school. But this opinion is also not supported by the Upanishads. Brahman cannot be four. All these four causes will be incomplete and disconnected, whereas the brahman of the Upanishads is non-disconnected and complete.
 
3. The Jains also believe that the world always stays as it is. From this, some soul breaks out of the cycle and the world, without beginning and end, continues as it is. Here also, there is no intelligent cause in the form of Ishvara or brahman.
 
4. The Buddhists say that this world is science only (vijnyaana maatra), it did not created not get destroyed. The void (shoonya) alone is real. Here, the material cause of the world is either science or nothing at all.
 
5. Poora Mimaamsaa also says that the world is always as it is. In their opinion, there is no question with regards to when, who, where, how the world was created. They also do not accept any intelligent cause such as Ishvara.
 
6. The Nyaya school and the Vaisheshika school do accept birth but accept it as atom-created. Therefore they are also not in line with Upanishads.
 
7. The Saankhya school accept the transforming Prakriti as the cause of the world, therefore they too are not in line with the Upanishads.
 
8. Islam accepts Ishvara as the creator of the world, but does not accept the dissolution of the world. After the day of final judgement, heaven and hell continue to exist where souls live. Christianity also accepts a similar viewpoint. Therefore, Islam and Christianity also do not follow the Upanishads. Upanishads accept the dissolution of the world.
 
In this manner, in the afore mentioned opinions, there is non-acceptance of either the creation, or of dissolution, sustenance, creation-sustenance-dissolution from Ishvara or brahman. All these do not follow the Upanishadic viewpoint.
 
Now let us look at these from a different angle.
 
Void Philosophers (Shoonya Vaadi) do not accept either the material or the intelligent cause of the world. Substratum-less, observation-less, creation-less, yet experienced, this is the state of the world, is their opinion.
 
Science Philosophers (Vijnyaana Vaadi) say that the fragmented flowing nature of the mind is the cause of the impression flow (sanskaara dhaaraa). There is no intelligent cause or awareness of this world, and there is no aware or inert material cause of this world. Whatever exists is mind-impression-flow. For them, the mind is the material cause.
 
Material Cause Philosophers (Upaadaana Vaadi) are of two types : Internal material cause proponents and external material cause proponents. Chaaravaakaas are external material cause supporters since they accept four external material causes. They are not intelligent cause proponents since they do not believe in Ishvara. The Nyaaya school also falls into external material cause philosophy since they consider the atom as the material cause. Also, they are intelligent cause philosophers since they consider Ishvara to be the intelligent cause of the world. The natural Saankhya school supports internal material cause philosophy, since they Prakriti is in the intellect hence it is internal, and external to the seer. The Poorva Mimaamsaa or the action-impression school is also supporting the internal material cause philosophy since the impression of action stays in the mind. The science school (vijnyaana vaadi) is also internal material cause oriented, since they consider the mind as the material cause. The Ishvara school is also an internal material cause oriented school.
 
In the Vedanta philosophy, if there is any intelligent or material cause of the world, then it is brahman alone, and that too is known in brahman by maayaa alone. So long as we do not recognize brahman, till then, both the intelligent and material causes remain (inferentially). But, when brahman is recognized as non-different from the inner consciousness, there is neither an intelligent cause nor a material cause. Causality itself is negated since there is nothing else but brahman.
 
The world, already created, is visible in front of us. Now, scripture connects it to its origins. That someone created the world (intelligent cause), this opinion is called "aarambha vaada". That the world emerged, this opinion is called "parinaama vaada". It was neither created, nor emerged, and does not exist, there is only brahman, but is visible in the form of the world, this is "vivarta vaada". The Nyaaya and Vaisheshika schools are "aarambha vaada", Saankhya is "Prakriti parinaama vaada", Buddhist school is "mind parinaamaa vaada and shoonya parnaama vaada". The Vishishitaadvaita school is "brahman parinaama vaada". Vedanta is "vivirta vaada".
 
In this manner, there are several philosophical opinions about the creation of the world. But the shruti does not paint itself into a corner. It does not aim to say that the birth etc. of the world "happens" from brahman. All kinds of perceptions are illumined by a self illumined self. They remain in that self and eventually dissolve into that self. That self is brahman.
 
This is what it aims to say : "All these beings are seen to get created, in which they are seen to remain alive, into which they seem to be going, and into which they are seen to eventually dissolve, these perceptions of space, time, object, change in object, creation-sustenance-destruction, by which all these are happening, that is brahman". In this meaning, that inner self which is the witness ("you" aspect indicated meaning), is the same as the defined cause of the world brahman (Ishvara).
 
The world. the space-time-objects of the world, the cause of the world Ishvara, the illuminator soul and their five differences, all these are known. In the language of Vedanta, these differences alone are appearance pervaded (bhaana vyaapya). Wherever here is a difference, there is an appearance. Where there is no appearance, there is no difference. There is no difference without appearance, but there is appearance without difference. There is appearance of absence of difference (bhedaabhaava). This means that difference will happen only when it is known. The knowing of difference alone is difference. But is difference true or false? Then difference is false since it is negated after knowledge of the substratum.
 
It could be accepted that there is existence of objects (padaartha) in deep sleep, but there is no difference in deep sleep. The difference in objects is absolutely mental, only an experience of the intellect, appearance only, visible only. Difference is not a real thing, it is an experience, a thought flow. It is neither aware nor inert. That by which the experience of creation, sustenance, destruction of all worldly objects happens, is brahman. By which is this experienced? By the witness, me. Then who is brahman? You (witness) are brahman (in other words, the purified "I" is brahman.

15.1 Indicative Definition Of Brahman (Tatastha Lakshana) : Cause Of Creation (Jagat Kaaranatva)

The first principle of Vedanta philosophy is : Now, begins the inquiry into brahman (athaato brahmajignyaasaa). In other words, he who is a four-fold-qualification-complete mumukshu, he who wants to permanently remove all sorrow and attain supreme bliss, should begin contemplation of brahman. The question is, what is the definition (lakshana) of the brahman mentioned here?
 
Brahman is non particular (nirvishesha) therefore it does not have a definition, this is the common view. Undefinable alone is its definition. But shruti gives its definition: That from which all these beings and entities are being created, after being created are living, towards which all these are headed, and that into which all of these merge in the end, develop curiosity towards that (Taittireeya Upanishad 3.1). Such a definition of brahman is available in abundance in the Upanishads. In the Vedanta philsophy, Bhagavaan Vyaasa has created a principle in regards to this : "Janmaadyasa Yataha" (Brahma Sootra 1.1.2). In other words, that from which the birth etc. of this creation happens, that is brahman.
 
When we accept brahman as the cause of creation, we may face an obstacle, which is that cause and effect both contain faults. The fault of the effect is its perishable nature, and that of the cause is that it is subject to modification. The seed becomes wet, it bursts, it opens up, then a sprout grows out, it bears fruits and flowers, and eventually dies. Then, how can the cause of creation become the definition of the imperishable and non modifiable anvil-like brahman? This obstacle is removed as follows. If we need to prove that brahman is the cause of creation, and therefore we present the afore-mentioned definition, then there is a fault. But that is not the case. The cause of creation as a definition of brahman is mentioned to prove the non-dual (ever non-differentiated in soul, world, Ishvara) nature of brahman.
 
Definition is that by which something is seen, something is known. Both definition and means enable us to recognize an object. A definition should be free from three faults - avyaapti, ativyaapti and asambhava. That definition which does not completely cover the defined entity has the fault of avyaapti or incompleteness. If someone says "that which does not have cloven hooves is a cow". But the hooves of a cow are cloven.
 
That definition which covers not just the defined object but some other object as well suffers from the fault of ativyaapti or stretching. If someone says "that which has horns is a cow", it is not precise enough.
 
That definition which does not cover its defined objects suffers from the fault of asambhava or impossibility. If someone says "a one hoof animal is a cow" it is incorrect since no cow has one hoof.
 
Another common fact about any definition is that the definition remains in the defined object alone. But this is not compulsory. Also, that a definition needs to be true also is not compulsory. For instance, imagine that person A sees a snake and person B who knows that it is not a snake but a rope. B says to A : "Please bring me that rope". A says to B : "This is a snake, which rope are you speaking about?". What will B say now? Won't he say : "My friend, the rope alone has become a snake. That from which the snake has been created, that in which the snake is situated and that into which the snake will dissolve, and that in which there is no snake in all three times, that is the rope. That which is the snake-absence-perceived (sarpaabhaavopalakshita) object, that alone is the rope." In this manner, the real rope becomes the definition of the illusory snake. It has entered into its defined object (rope) but it is not existing in the rope.
 
In this manner "that from which the birth etc. of creation happens is brahman alone", this is the definition of brahman. It is a particular and illusory definition in order to reveal the non particular and real brahman. In the true nature of brahman, there is no situation like birth of creation etc. Also, the defined object, which is the Ishvara-nature (causal nature) of brahman, is also depicted in order to define the no particular nature of brahman alone.
 
Question: If birth and other definitions are not established in brahman, then it will become a fault of incompleteness, since according to Vedanta philosophy, birth etc. happen to the world, not to brahman.
 
Answer: This is not a fault. There are two types of definitions : direct and indirect (svaroopa and tatashta lakshana). In the "shaakha chandra nyaaya", the moon in shown by saying "the moon is two hand lengths above the branch of the tree". Then, is the moon really two hand lengths above the tree? No, but by this imagined definition, the moon can be seen. In this manner, even if it does not cover the moon directly, two hand lengths can define the moon indirectly. And if we say "the brightest star in the sky that is round in shape is the moon", this will become the direct definition of the moon. Similarly, the presence and absence of the snake, necklace etc. becomes the indirect definition of the rope.
 
This "cause of the birth etc. of the world" is the indirect definition of brahman, not the direct definition. That is why, even if it is based on another, it is capable of revealing the object of its definition, brahman.
 
There are some objects that are proven by delusion. Even those illusory objects cane become revealers of their substratum. This is because no illusion can exist without a substratum. This is the reason why shruti describes the cause of birth etc. as an indirect definition of brahman.
 
That which needs to be present in the adjoining prior moment in time for the production of the effect is known as the cause (kaarana). This is the definition of the Nyaaya school. Prior to the making of a pot, we need clay, a potter, a wheel, a rod etc. Therefore they are the causes of the pot. Now divide these causes into two: required (samavaayee kaarana) cause and incidental (asamavaayee kaarana) cause. Required means that which is always embedded in the effect, stay in the effect even after the effect is created. Incidental cause is that which does not remain in the effect after the effect is produced. In this manner, the required cause of the pot is clay, and the incidental causes are potter, wheel, rod etc. Vedantic people refer to the required cause as the material cause (upaadaana kaarana).
 
We can again divide the incidental causes into two: instrumental cause (nimitta kaarana) and assisting cause (sahakaaree kaarana). The instrumental cause is aware, like the potter, he is a doer. And those causes which are used by the doer to assist him are the assisting causes like rod, wheel etc. In each effect, the presence of a material cause and an intelligent cause are mandatory.
 
The shruti says: That from which the world is created, on which it is situated, and into which it will dissolve, that cause is brahman. By being the cause of its creation, brahman is the intelligent cause of the world, and by being the substratum of its dissolution, it is the material cause of the world. The pot always gets dissolved into clay, not into the potter. Therefore, brahman is the non-distinct intelligent material cause of the world (abhinna nimittopaadana kaarana). That which is only the intelligent or material cause of the world cannot be brahman. All philosophies accept brahman as the intelligent cause, but not as the material cause. But the Upanishads assert that by the knowledge of one, everything will be known. They give examples such as pot, cup etc. This is only possible when even the material cause of the world is brahman. That is why, even the principles of Vedanta have asserted that even Prakriti is one name of brahman (Brahma Sootra 1.4.23).
 
Definition is always made by a known entity, and it is used to recognize an unknown entity. This world is known, and we have to use it alone to recognize the unknown brahman. In other words, we have to use the effect to recognize the cause.
 
The Nyaaya school accepts that the cause can be inferred from its effect. In their opinion, the material cause remains visible. It is always embedded in its effect. For example, we do not infer clay from looking at a pot since clay is visible. In fact, we infer that there has to be someone who created this pot. In this manner, there is a definitely a creator of this vivid and variegated world, and that intelligent cause is Ishvara, this can be inferred.
 
In the opinion of Saankhya, by seeing the effect, the material cause (Prakriti) can be inferred. The Prakriti as described by Saankhya can never be visible. By seeing an object (vastu), the five elements, ego, mahat element, and the unmanifest Prakriti, in this sequence, the root material cause Prakriti is inferred.
 
If both the material cause and intelligent cause are different, then the afore mentioned case holds. But when there is a non distinct intelligent material cause, like of brahman, then what is the outcome? There is no example available in the world where both the intelligent and material causes are one. The example of the spider web is also not correct since the aware aspect of the spider is the intelligent cause, and the inert aspect is the material cause. Then, how can the non distinct intelligent material cause of the world be used as a definition for brahman?
 
In reality, there is no causality in brahman, but it is visible in brahman due to maayaa. Sitting in which place, which time and in which matter is brahman becoming the cause of the world? How exactly is this causality of the world? Otherwise, anyone's intellect cannot enter into the beginningless past and endless future to witness the birth or death of the universe. Who has seen the creation come out of brahman or dissolve into brahman? That is why, when the Upanishad describes brahman as the birth etc. of the world, its secret has to be understood with a teacher-teaching-refined intellect.
 
This notion of direction - east, west, north, south, where did these directions originate? From me, from my body. What faces front of my body, what is behind me, to the left or right of me, this alone is the notion of direction.
 
Where does time begin - from this second. The start and end of the current second is the start and end of time. That me in which this present second is experienced, that "I" alone am the substratum of the start and end of time. The beginninglessness and endlessness of time is me alone.
 
This flower exists. Where did this arise from? It was born in the tree, this is the common thought. The other thought is : The perception of the flower happens in the eyes, the eye form thought flow is in the heart, and there is a substratum and illuminator of that thought flow. That is where the flower is born, has arisen. That without which the flower cannot be attained, and that by which this flower is attained, that alone is the cause of the flower.
 
In the search for the cause, do not spread your thought too much. Why do you throw your thought millions of years into the past? You are an extremely ancient ancestor! Why do you through your thought millions of years into the future? You are extremely impractical! You should develop your thinking in this manner. Think of the object in terms of what it is right now. Then, to begin with, your "I" comes in front. Now begin to think, what is this "I"? When you examine this, you will realize that this very "I", which is situated in the cave of the heart and is pulsating as the "I", "I" is the very brahman, and in reality, it is the non distinct intelligent material cause of creation. It is that very "I", which due to ignorance, is pulsating in the form of "I-you-that-this". Just like the same rope due to ignorance pulsates as a necklace, arm, stick, crack etc. which are all erroneous.
 
There is a person who sees a snake in the rope. In order to give him knowledge of the rope, you have to tell him this definition of the rope : "That substratum in which this imagined object in the form of the snake is appearing, that alone is the rope". Similarly, "This name-form-endowed complete world, along with its creation, maintenance and destruction, is appearing in a substratum which is devoid of name form etc. That alone is brahman", such a definition of brahman has to be described.
 
In the absolute sense, there is no snake on the rope. But it appears on the rope due to ignorance. Therefore, the ignorance of the rope alone is both the intelligent cause and material cause of the snake's existence. In that state of ignorance, in order to point out the rope, the rope can be denoted as the cause of the snake. When knowledge of the rope happens, the causality of the rope in the snake, which is ascribed, can also be negated. Similarly, the shruti has revealed a definition of brahman which is ascribed in the form of world causality.
 
Therefore, the world is of the nature of name and form, contains many doers and enjoyers, is the refuge of activity and result of activity caused by time and space, and its creation and nature is unthinkable by the mind. That omniscient, omnipotent cause by which such a word is created, maintained and destroyed, that is brahman.
 
Whatever is "this"-denoted, that is the world. Its definition is creation, maintenance and destruction. This-denoted means the world is an object of perception. Therefore, the shruti and principles say that this object of this-perception, the seen-world, and its visible creation, maintenance and destruction, these visible creation etc. are happening due to a cause, which is brahman.
 
The creation-destruction of the entire universe cannot become an object of experience. Therefore, the goal of the shruti is not to take you into the beginningless past and the endless future. Its aim is the following. In this moment, in each space, in each object, that non-stop birth, maintenance and destruction which is perceived by you, that by which this perception is happening, that is brahman.
 
This means that whatever is being perceived as the this-formed entity which undergoes birth etc., that in which this happens and by which this happens, is the brahman, non distinct from the inner self.
 
Now, that by which the birth, maintenance and death of the "this" is known, that brahman itself is free from creation-maintenance-destruction and is devoid of this-ness. Therefore brahman is aware, non distinct than the inner self, and is an infinite entity. Through this, another afore mentioned definition of brahman also arises.
 
This is the aim of the shruti: That which is different from the seen, that in which there is no seen, in that, the seen is being perceived. Therefore, by being perceived in the contained of its absence, the seen is illusory. The "this", along with its transformations of birth etc., is illusory.
 
The "this" is many, but the non-this is one. In that one, many are appearing. Therefore many-ness is illusory. That which is "this" is inert, the "I" which is the illuminator of the "this" is aware. There is no inert in the aware, but appears, therefore, the inert in the aware is illusory. In the same manner, finitude appears in the infinite, and therefore finitude (disconnectness) is illusory. Since the not-self appears in the self, the not-self (seen, this) is illusory.
 
Even the shruti "yato vaa imaani" says : "That by which the creation, sustenance and dissolution of objects seems to be appearing, but in which these are not, in other words, in which these are illusory visible, that is brahman. That alone should be made the target of curiosity".
 
Brahman is that by which the "this"-like visible world appear to be created etc. Therefore brahman is real. Brahman is that by which the "this"-denoted entire seen world, along with its birth etc., appears. Therefore brahman is aware. Brahman is that by which all beings are satisfied therefore brahman is bliss. Brahman is that by which the world is created-sustained-destroyed, therefore brahman is the non distinct intelligent material cause of the world, like the rope-snake. That is why it is the non distinct non dual. The world is always merged into brahman which means falsified, because brahman remains intact even after the world merges into it. Therefore, the nature of brahman is "existence-consciousness-bliss non-dual".
 
The next shruti of the Taittireeya Upanishad says that "bliss is brahman alone, know this. Truly, all these beings are created from bliss alone, live due to bliss, are satisfied with bliss alone, and are merged into bliss alone" (Taittireeya Upanishad 3.6). Therefore, "yato vaa imaani" named shruti refers to this very same bliss-brahman. No matter how bliss is, it always is based in the self. Therefore, brahman is always non distinct from the inner self.
 
That which is beyond birth, non-transforming, different than the "this"-ness, non distinct from the inner awareness "I", of the nature of reality, bliss-formed, undivided non-dual existence, in which this world is appearing, and even while appearing is not real, that is brahman.

15.0 Contemplation Of The Ishvara Entity (Ishvaratattva Ka Vichaara)

14.3 The Pure Nature Of The Soul : Undivided Existence-Consciousness-Bliss (Jeeva Ka Shuddha Svaroopa : Akhanda Sacchidaananda)

The soul-only wants happiness - and such a happiness that is obtained everywhere, at all times, and from all, for which one does not have to put in effort, that which is not dependent, and that which is always experienced.
 
Even after harbouring a hope of such high standards, it is a strange matter that there is no consensus on the means for obtaining it. Some believe that you gain happiness if you visit a particular place. Others believe that you become happy if you create a particular situation. Some are striving for gaining objects, some others are engaged in the task of world welfare. Someone is begging for happiness from another, with joined hands, while someone else is blindly trying one thing after another. Many souls, many ideas, many opinions. It is like there is cannabis in the well. Should we enjoy or should we remain stable for happiness? Should we remember something or forget everything? Should we remain conscious or become unconscious? The reason for all this difference of opinion is as follows. We have not ascertained the nature of the happiness we all desire. That is why we engage in temporary, incomplete, action-oriented and subservient joys, and in the process, get fatigue and stress instead of peace!
 
In the limited space, time, object, person, effort, thought flow, ego of the enjoyer, you cannot obtain limitless happiness. Effort cannot be infinite, since the reaction to effort is rest, whether it is sleep or samaadhi! That which you are understanding as your dear happiness, test it with these parameters: Is it now? Is it here? Is it this? Is it readily accessible? Is it non dependent? It is experienced at all times? That happiness which is now, here, this, readily accessible, non dependent, experienced at all times, it is direct immediate but due to a mistake it is not recognized. Due to that, we require and wait for effort, situation and dependency. This is the play of an intellectual absurdity, improper thought and delusion. For the attainment of dear happiness, all this should be removed.
 
Fundamentally, we want experiential happiness since there is no visible reality of happiness. Whenever happiness happens, it is always direct immediate. Not the direct immediate behaviour of means and knowledge, but the direct immediacy of witnessed experience. The witness is happiness-nature itself, but due to ignorant thought flow (not knowing one's brahman-ness, it illumines happiness in the form of another. Due to this, it perceives the changes of situations, and accepts changes in happiness also. And it identifies with waking and other states, considering itself to be happy sometimes, and sad sometimes.
 
It is worth investigating whether we are really accepting a specific form of mental thought flow, with or without an object, as happiness! If that is so, then that specific form will be adjuncted, temporal, spatial. That is why, the attainment of happiness through a specific form will be proven to be a delusion.
 
In the vision of the essence, happiness is the experience-only of brahman. Due to the temporary nature of transactional happiness, brahman cannot be temporary, since temporality is the object of perception (upalabdhi), and happiness is of the nature of perception (upalabdhi svaroopa), timeless, spaceless and objectless. This means that perception alone is brahman, and brahman is the imperishable reality, the illuminator of all, complete, aware, the most dear in life, and happiness-nature pure knowledge (prajnyaana) alone. In which time, place, state, form, action or without action, given or not given, conscious or unconscious, whichever form or its absence is perceived, there is no purpose of any of these of that pure knowledge-nature happiness. All those perceptions are not different than the pure knowledge-alone, neither are they its modifications. Due to the opposite behaviour (vartana) of pure knowledge from its essential form, they can be called errors (vivarta) but from the absolute standpoint, all those forms of pure knowledge are brahman-nature alone.
 
What is prajnyaana? It is pure knowledge. In daily usage, the word knowledge is used in connection with the sense of knower and known. The trifecta of knower, known and knowledge is always present in worldly transactions. There is no knowledge in the world that does not have some object or the other, and does not have some arrogator or another. In reality, one knowledge is acting as three forms of knower, known and knowledge. Even so, without the knowledge of non-duality, there is no illusoriness of duality, and the alone-ness (kevalataa) of knowledge remains veiled. In the state of ignorance, this appearing trifecta is an impurity ascribed upon knowledge. For rejection of this impurity, the pure nature of knowledge, pure knowledge, needs to be defined. Fundamentally, knowledge does not require a known since knowledge illuminates the absence of a known also. Absence is an entity not different than the substratum. The difference exists only till there is ignorance of the substratum. The known and the knower require each other. Knowledge does not require even a knower, since knowledge can illumine even the absence of knower-ness (jnyaatritva). Knowledge and knowledge also do not require each other since knowledge is only one. That is why, known-ness and its absence, knower-ness and its absence, non-disconnected than all of these, complete within thee, their substratum and their illuminator is a self illumined knowledge. It does not require anything. It is the illuminator of difference-alone, it is the substratum. That is why, the nature of pure knowledge is devoid of the difference of knower and known.
 
Here, "known" means scene-only and "knower" means both soul and Ishvara. That is why, devoid of the difference between world, soul and Ishvara, self illumined and self only substratum, iluminator of the unreal duality and light-ness devoid light is the non-dual brahman alone. This ignorance does not require anything since it is the illuminator of ignorance also. Ignorance is real-unreal-different indescribable and is imagined in a veiled form in the substratum. There cannot be a requirement of an imagined entity in the self illumined knowledge. Any product that requires another is illusory and that which does not is real. This very non-requiring reality is brahman. It is called pure knowledge in the Upanishads.
 
The necklace is known, eyes are the instruments of knowledge and the eye-owner "I" is the knower. The truth is that the disconnected knower has an aware substratum. It is also the substratum of the known and of the eyes. But, since that non-disconnected substratum is not imbibed, it appears in the three forms of knower, knowledge and known. On gaining knowledge of the non-disconnectedness, the appearance-only-ness of the three is destroyed. That is why, the pure knowledge in the form of awareness of the substratum is the truth, and the trifecta is experienced as an illusion. Many knowns, many instruments of knowledge and many arrogators, all of these are the reverse cognitions (vivartas) of that one non-disconnected pure knowledge alone. Not knowing the undivided nature of pure knowledge is ignorance. Knowing oneself and objects as fragments is a delusion. For the removal of this delusion, the investigation of the pure knowledge entity is useful.
 
What are these trifectas in the pure knowledge awareness? Definitely, these are reflections of awareness (chidaabhaasa). Since there is no other illuminator for illuminating the self-illumined awareness, and since it is unfit to illumine its own non-disconnectedness and awareness, it is illumining itself in a form thats opposite to itself. Like the immeasurable nature of the sky cannot be illumined by the eyes. Then in the form of blueness, as with-form opposed to without-form, the sky appears. Similarly, our inner self alone, being without object, is seen as an external object. Aware in the form of inert, imperishable in the form of perishable, complete in the form of disconnected, non-dual in the form of duality, the self as another, all these appear. Whoever seeks to make pure knowledge into an object, will have to make pure knowledge into the form of inert or disconnected. That is why, it will not be pure knowledge anymore, it will be the reverse cognition of pure knowledge. Therefore, the shruti advises that the investigation of pure knowledge occur in the form of a seeker, not in the form of another: You alone are the pure knowledge brahman. The witness alone is pure knowledge. Through it, the form of result of any action, worship, yoga, or the form of any object of sense, or itself alone in an appearing form, pure knowledge cannot be realized. All means are satisfied once they reveal their respective errors (vyaavartya kee vyaavritti). So much so that even the knowledge arising from the great statements also, after having removed ignorance, itself is removed or falsified, and only the prior pure knowledge alone remains.
 
We can say that pure knowledge is pervaded in the trifecta of knower-knowledge-known. But the notion of pervader-pervaded is imagined in pure knowledge. The Tejo (Bindu) Upanishad clearly says that pervader-pervaded is illusory. For instance, past, future, present is pervaded by time, but there is no entity called past, present and future independent of time. Then how can something be pervaded by something else? Fundamentally, having accepted chronology, these three states have been imagined in time. The substratum of this trifecta which is time, and the illuminator which is awareness, have no awareness of this trifecta. It is a play of the human mind alone, or in technical terms, is superimposed. Similarly, the knower-known-knowledge trifecta is just a play of the intellect, and the pervasion of pure knowledge in that is also a play of the intellect. Separate from pure knowledge, there is no real trifecta. Then who is pervading whom? In the division-devoid directions, the divisions of up-down, north-south, east-west are always imagined. By the abstraction of direction, in the adjuncted awareness or in its substratum, the reality, the division of direction is irrelevant. Even then, object-oriented divisions such as length, width, height, inner-outer etc. of a pot or a house, all these imaginations are placed on the head of direction as a concept. This is the superimposition of one thing upon another. Is there any pervader-pervaded relationship of directions on east, west etc.? There is never any connection of our true nature with any object, not even the relationship of identification. Can the full, the complete, ever have any relationship of identification with anything?
 
In one non-dual undivided reality, the division of space etc. is not time-rooted since it is not a modification, it is not movement-oriented since there is no space or action, and is not nature-rooted since the definition of one's nature cannot be applied to another. It is not name-form-rooted either, since they only occur during the time of the means-known transaction. The, just like the division of present etc. in time, like the division of west etc. in space, essentially, the five elements in the realm of brahman, and the names-forms imagined in them, are always illusory. To explain this very point, the examples of dream as well as of the snake on a rope, are given by shruti, scriptures and great people. Dream is used in the investigation of the "you" aspect, and snake-rope is used in the investigation of the "that" aspect, and essentially, in the realization of the oneness, no example is given. That is why, to explain the pervasion of the pure knowledge brahman, an appropriate statement is made with regards to the inner awareness. The substances of the dream state are appearing in that space and time when and where they are always unreal. Similarly, in the pure knowledge brahman, all trifectas along with their objects and differences are illusory, in other words, the visible world is always illusory in pure knowledge. Also, just like the visible snake is illusory during the time of its visibility, in the "that" aspect form undivided awareness reality, this visible world is appearing, but is illusory in all times. Once the illusory nature of the visible world becomes a firm conviction, nothing remains to create a division between the inner self and the substratum-awareness-form supreme self. Fundamentally, division alone is the world, and without existing, it is appearing in its inherent nature form pure knowledge brahman. In the pure knowledge brahman, pervasion and pervaded-ness, both are imagined from the standpoint of transactions, in the absolute sense, it is mere pervasion alone (vyaapti maatra).
 
In the contemplation of Vedanta, the pervasion of one thing into another is not called pervasion. The pervasion of fire into iron, and that of ghee into milk, these examples are not those of pervasion in reality. This is because their pervasion is separated either by space or action. The real pervasion is the presence of the material cause in its effect. That into which the effect merges after destruction, or that with which the effect is made, that in which the shape of the effect is embedded, that which is present in the form of mass in the effect, that is called the material cause. Like: clay in pot, water in wave, flame in spark, air in breath, great space in pot space, vision of dream seer in dream. Now, in the example of the pot and clay, it is not just clay that is the material cause, but the five great elements alone are the material cause. That is why the sound, touch, form, taste and smell - the five elements are present in all of these. The pot is non-separate from the five elements. Even after the pot breaks, the five elements exist. Similarly, wave, spark, breath etc. should be understood in the same connection. Dream vision is an example of material causation. Rope-snake is an example of an effect due to ignorance of the substratum. They also are not different than their material cause. All these examples are useful in understanding the pervasion of the pure knowledge brahman. However, fundamentally, its pervasion cannot be explained properly. This is because all these examples are in connection with either something that is a scene, or is inert. The pure knowledge brahman is aware. Wherever the aware is the material cause, there, fundamentally, it is devoid of the cause-effect distinction. That is why the pervasion of the aware is the non existence of any substance other than the aware. In other words, it is its fullness alone.
 
The cause-effect-form pervaded-pervaded notion is in the seen alone, not in its illuminator or its substratum, the aware. That is why the notion of spatial, temporal and particular transformation cannot be connected with the pure knowledge brahman. The pure knowledge brahman is the substratum and illuminator of the absence of space, time and cause-effect. Since space, time and objects, which are illumined by it, are the competitors (pratiyogee) of their substratum-based complete absence, they are illusory. By being a seen, transformational and disconnected also, they are not independent, imperishable and full. In this state, in order to attain the pure knowledge brahman, when, where, in which form and through which process should we investigate?
 
It is a wonder that we expect to wait for some time, state or situation for searching the pure knowledge brahman! No measure of time is devoid of this pure knowledge. It cannot ever imagine its death, change, absence or birth because pure knowledge is their witness and illuminator. Then why are we unable to attain this which is in the form of substratum and illuminator in each and every moment?
 
It is a wonder. Even though the pure knowledge is not in the least bit touched by the notion of space, though it is free from the triplet of inner, outer and intermediate space, thought the triplet is imagined on the substratum and illuminator, inner facing and outer facing etc., in these states of space, in situations as well as coming and going, minuteness, bigness, medium-ness etc., devoid of all of these, why is it not available now in this space, since it is the form of substratum and illumination of the disconnectedness of space, when it cannot ever ascribe incompleteness, disconnectedness form transformations? Pure knowledge is the witness aware-only entity of the imagination of presence and absence of space. In order to attain that which is full and attained by nature, why is there a need to requirement to enter a secret realm of intermediate space? Why cannot its perception and investigation happen in the current space?
 
It is a wonder. In this space, all forms, transformations, types, impressions are becoming the objects of experience. All these are becoming objects of the intellect, which is distinct from the very counter (vivartee) material cause awareness which is illuminating them, but they are non-distinct from it fundamentally. When, in fact, the imperishable, full, non-dual aware-existence is appearing in the form of everything, devoid of space and time. Isn't it a wonder?
 
That which has never experienced itself and endowed with the division of subject and object, for the attainment of that pure knowledge, what is the need for means-known-formed transaction? If pure knowledge was visible like pot etc., then a visible means of knowledge would become necessary. If it was invisible like the creator of the world, then there would be need for inference. And if there were something else like it, then it would be need to be compared and would be another due to ignorance, and therefore would need words to comprehend. If it were like joy sorrow etc. which are mental experiences, then it would have witness experience (saakshi bhaasyataa). But this all-substratum, all-experiencer, self-illumined, pure knowledge brahman is to be attained. Which instrument is needed or which new instrument has to be created to experience this? It never experiences anything as different than itself, and never becomes the object of someone else's experience. Which instrument is needed here?
 
Here is the biggest wonder of all. We always want to attain pure knowledge brahman in some time such as samaadhi, in some space such as the abode of Brahmaa, in some form which is the object of intellect. Space cannot be falsified through coming and going. Time cannot be falsified through counter thinking. Subject-object cannot be falsified through like thought flow (tad aakaara vritti). That is why, in the attainment of the pure knowledge brahman, all these methods cannot become immediate means. For that, the purified I-sense is supreme alone. Through this method, characteristics of time (death, change etc.), characteristics of space (inner outer etc.) and characteristics of objects (scene-ness etc.) are clearly perceived as different in the self. No one can ever experience the absence, inertness and lack of love of one's own self. That is why, to attain the happiness-nature pure knowledge brahman, spatial, temporal and object-oriented shapes of joy imagination and joy emotion are not needed. The investigation of the pure knowledge-nature self alone is one's duty.
 
What is this purified I-sense self? To do this, focus your attention on your I-sense as used in daily dealings. In other words, what is the entity that we refer to as our "I"? Our investigation should always begin with where we are, when we are and what we are, only then will it be successful. That is why, wherever there is arrogation of one sheath or another, of one state such as waking or another, wherever the "I" sense arises, we should investigate whether that is the real "I" or not. If the "I" is used in its impure sense, then either it will be visible in the form of "this", or invisible in the form of "that". Definitely, any usage along these lines reveals the impure form of the I-sense. And then we will not be able to recognize even our waking, dream and deep sleep states, since the self-nature is different than all these three. Prior to this, the discrimination of five sheaths has to be conducted. Then, the waking state of one body will not be our waking state, but in fact, after taking one step back, we will attain our self in the form of the arrogator of the entire waking state. With this state analysis, the contemplation of Vedanta begins, and by knowing the fourth-nature pure knowledge brahman as our own nature, we can be free of ignorance and its effects.
 
At this time, as we are investigating, researching and purifying the I-sense as humans, transacting with internal and external organs in our gross body, it is clearly experienced that this is the waking state. In this state, the person uses the term "I" to denote his body. He ascribes attributes such as tall-short, fair-dark, fat-thin upon himself and thinks of himself as the gross body. This person takes the actions performed by the organs of action in his body to be his own, and arrogates the notion that "I am the doer of merit and sin". Doer of action, doer of walking, doer of taking, this is the nature of arrogation. When he thinks of himself as the owner of organs of knowledge, he arrogates the notion that "I see, I hear, I taste". He thinks of himself as the doer, knower, enjoyer. He ascribes action and knowledge of the organs of action and knowledge upon himself, then he identifies with the good or bad results upon himself, and even though he is self sufficient, he thinks of himself as happy or sad. Ideas arise due to actions and knowledge, and actions happen according to those ideas. This cycle continues throughout life, becomes the cause of births upon births, and deaths upon deaths. If this state were real, then the doer-enjoyer soul will always remain worldly, and will never free himself from this cycle. This cycle of birth and death alone is called world, and the "I" which is trapped in this world is called the worldly soul.
 
We need to think about this : What in reality is the soul which is becoming a doer with the adjunct of organs of action, enjoyer with the adjunct of result thought flow and worldly with the adjunct of the imagination of birth and death? If in essence it was disconnected, then in the wordly flow of action, particular knowledge, joy and sorrow etc., its getting stuck would be a natural thing and there would be no point in striving for liberation. But, this disconnectedness has been accepted without any investigation, without any thought or experience. That is why, when something has been believed through blind tradition or thoughtless ignorance-rooted acceptance, it has to be destroyed through the knowledge of the essence. The knowledge of the essence is the knowledge of identity of the self and brahman. Without the knowledge of the identity between self and brahman, this will not be removed. That is why, the process of striving should be begun.

14.2 Seed (Beeja) And Individual Soul (Jeeva)

In this world, from Lord Brahmaa to a moth, there is no being that does not want to avoid sorrow, and does not make attempts to avoid it. Without teaching or learning, naturally, all have a distaste for death, ignorance and sorrow. If you contemplate on this, you realize that there is no question of freeing oneself from sorrow that has passed. That which is being experienced is already passing away. That which has yet to come is not known. Then what does freeing oneself from sorrow mean? The things that cause sorrow, freedom from those causes, freedom forever, complete freedom, freedom in all forms, in other words, the permanent cessation of sorrow. In this state, naturally this question arises : What is the cause of sorrow and how do we prevent it?
 
Sorrow arises along with the body alone. Sorrow is experienced in both birth and death. Disease, separation, enjoyment, meeting, favourable-unfavourable, all happen due to connection with the body alone. Independence-subservience also is enjoined with this. Rules of action, action, situation, state, all are children of the body. The connection with the body alone is the cause of sorrow.
 
And what is the connection? Accepting it in the form of I and mine. Perform discrimination on your true nature and understand yourself as different from the body : This body is not me, nor is it mine. Then, let whatever is being said about the body be said, let it be, whatever is happening, let it be, how it is happening, let it be, but it is neither me, nor mine. For I am the seer, witness, unattached, indifferent. Imbibing the body in the form of I and mine alone is the material cause of sorrow.
 
Where did this body come from? After casting away the me and mine. where will it go? After leaving its connection, what is the guarantee that such a connection will not happen again? Whether the body is created out of one element or out of many, the shaping or joining of elements cannot happen without injunctions and prohibitions, and injunctions and prohibitions cannot happen without action. Action happens with the body. Then the succession of the body progeny will never. Ordained and prohibited actions will continue to occur, just like they did in the past. Action from body, and body from action. Both of these, like tree and seed, are going on in succession since time immemorial. Then, is the life of an individual soul the life of the seed? No, there is a difference in both!
 
You have a seed in your hand. If you can recognize the tree from which this seed came, then once you see it, you can imagine its past form and future form. How this seed come through the roots, leaves, branches, buds and flowers, and now after sowing it, it will take on a form similar to its source tree. But all this is not seen in the seed, even though it is contained in the seed. The seed needs earth, water, heat, light, wind and space, as well as a field, manure and irrigation. It will become moist, it will sprout, it will burst, it will increase. It needs space, it needs time, Even after all this happens, it will express its shape, form and taste as per its nature. The seed has been transmitted in succession since time immemorial. Inside-outside, down-up, it attains to all these. It will keep going on until its seed-ness is destroyed through fire or other means.
 
Now, imagine that there is an (individual) soul in your hand. It has a particular type of soul-ness (jeevatva). It also needs time for its appearance and disappearance, space for its coming and going, matter for taking on various forms, and for all these actions, it requires connection with action (karma sambandha). Without action, rising-falling, living-dying or coming and going cannot happen. The same object cannot transform into various forms without action. These actions alone are known as modifications (vikaara) or vikriyaa in common language, which through a particular process, create a flow (dhaara) of shapes. These actions alone, by virtue of being performed with doership in this soul world, imbibe the form of particular desire-created (vaasanaajanya) impressions (sanskaaras). Because of this, they are called injunctions or prohibitions (dharma adharma).
 
The soul is due to predominance of awareness, and the seed due to that of inertness. The "va" in jeeva refers to its inwardness, and the "ba" in beeja refers to its outwardness. The seed is the cause of creation alone, but the soul is the cause of creation as well as perception (pramaana). The powers of the seed remain in physical matter alone. Those of the soul remain in physical and beyond physical. Both the internal and external organs of the soul remain aware, but the organs of the seed are dormant (moorchita). There is no genesis of injunction or prohibition in the seed (dharma adharma). But, since the soul is the basis of the perception thought flow (praamaana vritti) and is independent in performance of action, it becomes the basis of injunction and prohibition. The enjoyed-aspect of the seed is predominant, whereas the enjoyer-aspect of the soul is predominant. That is why the joy-sorrow of the soul is awake, and that of the seed is dormant. The soul attains higher or lower destinations due to its performed injunctions or prohibitions, and the seed attains its destinations by being helpless in the natural flow of Prakriti.
 
Even souls are downward-channel, horizontal-channel and upward-channel in the realm of Prakriti, of three types. By and large, the first two demonstrate a predominance of inertness, not the knowledge of right or wrong. But in the upward-channel (which is the human species), evolution has reached its pinnacle. In this, there is the full scope of action, knowledge and love to express. This is because, we see the evolution of hands and other organs for new actions, intellect for new inventions, and love for experiencing bliss. In this species, there is complete prowess for the experience of the real notion (sad bhaava), the awareness notion (chid bhaava) and the bliss notion. It imbibes the impressions of science (vidyaa) and action in its internal organ, and the arising of prior intelligence is also seen. That is why, the entire responsibility of prohibition and injunction is expressed in humans alone.
 
Prohibited behaviour weakens the command of the soul on the body, senses and mind. That it why, it again goes under the control of Prakriti and has to take birth as a human or some other lower species. Opposed to this, by behaviour as per injunctions, the body, senses and mind are purified, and their regulation is enhanced. When this happens, the soul becomes qualified to enter heavenly kingdoms. Even in these heavenly kingdoms, there is an excess of sense pleasures alone. But after worshipping one dear deity, there is manifestation of divine joy, which is different from sense pleasures. Due to the variety of deities, chantes and methods, there is many-ness also in results of joy of right actions (dharma sukha). When there is one deity, chant, method and faith in worship, there is manifestation of divine joy in emotion-dominant one-pointed thought flow.
 
The Saankhya-described witness-nature of the soul is the witness of the internal organ. But it is different in every body, it is unattached, and it is self-illumined awareness. The witness of the internal organ, the self-illumined awareness has no connection with space, time and matter. Due to restraint of thought flows, this seer gets established in its self-nature (aatma svaroopa). Then, it gets liberated from coming and going in space, birth and death in time, change of species in matter. By being unattached from adjuncts, at that time, this seer becomes established in its true nature. But, when the samaadhi breaks, it again takes the form (saaroopya) of the thought flow. That is why, through the controller (niyantaa) of the thought flows, the control and birth-death etc. of this is also possible.
 
Per Vedanta, the witness nature of the soul is brahman alone. Therefore, by investigating into the true nature of soul and brahman, that soul which experiences the oneness between both of them through the great statements of Vedanta as his self, for that soul, space-time-etc. become falsified or illusory once and for all. Then, there is permanent cessation of birth and death. Until there is reality given to thought flow and consequent identification to them, till then the reality of difference, many-ness of the seer and separateness from Ishvara cannot be deleted by anyone, and the flow of birth and death will continue..
 
Since seed-ness is physical, it is destroyed by physical fire. That is why it is without beginning. But since the soul is aware, it cannot be destroyed by physical fire. It has ignorance-rooted identification with the seed-impressions of desire at the root of thought flow. That is why, through the fire of knowledge, without the extinguishing of ignorance, the soul-ness of the soul cannot be removed.
 
The soul is aware, its life-existence is without beginning or end. It imbibes the imagination of space, time and matter into its vision. The appearance (bhaasamaanataa) of space, time and matter is falsified, and the inherent nature of the aware is ever non-falsified. In the course of experience, there is no non-existence. No one can experience "I am not". That is why, the authentic nature of soul is endless and non-dual. In its own imagination alone, it identifies with the appearing time and thinks of itself as timeless, it identifies with the appearing space and thinks of itself as pervasive, it identifies with the appearing matter and thinks of itself as the self of all. In reality, even timelessness, pervasiveness and all-self-ness is not the factual nature of the self, it is due to identification with the imagined scene. The substratum awareness alone is the factual nature of the soul, and there is not a trace of duality in it anywhere. There is no value for obstructed appearance (baadhita bhasamaanataa). Fundamentally, seed-ness and soul-ness are ignorance-oriented. Both the seed-reality and soul-reality are non-different than the undivided aware-only reality.
 
Now, let us again return to the earlier topic. What is the cause of variety in any object? Action or transformation. Transformation is due to Prakriti or is natural, but action is executed by the doer. Action remains intertwined with injunction and prohibition, since it has the wish of attainment or avoidance at its root. Due to the firmness or weakness of this wish, allowed or forbidden actions are performed. Superimposition has ignorance at its root. That is why until ignorance remains, superimposition will remain, and due to the non-removal of desires, the cycle of birth and death will also not cease. Vedanta knowledge is concerned with the removal of this cycle alone.
 
Assume the following were not to exist : birth and death due to predominance of time, coming and going due to predominance of space, change in species due to predominance of matter, result regulated by Ishvara, the bondage of the ignorant souls to experience these results. Then there would be no need for the knowledge derived for the "you are that" etc. great statements. The entire hearing, contemplation and meditation of Vedanta would be useless. The need for identity of self and brahman is for its cessation alone.
 
"So long as there is insistence on the cause and result, there is the expanse of the universe. On the weakening of the frenzy of cause and result, the wise person does not acquire the universe." (Maandookya Kaarika 4.56).
 
When the self is not accepted as brahman (without the division of space-time-matter, inter-intra-part-whole-difference devoid) and it is accepted that I am the doer of right and wrong, and the enjoyer of its resulting joy and sorrow, then the intellect becomes that of worldly birth and death. When, with the knowledge of the identity of self and brahman, the ignorance-rooted doership, enjoyership, worldliness, disconnectedness etc. are falsified, then the disastrous world with birth-death, coming-going etc. is removed. That is why, prior to the knowledge of the essence, rebirth and other realms need to be accepted. Otherwise, one turns against Vedanta science and gets stuck in massive misfortune.
 
The life of the soul is an undivided aware-only reality. This is the opinion of Vedanta and is logically sound. The delusion of difference is caused by ignorance alone [duality on an LCD screen is fake]. Difference alone is appearance only (praatibhasika). Difference is not real in essence and not different than its self illumined substratum, the self.

14.1 The I-Sense (Aham Artha) And (Samvidaatma) Consious Self Witness

In Vedanta, the opposition of the doer and the action is well-known. That which is the doer cannot be the action, and that which is the action cannot be the doer. Whichever rule applies to action, also applies to knowledge. He who is the knower cannot be the known (jnyeya), and that which is the known cannot be the knower. The knower is distinct from the known.
 
The refuge of the process of knowledge is the knower, his instrument is "knowledge" and his object is the known. With this trifecta of knowledge, knower and known alone does each knowledge occur. Knower of means, means and target of means, respectively, mean the same as knower, knowledge and known. In reality, our knowledge become divided into three parts: known object, knowledge-shaped thought-flow, and the knower I (aham).
 
It is clearly understood that the knower "I" is distinct from both the target and the means of knowledge. This-ness is seen (bhaasnaa) in the means and the target of means, and I-ness or non-this-ness is seen in the knower. The "I" appears distinct from the object and thought-flow, but there is no "I" which appears distinct from the knower. Also, the I appears in many forms: sometimes the I appears and a sinner and sometimes as a saint, sometimes as a aversion-prone person (raagee) and sometimes as a renunciate (viraagee), sometimes as happy and sometimes as sad. That I-I which is appearing in various forms, that cannot appear without the mixing up of the I (aham) and this (idam). By the compounding (samaahaara), by the mixing up of the I and "this", this knot (granthi) is being seen. This appearing "I" is not just the I and not just the "this". For most people, this appearing (bhaasamaana) I is the meaning of their I-notion, it is the I-sense or aham artha. Doer, knower and enjoyer (the arrogator of action, knowledge and enjoyment), in the form of which is your experienced I, is an appearing I. It alone is called the I-sense.
 
The interesting point is that even though it is seen in various forms, we always have a firm conviction of our one-ness. At one time I was a saint, happy, renunciate, and at another time I am sinner, sad, aversion-prone individual. Even through the sin and merits keep changing, the I remains one. Who is that I?
 
That which is the changeful I-sense is not you. You are the witness of those changes. The non-changing knowledge in the object, thought-flow and knower (I-senses), that knowledge is you. In the knowledge of the pot and the knowledge of the cloth, there is a difference between the cloth and the pot, but not in knowledge. There is a difference in the shape of the pot-shaped and cloth-shaped thought flows, but not in their knowledge. There is a difference in the object of the pot knower and cloth knower, but not in the knower himself.
 
In the object, thought-flow, I-sense, in all of these, there is an inert aspect. And that pure knowledge, that consciousness (samvit) in them, that is one. Consciousness is self illumined, it is one, there is no difference within it. If we say here that the I-sense alone is consciousness, there here also, the changing inert aspect in the I-sense, should be discriminated from consciousness. If you were the changing inert aspect, how would you know that there is a change in the inert? The truth is that you are the consciousness alone, non-changing self. But by superimposing the not-self and the characteristics of the not-self upon you, you have accepted yourself as the changing I-sense.
 
The I-sense is different in each body. and in consciousness, there is no difference between the body and the internal organ.
 
What is the substratum of the appearing I and this? In the opinion of the Chaaravaaka school, all this is inert matter, from that alone arises the I and this, their creation and dissolution. All this behaviour is of the inert in the inert. But this opinion is incorrect. Neither can one's inertness become the experience of oneself, nor is this logical. Then the entire world will attain nothing but blindness. If a blind person follows another blind person, he will have to fall in every step. Then? The substratum of the I and this is the pure aware self. It is the illuminator of I and this both, connected (anvita) with both, yet distinct from both, and is the substratum of both.
 
If you say that there is no need for the substratum of the I and this, then no difference whatsoever would have been without substratum. If the substratum is a void, then there would be no originating from absence (abhaava se bhaava kee utpatti). If the substratum is inert, then the state of world blindness would happen. If we accept the I as the substratum of the I, and the this as the substratum of the this, then this statement is tainted with the fault of "aatmaashraya dosha". If we take the I as the substratum of the this and vice versa, then this becomes "anyonyaashraya dosha". If we assume that the substratum is a third entity different from the I and this, then we will have to assume a fourth, and this will become untenable (anavasthaa). In this manner, the one aware substratum of the I and this is proven, and the aware cannot be distinct from the consciousness I. Therefore, that consciousness which is distinct from the I sense,and is the illuminator of the I-senses, thought-flow and object, and is distinct from all of them, that alone is the substratum which remains.
 
This consciousness is never resolved (leena) and never manifests (prakata), since saying this will be "vadato vyaaghaata" fault. The consciousness does not resolve nor manifest, resolution and manifestation happen in consciousness. Without knowledge, how would they be experienced? They are all objects, thought-flows and I-senses, all of which are resolved or manifested, are not consciousness.
 
This consciousness is such an infinite knowledge, in which there is no coming, no going, but it is the illuminator of those objects that come and go. There is no expansion or contraction, but it is that by which there is knowledge of expansion and contraction. There is no inside or outside in it, no birth or dfeath, no now or then. It is such an infinite (ananta) knowledge which is not an object, not a subject, not a thought flow, in other words, that which is not your disconnected I-snese, that infinite knowledge is nothing else but you. You are so beautiful, in which all beauty is imagined. You are so sweet, in which the entire sweetness of the macrocosm is imagined. You are such a reality in which the entire realities appear without really existing, in which all truths become illusions, in which inertness and awareness also do not have a difference! This alone is your self nature, your consciousness, nature.
 
Objects appear to be many, and their difference also appears. Objects are indescribable and their difference also is indescribable. Thought-flows appear many and their refuge also is different. Earlier they do not exist, they then arise, and later they do not exist. In technical terms, thought-flows are with-refuge, with-object, prior-absence-partners (praag abhaava pratiyogini) and after-absence-partners (pradhvansa aabhaava pratiyogini), and are mutually different. In addition, in order to manifest, they require an undivided consciousness.
 
Over there, the I-sense also is illuminated with object (savishayaka). Fundamentally, both thought-flow-ness and object-ness are ascribed upon the I-sense. Actions, enjoyments and knowledge have objects (vishaya). Their thought-flows have characteristics. Without superimposing both of these, no one can experience the appearing form (I-sense) of one's pure I.
 
Consciousness is light and illuminator. I-senses is lit. As each characteristic of thought-flow is superimposed on the I-sense, it is lit, and after it is lit, the I-sense is grasped (graheeta). That is why the I-sense, thought-flow and object, all three are lit, whereas pure consciousness is the illuminator, it is self illumined. A lit object remains sometimes, does not remain sometimes, but the illuminator illumines both the presence and the absence. Therefore the lit entity is falsified (baadhita, illusory) and the consciousness is non-falsified.
 
See the divisions of knowledge : created knowledge is obtained through actions, happened knowledge is obtained through time and matter, pure knowledge is free from the notions of time, space and matter. This pure knowledge alone is your inherent nature, your self.
 
Body, senses, internal organ, their divisions - gross, subtle, causal bodies, the food sheath and other sheaths, the states of their experience such as waking, all their characteristics and arrogators, the agglomerate (sanghaata) of all of these, and the disconnected appearing "I" which accepts this agglomerate as I and mine, all this is the description of the I-sense. This I-sense is also called jeeva or the individual soul.
 
That which is called a scene has space-time-object in it, has many shapes, thought-flows, arrogations, it appears sometimes, and does not appear other times, keeps changing, takes various forms due to impressions of prior actions, takes future forms through current actions, appears are desire-prone with the push of one impression. Scenes keep appearing, but the consciousness remains steady as one. This means that no matter what the scene is, it is the object of the "this"-thought-flow. And, that which is known after grasping the this-shape-ness is a scene. What is bliss is consciousness. Even the I-sense is known, it is known after the knowledge of the "this"-aspect.
 
The consciousness which is unaffected and untouched by "this"-ness, the un-"this", is free from all faults of the "this"-ness. "This"-ness has time, un-this (anidam) does not have time. "This"-ness has space, un-this does not have space. "This"-ness has objects, un-this (anidam) does not have objects. Similarly, "this"-ness contains action, happiness, sorrow, change, knowledge (pramaa), delusion, and un-this does not contain any of this. The "this" is illumined by another, is an object, is subservient, has a dependent existence. The un-"this" is self illumined, without object, the refuge of all and has an independent existence. In these entities which have opposite characteristics, the switching of characterstics is attained only through non-discrimination, not otherwise.
 
And why is there any non-discrimination? That also is due to non-discrimination. Non-discrimination does not have any cause. In this manner, the I-sense in the form of I and this, created out of non-discrimination prevails. But in the light of discrimination, after negating this-ness, it is available in the pure-consciousness form. This is the "pratyagaatmaa", the inner self, of everyone.
 
This inner self is of the nature of pure consciousness, of light, it is self illumined. It does not need any other for knowledge of itself. Like the sun, it remains ever shining. Space, time, object, person, situation, cause, effect, action, enjoyment, individual soul, Ishvara, are illumined by its light alone.
 
Eyes are required to see a watch. The mind is required to see the eyes. The intellect is needed to see a friend or foe, To see the waking and other states of the intellect, there is no need for any of the afore-mentioned entities. The inner self illumines them directly. That is why it is called the witness. Without the light of the sun, without the eyes and other senses, without the thought flow of the intellect, without the thought flow of ignorance (without the appearing I), without the need for someone other than itself, beyond the visible-indirect-immediate in the form of directly immediate and self illumined, that self-illumined aware self is the witness.
 
When this self illumines time, it is called endless (nitya). When it illumines space, it is called pervasive. Similarly, when it illumines all cause and effect, it is called the universal self (sarvaatmaa). But this self is always self illumined. It sees all but does not become a seen, and even without being a seen, there is never any doubt about its existence. You experience yourself all the time without any doubt. There is no person in this world can never experience the absence of his "I", this is an open challenge.
 
This self-illumined self is anvil-like immovable (kootastha). "Koota" means the peak of a mountain, the anvil of a blacksmith or goldsmith, completely immovable and non-changing. Summer, winter, snow, heat come and go but the peak stands immovable. The anvil undergoes several beatings of the hammer so that ornaments can be created or transformed, but the anvil remains immovable. Similarly, an infinite number of scenes arise and subside in front of the inner self, but it remains firmly established in its self illumined nature of oneness.
 
The visible world in a dream is false, and that false dream is superimposed upon the true dream witness. Similarly, embedded in the scenes of the waking-dream-deep sleep samaadhi-formed falsehood, there is a aware, innser self in the form of the substratum. That is the immovable koothasta. The term immovable is made in reference to the aware substratum.
 
By being the illuminator of space it is pervasive, and therefore it is partless. By being the immovable, it is free from the disconnectedness of the flow of time. By being self-illumined, it is free from the disconnectedness of the flow of object. By being partless it is free from the disconnected flow of space. In this manner, the witness which is of the form of consciousness, is free from the disconnectedness of space-time-object, and is brahman. By following the general existence in all objects, it is the one existence-only object. By following all knowledge, it is the one aware-only object.
By following all bliss, it is the one bliss-only object. There is no opposition of the one and the many in it, like the dream world, that is why it is non-dual. Therefore, that consciousness alone is the supreme non-dual brahman, in the form of existence-consciousness-bliss.
 
The following points should be kept in mind regarding the witness entity:
1. There is no space-oriented length or breadth in the witness. The witness illuminates the length and the breadth. The witness does not stay in a particular space, space itself stays in the witness
2. There is no time-oriented age in the witness. The knowledge of 50 or 100 years happens through the witness. The witness does not stay in any particular time, time itself stays in the witness.
3. There is no matter-oriented weight in the witness. The witness is the witness of matter. Matter is imagined in the existence of the witness.
4. There is no inter-intra-inherent difference in the witness. The witness is the witness of difference alone. Therefore the witness is of the nature of non-difference.
5. The witness can never become a seen, but the seen cannot remain different from the witness. That is why, the three bodies, five sheaths, three states, the entire world of adhibhootas, adhidaivas and adhyaatma can never become the witness. Yet they are illumined by the witness alone. Since the I-sense is also illumined, it is not the witness. Since Ishvara is seed-particular (beeja vishishta), it also is not the witness. Due to being imagined as the sprout (ankura) in the form of the internal organ is the particular witness individual soul (I-sense), and the particular witness due to imagination of the maayaa-form seed is Ishvara. The witness itself is not particularized, it is existence alone, awareness alone, bliss alone, non-dual brahman.
6. There is no cause of the witness.
7. There is no effect of the witness. The witness is the witness of cause and effect.
8. The witness cannot be many otherwise they will become mutual scenes. That is why, there cannot be different witnesses in different bodies.
9. The witness cannot be happy, sad or an arrogator. The witness is the illuminator of all I-senses.
10. The witness does not stay in any body or any sheath or any state. In fact, all bodies, sheaths, states appear in the witness by the witness.
11. The illuminator and substratum of the entire world is the witness awareness alone, because no experience different from the witness is possible.
12. When the this-ness of the I-sense is negated, the witness becomes available. Therefore the witness is different than the I-sense. But the I-sense is not distinct from the witness.

14.0 The I-Sense And Pure Witness Discrimination (Aham Artha Evam Shuddha Saakshi Tvam Padaartha Ka Viveka)