17.1 Purpose Of Non-Human Authorship Of Vedas

The word "Veda" means knowledge. The head of the Veda-person is called Upanishad. Upa = without division, ni = complete, shad = knowledge. In other words, it is that supreme knowledge which is non-distinct from the known, and free from the disconnectedness of space, time and object, it is that complete brahman. This is the intent of the meaning of Upanishad. That is why, so long as the true nature of knowledge is not properly investigated, this point will not be comprehended.
 
I. Knowledge itself is the means, not a dependent means.
 
In understanding the meaning of any aspect (pada), knowledge alone will be the final decision maker. All interactions happen based on one's own knowledge. Whether it is to do with a certain subject or not, this decision will happen through knowledge alone. For example, the reality of the subject is determined by the senses, of the senses by the mind, of the mind by the intellect, and of the intellect by the knowledge-nature self. Even the experience of the unknown is knowledge ultimately. But, in order to demonstrate knowledge, is there need for another entity outside of knowledge? Never!
 
The triad of knower, means and known is also illuminated by knowledge. That is why, in order to prove knowledge, we do not require any of them. The illuminator of the presence and absence of this triad is knowledge alone. Whether they are there or not, knowledge remains. Without knowledge, who is there to experience them? There is presence of knowledge in the triad, and absence of the triad in knowledge. That is why, the reality of knowledge is undivided. Knowledge is not attained through means, but all interactions of means and knower are attained through knowledge. The conclusion is that knowledge is a means in itself, not a secondary or dependent means.
 
II. Knowledge is self illumined. It is not subservient to the doer, instrument, activity or result.
 
Even if the doer makes a million attempts, it cannot make post-knowledge into person-knowledge. Cognition is subservient to the doer. It can perceive something as ganesha, the Sun, then change it or drop it - in all of these, the doer is independent. But this is not knowledge, it is the creation of the doer which he establishes himself and then accepts it as independent. These cognitions can differ based on each doer, tradition, race and nation and they do happen, but the knowledge in all is always one. The post can be cognized as a robber or a policeman or a ghost, but when it ultimately happens, that knowledge that it is a post is always one. Change in a person does not mean change in knowledge, because no person can ever create knowledge. Even Ishvara is not the doer of knowledge, he himself is of the nature of knowledge. If we accept Ishvara as the doer of knowledge, then prior to the creation of knowledge, we will have to accept the absence of knowledge in Ishvara, but the absence of knowledge cannot be proven by any means or experience, because then that means or experience will also be knowledge-nature. The conclusion is that knowledge is not attained by any means, it is ever attained. In its causal form (kaarana roopa), the imagination of ignorance or change in knowledge is always unattached (nitaanta asangata). That is why knowledge is self illumined.
 
III. Knowledge is not disconnected in time.
 
When we begin to think that this knowledge is in the past, and this knowledge is in the future, then we as if accept that in the flow of time, knowledge arises and drops, in other words, knowledge is momentary. But what is this moment which has been ascribed upon time? The question is whether time is undivided or divided? If it is undivided then the distinction of past and future, of "kalaa kaashthaa" etc. are not possible, it is brahman alone. If it is divided, the knowledge will illumine those divisions alone, and the illumined distinctions cannot be ascribed upon the illuminator. For instance, pot, cloth etc. are different, but there is no difference in their illuminator. Similarly, the differences of minute and hour etc. cannot create a difference in their illuminator. In reality, the notion of division in time is without basis. Think about this - was there ever an absence of time, or will there be? The moment in which we imagine an absence of time will also be in time, and will remove the absence of time. Anything that is without absence is without division. Aggregating and separating only happen in a divided entity, not in an undivided entity. That is why, in the absence-less time, on the bases of distinctions of hour and second etc., imagining past and future is worthless. Then what do we say about the past and future which we experience? It is all conceptual (samvinmaatra). Any conceptual entity cannot divide consciousness. Therefore knowledge is not disconnected in time.
 
IV. Knowledge is also not disconnected in space.
 
Just like the conceptual past future etc. cannot cause disconnectedness in consciousness, the imagination of length-expansion of space cannot cause disconnectedness in consciousness since it is conceptual also.
 
The distinction in space appearing as east, west etc. do not have their refuge in space, they have their refuge in the pole star and other stars. Then is it fair to ascribe some other differences on something else? Never. Like time, there is never any absence of space. Whenever there is imagination of absence of space anywhere, that again will happen in some space. The absence-less space is brahman. The imagination of east or west, or of length expansion, is conceptual only, just like the length and breadth of a dream world. The distinction in space illuminated by a self illumined knowledge cannot divide knowledge. That is why knowledge is not disconnected in space.
 
V. There is no object disconnection in knowledge.
 
No matter what the object (vishaya), it will always manifest in some space and some time. Without the imagination of space and time, no object can appear. Similarly, without the distinction of object, space and time cannot be seen. When the distinctions of space and time are imagined to begin with, then how can the object which have them as the refuge be non-imagined?
 
These different visible objects, are they conceptual or more than that? If they are conceptual alone then what is the basis of their imagined distinction, in other words, they cannot be considered different than the three-time-negated (trikaalaabaadhya) reality. And if they are other than conceptual, then what is the harm in calling them forever unreal? Real and unreal, presence and absence can never be mixed. Now, let us accept that different objects are essentially different forms of one reality. But even this point is baseless. Without proving difference in space and time, there is no point in proving difference in reality. When we accept transformation in reality, then the sequence of the state prior, during and after transformation is expected. In this manner, the three-time-negation of reality itself will be cut, and there will be occasion for void-ness, temporary science or "sarvochhedavaada". If we imagine that one aspect of reality is stable, and the other aspect is initiating objects, or is transforming into their form, then this will be proven illogical. That entity which is split into one aspect cannot be permanent in another aspect. Aspect-difference is proven impossible. That is why, object does not arise in reality. The creation of objects is not connected with reality, unreality, reality-unreality or anything else. Those objects whose creation, sustenance, destruction is unproven, which are themselves permanently absent in their substratum, those which cannot be imagined without knowledge, such objects cannot cause disconnection in knowledge.
 
VI. The distinction of knowing (jnyaatritva) and known-ness (jneyatva) difference is only adjunct-level (aupaadhika), not real.
 
After space-time-object have been negated, the presence of any known distinct from knowledge is cut automatically. Without a known, knowing cannot be proven in reality. Both knower and known require each other, but knowledge does not require one, both, any, and is self illumined. If we accept that the known-form object exists priorto its knowledge, then due to inexperience (ananubhoota) it will be only an imagination. Without experience, an entity cannot be proven. Anyway, we do see different objects and their aggregate as the macrocosm, which in the form of the known, is distinct from us. Is that in the internal space or external space of knowledge (antara desha)? Firstly, the conception of inside and outside in knowledge is absurd. Second, accepting the known-object as external space takes away any association of knowledge with it. Third, if we accept it as being within internal space, we will have to accept a pervader-pervaded relationship of it with knowledge. This can only be possible if we accept knowledge to be the material cause of the object. But will this material cause knowledge attain transformation, and then take the form of an object? In this state we will have to accept a flow or sequence of transformation. Then this can only be accepted if the momentary nature of time is ascribed upon its illuminator knowledge.
But the attributes or faults of the refugee cannot touch the substratum. For the presence of an object in the beginningless endless knowledge, there is no one moment or many moments of time. Again the question arises, is the object in entire knowledge or in one aspect of knowledge? Portion-ness, complete-ness in knowledge are all imagined. Then if we accept the transformation of knowledge, then is there any form that will transform like milk into curd and will not that transformation also be in the form of knowledge? So then, any distinctions such as stage one, stage two etc. are only imagined by thought less people and are erroneous alone. When the known is rejected, there is no cause for the imagination of knowing.
 
VII. Knowledge does not give results of any purpose.
 
If we accept the creation of knowledge, we will have to describe a state prior to its creation, but without knowledge, that stage cannot be described. This means that there is no birth of knowledge. The pure state of the internal organ, or the object-less state, is also not the creator of knowledge, but the originator of thought. Through though, thought-flow oriented knowledge is nourished. When it becomes firm, it removes the delusion of absence of knowledge, not absence of knowledge itself. Per the "prakreeyaa grantha", this thought-flow-oriented knowledge expires in the next moment! It negates its own existence, as well as the thought-flow and the moment. When it is negated itself, then if it is negated by dropping any action or any result, or it remains after the removal of absence of knowledge, then duality will remain as it is. That is why, the imagination of purpose and result is obliterated. There is nothing like purpose or result by which knowledge can remove them. Absence of knowledge, like the clay in a pot, is not the material cause of the world in that sense, it is imagined for the attainment of the arrangement of the world. There is absence of knowledge - this imagination also is an error (vivarta) of knowledge. That is why, by the thought flow of knowledge, absence of knowledge cannot be destroyed, rather imagination alone is negated. This imagination of remover-removed exists in the state of thoughtlessness. From the vision of knowledge, any distinction of cause and result is always unproven.
 
VIII. In knowledge, there is no distinction of correct-incorrect and visible-invisible (aparoksha-paroksha).
 
Such distinctions are made in transactions, but upon contemplation, they are imagined object-oriented differences which are ascribed upon knowledge. The elephant in the dream is false in waling, but seeing the elephant in a dream is not false. "There was no elephant" - this is the nature of our waking memory, but not "no elephant was ever seen". The unreality of the elephant cannot prompt the unreality of knowledge. In the state of thoughtlessness, the incorrectness of the elephant is ascribed upon knowledge. In this manner, the invisibility of knowledge is also to be considered. Visible-invisible, these distinctions happen in entities such as a pot, but not in their knowledge. Can knowledge ever be far away from us? No. if we accept that there is a pot in the world and knowledge in the internal organ, then the knowledge of the pot will remain in the internal organ only. Where is any invisibility there? This is a small matter. Devoid of the distinction of refuge-object, in the non-dual awareness-nature knowledge, there is no talking of incorrectness and invisibility.
 
IX. Knowledge is always non-negated.
 
There is no companion or enemy of knowledge. Even absence of knowledge is illuminated by knowledge. "I am ignorant" this notion is also a type of knowledge. In knowledge, this notion-distinction is known by not thinking. This means that the distinction between knowledge and the absence of knowledge is imaginary since it is without conjunction (sandhiheena). That is why absence of knowledge cannot negate knowledge. When we imagine the negation of knowledge, the question arises: Will the revelation of negation of knowledge be known or unknown? Will there be any witness of it or not? If it us not known, and if there is no witness, there is no means left for knowing. And when it is known, and there is a witness, the reality of knowledge is proven to be non-destructible and undivided.
 
X. The nature of knowledge is indescribable.
 
When we begin to speak about an object, then we have the visible knowledge of "seen-ness", other-ness etc. in it. Any object which is capable of being spoken of will always be possessed with "this-ness", that is why it will also be the object of the mind and speech. In this situation, the subject-object notion also will be unavoidable. This is the reason why those who accept knowledge as created or partnered with the self, in the manner they have described it, Vedanta followers have negated it in the same way. Therefore, indescribability follows the tradition of heterodoxy (paramata). In Vedanta, all that indescribable means is that this knowledge is not distinct from its nature. Non negated ness, self illumined ness, non disconnected ness etc. all these indicators, cannot be given to any other entity, no matter what you term it. There cannot be one self illumined non disconnected entity different from me, it will always be negated when we investigate based on our experience. Indescribable does not mean unknown. The other cannot be different than known or unknown. That is why, the indescribable negates all describables of aspect-knowledge, and resolves everything in the unspeakable self.
 
XI. Truth, non-violence, meditation, worship, other-ness, causality etc. are characteristics of knowledge alone.
 
Keeping the transactional distinction between the seeker and the liberated person in front, if we investigate the nature of qualities such as truth, non-violence and so on, then any notion of reality in those qualities is due to being very close to the reality-nature self. The amount of self-closeness present in a thought-flow, will result in the same degree of realization or removal of ignorance its through further purification. Take thought-flows such as truth and non-violence as an example. There will be several untruth-form negative qualities, the related thought-flows of its speech and transaction will be burdened with the weight of worry and objects. Opposed to this, there is no worry or cover-up needed for any truth-oriented thought-flow. The seeker, with his straight forward nature, will be able to remain situated in his object-less truth-thought-flow, and in reality, that will be the state of the self. After removal of ignorance, he will not need to undertake any further effort.
 
Similarly, desire, anger, greet etc. faulty thought-flows also contain something and have an object inside them. Towards what entity do we have desire, anger, what do we want - without deciding this and taking its form, these faulty qualities cannot exist. Opposed to this, desirelessness, lack of anger and lack of greed etc. thought flows do not expect something as their target. The object-less thought flow does not show itself distinct than its refuge, the inner self. That is why removal of ignorance pertaining to the self is devoid of any obstacles. Only the with-object state appears to the seeker as distinct from reality. The object-less thought flow always appears as real-form, this closeness to the self is the characteristic of the knowledge-form self. It means: Since these thought flows have the absence of untruth, violence etc. they are knowledge-form, not notion-form, they are not many, they are non-dual. Meditation and worship also exist to consolidate many object-oriented thought flows, since they aim to see the oneness in the many.
 
The imagination of cause-effect and enjoyer-enjoyed in the knowledge-form self is impossible. Through statements of shruti, this meaning has been established. Keeping this point in mind, when we read the shrutis that speak about cause-effect notion, then their meaning is known clearly. Therefore-
 
1. To remove the delusion of permanency of the seen world, creation and dissolution are described.
2. To negate atoms, Prakriti and other causes, causality has been ascribed in the knowledge-nature supreme self.
3. To remove distinctions of intelligent cause and material cause, "oorna naabhi", "vishphulinga" etc. examples have been given, and the association of one knowledge with all knowledge has been shown. "He alone become many", "Let me become many" etc. statements are meant to remove the distinction between intelligent and material cause, not to indicate any transformation.
4. To negate transformation, the unborn non-dual nature of the supreme self has been described. To justify the seen world, maayaa has been ascribed upon the supreme self.
5. In some other shrutis, this ascribed maayaa has been negated. These shrutis say "there is nothing else besides the supreme self". All this ascribing of causality etc. has been done for the sake of removal of seekers' ignorance alone. Therefore the conclusion of all this is in knowledge alone.
 
6. Superior-ness, distance etc. also are concluded in the knowledge-nature self. The five tanmaatras superior to the senses, mind superior to the tanmaatraas, intellect superior to the mind, in this manner, one is distant from the other. The aim of this is to take the person from the outer to the inner. Mahat element superior to intellect, unmanifest superior to mahat element, and Purusha superior to unmanifest, this is the resting of superiority or distance, this is the culmination and final state. There is nothing beyond the Purusha - this is the glowing example of the oneness of the self. The sleep-method (laya prakriyaa) of the Upanishads also denote the duration of the quiet self.
 
XII. By being one with the indication of inseparability, knowledge, self, brahman, world etc. all words are synonyms, and reveal one meaning. So -
1. "Prajnyaanam brahman" prajnyaana is the non-disconnected brahman.
2. "Ayamaatmaa brahman" this self is the non-disconnected brahman.
3. "Brahmaivedam vishvamidam varishtham" this entire world is the non-disconnected brahman alone.
4. "Sarvam yadayamaatmaa" all this is the self alone.
5. "Ahamevedam sarvam" I alone am all this.
6. "Pratibodhaviditam matam" All knowledge is the knowledge of that alone.
7. "Kritsnaha prajnaanaghana eva" Everything is a mass of pure knowledge.
8. "Vijnyaanamaanandam brahman" Knowledge and bliss is brahman alone.
 
In the Gita, "jnyaanam jneyam", and similar statements in the Bhaagavatam and Vishnu Puraana, the afore mentioned meaning is supported.
 
In this manner, the meaning expounded by the Upanishads in "I", "this", "inner self" and "world" is the brahman-form alone. Now what is this brahman, hear this from the mouth of the Upanishads. That which is devoid of fragmentation of space, time and object, all-experience-form our self alone is the brahman.
 
"You are that" and other such great statements declare that all aspects such as seer-seen, you-me-him etc. are that one brahman alone. The brahman essence is indicated by no trace of any disconnection. In that seen-ness, many-ness, other-ness etc. does not arise, and is struck down. This is not knowledge of the essence, it is essence-form knowledge. Its knower is not the knower of brahman, he is the brahman-form knower.
 
With this description of knowledge, the non-human-authorship of Vedas and Upanishads is clear. Knowledge is knowledge alone, it is not the experience, emotion, memory or imagination of any person. Knowledge is self illumined, all-experience-nature, illuminator of samaadhi, doubt and all other experienced transactions, undivided, unborn and is self means. Its connection is not with the past, future, present, space, object etc. All this is the self. This is knowledge, this is to be known, any knowing is this alone, everything is this alone.
 
That text which demonstrates, created without prior memory, obtained through a beginningless tradition, "niyattanupoorvaka", is also termed as not being authored by a human. It means one thing, it is one self, it is one statement, even though there are intermediate levels of understanding it, but the supreme understanding is one alone. The head of the Veda person is the Upanishad. Through differences in limbs it may appear many, but is one. Knowledge is non-dual, this is the meaning of non-human-authorship.

17.0 Synthesis Of Vedanta

16.2 Scriptural Means In Connection With Ishvara (Pramaana Shaastra)

We have discussed the topic on the indicators of Ishvara. What are the scriptural means in connection with Ishvara? The world comes from brahman, seeing this worldly cause-effect and with the same intellect, for revealing the non-duality of brahman to the seeker, there is an ascription (adhyaaropa) on the part of the scripture. This causality of brahman cannot be immediate (pratyaksha), since brahman is not immediate. It cannot also be inferred, since unlike smoke-fire, there is no syllogism here. Without syllogism, there can be no inference. Then the children of inference simile or upamaaana, circumstantial inference or arthaapatti and non-perception inference or anupalabdhi, will not have any effect here. Vedas or word-means cannot also reveal Ishvara, since Ishvara is prior to Vedas. Sages, seers, senses were born later, but Ishvara was there prior. How can they ever infer Ishvara or his world causality!
 
There are three kinds of inference: 1. Inferring the cause from the effect. 2. Inferring the effect from the cause. 3. Inferring both (saamaanyato drishta). Inferring the father from the son, and inferring the son from the father, these are the first two kinds of inference. And even without a cause-effect relationship, there can be an inference, like inferring speed by looking at change in space, this is the third kind of inference.
 
Looking at the visible creation, and inferring its cause, is a standard type of inference. But, that the cause is brahman, cannot be inferred. The Nyaya school calls it an atom, and the Saankyha school calls it Prakriti, the Buddhists call it chitta, and the Maaya school calls it maayaa. But maayaa is under the control of the maaya-wielder, that is why we can infer that the world is a play of some aware maaya-wielder. That maaya-wielder is brahman, this is the shruti means according to Shvetaashvatara Upanishad 4.10. This statement of the shruti comes from a viewpoint of ascription-negation, since the shruti later negates it by saying "he does not act" etc.
 
Here is what the glosser Shree Sureshvaraachaarya says. The material cause of this magical duality is ignorance. When the magician shows birds and animals in his tricks, are they actually real? No, but all of them are seen. Why are they seen? Because you cannot see the magician, but you only see the magic. This maayaa is not seen, the play of maayaa is seen. Our ignorance alone is the cause. When we cannot see the real thing, we begin to believe in the fake thing. The real nature of the world is the non-distinct-from-inner-awareness brahman, that is not known, and that is why the world is known. The ignorance of its real nature alone is the material cause of this world. In reality, since we do not know brahman, we ascribe cause-effect upon it. It is negated when we realize our self as brahman. When one knows the rope, there is no snake, no garland there. What was being called a snake was always a rope, what was being called a garland was always a rope. The object was always one, but since it was not recognized, it was called whatever it was seen as. When ignorance is removed through brahman-knowledge, then all differences are negated.
 
Question: When Nyaya followers see the world, in other words, see the effect, see the diversity, peculiarity, and seeing the transaction of cause-effect in immediate objects, they infer that the intelligent cause of this world is one omniscient, omnipotent Ishvara. Even thought he is aware, he is always distinct than souls who are of limited knowledge, limited power, disconnected, worldly, subservient. Then, is the brahman in the form of the cause of the birth of the world etc. proven through inference?
 
Answer: No. Vedanta does not accept that Ishvara is proven by inference. It accepts that he is immediate. But the immediacy of Ishvara is not like that of a pot. It is like the "I" sees the "I" without eyes. Similarly, Ishvara is immediate without the aid of senses. In Vedanta, brahman, supreme self, self, Ishvara are proven to be immediate in this meaning. Let us delve further into this point.
 
"Watch" is a word which is in the mouth. It's meaning is a metal-created watch. Now, imagine that someone has heard the world "watch", he has also seen a watch, but does not have the knowledge of the connection between the word and the object. In that state, even if he is staring right at a watch, he will not have the immediate knowledge that "this is a watch". Now when someone says "this is a watch", then at that point, will the watch be inferential or immediate? It will be immediate.
 
Similarly, this statement of knowledge of identity between the self and brahman, is not to reassure us about brahman. Reassurance cannot even remove the existence veil (asattvaapaadaka aavarana)! If you believe that Ishvara exists, then can that belief remove the veil of the intellect in the form of "Ishvara does not exist"?
 
Vedanta asserts : Without indirect knowledge, existence veil cannot be removed. Without direct knowledge, experiential veil (abhaanapaadaka aavarana) cannot be removed. Only through the great statement can the experiential veil be removed and then the direct Ishvara becomes immediate.
 
With regards to Ishvara, we do not just accept inference or indirect-knowledge-oriented Vedantic statements. With only belief and faith, doubts are suppressed. Only through indirect knowledge is existence veiling removed. Only through the great statement can the experiential veil be removed. The discussion of Vedanta will not infer Ishvara. The self has always been immediate, but that this self is the space-time-object-non-disconnected brahman, this knowledge can only happen through the great statement. The great statement is not for the immediate realization of the self, it is for the immediate realization of the undivided nature of the self. Shruti is not logic, nor is it inference. There is a self-entity which is immediate it one aspect. Shruti aims to make it immediate in all aspects (sarva aansha).
 
In this, all logic, argument, inference which aids the shruti meaning is acceptable to Vedanta. Vedanta does not prohibit these. But that beyond-senses entity which is the brahman essence, does not rest on logic or argument or means. If immediate means themselves are not possible, then in the absence of any signs, how can inference etc. reach it?
 
Then what is this experience of brahman which, free from not-self-shape and quiet mind, does not show itself as different from its substratum and illumination! This is that "you" aspect (tvam padaartha). It is ok that during that time, all thought flows are quiet and it is not showing anything other than its substratum. Even so, that quiet, self-illumined, substratum-nature,that-aspect, it alone is the non-dual brahman. There is still a need for this knowledge, and for this, a means-created means-thought-flow (pramaa vritti) is needed. These means cannot be immediate or inferential since there, the only means will have to be a statement which will tell the self-illumined substratum of the quiet mind, that it is the non-dual brahman. So then, the great-statement-created generation of means alone is that single solution, there is no other, otherwise it will only be a self-state (aatma sthiti), not an experience of brahman. The conception of brahman (brahmaavagati) is the goal, not the conception of the self, since the conception of the self is available in the form of the I-sense. There is ignorance of its brahman-aspect.
 
The knowledge created by the great statements, with the undivided meaning (akhandaartha dhee), is the real means in the knowledge of the essence. In this, any logic, argument, inference needed for the purification of the "that" aspect and the "you" aspect is acceptable to Vedanta. But this statement-created knowledge of Vedanta is different than the inference of the Nyaaya school.
 
Question: In Vedanta, shrutis are accepted as the supreme means. But the shruti is the means in the action investigation (sharma jignyaasaa) of Poorva Mimaansaa also. Then what is the difference in shruti means between brahman investigation and action investigation? Why is there no similarity in them?
 
Answer: Action or dharma is not an object of realization (saakshaatkaara). Action aims to deliver results in the form of happiness, here and hereafter. Action is something that is done, performed. Therefore, the doer of action is independent. He can act, not act, or act incorrectly. It is subordinate to the intellect of the doer as to how he incorporates matter, action and enjoyment, whether he does it as prescribed or he does not. This is the reason why the result of legal or illegal action attaches itself to the doer. After performance of the action, the doer becomes either a sinner or a saint. The topic of action investigation is human-intellect-science, this is the summary of this discussion.
 
Contrary to this, in brahman investigation, brahman is the object of realization. The knowledge of an object doer not require the intellect of a knower to know it, not know it, or know it incorrectly. It is subordinate to the known object, in other words, it reveals exactly how and what the object is. To know something as it really is constitutes knowledge, to know something as something different constitutes delusion. The knower does not have the independence that he knows the post as a man. Knowing the post as a post alone is knowledge. Knowing the post as a man is delusion. And this post knowledge is subordinate to the post alone, not to the intellect of the knower. We can say that knowledge is object-science (vastu tantra), not doer-science (kartru tantra).
 
To perform action, to perform worship, all of these are based on the foundation of the doer. But knowing the self as brahman is not subordinate to the doer. The doer can choose to perform action-worship, to not perform it, or to perform it incorrectly. But he cannot perform essence investigation incorrectly. that is why essence knowledge is not under the purview of sin or merit.
 
It is also not the case that the knower accept brahman as attributeless, with attribute, as a "this" or a "that". Knowing the brahman entity as it is in reality is the knowledge of the essence. That is why the knowledge of the essence is neither the subject of action, nor of worship, nor of yoga. It is neither the object of argument, nor that of inference. Its factual non-disconnected internal-awareness-non-distinct nature is indicated by the means-thought-flow of the shruti statements.
 
Shruti illuminates the essence and gives commands in the form of injunction (dharma). In other words, shruti praises the essence and enjoins injunction. Therefore, the shruti is a scripture in both senses - "shaasanam" and "shansanam".
 
Action is belief-dominant and knowledge of brahman is direct experience dominant. Knowledge of brahman alone is the experience of the self. Injunction (dharma) is the process by which results are given in the future to doership and belief! Injunction requires action. Prior to performing action, and during performing action, action is not experienced. But after the performance of the action, the result of the action is experienced as peace and happiness. Counter to this, brahman is experienced directly. Not only this, brahman is an already-gained entity unlike the result of action. It is always available in the form of the self.
 
That there is heaven, there is rebirth, there can be a doubt in this. But "I am", in this there is no doubt, it is directly known. What am I? This knowledge is under doubt since the mind is possessed of various opinions on this topic. But when the intellect does to see the mind but sees the witness of the mind, and knows it to be brahman with conviction due to shruti, then the intellect becomes negated. Then what you are, who you are, you begin to illumine it. This is knowledge of the essence.
 
[key] In Vedanta, injunction (dharma) investigation and brahman investigation are accepted as an aggregate of action. In other words, first, by injunction oriented investigation, you experience yourself as the doer-enjoyer-disconnected-worldly soul distinct from the body. After that, when the investigation of brahman dawns, you convince yourself of the meaninglessness of performance of injunction. Substitute desire with desirelessness, attachment with dispassion, and injunction performance with hearing-contemplation-meditation. Through this alone will you gain the knowledge of the identity of the self and brahman.
 
Question: Brahman cannot be an already attained entity. If it were, then "this is a pot", why cannot it be seen like this? An already attained entity can always be known through direct means. Accepting only shruti means as the sole means is not valid.
 
Answer: Brahman is an already attained entity. Day and night we deal with it, but we do not recognize it. The self, "I" alone is that entity. Who exists who does not know his "I"? But the brahman-ness of that "I" is not known to everyone. Brahman exists, and brahman is "existence knowledge infinite", this indirect knowledge is also known to many, but they do not have the knowledge that "I am the self" is "existence knowledge infinite". Without this direct knowledge, the brahman-ness of the "I" will not arise. To reveal this secret is the task of the shruti's great statements.
 
Brahman cannot become an object of means since it is beyond the senses. That is why it does not come into the realm of direct and other similar means. The substratum which illuminates a whole variety of absences of disconnectedness, only that can be the infinite existence, infinite consciousness, brahman. It alone is the topic of the great statements.
 
Vedanta says this. The supreme self did not disappear only through improper action, only through desire, forgetfulness or incorrect thinking. If that were the case, then he would appear through proper action, worship and yoga. But he does not. Therefore, the reality is that the non-dual, imperishable, self complete, self illumined, all-substratum entity is not directly visible only due to ignorance, by not recognizing it. Therefore, the supreme self is knowledge-directed alone, and such a type of knowledge which opposes the ignorance of the self illumined all-substratum.
 
"He who says that I know of the supreme self through the intellect, he does not know" (Kena Upanishad 2.3). The knower can contact the known only through the means, but he cannot contact his self through them. The means always favour the known, it always shows the known as distinct from the knower. Therefore, any experience of brahman via the intellect will be distinct from the knower, will be inert and transient.
 
Brahman is a non-dual entity. It is called self complete by being the all-substratum, not in its nature (svaroppa). Since it is the refuge of the direction element present in east west etc. it is called self complete or all pervading. Since it is the refuge of time which is present in a second month, year, eon, etc. it is called imperishable. There is one entity present in this matter-formed magic show, of which, brahman is the substratum, and for that reason it is called existence, not in its nature. Brahman is called consciousness since there is one common intellect-knowledge in particularized knowledge such as pot knowledge, cloth knowledge etc., whose substratum is brahman. Such an infinite brahman can never be the object of any mind. But one who knows it as the witness of the mind, refuge of the mind, only he alone knows it. This knowledge can only be conceived through the great statements of Vedanta.
 
The brahman awareness, being non-dual, is our true nature alone. Therefore, if we cannot avail of it, that is solely due to ignorance. Devotees accept that the supreme self is ever attained in the form of the inner controller, but is lost due to forgetfulness and turning away from him. That is why, they accept realization of the supreme self by remembering him and turning towards him. The action oriented people, whether they are theist Poorva Mimaamsaa followers or atheist Buddists and Jains, roam endlessly in the action created pleasures and action created veiling. They do not have any connection with the absolute truth. Eventually they will have to discard action and take up dispassion in order to realize the absolute truth. Without the scripture of Vedanta, there can be no arousal of knowledge in our natural flow of impressions.
 
The natural flow of the world is lost in enjoyment of sense pleasures and expansion of desires, which can go right up to the limits of law. That is why it contains attraction, inertness, sorrow and difference. In this state, the scripture proclaims the message of injunction for the halting of doership which is the root of attraction and aversion. It proclaims worship, for the polishing and upliftment of thought flow. It proclaims yoga, for the focusing of the mind and quietening of desires. That same scripture also illumines the already attained identity between the self and brahman for the qualified seeker.
 
Only a knower of the Upanishad will know brahman, not anyone else. (Brihadaaranyaka Upanishad 3.9.26).
 
How is the target known by the means? In this there are three methods:
 
1. Object-created immediate knowledge method: The object itself is so sharp that it enters into the means and reveals itself. For example, let's say we are sitting quietly and a garbage truck passes in front of us. The odour will be so strong that it enters the nose, by which we the knower have a immediate knowledge of the odour.
 
2. Connection of consciousness-created immediate knowledge process: There is a knowable object in front of us. It could either be gold or copper. Now when we go close to it and observe it carefully, then the consciousness particularized by the object and the consciousness particularized by the means (eyes etc.) get connected, and the knowledge of the object happens. In this process, the consciousness rides on the means-thought-flow, identifies with the knowable, and reveals the knowable.
 
In reality, "pot" and the pot-shaped thought-flow, both are illumined by one knowledge alone. There, we see a oneness of consciousness. The internal organ is inside our body. When the pot object enters it properly, then that which is the thought-flow-particularized consciousness (knower) is the pot-particularized consciousness (knowable) alone. This means that via the thought-flow (means), we (knower) become one with the pot (knowable). This is called thought-flow-pervasion (vritti vyaapti). The nature of this oneness is the knowledge that "this is a pot". After that, there arises an arrogation about the pot knowledge that "I know the pot". This is result-pervasion (phala vyaapti).
 
So then, for the object which is another, a seen, inert, the afore mentioned two processes reveal it in an immediate manner. Either the object itself enters into consciousness and gives immediate knowledge, or consciousness enters into the object and gives immediate knowledge.
 
3. Both these processes do not work in case of knowledge of an aware object. To begin with, awareness is not another, it is one self, it is not the seen, it is the seer alone. Second, since it is the self, it is in no way ignorant. Generally, the known "I" is a subject. This alone is the immediate knowledge of the aware. The self is always brahman, there is no need to borrow and stick brahman-ness upon it. The delusion that the self is not brahman, and that the soul etc. are the true nature, has to be removed. The time when this delusion is removed alone is the immediate knowledge of brahman-ness, since all delusions are caused by the ignorance of brahman-ness. Therefore, the process of knowing the aware is the process of destroying ignorance. That which is already attained can only be known by word-means.
 
In word-means, only by Vedantic statements, in those, only the great statements, and in those, only those that purify the that-aspect and the you-aspect and demonstrate their proven identity in the maturation of intellect This is the brahman-shaped-thought-flow (brahmaakaara vritti). Only in this can we find the immediate experience of brahman by the self. The intellect alone contains delusion, therefore, the ignorance in that plane of reality which is countered by the knowledge-thought-flow against ignorance alone can remove ignorance, nothing else. In Vedanta, this is the means for Ishvara knowledge. Therefore, it is the instrument which created immediate knowledge of the Ishvara entity. Faith in Ishvara, worship of Ishvara etc. all of these are scriptural word-means, but if we want to experience Ishvara immediately, then the only means or instrument is the great-statement-created undivided-thought alone.
 `
People explore the scriptures to find out when, where, to whom, of what, why did ignorance happen. Which means they want to know what is the time, space, refuge, object, cause and fundamentally, what is ignorance? Not knowing the self as it is, is ignorance. Knowing it as something different is delusion. The cause of ignorance is ignorance, otherwise there will be a logical problem which is untenable. Now, once you accept the erroneous appearance (individual soul-ness) of the self, you have to accept space, time and arrogator etc., not otherwise. When you do not know the one infinite non-disconnected self-illumined substratum, then, its first and last form is time, its lengthwise expansion form is space, the refuge object is imagined in the form of subject-object, and in that there is ignorance, this is imagined. In other words, the ignorance of the infinite alone appears in the form of space, time, refuge and object. Ignorance happens by staying in ignorance.
 
Vedanta does not prove ignorance or maayaa in the self, but in fact, removes it. But it is the removal of that which is ever-removed. Otherwise, if ignorance existed, and is now removed, then where did the time-formed delusion get removed? If ignorance was here (in the soul) and maaya was there (in Ishvara), then where did the space-formed delusion get removed? If "I am ignorant and I am ignorance about brahman" then where did the refuge-object difference-formed illusory imagination get removed? And if "Ignorance is some entity" you accept this, then ignorance can never be removed.
 
For removal of this ignorance, words and statements pertaining to consciousness are needed. It is like, if someone is in deep sleep, we call them by saying "O Devadutta, wske up!". And that sleeping person wakes up. The question is, how did the sleeping person hear these words? Did he wake up after hearing the words, or did he hear the words and then wake up? If he were not awake, then how did he hear the words? And if he did not hear the words, how did he wake up? Is there something else between the end of sleep and the cognition of the word meaning? In the Vaartikaa of Shree Sureshvaraachaarya, this is resolved by saying that there is an inexplicable power in words. As soon as the words filled the immediate knowledge of brahman into the thought flow that "O brother! You who are the witness of this thought flow, witness of the absence of thought flow, the witness of the pot-ness, cloth-ness of the thought flow, witness of the space between two thought flows, you are that brahman, and all these are happening in one imagined aspect of you. You are the immediate direct brahman". Instantly, the brahman-oriented delusion of the self disappears. This is the miracle of the power of words.
 
How does the realization of brahman happen? If you want to see a pot, you need eyes as well as light. With the help of light, the darkness of the pot is dispelled and the eye thought flow pervaded the pot, in other words, the thought flow became pot-shaped. This is thought flow pervasion. After that, one arrogation of knowledge arose in "I know the pot". This is the result pervasion. In the knowledge of an object, thought flow pervasion and result pervasion has to happen. If you want to see light itself, there is no need for another light for result pervasion.
 
Then if you want to see your eyes, then just via the mind, thought flow pervasion will happen. If you want to see the internal organ, then by being perceived by the witness, it will directly become the known. But now if you want to see the witness, then the witness can never become a seen. Then we have to say that the effort to see the witness is proven to be ignorant. There can be no stage, state, situation that can be attained without the witness. Therefore, in waking, dreaming, deep sleep, samaadhi, creation, sustenance, destruction, etc. that which is the witness of the seen and its absence, that is me - such a conviction about one self is tantamount to "seeing" the witness. Even this has thought flow pervasion, but no result pervasion since it is a conviction about one's own self.
 
If brahman is another, it will be a seen, and therefore will be inert. But brahman is aware alone. Therefore it cannot be a seen and cannot be non-distinct from the self. Now the shruti asserts that very brahman as the all-illuminator and the all-substratum. Therefore "I the witness self alone am the substratum brahman of waking etc. states as well as the visible world in them" this conviction happens. Once there is a shape of this conviction thought flow, individual soul-ness and all other such illusory assertions are destroyed. This is the knowledge of the identity of the self and brahman. Even in this experience, thought flow pervasion happens in the form of brahman shape (in reality the ascribed brahman notion shape) but there is no result pervasion since it is an experience about one's own self. When in this experience, the reflection or the soul itself is proven illusory, then where is the reality of the arrogator?
 
There is no result pervasion in brahman knowledge. It means, for the knower of brahman, there is no arousal of the arrogation that I have known brahman because here, the main meaning of the knower alone is brahman, in that, the imagination of means-ness is misfortune. When was the knower ever ignorant of himself? The brahman-nature of the knower was unknown, this was a delusion, and that was removed through the word-means-created undivided-meaning-thought. After ignorance is removed, "the self-illumined brahman I am ever established as I am in my true nature" this knowledge spontaneously blazes.
 
The substratum awareness of the entire world, and the substratum awareness of the internal organ, are one and the same. The witness awareness of the internal organ alone is the same witness awareness of the entire world. Due to the minor adjunct (internal organ) and the major adjunct (causal adjunct) maaya, there is no difference in the adjuncted nature of awareness. The same great space, due to the minor adjunct pot is called pot space, and similarly due to the major adjunct house is called house-space. Even with these minor adjuncts, it itself is called the great space, since space is ever free of any difference and is one.
 
By performing discrimination on the this-aspect and the you-aspect, due to the great statement, the difference in the literal meaning and the oneness in the indicated meaning is known. If this is known by anyone in the world, then this alone is called the experience of the non-dual brahman - besides brahman there is nothing else. No soul, no world, no Ishvara, differences may be visible, but there is nothing besides brahman. If is this is attained through any language, any teacher, persons of any country, in any time, then it is due to the Vedic constitution alone.

16.1 The Second Indicator Of Brahman - The Womb Of Scripture (Shaastra Yonitva)

There is a mantra in the Shvetaashvatara Upanishad : "That which, in the beginning of creation, creates Brahmaa (Hiranyagarbha) and that which produces the Vedas for him, that Lord who illuminates my intellect, I, the seeker, take his refuge" (Shvetaashvatara Upanishad 6.18).
 
The Brihadaaranyaka Upanishad also says : "The Rig Veda and other Vedas, like the breath of a person, spontaneously arise from the great existence-form cause brahman" (Brihadaaranyaka Upanishad 2 4.10).
 
Here is what these shrutis mean. The root of all knowledge in creation is Ishvara. In other words, Ishvara is omniscient. Therefore, if we investigate our own knowledge - this "I" knowledge, where is it dawning from, then we will find Ishvara alone in the root of the "I". No matter what we do to worship Ishvara, we will always have to return to the root of "I" for attaining Ishvara. The knowledge of the waking and dream states is under the refuge of this dawned "I". This dawned "I" resolves (leena) in deep sleep. The refuge of this resolution is that praanya, that Ishvara alone. In that, the seed of the "I" - ignorance, desire and action - when these are negated, it is that Ishvara, praajnya, Tureeya alone which is called brahman by the shruti.
 
The nature of brahman is existence-consciousness-bliss. When we join the adjunct of action with it, then the reality appears in the form of the all-powerful great-doer, awareness appears in the form of the omniscient, and bliss appears in the form of the great enjoyer. We are the ones who join the adjuncts, we apply the mark on the forehead, and he comes down in the photo. This very great doer, knower and enjoyer is widely known as Ishvara.
 
Opposed to this, the soul in this body is also adjuncted. Due to the minor adjunct of action, the existence-consciousness-bliss brahman alone appears and is widely known as the minor doer, knower and enjoyer soul in this body.
 
Substratum-ness, stimulating-ness (prerakataa), omniscience - these are the adjuncted accidents (upadrava) of awareness. Superimposition-ness, restrained-ness and limited knowledge - these are also the adjuncted accidents of awareness. The only difference between Ishvara and the soul are these accidents alone, not in the absolute sense.
 
Does this Ishvara live in our body or not? He does. The cause is incorporated in the effect. Where in the soul we find the body-mind-senses which are the effect adjuncts, there, their cause Prakriti, which is the adjunct of Ishvara, will always be present. But, in reality, the effect is imagined in the cause. That is why, the soul is imagined in Ishvara alone. We do know the soul, but we never know its Ishvara-ness. That is why, even thought Ishvara is living now, here, in this very body, he is unknown to us.
 
There is so much knowledge, science, administration, so many intellects that come out of this world, what is their source? Just like Ishvara is the all-seed cause (sarva beejaatmaka kaarana), in the same way, he is also the all-seed cause of all knowledge. All scriptures are the shadow of his knowledge alone. It is the reflection (aabhaasa) in our inner organ of his knowledge alone, due to which all souls are having limited intellect, and Ishvara is having omniscience.
 
This point in the Vedanta philosophy is known as "shaastra yonitvaat" (Brahma Sootra 1.1.3). By combining this with the sootra "janmaadasya yataha", we conclude that behind the divided reality and divided knowledge of the world, there is one cause of all which is an undivided reality brahman which is undivided knowledge-nature.
 
Just like world causality, the indicator of brahman, is the means to attain the non-duality in the existence aspect of brahman, similarly, omniscience or being the womb of scripture, this indicator of brahman is the means to attain the non-duality in the awareness aspect of brahman. The substratum of the name-form-shaped scene world is the with-seed brahman, in other words, Ishvara. And he is non-dual, therefore the name-form shapes are illusory. He who knows these illusory name-form-shapes and their differences, he is the thought-flow oriented soul. He is also non-dual, because all those flows of knowledge are illuminated by this very soul. Now there cannot be two non-dual entities therefore, that which is the substratum of the world, also is its witness. In the midst, the illusory scene cannot be the real differentiator between the soul and Ishvara.
 
The self is brahman. This fact is pointed out by the great statements. But, since the world has come out of that brahman, lives in that brahman, and dissolves into that brahman, and also by being illumined by it, there is no other entity in the immediate non-distinct-from-awareness brahman element.
 
This is the process for investigation into Ishvara. We need to search for the seed, the root of this very body, of our intellect. The root of both is brahman. But the seed of each is different. It is like the material cause or substratum of all seeds are the five elements, but the impressions in each seed are different. Similarly, the seed of the body is action and the desire to enjoy. The seed of the intellect is praajnya or thought-flow-less knowledge. But the material cause of both, the substratum of both is brahman.
 
It is like this. There are two states in the inert creation - creation and dissolution. In the microcosmic life there are two states - waking and deep sleep. Similarly, the intellect of some is awake whereas of some, it is asleep. The material cause of both awake and asleep in the microcosmic life is the knower, praajnya. Even in the macrocosmic life, the material cause of the intellect is the knower, Ishvara. Both praanjya and Ishvara are one.
 
While performing discrimination, two techniques are adopted : desire and desire-filled intellect, and its place of dissolution. The seed is neither reality, nor conscious, nor bliss. Due to ignorance, there is an I-oriented disconnection in our existence, our knowledge and our happiness. By taking refuge of this disconnection there is sustenance of the microcosmic intellect, microcosmic desire and microcosmic shape. This disconnected "I" is the first effect of ignorance. This alone is reverse perception (viparyaya) and this alone is veiling (aavarana). To be freed from this alone do we pursue contemplation of Vedanta.
 
Praajnya is the place of dissolution of desire and intellect. Ishvara is the place of dissolution of all shapes. But, that which has the seed of the intellect, alone contains the seed of shapes, since in deep sleep, intellect and shapes both become one, and only the witness remains. Similarly, even in the macrocosm, there is one state where form-shapes and intellect, both resolve into one awareness. Afterwards, from that alone, from that all-knowing Ishvara, just like there is disappearance of shapes, similarly, it happens to the intellect. Even this connecting intelligence disappears - "this form is named so-and-so". This is a shruti.
 
That intellect which divides names and forms, it ascends onto sound and only then does it divide name and form. It is the result of this intellect alone which brings forth all scriptures of the world, beyond the world and of the absolute, as well as their root, such as the Rig Veda etc. That is why the philosophy of Vedanta denotes brahman as the womb of all scripture.
 
The awareness which is adjuncted by the seed of the world and of scripture is called Ishvara. When this Veda manifested, which intellect did it come from? Ishvara, who is the macrocosmic intellect (Hiranyagarbha), in that it was lying resolved. During the tine of creation, from that alone where many universes were born, at the same time Veda was also born. Just like Ishvara sprouted the seeds of resolved shapes, similarly, he also sprouted the resolved sounds that would illuminate meaning. In other worlds, the sequential illumining of meaning was done by Ishvara during creation. The sounds that reveal meaning are called "shabda".
 
The root of sound is the all-knowing Ishvara. And this which manifested the waking and dreaming states and knows the the deep sleep state is the soul self, since they are both aware, they both are one. While sleeping, just like word and shape, their connecting intelligence and their sequence (aanupoorvee) - all attain the seed state and become known to the witness in deep sleep. After the waking state comes, they go back to their original states. Similarly, in the state of dissolution (pralaya), all shapes, sounds and their sequence resolves into a seed state and they become known to the witness Ishvara. When creation comes, they go back to their original state. Both these situations are one and the same. That is why, the all-knowing awareness which is in them is also one. He alone is the self awareness and also the Ishvara awareness.
 
The revealer of truth and illusion, and of duty and non-duty, those particular sounds, their sequence is called Veda. This Veda can be seen in a particular state of the mind and vital force. When the mind is taken from Vaikhari into Madhyamaa, from Madhyamaa into Pashyantee, from Pashyantee into Paraa, in other words, by identifying with the Paraa-vaaka, the Veda mantras are revealed. They are seen as well as heard. The Veda mantras do not just describe India, they also describe the entire universe. It is not a description of just one time period, it describes all past, present and future states. It does not describe Ishvara per one sect, it describes the universal Ishvara. The Veda says that every name is the supreme Ishvara, every form is the supreme Ishvara, every shape is the supreme Ishvara, and every intellect is the supreme Ishvara, because all have their basis in the substratum brahman. The substratum of all is one, and nothing is ascribed. Such an undivided supreme brahman, supreme self is described in the Vedas. Such a timeless, obtained from a non-disconnected tradition, "asmarya maanaa kartrika", that ever sequential knowledge, this is called Veda. Only after that knowledge does the distinction of time arise, not prior. That is why knowledge is not created by a doer, it is the illuminator of the doer. Knowledge cannot ever be destroyed, since it has been attained in such a way that traditions are born from it and resolve into it. Such a storehouse of knowledge is called Veda.
 
If we understand the meaning of the word "Veda" properly, we will know our self. The conclusion of the Vedas is the knowledge of the identity of the self and brahman, and even this knowledge arises from the Vedas. The Vedas exist in two forms : word-storehouse and meaning-storehouse. In the form of word-storehouse, the Veda is imagined knowledge. In the form of meaning-storehouse, the Veda is non-imagined (akalpita) knowledge. Attaining non-imagined knowledge through imagined knowledge is the aim of the Vedas.
 
Veda is imagined beginningless and self is non-imagined beginningless. Veda is "asmarya maanaa kartrika", and the self is "akartrika jnyaana svaroopa". Veda illumines even the non-human-ness (apaurusheya) in other words, it is not the composition of a human and it is not a particular thought flow whereas the self illumines even the non-human-ness. The Veda is attained through an unbroken tradition, and the self is incorporated in every cognition. Therefore, the Veda is the indicator (tatastha lakshana) of the knowledge-form self.
 
The question is, did Ishvara compose the Vedas? If not Ishvara, then who did? If it was Ishvara then did he compose it in the Sanskrit language? This and many other questions arise in the minds of doubting non-Vedic curious people. First, let us examine the various opinions on this topic.
 
1. Materialists (Chaaravaakaas) abusively say that the Vedas were composed by crafty people. In reality, the Vedas assert the self, rebirth, heaven, doer, witness, Ishvara, brahman, ritual, priest and so on. These statements run counter to the materialists. Therefore, it is natural that they abuse the Vedas.
 
2. Buddhists and Jains accept that Vedas were composed by humans. But in their opinion, there are four flaws in humans: delusion, laziness, deceit and incapacity of the intellect. Therefore, it is not correct to accept the Vedas as a complete means. Only the statements of those great saints who have a pure mind without desire should be accepted as real means.
 
3. Nyaaya and Vaisheshikas believe that the Vedas were composed not by humans, but by Ishvara. For them, Ishvara is the intelligent cause of the world, not the material cause. They take atoms to be the material cause. That is why, when Ishvara creates the world out of atoms, then he also creates the Vedas. The Veda means the constitution of the world created by Ishvara. Now, since Ishvara is omniscient, his creation, the Veda, is also free from the flaws of delusion, laziness, deceit and intellectual incapacity.
 
4. Formless Ishvara school followers have to face a problem. How did Ishvara create these scriptures? For some, they will be seen to be written in the sky, and for some they will seem to be written on paper. Aarya Samaaja followers said that the Vedas did not appear in the sky but appeared in the hearts of sages, where the knowledge of language and meaning existed. For instance, the Gaayatri mantra appeared in the heart of sage Vishvaamitra.
 
5. Form-oriented Ishvara followers say that Naaraayana remembers the Vedas. He narrates the Vedas to Brahmaa at the beginning of creation. This is how the teacher-student tradition starts and continues.
 
6. Lord Shree Shankaraachaarya says that besides the omniscient Ishvara, there cannot be any other doer of the Vedas, since the multitude of sages and philosophers invigorate the Vedas after accepting them first, and then say their statements. Like he illumines the world, Ishvara also illumines the Vedas. Just like the world dawns and sets in Ishvara, the Vedas also dawn and set in Ishvara. The root of the world and of the Vedas both is Ishvara alone.
 
7. Patanjali, who is a Yoga philosopher, accepts Ishvara as free from the five afflictions (kleshas), joy-sorrow and desire, as well as non-disconnected from time immemorial and permanently, as well as the teacher of all beings. But he accepts the residence of the Vedas in the intellect of Ishvara. Therefore, through discrimination, when the speech of a soul gains the qualification of being one with the Paraa speech, then the intellect of the witness identifies with the intellect of the omniscient Ishvara, and the Vedas present in the intellect of the omniscient one is revealed to the him.
 
8. Saankhya philosophy accepts the same viewpoint as the Yoga philosophy. The Taantrikas also accept the same viewpoint.
 
9. The Poorva Mimaamsaa followers believe that the Veda stays timelessly in the form of statements. In their opinion, the creation is timeless, it is neither created, nor will it be destroyed. In that timeless creation, even the Vedas are timeless, and their alphabets, words, statements etc. are all eternal. That is why the question of who created the Vedas does not arise. They do not accept Ishvara. Creation is beginningless-endless and so are the Vedas.
 
Vedanta accepts the creation and dissolution of the world even if it is in the category of ascribing (adhyaaropa). Therefore, it also accepts the resolving of the Vedas in Ishvara and also their arising. This point is proven by the Vedas also.
 
Both Poorva Mimaamsaa and Vedanta agree that Ishvara did not create the Vedas. Poorva Mimaamsa does so since it does not believe in Ishvara. And in Vedanta, the Vedas which resolved into Ishvara again arise from Ishvara, therefore they are not created by Ishvara.
 
The shruti of the Brihadaaranyaka Upanishad (2.4.10) says that the Veda is the breath of the supreme Ishvara. Breath is the indication of a living entity. That is why, so long as the Vedic science is alive, Ishvara is also alive. Ishvara is the breather and the Veda is the breath. If we deride the breath alone, then where will we find Ishvara? Ishvara is indestructible, and his breath also is imperishable.

16.0 Contemplation Of The Ishvara Entity II

15.6 Ishvara And Praajnya

Brahman has been called "four legged" or "chatushpaada" in the Maandookya Upanishad. The first leg is Vishva Viraata, the second leg is Taijasa-hiranyagarbha, third leg is Praajnya and that alone is said to be the all-Ishvara or sarveshvara, omniscient, inner controller and the womb of creation of allbeings. Also, the fourth leg is itself the self which is incorporated into the prior three legs, yet is distinct from those three.
 
The seed state of the world alone is pointed out here in the form of deep sleep. Like, there are three states of a tree : seed, sprout and tree. Similarly, the brahman essence indicated by the seed state of the tree in the form of the world is called praajnya or Ishvara, brahman indicated by the subtle sprout state is called Taijasa-Hiranyagarbha, and brahman indicated by the gross state is called Vishva Viraata.
 
The difference of various organs of the tree is present in the seed, but is not visible. The difference of various objects is present in the darkness of the night, yet is not visible, it looks like one entity. Similarly, everything has become one-formed in deep sleep, this is what is known after contemplation. In Ishvara also, the world is in a one-form state. The cause always is one.
 
Waking state and dream state are sparks of the mind. These are "prajnyaana", exceptional knowledge. In deep sleep, these sparks become one-formed - they become one mass. That is why, Ishvara is a mass of knowledge, and except knowledge, there is no other dissimilar inert object in it.
 
The effort in the form of creation-sustenance (or the mental effort of the subject-object in the waking and ream) is not found in the deep-sleep situated Ishvara. Therefore, it is the state of effortless happiness. There, we find a reality which is free from the infinite name-form differences, and the knowledge of this as well. This alone is happiness. Ishvara or praajnya is effortless happiness. Therefore, it is of the nature of bliss. In transactional language, Ishvara is the enjoyer of this bliss, this is said. But in reality, he is bliss alone.
 
Ishvara is the door to the awareness of waking and dream, in other words, Ishvara is their seed. The awareness of Vishva and Taijasa arises from Ishvara. Therefore, Ishvara is the mouth of awareness or "cheto mukha".
 
Ishvara is called praajnya because there is only the knowledge-alone, devoid of knower-known. The state devoid of knower-known in the microcosm is deep sleep, and in the macrocosm, that of great dissolution. Therefore, that awareness which remains in deep sleep, which is the witness of deep sleep, that alone will remain in the great dissolution and will be the witness of the great dissolution. After the end of deep sleep or of the great dissolution, when the eon (kalpa) begins, the entire gamut of beings will arise from that alone. Therefore, Ishvara alone is the door or womb of creation. That is why, the race of all beings in creation is the same as that of Ishvara. In other words, existence-consciousness-bliss and Ishvara alone are the material cause of all. Since it is aware, it is also the intelligent cause. And since it is all-formed (sarva roopa), it is also the enabling cause and general cause as well.
 
Ishvara is omniscient, that is why he is not an inert known but an aware knower. At the time when the creation lies in a seed form, he alone keeps it in that form. When it expands, then at that time, he alone is its inner-controller-formed coordinator and knower.
 
By being the knower of the three states of waking, dreaming and deep sleep, you are omniscient. By being the controller of the vital forces and other activities of deep sleep, and controller of activities of waking and dream states, you are the all-inner-controller.
 
Some philosophers accept Ishvara as indifferent (tatastha) to the world. But the Ishvara of the Vedas is not indifferent. He is the non-distinct-material-intelligent cause of all. Which means he is both the clay and the potter. Can clay ever be indifferent to the pot? No. Similarly, Ishvara cannot be indifferent to creation. Then, where does Ishvara stay? This question is wrong since Ishvara is there, here, everywhere.
 
The Taittireeya shruti says : "That Ishvara willed that I should become many, therefore he performed penance and whatever is created is out of that penance. He created all this and entered into it (Taittireeya 1.6.1)".
 
In the Aiteraya Upanishad also, it is said that "Prior to the manifestation of the names and forms of the world, there was the one self alone, and nothing else (Aitareya Upanishad 1.1.1)". That self alone willed that I should create all the worlds. After that, he created all the worlds. With this, the awareness of the self, or of Ishvara, or of brahman, is clear. It is also clear that the world is in the willing of Ishvara, therefore its state is like that of the dream: It is seen for sure, it is transactional also, but in the real nature of brahman, it is negated in all three states.
 
The Mundaka Upanishad shruti says: That imperishable brahman which is omniscient and all knowing, whose penance is knowledge-based, from that alone have these names, forms and gross beings created (Mundaka Upanishad 1.1.9). In this manner, in the all-knowing, all-powerful Ishvara or brahman, by the knowledge-based knower-formed penance of the names and forms, this world has been created, or is as-if created.
 
What is the process of the creation of the world? There is no single agreement of this in the Upanishads. The Mundaka Upanishad (2.1.3) says that the earth and all other elements were created simultaneously. In the Taittireeya, they were created sequentially: space from brahman, air from space, fire from air, water from fire, earth from water (2.1). In the Chhandogya, three elements - space, light and water - were created. In the Shvetaashvatara, the maaya-wielding Ishvara created the world out of maayaa (4.10). It is also said that there is no effect of maaya (6.8). So then, is this the crazy rambling of the shruti?
 
The secret here is that the shruti does not intend to reveal the process of creation. It intends, by first ascribing world causality upon brahman, and then negating it, to reveal the non-dual nature of the self. Here is the logic. The world is non-different than brahman, like dream is non-distinct from the witness of the dream, like snake etc. errors are non-distinct from their substratum, like clay objects are non-distinct than clay etc. Also, the self is non-distinct from brahman, since the world (prapancha) which is the differentiator between soul-awareness and Ishvara-awareness, is non-distinct from brahman to begin with. Therefore, there is the non-dual brahman alone. This is proved.
 
The Upanishads agree on the following points with regards to Ishvara:
1. Ishvara is the reverse (vivartee) non-distinct-intelligent-material cause of the world.
2. Ishvara is of the form of existence-consciousness-bliss, omniscient, omnipotent, all-controller, all-inner-controller, and all-pervading.
3. Ishvara alone is to be worshipped, and he stays in the intellect-formed cave of the soul.
4. Connecting to Ishvara alone is his worship. This connection is accomplished by emotion and thought alone.
5. Ishvara, in all forms, is the seedless brahman, and from the viewpoint of the world (for purpose of worship or ascribing) is the root cause of all , therefore he is the with-seed brahman.

15.5 The All-Pervasiveness Of Brahman: Its Meaning

The meaning of brahman's all-pervasiveness must be understood. One kind of pervasiveness is like that of fire in an iron ball. You put an iron ball in fire and it becomes red, the fire pervades the iron ball. This is the pervasiveness of one thing in another, pervasiveness of a subtle thing in a gross thing. This is called "moorta samyogitva roopa vyaapakataa". Most people consider this to be the pervasiveness of the supreme self. They think that the world is gross and in this, the subtle entity brahman has pervaded. Even in the Upanishads, this kind of pervasiveness is described.
 
Another form of pervasiveness is that where the material cause pervades its effect. It is like the material cause clay pervades its effect, which is the pot. Here, the cause which is clay, and the effect which is the pot, are not two distinct objects. The pot is of the form of clay alone. All that has happened is that a particular form of the clay has taken place, like the pot, the cup and so on. The variety of names is transactional, not real. Even this kind of pervasiveness is mentioned in the Upanishads. Similarly, pervasiveness of water in wave, fire in spark, wind in vital force, and great space in pot space, all these are illustrations.
 
A third kind of pervasiveness is that like the seed and the tree. Here, the impressions resident in the seed pervade the tree. The five elements are the same in the seed and the tree both. In the materials of the dream, the impressions of the waking state pervade. Similarly, in the person, the prior impressions of the soul pervade. The root will of Ishvara is "may I become many", this is pervaded in the always-growing creation.
 
In the scene of the dream, the mind pervades. The seed of the waking and dream scenes lies in the deep sleep state. Therefore, deep sleep alone pervades in the waking and dream states. This is clearly explained in the Maandookya Upanishad.
 
The fourth type of pervasiveness is like that of the sun rays in the earth planet. The sun is situated distinctly, is disconnected, but its heat and light pervades our planet's space. Similarly, Ishvara is found in some space, but pervades this earth planet by his power. This is the opinion of those devotees who consider Ishvara to be indifferent. This is not accepted in Vedanta. But, in all spaces, in the brahman present in the form of existence, for the purpose of worship etc., the imagination of a specific place etc. in the category of superimposition is also acceptable to Vedanta.
 
The fifth type of pervasiveness is like that of the delusion-created material on the substratum. It is like the rope pervades the snake, sky pervades the blueness, the post pervades the person. In Vedanta, this pervasiveness is accepted. The world in brahman, and the I-sense in the self, is never present in all three times. But due to the ignorance of brahman, the world appears and due to the ignorance of the self, the soul-ness appears. Therefore, from the vision of knowledge, there is neither the world nor the I-sense. There is only brahman alone. Then what will pervade what else. That is why the Tejobindu Upanishad shruti says that pervasiveness and pervaded are illusory. In this meaning, the pervasiveness of brahman reaches its ultimate conclusion.