1

VEDANTA PRAVESHIKAA

AN ENTRANCE TO THE VEDANTA

BY SRI SRI SATCHIDANANDENDRA SARASWATI SWAMIJI

TRANSLATED BY SRI LAXMINARAYANA AITHAL
 2

AN ENTRANCE TO THE VEDANTA

1. DISCRIMINATION OF THE SELF AND THE NON-SELF
MOTIVE

The Vedanta is a science that doesn’t tell the fruit of the other world, it
describes the experience that can be had in this birth itself; still the majority of the
common people do not show any interest towards this Spiritual Science. The reason for
this is as follows: Many people are not pleased to read the works of deliberation. Those
who are eligible to deliberate upon also don’t have the discrimination to know the main
subjects of the Vedanta and also its sub-topics. Those who don’t find taste in the
deliberation are not eligible for the study of the Vedanta. At present we don’t talk about
them. Those who are really interested to know the Principle of the Self and also to
experience It; and it is clear that they are in need of a chapter that deals with the topics
of the Vedanta. For that purpose, Sri Shankara Bhagavat-Paada has composed Advaita
Pancha Ratna, the Five Emeralds of the Advaita, a mini-chapter. This work is the
explanation of that composition.

Main subjects of the Vedanta are as follows:

i. The Real Truth is the One Brahman who doesn’t have any second in Him.
ii. In that Truth, self-hood and the world are imagined.
iii. The Brahman, who is the Real Truth, is the Self of us all.
These three aspects are discussed in this work.

The learned people tell that the wealth of four expedients are essentially needed
in order to experience the above three aspects. The four means are as follows:

1.Nityaa-anitya Viveka, the discrimination of the eternal and transient; 2. Eha-amutra-Phala-

bhoga-Viraaga, passionless towards the enjoyment of fruits of the present world and that of
the next world; 3. Shamaadi Shatka-sampatti, the wealth of six qualities like tranquility etc;
and 4. Mumukshutva, the desire for freedom.

What is the nature of transient objects that are subjects to time? How does an eternal
object that surpasses the time, exist? The ability to separate the eternal and the transient
objects is Nityaa-anitya Viveka. Absence of craving for enjoyments of this world and that of
the next world is Eha-amutra-Phala-bhoga-Viraaga. The one whose mind is planted in the
 3

enjoyment, he always thinks about sensual objects; and he never deliberates on the Reality.
Therefore, this indifference to sensual enjoyment is simply needed for an aspirant-deliberator.
The spiritual-investigator should have six qualities in his mind. These qualities are as follows: 1 )
Shama, mind control; 2) Dama, sense control; 3) Upa-rati, refraining from sensual enjoyment;
4) Samaadhaana, peace of mind; 5) Shraddhaa, faith; 6) Titikshaa, patience.

The one who is having this group of six qualities in his mind attains refinement of his
mind; and he becomes eligible to deliberate. The fourth wealth of expedient is Mumukshutva, the
desire for freedom. At present, we are not in the state of real happiness; the scriptures and
the sages tell that there is a possibility to have the highest happiness to the man. The man
gets confidence in this statement and he longs to free himself from the pettiness and to
attain the superlative happiness. This longing is called the Mumukshutva, the desire for freedom.
Those who have this longing will certainly think about the source of happiness and about the
method to attain the source. The Real Principle is the fountain of happiness and that
Principle is our Self alone. The aspirants who listen to this preaching are thrilled. Without
delaying, they wholly devote themselves in the deliberation of the Reality; and they enrich
themselves with the qualities like discrimination etc. Anyhow, prior to the deliberation of the
Reality, the aspirants should have these Four Expedients. It doesn’t mean that this work is
not useful for those who don’t have the wealth of the expedients. They also can know the
subjects of the Vedanta; they may possibly obtain the longing for freedom.

The Acharya has pointed out these Four Expedients in this chapter.( The Four Expedients
are explained in Sarveshta-siddhi, the work published from the Karyalaya. ) For, this work is
not mainly the practice oriented one and it is mainly the theory-oriented one. Those who
have already obtained the four expedients, they should have the deliberation of the Self and
that of the non-self. Here, the Acharya has commenced this discrimination.

People don’t have the discrimination of the Self and the non-self. Therefore, they don’t
have the knowledge that everyone is of the Form of the Supreme Auspiciousness ( Shiva-
svaroopa ). The Self is the reality of ‘ I ‘ and the non-self is not real. The Self means one’s
own form. Which is that? The non-self means that is not the Self, which is that? To have
separately the knowledge of the Self and the non-self is called the discrimination. People
don’t have this discrimination; therefore, they consider that they are body, etc. they think: “ I
have taken birth to my parents. This is my date of birth. This is my qualification. This is my
address. This is my business. I have a wife, children, relatives, friends, etc. One day I will be going
to die. “ Do such people get the wisdom that everyone is the Supreme Lord, who is eternally
pure and free? They have a doubt: “The Lord has created this world. I stay here at a corner of
the world for three days; and I will be going to depart from the world. How can I be the
Lord?” This is a mis-understanding. Therefore, the one who is desirous of freedom should be
freed from this misunderstanding. Hence, the first verse of the Advaita Pancha-Ratna, the
Five Emeralds of Non-dualism deals with the method of the discrimination of the Self and
the non-self.

Naaham Deho Nendriyaani-antarangam

Naahankaarah Praana-vargo Na Buddhihi I
 4

Daaraapatya-kshetra-vittaadi doorah Saakshee

Nityah Pratyagaatmaa Shivoham II

Meaning of words: Aham: I, Dehah: a body, Na: not, Indriyaani: organs of sense, Antarangam:
mind, Na: not, Ahankaarah: egotism, Na: not, Paana-vargah: a group of vital airs, Na: not,
Buddhihi: intelligence, Na: not, Daaraapatya-kshetra-vittaadi-doorah: I am away from wife,
children, field and money. Aham: I, Saakshee: Witness, Nityah: Eternal, Pratyagaatma: the Inner-
most Self, Shivah: the Auspicious One, Shiva.

1. I am not the body; nor organs of sense; nor the mind; nor the egotism; nor the group
of vital airs; and nor the intellect. I am away from wife, children, field and money. I am
the eternal witness, the inner Self, the Auspicious One alone.

EXPLANATION

Here, people identify themselves with non-self-objects; and such objects are rejected one by
one.

I AM NEITHER BODY, NOR THE ORGANS OF SENSE

Some people identify themselves either with the body or the organs of sense. External
objects like stone, mud, etc. Don’t have life. The objects like stone, etc. do not move by
themselves; and these objects don’t have marks of life like exhaling, inhaling, blood
circulation, etc. These inert objects don’t see, nor do they listen. Hence, there is a difference
between inert objects like stone, mud, wood, etc; and sentient ourselves. We are moving-
living beings; and those inert objects are un-moving cold bodies. Thus, many people think.
Some other people deliberate further: Stone, mud, etc. are lifeless objects; and we are living
bodies; and lifeless objects are subjected to a few changes and they take a form of a living
body and organs of sense. Therefore, scientifically body, organs of sense and external objects
are essentially alike. Still, we have the power of knowing the external objects and the power
of using those objects for our purpose. That is why, we denote the external objects as ‘ this’
or ‘ that ‘; and we identify with ourselves with the body and the organs of sense. This is the
opinion of the second group of people.

But these two opinions are not correct. If I am the group of body and organs of sense; I-
feeling should not appear in each limb of the body and the very same feeling should not
appear in each of the organ of sense. But this I-feeling is experienced in each and every
organ of body like-I walk, I touch, I smell, I see, etc.

Another explanation: A body has many limbs; there are also many organs of sense. If each
and every organ is I; why don’t we have the feelings of multiple I’s or we-feeling? But the I-
feeling is singular. This singular I-feeling is strongly rooted in us. Why is that so?

There is another obstacle to have the I-feeling in the parts of the body or in the organs of
sense. The obstacle is this: Many changes come to body and organs of sense. If we are
 5

body, etc; we should have had the experience that these changes occurred in me alone. But
the experience is not so. ‘ Dimness has come to my eyes’, ‘ My leg is lame; I am a lame
man’- we often tell like this. If we were eyes and legs, when we say, ‘ My eye ‘ , it should be
a meaningless sentence like: ‘My I ‘. In this connection, we can have another experience: We
push external objects using our hands and legs. Easily, we can understand that these objects
are different from us. Similarly, any part of the body can be cut and separated. Then, we don’t feel
that we have separated ourselves. Suppose, a doctor cuts an useless limb, we don’t get the I-
feeling in that removed part. Similarly, often we remove mucus, filth of the eye, saliva, sweat,
hair, nail etc. From the body. We never get I-feeling in those removed parts, rather we feel
disgusted. Similarly, we can determine in the case of organs of sense. We know the different
organs of sense separately as, ‘ my eye ‘, my ear’, ‘ my nose ‘. If we deliberate further, eye,
ear, nose- are not only organs, they function in these spots. As eye, ear, nose etc. are holes
of organs; these organs and their functions like seeing, smelling- are separated from us. Not
only that, if the sharpness of the organs like eye, ear, nose etc. are decreased or lost, we
don’t believe that such changes occurred in us or we have changed ourselves. Therefore, it
is established that the organs of sense are not the I-object within us.

In that manner, what is the conclusion? Body and organs of sense are many, and I am alone;
and body and organs of sense obtain different changes, and then also I remain changeless.
These body and organs of sense are known and I am the knower. Therefore, body and
organs of sense are inert-objects similar to material objects like stone, mud, wood etc. I am
not any one of them; I am a conscious object that knows them.

There may arise a doubt: If body and organs of sense are not conscious and if they are
inert-objects like stone, mud, etc; what is to be told about the marks of consciousness seen
in the body and organs of sense? The marks of consciousness like knowing objects, taking
them, going away from them, etc. are seen in body and organs of sense; and these marks
of consciousness are not found in inert objects like stone, mud, etc; whence these marks
have come in body and organs of sense?

The relief for the doubt can be given thus: Actually, there are no marks of consciousness in
the body and organs of sense. A railway engine runs, a magnet attracts a piece of iron, a
magnifying glass magnifies subtle objects; and by these marks none can tell that these are
conscious objects. The movements and strength of body and organs of sense are not by
themselves; and these are used by conscious entities. The body and organs belong to us, and
we use them. Therefore, we are conscious beings; and body and organs of sense are inert
objects. It is wrong to consider that organs of sense have consciousness. For, we know the
organs of sense and these organs are objects that are known. As we see subtle objects
through a magnifying glass, we know the external objects through the means of organs of
sense. Therefore, the organs of sense are inert objects, they are instruments and we are
conscious beings and we know through these instruments.
 6

Thus, it is concluded that I-object in us is not either the body or any organ of sense.
Mainly, the known body and organs of sense are not the knowing-I; and this argument is
strengthened. But to know the body and organs we have the means of the mind. The mind
knows all these objects and there, the mind may be the I-object. Naturally, this doubt may
arise. Actually, this doubt is not suitable one. This is because-

I AM NEITHER MIND, NOR EGOTISM.

i) We think that ‘ I am stout, I am a white man, I am a youth, I see, I listen, etc.’
ii) We know that: ‘ It is my body, my eye, my ear, etc. ‘
iii) Body, etc. are the subjects of that knowledge and these subjects are separated from
us.

For these reasons it is clearly understood that we are not body, etc. Similarly, we tell ‘ my
mind’; therefore, the mind is also separated from me. We can know this by an example of a
microscope. A microscope is an instrument to see subtle objects. Similarly, the mind is an
instrument. The organs of sense are external instruments( Bahihi-karanaani); and the mind is
an inner instrument ( Antah-karanam); and it means that the mind is an instrument of
knowledge. An instrument is an inert object alone. We are living beings who use it. Not only that,
the mind moves about here and there. When the mind is connected with the organs of sense,
then only, we have the knowledge of external things. That is why, sometimes, though the
eyes see or ears hear, we don’t understand anything. We tell like this: ‘What you have told? I
have not understood clearly. I felt someone has come, it is not clear.’ In that case, the mind of
ours has gone somewhere; that is why, we don’t have the knowledge of sound or the sight.
Therefore, it is settled that the mind is separate; and I who am watching its movements, is
different from the mind.

All right. We use to tell: ‘ I knew, I saw, I heard, etc.’ - in these cases, don’t we get the I-
feeling? Is this I-feeling our real form? If this I-feeling is our real form, consideration of many
people becomes the right understanding. They consider:’ I am the body and I know through
the mind; I use the body and organs of sense. I am in this corner of the world.’ If this I-
feeling is the real knowledge; how do we compare this with the previous statement? That
statement is: ‘ I-feeling is not the real knowledge; and I am the Supreme Lord who is
eternally pure, and who is Awareness and who is Liberated. This is the real knowledge.’ How
do we compare these two statements? This objection is natural.

A relief for the objection may be given thus: We use this I-feeling in our daily activities. The
I-feeling that appears is not our real form. The above mentioned inner-instrument itself appears in
the form of ‘ I’. ‘ I am knowing this through the organs of sense’- this action of knowing is a
change in the inner-instrument. The Vedantins call this change as the mind. The inner-
instrument appears in the form of me. This change of the inner-instrument is called egotism. I and
mind are the changes of the inner-instrument. Therefore, as the mind is separated from us,
so the egotism is also separated.
 7

A few points should be noted to know that egotism is different from our own form. In
the wakeful state, sometimes, as the mind is not perceived by us, so the egotism is also
not perceived. Really speaking, we always involve in the external affairs and the I-feeling
never appears unless we purposefully investigate the egotism. Those who set themselves for
the investigation of the Reality alone observe “ I-feeling and this feeling ‘. And they alone
separate themselves from these feelings. The rest of the people don’t see the I-feeling. When we
are absorbed in sleep we never even see the taint of egotism. Still, we don’t consider that
we don’t have our own form in the deep sleep. Therefore, this I-feeling appears only in two
states- wakeful and dream and the egotism is a means for our daily activities. It is
concluded that egotism is separate from our True Form.

I AM NOT THE INTELLECT.

Egotism and mind are different forms of the inner-instrument; and the intellect is another
form of it. Organs of sense supply information of external affairs and the duty of the mind
is to know the information’s one by one; and the mind collects the information and sends
them to the intellect. It discovers what is what. Then, the egotism prides that ‘ I have this
experience, I knew this’. Then, by knowing the external affairs, we obtain either happiness or
sorrow. Hence, even the intellect is a means alone like the mind and the egotism; the
intellect is known by us; and it is clear that the intellect is different from our own form. As
the mind, the intellect, the egotism- are changes in the inner-instrument so happiness, sorrow,
desire, anger, fear, shame, etc. Are the changes in it? All these changes are called conditions
(Vrittayah). The mind, the intellect and the egotism are the conditions related to awareness.
Happiness, sorrow, etc. are the conditions related to the experience of the external-affairs; and
these are the conditions of perception. All these conditions appear in the inner-instrument
and this instrument is a means alone. This is my instrument. Hence, my own form is different
from the instrument and its conditions. Therefore, the discriminator should decide that his
own form is different from either the instrument or any condition.

I AM NOT THE GROUP OF VITAL-AIRS.

A few people consider that they are different from the body and organs of sense; and are
also different from the mind, the intellect and the egotism. They think that they are the users of
these conditions. An example can be given: If I want, I can lift my hand; if it is enough, I
can bring it down; I take any object if I am in need of it; and I give it up if I don’t need it.
I listen attentively any discourse if I feel the value of it; if I am not interested I can forget it
scornfully. I dissolve the mind and the egotism in the deep sleep or I can stop thinking and
concentrate the mind at a particular subject. Thus, I am that object under which control body
organs of sense, etc. Work.
This is also not the correct opinion. For, the energy that activates body organs of sense, etc.
Is called the Vital-Air (Praana). I, alone, am the shelter to the vital-air. In the statement: ‘ I know
this’- we have discovered that ‘ I ‘ is the egoism, my mind knows and my intellect decides.
Similarly, we can find out that all activities of body, etc. Are conducted by the vital-air. For an
example: ‘ I am doing this work’ is another statement. Here, I am the agent of the work
and that is egotism. The mind wishes to do the work; and the intellect decides to do it.
After this decision alone the vital-air works. We have already proved that egotism, etc. are the non-
self-objects; and these are not our own form. Therefore, the vital-air that works soon after
the decision is also the non-self. Thus, it is proved.
In the wakeful-state, the vital-air has two types of works: volitional and non-volitional.
Breathing, heart-beating, blood-circulation, secretion of juice from glands, evacuation of
excrement and urine, etc. Are non-volitional works that take place incessantly? Thus, this vital-air
has different conditions: Praana, Apaana, Vyaana, Udaana and Samaana. In the wakeful
 8

state we can imagine the connections of different conditions of the vital-air. And it is clear
that in deep-sleep we never feel the relation of any activity. In our wakeful state, we
imagine that all the activities of the vital-air take place without our knowledge in the deep-
sleep. It is true. But in the wakeful state we cannot understand what the deep sleep is.
When we have the experience of the deep-sleep we don’t notice any activity of the vital-air.
The experience is a stronger means than the imagination for the determination of the
knowledge of the truth. Therefore, our own-form doesn’t have any connection with the vital-air
or the inner-instrument; and our own-form is its shelter.
Anyhow, the vital-energies are many in number. These vital-energies change themselves; and
these subjects are known by us; and these vital-energies never exist in the deep-sleep.
Therefore it is proved that these are of the inert form; and our own conscious form is
different from these vital-energies.

I AM AWAY FROM WIFE, CHILDREN, FIELD, MONEY, ETC.

In this manner, it is clearly deliberated on the basis of the experience that neither body,
organs of sense, nor mind, egotism, intellect; nor vital-airs - any one of these is our own
form; and this truth comes forth easily. For, as long as we identify with the non-self body,
organs of sense, etc. Belong to us. A few inconsiderate who identify themselves with body,
organs of sense, etc. become proud to identify themselves with their wife, children, etc. such
people, if their respective wife and children are happy, feel happy; otherwise, they feel sad.
If they have an extensive field, a palacious residence, a huge mass of money; they think
that they have improved a lot and they need not worry; and if they loose everything what
they have, they worry; that they are utterly ruined. Those who know that identifying with
body is wrong and they know that body, vital-air, mind intellect, egotism- anyone of these
doesn’t really belong to their Own-Self. Those who know the truth through the circular
deliberation only understand that wife, children, etc. that related to body don’t belong to the
Self. These wife, children, etc. really seem to belong to us; and this is true. If these relatives
are seen in the dream, then also they seem to be related to us; still, are we not decided
that none of them is really related to us? Similarly, we have to decide that the relation what
we see now is also a mere appearance and that is not real.

I AM THE WITNESS, THE ETERNAL, AND THE INNER-SELF.

Now, another question may arise: In the day to day activities we identify with body, etc. If
we are not any one of the non-self and not even the egotism, then which is our own form
.that is bereft of anyone of these non-self ! How do we decide that the Self does exist?
Those who question like this, have a strong look towards the non-self. For, body, organs
of sense, vital-air, mind, intellect and egotism are non-self-objects. These objects are known;
and our own form that knows the non-self is totally different from the known-objects. This is
an object of our experience being told again and again. Such being the case, if I am not
any one of these known body, etc.; how is it decided that ‘ the knowing my Self ‘ is not at
all existing?
( Objection ):- Even if we accept that body, organs of sense, etc. don’t have
consciousness; all of us should agree that the inner-instrument is having consciousness. For,
without using the inner-instrument we never know the external-objects. Such being the case, I is
the egotism which is the shelter for awareness; and giving up this egotism, if it is told that
another own form exists; how do we believe the existence of that form? Sir, you have told
that the egotism doesn’t exist in the deep-sleep. That is true; but, then, we don’t have the
consciousness, too. From that experience also, we don’t find any higher real estate other
than the inner-instrument, isn’t it?
 9

( Relief ):- It is true that the awareness appears in the inner-instrument. But, we know the o
inner-instrument. That becomes an object of our experience. Hence, the inner-instrument, too, is
a known object; and it is proved that our own form that knows it is different from the inner-
instrument. Suppose, if you agree that the egotism has awareness because it knows the
external objects; why don’t you decide that the organs of sense have awareness because
these organs know their respective objects? The organs of sense appear to the inner-
instrument; and knowing and not knowing of these organs depend upon the inner-instrument
alone; and, if it is told that the awareness of organs belongs to the instrument; then, the
inner-instrument appears to our own form; and our own form which knows the knowing and
not knowing of the inner-instrument is different from it; and the inner-instrument depends
upon our own form and its awareness really belongs to our own form alone. And, it is
established that the Awareness is our Form.
This Awareness Form of ours is the Witness, that is, the Witness knows directly all the
non-self-objects. The mind, the organs of sense, etc. Don’t know their respective objects directly. If
the mind, etc. Have some assistance alone, these know their respective objects. For an example:
If the mind wants to know a beautiful picture, it needs the assistance of the organ of sight
and that organ should be located at the eyeball; and the eye should have the assistance of
light. In this manner, rest of objects are known with some intervention. But our own Form,
the Witness knows the inner-instrument, or all the non-self-objects directly without any
intervention. The Witness illumines its object without any intervention and without expecting
any motive.
For this reason the Witness is Eternal. Here, eternal means that which is not time-bound. The
time is a principle that appears to our intellect in the wakeful state. All the objects that we
see in the wakeful state should be seen in the domain of time alone; therefore, these
objects should be considered as transient ones. But our Witness-Form illumines all non-self-
objects including the time by its consciousness; and the time cannot bind our own Form.
Therefore, this Awareness doesn’t have changes as the time-bound-objects have. For this
reason, the Witness is called the Eternally the same one ( Kootastha-Nitya ). Here, ‘Koota ‘
means the summit of a mountain. As the mountain remains unshakable even in the midst of
a storm, so our own Form of Awareness remains eternally the same. The word ‘ Nitya’ (
eternal ) has another meaning in the popular use, that is, continual one. An object, even if it
obtains many changes and continues to be called as the same object; and that object is
said to be a continual one. For an example: We believe that the earth on which we live
remain the same from thousands of years; but the external shape of it is being changed
perpetually and still we continue to call the Earth. Scientists, today, tell that a substance
may obtain physical changes and its matter continues to remain in other forms. According to
that opinion, even if this earth is destroyed, the substance of it will remain in another form.
Such objects obtain the name: Perpetually-changing-objects. But our own Form is eternally the
same. It is neither time-bound, nor obtains changes. That is Unchangeable One ( Nirvikaara ),
that means, that is the Same One ( Kootastha Nitya ).
Not only that, this Consciousness is the Inner-most Self ( Pratyagaatmaa ); and it is our
Inner-Real-Form. As already explained, many a time, in our daily affairs, we identify with our
bodies and sometimes with our organs of sense. But the existence of the body depends
upon the awareness of the organs of sense. Therefore, we can consider that the organs of
sense are the essence of the existence of the body; and we can consider that is our real
form. If we continue to deliberate thus, vital-air, mind, intellect and egotism will become our
real forms in the higher sense. For, we understand that latter has the higher existence than
the former and the existence of the latter depends upon the former. By this deliberation we
can go up to the egotism that appears as the I-feeling. But, even if we go up to the
egotism, we have not reached our real Self, that is, we have not obtained our own Form;
 10

for, the Witness illumines by His consciousness all right from egotism to body; and the
Witness has given existence to the egotism. Therefore, this Conscious Witness itself is our
the Inner-most-Self. In reality, this Self should be called as ‘I ‘. A little light of the Conscious
Witness falls on egotism, etc.; that is why these non-selves are called as ‘ I ‘. Really
speaking, these egotism, etc. Are not our Self. By the wrong understanding these egotism, etc.
Have become our selves. Therefore, the Conscious Witness exists as the self of egotism, etc.;
and He is the Supreme Self; and, really, He is the Inner-most-Self ( Pratyagaatmaa ) in the
midst of wrongly understood selves.

I AM AUSPICIOUSNESS (SHIVA)
In this manner, those who have discriminated between the Self and the non-self objects,
they don’t have the delusion that they are in the world. Such people don’t have the illusion
that they are body, etc. They don’t have the confusion that many people, similar to them,
live in the world; and among them, enemies, friends, indifferent, etc. Are found. They
experience that they are the Form Auspiciousness ( Shiva ), that does not have an iota of
touch of the non-self-objects. The Veda narrates: Eko Devah Sarva Bhooteshu Goodhah
Sarva Vyaapee Sarva- bhutaantaraatmaa I Kamaadhyakshah Sarva-bhutaadhi-vaasah Saakshee
chetaa Kevalo Nirgunashcha II One God alone hides in all living beings. He is the owner of all
religious actions. He dwells in all living beings. He is the Witness, He is the Fountain of Light
and He is Alone; and He is bereft of the connection of any quality. (Sve. 6.11). Such
magnanimous people achieve the greater awareness that they and the Lord are one as
narrated by the Vedas.
Shiva means Auspicious Form. The Supreme Lord, the Self of ours is of the form of the
absolute quality; He is bereft of any inauspicious defect. He is always the abode of good
fortune; and all the fortunate things of the world depend upon Him. For, He is the Self of
everything good. Those who think of Him obtain their desires fulfilled; for, if we take root in
our real Self we obtain the fulfillment in life. By all these reasons, the Vedas and religious
works call the Supreme Lord as Shiva, the Auspicious One. Those who experience the Form
of the Self as narrated in this verse determine that they are of the Form of Auspiciousness
( Shiva-svaroopa ) and remain in quietude.

II. THE SHUNNING OF THE DELUSION OF SELF-HOOD.

If we are really of the Form of Auspiciousness, how does the imagination occur that we
are the individual a soul ( Jeeva ) ? Why do happiness and sorrow that don’t exist in the
Form of Auspiciousness appear in us? If happiness and sorrow don’t exist in reality, why do
majority of people experience them? The Vedantins tell: ‘ I am not an individual soul and the
individuality is imagined.’ Such Vedantins also eat and act as ignorant-people do. What testimony
is there that the Vedantins have got rid of their individuality? Such doubts may arise amongst
us. In order to shun the doubts the following verse is commenced:

Rajjvaj-jnaanaat-bhaati Rajjau Yathaahihi Svaatmaajnaanaat-aatmano Jeeva-bhaavah I

Aptoktyaa Hi Braanti-naashe Sa Rajjur-jeevo Naaham Deshikoktyaa Shivoham II

Meaning: Rajjvaj-jnaataat: by not knowing the rope, rajjau: in the rope, yathaa: as, ahihi: a
serpent, bhaati: appears, svaatmaajnaanaat: by not knowing one’s own self, aatmanah: to self,
jeeva-bhaavah: a feeling of individuality ( appears ). Hi: For, aaptoktyaa: by the guidance of
the knowers, bhraanti-naashe: when the delusion is removed, sah: that, rajjuh: the rope. (
Similarly) Deshikoktyaa: by the teaching of the spiritual teacher, aham: I, jeevah: an individual
soul, na: not, aham: I , Shivah: the Auspicious One.
 11

2. An unknown rope may appear as a snake. Similarly, the unknown Self appears as an individual
self. If the knowers tell: that is a rope, that becomes the rope itself. Similarly, by the
preaching of the true teacher, I am not an individual self, I am the Auspicious One ( Shiva )
, Himself.

AN EXAMPLE OF SNAKE AND ROPE.

We have the delusion that we are individual selves because we have not understood our
real Self. As soon as we know our real Self this delusion is got rid of. An example may be
given: Do we not have the experience of delusion that in the early dawn a piece of rope is
mistakenly considered as a snake? That delusion has come because the real form of the
rope is not known, isn’t it? During the delusion, the rope appeared as a snake; as soon as
the experience dawns: ‘ that is the rope, ‘ that delusion is got rid of. In this illustration as due
to delusion the snake appears, so in the illustrated the individual soul appears. This is a
theorem of the Vedanta.
Let us deliberate upon this example in a little more detail: Due to delusion a serpent is
seen in the rope; and, which is that deluded serpent? Does it exist apart from the rope? No.
For, when we examine we have the real experience: ‘ This is really the rope, not the
serpent’. None consider that the real serpent appears due to delusion. For, none will find the
whereabouts of that snake after the removal of delusion. Prudent-men never tried to find out
that snake. None has heard that certain people have died due to the biting of that snake.
There may be a few death cases. Suppose a few people stamping a rope, imagine that they
have really stamped a poisonous snake and that has bitten them; and, thereby they may
die. In spite of that, we don’t think that really the snake has bitten them; and that is why,
they died. Even if we speculate that by that time a mental imagination has transformed into
a snake; and we don’t agree with it. For, none of us has the experience that the mind has
changed as a snake. The knowledge of the rope itself is enough to know that there is no
real snake in the delusion. It is a mere ignorance to think that during the delusion the rope
itself has changed into a snake. If objects change themselves into other objects, then it will
be very difficult to conduct worldly activities. Then, there would be no rule that curds would
be obtained from the milk; and, sometimes, water also would become curds; and, sometimes,
milk added with a little sour catalyst would become water! In this very manner such things
would happen, then, how would people hope to conduct worldly activities? Would we
consider that the rope had the little part of a snake and during the delusion that part
appeared as the snake? None will agree with this. No clever man can examine and tell that
such an object has a contact of a little part of such an object; and due to delusion, at any
time, the contacted part of the object would be seen. During the time of delusion a snake is
born and it dies when the delusion is removed- these words don’t agree with the experience.
To which place does the snake belong? When we find out the rope, can we tell that the snake
appears because we remember it? Then, that doesn’t become right; there is no reason to
see, as if, the real snake by simply remembering it. Not only that, why should the rope
disappear by merely remembering the snake? In this case, there is no possibility of getting
an answer to this. To have the experience: ‘ I have seen the snake’ instead of ‘ I
remembered the snake’- is against to this imagination. Anyhow, in this illustration, there is
neither a real snake, nor the remembrance of it. But, in the delusion, don’t we have the
experience that we have seen, as if, a real snake? How do we get rid of this entanglement?
Our answer to this is as follows: It is false that, in the illustration, a snake is born. In the
semi-darkness, those who don’t see clearly rope, for them it appears, as if, it is a snake;
and there is no snake at all. In the delusion, neither a snake is born, nor does it sneak
away after dawning of the right understanding. The understanding: ‘ I have understood the
rope as a snake’- is a support to this theorem. Therefore, we can tell only this much: A
 12

snake is mere delusion and the rope itself is real; and, it is not right to find a reason to
the snake appeared due to delusion. Similarly, we should understand in the illustrated also. It is a
mere delusion that we are living beings. We have this delusion because we have not
understood our Real Form; and really, we don’t have selfhood. It is the right understanding
that all of us are always of the Auspicious Form ( Shiva-svaroopa ).

[ A few later Vedantins tell: Ignorance ( Avidyaa or Ajnaana ) is a certain power; and it
depends on the Self. Every individual mundane object is partly covered by this ignorance. That
part of ignorance is removed by knowing the object. A rope is deluded as a snake. For, the part of
ignorance in the rope changes as the snake; and the part of the ignorance in the perceiver
changes as the knowledge of the snake. The ignorance of this disputation doesn’t appear in
the experience of any one. This is not mentioned in the commentary of Shankara. These
disputants, at first, agree that the ignorance covers the Self; and their rope-snake illustration
is not agreed by all; and hence, their illustration is not suitable one. This is an imperfect-
disputation. Therefore, this is not dealt in this book-let which is written for the common-
seekers. This is inquired in the works like: Mulaavidyaa-niraasaa, Shankara-Siddhaanta and
Brahma-sutra-Bhaashya.]

Here is an objection: It is not right to tell that the rope is an object of an understanding
and the snake appears. It is the rule that which appears alone is the object. Therefore, here
it is right to accept that the snake alone appears. Otherwise, by rejecting the experience, it
would be accepted that something appears and some other thing is an object.. Then, a man
would appear as a river, a mountain as a town; and an elephant would appear as a little
cock. But such things are not in experience.
(Relief: -) There is no rule always that as an object so the experience. An experiment: Dip
your one hand in cold water and other one in hot water, then, dip them in lukewarm water.
The hand of cold water feels heat and that of hot water feels cold. The warm water
simultaneously cannot show different temperatures; and it should be considered that
because of delusion the same warmth water is felt differently by different hands. Those who
are rigid in accepting that object should be as it appears; and they should imagine that the
warm water has two temperatures. None accepts this. Not only that, everyone has the
experience that there are two types of understandings: the right one and the wrong one; and
in the right one object appears as it is and in the wrong one it appears as it is not. Such
being the case, it is not at all right to imagine against the universal experiences: ‘ this is not
correct, and this should be like this’. Therefore, the only correct conclusion is that the rope
is considered mistakenly as a snake.
(Objection: -) When a snake appears, why it is wrong to consider that the real snake exists
there? If it is wrong, what authority we have to tell that the rope exists when it appears so?
(Relief: -) We have already answered this objection. During delusion the rope appears as a snake.
When the right understanding dawns we have the clear experience that: ‘ this is the rope
only, the snake never exists in it; and the experience of seeing a snake is a delusion’. In
the case of the right knowledge of the rope, the experience remains unchanged after the
removal of delusion. The falsified experience never is the real one.
(Objection: -) Does one delusion cancel the other one? An example: A man, from a distance,
imagines a crack in the ground. As he approaches he thinks that should be a crooked stick.
Finally, when he reaches the spot, he decides that is a piece of rope. In this case, the first
imagination is cancelled by the second one. Finally, the decision has cancelled the second
imagination also. The falsified understanding, in this context, is not true!
(Relief: -) What you have told becomes an example: ‘ what that is falsified is not true’. It is
right that there is no rule that the falsifying knowledge is not true; and, it cannot be told
 13

that people have never accepted the object that is not falsified at all. An example: A
deluded person sees a snake in the rope; still, the rest of people who are not deluded see
the rope, as it is. After examining it, the deluded person also, sees the rope. Thus, in the
wakeful state, the rope and its knowledge are never falsified; and therefore, that knowledge
is considered as the right one. According to this consideration, accepting the knowledge of
the rope is real; we have given this example of the rope and the snake; and it is not our
opinion that the rope is never falsified. The Vedantins tell that the Self alone really is the
Truth; and the selfhood and the world are imagined in Him; and, for them, there is no harm
in considering the rope which is the support of the imagined snake also is falsified.
According to their opinion, the whole world, itself, is untrue and naturally, the rope of the
world is also untrue. Still, the rope is an empirical reality; and the snake appears due to
delusion is not so. Both of these snake and the rope have this difference.

THE SOULHOOD APPEARS BECAUSE THE SELF IS NOT KNOWN.

Now, let us turn towards the illustrated Self. We have the selfhood because we have not
understood our Real Form of the Self. In the darkness, as the people misunderstand the
rope as a snake; so we have not realized our Auspicious Form ( Shiva-svaroopa ); and that
is why this selfhood appears in Him. Here, there is a great deal of similarity between the
illustration and the illustrated. For, the one who considers the Self as a living being imagines
that he is related with the body, the breath, the mind, the intellect and the ego. As a short-
sighted one, without knowing the rope, imagines a hood, a tail, a crooked form, etc. of a
serpent in the rope; similarly, the ignorant imagines the relation of body, etc. and he
entertains misconceptions in the manner: “ I am born, I grow, I grieve, I die and again I am
born” Thus, he produces the worldly illusion in himself and suffers. Really, there is not even
a little part of the serpent in the rope. Similarly, the Witnessing Self who is of the Form of
Awareness doesn’t have a little taint of selfhood. After examining well, the persons get the
knowledge of the rope and they get rid of the fear of the serpent. Similarly, the seeker, by
the Awareness of the Auspicious Form, gets rid of all evils of the life of transmigration.
(Objection: -) If awareness of ‘ I am a living being’ is a delusion, what authority is there to
show that the Awareness of Auspiciousness is not a delusion? The awareness of selfhood is
falsified by the deliberation. Similarly, is there any possibility to falsify this Awareness?
(Relief: -) There is no opportunity to have such a fear. For, the awareness of the self occurs
because of the faith that the relation of body, etc. Of the wakeful or dream state is real one.
But the Awareness of Auspiciousness doesn’t belong to any state; and this Awareness is not
time-bound; and this Awareness is an Intuitive Experience of the Eternally Unchanging One.
Any object that is time-bound; there may be a fear of changing its own form. Who can
predict such a change to the Supreme Self who is beyond the time?

BY THE PREACHING OF VENERABLE PRECEPTOR THE AUSPICIOUS FORM IS KNOWN.

Here, a doubt may be raised: The Vedantins declare, “ I am not a living being”. They, too,
engage in the worldly activities like common people. Then, what proof is there to show that the
selfhood has gone and the Auspiciousness has come?
A relief for this doubt: We have clearly told in the illustration of the rope and serpent that
the serpent doesn’t exist in the rope and after the dawn of right knowledge the serpent has
not really sneaked away. Similarly, we have told that the selfhood is created due to
delusion, hence, the self hood doesn’t really exist; and the Auspicious Form, itself, is the
Reality. It being so, what is the meaning of the following statements: the selfhood goes
away and the Auspiciousness comes into being; and we are always in the Form of
Auspiciousness; and this alone is the Ultimate Truth?
 14

No proof is needed to show that we are of the Form of Auspiciousness. For, our Form is
not hidden. In the semi-darkness, a person misunderstands the rope to be a snake. Another
person who knows that rope guides the frightened one : ‘ that is the rope, not a snake’. This
guidance drives away the doubt. Even after obtaining the guidance, the doubter has to firmly
determine the rope. It is not so in the case of our Form of the Self. Nothing is needed .to
show our Form. The Self, itself, is in the Form of Light of Awareness. It being so, if the
great preceptor preaches: ‘ You are not a body, etc; you are the Supreme Form of
Auspiciousness’; by this preaching alone, as explained in the previous verses, the seeker
obtains the Awareness that he is the Witness who sees directly body, etc.
Many so called Vedantins utter: ‘ I am not the body, etc; I am of the Form of
Auspiciousness’. They don’t have the experience of the Divinity. They have merely a strong faith
in the scriptures and the tradition. That’s all. By the grace of the great preceptors, those who
really obtain the Intuitive Experience of the Self; and their case is different from the former
Vedantins. The Vedantins having faith alone have excessive egoistic attachment towards
worldly affairs. But, the Experiences of Divinity, are least attached towards the worldly affairs.
They don’t get sorrow and delusion unlike other Vedantins get. Such wise persons preach
the Principle of the Self and their disciples also are relieved of sorrow and delusion. We
should not take the examples of those who merely utter the words of scriptures. Those who
have practically experienced the Principle of the Self and they have the ability to show the
Intuitive Experience to the others also. Such great persons should be the examples. Such great
are called trustworthy persons. The words of a trust-worthy person who knows the truth of the
rope become an authority to remove the fear of the serpent. Similarly, the words of the
great teacher who knows the Form of Reality become an authority to reveal our Auspicious
Form and to remove the fear of the life of transmigration.
(Objection: -) Many people have listened the preaching: ‘ You are the Universal Soul (
Ishvara ), not a petty self’. Still, they have the delusion of the life of transmigration !
(Answer: -) It amounts to say that we have already answered. There is a rule that the preacher
of the Reality should have the Intuitive Experience of the Divinity. Similarly, the listeners of
the preaching should have the required suitableness. Not only that, listening Vedanta doesn’t
mean merely hearing a few sentences of the Vedanta. In the world, in order to know the
very essence of any subject, a student should deliberate upon that subject till all of his
doubts are dispelled and till he knows that subject perfectly. Similarly, in this case also, the
preaching of the great teacher should be heard respectfully by the wholly devoted listeners;
and they should necessarily deliberate well upon the words of the teacher in order to arrive
at the opinion of the preaching.
If an ignorant of the rope, in spite of listening to the wise words of his friend is not ready
to look at the rope; then, how shall he get the knowledge of the rope? Similarly, listening to
the sentences of Vedanta and accumulating the information of worldly affairs together will
never yield the fruit of listening. By mere listening of the Vedantic sentences, people may
find its usefulness in the due course. But, they will never obtain the immediate Perception of
their Self by mere listening to the words of the Teacher. We are, everyone of us, of the
Auspicious Form. This is the Reality which can be obtained by the Knowledge of the Self
alone. In order to have this Knowledge, the aspirants should have the qualities like: faith,
whole devotedness, sense-control, service of the Teacher, the deliberation on the Reality, etc;
otherwise, they never obtain the Knowledge. Therefore, the seekers of liberation should be
endowed with the wealth of expedients and then, if he listens to the preaching of an
excellent teacher; then, he certainly obtains the fruitful Self-Knowledge; and there is no doubt
in it.

III. THE REMOVAL OF THE CONFUSION OF THE WORLD.

 15

Not only the selfhood is an obstacle to apprehend that we are the Absolute Form of
Auspiciousness; and the world that appears for us is also another obstacle to that
Awareness. If we are the unique Form of Awareness, how the world of inert objects would
have come out? This thought is a fearful impediment for the reflection of the Auspiciousness.
Similar to us, many living beings are here; all of them live with us; and as us, they are
also having pleasure and pain. How does this multiplicity of selfhood appear? We can
apprehend, somehow, that the Self is of the form of awareness; but how do we apprehend
these inert objects are of the form of awareness? These inert objects appear to the self;
and these are liked or disliked by the self; and as the self uses these inert objects that are
depending on another are used. How do we apprehend these inert objects as of the form of
awareness? Many of us are haunted by this doubt. In order to have a relief, the third verse
having another example is commenced:-

Aabhaateedam Vishvam-aatmani-asatyam Satya-jnaana-aananda-roope Vimohaat I

Nidraa-mohaat Svapnavat Tanna Satyam Shuddhah Poorno Nitya Ekah Shivoham II

Meanings: Asatyam: that which is not real, idam: this, vishvam: all the world, satya-jnaana-
aananda-roope: ( in Him ) who is the Form of Existence-Awareness-Bliss; aatmani: in the Self,
nidraa-mohaat: by the delusion of sleep, svapnavat: as if the dream, vimohaat: by the
delusion, aabhaati: appears, tat: therefore, na satyam: not real, aham: I , shuddhah: pure,
poornah: the one cannot be measured by any means, nityah: Eternal, ekah: one alone,
Shivah: Auspicious One.

3.In the Self, this non-real whole world appears, as if, a dream due to delusion of the sleep
and due to misunderstanding. Therefore this is not real. I am Pure, the Whole, the Eternal, the
One and the Auspiciousness.

EXAPLANATION
A DOUBT ON THE ILLUSTRATION OF ROPE AND SERPENT.
If we have the illustration of rope and serpent of the previous verse, we get a few
doubts. According to this illustration, if the selfhood is imagined in the Lord, the following
objections may arise:-
(1) We have seen both rope and serpent. Therefore, in the darkness, when we look at a rope,
we don’t know it. Because of the previous idea of the snake, we may misunderstand the
rope as a snake. But, if we are already the Sole Form of Auspiciousness, how do we get
the conception of the affairs of life or the delusion that occurs due to the conception of
worldliness?
( 2 ) In the illustration, at first, we have an experience of the snake; and due to the idea of
the snake, we have the delusion of it. Not only that, the delusion happens only if we have
the real experience of it. Therefore, if the worldliness is delusion we should have the real
worldliness. How is this worldliness is attached in the explanation of the Sole Awareness? If
it is not attached, how do we believe that this worldliness is delusion?
( 3 ) The rope and the snake of the illustration are separate objects to be seen by the seer.
None imagines that he, himself, is a snake. But, in the illustration, as you tell, we imagine the
seer, himself, as the worldly man. Therefore, this also doesn’t fit to the illustration.
( 4 ) None misconceives that a rope has become two; and none deludes that an object of
somewhere remains elsewhere. None produces a large metal pot, etc. In the rope which doesn’t
have such forms. But, in the illustrated the Vedantins tell: Many living beings are deluded in
the Sole Auspiciousness; and the world is an imagined object to the Self; and the world of
 16

impure and inert objects are imagined in the Pure Form of Awareness. This also doesn’t fit
to the illustration of the rope and the snake.
It being so, how do we believe that we are of the Form of Auspiciousness and we have
imagined selfhood and inertness in that Form of ours?

DUE TO MISUNDERSTANDING THE WORLD APPEARS IN THE SELF ITSELF.

Now, we are going to give answers to the above objections one by one:-
( 1 ) We never had either the conception of worldliness or the delusion due to that; then,
how could these two arise? This is the first objection, isn’t it? But there is no rule that before a
delusion there should be a similar experience. In the illustration, we have never experienced
the snake in the rope; still, we have the delusion: ‘ that is a snake’. Similarly, the delusion of
the worldliness might have come.
( 2 ) The delusion of a snake has arisen due to the one who has seen the real snake.
Therefore, the delusion of the worldliness has arisen by seeing a real worldly man; isn’t it?
This is the second objection. But there is no rule that the delusion should rise after seeing a
real object. Suppose, there are two persons. The one has never seen a snake, and the other
one has seen it. Now, both of them, in the semi-darkness, look at a rope and they don’t
know the rope. The latter tells the former: ‘look, there is a snake’. Then, the former gets the
knowledge of that snake. Then, the former learns the word ‘ snake’ from the latter. But, both
of them, equally, superimpose the snake on the rope. Afterwards, the former, due to the
idea of that snake, may imagine the other rope also as the snake; isn’t it? In that context,
there is no real snake as the root of delusion.
(Objection: -) This is not proper. For, in the above example, Among the two, one has the
experience of the real snake. In the worldliness, none has the real worldly illusion. At first, any
one has a real worldliness, then the others may have the delusion of it; and then, this
illustration may be used. But it is not so. Apart from this, when we know the rope clearly, we
understand: ‘ this is only the rope, causelessly, I deluded it as a snake’. In the illustrated,
we don’t have any opportunity to experience like this. For, in the illustration, as the one has
seen the rope, none has seen the Self; if anyone has seen Him, then there is no reason to
have delusion again. Or, if there is a cause for delusion and even if we experience the Self
through the knowledge of Vedanta, the delusion may re-occur. In this manner, to affirm the
worldliness is delusion, the above illustration is not suitable one.
(Relief :- ) There is no need for the illustration to be identical in all respects with the
illustrated. If these two are identical in all respects, we cannot tell that one is an illustration
and the other one is illustrated. In the present case, what we have to understand is this: As
we misunderstand the rope as a snake, so we have mistaken the Self to be the non-self.
Therefore, there is no rule that a person who has seen the real worldliness only obtains the
delusion of it. Thus, the illustration is the proper one.

THE SELF IS OF THE FORM OF EXISTENCE-AWARENESS-BLISS.

(Objection: -) Let it be so. At first, should or shouldn’t we know the Self? The person who
doesn’t know the form of the rope may obtain the experience that he has misunderstood the
rope to be as a snake. If it is true, we don’t have the experience of the Self, then, how do
we get the delusion of the non-self?
(Relief: -) There is none who doesn’t know the Self. Everyone has understood the Self in the form
of ‘I’, ‘I’.
(Objection: -) Then, everyone knows the Self that he is ‘I’. Then, what is the use of the Science
of Vedanta to know the Self? Even if, the knowers of the Self are got deluded, what is the
use of the Self-Knowledge?
 17

(Relief: -) We have known the Self in the common form of ‘I’; but we have not understood
the Self: ‘ I am the Auspiciousness of the Form of Existence-Awareness-Bliss’ When we don’t
know specially the form of the rope, we may ,misunderstand it either a snake or a crack on
the ground; isn’t it? Similarly, we have to understand this case. Our Self is the Truth( Satya),
means He exists always as He is; and He is of the Form of Awareness( Jnaana), means He
is of the Form of Consciousness; and He is of the Form of Bliss( Aananda), means He is of
the Form of Happiness. We should know this. The Science of Vedanta evidently preaches this
aspect of the Self.
(Objection: -) Truth means to remain as it is; if it is so, stone, wood, etc. Also remain as
they are. If these inert materials are the Self in the form of Existence, then we know the
Form of the Truth; isn’t it?
(Relief: -) It is not so. Really, no object remains as it is. Even boulders, in the course of time,
obtain a lot of changes. Due to the weathering the boulders become sand. If the boulders
remain as they are, how do these changes occur? Therefore, we have to consider that
these materials are changed gradually. Still, a few objects, to the gross look, appear to be
changeless. An example: From clay various sizes of vessels like pots, pictures are prepared.
But the clay remains the same in all the vessels. Therefore, in the practical fields such
changeless objects may be called the truth. But our Self is the Truth means that He is not
the truth of worldly affairs; He is Really the Truth.
Apart from this, there is no room that the real objects of this wakeful state should have
awareness. For instance, stone, clay, etc. Don’t have consciousness. Therefore, these materials
are called inert objects. But, our Self is of the Form of Awareness. We have the experience of
consciousness in the manner: ‘ I know this object’. But the knowledge of the Self is not of
this type. The knowledge of this type appears in respect of a particular object and
disappears, too; therefore, the knowledge of that object is not real. The Self is the Truth and
the Awareness; therefore, the knowledge of the Form of the Self doesn’t either appear or
disappear. He is devoid of any change and He is Eternally in the Form of Awareness.
Another point. If we want to have the knowledge, we have to afflict our intellect. By the
concentrated thinking alone we have to acquire this knowledge. But, there is neither affliction
nor sorrow in the Form of the Self. He is in the Form of Bliss. Therefore, this intellectual
knowledge what we acquire is not the Self. When we enjoy the sensual objects, do we not
obtain a sort of happiness; and the Bliss of the Self is not similar to that one. The
happiness born out of sensual enjoyment is of transient nature and is dependent also. But
the Self is Eternally Independent Form of Bliss.
Thus, when we observe externally, certain worldly objects may suitably be applicable to
the words- truth, knowledge and happiness. If we thoroughly examine any non-self-object, we
understand that the Self alone is of the Form of Existence-Awareness-Bliss; and not the non-
self-object. If this Form the Self is known, the imagined form of the self and the world in it
are falsified.
Now, let us enquire into the third and the fourth objections. A rope is different from the
snake. The latter object may be imagined in the former one. But, does the one self delude that
he is of other form? How do we believe that many living beings and inert objects are
imagined in the Sole Auspicious Form of the Self? How do we believe that, in front of the
Self, the non-self-world is imagined, apart from Him? None of these two suitably befit to the
rope-snake-illustration. This, in a nutshell, is the purport of the two objections. If the Self is
of the Form of Existence-Awareness-Bliss, how does the non-existent-inert-sorrowful-world
appear in Him? This is also included in the doubt of the objector.

THE APPEARANCE OF THE WORLD IS LIKE THE DREAM.

 18

Before we answer to the objections a few words should be told: The objector is pertinent
about the rope-snake-illustration. He imagines that a particular moment of time, a person
misunderstands the rope to be a snake; similarly, the self imagines in him the world at a
particular moment of time. Therefore, there are many objections in his method of deliberation. But,
if we observe really, as in the illustration, none imagines the selfhood and the world at a
particular time in Real Form of Auspiciousness. From a particular view point one feels that
he is a self, he lives in the world of many living beings like him and many inert objects are
also existing. According to the other view point another one gets the feeling that he is the
Sole Self of the Form of Existence-Awareness-Bliss which is devoid of selfhood. Among the
two feelings, the second one is the right one; for, as soon as we obtain the second one,
worldliness and the world appear to be unreal. In order to show this alone, the illustration of
rope and snake is given; and there is no opinion that all parts of the illustration are equally
befitting to that of the illustrated. Therefore, now, we can have a suitable illustration to
answer the third and the fourth objections. In the dullness of sleep if a person dreams, he
sees various spectacles! He forgets completely his own form and he sees, as if, he has
obtained a different form; and though he is alone, in front of him, he sees a world
containing many people, animal, trees and plants, inert objects like stone, mud, etc; and he
sees himself. Still, what is the reality? The dream world and its forms are fully unreal. As soon as
he gets up, all the scenes disappear. Therefore, existence of the scenes depends upon him. In this
illustration, none has deliberately created the dream; it appears itself; but the dream is not
true alone. Similarly, there is no obstacle to tell that the selfhood and the world are
imagined in our Form of the Self which is of the Form of Existence-Awareness-Bliss.

THE WORLD IS NOT REAL.

(Objection: -) A snake is misconceived on a rope; and in a dream a non-existing world may
appear; and merely on this ground can we justify that the world that appears now and the
worldly life are imagined? By merely giving one or two examples none can prove that the
world is only an appearance. “Look at a donkey. How harshly he brays! Similarly, he sings”. By
saying this alone none can determine that a musician’s voice is equal to that of the donkey.
If a harsh-singing woman is compared to a sweet-singing nightingale, none judges that she
sings well. Let the snake in the rope be an appearance; and the dream also be an
appearance and can these two illustrations affect the real empirical world?
(Relief: -) Just as the objects of mere appearance appear, similarly, the world also appears;
and the misconception that those objects are real is falsified by the real understanding;
similarly, the misconception that the world is real is also falsified by the correct
understanding. Therefore there is no difference whatsoever between those objects of mere
appearance and this empirical world. For an instance, look at the world that appears in the
dream. Just like the waking world, the dream world also appears to be real and it appears
to be spread in front of us; and similar to the waking world, in the dream-world also many
people, animals, birds and beasts appear to exist and we feel that as in the waking world,
in the dream also living beings take birth, live and die; and we have a strong feeling that
as in the waking world even in the dream we have relation with other beings and inert
objects. We have the feeling that during the dream it appears, as if, the waking state in all
respects. Thus, there is no specific hallmark to show that the so called waking state is not
a dream; then, there is no evidence to prove that the world appears in it is true. Therefore,
the example of the dream is not any mere illustration and it is also an adequate universal
experience to tell that the world is not real and it is imagined in the Self.
(Objection: -) This doesn’t appear to be proper, for the wakeful state comes after the
dream has gone; then the dream becomes unreal. But after the coming of which state the
 19

wakeful state goes; and that state becomes unreal? Being in the wakeful state how do we
tell that the state and its world are unreal?
(Relief: -) After coming to the wakefulness the one knows that the dream is false; and this
knowledge is not an important one; and we have to rightly deliberate that weather that
knowledge is the right one, or not; for, the dream world doesn’t exist anywhere in the
wakefulness. If the dream world were real we could have guessed that the world would be
somewhere else now; but we don’t have such experience. We have decided that the dream
world doesn’t exist anywhere either in the dream or in the wakefulness. Therefore, the dream
and its world are not real. That means the dream is a mere appearance. Similarly, when we have
a dream, where does the world of wakefulness exist? That world doesn’t exist anywhere. In
the dream, we don’t have the feeling that the world exists somewhere else. If we admit the
presence of the world of wakefulness in the dream, we have to accept that we experience
both the states simultaneously. None will agree with this. Therefore, we have to admit the
waking world also unreal similar to that of the dream. In any case we have not decided that
the dream is false because we have come to the other state. We have admitted the
unreality of that state by deliberating upon the nature of the state. In the same way, we can
conclude the unreality of the wakefulness by deliberating upon its nature. In order to have
the conclusion, we need not go to any other state.
(Objection: -) Let us agree that the world of wakefulness is unreal similar to that of the
dream. But what evidence is there to prove that this appearance is imagined in the Self of
the Form of Existence-Awareness-Bliss? Do we have the supporting experience that the Self
is so?
(Relief: -) For this, just observe the experience of the deep sleep. We see the selfhood and the
world either in the wakefulness or in the dream; but we exist alone in deep sleep. Thus, the
Self exists in all the three states; and we never imagine the non-existence of the Self.
Therefore, it is settled that the Self is of the Form of Existence ( Satya-svaroopa ). The Self,
as in the Witness-Form, experiences the entire animate and inanimate world either in the
wakefulness or in the dream; and He experiences the deep-sleep in the same Form.
Therefore, the Self is of the Form of Awareness ( Jnaana-svaroopa ). It appears, as if, the
Self desires to have something or the other either in the wakefulness or in the dream; and
in the deep-sleep, the Self without desiring the external objects give the experience of
happiness by its mere presence. Therefore, it is settled that the Self is of the Form of Bliss
( Aananda-svaroopa ). Thus, in the Eternal-Existence-Awareness-Bliss-Form the world that
appears only either in the wakefulness or in the dream- is imagined; and this means that
the world doesn’t exist independently apart from the Self. This is also arranged by this
deliberation alone.

I AM PURE, FULL, ETERNAL AND ONE.

On the whole, we have deliberated and proved that the Self is Pure ( Shuddha ); and He
doesn’t have an iota of impurity either of the worldliness or of the inert world. There is no
valid evidence to tell that the Self is bound by wakefulness, dream and deep-sleep states;
and the states are tagged to the Self. For the Self remains to exist as He is, in spite of
appearing and disappearing of the states in Him, the Self is Full ( Poorna ). It is a wrong
concept that He exists somewhere else in the world and He is bound by time and space;
and He is suffering ! Really, there is no place where the Self doesn’t exist; and the place is
also imagined in the Self and it appears in Him; and therefore, the concept of place doesn’t
agree with Him in the least. Similarly, the Self is not bound by time; for, the time is also
imagined in the Self. That which is bound by time and space, at a particular point of time is
destroyed by either the destruction of its parts or the separation of its parts; but the Self is
not bound by either time or space; and therefore, the Self is Eternal One ( Nitya ). For all
 20

these reasons, the Self is One alone ( Eka ), that means, the Self doesn’t have a second
entity including the self and the inert. When the self and the inert objects appear, as we
have shown already, these have a mere appearance; and in the deep sleep there is no
trace of living and non-living. If the dream is off, the dreamer alone remains and so the
delusion is off; the rope, etc. the support of the delusion alone remain; and in the deep-
sleep which is bereft of the appearance of the wakefulness and the dream, this Self alone
remains; and therefore, the Self, Himself, alone is the essence of the states. Therefore, the
Self, in all respects, is the One without the second.

I AM THE AUSPICIOUSNESS (SHIVA).

Therefore, it is decided that I am really the Auspiciousness ( Shiva ), the scripture tells that
the Supreme Lord is the Cause for the birth, etc. Of the world. Similarly, our Self-Form is the
Cause for the birth, appearance and disappearance of the world. As the scripture has told
that the Supreme Lord has become everything; so our Self-Form has become everything. As
the scripture describes that the Supreme Lord is of the Nature of Eternally Pure-Awareness-
Liberation ( Nitya-Shuddha-Buddha-Svabhaava ); similarly, the reason supported by the
experience has proved that our Self also exists so. Therefore, the Self of us is the
Auspiciousness ( Shiva ) as mentioned in the scripture.

IV. THE REMOVAL OF THE DELUSION OF THE STEADINESS OF DUALITY.

The snake of the rope and the dream are not completely the proper examples to illustrate
the delusion of the self and the inert world. For, the world appears to exist even after the
one has obtained the Self-Knowledge. But the snake of the rope disappears after the reality
of the rope is known, and the dream world disappears in the wakefulness. If the Vedantins
tell that the world really disappears after the one obtains the Knowledge of the Self; this
saying of theirs may not be the proper one. For, according to the vision of the knower of
the Self none exists other than Himself. Then, the Knower cannot preach the reality to anyone.
Then, the empirical activity of the Teacher and student doesn’t exist. In order to solve this
doubt of anyone, the following verse is quoted:

Matto Naanyat-kinchid-atraasti Vishvam Satyam Baahyam Vastu Maayopa-klrptam I

Aadarsha-antar-bhaasamaanena Tulyam Mayyadvaite Bhaati Tasmaachhivoham II

Meaning- Atra: here, mattah: than me, anyat: other than, satyam: real, vishvam: the world,
kinchid: anything, naasti: doesn’t exist, baahyam: external, vastu: object, maayopa-klrptam:
imagined due to delusion, aadarshaantah: in the mirror, bhaasamaanena: to the appearing (
image ), tulyam: equal, advaite: in ( me ) who don’t have the second thing, mayi: in me, bhaati:
appears, tasmaat: therefore, aham: I , shivah: Auspiciousness.

4. No real world, apart from me exists here. All external objects are imagined due to delusion;
and this appears in Me who am not having the second thing; and this appearance is similar
to the image in the mirror. Therefore, I am Auspiciousness.
EXPLANATION: NO WORLD EXISTS APART FROM ME.
There is one main objection to tell that the Self is not having a second one. When the
world appears clearly, in front of us, can it be negated? If the world exists really, then, how
does the Self become the Unique One?
(Relief: -) It is wrong to believe that the world exists along with the Self. For, the world
doesn’t exist independently apart from the Self. The Self and the world are not two objects. For,
the Self and the world don’t belong to the same kind of entity. If they don’t belong to the
same species we cannot count them as two. If a chair is added with the other one, they
 21

become two chairs. If a chair is added with a bench, then it becomes two wooden articles
of furniture. But, there is no answer to the question: what does happen when the world is
added with the Self?
(Objection: -) Why there is no answer? The Self and the world are two entities. Why don’t we tell
two?
(Relief: -) We should not tell so. For, the Self is not an object (Padaartha). Here, pada- artha
means the meaning of a word. A thing which is grasped by the mind can be identified by
means of a word; and that thing is the meaning of the word. But the Self is not grasped by the
mind. The Self, himself, illumines the mind. Therefore, the Self is not an object. For this reason
alone, the words: Self, Auspiciousness, etc. Of the Vedantins appear meaningless for many others.
If the word ‘Self’ is meaningless, none can tell that the Self doesn’t exist. For, the Self
appears in the experience and by the support of the experience of the Self alone we identify
the mind and the word that appears to the mind.
(Objection: -) If the Self is not an object, let it be so. By the experience of the Self and
that of the world alone, don’t we decide the existence of the two?
(Relief: -) No, not at all. For, objects exist in a place or in the same time can be counted in
the manner, ‘one, two, three, etc.’ The Self and the world don’t exist either in the same time
or in the same space; and both of them don’t belong to the same species. Then, how, at
all, numerical can be applied to the Self and the world?
(Objection: -) If both of them are not separate two things, how could this usage of words
be possible? Is it possible to tell that the Self and the world are one?
(Relief: -) The One Principle can be seen in two ways. Therefore, we use two words. From the
view point of the wise, the Principle is the Self and from the view point of ignorant people,
the Principle is the world. They call the Self as the world.
(Objection: -) If the One Self, himself, appears in two ways, why are the two not real?
(Relief: -) We have already answered this. The world is not real. The ignorant people misconceive
the false world in the Self.
(Objection: -) If the world is unreal, why do the people who know the Self also see it? As
the dream world disappears in the wakeful state, why doesn’t this world disappear, when the
Knowledge of the Self is dawned?
(Relief: -) If we really view the world, certainly, it disappears. Or, instead of telling that it
vanishes after the dawn of the Knowledge; say that the world never exists itself is the
correct statement. Therefore, the world that has to be vanished, does never exist at all.
(Objection: -) Then, why does the world appear?
(Relief: -) The reason for which the world appears need not be given. The world is not
real, it is a mere appearance. It is enough to know this much.
(Objection: -) Let it be an appearance. After knowing the reality, why should not the
appearance go as the dream does?
(Relief: -) There is no such a rule that all the appearances disappear by knowing the
reality. There is a rule for all appearances: At first, we consider that appearance, itself, is
real; and after the dawning of the knowledge the reality applied to it alone vanishes.
(Objection: -) When both the Self and the world exist; why there is a rule that the world
alone appears and the Self doesn’t?
(Relief: -) The world doesn’t appear apart from the Self; but the Self, alone, without binding
of the world, exists independently. For an instance, the Self exists invariably in the deep-
sleep; then, the world never exists. Therefore, the world alone without the Self is not real;
and the existence of the world is due to that of the Self; and this is the conclusion. As the
existence of the world is falsified, so that of the Self is never falsified; and it is not possible
to falsify the existence of the Self. Therefore, the Self, alone, is the Reality and the world is
a mere appearance alone.
 22

(Objection: -) As soon as we get up from the sleep, the world, suddenly, appears. Non-
existent world in the deep sleep may not appear again. Hence, in the deep sleep, the world
should exist somewhere, isn’t it?
(Relief: -) This is not proper. Where is the world in the deep sleep? It doesn’t exist in our sleep. If
the world were existing then it would be seen there in the sleep; and its existence outside
the sleep is not proper.
[ A few Vedantins tell that the world in the deep-sleep exists in the form of Moolaavidyaa,
the Root Ignorance. By the experience of the deep-sleep alone it is clear that the Root-
Ignorance is an imagination. This disputation is deliberated in detail and refuted in the
Mulaavidyaa-Niraasaa, the Sanskrit work. The Shankara-Siddhaanta, the Kannada book, can
be referred for this subject. ]
(Objection: -) Why is it not proper? Suppose a person sleeps, don’t we find the world which
is outside of his sleep? Similarly, when we sleep some other people may see the world
which is outside of our sleep; isn’t it? If we observe from this view point it seems that
though the world doesn’t appear in our sleep, it may exist by itself aloof there also; isn’t it?
(Relief: -) We don’t have a supporting experience to decide that someone is sleeping.
Pleasure and pain of someone else are not directly experienced by us. Similarly, the sleep of
someone is also beyond our experience. In our dream, we may see many people sleeping; do
we decide now that those people are really sleeping? No. Similarly, the deep-sleep of
someone in our wakeful state should be simply guessed. Therefore, the direct experience of
the sleep of ours should be in our sleep alone. The sleeping people are included in the
world of our waking state. It is improper to consider that the people of our wakeful state.
Therefore, if we are sleeping that means that world of our wakefulness never exists. For, if
we consider that the world of our wakeful state is in our sleep; this is not proper. It
amounts to say that we are simultaneously sleeping and waking. This is a ridiculous statement.
Hence, it is proper to consider that in our sleep, the world of our wakeful state never exists
at all.

AN EXTERNAL OBJECT IS ILLUSIONARY.

(Objection: -) In that case, how does the externally appearing world come into being? As
soon as we get up from the sleep, this world unfailingly appears; and this world should exist
in the wakeful state and in the dream also. Therefore, there must be necessarily an essence
in the world; what is it?
(Relief: -) The question, how does the world come into being, is not a proper one. For, it is
told that the world is unreal and it is a mere appearance; and it is improper to ask the
reason for the world. The world doesn’t appear without the Self and the latter exists
independently without the world. Therefore, for the appearance of the world the real support
is the Self alone, and it is proved that the latter itself is the essence of the world. The
strange form of the world which doesn’t exist in Self, how does it come into being in
between? Is it not illusionary? This is the answer.
(Objection: -) What is an illusion (Maya)? If you tell that the world is illusionary, what does it
mean?
(Relief: -) An illusion is an appearance which appears without any reason, to the one who
has misunderstood; and the word ‘illusion’ is not a mere name. The world is illusionary
means it is an appearance which appears due to the misunderstanding in the Self; and none
can give reason for its appearance. This is our opinion. The illusion means:
1.The Sole Self has become the world of multiple forms.
2. An impure world appears in the Pure Self.
3.The changing world has come from the Eternally Changeless Self.
 23

4.the world bound to a state is confined to the limited objects and this world has come from
the Full Self.
All this is the illusion, means, it is against to the reasoning. None can reasonably explain
the illusion.
(Objection: -) ‘The world has come from the Self’. This statement is illogical. Therefore, why
should we not tell that the world is not made up of the Self and it remains to exist so.
(Relief: -) Having examined the states, we have shown on the strength of the universal
experience that the world of the wakeful state appears in the Self alone; and the Self is
Devoid of the world. Any reason that is against to the experience may not be a strong one;
and this reason is the work of the inner-organ ( Antah-karana ) which appears only in the
wakeful state. Therefore, we have to pacify ourselves that the reason of the wakeful state is
not applicable to the Self who is beyond the three states. And we cannot dismiss either the
experience or the reason followed the experience by stating that this case is against the
reason.
(Objection: -) The world doesn’t need that much existence of the Self; though the former is
not always with the Self, at least in its own time does the former either appear or not? To
what extent should we say that the world is either real or not?
(Relief: -) From the view point of Reality, none says that the world is real; and that doesn’t
exist independently; and such being the case, where does that obtain a separate existence?
If anyone thinks that the existence of the Self exists separately; and it is equal to say that
sweetness of sugar is different and that of the sugar added to the pudding is different. In
reality, everyone of us know that the sweetness of the pudding is that of the sugar itself.
Similarly, the existence of the world is that of the Self, itself. If we accept the existence of
the Self alone is the one; and the inferior one cannot be called as the existence; for, if the
existence is damaged none can find out its fragments.
(Objection: -) Then, in the world of activities, do not people tell that a house exists, a
hermitage exists, etc.? If the world doesn’t have its own existence, then, how does the
existence of these objects appear to the people?
(Relief: -) We have already answered this objection. In the statement, ‘a house exists’ , ‘house’
is a part of the world appears due to delusion; and ‘exists’ is the part of the Self who is
the Absolute Truth. When the people say the above statement they mix these parts. Without
knowing the Form of the Self, for them, the existence of the world itself is the real one; till
the one knows the real position of the Existence, they call this existence of the world as the
Empirical one ( Vyaavahaarika-sattaa )
(Objection: -) If the whole world is unreal, why do people believe that some of the objects
are real and some of the appearances are unreal?
(Relief: -) This is due to the misconception alone. Among the chess pawns some of the pieces
are symbolized as elephants and some other are considered as horses. This is only for the
game. Similarly, people consider some of the objects are real. The existence of such objects is
called as the empirical one. And they consider some of appearances are unreal; and the
existence of such mere appearances is called as that of the appearing one ( Praati-bhaasika-
sattaa ). In the illustration of rope-snake, the mere appearance of the snake has the
appearing-existence. The rope which is the support of that appearance has the empirical-
existence. But if we thoroughly examine both of these existences, these are one and the
same; and both of them have the existence in the Form of the Self; and both of them don’t
have the existence in their respective forms; and both of them are made up of the delusion.
(Maayaa).
(Objection: -) In the world, the division of real and false is true. It is improper to tell that
people have simply imagined, it would not have been possible that either the real object or
the false one to the one person is the same to all.
 24

(Relief: -) There is no opportunity for this objection when we deliberate whether this world
is real or false. For this, we can give an illustration of the dream. In a dream, many people
appear to believe that a certain object is real; but really those people, the object and their
belief- all these are made up of delusion alone. Not only that, in the dream, we may
believe that some objects are real and some are false. But, as we get up, don’t these all
become false alone? Similarly, we have to know the division of real and false of the wakeful
state.

THE WORLD IS AN IMAGE IN A MIRROR APPEARS IN THE UNIQUE SELF.

(Objection: -) If the cognition of the world is simply illusionary, after obtaining the knowledge
of the Self, should it not disappear, as the snake in the rope, etc. Disappear?
(Relief: -) From the view point of reality we have answered this objection. Now, we are
going to give another consolatory solution, accepting that the world really exists and it
appears empirically. An appearance which doesn’t really exist may continue to appear even
after knowing the reality. For an instance, the reflection in a mirror can be taken. Children believe
their respective reflections in the mirror to be another child alone and after a few days they
understand that is the reflection, and really there is no child. Even after this understanding
the reflection continues to appear, isn’t it? Similarly, the world doesn’t have a separate
existence; its existence is that of the Big Self, itself; and even after knowing this reality, the
world continues to appear.
(Objection: -) In the presence of a mirror a reflection appears; and in its absence doesn’t;
similarly, does the world appear and disappear in the Self?
(Relief: -) Yes. In the wakefulness and the dream the world appears and in the deep-sleep
that doesn’t. But whether the reflection appears or not the mirror exists to remain; similarly,
the Self is One alone; and He, himself, is a non-dual One. In the mirror the reflection
appears or not, the mirror remains in its clean form; similarly, the world appears or not; and
the Self is not affected even a wee bit. And, He Eternally remains in the Unique Form (
Advaita ).
(Objection: -) When the differences like- objects, body, organs of sense, breath, mind,
intellect, and ego appear; and when the Self experiences pleasure and pain while knowing
the objects through the organs of sense; and then, does He remain Unique?
(Relief: -) All the above described divisions are similar to the reflections in the mirror.
Therefore, He is the Unique One. In the dream, it appears, as if, we know something,
performing an action and experience pleasure and pain; and really there is no change
whatsoever in us. In the same way, when the triads ( Triputi ) like the knower ( Jnaatr ), the
known object ( Jneya ) and the knowledge ( Jnaana ); the experiencer ( Bhoktr ), the
experienced ( Bhogya ) and the experience ( Bhoga )- appear in us; and really this duality of
triads doesn’t exist in the Self and He manages to be alive as the Unique Self.
(Objection: -) In one state, seeing an illusionary duality; and in another, not seeing it; these
are the changes. Does the Self have these changes or not? Does He, to that extent, within
Himself, become the dual- form?
(Relief: -) No. In the empirical view only, the Self has the states. In reality, apart from the Self
who is the Witnessing Form of Awareness, no state ever exists; and, really the states also
are the Self, Himself.
(Objection: -) In the illustration that you have given, the mirror is separate from us and our
reflection falls on it; and the Self doesn’t have any second object in Him; and in which
object His reflection should fall?
(Relief: -) In the illustrated the mirror is not another object. Here, the Self, himself, is the mirror. In
the Self, himself, the reflection, the world, itself, has fallen.
 25

(Objection: -) Then , the Self is Eternal; therefore, the world-illusion is also eternal, isn’t it?
Or, the world exists always, hence, why should it not be told that it is not an illusion at all?
(Relief: -) Not so. Only in the wakefulness in the empirical point of view the world always
appears in the Self. If we observe from the Absolute view point, transcending the three
states, then, there doesn’t exist the reflection of any world. Not only that, in the illustration
of the mirror, a real object like the face, etc. Corresponding to the reflection exists externally to
the mirror. But here for the world-reflection a corresponding real object doesn’t exist at all. As
a false reflection appears in the mirror, the unreal world appears in the Self. Although
children imagine the reflection in the mirror as a real object; and elders determine it to be a
mere appearance. In the same way, the world appears to the ignorant people and even if
this world appears to the wise, they have decided that to be a mere appearance without
any content. It is our opinion that in these aspects alone there is comparison between the
reflection and the world.

THEREFORE, I AM THE AUSPICIOUS ONE.

Hence, this is the decision: If we observe from the view point of wisdom, we are always
in the Eternally Pure-Full Form; and also, we are in the Form of Awareness without a
second. In this Form of ours, if the selfhood and the world are appeared in empirical point
of view, that appearance is not real.
(Objection: -) A person who has understood that he is such the Unique Form alone should
preach the Unique Principle, isn’t it? But the one who has realized the non-dual Reality
doesn’t entertain the belief of duality. Therefore, how does he preach the Principle to others? If
he cannot preach to anyone, how would the long tradition of propagation through the
Teacher and taught be maintained with regard to this Science of Non-duality?
(Relief: -) This doubt arises to those who don’t have the discrimination with regard to the
empirical view point and that of the Reality. For, even after knowing that the rope is not a
snake, the rope may appear as a snake; and the one may have this understanding. Even
after waking up, the one can have the knowledge that the dream appeared as if was
wakefulness. Even the misunderstanding that the reflection in the mirror was real is gone;
and the understanding that when the one was a child, he thought that the reflection was
real- may remain. Similarly, even after the knowledge of Non-Dualism, the knowledge: ‘people
consider the world as real’- may remain. In the illustration, the one who has understood the
nature of the object can tell to others: ‘ this is the rope, not a snake’; ‘If the dream is
appeared as wakefulness, it doesn’t have any content’; and ‘That which appears in the mirror
is the reflection, it is not the real object’. Similarly, in the case of the Spiritual Science, the
Teacher can preach to his students: ‘You are the Form of Existence-Awareness-Bliss; and
you don’t have either the selfhood or the world’. But these words are uttered in the
empirical point of view alone. From the empirical point of view, the difference of the Science,
the Teacher and the students certainly remains. The concept of the preceptor and the pupil
is real from the empirical point of view alone; but not from that of the reality. From the point
of view of reality the differences in the world like- the Science, the Teacher, the students
and others don’t exist. If one utters ‘A hare’s horn’; it is to say that his words of
misconception are devoid of any substance whatsoever. Similarly, from the point of view of
Reality the difference of the Teacher-Pupil is also mere misconception. From the point of
view of Reality the Unique Self alone is the Truth.
(Objection: -) Duality is real for us. Therefore, we can question you. But the duality is UN- real
for you. Therefore, whom do you answer? Thus, the dualist may question the non-dualist;
isn’t it?
(Relief: -) Let a dualist raise such a doubt. There is no harm to a non-dualist from such doubts.
The sophist objectors ( Kutaarkikas ) only agree that in the point of view of dualism,
 26

questions and answers are real and in that of non-dualism ( Advaita ), they are un-real. After
accepting the non-dualism, it is clear that none can object any more. Therefore, the
investigator who is a partisan of the Principle of the Self can determine without any doubt:
‘He is the Auspicious One ( Shiva ) of the form of Existence-Awareness-Bliss’.

V. WHAT IS THE USE OF THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE VEDANTA?

The knowledge of the Vedanta may be reasonable, but a few people may find that they
don’t get any benefit from that knowledge. In order to console them, the following verse has
commenced:

Naaham Jaato Na Pravrddho Na Nashto Dehasyoktaah Praakrtaah Sarva-dharmaah I

Kartrtvaadi-sh-chinmaya-asti Naahamkaarasyaiva Hyaatmano May Shivo-aham II

Meaning- Aham: I, Na Jaatah: am not born, Na Pravrddhah: am not grown up, Na Nashtah:
am not lost, uktaah: above said, Prakrtaah: natural, Sarva-dharmaah: all traits ( qualities ),
dehasya: of the body, kartrtvaadi: agency, etc; ahamkaarasyaiva: of the egotism alone, hi:
determination, Chinmayasya: of the Form of Awareness, aatmanah: of the Self, May: to me,
Naasti: don’t exist, aham: I, Shivah: am Auspiciousness.

5. I have not taken birth, nor grown up, nor even died. All these natural qualities, as if,
appear in me, belong to the body. The agency, etc. belong to the egotism and these traits
don’t belong to Me who am made up of Awareness. My own Form is Auspiciousness.

EXPLANATION.
Before asking the benefit of the knowledge the people should think what actually they
need. If they desire to have food, clothes, money, etc; they should peruse any vocation fit to
obtain such material benefits. They should never think to get these benefits from the
Vedanta. Satraajit worshipped his precious stone, ‘Shyamantak-mani’ to obtain daily eight
ingots of gold. The Knowledge of Vedanta doesn’t give that. But from another view point, the
Knowledge of Vedanta is a kind of a ‘Magic Jewel’ ( Chintaa-mani ) alone. But common
people think: ‘I am born in this world, I have grown up, I died in my previous birth, and
now, I have taken birth; and I will die again’. As long as they think thus, they suffer
distress; they feel that they have the pain of taking birth, they have the pain of growing up
and they have misery in the death. They search for various devices of avoiding these
miseries: The painful birth of a child from the disgustful part of a mother; the painful task of
growing the body by enhancing the energies of the body, the senses, the mind, and the
intellect, as also the pain of preserving all of them; and the pain of growing lean and facing
the death. They want to avoid these pains. Some people, if they successfully find a method of
avoiding these pains, they get elated and when they fail, they get dejected. Some other
people believe that these miseries are part and parcel of their destiny and they cannot avoid
them. Some fools blame God who is the Creator and the Lord that why He has sent them
to this miserable human birth. Lastly, some inconsiderate-people stoop down in the sensuous
enjoyments and pleasure that are like drops of nectar mixed with poison; and so, none think
that they don’t have birth, growth and death. And these are sorrowful events. To all such
people the Science of Vedanta gives a great benefit; they obtain a strong unshakable
conviction that their Self doesn’t have birth, growth and death.

THE NATURAL TRAITS BELONG TO THE BODY.

As already described, the following traits like birth, growth and death are all seen in the
physical body alone and not in the Self. We have never witnessed the birth, the growth and
 27

the death of ours; if we have seen these aspects of others, it means that we have seen
birth, growth and death of their respective bodies. Similarly, others also may see birth and
death of our bodies. Therefore, these traits belong to the body and not to ourselves.
(Objection: -) The body belongs to us; therefore, its birth and death also belong to us
alone, isn’t it?
(Relief: -) If we understand the present deliberation; there is no scope for this objection.
For, we cannot decide on the basis of experience that the existence of any relationship
between the body and ourselves. Apart from this, if we have a body in the wakeful state;
we obtain hundreds of bodies in dreams; and among these, in which body we have to
identify ourselves? There is no scope to identify with the singular body of the wakeful state
thinking that the dream-bodies are different. For, we have already proved that there is no
distinction between a dream and a waking; therefore, we cannot decide exactly the waking
body. Therefore, it is established that the birth, etc. are found in the appearing bodies and we
don’t have any relationship between the body and ourselves.
Therefore, the natural traits belong to the body alone. The Nature ( Prakrti ) means the seed of
the world which appears due to ignorance. This seed alone is already called as the delusion
( Maayaa ). Due to ignorance we misconceive different traits in us and all these traits belong
to the illusionary body and these are not real.

AGENCY, ETC. ARE THE TRAITS OF EGOTISM?

(Objection: -) It doesn’t seem to be proper to tell that there is not any relationship between
the body and ourselves. For, there is a property-proprietary relationship between the body
and ourselves. The body is ours and we are its owners. We perform actions through the body, etc.
And enjoy their resultant fruits. In order to enjoy the fruits of actions performed previously this
body has been endowed to us; and in the future also, in this manner, we can have other
bodies, isn’t it?
(Relief: -) In the practical view, the following concepts are real: (1).We have instruments like
body, organs of sense, mind, etc; (2) by using them we perform actions to acquire merits
and demerits; (3) and from them again we get future bodies.
But, at present, we depend upon the view of Reality. According to that view, as the
world, the body in it also is illusionary; and in the states like deep-sleep, etc. we don’t have
either the body or the relationship; therefore, we cannot tell that we have a natural
relationship with the body. If we observe according to the view of Reality, we don’t have the
agency ( Kartrtva ) also. For, only when we are associated with the egotism ( Aham-kaara ),
we have the feeling: ‘I do this’. Desire for an object, will to do certain action, decision,
action, etc.- all rely upon the egotism and they are not associated with our Real Form. In
the states like deep-sleep, etc. we don’t have the relationship with the agency; therefore, it is
established on the strength of the experience that the agency doesn’t exist there.
(Objection: -) Then, it amounts to say that we are not responsible for the action we
perform; or none of the following aspects exist: performing an action, obtaining the resultant
merits and demerits and experiencing the fruit. Then, the scripture that preaches do’s and
don’ts becomes a dishonest one. Not only that, neither the liberation that should come from
the Science of Vedanta nor the bondage that should go by the liberation exist at all. Do you
desire all this?
(Relief: -) This objection, too, has a reason because the distinction between the conduct (
Vyavahaara ) and the Reality ( Paramaartha ) is not being done. In the view of the conduct
we have the relationship with the egoism. Therefore, the doer- ships (kartrtva), the enjoyer-ship
(bhoktrtva), etc. that are in the egotism appear in us. In that view, it is not at all possible to
tell that righteousness, unrighteousness, etc. Do not exist. According to this view alone, the
scripture enjoins injunctions ( vidhi ) and prohibitions (nishedha ); and, according to that view,
 28

merit, demerit, heaven, hell, etc.- none of these concepts is false. But if we observe from the
view of the Reality, we never have the relationship with the egotism; nor we have the
agency, itself. When an axe cuts a tree, the axe moves up and down; and similarly, the
hand of the cutter also moves accordingly. But we cannot tell it possibly that we use the
egoism as the cutter uses the axe. For, while working, there may be changes in the
egotism, still, there is no change in our Own Form. We are the witness to the egotism and its
changes. Therefore, the doer-ship and the enjoyer-ship of the egotism are super-imposed in
us in delusion; and really these concepts don’t exist in our Own Form. Now, it is clear that
for the conduct of the liberation and the bondage the very same reason can be given. Due
to ignorance, there is a relationship between egotism and us; and because of this
relationship alone we have the binding of the form of: action-agent-fruit ( karma-kartr-fala ) and
that of the knowledge of duality of the form of knower-knowledge-known ( Jnaatr-Jnaana-Jneya
); and these bindings are got knotted in us. And, according to the view of the conduct, it is
right that this bondage should be got rid of by obtaining that Knowledge of the Self through
the means like-listening, etc. Of the Vedanta. But by observing in this view of Reality, we
never have the relationship of egotism; therefore, there is neither bondage nor liberation for
our Own Form. Hence, it is the Ultimate Spiritual Teaching that from the view point of
Reality, the distinctions like the bondage, the practitioner, the practice, the liberation, etc.
Don’t exist at all. This is not undesirable to anyone; for in the view of Reality, there are
neither desirable nor undesirable fruits; and none exists for trying to obtain the desirable and
to avoid the undesirable. The Supreme Self alone exists.
(Objection: -) If it is told that the doer-ship and enjoyer-ship that exist in the egotism, are
super-imposed upon the Self, does it not amount to say that egotism is conscious?
(Relief: -) If we observe really, the Self is Eternally Liberated ( Nitya-muktah ). Therefore, as
He doesn’t have the doer-ship ( kartrtva ), so the egotism is eternally inert ( nitya-jada );
therefore, it also doesn’t have the doer-ship, etc. Even so, in the view of the conduct, when
the doer-ship appears the egotism only gets the changes and there is no change in the
Self. Therefore, from the gross view point, the egotism, itself, is called as the doer ( kartr )
here.
(Objection: -) The Self goes from one state to another. When He goes to the deep-sleep, He
gives up egotism, etc. and while He comes back to the waking, He takes them up. To that
extent, should we not accept the doer-ship in Him?
(Relief: -) The Self neither goes nor comes from anywhere; neither He grasps nor He gives
up anything. In the sky, coming and going of the clouds don’t change the pure and
unpolluted form of the space. Similarly, the egotism, etc. appear and disappear due to
delusion in the Self; and He remains eternally changeless in the extremely Pure Form of
Awareness ( Nitya-Chaitanya-Roopah ). We have told, time and again, that the states and the
egotism, etc. That appear in them- are not real. If we remember this, the doer-ship, etc,
whatsoever don’t appear in the Self.

THEREFORE, I AM THE AUSPICIOUS ONE.

Thus, if we have the agreement of the three: the illustration of rope and snake, that of
the dream and that of the reflection in the mirror; and if we construe with the Self, we
observe clearly that there is neither any selfhood nor the world in us. As the awareness
becomes firm, the Awareness that: ‘ I am verily the Supreme Auspiciousness ( Parama-Shiva )
who is Eternally Pure and Totally Consummate ( Nitya-Shuddha-Paripurna ) and who is the
Unique Form of Existence-Awareness-Bliss’ becomes rooted in us.
Those who have the backing of this Awareness, their ignorance is got rid of and they rise
in courage; their licentious behavior is avoided and they naturally have a religiously righteous
behavior; they will get rid of indiscrimination and they will double their discrimination; sense
 29

of injustice, injury, theft, etc. will disappear and instead, sense of justice, compassion and
interest in the welfare of all living beings will be got rooted in their heart; idleness will give
way to steady habit of worrying for others benefit; and nowhere grief is noticed. But, they
will witness the sport of the Supreme Brahman who is of the Form of Existence-Awareness-
Bliss. Therefore, everyone should attain this Auspicious Knowledge: “ I am verily the
Auspiciousness ( Shivoham )”. And, even if we don’t obtain this Knowledge immediately, at
least, we must try to acquire the proper qualification for the Self-Knowledge.
OM TAT SAT.

AN INDEX OF WORDS.

[ In this discussion, the technical words that are used are given here in the Indian
Alphabetical sequences. These words that are explained in this work should be known by
the seekers, for, these words are used, again and again, in the works of Vedanta.]

Antah-karana: An inner-instrument of ours to have knowledge and will ( Sankalpa ) in it. This
instrument has other names: Buddhi, Manas, Chitta, and Aham-kaara.
Ahamkaara: The inner-instrument in the form of I-condition. People, connecting with this condition,
super-impose the doer-ship and the enjoyer-ship in the self.
Aatmaanaatma-viveka: Knowing separately the Self and the non-self. The latter is super-imposed on
the former.
Aananda: It is the happiness which is the of Form of the Self; and it is not the happiness
which appears by enjoying the sensual objects.
Aaptaah: Wise people who know the Principle of the Self; and they compassionately preach
the knowledge to others.
Indriya-golakaani: Organs of sense ( Indriyaani ) are the instruments to know the external
objects. These organs exist in different parts of the body like- the eye, the ear the nose,
etc. These are the spots (golakaani) of the organs.
Iha-amutra-phala-bhoga-viraaga: It is a passionless attitude. It is absence of desire, and that of
experience of the enjoyments either of this world or of the other one; this is the one among
the four means.
Ekah: The Self who is called as an Unique One ( Adviteeyah ).
Kutastha-nityah: The Self who is eternally changeless and remains as He is. He doesn’t have
any binding of the time.
Chetana: A living being having awareness.
Jada: A non-living object like stone, mud, etc.
Jnaana: The Self who is the essence of knowledge; jnaana is also the knowing condition of
the antah-karana, the inner-instrument.
Triputi: The duality ( dvaita ) which is divided into different groups, each has three parts like:
knower (jnaatr), knowledge(jnaana) and known(jneya); enjoyer(bhoktr), enjoyment(bhoga) and
enjoyable(bhogya); etc.
Nitya: That which exists always is the one. They are of two types: I).the eternally changing (
object) in the time, ii). the eternally changeless ( Self) who is beyond the time.
Nitya-anitya-viveka: The discrimination of eternal and transient. The knowledge of the onjects that
are subjects to time and that of objects that are beyond time.
Nirvikaara: The one who is not submitted to any change. But existence, growth, changing, wearing
away and destruction- are conditional changes (bhaava-vikaara). The Self doesn’t have these
changes; hence, He is nirvikaara.
Paramaatmaa: Due to misunderstanding we know many selves as our own forms; but He is
really the Supreme Self.
 30

Paramaartha-satya: Really that is the Truth. This, itself, is the Supreme Self or the Supreme
Brahman.
Parinaami-nitya: An object which is subject to time, though changing, it is recognized as the
same one.
Paaramaarthika-sattaa: The Existence of an object that never changes its own Form.
Poorna: The Self who doesn’t have any limitation from time-space-object; and He, himself,
alone, becomes everything.
Pratyagaatmaa: The innermost Self within us. The Self remains in body, breath, organs of
sense, mind, intellect and egotism; therefore, He is Pratyagaatmaa.
Praatibhaasika-sattaa: Existence of an appearance. An image in the mirror, an appearance of
snake in the rope, etc. and the existence of these appearances is praatibhaasika-sattaa; and
that is neither the Vyaavahaarika-sattaa nor the Paaramaarthika-sattaa because that is not
the real Existence of the Self.
Praana: It is the life-force in the body and this force is responsible for all the functions of
the body. This force has five conditions like praana, apaana, etc.
Bahihi-karanaani: External organs are called like this; and these grasp the external objects
alone. The eye, etc. the five organs of sense and the mouth, the hand, etc. the five organs
of action- all these are the external organs; and these are not the inner-instruments.
Buddhi: It is the deciding condition of the inner-instrument; and the inner-instrument is called
the buddhi..
Manas: It is the imagining condition of the inner-instrument; and the inner-instrument is called
as the manas.
Vikalpa: (i) Even if something is told in words, that is an imagination, not a real thing. For an
example: ‘A horn of a hare’- is an imagination. (ii) Imagining differently in the mind.
Vrtti: Different changing forms of the inner-instruments like the mind, the intellect, etc; and
desire, etc. The feelings are the conditions of the inner-instruments.
Vedanaa: The feelings like happiness, distress, desire, etc. Are the conditions of the inner-
insrument?
Vyaavahaarika-sattaa: An empirical existence of externally real objects that are sensed through
organs and words in the wakeful state.
Shamaadi-shatka-sampatti: In order to comprehend the Vedanta clearly the aspirant should
have six qualities like: Shama (mind-control), Dama(sense-control), Upa-rati ( refraining from
sensual enjoyment), Samaadhaana(peace of mind), Shraddhaa(faith) and Titikshaa(patience).
Shuddha: The Self who is devoid of the impurity of either the life of transmigration or the
world.
Satya-jnaana-aananda-rupa: The Real Form of the Self who really exists, and who is the
essence of awareness and that of happiness. The Self doesn’t have these three properties;
He, himself, is called by these three names.
Saakshee: The Self who is of the Form of Awareness knows directly without the assistance
of any instrument; He is the Witness.
THE END

.
31