End Of Knowledge

Category: General Vedanta

  • A Conversation with Ashtavakra Pt. 10

    Read Part 9

    Have a question? Ask here.

    Support the work of End of Knowledge: Donate here.

    CHAPTER THREE

    Chapter Three is usually characterized as Ashtavakra testing Janaka after the latter makes a statement of self-knowledge in Chapter Two.  But there doesn’t appear to be a coherent line of questioning.  And some of the verses are not questions at all, but statements.  Additionally, owing to a lack of definitive background information about Janaka to give them context, it is not even clear whether Ashtavakra’s questions and statements pertain directly to Janaka or not.  In a way, this is preferable because it allows Chapter Three to be more of a universal lesson about the effect of self-knowledge on the thinking and behavior of the body-mind rather than a critique of a specific person.      

    Ashtavakra said:
    3:1 – Having known yourself to be one (non-dual) and indestructible, how can you feel attached to acquiring wealth? 

    If the body-mind knows itself to be non-dual unchanging consciousness-existence, there is no reason for it to be attached to the idea of possession or non-possession of wealth.  Why?  Because being wealthy or impoverished are states that only apply to an illusory body-mind.  So there is no virtue in the body-mind being poor nor any vice in the body-mind having wealth—neither one has any effect on you, consciousness-existence. 

    3:2 – From self-ignorance comes attachment to illusory objects of perception, just as from ignorance of mother-of-pearl comes greed for illusory silver. 

    When you don’t know that you’re the non-dual self, the sole existent reality, you think that 1) objects are real and 2) that they are different or separate from you.  These beliefs are what makes attachment possible, because why would you be attached to an unreal object?  In the same way that greed for silver dissipates when it is known to be mother-of-pearl, attachment for objects dissipates when they are known to be illusory.    

    Does this mean that a person with self-knowledge has no desires?  First, if someone knows that they’re the self, they understand that they are not, never have been, and never will be a person.  Therefore, whether the person (the body-mind) has desires or not is ultimately immaterial. 

    Regardless, self-knowledge can—and should—inform the way the body-mind thinks and behaves.  So when the mind knows that at its essence it’s the sole unchanging existent reality, its desire for illusory objects should naturally decrease.  The next verse illustrates this point perfectly.     

    3:3 – Having known yourself to be that in which the universe appears like waves on the ocean, why do you run after objects as if you are in need? 

    If you have self-knowledge, you know that the body-mind is illusory and has nothing to do with you.  But despite being unreal, it does not suddenly disappear.  And according to rules of the universe the body-mind inhabits, it still needs food, shelter, clothing etc., assuming you do not want it to wither away and die; jobs, relationships and family commitments need to be maintained, assuming you want to keep them.  The difference is that you can tend to the body-mind and its circumstances without the undue stress caused by thinking it is real and that your well-being somehow depends on it.  As consciousness-existence, you are always completely fine, regardless of the state of the body-mind—even when it is running after objects as if it is in need.        

    3:4 – After hearing oneself to be pure consciousness and surpassingly beautiful, how can you continue to be attached to the impurity of sex?

    Pure consciousness, the self, can be considered “surpassingly beautiful” in a few different ways.  1) It is the most attractive ‘thing’ there is insofar as all actions are done for the sake of the self. 2) Beauty is often considered to be a measure of perfection; in this regard, owing to its utter lack of defect, the self—as opposed to inherently flawed objects—is “surpassingly beautiful.” 3) Since no beauty in the empirical world is even possible without consciousness being there as its very essence, it is “surpassingly beautiful.” 

    If you have discovered your own ‘inner beauty’ as the self, there is no need to be preoccupied with sensual pleasures such as sex that can never bring any lasting satisfaction.  But like the issue of wealth discussed in 3:1, there is nothing inherently wrong with sex, even for one who is free from self-ignorance.  It is a natural part of life and done consensually and respectfully, it is a healthy part of loving relationships. 

    Being an ascetic, perhaps Ashtavakra would not agree with this sentiment.  But having a monastic lifestyle doesn’t make a person more pure than someone who leads a normal life in the everyday world.  As Ashtavakra points out, you are pure consciousness; since purity is your nature, you can never be impure. 

    3:5 – It would be astonishing for the sense of ownership to continue in the wise one who knows that he is the self in all and that all is in the self.

    If you know that everything is yourself, then you can’t say you own anything for the simple fact that you can’t own yourself—you simply are yourself.  Does this mean that on the empirical level you suddenly lose all notions of having a body, a house, a car etc.?  No.  But the idea of ‘owning’ those things is put into perspective in light of the truth of non-duality–even though notions of ownership may persist, they are known to be completely baseless. 

    3:6 – It would be strange for one dwelling on the highest non-duality and intent on liberation to be impaired by the desire for enjoyment. 

    When you realize that transient objects can never give lasting satisfaction, your desire for them should become subservient to your desire to seek freedom from objects through self-knowledge. 

    3:7 – It is astonishing how one debilitated and approaching death could still have desire, even after ascertaining that its arising is unfriendly (contrary) to knowledge.

    After a lifetime of trying and failing to find fulfillment in fleeting objects it would be unfortunate if it didn’t become obvious that attainment of desires isn’t the key to satisfaction.  Ironically, pursuing desires is the main impediment to the fulfillment that is being sought because it keeps attention riveted outward, looking for solutions in external objects, thereby inhibiting the contemplation of the non-object ‘inner’ self—‘inner’ meaning it is the essence of everything—that leads to actual satisfaction through self-knowledge.      

    3:8 – It is strange that one who is unattached to the objects of this world and the next, who discriminates the eternal from the transient, and who longs for liberation (moksha), should yet fear liberation! 

    Even highly qualified students who are dispassionate (“unattached to the objects of this world and the next”) and able to discriminate the eternal (the self) from the transient (the ‘not-self’ i.e. objects) may fear the very liberation they are seeking.  Why?  Because it appears to be the destruction of their own individuality.  But this fear is unfounded and it stems from a basic misunderstanding of liberation.  Liberation, instead of being the destruction of the individual (the body-mind), is the destruction of self-ignorance. 

    This means that while the body-mind persists after liberation, the belief that you are the body-mind is what is destroyed.  Granted, since you have identified with the body-mind your entire life, this may still seem unsettling.  But seeing as the body-mind is the seat of all suffering, both mental and physical, negating the notion that it is who you are should be a welcome change. 

    Here is another way to look at it: the word “individuality” normally means to be an entity distinct from other entities and this is how people suffering from self-ignorance normally view themselves; they think they are one unique body-mind among many body-minds.  Self-knowledge does negate individuality in this sense.  But a word that is synonymous with “individuality” is “uniqueness,” which means to be “one of a kind.”  So even when self-knowledge destroys the idea that you are an individual body-mind, you still retain your individuality in the sense that as non-dual consciousness-existence—you are one of a kind because there is nothing other than you.  

  • A Conversation with Ashtavakra Pt. 9

    Read Part 8

    Have a question? Ask here.

    Want to support End of Knowledge? Donate here.

    Janaka said:       
    2:21 – I see no duality, despite the appearance of a multitude of human beings.  They have become like a wilderness. Of what interest are they to me? 

    When you come to the doubt-free understanding that you are the non-dual reality, the appearance of duality continues.  But similar to the way someone is alone in the wilderness despite being surrounded by trees, you are ‘alone’—meaning you know that you alone exist—even though it still looks like you are but one among many individual beings. 

    2:22 – I am not this body, nor is the body mine.  I am not an individual embodied being (jiva); I am consciousness. Desire for life—this indeed was my bondage. 

    It is evident from the preceding verses that you are not the body.  But to dispel the potential doubt that the body may somehow belong to you, Janaka states, “nor is the body mine.”  As non-dual consciousness, there is only you, so there is nothing for you to possess.  The appearance of the body makes it seems like there is something other than yourself that can belong to you.  But the body is an illusion—it can’t belong to anyone because it doesn’t really exist. 

    By saying “I am not an individual embodied being (jiva),” it seems like Janaka is merely restating his previous point of not being or having a body.  But “embodied being (jiva)” is a specific technical term—by using it he’s ruling out the possibility that the self is some kind of individual soul that incarnates in one body, only to transmigrate to another body after the first body dies.  Consciousness-existence is all-pervasive like space so it can’t be contained in one place, confined to a particular body.  And it can’t transmigrate from one place to another because it’s absolutely everywhere.  The implication here is that there is no such thing as reincarnation—it is just a product of self-ignorance.        

    There is one last point to be made regarding the notion of the self being an individual soul.  Some hold the view that there are innumerable separate selves, each one its own self-contained unit of infinite, eternal consciousness.  But this belief is untenable for the following reasons: 

    1) To be infinite is to be limitless and all-pervasive.  But if there is one individual self that is limitless and all-pervasive, there can’t be a second limitless all-pervasive self.  Why?  Because the existence of a second self would limit the existence of first self.  To be two distinct selves, they could not exist in the same place.  And if there were a place where the two selves didn’t exist, they would no longer be limitless and all-pervasive.   

    2)  There can’t be multiple selves of the nature of consciousness-existence because there are no distinctions whatsoever in consciousness-existence—it’s the same everywhere just like water is H2O whether it’s in a puddle, an ocean or a raincloud.  Just as there’s no difference in the H2O of two raindrops, there’s no distinction between the consciousness-existence of two beings.  It could be argued that two raindrops—despite both being H2O—are distinct entities because they are separated by space.  But this doesn’t apply to the case of consciousness-existence because it’s all-pervasive. 

    Since consciousness-existence is everywhere without exception and always of the same nature there can’t be multiple selves.              

    2:23 – On the rising of the wind of the mind, the various waves of the world are produced in me, the limitless ocean [of consciousness/existence]. 

    The mind doesn’t literally produce the world because both the world and the mind are equally the products of self-ignorance.  However, the mind is the instrument to experience “the various waves of the world.”  So it can be said that when the mind ‘rises’ from the dormancy of deep sleep, that experienced is ‘produced’ i.e. made possible. 

    Student:  What produces ignorance? 

    Teacher: It’s never really produced, the same way that water is never really produced in a mirage.  Ignorance is only ‘there’ until you realize that it’s not really there, like water in a mirage.  You alone exist—ignorance is not a second reality that exists over and above consciousness-existence.      

    2:24 – To the misfortune of the individual embodied being (jiva), the merchant, the ship of the world is destroyed when the wind of the mind comes to rest in me, the limitless ocean [of consciousness/existence]. 

    Here the individual is likened to a merchant because, owing to its sense of egoism, it is constantly ‘sailing’ around in the ‘ship’ of the world conducting ‘transactions’ of experience; it offers up its actions as payment and expects to be reimbursed with the results of its actions.  But when the world is destroyed—meaning when it is seen to be unreal—the belief in individuality is also destroyed, along with the sense of being a doer and enjoyer. 

    If you were an individual this would be most unfortunate.  But you are consciousness-existence—you never have been, and never will be, an individual embodied being.  Therefore, being divested of the belief that you’re an individual is quite fortunate because you’re relieved of the tremendous burden of feeling obsessively compelled to do certain actions; you’re released from the anxiety of wondering whether your actions will yield the appropriate results; you’re freed from the effort required to protect and maintain what you have accomplished. 

    Does this mean that when you understand that you’re consciousness-existence that the individual—the body-mind you thought you were—should simply lay around, inactive?   That it should quit its job, abandon its family and responsibilities, stop eating and just sit under a tree not caring what happens?  No, because the appearance of the world continues just as before and the nature of the body-mind is to perform action until it dies; even lying around doing nothing is an action. 

    This means the body-mind can, and will, do what it has always done.  And this is just fine because the body-mind is not real and it’s not you.  As consciousness-existence, you are relieved of the burden of doing action, released from anxiety about its results and freed from the effort of maintaining those results in the sense that you know that those things never had anything to do with you in the first place. 

    Granted, the body-mind is none other than you, consciousness-existence, the same way a clay pot is nothing but clay.  And it can benefit from keeping that fact in mind insofar as when it does actions it can do them knowing that as consciousness-existence it is never really doing anything.  And that it’s never truly affected by the results of action.  So in the midst of everyday life, the individual can have peace of mind, regardless of its circumstances.             

    2:25 – It is strange how individual embodied beings appear in me, the limitless ocean [of consciousness-existence].  Like waves they rise, play for a time, clash with one another and are eventually reabsorbed (disappear), each according to their own nature.

    The appearance of the world and the individual beings that inhabit it is truly inexplicable–despite any theories made by religion and philosophy, there is no explanation why things happen the way they do.  To rationalize the sickening abuse of a young child or the shocking carnage of genocide as the outcome of a just law of cause and effect is naïve and insensitive.  More importantly, it is unprovable.  The truth is that things simply happen and we have no idea why. 

    But when you have self-knowledge, this is not troubling.  The world and its inhabitants, although strange, are known to be an illusion, a dream.  Even when things appear to be happening, nothing is happening at all.  Consciousness-existence is merely existing, ever action-less and unchanged.  Awaken from the dream and know that everything is alright.    

     

  • A Conversation with Ashtavakra Pt. 8

    Read Part 7

    Have a question? Ask here.

    Want to support the work of End of Knowledge? Donate here.

    Janaka said:
    2:15 – Knowledge, knower and that which is known—these three do not exist in reality.  Through ignorance, they appear in me, the stainless (the self). 

    At first Vedanta says that you, consciousness, are the knower and that all objects known to you—because they are transient—do not really exist.  So why is Janaka saying that the knower doesn’t exist?  Because knowing is also a transient object.  It may seem like Vedanta is contradicting itself but there is a good reason for the teaching to initially describe consciousness as the knower and that is to deny the idea that consciousness could be a known object.  Once that notion is refuted, the idea that you are the knower no longer has any purpose—so the teaching negates it.   

    Student:  If my nature is consciousness, how can I not be the knower?  Consciousness is what knows. 

    Teacher:  Knowing is an action.  But in Verse 1:12, Ashtavakra explicitly denies all action on the part of the self by calling it “action-less.”  So consciousness can’t be the knower.  At best you can say that consciousness makes knowing possible by ‘illuminating’ knowledge of an object and the knower of that knowledge.  And it does this without any action on its part because as consciousness, its very nature is ‘luminous.’ 

    But this is only a temporary explanation because, being non-dual, there is nothing other than consciousness for it to illuminate.  That’s why the verse says that knowledge, the knower and the known objects don’t exist.  They only seem to exist when the non-dual nature of consciousness is not known.               

    2:16 – All misery is rooted in duality.  There is no other cure for it except the realization that all that is experienced is unreal.  I am one alone; I am of the essence of pure consciousness. 

    The body-mind is where all suffering—both physical and mental—occurs.  Since the existence of the body-mind, and subsequent identification with it, is only possible owing to a belief in duality i.e. self-ignorance, duality is the root of all misery.  And the only cure for this misery is to understand that the body-mind is not real and that, despite any appearances to the contrary, you are non-dual pure consciousness. 

    Now, when you come to this realization, does the body-mind suddenly disappear? No.  Does it stop suffering and experience unending peace and happiness?  Absolutely not.  The body-mind continues just as it did before.  The difference is that you know for certain that the problems of the body-mind are totally unreal and that they do not belong to you in any way whatsoever, similar to the way you understand that the problems of other people’s bodies and minds have nothing to do with you.    

    2:17 – I am pure consciousness. I am conceived as limited only through ignorance.  Constantly reflecting on this truth, free from all doubt, I remain established in myself. 

    Even when you have no doubt that you are limitless consciousness, habitual thoughts of limitation may continue to appear in the mind, causing negative emotions.  To combat those patterns of limiting thoughts, you simply need to remind yourself of what you know to be true.  In this way you remain ‘established’ in yourself, meaning you get the thinking of the mind in harmony with what you know to be true about yourself.       

    2:18 – I am neither bound nor am I free.  Delusion, no longer having a support, has come to rest (ceased).  The universe, though appearing to exist in me, does not in reality exist.

    Bondage is only an idea based on the delusion of identifying with the body-mind—in your true nature as consciousness-existence, you can never be bound.  This means, however, that you can also never be free for the simple reason that freedom is also just an idea, the idea of being released from imaginary bondage. 

    This may seems like an unnecessary point to make but it isn’t because to say, “I am now free from bondage (ignorance)” is to admit that you were once bound by it, which is itself the product of ignorance!  Granted, it can be figuratively said that as non-dual consciousness-existence you are ‘free’ of the illusory body-mind.  But technically, since both bondage and freedom are purely dualistic concepts—and therefore unreal—you are never affected by either of them.        

    2:19 – I have known for certain that there is no such thing as this body and this world.  There is only me (the self), pure consciousness.  [If this is so] on what can the imagination [of the body and world] now be based?

    When you understand that everything is yourself, pure consciousness, there is no longer any possibility of imagining the body and world to be real.  The basis of this imagination, ignorance, is gone. 

    2:20 – Body, fear, heaven and hell, bondage and freedom—all of these are fictional (imagined through self-ignorance).  What do they have to do with me, consciousness? 

    If the body—and by extension, the mind—is imaginary, then there is no real reason to fear since fear always pertains to the state or circumstances of the body, whether it be ‘your’ body or someone else’s.  Regardless of whether the body is in a pleasant state or circumstance such as heaven or freedom, or in an unpleasant state or circumstance such as hell or bondage, it is of no concern to you, consciousness.  Since all of those states and circumstances are unreal, they have absolutely nothing to do with you. 

    Now, does this mean that when you know that you’re consciousness-existence that the body-mind should abandon all conventions of the illusory world and step out into a busy street declaring, “There is nothing to fear!”?  Assuming the body-mind does not want to be maimed or killed, no.  Instead, it should conduct its everyday affairs just as it did before enlightenment, but with the understanding that all actions are illusory.  Knowing that, there is no need for undue concern about action and it can be performed for its own sake simply because it needs to be done.  And no matter what the outcome you can have peace of mind knowing that as consciousness-existence, you are always completely fine.

  • A Conversation with Ashtavakra Pt. 7

    Have a question? Ask Here.

    Want to support End of Knowledge? Donate Here.

    Read Part 6 here. 

    Janaka said:
    2:11 – Salutations to myself who would not be destroyed even if the entire universe, from the creator down to a clump of grass, were destroyed. 

    The universe is purely an illusion so regardless of its condition or whether it be present or absent, you remain completely unchanged. 

    The mention of a creator in this verse does establish that one actually exists any more than the mention of a clump of grass establishes the reality of grass—they are both illusory.  This means the creator and the grass are mentioned figuratively for the sake of example in order to make it clear that absolutely everything in the apparent creation—from the ‘highest’ (the creator) to the ‘lowest’ (a clump of grass)—could be destroyed and you would be unaffected.  But this does not change the fact that the creator and the grass never really exist.  In a non-dual reality, there is only the self-existent self that never changes—nothing, therefore, can be created.  If nothing can be created, then there can’t be a creator. 

    Student:  Isn’t the universe a creation? 

    Teacher:  No, it is an illusion. 

    Student:  Well, isn’t the illusion of the universe a creation, like an illusion created by a magician?    

    Teacher:  When a magician saws a person in half, does she create a person that has been cut in two? 

    Student: No. 

    Teacher:  Then how can you speak of a magician creating something? 

    Student:  Granted, the magician doesn’t literally create a person sawed in half.  But she does create the appearance of a person sawed in half, yes? 

    Teacher:  Yes.  But the magician is separate from her illusion—they are distinct entities.  So your example doesn’t apply to the topic at hand because unlike the duality of the magician and her illusion, reality is non-dual.  There is only you, consciousness-existence, not you plus a creation called “illusion.”     

    Student:  But I see the illusion.          

    Teacher:  I do too.  No one is denying that.  But my point is that seeing the illusion of the universe doesn’t mean the universe actually exists or that it’s a literal creation.  Tell me: is the illusion of the universe separate or non-separate from consciousness-existence?    

    Student:  If reality is non-dual, then it must be non-separate. 

    Teacher:  So the illusion of the universe can’t be anything other than consciousness-existence, correct?

    Student:  Yes.    

    Teacher:  Is consciousness-existence ever created?  Does it ever change?    

    Student:  No.  It is self-existent and it doesn’t change.     

    Teacher:  Creation, by definition, is when something new is brought into existence or something already existent is changed to make something new.  If consciousness-existence is the only thing that exists and it can’t be created or changed, creation is not possible.  Creation is only an idea, a baseless illusion caused by not knowing that what appears to be the creation is really consciousness-existence.   

    Student:  What if the universe isn’t brought into existence because it already exists in a potential form in consciousness-existence, similar to the way a pot exists in a potential form in clay? That way, creation is the universe manifesting, like a pot manifesting from clay.    

    Teacher:  Manifestation implies change so on those grounds, creation is still not possible. 

    Student:  But the fundamental nature of consciousness-existence wouldn’t change because the manifestation of the universe would only be apparent.  It would be like a pot apparently manifesting from clay without changing the fundamental nature of the clay.   

    Teacher:  “Apparent manifestation” means “doesn’t actually manifest” and that is just another way of saying illusion—I think you’ve proven my point.  But before moving on, let’s take one last look at the notion of the universe existing in consciousness-existence in potential.  This is the theory that consciousness-existence is the cause and the universe is the created effect.  To see if this can be true, let’s go back to the example of the clay and the pot, the clay being the cause and the pot being the potential effect that exists in the clay.  Now, is the potential pot clay or something other than clay?      

    Student:  It would have to be clay.   

    Teacher:  Then nothing other than the clay exists, yes? 

    Student:  Yes.

    Teacher:  If nothing other than the clay exists, then the pot must be non-existent.  And a non-existent pot can never come into existence as an effect.  If the effect doesn’t exist, then the clay can’t be a cause.  It can only appear to be a cause when the apparent effect of the pot is believed to be a real entity.  In the same way, if nothing other than consciousness/existence exists, then the universe must be non-existent.  And consciousness-existence can’t be the cause of a non-existent effect.  It can only appear to be a cause when the apparent effect of the universe is believed to be real.     

    Student:  This all makes sense on a logical level but the fact that the universe appears as part of my everyday experience makes the issue confusing.    

    Teacher:  Yes, it is confusing—that’s the nature of ignorance.  Tell me, have you ever seen a gold bracelet?  

    Student:  Of course.    

    Teacher:  Even though the circular shape of the bracelet appears in your experience, is there anything there besides gold?

    Student:  No. 

    Teacher:  Ok.  You, consciousness-existence are like the gold and the form of the bracelet is like the appearance of the universe.  Just as the circular shape is an illusion that is never really produced—despite being seen—the universe is an illusion that is never actually created, even though it is experienced.  In the end you can’t even say the universe exists even as an illusion because similar to the way the circular shape of a bracelet is purely gold with nothing added whatsoever, so the universe is absolutely nothing but you, consciousness-existence.                   

    2:12 – Salutations to myself who, despite having a body, am one alone.  Because I pervade the entire universe, I neither go anywhere nor come from anywhere. 

    Based on his previous statement, it’s obvious that Janaka knows he is consciousness-existence and that consciousness-existence never has a body.  So when he says “despite having a body, [I] am one alone” he means, “despite looking like I have a body, [I] am one alone.”  The one with self-knowledge knows that even though they ‘have’ a body—meaning it continues to appear post-enlightenment—it is an unreal appearance that neither affects nor divides them in any way. 

    2:13 – Salutations to myself.  There is none equal to my capability, I who forever support the entire universe without touching it with the body.

    The body-mind is the instrument of action.  So what is meant by the statement “without touching it (the universe) with the body” is that consciousness-existence ‘supports’ the universe—meaning it makes the existence of the universe possible—without doing anything whatsoever because existence is it’s very nature.  Since nothing but consciousness-existence exists, nothing else has the ‘capability’ to ‘support’ the appearance of the universe by ‘lending’ it existence.         

    2:14 – Salutation to myself who have nothing or have all that is thought and spoken of.

    This is a reiteration of what was said in Verse 2:2.    

  • A Conversation with Ashtavakra Pt. 6

    This week, Janaka continues his statement of self-knowledge from PART 5.

    Janaka said:
    2:6 – Just as crystallized sugar is completely permeated by the sweetness of the sugarcane from which it is produced, so the universe produced in me is completely permeated by me. 

    The true nature of something is that which is essential to its existence, something that, if taken away, the thing itself would cease to be.  For instance, if it were possible to remove heat from fire or wetness from water they would no longer exist, because heat and wetness are the essence of fire and water.

    On the other hand, an incidental quality of something is that which can be removed or changed while the nature of the thing itself remains unchanged.  If the color of fire changes from red to blue, the fact that it’s hot does not. This means the color of the fire—as opposed to heat, its essential nature—is merely an incidental quality.  Similarly, the form of water can change from a wave, to mist to rain but the wetness of the water does not; the form of the water is an incidental quality while the wetness of the water is its true nature.   

    That doesn’t mean an incidental quality is separate from the thing it is removed from.  The red, yellow or blue color of a flame is completely permeated by the heat of the fire from which it comes.  And there is no wave—from a ripple in a pond to a tsunami in the ocean—that is in any way separate from the wetness of the water from which it is comprised. Knowing this relationship between the essential nature of something and its incidental qualities, what Janaka says in this verse can be understood.  Just as crystallized sugar is permeated by sweetness, the essential nature of sugar cane, so the universe is pervaded by consciousness/existence, the essential nature of the self.  But unlike sugarcane, which undergoes a real transformation to become sugar—meaning after the sugar is produced, the sugarcane is gone—the self never transforms into objects.  It only appears to do so, in the same way that water appears to become a wave.

    2:7 – The world appears because of self-ignorance and disappears owing to self-knowledge, just as a snake appears from non-cognition of a rope and disappears when the rope is recognized. 

    You only see the world when you don’t understand that it’s the self, the same way that you only see a snake when you don’t realize it’s a rope.  And just as you can no longer see a snake when you become aware of the existence of the rope, you can no longer see the world when you have knowledge of the self.  However, the literal meaning of the word “see” only applies to the example of the snake and the rope, because seeing a snake where there is only a rope is a perceptual error that disappears when the rope is known.  But in the case of mistaking the self to be the world, even after you realize it is the self, the ‘snake’ of the world does not go away.  You continue to perceive and experience the world exactly the same way as someone who does not know they are the self; the only difference is that you no longer believe the world is real.          

    2:8 – Light is my very nature and I am never other than that.  I alone shine, even when the universe appears. 

    As previously mentioned (1:18), light is a metaphor for consciousness because it is the invariable factor in every experience that ‘illuminates’ all objects by making it possible for them to be known.  Nothing in the universe has the ability to ‘shine’ in this way, not even apparently luminous objects such as the sun.  Not even its light can ‘illumine’ anything—meaning make something known—without you, consciousness, being present. 

    2:9 – The universe appears in me, conceived through ignorance, just as silver appears in mother of pearl, as a snake appears in a rope or water appears in the desert (as a mirage). 

    As Janaka unequivocally states, the only reason the universe appears is ignorance.  Although it seen it never actually exists, just as silver, a snake or water, although seen, never exist in mother of pearl, a rope or a mirage.  From this fact it follows that there is no need to waste time trying to understand how or why the universe manifests because it never does.  It only seems to when you do not know that it is really just you, consciousness/existence. 

    Even if that makes sense, you may be tempted to inquire into the nature of ignorance or perhaps to whom it belongs.  But this too is unproductive, because the nature of self-ignorance, to state the obvious, is not knowing you are the self.  And if you do not know you are the self, then the self-ignorance belongs to you.  At that point the only pertinent thing to do is to get rid of the ignorance, not sit around pondering what ignorance is. Luckily, Vedanta gives you the tools to do this.  Ironically, when inquiry guided by the logic of Vedanta removes ignorance, it clearly demonstrates that you, the self, were never ignorant in the first place; it only seemed that way when you thought you were the body-mind.       

    2:10 – Just as a clay pot is dissolved into clay, a wave is dissolved into water and a gold bracelet is dissolved into gold, so the universe which has emanated from me will dissolve into me.

    There are two ways in which a clay pot, a wave and a gold bracelet can be dissolved into clay, water and gold, respectively.  The first way is literal: the form of the clay pot, the wave or the gold bracelet are physically destroyed, leaving behind the clay, water or gold from which they are composed. The second way is figurative: the clay pot, wave or gold bracelet are ‘dissolved’ into clay, water or gold through understanding that a clay pot is nothing but clay, a wave is only water and a gold bracelet is none other than gold.  In the same way, the universe is ‘dissolved’ into you, consciousness/existence, by the knowledge that it is consciousness/existence alone. 

    Have a question?  ASK HERE. 

    Want to support the work of End of Knowledge? DONATE HERE. 

    Please help by using the “Share” buttons below to re-post this article on Twitter, Facebook or Google.