End Of Knowledge

Tag: advaita

  • A Conversation with Ashtavakra Pt. 29

    Read Part 28 / Ask a Question / Support End of Knowledge
    Ashtavakra said:
    18:11 – It makes no difference to the yogi whose nature is unconditioned whether they gain or lose, live in society or retire to the forest, rule in heaven or beg for alms.  

    “Unconditioned yogi” can be taken two ways.  Literally, it refers to someone that’s assimilated self-knowledge to such a degree that it neutralizes their negative emotions.  In other words, they’re so used to thinking of themselves as the ever-free, unchanging self that they no longer get upset when faced with unpleasant circumstances.  For the record, becoming a person without negative emotions isn’t the objective of Vedanta—it’s a side effect.  The real objective is to see that you’re the self, which isn’t a person in the first place. 

    And that brings me to my next point: Metaphorically, “unconditioned yogi” refers to the self.  Since the self isn’t a person, it’s ever unconditioned (unaffected) by the circumstances body-mind finds itself in.     

    18:12 – Where is dharma (performance of ritualistic or meritorious works), where is artha (worldly prosperity), where is kama (sense-enjoyment), and where is discrimination for the yogi who has transcended such dualistic notions as “this is to be done” and “this is not to be done”?

    Another way to phrase the question is this:  What is to be gained from action when you’ve transcended dualistic notions and realized that you’re the limitless self?  Nothing, because merit, prosperity, pleasure and discrimination (self-inquiry) only apply to the illusory body-mind. Alternately, what action can you perform or avoid when you’re the action-less self, ever-free of the doer (ego)?            

    18:13 – The yogi who is liberated while living, has neither attachment nor a sense of duty.  Their actions pertain to the present life only, being merely the effects of his past karma.

    In relation to enlightenment, the theory of karma goes something like this:  You have a storehouse of karma accumulated in innumerable past lives.  At birth, a portion of your stored karma manifests to create a body-mind along with the appropriate conditions the body-mind needs to experience the effects of its past karma.  As you go through life identifying with the body-mind, thinking its actions belong to you, new karma is created that will come to fruition in either your present life or a future life. 

    But when you realize that you’re actually the self and not the body-mind—the doer of karma—the storehouse of your karma is cleared.  Regardless, the stored karma that’s already been released to create your current life still has to play out, similar to the way that an arrow, once loosed from a bow, has to travel on its predetermined trajectory.  However, since this process is merely the exhaustion of previous karma, it doesn’t create new karma.  And without new karma, there’s no necessity for the future birth of another body-mind to reap the effects.  This is how the actions of a yogi who’s liberated while living only pertain to the present life—their actions are merely the effects of past karma that don’t create the seeds for future rebirth.     

    I’m glossing over this topic because frankly, it’s silly.  And my opinion is in accordance with Vedanta texts such as Aparokshanubhuti which say that explaining how karma relates to enlightened beings is only for the benefit of those who don’t understand the nature of enlightenment.  Why?  Because the entire theory of karma hinges on the notion that you’re a body-mind that performs action and experiences it’s effects.  But enlightenment unequivocally negates that notion, showing that you never have been, and never will be, the body-mind.  That means in light of self-knowledge, the theory of karma loses its relevance.   

    So you don’t have to destroy your storehouse of karma—you just have to see that it doesn’t belong to you in the first place.  Once you’ve realized that, there’s no reason to explain how and why the body-mind–which never has and never will belong to you– continues to act. 

    18:14 – Where is delusion, where is the universe, where is renunciation, moreover where is liberation for the great-souled one who rests beyond the world of desires?

    That which “rests beyond the world of desires” is your true nature, the self.  The self, being the sole non-dual reality, is “beyond” (meaning it’s unaffected by) the dualistic illusion of the universe and everything it contains, such as delusion etc. 

    18:15 – One who sees the universe may try to deny it. What has the desireless to do? They see not, even though they see.

    When you believe the world is real, you may deny it by trying to manipulate it, change it, negate it or outright avoid it.  But when you know the world isn’t real, what is there to deny?  Even though you still experience the world, you know it’s not really there—you see not, even though you see.  With that, the logic behind wanting to manipulate, change, negate or avoid the world is nullified.   And this is immensely freeing because you can approach the world from the standpoint of self-knowledge, knowing that it isn’t some objective problem that needs to be solved.  It just is what it is—a strange illusion—and you’re always okay regardless.     

    Read Part 28 / Ask a Question / Support End of Knowledge

           

     

  • A Conversation with Ashtavakra Pt. 28

    Read Part 27 / Ask a Question / Support End of Knowledge

    I was recently asked why I don’t give more extensive explanations for the verses in this text.  One reason is that the Ashtavakra Samhita is an advanced text that assumes prior knowledge of the subject matter it teaches.  The other is that the most common teaching method of Vedanta is dialogue.  If an inquirer has a question, they discuss it with a teacher so the teacher can help them get the proper perspective on their query.  So if you need further clarification on any of these verses, feel free to ask.      

    Ashtavakra said:
    18:6 – Illusion ceases and sorrow is dispelled when one sees clearly that their true nature is the self. 

    As far as Vedanta is concerned, illusion comes in two basic forms.  The first is the belief that the body-mind and the world it inhabits are real.  The second is the belief that the body-mind, or at least some part of it, is the self. 

    By realizing the true self, consciousness-existence, the illusion ceases.  But does that mean the body-mind and the world literally disappear?  Not at all.  They continue just as before.  But despite their continued appearance, you know they’re not real, similar to the way you can realize a dream is unreal while you’re still having it.    

    Does knowing that the body-mind and world are like a dream make all sorrow disappear?  No.  Sorrow is part and parcel of the dream.  When you still think the dream is real, you identify with the suffering of the body-mind and think it belongs to you. But when you know the dream is unreal—and that you’re actually the self—you understand that you always have and always will be untouched by sorrow.       

    18:7 – Knowing all as mere imagination and the self as free and eternal, does the wise one need to resort to study or practice like a child? 

    At the beginning of self-inquiry, the attention of the mind is usually fragmented and projected outward in an attempt to find satisfaction in external situations.  Like a child, it needs training.  In Vedanta, that training usually takes the form of scriptural study and spiritual practice.  Through repeated hearing of the texts and dedication to practices such as meditation and yoga, the mind of the inquirer becomes calm and focused, which allows it to turn ‘inward’ in order to consistently investigate—and hopefully see firsthand—the nature of the self. 

    In light of the knowledge, “I am the self,” all scriptures and spiritual practices are seen to be just another aspect of the illusory world—they are known to be “mere imagination.”  At that point they can be given up.  But not before that.  The scriptures and practices are like a boat that helps you get from one bank of the river to the other.  Once you know who you are, you don’t need to keep studying and practicing, the same way that once you get to the other side of the river you don’t need to carry the boat on your head.  But similar to the way you’ll be left treading water if you discard the boat before you reach the opposite bank, you’ll make little to no progress in self-inquiry if you discard study and practice before gaining self-knowledge.   

    Does that mean enlightenment isn’t possible for people who don’t do Hindu spiritual practices or study traditional Vedanta texts?  Since I’d have to know the backstory of every enlightened person that’s ever walked the planet in order to answer that, I have to admit that I’m not certain. 

    But what I do know is that Vedanta is an excellent tool for discovering your true nature, one that’s helped me and many people I know.  It’s the accumulated wisdom of countless people over thousands of years, so a lot of thought has gone into how it operates.  Because of that I teach the Vedantic method and encourage others to give it fair consideration. If you find another method that works better, great.  Because the point is to get enlightened, not how you get enlightened.     

    18:8 – Knowing for certain that oneself is brahman and that existence and non-existence are imaginary, what does one who is free from desire, know, say or do?

    The answer is simple:  They know, say and do whatever they feel is necessary with the understanding that as the self, they’re never knowing, saying or doing anything. 

    18:9 – For a yogi that knows all is the self, false notions such as, “I am this” or “I am not that” are destroyed.  Such a yogi becomes silent. 

    Discrimination, the fundamental practice of self-inquiry, is continuously affirming that you’re the self (“I am this”) while negating your identity with the body-mind (“I am not that”).  Once you’ve negated your identity with the body-mind, inquiry points you towards the vision of non-duality where your viewpoint shifts from, “I am not the body-mind.  I am the self” to “There is only me, the self.  The body-mind is me, but it’s only an illusory appearance of myself that never affects me.”  When this is realized, you “become silent,” meaning you no longer need to practice discrimination, seeing as it employs false dualistic notions like “this” and “that.”         

    18:10 – The yogi who has attained tranquility has no distraction, no concentration, no increase in knowledge, no ignorance, and neither pleasure nor pain.

    The “yogi who has attained tranquility” is the one who knows that they’re the self.  As the self they’re free from the body-mind and all its states such as distraction and concentration, even though those states continue for the body-mind itself.  So while there’s no happy ending for the body-mind, the one with self-knowledge can rest easy regardless of what condition the body-mind happens to be in.  

    Read Part 27 / Ask a Question / Support End of Knowledge

     

  • A Conversation with Ashtavakra Pt. 27

    Read Part 26 / Ask a Question / Support End of Knowledge
    CHAPTER 18: Part One

    While a final book version of this commentary is still in the works, I changed my mind and decided to publish the last three chapters online for free.  I’m not saying I’ll never write a book with the intention of selling it (many teachers do), but it always feels a little awkward to set out to create a “product” to be sold rather than giving away the knowledge to those who need it.  Still, studying these texts and commenting on them takes up a great deal of time, so if you find these posts beneficial and you feel inclined to donate to support the ongoing work, I am grateful.  Without further ado…      

    Ashtavakra said:
    18:1 – Salutations to that peaceful effulgence whose nature is bliss, knowing which all delusion becomes like a dream. 

    The self—meaning your true nature—is peaceful insofar as it’s unchanging and free from the activities of the body-mind.  And it’s effulgent—shining—as the light of consciousness that illuminates the body-mind.  When you know you’re the actionless, shining self, any former ideas of thinking you’re the body-mind—or that the world it inhabits is real—become like a dream.  Yes, the body-mind and world remain as they are, but you’ve seen through their illusion. 

    18:2 – One can get plenty of enjoyment by acquiring worldly objects. But surely one cannot be happy without renouncing all.

    Gaining things in the world gives enjoyment.  But since everything in the world is temporary, the enjoyment never lasts.  So in order to be truly happy—meaning satisfied—you need something to rely on that’s always available and never changes.  The only ‘thing’ that fits the bill is your own self, which luckily, you can never be apart from.  When you clear away the false notions you have about yourself—the main one being, “I am the body-mind”—you see that ironically you’ve been the self the whole time you’ve been futilely searching for satisfaction in the body-mind or the circumstances it inhabits. At that point, you can “renounce all” by turning your attention away from external objects in favor of dwelling on your true nature.  In other words, when life gives you lemons—which it frequently does—you can drink the sweet lemonade of self-knowledge and be content knowing that no matter what, you’re always just fine. 

    18:3 – How can there be tranquility for one who has been burnt by the painful sun of doership without the continuous shower of the nectar of happiness? 

    When you believe you’re the body-mind, you think, “I have to do such-and-such or avoid such-and-such to be at peace.”  Because of that, you’re continuously scorched by the sun of feeling like you have to do—or not do—something to be satisfied.  What’s the solution?  It’s the nectar of happiness, the ‘lemonade’ of self-knowledge I mentioned in the previous verse.  Because doing or not doing something can never be the solution to the burden of doership—it can only perpetuate the problem.  To be free from doership, you need self-knowledge to see that you’re never the doer in the first place.    

    18:4 – This universe is merely imagined.  From the standpoint of the highest reality, it is nothing.  But there is no non-existence for those that discriminate their true nature from both the existent and non-existent. 

    A wave is normally thought to exist as a standalone, independent thing.  But when you know the wave is really just an appearance of water, the wave is seen to be “nothing,” as in nothing but water—it has no existence apart from water.  In the same way, the universe usually is believed to be an objective reality.  But when you know the universe is just an appearance of the self, you understand that it’s “nothing,” meaning nothing but your own the self. 

    In everyday language, objects in the world fall into the categories of “existent” or “non-existent.”  For example, the sun is existent, while the son of a woman who can’t have children is non-existent.  Or in another context, when the body-mind is born, it’s existent.  And when it dies, it’s non-existent.  Now, if you’re the body-mind, that’s a problem.  But when you discriminate your true nature from both existence and non-existence—which are both just concepts that apply to unreal objects—you understand there can be no non-existence for you, the self.  It’s not as if you find out that you’re a permanently existing object.  Rather, you see that you’re existence itself, the very essence of all conceptually existent or non-existent objects, the same way that water is the essence of all conceptually existent or non-existent waves.             

    18:5 – The self which is absolute, effortless, immutable, and spotless, is neither far away nor limited. It is verily ever attained.

    The self is never far away because it’s your true nature.  And there’s nothing you can do to become (attain) what you already are.  At best, you can only divest yourself of the notion that you’re the body-mind and appreciate the fact that you’ve been the self all along. 

    Note:  The Ashtavakra Samhita is an advanced text that offers little to no supporting logic for its claims—it generally assumes you already know what it’s talking about.  That being the case, it can be a difficult text for beginning to intermediate students.  If you’re such a student, please feel free to contact me for further clarification on verses you don’t understand.  I’m always willing to help sincere inquirers.  

    Read Part 26 / Ask a Question / Support End of Knowledge

     

  • A Conversation with Ashtavakra Pt. 26

    Read Part 25 / Ask a Question / Support End of Knowledge
    CHAPTER 17: Part Two
    Ashtavakra said: 
    17:11 – The liberated one is always found abiding in the self and is pure in heart; they live free from all desires, under all conditions.

    If you are the self, then how can you abide in the self you already are?  Technically, you can’t.  So in this verse, “the liberated one” is referring to a mind that has self-knowledge (or a mind that lacks self-ignorance, whichever way you want to look at it). And a mind like that can ‘abide’ in the self inasmuch as it can dwell on the implications of what it means to be the self.  In other words, when a mind with self-knowledge is presented with problematic situations or uncomfortable thoughts and emotions, it can remember that it’s still okay because at its essence, it’s always the unchanging, limitless self. 

    In Vedanta, heart and mind aren’t two different things, seeing as what’s normally regarded as heart is a  collection of feelings that only appear in the mind.  So is a mind with self-knowledge always pure?  Since the author doesn’t give a precise definition of the word “pure” it’s hard to tell exactly what he means.  Assuming he’s using the word “pure” in the common sense of being free of all negative thoughts and emotions, then no, a mind with self-knowledge is never completely pure.  Why?  Because the mind is part and parcel of the relative world and nothing in the relative world, being made up of parts that continuously change, can be fully purified or made to remain one way all of the time.  

    For the same reason, a mind with self-knowledge can never be free of desires, at least not in the literal sense.  Desire will continue to arise naturally.  However, there is a certain level of choice that the mind can exercise when confronted with those desires.  It can ‘abide’ in the self, evaluating whether or not to indulge a desire in light of the fact that as the self, there’s nothing to be gained by doing so.    

    But if you follow that line of reasoning to its natural conclusion, there’s also nothing to lose by pursuing a desire, seeing as the self is unaffected either way.  Furthermore, while I agree that a mind free of desire is preferable to a mind full of desire, wanting the mind to be free of desire is, ironically, just another desire.  So in order to have a mind free of desire, you still have to have the desire to ‘abide’ in the implications of self-knowledge in order to get rid of the desire.  That means the only way to really be free of all desires is to recognize that as the self, you’re free under all conditions, even the condition of desire being present in the mind.         

    17:12 – Seeing, hearing, touching, smelling, eating, taking, speaking and walking, the great-souled one, free from all efforts and non-efforts, is verily emancipated.

    When you realize you’re the self, you see clearly that you’re not the ego, the part of the mind that claims, “I’m doing this” or “I’m not doing that.”  In that way you’re free from all “efforts and non-efforts,” despite the continued thoughts and actions of the mind-body.  

    17:13 – The liberated one neither slanders nor praises, neither rejoices nor is angry, neither gives nor takes. They are free from attachment to all objects.

    As the self, the liberated one neither slanders nor praises etc. As the self, they’re free from all attachment.  Their body-mind may still slander or praise, rejoice or get angry, give or take.  Or have attachment to objects, even if it’s just an attachment for having peace in the mind. This isn’t a problem, however, because they know that they’re not the body-mind nor affected by it.         

    17:14 – The great-souled one is not perturbed and remains self-poised at the sight of a woman (or man) full of love as well as of approaching death. They are indeed liberated.

    To react the same way to the approach of death as to the sight of a loved one would truly be an admirable feat.  But to whom would the credit for this feat belong?  To you, the self, or to the mind?  To the mind.  So in this verse the “great-souled one” isn’t referring directly to you, the self, but a poised mind, firmly rooted in the knowledge, “As the self, I’m completely fine in all circumstances.” Because as the self you’re neither perturbed nor calm, poised nor flustered, liberated nor bound.  

    Keeping in view the distinction between the relative level of the mind and the ‘absolute’ level of the self while reading these verses is crucial in order to avoid the confusion of identifying with the mind instead of the self.  If verses like this give you a constructive example of the type of mind you want to strive for, then great.  I honestly think that’s their purpose.  But don’t get confused, thinking that you’re more or less enlightened because of the condition of your mind.  Being enlightened is knowing you’re the self.  That means there’s nothing the mind can do (or not do) to make you more (or less) than the self you already are.         

    17:15 – The steady one who sees the same everywhere, sees no difference between happiness and misery, man and woman, and prosperity and adversity.

    The “steady one” isn’t you, the self, but a mind that knows that ultimately everything is the same as the self.  At times when the mind is experiencing something it doesn’t like, this knowledge is helpful because it helps to reduce your aversion to the experience, seeing as there’s no point in being averse to your own self.  But the knowledge only applies on a cognitive level.  Because it’s not as if you’d just as soon drink a hot, delicious cup of coffee thrown as have it thrown in your face, simply because at the ultimate level, both experiences are the self.     

    17:16 – In the wise one whose worldly life is exhausted and who has transcended the limitations of human nature, there is neither compassion nor any desire to harm, neither humility nor insolence, neither wonder nor mental disturbance.

    To be human is to be a body-mind.  How then can a body-mind, even a “wise one,” transcend its own human nature by simply behaving in a different way?  It can’t because it would still be a body-mind, just a body-mind behaving in a different way than before.  So the only way to truly transcend the limitations of human nature is to realize that as the self, you’re not human in the first place.       

    17:17 – The liberated one neither abhors the objects of the senses nor craves for them.  Ever with a detached mind he experiences them as they come.

    When the “liberated one”—the mind with self-knowledge—understands what it means to be the self, it can have less attraction and aversion for sense objects.  It can become more detached to experience in general.  But to be truly free from those things is simply to appreciate that as the self, you’re never attached to, or detached from, sense objects in the first place. 

    17:18 – The wise one of vacant mind knows not the conflict of contemplation and non-contemplation, good and evil. He abides as it were in the absolute state.

    If your mind is vacant—literally shunya, meaning “void” or “empty”—then there’s obviously not going to be anything going on, not contemplation or non-contemplation, not recognition of good or evil.  So I can’t argue with that statement.  But I will argue that being a “wise one”—meaning one with self-knowledge—doesn’t mean your mind is non-functioning, especially considering that enlightenment is knowing you’re the self, not an empty mind (I’ll elaborate on this point further in Verse 20). 

    “Absolute state” is a translation of the word Sanskrit word kaivalya.  As I mentioned in the commentary to verse 11:6, this term has different definitions, depending on the school of Indian Philosophy that’s using it.  Literally, it means “aloofness, aloneness, isolation” (See “A Concise Dictionary of Indian Philosophy” by John Grimes).  In this sense it describes the nature of the self, seeing as the self is aloof (impersonal, detached from the world) and non-dual (alone or isolated by default, because there’s nothing other than the self).  So to say that the mind of one with self-knowledge abides in the knowledge that the self is kaivalya is accurate.  It’s inaccurate, however, to describe kaivalya as a state.  Because kaivalya is what the self is, it’s nature, not a state or condition it achieves. 

    17:19 – Devoid of the feeling of “I” and “mine”, knowing for certain that nothing is, and with all their inner desires set at rest, the one with knowledge does not act though they may be acting.

    Being crucial to the functioning of the mind, the ego can’t disappear unless the mind itself isn’t present, such as when you’re unconscious or asleep.  This means a mind endowed with self-knowledge will surely still have an ego, the sense of “I” and “mine.”  The difference is that the one who knows they’re the self doesn’t identify with the ego, thinking it belongs to them or defines them.  In that way, the “one with knowledge” doesn’t act, at least not as the self, even when the body-mind does. 

    The “one with knowledge” knows for certain that “nothing is” insofar as they understand that the body-mind—as well as the world it inhabits—are nothing but insubstantial illusions whose only reality is the self.       

    17:20 – An indescribable state is attained by the wise one whose mind has melted away, its functions having ceased to operate, and who is free from delusion, dreaming or dullness.

    As much as I’d like to, I can’t interpret “indescribable state” metaphorically to mean “being the self” since the self isn’t a state.  It just is.  Nor can I say that having self-knowledge causes the mind to melt away and cease functioning.  If that were the case, there would be no enlightened people or teachers of enlightenment, because you can’t live, let alone teach, without a mind.  You’d just be a vegetable.  And just being a vegetable isn’t enlightenment, otherwise you’d get enlightenment by going into a coma. Or by going to sleep.   

    So I have to take “indescribable state” to mean that point in deep meditation when the mind truly does stop or disappear, at least temporarily.  At that time, since there’s no mind, there’s no delusion etc.  In a way, this is an “indescribable state” seeing as there’s no mental activity available to differentiate it from other mental states.  Having the mind stop, despite not being enlightenment, is actually a very helpful pointer towards enlightenment.  How so?  Because what you normally think of as yourself is the mind.  So when it disappears and you still exist, it indicates that you’re something other than the mind.  At first, you may not understand that that ‘something’ is the self.  But when you do, that’s enlightenment, not a blank mind. 

    This concludes Chapter 17.  From here, Chapters 18, 19 and 20 remain, with Chapter 18—which contains 100 verses—being the largest of the entire text.  I’ll be saving the commentary on those chapters for a book version of the Ashtavakra Samhita I hope to release at the end of the year.  All of the previous installments of the commentary will be compiled, revised and expanded for the book.  I’ll also be adding an introduction and possibly, a few essays. 

    I’ll continue to add new material to the site while I work on the book.  As always, feel free to write in and ask any questions you may have about this text or Vedanta in general. 

    Read Part 25 / Ask a Question / Support End of Knowledge

  • A Conversation with Ashtavakra Pt.25

    Read Part 24 / Ask a Question / Support End of Knowledge
    CHAPTER 17: Part One

    I really like the Ashtavakra Samhita.  Next to Upadesha Sahasri, it’s one of my all-time favorite Vedanta texts.  That’s why it’s difficult for me to disagree with it.  But I can’t help but find Chapter 17’s description of the behavior of the enlightened person to be problematic.  The reason is simple:  The primary point of Vedanta is to learn to identify with the self that you actually are and to disidentify with the thoughts, feelings, characteristics and behavior of the body-mind that you aren’t. 

    So once you’ve seen that you aren’t the body-mind, then doesn’t it seem counterproductive to continue to look to the body-mind for validation, especially considering that the suffering caused by thinking you’re defined by the body-mind is usually the original reason for seeking enlightenment?  Hint:  It is. That’s why real freedom is knowing that you’re always the unchanging, limitless self regardless of what the body-mind does or doesn’t do.  For that reason, I think describing the behavior or mind state of a so-called enlightened person is almost always unhelpful.  Almost.   

    At least initially, before you know enlightenment has nothing to do with the body-mind, it can be useful to hear a description of the enlightened person’s behavior in order to set the bar high and give you tangible goals to strive for, especially considering that understanding you’re the non-dual self, free of any and all qualities is extremely abstract and hard to grasp.  For me, I was inspired by the concrete examples of greats such as Krishna, Shankara and the Swamis Chinmayananda, Dayananda and Paramarthananda.  Looking to them motivated me to dedicate myself to spiritual practice and to alter my lifestyle in such a way that it fully supported and nurtured my self-inquiry. 

    But eventually, comparing myself to them became problematic because it lured me into thinking along the lines of, “Well, if I act like them, I’m enlightened.  And if I don’t, I’m not enlightened.”  The irony was that I was trying to measure my enlightenment by the standard of these teachers’ behavior when they were clearly saying, “Enlightenment is knowing you’re not defined by the state of the body-mind or what it does.” 

    Yes, good behavior is good.  And a poised and peaceful mind is nice.  Both are possible when you know you’re the self.  But they belong strictly to the realm of the body-mind so you have to remember that if you’re not the body-mind, they ultimately say nothing about you.  Consider this:  How can what you do determine the status of your self-knowledge when many well-behaved, poised and peaceful people have absolutely no idea who they really are? 

    My advice is to use the following lines for inspiration if you like, but don’t take them literally and fall into the trap of thinking that you only know you’re the self if the body-mind thinks and acts in a certain way.  If you know you’re the self, then you know you’re the self.  Period.  If knowing you’re the self improves the thinking of the mind and behavior of the body, it’s an incidental bonus, not a validation of what you already know to be true.         

    Ashtavakra said:
    17:1 – He has gained the fruit of knowledge as well as of the practice of yoga, who, contented and with purified senses, ever enjoys being alone.

    I’ve always liked being alone.  As a kid, I spent hours on end wandering in the woods by myself.  Did that mean I had gained the fruit of knowledge?  No.  At the time I had no idea who I was.  So if you like to be alone, fine.  If you like company, that’s also fine.  Either way, it doesn’t indicate whether or not you have self-knowledge. 

    Still, when you know who you are you do see that you’re alone whether you like it or not, insofar as in a non-dual reality there’s nothing other than yourself.  When I first realized that, oddly enough, I didn’t like it—it made me feel weird and isolated.  But when I looked at the situation from a different perspective, that rather than being isolated I was actually connected with everything around me, I started to enjoy being ‘alone’ in a metaphysical sense.     

    17:2 – Oh, the knower of truth is never miserable in this world, for the whole universe is filled by himself alone.

    The knower of truth is the mind.  That’s where the knowledge, “I’m the self” occurs.  So when the mind knows it’s the self, can it still be miserable?  Yes.  The mind is fickle and subject to subconscious forces that aren’t usually under your control.  That’s why you can never fully predict what the mind will think or feel and why you can’t make it think and feel one way all of the time.  For instance, my mind sometimes feels miserable for no reason I can put my finger on.  The feeling just pops up.  But the key at that moment is not to fall into the trap of thinking, “I’m miserable.”  It’s to remember, “Even when my mind is miserable, I, the self, am not.”  That’s self-knowledge. 

    17:3 – No sense-objects ever please him who delights in the self, even as the leaves of the neem tree do not please an elephant who delights in the leaves of the frankincense tree. 

    The point here is that the bitter neem leaves of transient, unreal sense objects can never be a steady source of satisfaction the way the apparently delicious frankincense leaves of the ever-present self can.  While I don’t have any experience eating neem or frankincense leaves, I agree with the sentiment.  Regardless, that doesn’t mean you won’t—or shouldn’t—find temporary enjoyment in something like a good movie, a nice meal or an interesting conversation.  Because why would anyone seek enlightenment if it robbed everyday life of meaning?  Not everyone wants to sit in a cave meditating on their transcendental nature all day, waiting for the body to die.  Why not simply enjoy life for what it’s worth, all the while armed with the understanding that no matter what happens, you’re always okay as the self?          

    17:4 – Rare in this world is one on whom experience leaves no impression and who has no desire for things not yet experienced.

    I won’t argue that a person like this isn’t rare.  In fact, since it’s impossible to know the inner-workings of another person’s mind, I have no idea if a person like this even exits.  But even if they do, it doesn’t mean they have some special form of self-knowledge that others don’t.  It just means that have a particular kind of mind, affected by self-knowledge in a particular way.  If your mind is affected by self-knowledge in a different way, it doesn’t mean you don’t know who you are.  Because if you really know you’re the self, you understand that the state of the mind doesn’t determine your status as the self.               

    17:5 – Those desirous of worldly enjoyment and those desirous of liberation, both are found in this world. But rare indeed is the great-souled one who is not desirous of either enjoyment or liberation.

    The idea here is that when you know you’re the self, the joys of the world lose their appeal.  This is true to a degree, especially considering that the self is always available for satisfaction whereas worldly joy is fleeting.  But just because you know that worldly enjoyment doesn’t last doesn’t mean that the body-mind won’t periodically want something.  That’s normal.  In my experience, I’ve never met a single enlightened person who didn’t want something.  Not even the wise and peaceful Swamis.  Because how could they not want something when they’re part of international organizations with an explicit agenda to travel around the globe sharing the teachings of Vedanta?  I’m not saying that wanting to teach Vedanta is a bad thing.  I’m doing it right now.  But I’m simply making a point that rare indeed is the one who doesn’t want anything—and that wanting something doesn’t mean you don’t know who you are. 

    One thing, however, that enlightened people definitely don’t want is liberation.  Why?  Because they know that as the ever-free self, they were never bound.  Frankly, the absence of feeling like you need to continue seeking freedom is probably the biggest benefit of self-knowledge.  Spiritual practice and self-inquiry are good and necessary things but they’re difficult and they often put you at odds with the people around you that don’t understand what you’re doing.  So to realize you’ve always been free and to no longer feel like you have to do something to get free is a big relief.  You can stop endlessly studying texts and hanging out with the neurotic weirdos in the ‘spiritual world’—myself included—and go back to being a normal person, albeit a normal person who knows they’re not really a normal person.       

    17:6 – Rare is the broad-minded person who has neither attraction for, nor aversion to, dharma (duty), artha (worldly prosperity), kama (desire), and moksa (liberation) as well as life and death.

    This verse is based on the idea that when you seek fulfillment by doing your duty, acquiring wealth, satisfying desire or seeking liberation, you’re really just seeking the fulfillment of being the self.  So when you understand that you already are the self—and therefore that you already ‘have’ what you’re seeking—you lose your attraction to those pursuits. 

    To a degree this is true.  But even while enlightened people don’t have an interest in seeking liberation, they probably still need money and have responsibilities like everyone else.  They may even have a desire or two.  That’s because enlightenment isn’t a golden ticket that suddenly changes the particulars of your world.  It only changes how you view and relate to that world insofar as knowing you’re not the body-mind, you don’t have to feel aversion (or attraction) to its responsibilities, needs or desires.     

    17:7 – The man of knowledge does not feel any desire for the dissolution of the universe, or aversion to its existence. The blessed one, therefore, lives happily on whatever subsistence comes as a matter of course.

    If you watch a movie, you may dislike a particular scene and want it to end.  But that doesn’t mean you don’t know who you are, that you don’t remember you’re a person unaffected by the film.  Similarly, you may feel aversion to, and desire for the dissolution of, certain experiences in the world.  But that doesn’t mean you don’t have self-knowledge, that you don’t know you’re the self, unaffected by the world.  It just means that ‘your’ mind, like all minds, has preferences—it likes what it likes and doesn’t like what it doesn’t like. 

    But if self-knowledge is clearly understanding that the mind—along with its preferences—has nothing to do with you, then how can the mere presence of preferences in the mind be a determining factor in whether or not you have self-knowledge?  It can’t.  The real proof would be whether or not you recognize that likes and dislikes belong solely to the mind—and not you, the self—when they arise. That’s self-knowledge. 

    Otherwise, you’re still trapped in the same predicament as everyone else, judging yourself by the workings of the mind (or the characteristics and actions of the body).  “If my mind thinks a certain way, I’m okay.  If it doesn’t, I’m not.  If my body looks or acts a certain way, I’m okay.  If it doesn’t, I’m not.”  That’s samsara.  Simply trading regular worldly samsara for a ‘spiritual’ form of samsara where you judge your enlightenment according to what the mind thinks is no solution to the problem.  You’re the self, free of the mind.  Just own it. 

    The good news is if you do own that knowledge, it can pacify the likes and dislikes of the mind.  And a mind with less—or at least less intense—likes and dislikes is more peaceful, which is nice.  Just don’t fall into the trap of thinking that if your mind is more peaceful that you’re somehow more enlightened or if it isn’t peaceful that you’re less enlightened.  Self-knowledge is knowing you’re the self, period.  It’s not manipulating the mind into being a particular way. 

    The second part of the verse shows the author’s predisposition to a monastic lifestyle.  In a traditional setting, a person would first be a student, then go on to a life of marriage, kids and career.  Afterwards they would give up their domestic life and become a monk so they could devote their time fully to self-inquiry.  As a monk they would beg for subsistence or just wait for some to show up.  If you choose to follow the traditional route, it’s completely fine.  That system has been around for a very long time and has some well-thought out reasoning behind it. 

    My only objection is that the path to self-knowledge isn’t one-size-fits all.  Most people studying Vedanta will never become monks and never want to become monks.  They lead regular lives and have commitments to fulfill and that’s completely fine to them.  So to judge their self-knowledge by a monastic standard is inappropriate and misleading, especially considering that self-knowledge is knowing that as the self, you’re unaffected by the lifestyle of the body-mind.       

    17:8 – Being fulfilled by the knowledge of the self and with his mind absorbed, and contented, the wise one lives happily, seeing, hearing, touching, smelling and eating.

    This is the best verse in the chapter, the only one I think is truly accurate.  Even when you know who you are, you can still act like a regular person.  Because self-knowledge is simply knowing you’re the self, not the body-mind thinking or acting in a certain way.   

    17:9 – There is no attachment or non-attachment in one for whom the ocean of the world has dried up. His look is vacant, action purposeless and the senses inoperative.

    When you know you’re the self, there may still be attachment or non-attachment in your mind.  Your look may be vacant or otherwise.  Your actions may have purpose or be purposeless (although who does anything for no reason?).  Your senses may be operative or inoperative.  But all of this is irrelevant seeing that as the self, you’re free from the mind and its thoughts, free from the body and its actions.    

    17:10 – The wise one neither keeps awake nor sleeps, he neither opens nor closes his eyes. Oh, the liberated soul anywhere enjoys the supreme condition.

    As the self, the wise one neither sleeps nor wakes, although their body will mostly certainly go through periods of rest and activity.  And as the self, the wise one doesn’t have any eyes to open or close.  But their face definitely does.  Regardless, the wise one can appreciate that they’re the self in whatever situation or condition the body-mind happens to be in.  That’s freedom.    

    Read Part 24 / Ask a Question / Support End of Knowledge