End Of Knowledge

Tag: advaita

  • 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.  

  • A Conversation with Ashtavakra Pt. 5

    CHAPTER TWO

    Through Ashtavakra’s instruction in the first chapter, Janaka gets enlightened.  Chapter Two is Janaka’s statement of self-knowledge.    

    Read Part 4 here.

    Janaka said:
    2:1 – I am consciousness: without defect, tranquil, and beyond the material world.  All this time I have been deceived by delusion. 

    As previously mentioned (in Part Two), enlightenment or self-knowledge is a matter of identity.  When you are ignorant of your true nature, you mistakenly identify with the body-mind.  But when you know what your true nature is, you correctly identify with consciousness.  You can tell that Janaka now clearly identifies with consciousness instead of the body-mind by the way he starts speaking of consciousness in the first person, saying “I am consciousness” instead of “consciousness is (such and such)” as if he were describing something other than himself.  For that reason, the verses in Chapter Two are excellent for meditation, recitation and contemplation.        

    When Janaka says that he is beyond the material world, it does not mean that consciousness is in one place and the material world in another because consciousness has no spatial location.  Furthermore, since reality is non-dual, there cannot be both a world and consciousness.  So to say that consciousness is beyond the material world means that consciousness is not affected by the illusory appearance of the world.   

    2:2 – As I alone reveal this body, even so do I reveal this universe. The entire universe is mine; or alternately, nothing is mine. 

    The entire universe—which includes the body—is a known object.  That which knows it is consciousness.  In this way consciousness ‘reveals’ everything in the universe.

    In the second part of the verse Janaka switches from the empirical viewpoint to the absolute viewpoint (see 1:16 for explanation of viewpoints).   From the empirical viewpoint, which provisionally accepts the appearance of the universe, it can be said that everything ‘belongs’ to consciousness since everything is consciousness.  Yet, from the absolute viewpoint, which does not admit of the universe whatsoever, nothing belongs to consciousness because there is nothing other than consciousness to belong to it. 

    2:3 – Having left behind the body and the universe, I now see the highest self.

    When people get enlightened, they continue to have bodies that exist in the universe.  If this were not so, then the moment Janaka got enlightened he would have disappeared and been unavailable to make these statements.  Actually, if this were not so, Janaka would not have gotten enlightened in the first place because Ashtavakra, his enlightened teacher, wouldn’t have been there to teach him.  So when Janaka says he has left behind the body and the universe, they remain as they are but he has ‘left them behind’ by recognizing them for the illusion they are and ceasing identification with the body. 

    In this chapter, Janaka starts referring to consciousness/existence as “the self” (atman).  In the sense that consciousness/existence is what you truly are, it is the “self.”  Therefore, the terms will be used synonymously in the text from here forward. 

    Sight being a common symbol of knowledge, when Janaka says that he sees the self he means he understands that he is the self, not that the self is some kind of object of perception.  That this self is the “highest self” means that consciousness/existence is the true self, as opposed to the false self of the body-mind.    

    2:4 – As waves, foam and bubbles are not different from water, so the universe emanating from me is not different from me.

    At first, Vedanta posits two fundamentally dualistic categories: self (consciousness/subject/knower/witness) and ‘not-self’ (non-conscious/object/known/witnessed).  But seeing as reality is ultimately non-dual, these two categories can only be conditionally accepted.  You may ask, “Then why use them at all?”  The answer is that in the beginning of the teaching the concept of ‘not-self’ provides a stable and critically important platform from which to inquire, one that helps you objectify the body-mind and see that it is unreal.  Once the body-mind is clearly known to be an illusion that never affects your true nature, the temporary dualistic split of self and ‘not-self’ must be mended in order for the ultimate truth of non-duality to be grasped.  Examining the relationship between water and its various manifestations is an excellent way to do this. 

    Initially, it can be said that waves, foam and bubbles are different from water because the waves etc. are transient, ever-changing and possessed of form while the water is ever-present, unchanging and formless. But when the existence of the waves etc. is negated by the knowledge that they are only water, it must be said that the waves etc. are non-different from water because they are not really there; there is ever only water and therefore nothing else exists to be different from it. 

    Similarly, at first it can be said that the self and the ‘not-self’ are different because the ‘not-self’ is transient, ever-changing and possessed of form while the self (consciousness/existence) is ever-present, unchanging and formless.  But when the existence of the ‘not-self’ is negated by knowledge that only the self exists, it must said that the ‘not-self’ is non-different from the self in the sense that there is nothing other than the self to be different from the self.   

    It could be argued that it would be more efficient to simply skip the first step that falsely admits of something other than the self in order to go directly to the truth of non-duality.  However, very few people can do this because at first the idea of non-duality appears to stand in direct opposition to their everyday experience.  And when people are still convinced that there is such a thing as the ‘not-self’ (objects of experience) it is not productive to merely deny its existence.  Therefore, Vedanta, being eminently practical, offers an intermediate step.  It conditionally accepts the ‘not-self’ and then provides you with the tools that are needed to understand that it only appears to exist while you, the self, are the only thing that actually exists.  When that is known, the temporary difference between self and ‘not-self’ is discarded in favor of the non-dual view that there is only the self.  This view is reiterated in the next verse using the analogy of cloth and thread and requires no additional commentary.            

    2:5 – As cloth, when analyzed, is found to be nothing but thread, so this universe, when analyzed, is nothing but me. 

    Have a question?  ASK HERE. 

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

  • A Conversation with Ashtavakra Pt. 4

    Read Part 3 HERE.

    Ashtavakra said:
    1:18 – That which has form is unreal; that which is formless is permanent (and therefore real).  Through this instruction you will escape rebirth.

    Here Ashtavakra presents a fundamental axiom of Vedanta, one on which making the distinction between yourself (the real) and the body-mind (the unreal) hinges.  While the commonly accepted definition of the word “real” is “that which can be known or experienced,” Vedanta defines “real” as “that which is ever-present and unchanging.”  The logic behind Vedanta’s definition of “real” is this:  Something cannot be real if it is here one moment and gone the next, or if it is one thing one moment and something else the next.  According to this line of reasoning, things that have form, such as the body-mind, cannot be real because they A) are not present before birth, after death, or even in life during dream and deep sleep and B) when they are present they change continuously, subtly on the cellular level and more obviously on the external level of physical appearance.  Therefore, only that which is formless, consciousness, is real because it is always present and it never changes.   

    Here, some objections may arise:

    Student:  I didn’t exist before birth and I won’t exist after death. 

    Teacher:  Then you must not exist right now because that which has no existence in the beginning and no existence in the end has no existence in between, just like a mirage in the desert or silver in mother- of-pearl.      

    Student:  But it’s obvious I exist.  I am here asking this question. 

    Teacher:  Then you must be confused about what the word “I” really refers to. 

    Student:  “I” refers to my body-mind.

    Teacher:  Which body-mind? 

    Student:  I don’t follow. 

    Teacher:  If you are the body-mind, which one are you?  Are you the infant body-mind or perhaps the adolescent body-mind?  If so, where are they? 

    Student:  They are gone. 

    Teacher:  Are you gone? 

    Student:  No.

    Teacher:  Then that suggests you are different from the body-mind, does it not?

    Student:  Yes, but my adult body-mind is here right now and that is what feels like me. 

    Teacher:  Agreed, it does feel that way.  But that does not make it so.  Feeling like you are running from a tiger in a dream does not mean that it is really happening.  So not being the body-mind is not a matter of experience but one of understanding what experience means.  We’ve already seen that the infant and adolescent body-mind cannot be you because they are no longer present while you still are.  But if you are the adult body-mind, the same kind of question applies:  Which adult body-mind are you?  It changes from moment to moment, let alone from day to day or year to year.  Are you the adult body-mind from last year?  From last week?  From five minutes ago? 

    Student:  I can see your point but it is difficult to discard the possibility that I could be the body-mind that changes throughout life.            

    Teacher:  Yes, the belief is deep-rooted and hard to get rid of.  But the body-mind which changes continuously, which is one thing one moment and something else cannot be real.  You are real.  But another way to look at it is this:  even when the body-mind appears to be relatively permanent, such as in adulthood, it still cannot be real because it is not always present.  Where is your body-mind when you dream, or during dreamless sleep? 

    Student:  Lying on the bed, I think.  If that is the case then it is still present, correct?   

    Teacher:  By observing others sleeping, we can assume that the body-mind is lying on the bed during sleep.  But if the body-mind is truly you, how could it not be present in the dream or dreamless sleep?  You are present in those states of sleep are you not?

    Student:  Yes. 

    Teacher:  So if the body-mind were essential to your nature, then they too would be present because you can never be apart from what you truly are.  This proves that the body-mind is an illusion that is incidental to your existence. 

    Student:  I can see how that could be true regarding the body; it is not there in a dream.  But in dreamless sleep, when the body as well as the mind are not present, I am not present.

    Teacher:  Again, you are confusing yourself with the body-mind and taking its absence in dreamless sleep to mean you do not exist.  But if you do not exist in dreamless sleep then you cannot exist while you are dreaming or awake either because that which truly exists can never not exist.  And we have already established that you exist.  It is obvious. 

    Student:  But it’s also obvious that the mind exists in a dream and that the body-mind exists when I am awake, is it not?   

    Teacher:  I am using the word “exist” in the sense of being real, permanent and unchanging.  So although the body-mind, like an illusion, can be experienced, it is not real.    

    Student:  That makes sense.  But is it not true that, “I think therefore I am”? How can I say I exist in dreamless sleep when my body-mind is not there to prove I exist by thinking and experiencing?    

    Teacher:  How can the presence or absence of the body-mind validate or invalidate your existence?  You are consciousness; you are what validates (reveals) the existence—albeit illusory—of the body-mind and not vice versa.  Just because the body-mind is not present does not mean that you, consciousness, are not.  For example, if you are blinded in an accident and your eyes lose the power to see, does your mind—the knower of what your eyes see—stop existing too?  No, it is still there knowing the absence of sight.  Similarly, if the perceptions and thoughts of the mind temporarily cease in dreamless sleep, does consciousness stop being conscious?  No.  It is still there, conscious of the absence of the workings of the mind. 

    Student:  But I don’t experience that.  I don’t know anything in dreamless sleep. 

    Teacher: Because experience and knowing are functions of the mind.  So when the mind disappears no experience or knowing is possible.  But that does not mean that you, consciousness, are not still there. 

    Student:  How can that be?  Consciousness is called “the knower,” is it not?    

    Teacher:  Calling consciousness the “knower” is only a figurative description, as are all words used to describe your true nature, owing to the fact that it is not describable by any word.  Since there is no other option, the teaching is forced to use words, but they are only employed as indicators of the truth, not the truth itself.  If you ask someone where a particular star is, they will use their finger to point to it in the sky.  But the finger is not the star itself, only an indicator of where the star is.  The limitation of this metaphor is that unlike the star, you, consciousness, are not an object of the mind or senses that exists in a particular location.

    In its initial stages, when the teaching conditionally accepts the appearance of objects, it describes you as “the knower.”  In truth, knowing is a process of the mind but describing you as the knower is meant to draw your attention to the fact that the knowing of your mind is itself a known object and therefore cannot be you.  In this regard, instead of saying your mind is known to you, it is more appropriate to say that you are the “light” that illumines the mind—light being a metaphor for consciousness—because it must be admitted that because the mind is not self-evident, it must be revealed by something other than itself.  “Light” is a more apt description of what you really are because similar to the way the sun illumines the earth effortlessly because light is its very nature, you illumine the mind with absolutely no volition or action because consciousness is your very nature.  Therefore, when the reality of objects is negated, along with the knowing of the mind, you are left simply as consciousness.      

    Student:  How can I be conscious if I don’t know anything? 

    Teacher:  Because, like the previously mentioned sun that requires no action to be luminous, consciousness does not depend on the knowing of the mind to be conscious.  Consciousness is what you are, not something you do.  It is important to note that the fact that you are still conscious when you sleep is impossible to experience because the instrument of experience, the mind, is not present.  This means you can only understand—while you are awake—that during sleep you are still consciousness. 

    Student:  I’ll admit that that is a reasonable explanation.  But it has not completely removed my doubt.  I am so used to equating being awake with being conscious.  Sleep still seems like the absence of consciousness.  In fact, it appears to be the absence of everything.  It appears to be nothingness, a void. 

    Teacher:  Fair enough.  But keep in mind that the word “consciousness” is not being used in the traditional sense.  Vedanta’s definition of consciousness is much broader because it is used synonymously with the word “existence.”  In other words, consciousness is pure being, existence itself, that which makes the existence of illusory objects such as the mind even possible.  So the question is, “When the mind is not present, do you, existence, stop existing?” 

    By merit of the fact that we are discussing the particulars of dreamless sleep, it appears that you are admitting that it exists, correct?  Otherwise it would be pointless to discuss the details of a non-existent entity.    

    Student:  Yes, I am admitting that dreamless sleep exists. 

    Teacher:  So in dreamless sleep, despite the absence of the mind or experience, existence still exists. 

    Student:  Perhaps.  What if dreamless sleep is total non-existence? 

    Teacher:  First, there is no definitive evidence that when your mind is not present to experience it, that the world (or at least the illusion of it) does not continue to exist.  In that case, dreamless sleep would not be total non-existence, just the absence of experience in the world by your mind. 

    Student:  But conversely, there is no definitive evidence that the world does exist when my mind is not there to experience it.  Hence the possibility of dreamless sleep being nothingness, a void. 

    Teacher:  Granted, but let’s suppose dreamless sleep is nothingness, a void.  Are you not admitting that nothingness, the void, exists?  If you do not admit that nothingness exists, then there can be no argument.  An objection cannot have a non-existent premise, correct?   

    Student:  Yes. 

    Teacher:  So even if it is admitted that dreamless sleep is actually a void, the void would exist.  And because of that, existence itself still exists.  This means you still exist in dreamless sleep.  This means that you are still consciousness in deep sleep because they are the same thing. 

    Student:  I can see your point about existence but trying to think of myself as consciousness in dreamless sleep is still difficult. 

    Teacher:  Upon further contemplation it may become easier.  But if not, there is no need to get hung up on the words used to point to your true nature because as I mentioned before, they are only indicators.  The words “consciousness” and “existence” are only employed to help you see that you are ever-present and unchanging.  Use whichever words best help you to understand that, and once you do, you can even disregard those. 

    Student:  Is it not possible that I can exist, then not-exist, then exist again?  Or both exist and not exist at the same time? 

    Teacher: Can you think of a single example of something totally non-existent—such as the son of a barren woman—coming into existence? 

    Student:  No. 

    Teacher:  That’s because it is impossible—and illogical—for something of the nature of non-existence to become of the nature of existence.  That which is truly non-existent always remains non-existence.  That which is truly existence always exists.  The true nature of a thing cannot be changed.

    Student:  Can something be of the nature of two things at once, such as being simultaneously existent and non-existent? 

    Teacher:  Is the son of a barren woman both existent and non-existent at the same time? 

    Student: No. 

    Teacher:  Can fire be both hot and cold at the same time?  Can light be both luminous and dark at the same time? 

    Student:  No. 

    Teacher:  Then having two different natures at once is also impossible, as well as being contradictory to common sense.  Therefore, you have always been existence/consciousness and will always be existence/consciousness. You can never be other than what you are.             

    1:19 – Just as a mirror exists within and without the image reflected in it, so you exist inside and outside this body.

    In this verse, you are likened to a mirror and the body to a reflection.  This metaphor works on two levels: 1) Just like a reflection is superimposed onto a mirror without the mirror being affected, the appearance of the body is superimposed onto you without affecting you whatsoever 2) You are not contained within the appearance of the body just as a mirror is not contained within a reflection; as existence itself, you exist everywhere equally.  You are the ‘background’ upon which all appearances are superimposed.     

    The limitation of the mirror analogy is that it implies duality and a spatial relationship between two things: that like a real object exists outside of a mirror and is the cause for the illusory reflection, there could be a real object outside of yourself (existence) that is the cause of the superimposition of the body.  But this cannot be because there is nothing ‘outside’ of existence.  Hypothetically, if there were something outside of existence it too would exist and therefore not be different from, or outside of, existence itself.   

    Note:  The word literally used to denote you in this verse is parameshvara, the highest (parama) lord (ishvara).  In relation to the relative appearance of the world, you are the ‘absolute’ (the highest), that which is real, as well as the ‘lord,’ that by merit of which all relative things are even possible.  But to keep things simple by avoiding unnecessary theistic symbolism, I translated parameshvara as “you” because that is the direct meaning.    

    1:20 – As space pervading the inside and outside of a jar remains one, so the unchanging brahman remains undivided while existing within and without all things.

    Space is quite possibly the best metaphor for your true nature (here called brahman).  Just as there is only one space and it is the same everywhere, there is only one you and you are the same everywhere.  And just as all things appears within space, yet do not affect space, so all things appear within you but do not affect you.  In the same way that saying space is inside or outside of anything, such as a jar, cannot be taken literally because it implies space has a location, saying that you, brahman, are within and without all things must be taken as a figure of speech.  Its purpose is to point to the fact that you are one and the same everywhere. 

    The shortcoming of the space metaphor is that space is not consciousness, while you can never not be conscious since consciousness is your true nature. 

    Note:  Since the term brahman is so common in Vedanta I have left it untranslated but please understand that anywhere you see this word, it simply means “you,” or if the statement is in first person, “I.”

    This verse concludes Chapter One, as well as Ashtavakra’s answer to Janaka’s initial question.  Next week I will start Chapter Two, which is Janaka’s response. 

    Have a question?  ASK HERE.

    Want to support End of Knowledge?  MAKE A DONATION HERE.