End Of Knowledge

Tag: Ashtavakra Samhita

  • 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. 1

    The Ashtavakra Samhita—more commonly known as the Ashtavakra Gita—is an unambiguous statement of non-dual wisdom from the highest standpoint and this is both its strength and weakness.  On the one hand, unlike texts such as the Bhagavad Gita, the uncompromising absolutist stance of the Ashtavakra Samhita makes it nearly immune to creative interpretation.  In this regard it is unmatched in its fidelity to non-dualism. On the other hand, its unyielding statements, which are rarely bolstered with supporting logic, can be difficult to comprehend because they generally refuse to cater to the lower levels of Vedanta’s teachings, sometimes outright rejecting them.  Also, the Ashtavakra Samhita has a clear monastic bias, flatly denying all day-to-day empirical activity in the apparent world, save for its descriptions of the ‘behavior’ of an enlightened person, and this can be hard to relate to for a non-monk.  So while the Ashtavakra Samhita is one of Vedanta’s finest texts, it greatly benefits from commentary to give its statements perspective and put them in the proper context.  However, since this is an advanced text that presupposes prior knowledge of Vedanta, the commentary I am providing will not dwell unnecessarily on the basics of the teaching.    

    The Ashtavakra Samhita is written in the form of a dialogue between two people, Ashtavakra and Janaka.  No personal information is given about either of them in the text but they both make an appearance in the great mythological epic, the Mahabharata, where it is said that Ashtavakra is an ascetic sage and Janaka is a king (Janaka is also mentioned in the Upanisads).  Although both characters are most likely fictional—which in no way takes away from the truth expounded in the text—I find the authors choice to use the polar opposites of a monk and a king very interesting.  It shows that despite the fact that the teacher Ashtavakra would have been living an austere lifestyle of renunciation, his student Janaka—who as a king would have had many worldly responsibilities to attend to—is nonetheless is able to get enlightened.  As you will see, even though the Ashtavakra Samhita never admits to the value of activities in the empirical world or even encourages them, it does not set them up as an insurmountable obstacle to enlightenment or prohibit action for an enlightened person.  Instead, it encourages action to be understood in light of self-knowledge.  In this way, although the text espouses a very monastic viewpoint, it can remain relatable to a non-monk.       

    I will be primarily using Swami Nityaswarupananda’s translation of the text published by Advaita Ashrama.  It is well written, cheap and readily available so I highly recommend picking up a copy.  I will also be consulting translations of the text by Hari Prasad Sastri and Ananada Wood.  Also, be aware that I will be altering the translation of certain verses as I see fit if I think they can benefit from clarification.      

    The dialogue begins with Janaka questioning Astavakra.

    CHAPTER ONE
    Janaka said:

    1.1 – How can knowledge be acquired? How can freedom be attained? How is dispassion possible?

    Ashtavakra said:

    1.2 – If you aspire after liberation, shun the objects of the senses as poison and seek forgiveness, sincerity, kindness, contentment and truth as nectar.

    Here Ashtavakra describes the preliminary conditions for gaining the knowledge that leads to freedom.  “Shun the objects of the senses as poison” is an exaggeration since it is impractical to avoid the objects of day-to-day affairs.  For instance, you can’t shun food—an object of the senses—as poison, assuming you want to live long enough to get self-knowledge.  Besides, the teaching itself, in the form of sounds, books etc. is a sense object.  However, equating sense objects to poison emphasizes that being preoccupied with the gaining and maintaining of material possessions and particular circumstances is ‘deadly’ to self-inquiry because if you don’t truly see that acquisition and enjoyment of sense objects is not a permanent solution to suffering, it is unlikely that you’ll be serious about pursuing freedom. 

    Furthermore, unless you are committed to a wholesome, peaceful lifestyle—such as one that cultivates a value for forgiveness, sincerity, kindness, contentment, truth etc.—the chances of gaining freedom are greatly decreased.  The reason is that a person who is insincere, unkind, discontent and untruthful is going to have conflict in their life that will inevitably disturb their mind.  So even if they want freedom, their mental condition will prevent them from assimilating knowledge when they are presented with the teaching. 

    It’s important to note that Ashtavakra only devotes a single sentence to this topic before moving on.  Partly, I think this is because—owing to his austere disposition—he was not very interested in discussing worldly affairs.  But also I doubt he saw any point in thoroughly discussing an issue such as good conduct that is a matter of common sense.  The implication here is that if a student is genuinely confused about what it means to live a decent life, they probably have no business studying Vedanta in the first place.  Regardless, before getting into the teaching, Ashtavakra makes the point that a peaceful life leads to a peaceful mind and a peaceful mind is the fertile soil needed for the seed of knowledge to take root. 

    1.3 – You are neither earth, nor water, nor fire, nor air, nor space. Know yourself to be consciousness, the witness of these and be free. 

    Ashtavakra then launches directly into the primary method of Vedanta, which is the practice of making a mental differentiation between yourself, consciousness, and the ‘not-self’—here described as the elements—until the distinction between the two is crystal clear.  “Elements” is an archaic way of referring to what we think of today as matter although a crucial difference must be understood: the Vedantic conception of matter also includes the mind and all of its modifications such as thought, emotion, memory etc.  So the bottom line of what he is saying is that your true nature is neither material nor mental, it is not the body or mind.  The reasoning behind this claim is based on the foundational logic of Vedanta, that you cannot be what is known to you.  If you know the body, you cannot be the body.  If you know the mind, you cannot be the mind.  Since you are the knower of the body and mind, here called the witness, you are not affected by the conditions of either, good or bad.  Knowing this is freedom, or rather the appreciation of the fact that you have always been free.  You simply thought you were bound because the distinction between yourself and the body and mind was not clear. 

    1.4 – If you distinguish yourself from the body and rest in your true nature, consciousness, you will at once be happy, peaceful and free from bondage.

    Ashtavakra makes it very clear that freedom is merely a matter of understanding that you are already free; it is not a matter of doing something or becoming something.  Even though he exhorts Janaka to distinguish himself from the body, the mental act of doing so is not itself the cause of freedom because it only points to what is already true.  And while the phrase “rest in your true nature” seems to recommend doing an action for the sake of freedom, the word “rest” is only being used in the metaphorical sense because there is no action you can do to rest in what you already are.  You are what you are despite of anything you do.  Therefore, “rest” merely means the cultivation of the mental appreciation of what already is.       

    1.5 – You do not have a social status; you do not belong to any age group or stage of life.* You are not perceived by the senses. You are the unattached, formless witness of all.  Be happy. 

    Previously, Ashtavakra approached the differentiation between yourself and the ‘not-self’ in terms of consciousness and matter.  Here matter is categorized as particular conditions of the body or the circumstances it inhabits.  These are things people commonly identify with such as financial status (lower, middle or upper class), age (young, middle aged, old) or stage of life (student, working adult, retiree).  While not explicitly stated, this includes things such as gender, race, religion, occupation or national identity.  This means that anything you normally think of as “I” or “me” is not really you at all.  You are not an object of the senses or even the senses themselves.  Nor are you somehow associated or attached to them.  Instead, you are the formless witness, that which knows the body, mind, senses and sense objects.  Understand that and you can be happy because all dissatisfaction stems from the conditions and circumstances of the body and mind described above.      

    *The first part of the verse is literally, “You do not belong to the brahmana or any other caste or to any ashrama.” Vedanta undeniably originated in India and so it naturally reflects the cultural norms of that country.  But since the message of Vedanta is universal, I took the core meaning of the verse and re-interpreted it to apply to anyone from anywhere. 

    1.6 – Good and bad conduct and pleasure and pain are of the mind, not of you, the all-pervading one. You are neither doer nor enjoyer. Verily you are ever free. 

    Another way of identifying yourself with the ‘not-self’ is to associate who you are with what you do or what you feel.  So Ashtavakra is pointing out that when you say, “I did this” or “I experienced that” that you are mistakenly taking yourself, the “I”, to be a doer or an enjoyer (experiencer).  The “I” that you are mistaking yourself to be is the ego, which upon analysis is merely the thought of “I” in the mind.  Is this “I” that takes credit for the actions of the body and claims to experience the pleasure and pain of the mind known to you?  Yes, so it cannot be the “I” or at least not the real “I”.  The true “I” is the previously mentioned consciousness, which is the witness of the body, mind and ego.  Ashtavakra adds another piece of information about this consciousness, which is none other than yourself:  it is all-pervasive.   This means that you are everywhere, without exception. It only seems like you are in a particular place when you identify with the body and mind.    

    1.7 – You are the one seer of all and are really ever free. Verily this alone is your bondage, that you think you are something other than the seer. 

    To negate the possibility of thinking that there is more than one consciousness, Ashtavakra says, “You are the one seer of all.”  In other words, you, consciousness, are one without a second.  Taking this in conjunction with the previously mentioned fact that you are all-pervasive, the conclusion is that there is not simply one of you, there is only you.  Your nature is non-dual, meaning there is nothing other than you that exists.  Ashtavakra points out that not comprehending this is bondage.  Why? Because the only way you can be bound is if there is something other than yourself to bind you.  Saying this may initially seem contradictory since the text has already admitted to something other than yourself, namely the body and mind.  However, this is not a problem because even though Vedanta initially accepts the appearance of the body and mind, it only does so conditionally, in order to put itself on equal footing with the viewpoint of the average person.  Otherwise its claims would be incomprehensible but for a rare few people.  So as an intermediate step, it accepts the body and mind at face value and proceeds to the logical conclusion that you can’t be the body and mind because they are objects known to you.  But after that the second step of Vedanta is to realize that in reality there is no body and mind, only yourself, consciousness, appearing to be the body and mind, the same way clay appears to be a pot.  In the same way that the form of a pot cannot limit or change the nature of the clay because the pot is merely an appearance made of nothing but clay, the body and mind cannot limit you, consciousness, because they are simply an appearance made of nothing but consciousness.  In other words, if there is only consciousness, then consciousness cannot bind itself.  Not knowing this alone is bondage, meaning you are bound only because you think you are, not because you actually are.    

    Part 2 coming soon.  In the meantime…

    Have a question about this text?  ASK HERE. 

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