End Of Knowledge

Tag: Self-Inquiry

  • 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.

       

  • A Conversation with Ashtavakra Pt. 3

    READ PART TWO.

    Ashtavakra said: 
    1:13 – Having freed yourself from identification with the body and mind—the delusion of thinking, “I am an individual person”—reflect on the truth, “I am immutable, non-dual consciousness.” 
    1:14 – My child, you have long been caught in the noose of thinking you are the body.  Sever it with the sword of the knowledge “I am consciousness” and be happy.
    1:15 – You are unattached, actionless, self-luminous and flawless.  To continue seeking samadhi is bondage.

    “Samadhi” means absorption into, or union with, an object of meditation.  While meditation in general is a healthy practice that focuses and calms the mind, in the case of self-inquiry, meditating for the sake of samadhi only reinforces bondage, meaning ignorance.  How so?  First, seeking samadhi presupposes that you are an object that can be meditated upon.  But as the “one seer of all (1.7)” that is “not perceived by the senses (1.5)” and “neither the doer nor enjoyer (1.6)” you cannot be what is perceived, what is experienced i.e. an object.  Second, you cannot be absorbed into yourself or gain union with yourself because you already are yourself, similar to the way a gold bracelet cannot gain union with, or absorption in, gold because it is already gold. 

    In this verse you are described as “self-luminous” which is a metaphorical way of saying that you are self-evident.  Just as the sun does not need to be illumined by an external light because its very nature is light, you do not require an external means to be ‘known’ because your very nature is consciousness, which is the very essence of knowledge.  To put it simply, you know you are conscious precisely for the fact that you are conscious.  Nothing else is required.                  

    1:16 – This universe exists within you and is pervaded by you.  You are pure consciousness; do not be narrow minded and think otherwise. 

    After Ashtavakra says that the universe exists within you, to avoid the doubt that it could be something separate from you—the way a boat exits within, but is separate from, the ocean—he adds that the universe is also pervaded by you.  A good illustration of this point is how a wave exists within the ocean but is also pervaded by the ocean (as water).  However, you cannot actually say the wave is pervaded by water because that would imply that there is some substance apart from water called “wave.” In reality, there is no wave, only water.  Similarly, it cannot be taken literally when it is said that you pervade the universe, because upon analysis, the universe is merely an appearance that is nothing but you, consciousness.  This is how you are “pure” consciousness; because nothing exists apart from you that could taint you. 

    One of the features of the Ashtavakra Samhita that can make it difficult to read is that it rapidly switches viewpoints from verse to verse or as in this case, within a single verse.  In the first part of the verse Ashtavakra assumes the empirical viewpoint (vyavaharika), taking the everyday experience of the world at face value, in which case he says that the universe is “within” you and is “pervaded by you.”  However, without giving an explanation, he immediately jumps to the ‘absolute’ viewpoint (paramarthika) and states that there is only consciousness, thereby negating the appearance of the world and by extension, the idea that it is within you or pervaded by you. 

    Without being aware of these two viewpoints, some of Ashtavakra’s statements may seem contradictory.  But with the right understanding you can see that they are like looking at the same thing from two different perspectives.  For instance, if you are looking at water from the perspective of a wave, you can say that the wave exists within, and is pervaded by, water. But when you look at a wave from the perspective of water itself, you have to say there is only water.  However, it must be kept in mind that only one perspective is actually true while the other is only relatively true.  Because of that, just as the perspective of the wave must be given up when the perspective of water is known, so the empirical viewpoint that accepts the appearance of the universe must be given up when the absolute viewpoint—that there is only consciousness—is known.  

                     
    1:17 – You are independent, formless, changeless, calm, unfathomable intelligence and imperturbable.  Desire to be this consciousness alone.

    “Unfathomable” means that you cannot be apprehended or defined by thoughts, words, concepts or sense perception.  For this reason, the word “intelligence” cannot be taken literally since it denotes a mental process consisting precisely of those things.  Therefore, the implied meaning of “unfathomable intelligence” is consciousness.  How so?  Because the one factor that is there in the presence of every single thought, word, concept or perception, that itself is not grasped by them, is consciousness.  Since it is the essence of all intelligence but never the object of intelligence, it is “unfathomable intelligence.”      

    The phrase “desire to be consciousness” also cannot be taken literally because it seems to say that consciousness is something you should desire to become.  But since you are already consciousness, you cannot become consciousness.  Therefore, “desire to be consciousness” means “desire to understand that you are consciousness.” Or it can mean “be satisfied with being consciousness alone” because trying to find fulfillment in the transient objects of the world is futile.    

    Part 4 coming next week.  In the meantime…

    Have a question?  ASK HERE. 

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

  • A Conversation with Ashtavakra Pt. 2

    1.8 – Being bitten by the great black snake of egoism, you think, “I am the doer.” To be happy, drink the nectar of the conviction, “I am not the doer.”

    Identifying yourself with the ego—the thought or concept of “I” in the mind—is like the bite of a poisonous snake.  How so?  Because it leads to the false conviction that you are the one that acts when the body and mind act and thinking this is ‘fatal’ to happiness.  When you believe, “I am doing this” or “I am doing that” you falsely claim ownership of the results of what the body and mind do.  That this is an impediment to happiness is obvious when the results of body-mind’s actions are unpleasant.  What is not as evident is that this is also an obstacle to happiness when the results are pleasant, the reason being that achieving a desirable result does not lead to permanent happiness.  Once the pleasurable effect wears off, you are inevitably left with a desire to do something else to try to regain happiness, thus creating an endless cycle of action and desire that never lead to the contentment you want.  So Ashtavakra astutely points out that if you truly want to be happy, step out of cycle of doing and enjoying entirely through understanding.  When you have been poisoned by the belief, “I am the doer” the antidote is the conviction, “I am not the doer.”  If you are not the doer, the problem of action, desire and reaping the results of action—good or bad—does not belong to you.      

    1.9 – “I am the one, pure consciousness.”  In the fire of this conviction, burn down the forest of ignorance and be happy.

    Just as a forest is made up of countless trees, the forest of ignorance is composed of the innumerable ways you can mistake yourself to be the body-mind.  You ‘burn’ this ignorance with the conviction that you are the consciousness that knows, and is therefore free of, the body-mind and all of its problems. Or alternately, ignorance is incinerated by the conviction that since you are one alone, you are not affected by the body-mind because it is only an appearance.  This is stated in the next verse.     

    1.10 – Although you are consciousness, the highest bliss, you are imagined to be the world, just as a rope is imagined to be a snake.  Know this and live happily.

    When a rope is mistaken to be a snake, the snake is only an appearance.  Despite the illusion, nothing but the rope ever exists.  Similarly, when you, consciousness, are imagined to be the world (“world” here includes the body-mind), the world is merely an appearance while nothing but you ever exists.  Believing that there is actually a world is ignorance, an error based on the misperception of reality.  When this error is corrected, you can live happily, knowing that the world, just like an illusory snake, can cause you no harm. 

    In this verse Ashtavakra says that consciousness is the highest bliss.  The word “bliss” can only be taken in the metaphorical sense because bliss is a feeling, a state of mind, and it has been clearly stated that consciousness is free of the mind.  A synonym for bliss is satisfaction, so by calling consciousness the highest satisfaction it indicates that the only way to get real satisfaction—as opposed to temporary satisfaction gained from everyday pursuits—is to understand what your true nature is.  When that happens you see that you lack nothing and have nothing to fear because there is only you and you are never touched by the appearance of the world. 

    1.11 – He who considers himself free is free indeed and one who considers himself bound remains bound. “As one thinks, so one becomes,” is a popular saying in this world, and it is quite true.

    In a text brimming with excellent verses, this is by far the finest because in two short sentences Ashtavakra gives a disarmingly simple summary of the essence of the entire teaching:  freedom, self-knowledge, enlightenment, moksha or whatever you choose to call it is only a matter of how you think about yourself.  While it is easy to get distracted by Vedanta’s ornate symbolism, hyperbolic metaphors, theoretical propositions, dazzling intellectual gymnastics and multitude of spiritual practices, freedom is really that simple.  If your idea of self is “I am ever-free consciousness” then you are free because that is actually the truth.  But if your idea of self is “I am the body-mind” then you are bound because that is the also the truth (at least for you).  “As one thinks, so one becomes.”  Take the word “becomes” loosely because you cannot become what you already are i.e. consciousness.  And as consciousness your nature is ever-free so you cannot become bound any more than fire can become cold or water can become dry.  You can only ‘become’ free by understanding you have always been free and you can only ‘become’ bound by believing you are bound.

    Since it is so crucial, at the risk of being redundant, I want to repeat myself:  freedom is how you think about yourself.  That means right now is the time to start taking the stance that you are free even if you don’t yet understand how that can be.  Every time you catch yourself identifying with the body-mind and thinking a limiting thought about yourself, stop and apply an opposing thought, one that is harmony with who you really are.  If you find yourself identifying with the body thinking thoughts such as, “I am tall, short, skinny, fat, male, female, black, white, pretty, ugly etc.” stop and think, “I am not the body.”  If you identify with the mind with thoughts such as, “I am happy, sad, angry, peaceful, afraid, focused, distracted etc.” stop and think, “I am not the mind.”  If you find yourself thinking, “I am doing this, I am doing that” stop and think, “I am not the doer.” Or in general if you find yourself thinking in any way, “I am bound, I need to get free” stop and think, “I am free.”  Regardless of whether or not you see how these assertions can be true, they are nonetheless fact, and in time the supporting logic behind the statements you are making will become clear.  When they do, you have already put in the hard work to change the habitual thinking patterns of the mind, getting them into alignment with your true nature.  This is something you will inevitably have to do, either before or after enlightenment, assuming you are interested in mental peace.  So you might as well do it now. 

    Contrary to the belief that enlightenment is a momentous realization that occurs at the end of an incredibly difficult spiritual journey spanning countless lifetimes, one that can only be achieved by an exceedingly rare and select few, if you can see that it’s possible to change the way you think about yourself, then enlightenment is available to you in this very lifetime. “As one thinks, so one becomes.”    

    1.12 – You are consciousness, the all-pervading, full, actionless, unattached, desireless and peaceful witness. You appear as the world or of the world through error. 

    This verse provides a timely opportunity to practice thinking differently about yourself.   You can put it in first person, say it to yourself, and contemplate its implications.  “I am consciousness, the all-pervading, full, actionless, desireless and peaceful witness.”

    Of the words used to describe you in this verse, “full” and “peaceful” have not yet appeared in the text.  “Full” means that as the non-dual reality, you are complete; there is nothing left out, nothing that can be added or taken away; you cannot be perfected because you are already perfect.  “Peaceful” indicates that since you are ever-free witness of the conditions of the body-mind, you can never be disturbed. 

    Part 3 coming soon.

    Have a question? ASK HERE.

    Want to support the 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.      

     

  • Is the End of Suffering a Sufficient Goal?

    This is a continuation of a previous discussion.  Read it HERE.

    L: Much, much thanks.  This is all extremely helpful.  Your knowledge is deep, teacher.

    V:  You’re welcome.  

    L: I like these realization statements (from the previous email) quite a lot and my mind has been processing them every day.  I feel that the gears are turning and I’m getting traction.  Your additional statement is very useful.  Thank you.  I’ve added a few different angles and permutations.  I have this feeling that I’m connecting all these different elements (my true nature, the universe, all living beings, my body and mind, infinite conscious awareness) with threads of relationships and equivalences, and knitting them all closer and closer together until they merge and I’m basically just left with the thought, “There is just one consciousness,” or something like that.  They are really all kind of the same statement.   

    I understand what you’re describing with the necessity of the empirical viewpoint and the value of the absolute viewpoint.  The things I’ve read describe the goal of Vedanta as the end of suffering.  I see how this is important but every time I read this, I wonder if that alone is sufficient as an end goal. 

    V: Perhaps it is, perhaps it isn’t.  Being enlightened doesn’t mean you cease having goals or aspirations in your day to day life.  But if we’re talking strictly about Vedanta, the only goal is the end of suffering, specifically mental suffering.  Vedanta doesn’t have any other goals. 

    L:  I have these two other thoughts that I’m trying to fit into the context of Vedanta: living wide open as love, and having impeccability of purpose.  These are empiric-perspective concerns. 

    V: Yes, they are.  And they are worthy concerns.  But from a Vedanta perspective, here is the problem:  you can’t live wide open as love (or any other way for that matter) if you aren’t really a person, and you can’t have impeccability of purpose if you are not the doer, the illusory body/mind complex.  As I said, the empirical viewpoint must always be respected.  So in that regard if you want to live wide open as love etc., go for it.  But you MUST clearly understand that you are not really living that way or doing anything to be free from suffering. Why?  Because suffering only accrues to the doer, the body/mind.  So you must get it clear that you aren’t the body/mind, and then it can be as it is.   

    L:  In a way, neither of these goals can be possible if one is suffering, and I suppose minding one’s immediate suffering must take first priority, like putting the airplane oxygen mask on yourself first before helping others.  Attempting to live open as love has the pitfall of self-deceptive do-goodery, and to be this way genuinely I think one must first know that all living beings are within one consciousness.

    V:  It’s only a problem if you identify with the do-gooder.  I’m just trying to be clear, not downplay the seriousness of the issue, because false-identification is the root issue of Vedanta and the cause of suffering.   

    L:  Having impeccability of purpose perhaps can only be possible with the clarity and detachment of examining one’s life from the absolute viewpoint. 

    V:  The absolute viewpoint gives you objectivity, and objectivity helps in anything you ‘do.’  But you’ll have to explain to me what exactly you mean by impeccability of purpose.  I don’t want to assume I know what you’re talking about. 

    L:  These are just early thoughts I’ve been having.  Would you say that the end of suffering is a goal that encompasses these other aspects? 

    V:  To be clear, “the end of suffering” doesn’t mean perfect peace of mind and perpetual happiness.  The body/mind is the sufferer and it will always suffer in one way or another.  This means that the end of suffering is simply the end of identifying with the sufferer.  The body/mind suffers.  But if you aren’t the body/mind, then you don’t suffer.  Problem solved. 

    That being said, knowing you aren’t the one suffering gives you the objectivity I previously mentioned.  And objectivity helps in whatever it is you choose to ‘do.’

    Another aspect of knowledge is clearly understanding that, despite appearances to the contrary, everything is one, brahman, you.  When everything is known to be yourself, it makes accepting and loving the world much easier. 

    L:  Are there teachings to apply Vedanta knowledge to these empiric perspective goals as well?

    V:  Sort of.  As I just said, the implications of non-duality can certainly help the way you view the world.  As far as impeccability of purpose, I can’t say until you explain it to me a little more.  If you mean acting in the correct manner with the appropriate motivation, Vedanta is useless, because it negates the false idea that you do anything in the first place. 

    However, at the initial stages of the teaching, Vedanta advocates yoga, specifically karma yoga, in order to show one how to act appropriately in the world.  It also advocates devotion or religious practice in order to purify the mind and heart.   

    L:  I’ve been having a strong inclination to take some time and go into nature for a while, and fast and meditate.  My instinct is to corral together the “I-ness” to package it up.  I see your teaching that the I-ness can never be completely packaged or dropped, only through knowledge can it be put in proper perspective. 

    V:  I honestly think you should do what you are inclined to do.  Taking a retreat to contemplate and meditate is never a bad thing. 

    I’ll add this:  regardless of what you do, always remember that the way Vedanta ‘packages’ the “I” is strictly cognitive.  It teaches you how to objectify the apparent person and see him for what he is:  a transient illusion.  One way to do that is to always be aware of using the word “I.”  Every time you say it or think it, ask yourself, “What ‘I’ am I referring to?”  If you say, “I am sad” ask yourself if the word “I” is referring to you, the self, or to the mind.  Or if you say, “I am hungry, fat, thin, etc.” ask if the word “I” is referring to the body or to you, the self.  You can apply this to everything you think and in this way you continually ‘package’ the body/mind by recognizing it as the transient object that it is.  Then you bring your attention back to what you really are, that which knows the illusory, transient object known as L.  That is the real “I.” This practice can, and should, be done at all times until you have broken the identification with the body/mind i.e. L.  And it can be done in everyday life as well as in a retreat.    

    L:   But, as you have said, the experience wouldn’t hurt, either. 

    V:  Yep.  Even though you aren’t L, there’s no reason he shouldn’t be as happy, fulfilled or satisfied as possible.

    L:  I have Ted Schmidt’s book Self Knowledge and it looks very useful.  Is there a Vedanta community? 

    V:  Yes but it will vary depending on where you are.  Arsha Vidya and Chinmaya Mission are worldwide, as well as being first rate Vedanta organizations.  I personally prefer Arsha Vidya and their lineage of teachers.  The possible drawback for you is that both of those organizations are very Hindu, and they intermix Indian culture along with the teachings, Arsha Vidya less so than Chinmaya Mission.  I personally don’t have a problem with that except for the fact that the religious and cultural aspects can sometimes obscure the Vedanta part of the teaching. There are Westernized Vedanta groups but none that I can confidently recommend.  

    All in all, it can be good to have a group of people to do inquiry with but it can be more trouble than it’s worth because you have to deal with their issues and egos in the process.  Further, if they don’t know what they’re talking about, how can they be of any assistance to you?  Besides, in the end, inquiry is a solitary path that you must travel mostly by yourself.  That’s what I did.  However, do with that what you will.  I am a very solitary person by nature but I know that doesn’t work for everyone.       

    L:  It has been extremely helpful to hear from you, instead of just reading books.  I really appreciate it. 

    V: I’m glad to hear that.  You’re welcome. 

    HAVE A QUESTION? Ask Here. 

    WANT TO SHOW SUPPORT? Donate Here.