Individuality doesn’t have its own reality because it is a product of superimposition, a combination between satyam ātmā and mithyā mind modification. What is the problem if I consider myself truly an individual doer, knower, etc?
rajjusarpavadātmānam jīvam jñātvā bhayam vahet |
nāham jīvaḥ parātmeti jñātaścennirbhayo bhavet || 27 ||
Having known oneself to be an individual, one would suffer fear, just like rope-snake. “I am not an individual self, I am the limitless self”, if knowing in this manner, one would be free from fear.
At the moment I jñāna-svarūpa (the very basis for all knowledge) become the individual knower, then the known and knowing come in to limit me the knower, this is called triputi. I am the knower of this mind only knowing this mind, not others which are different from me. Not only that, identification with individual likes-dislikes, desires to procure and to reject will also come, followed by doer-ship, enjoyer-ship, fear of unable to obtain and unable to avoid, this is the entire package of samsāra. I non-dual limitless self become limited due to duality. Therefore fear which is a form of samsāra is there when duality is.
Just like knowing the rope as the snake - rajjusarpavad, one sees the inert robe as a living snake which bites, thus vahet - one would suffer bhayam - fear. Similarly jñātvā - having known ātmānam - oneself who is the basis for all knowledge as jīvam - an individual who is limited knower, he would suffer from fear.
In contrary, nāham jīvaḥ - I am not individual self, parātmeti - I am the limitless self, nothing is different from me to limit me, jñātaścet - if knowing in this manner, nirbhayo bhavet - one would become free from fear. When I don’t identify as individual, it doesn’t mean I also see the other’s mind. I still see only my mind on an experiential level, but I know in reality I am not limited by my body-mind-senses.
We illuminate the external world with our borrowed light from consciousness ātmā through our mind. But we can’t illuminate ātmā with this borrowed light, why is this so?
ātmāvabhāsayatyeko buddhyādīnīndriyāṇyapi |
dīpo ghaṭādivatsvātmā jaḍaistairnāvabhāsyate || 28 ||
One ātmā alone illumines intellect etc. and also sense organs. But itself is not illumined by intellect etc. since they are inert in nature. Just like lamp illumines pot etc.
ātmāvabhāsayatyeko - one ātmā alone illumines buddhyādīni - intellect etc. (mind, ahankara) indriyāṇyapi - and also sense organs, but svātmā jaḍaistairnāvabhāsyate - it isn’t illumined by intellect etc. since they are inert in nature. Just like dīpo ghaṭādivat - the lamp illumines pot etc., but pot doesn’t illumine lamp.
Here ācārya pointed out the inert aspect of the mind and sense organs which don’t have the ability to illumine. Another example is the moon light illumines the earth, but it can’t illumine the sun as the source of its borrowed light. It points out that mind illumines this world yet it can’t illumine ātmā, because consciousness of the mind belongs to ātmā. The borrowed light can’t illumine the original light. In another way of saying mithyā can’t illumine satyam. In the same way, ātmā can’t be illuminated by intellect and senses, thus ātmā can’t be objectified.
If this is so, how ātmā is illumined, to be known, since the knowledge of ātmā should take place, then mokṣa is possible. Is there another source of light which can illumines ātmā?
svabodhe nānyabodhecchā bodharūpatayā’ tmanaḥ |
na dīpasyānyadīpecchā yathā svātmaprakāśane || 29 ||
With regards of knowing oneself, there is no expectancy of another consciousness because ātmā is of the nature of consciousness. Just like no expectancy of another lamp to illumine a lamp.
Yathā - just like na dīpasyānyadīpecchā - for a lamp, which is the source of illumination, there is no expectancy of another lamp svātmaprakāśane - with regard to the illumination of the lamp. Similarly svabodhe - on the part of knowing one self, nānyabodhecchā - there is no expectancy of another consciousness. bodharūpatayā’ tmanaḥ - because ātmā being the nature of consciousness, and being ekaḥ - only one.
When one person sees another, it is not that one consciousness sees another consciousness. What we see is only the sentiency which is inferred to be consciousness.
There is only one consciousness illumines through different upādhi becomes many seers who are limited by the seen and it’s seeing. Because of this limitation, we can’t see each other’s mind, and we all see the world differently through our own mind’s coloration.
We study vedānta for mokṣa, it doesn’t mean śāstra makes the self become evident. Śāstra doesn’t reveal the self as an unknown entity like heaven, punya-pāpam, rituals, etc. Self is self evident as I am, it doesn’t require other lights to be evident. I am always evident, but I always add some attributes on, “I am happy”, “I am a doer”, etc. therefore I need śāstra to correct my mistakes.
For illumination of myself, I don’t require any light. Nobody says “I don’t know myself”, and therefore there is no event called self knowledge which happened at certain time and place. But to remove the wrong notion of myself, some knowledge is required. Vrtti-jñānam - the knowledge in the form of thought born of the teaching of śruti is required to remove the ignorance and ignorance born conclusion about the self.
In my mind, I think that I am jīva who is limited, and in the same mind I need to remove that wrong thinking. Therefore mokṣa is all about cognitive change, never a happening.
Comments