Why does man look for a God? Why should I do good to others? What compels me? What is the utility, of this knowledge?

swamijiWhat are these ideas of religion and God and searching for the hereafter? Why does man look for a God? Why does man, in every nation, in every state of society, want a perfect ideal somewhere, either in man, in God, or elsewhere? Because that idea is within you. It was your own heart beating and you did not know; you were mistaking it for something external. It is the God within your own self that is impelling you to seek Him, to realize Him. After long searches here and there, in temples and in Churches, on earth and in heaven, at last you come back to your own soul, completing the circle from where you started, and find that He whom you have been seeking all over the world, for whom you have been weeping and praying in churches and temples, on whom you were looking as the mystery of all mysteries, shrouded in the clouds, is the nearest of the near, is your own Self, the reality of your life, body, and soul.

That Self is your own nature. Assert It, manifest It. You are not to become pure; you are pure already. You are not to become perfect; you are that already. Nature is like a screen which is hiding the reality beyond. Every good thought that you think or act upon simply tears the veil, as it were, and the Purity, the Infinity, the God behind, is manifested more and more. This is the whole history of man. Finer and finer becomes the veil, more and more of the light behind shines forth; for it is its nature to shine. That Self cannot be known; in vain we try to know It. Were It knowable, It would not be what It is; for It is the eternal Subject. Knowledge is a limitation; knowledge is an objectification. It is the eternal Subject of everything, the eternal witness of this universe-your own Self. Knowledge is, as it were, a lower step, a degeneration. We are that eternal Subject already; how can we know It?

The infinite Self is the real nature of every man, and he is struggling to express It in various ways. Otherwise, why are there so many ethical codes? Where is the explanation of all ethics? One idea stands out as the center of all ethical systems, expressed in various forms-namely, doing good to others. The guiding motive of mankind should be charity towards men, charity towards all animals. But these are all various expressions of that eternal truth that “I am the universe; this universe is one.” Or else, where is the explanation? Why should I do good to my fellow men? Why should I do good to others? What compels me? It is sympathy, the feeling of sameness everywhere. The hardest hearts sometimes feel sympathy for other beings. Even the man who gets frightened if he is told that this assumed individuality is really a delusion, that it is ignoble to try to cling to this apparent individuality-that very man will tell you that extreme self-abnegation is the center of all morality. And what is perfect self-abnegation? It means the abnegation of this apparent self, the abnegation of all selfishness.

This idea of “me” and “mine”- ahamkara अहंकार and mamata ममता -is the result of past superstition, and the more this present self passes away, the more the Real Self becomes manifest. This is true self-abnegation, the center, the basis, the gist of all moral teaching, and whether man knows it or not, the whole world is slowly going towards it, practicing it more or less. Only, the vast majority of mankind are doing it unconsciously. Let them do it consciously. Let them make the sacrifice, knowing that this “me” and “mine” is not the Real Self, but only a limitation. But one glimpse of that infinite Reality which is behind, but one spark of that infinite Fire which is the All, represents the present man. The Infinite is his true nature.

What is the utility, the effect, the result of this knowledge? In these days We have to measure everything by utility-by how many pounds, shillings, and pence it represents. What right has a person to ask that truth should be judged by the standard of utility or money? Suppose there is no utility, will it be less true? Utility is not the test of truth. Nevertheless, there is the highest utility in this. Happiness, we see, is what everyone is seeking for; but the majority seek it in things which are evanescent and not real. No happiness was ever found in the senses. There never was a person who found happiness in the senses or in enjoyment of the senses. Happiness is found only in the Spirit. Therefore the highest utility for mankind is to find this happiness in the Spirit.

Swami Vivekananda
Excerpts from Vivekananda The Yoga and Other Works


What is the worship of God through a pratika, प्रतिक – symbol ?

2434b63dfae421e5dcbe936e257038f3The word pratika means “going towards”; and worshiping a pratika means worshiping, as a substitute, something which is, in one or more respects, like Brahman ब्रह्मन्, but is not Brahman. Along with the pratikas mentioned in Sruti there are various others to be found in the Puranas and the Tantras. In this kind of pratika, worship may be included all the various forms of pitri-worship पितृ -पूजा (ancestors-worship) and deva-worship.

Now, worshipping Isvara ईश्वर, and Him alone, is bhakti; the worship of anything else – deva or pitri  or any other being-cannot be bhakti. The various kinds of worship of the various devas are all included in ritualistic karma, which gives to the worshipper only a particular result in the form of some celestial enjoyment, but can neither give rise to bhakti nor lead to mukti मुक्ति – liberation. One thing therefore has to be carefully borne in mind. If, as it may happen in some cases, the highly philosophic ideal, the Supreme Brahman, is dragged down by pratika-worship to the level of the pratika and the pratika itself is taken to be the Atman of the worshiper, his Antaryamin अन्तरयामि, then the worshiper becomes entirely misled; for no pratika can really be the Atman of the worshiper. But where Brahman Himself is the object of worship, and the pratika stands only as a substitute or a suggestion thereof, that is to say, where, through the pratika, the omni present Brahman is worshiped, the pratika itself being idealized into the cause of all, or Brahman-the worship is positively beneficial. Nay, it is absolutely necessary for all mankind until they have got beyond the primary or preparatory state of the mind with regard to worship.

When, therefore, any gods or other beings are worshiped in and for themselves, such worship is only ritualistic karma; and as a vidya, a science, it gives us only the fruit belonging to that particular vidya. But when the devas or any other beings are looked upon as Brahman and worshiped, the result obtained is the same as that obtained by the worshiping of Isvara.

This explains how in many cases, both in the Srutis and in the Smritis, a God or a sage or some other extraordinary being is taken up and lifted, as it were, out of his own nature and idealized into Brahman, and is then worshipped. Says the Advaitist, “Is not everything Brahman when the name and the form have been removed from it?” “Is not He, the Lord, the innermost Self of everyone?” says the Visishtadvaitist. “The fruition of even the worship of the Adityas, and so forth, Brahman Himself bestows, because He is the Ruler of all.” Says Sankara, in his Brahma Sutra Bhashya: “Here, in this way, Brahman becomes the object of worship, because He, as Brahman, is superimposed on the pratikas, just as Vishnu, and so forth, are superimposed upon images.”

The same ideas apply to the worship of the pratimas प्रतिमा – idol as to that of the pratikas. That is to say, if the image stands for a god or a saint, the worship does not result in bhakti and does not lead to liberation; but if it stands for the one God, the worship thereof will bring both bhakti and mukti.

Swami Vivekananda
Excerpts from: Vivekananda Yogas and Other Works

How is it that what is infinite, ever perfect, Absolute, has come under delusions? How did sin come into this world?


If a man reasons, there is no place for him to stand until he comes to this: that there is but one Existence, that everything else is nothing. There is no other way left for rational mankind but to take this view. But how is it that what is infinite, ever perfect, ever blessed, Existence-Knowledge-Bliss Absolute, Sat-Chita-Ananda सत्-चित्-आनन्द, has come under these delusions – that I am imperfect, I am a man or woman, or a sinner or a I am the mind, or I have thought? It is the same question that has been asked all the world over. In the vulgar form the question becomes, “How did sin come into this world?” This is the most vulgar and sensuous form of the question, and the other is the more philosophic form; but the answer is the same. The same question has been asked in various grades and fashions, but in its lower form it finds no solution, because the stories of apples and serpents and women do not give the explanation. In that state the question is childish and so is the answer. But the question has assumed very high proportions now: “How did this illusion come?” The answer is that we cannot expect any answer to an impossible question. The very question is impossible the way it is asked. You have no right to ask that question. Why so? What is perfection? That which is beyond time, Space, and causation. That is the perfect. Then you ask how the perfect became imperfect. In logical language the question may be put in this form: “How did that which is beyond causation become caused?” You contradict yourself. You first admit that it is beyond causation and then ask what causes it. This question can only be asked within the limits of causation. As far as time and space and causation extend, so far can this question he asked. But beyond that it will be nonsense to ask it, because the question is illogical. Within time, space, and causation it can never be answered, and what answer may lie beyond these limits can only be known when we have transcended them; therefore the wise will let this question rest. When a man is ill, he devotes himself to curing his disease, without insisting that he must first learn how he came to have it.

There is another answer to the question as to what caused this delusion: maybe more practical and understandable. Can any reality produce delusion? Certainly not. We see that one delusion produces another, and so on. It is delusion always that produces delusion. It is disease that produces disease, and not health that produces disease. The wave is the same thing as the water; the effect is the cause in another form. The effect is delusion, and therefore the cause must be delusion. What produced this delusion? Another delusion. And so on without beginning. The only question that remains for you to ask is: Does this not destroy your monism, because you get two existences in the univ verse-one the Self, and the other the delusion? The answer is: Delusion cannot be called existence. Thousands of dreams come into your life but do not form any part of your life. Dreams come and go; they have no existence. To call delusion existence will be sophistry. Therefore there is only one indivisible Existence in the universe, ever free and ever blessed, and that is what you are. This is the last conclusion reached by the Advaitists.

Swami Vivekananda
Excerpts from Vivekananda The Yoga and Other Works

As humanity travels from lower truth to higher truth..it perceives God in three different ways!


There are three ways in which man perceives God.

First, the undeveloped intellect of the uneducated man sees God as being far away, up in the heavens somewhere, sitting on a throne as a great Judge. He looks upon Him with fear, as a terror. Now, that is good; there is nothing bad in it. You must remember that humanity travels not from error to truth, but from truth to truth-it may be, if you like it better, from lower truth to higher truth; but never from error to truth. Suppose you start from here and travel towards the sun in a straight line. From here the sun looks small. Suppose you go forward a million miles; it will surely seem much larger. At every stage it will become bigger and bigger. Suppose that twenty thousand photographs are taken of the same sun, all from different standpoints; these twenty thousand photographs will all certainly differ from one another. But can you deny that each is a photograph of the same sun? So all forms of religion, high or low, are just different stages in the upward journey towards that eternal Light, which is God Himself. Some embody a lower view, some a higher, and that is all the difference. Therefore the religions of the unthinking masses all over the world teach, and have always taught, of a God who is outside the universe, who lives in heaven, who governs from that place, who is the punisher of the bad and the rewarder of the good, and so on.

As man advances spiritually, he begins to feel that God is omnipresent, that He must be in him, that He must be everywhere, that He is not a distant God, but clearly the Soul of all souls. As my soul moves my body, even so is God the mover of my soul-the Soul within the soul. And a few individuals of pure heart and highly developed mind go still farther, and at last find God. As the New Testament says: “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.” And they find at last that they and the Father are one.

You will find that these three stages are taught by the great Teacher in the New Testament. Note the common prayer He taught: “Our Father which art in heaven, hallowed be Thy name,” and so on; a simple prayer, mark you, a child’s prayer. It is indeed the “common prayer” because it is intended for the uneducated masses. To a higher circle, to those who had advanced a little more, He gave a more elevated teaching: “I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.” Do you remember that? And then, when the Jews asked Him who He was, he declared that He and His Father were one; and the Jews thought that that was blasphemy. What did He mean by that? But the same thing had been taught by the Jewish Prophets: “Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the Most High.” Mark the same three stages. You will find that it is easier for you to begin with the first and end with the last.

Swami Vivekananda

Excerpts from Vivekananda Yoga and Other Works

Believe nothing until you find it out for yourself – what Vedanta teaches us.

imagev1All our knowledge is based upon experience. What we call inferential knowledge, in which we go from the particular to the general or from the general to the particular, has experience as its basis. In what are called the exact sciences pe0ple easily find the truth, because it appeals to the specific experiences of every human being. The scientist does not ask you to believe in anything blindly; but he has got certain results, which have come from his own experiences, and when, reasoning on them, he wants us to believe in his conclusions, he appeals to some universal experience of humanity. In every exact science there is a basis which is common to all humanity, so that we can at once see the truth or the fallacy of the conclusions drawn therefrom. Now, the question is: Has religion any such basis or not? I shall have to answer the question both in the affirmative and in the negative.

Religion, as it is generally taught all over the world, is found to be based upon faith and belief, and in most cases consists only of different sets of theories; and that is why we find religions quarrelling with one another. These theories, again, are based upon belief. One man says there is a great Being sitting above the clouds and governing the whole universe, and he asks me to believe that solely on the authority of his assertion. In the same way I may have my own ideas, which I am asking others to believe; and if they ask for a reason, I cannot give them any. This is why religion and religious philosophy have a bad name nowadays. Every educated man seems to say: “Oh, these religions are only bundles of theories without any standard to judge them by, each man preaching his own pet ideas.” Nevertheless there is a basis of universal belief in religion, governing all the different theories and all the varying ideas of different sects in different countries. Going to this basis, we find that they too are based upon universal experiences.

In the first place, if you analyze the various religions of the world, you will find that they are divided into two classes: those with a book and those without a book. Those with a book are stronger and have a larger number of followers. Those without books have mostly died out, and the few new ones have very small followings. Yet in all of them we find one consensus of opinion: that the truths they teach are the results of the experiences of particular persons. The Christian asks you to believe in his religion, to believe in Christ and to believe in him as the Incarnation of God, to believe in a God, in a soul, and in a better state of that soul. If I ask him for the reason, he says that he believes in them. But if you go to the fountainhead of Christianity, you will find that it is based upon experience. Christ said that he saw God, the disciples said that they felt God, and so forth. Similarly, in Buddhism, it is Buddha’s experience. He experienced certain truths, saw them, came in contact with them, and preached them to the world. So with the Hindus: in their books the writers, who are called rishis, or sages, declare that they have experienced certain truths, and these they preach.

Thus it is clear that all the religions of the world have been built upon that one universal and adamantine foundation of all our knowledge-direct experience. The teachers all saw God; they all saw their own souls, they saw their souls’ future and their eternity; and what they saw they preached. Only there is this difference: By most of these religions, especially in modern times, a peculiar claim is made, namely, that these experiences are impossible at the present day; they were possible only to a few men, who were the founders of the religions that subsequently bore their names. At the present time these experiences have become obsolete, and therefore we now have to take these religions on faith.

This I entirely deny. If there has been One experience in this world in any particular branch of knowledge, it absolutely follows that that experience has been possible millions of times before and will be repeated eternally. Uniformity is the rigorous law of nature: what once happened can happen always.

The teachers of the science of Raia-yoga, therefore, declare not only that religion is based upon the experiences of ancient times, but also that no man can be religious until he has had the same experiences himself. Raja-yoga is the science which teaches us how to get these experiences. It is not much use to talk about religion until one has felt it. Why is there so much disturbance, so much fighting and quarrelling, in the name of God? There has been more bloodshed in the name of God than for any other cause, because people never went to the fountainhead; they were content to give only a mental assent to the customs of their forefathers, and wanted others to do the same. What right has a man to say that he has a soul if he does not feel it, or that there is a God if he does not see Him? If there is a God we must see Him; if there is a soul we must perceive it; otherwise it is better not to believe. It is better to be an outspoken atheist than a hypocrite.

The modern idea, on the one hand, with the “learned” is that religion and metaphysics and all search after a Supreme Being are futile; on the other hand, with the semi-educated the idea seems to be that these things really have no basis, their only value consisting in the fact that they furnish a strong motive power for doing good to the world. If men believe in a God, they may become good and moral, and so make good citizens. We cannot blame them for holding such ideas, seeing that all the teaching these men get is simply to believe in an eternal rigmarole of words, without any substance behind them. They are asked to live upon words. Can they do it? If they could, I should not have the least regard for human nature. Man wants truth, wants to experience truth for himself. When he has grasped it, realized it, felt it within his heart of hearts, then alone, declare the Vedas, will all doubts vanish, all darkness be scattered, and all crookedness be made straight. “Ye Children of immortality, even those who live in the highest Sphere, the way is found. There is a way out of all this darkness, and that is by perceiving Him who is beyond all darkness. There is no other way.”

The science of Raj-yoga proposes to put before humanity a practical and scientifically worked out method of reaching this truth. In the first place, every science must have its own method of investigation. It you want to become an astronomer, and sit down and cry, “Astronomy! astronomy!” you will never be’ come one. It is the same with chemistry. A certain method must be followed. You must go to a laboratory, take different substances, mix them, examine them, experiment with them; and out of that will come a knowledge of chemistry. If you want to be an astronomer you must go to an observatory, take a telescope, and study the stars and planets. And then you will become an astronomer. Each science must have its own methods. I could preach you thousands of sermons, but they would not make you religious until you followed the method. This truth has been preached by sages of all countries, of all ages, by men pure and unselfish who had no motive but to do good to the world. They all declare that they have found certain truths higher than what the senses can bring us, and they invite verification. They ask us to take up the discipline and practice honestly. Then, if we do not End this higher truth, we shall have the right to say that there is no truth in the claim; but before we have done that, we are not rational in denying the truth of their assertions. So we must work faithfully, using the prescribed methods, and light will come.

In acquiring knowledge we make use of generalization, and generalization is based upon observation. We first observe facts, then generalize, and then draw conclusions or formulate principles. The knowledge of the mind, of the internal nature of man, of thought, can never be had until we have first developed the power of observing what is going on within. It is comparatively easy to observe facts in the external world, for many instruments have been invented for the purpose; but in the internal world we have no instrument to help us. Yet we know that we must observe in order to have a real science. Without proper analysis any science will be hopeless, mere theorizing; and that is why the psychologists have been quarrelling among themselves since the beginning of time, except those few who found out the means of observation.

The science of Raja-yoga proposes, in the first place, to give us such a means of observing the internal states. The instrument is the mind itself. The power of attention, when properly guided and directed towards the internal world, will analyses the mind and illumine facts for us. The powers of the mind are like rays of light dissipated; when they are concentrated they illumine. This is our only means of knowledge. Everyone is using it, both in the external and in the internal world; but, for the psychologist, the same minute observation has to be directed to the internal world which the scientific man directs to the external; and this requires a great deal of practice. From childhood onward We have been taught to pay attention only to things external, but never to things internal; hence most of us have nearly lost the faculty of observing the internal mechanism. To turn the mind, as it were, inside, stop it from going Outside, and then to concentrate all its powers and throw them upon the mind Itself, in order that it may know its own nature, analyses itself, is very hard work. Yet that is the only way to anything which will be like a scientific approach to the subject.

What is the use of such knowledge? In the first place, knowledge itself is the highest reward of knowledge, and secondly, there is also utility in it. It will take away all our misery. When, by analyzing his own mind, a man comes face to face, as it were, with something which is never destroyed, something which is, by its own nature, eternally pure and perfect, he will no more be miserable, no more be unhappy. All misery comes from fear, from unsatisfied desire. When a man finds that he never dies, he will then have no more fear at death. When he knows that he is perfect, he will have no more vain desires And both these causes being absent, there will be no more misery; there will hit perfect bliss, even in this body.

There is only one method by which to attain this knowledge, and that is concentration. The chemist in his laboratory concentrates all the energies of his mind into one focus and throws them upon the materials he is analyzing, and thus finds out their secrets. The astronomer concentrates all the energies of his mind and projects them through his telescope upon the skies; and the stars, the sun, and the moon give up their secrets to him. The more I can concentrate my thoughts on the matter on which I am talking to you, the more light I can throw upon it. You are listening to me, and the more you concentrate your thoughts, the more clearly you will grasp what I have to say.

How has all the knowledge in the world been gained but by the concentration of the powers of the mind? The world is ready to give up its secrets if we only know how to knock, how to give it the necessary blow. The strength and force of the blow come through concentration. There is no limit to the power of the human mind. The more concentrated it is, the more power is brought to bear on one point. That is the secret.

It is easy to concentrate the mind on external things; the mind naturally goes outward. But it is not so in religion or psychology or metaphysics, where the subject and the object are one. The object is internal: the mind itself is the object. It is necessary to study the mind itself; the mind studies the mind. We know that there is a power of the mind called reflection. I am talking to you; at the same time I am standing aside, like a second person, and knowing and hearing what I am saying. You work and think at the same time, while a portion of your mind stands by and sees what you are thinking. The powers of the mind should be concentrated and turned back upon it; and as the darkest places reveal their secrets before the penetrating rays of the sun, so will the concentrated mind penetrate into its own innermost secrets. Thus we shall come to the basis of belief, to the real religion. We shall perceive for ourselves whether or not we have souls, whether or not life lasts for live minutes or for eternity, whether or not there is a God. All this will be revealed to us.

This is what Raja-yoga proposes to teach. The goal of all its teaching is to show how to concentrate the mind; then how to discover the innermost recesses of our own minds; then how to generalize their contents and form our own conclusions from them. It never asks what our belief is-whether we are deists, or atheists, whether Christians, Jews, or Buddhists. We are human beings, and that is sufficient. Every human being has the right and the power to seek religion; every human being has the right to ask the reason why and to have his question answered by himself-if he only takes the trouble.

So far, then, we see that in the study of Raja-yoga no faith or belief is necessary. Believe nothing until you find it yourself; that is what it teaches us.

Swami Vivekananda

Excerpts from Raja-Yoga

God cannot be angry because anger can be there only when there is an agenda. If God also has an agenda then he cannot be God!

gurudev (2)There is a benevolent order and fairness and that is an expression of God. Everything functions according to the fundamental laws or the order, which is what ordains and controls everything. In that sense it can be said that the order is the expression of God himself. God is benevolent and not punishing. Even if there is a pain in life, which may be the result of the past actions, a devout person will not consider it as a punishment but will understand it as the result of his actions and that even the pain is meant for his growth. Faith in the benevolence of the order will create an attitude that will look at all situations as a means of inner growth.

We do not have the concept of an angry, punishing God or a God who takes revenge. God cannot be angry or revengeful because anger can be there only when there is an agenda. Anger is the result of unfulfilled needs and demands. If God also has an agenda or need then God also becomes a needy and incomplete being. Then he cannot be God; he cannot be fair. In order to be fair one must have no axe to grind. In a court of justice the presiding judge has no personal gain in the judgment that he passes. He is totally objective; and compassionate also.

God is always kind. Whatever is done is done out of kindness and not out of revengefulness. If he is revengeful then he becomes incomplete because he has. likes and dislikes. And then he cannot be fair. There is freedom from likes and dislikes when one is whole and complete within. Likes and dislikes are manifestations of incompleteness and discomfort. with oneself. When controlled by likes and dislikes, actions also will be violent. There cannot be violence for order and fairness to be there. So God cannot be violent or unfair. There will be no order in the world if he were so. Whatever is done out of completeness is always an act of kindness. One who feels happy, whole and complete can never be unkind. In God’s infinite compassion everything has a place.

Swami Viditatmananda Saraswati

Excerpts from: Hindu Dharma – Basics & Beyond
Link Videos of Swamiji’s Discourses


The maha-vakya of Kenopanisad: तदेव ब्रह्म त्वं विद्धि – tad eva brahma tvam viddhi, May you understand that alone to be Brahman.


यद्वाचानभ्युदितं येन वागभ्युधते !
तदेव ब्रह्म त्वं विद्धि नेदं यदिदमुपासते !!

May you know that alone to be Brahman, which is not revealed by speech (but) by which speech is revealed, and not this that people worship (as an object). (Kenopnisad 1.4)

The first line reveals primarily the pratyagatman, the inner self, that which is ear of the ear, etc., that which is neither known nor unknown, but the basis of both the known and the unknown. In the second line the inner self is pointed out as Brahman by saying tadeva brahma tvam viddhi, may you understand that is Brahman.

While Chandogya Upanisad says, “tat tvam asi” that (Brahman) you are,” here, the teacher Says “tad eva brahma tvam viddhi”, may you understand that alone to be Brahman.” That ‘you,’ is the eye of the eye, ear of the ear, etc, and which is neither the known nor the unknown. All these details make the meaning of tat very clear; it is you. Understand that consciousness alone to be Brahman which is you, in Whose presence you are aware of all these things. Brahman means limitless, the cause of everything-that from which everything has come, and unto which everything goes back. You are that Brahman.

Yada vaca anabhyuditam: That which is not revealed by the word. Anabhyuditam means na prakasitam, not objectified by a word. The vastu is not revealed as the direct meaning of any word. It is unlike the object ‘pot’ that is revealed by the word ‘pot’. However, the vastu is revealed by words through implication, after creating a context.

Yena vag abhyudyate: By whose presence a word comes to manifest. Here, we have to take into account all that is connected to a word-by whose presence alone a word is a word, a word is pronounced as a word, a word is heard, a word is understood. In the presence of the invariable pratyagatman alone a word is heard and its meaning understood. So too, it comes to manifest.

The word ‘vak’ can also be taken to mean the organ of speech. That caitanya, consciousness, which the organ of speech cannot objectify, but because of which it is able to function, is Brahman. This meaning is given here because a story is going to be narrated later, based upon this fact.

That vastu which is not revealed by a word, but because of which a word comes to manifest, is referred by the word, ‘tat’ which, in the context of the previous unfoldment, means ‘you’. The mantra exhorts you to understand tad vastu, that caitanya, to be Brahman.

The word Brahman is already arrived at in the language. It is derived from the root brh, in the sense of growth. Brhatvad brahma, that which is big or brhmanat brahma, that which is capable of growing into jagat. Both meanings are applicable here. The bigness here is aparicchinna, unrestricted. Hence, Brahman is ananta that Which is limitless-time-wise or space-wise.

An object is limited both in terms of space and time – previously it was not, now it is. Whereas, Brahman is unlike any object that exists in time and space. Space itself is paricchinna, limited. Even though space is relatively all-pervasive, it does not pervade Brahman. In fact, Brahman pervades space. That is why space is part of the jagat. Therefore, space also is mithya. It has kale-pariccheda, time-wise limitation, because it is collapsible, as we know from the experience of sleep. Brahman, being limitless, has no spatial or time-wise limitation – means it is not born, it is not gone, it does not grow, it does not decline.

Brahman is not a object, and so there is no vastu-pariccheda, object-wise limitation. Brahman sustains time and space, and .it sustains everything else that exists in time and space. No object enjoys an independent reality without the reality of Brahman. Therefore, every object is Brahman. This is the meaning of Brahman, that which is ekam eva advitiyam, one without a second.

Let us look at the word, advitiya, without a second. A second thing can cause three types of bheda, difference, to a given thing – sajdtiya, vijaatiya and svagata bheda. A coconut tree, for instance, is different from other trees within its own species. There are many coconut trees, and this is one of them. This is sajatiya-bheda, a limitation caused within one’s own species.

Then there is vijatiya-bheda. Vijati means something belonging to a different species. A tree, for instance, is different from the rocks, rivers, and so on. If the tee is a coconut tree, then there are varieties of trees like an areca nut tree, an oak tree, and so on that are different from the coconut tree. In the genus of coconut tree itself there is a dwarfed coconut tree, a hybrid coconut tree; there too, there are varieties. Things that come under botany, things that come under zoology, and [things that come under geology are all different. Within botany itself there are varieties of plants like a vine, a creeper, a small plant, a big tree and so on. A jati, species, keeps on dividing itself endlessly. But you can bring them all under one jati, one subject matter of botany, because they have certain commonness about them. The coconut tree is distinct from a dog that comes under zoology. This is called vijatiya-bheda, a limitation caused by things of different species.

Finally, there is svagata-bheda, difference within a given species. A given tree has varieties of differences within itself like the” leaves, the flower, the fruit, the trunk, and so on.

Taking one’s own body, one can see all these bhedas. It has sajatfya-bheda, because there are many human bodies. It has vijatiya-bheda, because it is different from the body of any other being, like a dog . and so on. Then, it has svagata-bheda, varieties within the body such as the head, shoulders, hands and so on, each one being different from the other.

All these bhedas are not there in Brahman. There is only one non-dual Brahman that is revealed by the sastra. All that is here is that Brahman. Since a second Brahman is not there, there is no sajatiya-bheda, limitation or difference caused by the same species. Further, as there is nothing other than Brahman, there is no vijatiya-bheda, limitation caused by a different species. Brahman is satya, and everything else is vikara, apparent modification, and hence mithya. Mithya cannot be counted along with satya. Brahman being non-dually one, and everything else being mithya, does not add to the one. In Brahman itself there are no parts and hence there is no svagata-bheda. Brahman is satyam jananam anantam. It is pure caitanya, consciousness, which is neither knower-known-knowledge but the truth of all the three.

Tad means pratyagatman, the inner self, consciousness. Tad is predicated here to Brahman. The subject matter pratyagatman has already been introduced, about which the teacher reveals something here. We do not really require a pramana to arrive at the existence of oneself. By drg-drsya-viveka, subject-object-analysis, we can come to know the subject, the self, is not subject to objectification. Recognizing this self-revealing consciousness is Brahman, is the result of veddnta-pramana.

Suppose I say, ‘tvam asi, you are,’ you do not get anything out of this sentence without knowing the predication. Tvam is the subject about which something is going to be revealed. Here, an akanksa, expectancy, is created to hear what the predication is; what is it that the speaker wants to convey about the subject? Suppose, I do not say anything after saying tvam asi, What does it mean? Each one, per his or her psychology, will read the silence. “You are,” creates, in the listener, an expectancy. The speaker fulfils the expectancy, communicating what he or she intends to convey, which is called vivaksa (the intention to say).

The subject, srotrasya srotram, is already introduced, but needs to be predicated. This is where pramana walks in to say, “tad eva brahma tvam viddhi –  you understand ‘that’ to be Brahman.” That ear of the ear which is not objectified by the organ of speech, and because of which the organ of speech functions, is advayam brahma, non-dual Brahman, and that Brahman you are. That means there is nothing other than you; the thought is not other than you, the knower is not other than you, the object of thought is not other than you. Any other knowledge implies a knower-known difference. Here, the knower is you, the knowledge is you, and the known is you. That is the revelation.

The teaching is, “May you understand that to be Brahman.” There are no two entities here – yourself and Brahman. You are Brahman. If you are ignorant, well, Brahman makes that ignorance exist and known. Like anything else, this ignorance also is mithya. What does not exist by itself, but draws its existence from something else is mithya. Ignorance draws its existence from the same consciousness alone. Hence, ignorance is also mithya; it goes away in the wake of knowledge. Therefore, tad eva brahma tvam viddhi. Let there be no ignorance with reference to the fact of the self being consciousness, satyam brahma. That is the whole intention of the teaching.

That vrtti, the cognitive thought that takes place in one’s buddhi as a result of teaching, is known as akhandakara-vrtti, a cognition in which the knower-known-knowledge are resolved into one awareness. That means all the three are you.

Generally, a vrtti is the connecting link between the object of knowledge and the knower. When you say, “This is a pot,” pot is the object and you are the knower of the pot. The pramana-phala, the result of operating a means of knowledge, goes to you, the knower. Between you and the pot, the connecting link is tadakara-vrtti, the thought having the form of a pot. Akara means a form. A given thought assumes the form of the object it objectifies through perception, inference, words, or recollection.

You, the knower, look at the thought and say, “This is a pot.” That pot thought is called idam vrtti. You are the knower all the time. Therefore, you say, “I am the knower, and the whole world of objects is different from me.” With this kind of division in thoughts, you move around knowing different things in the world.

Now, you are told by the sastra, tad eva brahma tvam viddhi, understand that Brahman you are. That consciousness is Brahman which is the mind of the mind, without which there is no thought, there is no object of thought, and there is no knower.

Further, on analysis, you recognize that Brahman as the intelligent and material cause of the jagat. That means the whole creation is non-separate from Brahman. Therefore, your body is Brahman, your senses are Brahman, your mind is Brahman, the knower is Brahman, the cognition is Brahman; everything is Brahman. In this vision you recognize the invariable consciousness cit, as satyam brahma.

In other words, cit is sat. Once you say Brahman is satya, everything the knower-known-knowledge is Brahman. That means it is the whole. That is why it is called ananda or annanta. Being the whole, it is not an object of any of these words, but rather known more by implication. You are not in any way, anywhere, circumscribed, limited.

“That consciousness is Brahman” is the maha-vakya, a sentence revealing the oneness of you and Brahman.

In this mantra, there is also a negation of what is not Brahman. Brahman is generally understood as God, the cause of the world. People worship Brahman as Visnu, as Siva. Is that not Brahman? It is Brahman if you include yourself. That which includes both the subject and the object is Brahman. Nedam yad idam upasate: Not this, which people meditate upon.

Upasana means ‘people worship’. The sastra does not criticize or condemn upasana; on the contrary upasana is included. However, one should not construe that the form alone is Brahman. When a topic is considered, due respect is given to the topic. The consideration is showing respect.

Upasana is fine, but the upasya, one whom you Worship, includes you the upasaka too. If the upasya and the upasaka are one, then the upasana-phala, the ultimate result of worship, is gained; the payoff is recognizing the fact that both the updsaka and the upasya are sustained by one consciousness, Brahman, which is srotrasya srotram; that is why it is satyam. Therefore, What people worship is also Brahman, but that alone is not Brahman. These are sentences revealing an equation and one must see the truth of these sentences. One has to inquire into them thoroughly, curbing the tendency to gloss over.

Swami Dayananda Saraswati

Excerpts from Kenopnishad

What are the mahavakyas?


Every Upanishad must have a maha-vakya महावाक्य, not just four Upanishads. For the sake of समन्वय samanvaya, showing that all four Vedas have only one तात्पर्य tattparya, vision, four maha-vakyas are quoted, one from each Veda:

  1. तत् त्वम् असि, Tat Tvam Asi -> That Thou Art.
    from Chandogya Upnishad, Samaveda.
  2. अहम् ब्रह्मास्मि, Aham Brahmasmi -> I am Brahman.
    from Brahadarnayaka Upnishad, Yajurveda
  3.  प्रज्ञानम् ब्रह्म, Prajananam Brahma -> Consciousness is Brahman.
    from Aitareya Upnishad, Rigveda
  4. अयम् आत्मा ब्रह्म, Ayam Atmā Brahma -> This self is Brahman.
    from Mandukya Upnishad, Atharvaveda.

In fact, every Upanishad has maha-vakya. Without a maha-vakya there is no Upanishad, there is no Gita, and there is no शास्त्र sastra either. Any sastra reveals what is to be revealed, and therefore, maha-vakyas are seen in all the Upanishads.

In maya-vakyas there are no differences. It is not proper to create differences among them, like some people do. Some claim that, tat tvam asi is an upadesa-vakya, a sentence giving the teaching; aham brahmasmi is an anubhavakya, a sentence revealing the experience of oneness, and so on. The whole Upanishad is meant for upadesa, revealing an equation between जिव Jiva and ईश्वर Isvara.

Sawmi Dayanand Saraswati

Excerpts from Kenopanishad

Ananda is the Nature of Brahman, not an attribute!

gurudev (2)

अहमेव सुखं नान्यदन्यच्चेन्नैव तत्सुखम् |
अमदर्थ न हि प्रेयो मदर्थ न स्वतः प्रियम् ||

 Ahameva sukam nanyadanyaccnnaiva tatsukham
Amadartham na hi preyo madartham na svatah priyam

 अहं एव = I alone, सुखम् = (am) happiness, wholeness, न अन्यत् = (and) not different, अन्यत् चेत् = (if happiness is) different, तत् = that, न एव = not at all, सुखम् = (is) happiness; अमदर्थम्  = (if it is) not meant for me (then); न हि = (it is) not;  प्रेय = dear;  मदर्थम्  = (if it is) meant for me (then); न = not; स्वतः = by itself;  प्रियम् = dear

I am of the nature of happiness and not different (having happiness as my attribute). If it (happiness) is different, it is not bliss at all, for, it would not be clear if it is not meant for me, and, if it is meant for me, it is not dear by itself (whereas, the self is dear by itself). (Advaita Makranda – 24)

अहमेव सुखं Aham eva sukham, I alone am happiness, आनन्द ananda. न अन्यत् Na anyat, I am not different from this ananda. सुखं  Sukham is my nature and not an attribute or quality. It is not that आत्मा atma is asukha, unhappy by nature, and happiness is a quality it possesses from time to time.

How do you know that ananda is your nature and not your attribute? In answer to that question, we have this to say: If sukham or happiness is a quality or an attribute of atma, then it should be different from atma, because, according to the Naiyayikas, a quality or गुण gun and its locus, the गुणि  guni, are different from each other. If happiness is a guna of atma and atma is the guni, they should be different from each other.

Now, whatever is different from atma can fall under one of two categories: either it is conducive or favorable to atma, or the opposite. There is a third category of things that are neither favorable nor unfavorable, which will be referred to later on. If happiness is something different from atma and not conducive to atma, then it cannot be happiness, because whatever is not conducive cannot be dear to mm: This is what the author means when he says, अमदर्थ न हि प्रेयो amadartham na hi preyah; if it is not meant for me, not conducive to me, it cannot be dear to me.

Happiness is always dear tome, and, therefore, it cannot be something that is not conducive to me. We know that Whatever is not conducive, such as a snake etc., is not held dear. What if happiness is different from me, but also conducive to me? Then it would be dear to you and be a cause or reason for happiness; it would not be happiness itself.

The author says, मदर्थ न स्वतः प्रियम् madartham na svatah priyam; if it is conducive to me, it is dear alright, but it still is not dear for its own sake. For instance, certain objects, one’s spouse or progeny etc, are dear to us, but not for their own sakes. They are dear because they give happiness and, in such instances, it is possible that they may not remain dear if they cease to be a source of happiness.

The idea is that the love for things and beings that are clear is conditional. They are dear only as long as they continue to be favorable, useful, and conducive. But happiness is not like that. We love happiness for its own sake, meaning that the love for happiness is unconditional. We love happiness at all times, at all places, and under all conditions. Therefore, anything that is conducive, but different from us cannot be happiness. It can be a cause or reason for happiness, but not happiness itself. ‘

Whatever is not conducive to me or is a source of unhappiness cannot be happiness, and whatever is merely a cause or reason for happiness also cannot be happiness, because the cause or reason for happiness is loved conditionally, whereas happiness is loved unconditionally.

In fact, as the Pancadasi says, all the things and beings of the world can be divided into four categories: one ’s own self, those that one likes, those that one dislikes, and those to whom one is indifferent. Happiness is not disliked, like a tiger or snake may be, because everyone desires happiness. Neither is one indifferent to happiness, such as to a stone on the roadside, again because happiness is desired by everyone. We cannot call happiness as something that is simply dear, because spouse, children etc., which are sources of happiness, are also dear. Thus, by the rule of elimination, happiness is the self.

But would it not be true that the self is dear because it is a means to happiness? After all, the self does not have to be happiness itself to be dear; it can be dear even if it is a means of happiness. To this, we have to ask whether or not a means to happiness, such as an object of pleasure, is seen to serve the purpose of the self. If the self is a means to happiness, whose purpose will it serve?

It is argued that the self serves the purpose of the self; however, then, it has to be visualized as both the subject and object simultaneously, which is illogical. Therefore, we have to conclude that self is dear, not because it is a means of happiness, but because it is happiness itself.

Common experience is that happiness is born and it dies, that it arises and subsides, but you claim that the self is always there. In that case, how can happiness, which is impermanent, be the self? The answer is that what arises and subsides is the thought, which manifests as happiness. Indeed like the sun, which always shines in the sky, happiness always shines as the self, because it is the same as the consciousness that is self-shining.

However, just as clouds create the disappearance of the sun, so also, रजस rajas and तमस tamas create the disappearance of happiness. When the thought becomes सात्विक satvika, being transparent, the happiness becomes manifest. Happiness that is the self always is It is not created. It only needs to manifest and that happens when the mind becomes satvika or pure.

Thus, with the help of reasoning, on the strength of the experience of wise, as well as many statements of, the scriptures, it is made clear that happiness is not a quality or an attribute of the self, but the nature of the self.

Swami Viditatmananda Saraswati

Excerpts from Advaita Makranda of Sri Lakshmidhara Kavi

Link to Swamiji’s Discourses

What is the Nature of the Self?

gurudev (2)

अहमस्मि सदा भामि कदचिन्नाहमप्रिय:|

ब्रह्मैवाहमतः सिद्धं सच्चिदानन्दलक्षणम् ||

 Ahmasmi sada bhami kadachinnahamapriyah |
Brahhmaivahamatah siddham saachidanandalaksanam ||

सदा = always, अहम् अस्मि = I exists, भामि = I shine, अहम्= I (am), न कदाचित् = never,  अप्रियः = not dear, अतः = therefore, सिद्धम् = it is established (that), ब्रह्मन् एवं अहम् = brahman alone I am, सत् -चित् -आनन्द -लक्षणम्  = whose nature is existence-consciousness-fullness

I exist ever and always I shine; never do I dislike myself. Therefore, it is established that I am brahman, of the nature of existence-consciousness-fullness alone. (Advaita Makranda – 2)

This verse provides a simple way of looking at ourselves. For instance, if I look at myself as the body, then I had a birth and I will face death; I am mortal and I am limited. If I look at myself through the medium of the mind or intellect, I can see that in knowledge, I am limited, and in terms of my memory, I am limited. Even in terms of skills, I know that I am limited. In every way that I look at myself, I can only sense that I am limited. such is the perception I have of myself. Yet the nature of the limitations I feel depends on the standpoint through which I judge or observe myself; indeed, if I were to stop looking at myself in terms of these incidental factors, my ’costume’, and consider myself in terms of what I really am, I will become free.

What is it in each one of us that is abiding?

Everything that you might consider has two aspects, an incidental aspect that is constantly changing, and an inherent or intrinsic aspect, which is constant and abiding. Take the instance of this cloth that I am wearing: it is made of cotton, and, in this form, it is called cloth. If you were to take away all the interwoven yarn, it would not be cloth anymore; you may perhaps call it threads. The name is changed when the form is changed; if you take away all the threads from cloth, there would not be any cloth. However, even as thread, it is still cotton. You can cut these threads into small pieces and they would still be cotton. The fact that it is cotton never changes; that is never denied. Because it never ceases to be cotton fiber, cotton is the intrinsic aspect of this garment, whereas, its status as a piece of cloth or threads or shorter lengths of thread is incidental.

Remember that the actor only appears as a beggar, king or minister, each of the roles is incidental, while being an actor is intrinsic to the individual. This is how everything in this universe is a combination of the essential and the incidental. Lord Krishna says in the Bhagavad Gita, (Bhagavad Gita 13-26):

यावत्सञ्जायते किञ्चित्सत्त्वं स्थावरजङ्गमम्।
क्षेत्रक्षेत्रज्ञसंयोगात्तद्विद्धि भरतर्षभ।।

 yāvat sañjāyate kiñcit, sattvaḿ sthāvara-jańgamam
kṣetra-kṣetrajña-saḿyogāt, tad viddhi bharatarṣabha

 Oh Arjuna, whatever being, animate or inanimate, is born, know it to have emanated from the union of the क्षेत्र  ksetra (matter) and the क्षेत्रज्ञ ksetrajna (consciousness). Here Lord Krishna says to Arjuna that whatever is created in this world is a product of the union of the spirit and matter, the essential and the incidental; it is  सच्चिदानन्द  saccidananda alone, in some name and form or the other. In this cloth that I am wearing, the aspect of cotton is its essence and the fact of its being cloth is incidental. One must learn to separate the abiding, the inherent, the unchanging and essential from that which is changing and incidental. We have to investigate and discriminate between the two.

What about the self? Well, consider what it is that is unchanging and inherent about you. That would be the truth, your inherent reality. The essence of a golden ornament is the gold of which it is made, while the different forms and designs in which it may appear may change. Similarly, there is a part of you that keeps on changing at any moment, you may be a walker, dreamer, sleeper, speaker, or worker; these forms, or states are constantly changing. Then what is it in you that never changes? It is the fact that you ’are’ that never changes. The I ’am’ never changes. Your roles as a son, a father, a brother or friend, a sleeper, dreamer, speaker or teacher keep on changing, but the fact that you ’are’ never changes.

How do I know that I ’am’? Do I need to hear myself to know that I am? Do I need to touch myself to know whether I am? Do I ever need to say, “Let me see whether or not I am there”? Understand that even seeing, touching, hearing etc., can take place only when one is there in the first place. Making any such effort presupposes that one ’is.’ If I want to know where I am, I may need to ask somebody or look around to determine my position. However, to know that I ’am’ does not require any effort on my part. Everything requires the ’I’ to reveal it, whereas, the ’I’ itself does not require anything in order to reveal itself. That I ‘am’ or that you ’are’ is self-revealing. This is the meaning of such: bhami, I always shine.

Being and shining or revealing always go together. For instance, there is a flower in my hand. When can you say the flower is? Only when the flower is, that you can see it; only when you see it can you cognize it. Only when the flower becomes an object of your awareness do you see it. However, when can the flower become the object of your awareness? That can happen only when it is. So which comes first? Is it the fact that you see it or the fact that it exists? Unless it exists you cannot see it and unless you see it you cannot be aware of its being there. This is why being and shining or being and knowing happen together.

To be and to shine are not two different things. That you are is a self-revealing and undeniable fact about you. Nobody can take away from you the fact that you ’are.’ That you are smart can be taken away by proving you not to be so, or that you are successful can be proved wrong by pointing out your failures. Such concepts are relative, whereas the fact that you are and that you shine is not relative; it is not a point of view. The fact of your being does not depend on anything else for it to be. It is the one aspect of you that is independent of everything else.

Now the poet says, कदचिन्नाहमप्रिय: kadacit na aham apriyah, I am never ‘not dear’ to myself, meaning, I always love myself. One may ask, “How do you say that I love myself”? Sometimes, I hate myself for having done something wrong.” It is true that sometimes, people hate themselves so much, they want to commit suicide. Nobody would want to commit suicide if they did not hate themselves. However, upon careful deliberation, we can see that every instance of self-hatred is indeed a hatred of pain, of failure; what one hates is the incapability that has led to the failure. Why do we hate these things? It is because there is always love for oneself.

We love the limitless self, which is  आनन्द ananda (bliss), so we hate that which makes us feel limited. A person has thoughts of suicide when there is no hope in life and he feels helpless. Yet this only shows a hatred for pain and not hatred for existence, only, he does not know how to end the pain. The impulse to end his existence only reflects his desire to end the pain. In fact, even hatred for life reveals the love for the self, and, therefore, under no condition, कदाचित् kadacit, does one hate oneself; in other words, under all conditions, one loves oneself.

The love for the self is unconditional. For instance, while others may not like to see our faces, we love to see ourselves in the mirror. We keep looking at ourselves when we brush our teeth, or when we comb our hair after a shower, and ‘We never miss a chance to look at ourselves on any reflecting surface, even if it looks distorted!

But why is the body so dear to us? It is because the self is reflected in it; it is not dear when the self does not reflect in it. As Sri Sankaracarya says in the Bhaja Govindam (Bh.Go – 6), भार्या बिभ्यति तस्मिन्काये  bharya bibhyati tasmin kaye, even the wife fears the body of the husband once the life-breath leaves it. Even the wife that loved the husband more than her own life fears his body once life ceases to reflect in it, once the grace of the self is no longer present in it. Anything becomes clear because of its association with the self and it remains so for as long as it reflects the self.

When does something reflect the self? It is seen to reflect the self as long as it is favorable to us, as long as it is helpful to us or pleasing to us. The moment things start hurting us, they do not remain the object of our love. We love things as long as they reflect the self or are favorable to us. While the love for everybody and everything else is conditional, the love for the self is unconditional.

Everything about us changes, but that we are aware never changes. We are aware in the waking state, we are aware in the dream state, and we are aware in the sleep state as well. We are of the nature of that awareness, which illumines the waking, dream, and deep sleep states. In the deep sleep state, we are not aware of anything particular, but unconditioned awareness is nevertheless present. In a pitch-dark room, we do not see anything Yet when we say that we do not “see” anything, what do we mean? It is only when our eyes have the ability to see anything at all that we can say we do l not see anything. Saying we do not see anything in darkness nevertheless involves seeing; it simply means that one is aware of the absence of everything.

The eyes see even in a dark room, but they see only darkness. It is because of this that we can say that it is dark. Similarly, even in the deep sleep state, there is awareness; only, there is nothing to be aware of. The self is always shining and as awareness illumines the waking, dream and deep sleep states. This awareness has no boundary because it has no form or attributes. We are of the nature of that attribute-less awareness.

Asti is sat, bhati is cit, and priyam is ananda, because happiness is so dear to us. Wherever there is ananda, there is also love. Therefore, we are sat-cit-ananda. What is the nature of ब्रह्मन् brahman? That is also sat-cit-ananda. The Taittiriya Upanisad (2-1) defines brahman as सत्यं ज्ञानं अनन्तं satyam, jnanam, anantam. Satyam means truth, jnanam means knowledge, and anantam means limitless. Whatever is limitless is also ananda.

As the Chandogya Upanisad says, (Ch.Up. 7-23-1) यो वै भूमा तत्‌ सुखं yo mi bhuma tat sukham, what is limitless is indeed happiness. Satyam is the same as sat and jnanam is the same as cit. Therefore, brahman is the same as sat-cit-ananda. Because we are also sat-cit-ananda, it stands to reason that we are brahman; brahman is our essential nature. It is in this manner that the author shows the possibility that we can be brahman.

Brahman is sat-cit-ananda. The abiding reality of each one of us is also sat-cit-ananda. Even though the states of waking, dream, and sleep come and go and our roles as doer, enjoyer etc. are variable and constantly changing, अस्ति भाति प्रियं asti bhati priyam, never leaves us under any condition; it is अबाधितं abadhitam, never negated. You are asti bhati priyam always, at all times, in all places, and under all conditions. At no time are you not asti bhati priyam. You cannot get away from it, just as a golden ornament cannot get away from gold.

Upon being told this, however, a question immediately arises. How can I be brahman’? I am limited in power, knowledge, and strength, and insignificant in every way, so how can I be the limitless brahman? Vedanta says that even the insignificant can be limitless, because insignificance obtains solely at the level of the form. For instance, a drop of water might feel insignificant if it compares itself with the ocean; here it is looking at itself as a form, a tiny drop, whereas the ocean is endless. However, if it thinks of itself as water, it would feel no different from the ocean. As a drop, it is insignificant in size and extent compared to the size and boundless nature of the ocean, but as water, it is the truth of the very ocean itself. Similarly, you are limited only at the level of the उपाधि  upadhi (costume) and your reality is no different from brahman; you are sat-cit-ananda.

When brahman manifests in the costume of a limited name and form, it is the ego, the jiva, and when the same brahman manifests in the costume of the totality, it is Isvara. In essence, however, Jiva and Isvara are are not different. In the Upadesa Saram, Sri Ramana Maharshi (Upadesa Saram 24) says,

ईश जीवयोर्वेषधीभीदा|
सत्स्वभावतो वस्तु केवलम् ||

isa-jivayor vesa-dhi-bhida, sat-svabhavato vastu kevalam

 due to the reality given to the costume (upadhi) there is the notion of division between Isvara and जीव jiva. However, from the standpoint of the essential nature, which is sat, the truth is only one. The difference between ईश्वर Isvara and जीव jiva is thus restricted to वेष  vesa in terms of their essential nature, the jiva is as much अस्ति भाति प्रियं asti bhati priyam as is lsvara.

Is it really true that your experiential reality shows you to be limited? Is it indeed your direct experience that you are limited? What is direct experience? It is something that takes place in the mind and through the sense organs. However, आत्मा atma obtains as the witness. The sense organs and the mind cannot objectify it. The fact is that your self or atma cannot be objectified by any available प्रमाण  pramana or means of knowledge. You can truly never really ’see’ yourself. In reality, it is a mere notion that you are limited, something that you just take for granted. You believe quite strongly that you are an insignificant speck in this universe, limited in every possible way. Nevertheless, who is it that says you are insignificant? It is you yourself who Says that you are insignificant. Yet on what grounds do you say that?

Have you ever experienced yourself to conclude that you are limited? Given that the self cannot be objectified, how do you say you are limited? Is it because you were born, because you have a body that is subject to various limitations, and because you are going to die some day? What was born? Only the body is born; you are not born. The conclusion that one is limited truly has no basis. You may feel that you are a limited being, but the self that is judged to be limited is indeed not available for direct experience, unlike this flower in front of me, which is there for you to see here and now.

आत्मा Atma cannot be objectified by any available means of knowledge, and, therefore, not available to inference or to any other means of knowledge. The conclusion of the self being limited thus has no basis. You can never see the ’I’ directly and you cannot experience it in any way or even visualize it, like you can any other object. It is like looking at yourself in a mirror and concluding that there is a big stain on your face, when, in reality, the stain is a flaw or smudge in the mirror. In the same way, you look at your body, see that it is limited, and conclude that you are limited. The cause for it is the identification with the body, which is the non-self. There is a lack of discrimination between the self and the non-self.

The self can never become the object of perception or object of knowledge. It is of the nature of knowledge and cannot become the object of knowledge; it is the witness and cannot ever be witnessed or objectified. So you must understand that you cannot ever say that it is your experience that you are a limited being. It is a conclusion and not an experience.

When I see a snake where, in fact, there is only a rope, it is again a conclusion; it is my projection and not a reality. In the same way, the limitedness of the body-mind complex is projected on the self and you take yourself as limited. Limitedness is present in the vesa or costume alone. That one is limited is not an experience, but a projection. Let alone experience this limitedness, you cannot even infer limitedness, for all inference is based on perception.

Swami Viditatmandanda Saraswati

Excerpts from Advaita Makaranda of Sri Lakshmidhara Kavi

Link to Swamiji’s Various Discourses