The foundational texts of various philosophical systems are called sutras. A sutra is always concise—brief in length, economical in syllables and words, yet conveying manifold meanings. Scholars designate the essential sentences of any philosophical system as sutras. In these compressed formulations, the entire substance of a doctrine is arranged in distilled form. Nearly all ancient philosophical systems were composed in sutra form. Because sutras are woven together with so few syllables, they remain inaccessible to the ordinary reader; hence commentary becomes indispensable. Yet the exposition of a sutra cannot be done in just any manner—it too has its prescribed characteristics. To expound a sutra properly, one must first identify its word-divisions: how many words compose the sutra. Following this word-division comes the designation of meaning for each word; the resolution of compound words into their constituent parts and their arrangement in full statement form; the syntactic coherence of the sutra—that is, how each word relates to every other; the clarification of the meanings of the words that compose the sentence and the relationships among them; and the resolution of objections—that is, the proper refutation of potential doubts or difficulties. These five characteristics must be present in any proper exposition of a sutra.
Not all commentarial works describe these five elements with equal consistency. Since syntactic coherence accomplishes the function of word-division, commentators have deemed the latter superfluous and have generally neglected it. Expositors have indeed designated word-meanings in certain places, yet in most instances they have not indicated the meanings of words separately; rather, the syntactic coherences themselves have been called the meanings of the words. Where the resolution of objections is concerned, they sometimes propose multiple interpretive methods. In those places where many interpretations are advanced, typically the last is the most suitable, the earlier ones being somewhat flawed or objectionable. These various expositions are classified into different categories: vritti, bhashya, vartika, tika, and tipani. A vritti is a detailed exposition of the sutra's meaning. A bhashya is a work in which the meanings of the sutras and their words are explained through words immediately following the sutras. A vartika is an extended commentary on the sutra. A tika is a complete exegesis, exposition, or explanation designed to clarify the meaning of a sutra or bhashya. A tipani is commentary on a particular portion of a sutra.
The six philosophical systems set forth in sutra form—the Sankhya of the sage Kapila, the Yoga of the great sage Patanjali, the Nyaya of the great sage Gautama, the Vaisheshika of the great sage Kanada, the Purva Mimamsa or Mimamsa of the great sage Jaimini, and the Uttara Mimamsa or Vedanta of the sage Badarayana—are small in compass, yet difficult to comprehend. The Sankhya sutra philosophy places particular emphasis upon the dualistic metaphysical explanation of purusha and prakriti. The Yoga sutra philosophy accepts the conception of an individual deity and places emphasis upon yogic practice—meditation, absorption, and liberation. The Nyaya sutra philosophy emphasizes pramana, the sources of knowledge, and the doctrine of karma. The Vaisheshika sutra philosophy is an empiricist branch of atomism. The Mimamsa sutra philosophy, being grounded in the earlier portion of the Vedas—the ritual section—is also called the Purva Mimamsa. The Brahma sutra philosophy is directly grounded in the Upanishads, that is, in the knowledge section or later portion of the Vedas, and is therefore also called the Uttara Mimamsa.
The foundational scriptures, with their aphorisms, commentaries, subcommentaries, annotations, and glosses—vast in scope and written in Sanskrit—are not readily comprehensible to all. What is ascertained with certainty according to scriptural evidence is called a conclusion (siddhānta). To examine an uncertain matter through scriptural proofs and arrive at a conclusion in accordance with the scriptures—this too is called a conclusion. When the question arises: what dispels suffering? One examines through the scriptures what the cause of suffering is, what means might dissolve that cause, and the like. The conclusion thereby reached is that liberation (apavarga)—freedom itself—dispels suffering. This is the conclusion. A work that takes a portion of this conclusion and, separately or innovatively, determines deeper meanings is called a treatise of exposition (prakaraṇa-grantha). Ordinary people chiefly gain entry into the profoundest reaches of philosophical doctrine through translations of these concise expository treatises.
These works take a portion of the foundational scriptures and, through fresh reasonings, establish the very keynote of the scriptures in simplified form. Consequently, with the aid of these expository treatises, one may truly penetrate the keynote of the primary scriptural 'mines' themselves.
Most Vedantic treatises of exposition were composed as aids to the cultivation of mental faculties. In composing the text *Dṛg-Dṛśya-Viveka*, the author held this very aim especially in view. How to keep the heart aspiring toward liberation perpetually inclined toward meditative absorption—with this purpose, the author determined the means in merely forty-six verses. When dispassion and the yearning for liberation are firmly established in the seeker's heart, these contemplative methods, when pursued, will render the cultivation of mental excellence accessible even to ordinary people.
The *Dṛg-Dṛśya-Viveka* is also known by the name *Vākyasuddhā*. This text, composed by Śrīmad Bhāratītīrtha, has been elucidated by commentary from his own disciple Śrīmad Brahmānandabhāratī. The commentator's preliminary discussion plays a particularly vital role in understanding the substance of the work.
Yasmāt sarvaṃ samutpannaṃ carācharam idaṃ jagat. Idaṃ namo naṭeśāya tasmai kāruṇya-rūpiṇe. 1
From him has come forth all this world of the moving and the stationary—the entire cosmos encompassing animate and inanimate, manifest and unmanifest. He is the Lord of Dance who, assuming the form of the individual soul, manifests the bliss inherent to his own nature in the guise of compassion. To him, the Cosmic Dancer, whose essence is grace, I bow.
'Joy that is the self.' In the Taittiriya Upanishad (2/1/2), I find the definition of Brahman: "Satya jnanam anantam brahma"—"Brahman is truth, knowledge, and infinite." This statement defines Brahman's nature. 'Truth' means not abandoning the form in which something is established or revealed, and forming one's own interpretation instead; 'knowledge' means the very feeling or sensation of being known, not the knower itself; 'infinite' means not being limited by space, time, or substance (not having any boundary or division imposed upon it). These three are the attributes of Brahman, and each relates to Brahman individually and distinctly. An attribute distinguishes the subject from other things. The word 'truth' separates Brahman from what is mutable or imagined, presenting it as the immutable cause underlying all existence—as the primordial and abiding, the eternal being. This means Brahman neither originates nor perishes through space, time, or substance; there is no moment when Brahman does not exist. The word 'knowledge' negates lordship (the complete absence of ignorance within) and the word 'infinite' denies limitation (transcending the bounds of space and time) or indicates its boundlessness. Brahman is not a knower; it is knowledge itself. Not a being; it is being itself. In short, what applies here does not apply there; what is now does not apply then; what is this is not that—none of these three propositions hold true of Brahman.
When one understands the mystery of this description, the counsel given to the practitioner in the first mantra of the Isha Upanishad also becomes clear. There it is said: "Whatever appears in this universe—both inert and conscious—is permeated by the Lord. One should meditate upon this Lord ceaselessly and serve necessary things through renunciation." The instruction given there for the seeker is repeated here for the perfected soul. The meaning of "he experiences all enjoyment in communion with Brahman" is this: the perfected one who has attained God remains ever established in God even while engaging the senses in the enjoyment of objects. His mind, intellect, and senses function; all his efforts, undertaken through them, are accomplished while remaining rooted in the Supreme Self. Even when the senses properly enjoy objects according to necessity, he is not separated from the Supreme Self for a single moment (Bhagavad Gita, 6/31). Therefore, he remains forever unattached to all action.
Brahman is thus 'infinite.' Through the meaning of this word 'infinite,' Brahman's nature as bliss is established, for in the Chandogya Upanishad (7/23/1), the sage Narada instructs Sanaka and others: what is infinite (the fullness) is happiness. In the finite (the limited thing) there is no happiness; only in fullness is happiness. The joy that is the self is thus infinite fullness—that supreme completeness which Brahma expresses in the form of compassion.
'The King of Dancers.' If an actor wanted to work as a potter, he would need to depend on others for clay; but when the Supreme Brahman creates the world, he does not depend on anyone for its various materials. He is like the spider—simultaneously the efficient cause, the agent, and the material cause. That is why he is the King of Dancers, the sovereign of performance. Moreover, since the world-creator is itself the nature of being, consciousness, and bliss—the truth of non-duality—every act of creation, sustenance, and dissolution is an expression and revelation of his essential bliss. Through his own maya, he makes the creature he created appear separate, as if the creature were the world-creator; thus the being thinks of his favorable circumstances as the compassion of the world-creator. In truth, the world-creator reveals through the eyes of the being the bliss that springs from his own nature, manifesting it as grace. This is why he is the King of Dancers.
Let us break it down further. When dust suddenly flies into someone's eye, his own hand moves of its own accord to brush it away. Self-love is the cause. If the hand proves capable of the task, the person does not feel gratitude toward the hand for its compassion, nor does he thank it, because he knows the hand to be inseparable from himself. But when that same hand fails or proves unable to clear the dust, and another person comes to his aid—when through that other's help the dust is removed from his eye and he expresses gratitude to his benefactor—then, due to the sense of separation, due to the afflicted one regarding his helper as distinct from himself, that very self-love takes on the form of grace toward another's body.
By causing the living being to forget itself as agent and enjoyer, he extends his divine play. In precisely the same light, that very Lord of Dance is also the Lord of Deceit—for both dance and deception are illusory in nature, and thus in using the word "Lord of Dance," a subtle jab is directed at the Creator's very "deceptiveness." Among the thousand names of Vishnu, "the Cunning One" is counted. This very barb speaks to compassion for the ignorant and suffering being, and it goads the living creature toward hearing wisdom. The phrase "this salutation" is not the non-dual meditation of oneness endorsed by Advaita philosophers; rather, it is the enactment of full prostration. (Since the living being, indeed all things, are manifestations of Brahman, this salutation undoubtedly expresses Brahman's own performance.)
कारणं खादिजगतां तारणार्थमनागसाम्। वारणानन मात्मान मद्वयं समुपास्महे।। 2
He who is the non-dual Self, the cause of the cosmos from ether downward, manifests as Gajanana, as Ganesha, by taking refuge in that power among his infinite energies which destroys all obstacles. We worship him for the liberation of the sinless seekers of freedom.
"The non-dual Self." Only consciousness, awareness, selfhood is the true substance; all else besides this is illusion—such is the conclusion. He who disputes this is himself a disputant and also a propounder of conclusions. He raises a question about something perceived by both himself and the first propounder—or something bearing the mark of (false or inferred) knowledge: Is this true or false? To this the first propounder replies: I cannot call it false simply because it appears; yet neither do I call it true. Want a single-word answer? Then, speaking neither "true" nor "false," I call it "indescribable"—beyond description, inexpressible in language. Yet in my mind I know full well it is false, for I find it neither in reason nor in logic. Like a city of celestial beings, like a mirage, all illusion and manifestation is ever-changing in nature, appearing and disappearing—truth is consciousness alone. Upon this consciousness, and upon this alone, all illusion and manifestation of sky and so forth rest as a superimposition—the imagining of one thing or its qualities upon another.
'The Sinless Seeker of Liberation.' The sin or fault of a being dwells in the inner sanctum of the heart, and appears there in three forms—impurity, agitation, and veiling. To harbor thoughts of another's harm in the mind, to imprint the character of sin upon the soul—this is called impurity. To remain forever absorbed in worldly concerns, or to keep the mind perpetually restless—this is called agitation. To have the pride and arrogance of all perishable and transient things in this world lie like a curtain upon the mind—this is called veiling. He who, through selfless action, removes the fault of impurity, through worship removes the fault of agitation, and then, bearing only the fault of veiling, becomes earnest in attaining liberation—he is the sinless seeker of liberation.
'We.' The intention here is that both guru and disciple may together transmit and receive this knowledge of Brahman without impediment. Here 'we' means the intention or will 'of both guru and disciple'—a plural form indicating both.
Parā, Paśyantī, Madhyamā, and Vaikharī—in these four forms of speech dwells her body; To her who grants the desires of all those who bow before her, I meditate upon Saraswati, of the form of truth, knowledge, and bliss. ||3
Parā, Paśyantī, Madhyamā, and Vaikharī—these four kinds of speech constitute her body. That is, this Saraswati, the embodiment of the knowledge of Brahman, manifests herself in four kinds of speech—Vaikharī, Madhyamā, Paśyantī, and Parā respectively—in the waking, dreaming, deep sleep, and samadhi states of the knower of Brahman, fulfilling the heart's desires of humble seekers of liberation. And she who is non-different from the all-pervading, conscious, blissful Brahman as the power of His knowledge, the establisher of all knowledge in the form of supreme knowledge—I meditate upon that Saraswati.
As cited by Mallinātha in his commentary on the Kumārasambhava (2/17): Vaikharī is the utterance of sound; Madhyamā is accessible to the ear; Paśyantī illumines meaning; Parā is the subtle, inexpressible speech.
In the waking state, the sound utterance that all beings can hear is Vaikharī speech; in the dream state, the sound that only the dreamer perceives is Madhyamā speech; in the state of deep sleep, the speechless utterance that manifests joy and unknowing—this is Paśyantī speech; in the state of samadhi, the eternal speech in the form of consciousness is Parā.
'Speech.' Sri Ramakrishna says, "The body composed of the five elements—that is the gross body. Mind, intellect, ego, and consciousness together form the subtle body. That body in which God's bliss is enjoyed and experienced is the causal body. In the Tantras it is said, 'The divine form.' Beyond all this is the 'great cause' (Turiya) which cannot be spoken." (Sayings of Sri Ramakrishna, Thirty-first Discourse) For the body is threefold in nature—subtle and gross, and a third beyond both. In a letter to Srimati Mrinālini Basu, Swami Vivekananda writes, "Many individuals together are called the 'collective'; each single one is called the 'individual'—you and I are 'individual'; society is the 'collective.' You, I, beasts, birds, insects, worms, trees, creepers, earth, planets, stars—each of these is an 'individual'; and this world itself is the 'collective'—in Vedanta this is called Virāt or Hiranyagarbha or Ishvara." Consciousness has three levels: the world or individual waking—distinguished by the separate gross body; Taijasa or dream consciousness, which has the subtle body as its object; and Prājña or deep sleep consciousness, the unified, indivisible consciousness characteristic of the causal body, the supreme experience of Brahman. The collective and individual each have three states—deep sleep, dream, and waking respectively—and beyond all these stands the supreme state of Turiya, the unchanging and beyond transformation.
The seventh verse of the Mandukya Upanishad addresses the Turiya, the fourth state of consciousness. From verses 8/7 to 8/12 of the Chandogya Upanishad, the four states of consciousness are discussed—waking, dream-filled sleep, deep sleep, and that which transcends deep sleep. Similarly, the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad takes up the realm of Turiya in verse 5/14/3, as do the Maitri Upanishad in verses 6/19 and 7/11. The seventh verse of the Mandukya Upanishad describes Turiya thus:
Nantahprajnam na bahihprajnam nobhayatahprajnam na prajnanaghanam na prajnam naprajnam. Adrshtam avyavahar yam agrahy am alakshanam achintya m avyapade sh yam ekatma pratyayasaram prapancho pasham shantam shivam advaita m chaturtha m manyante. Sa atma. Sa vijneyah..
Since the word "consciousness" proceeds from the Self itself, He transcends all articulated speech and its derivatives. Therefore, the undifferentiated Turiya is spoken of by negating all particularities. Not possessed of inner knowledge (He is not Taijasa, the subtle self), not possessed of outer knowledge (He is not Vaishvanara, the external world), not possessed of knowledge between waking and dreaming (He does not partake of the state between these two), not a mass of consciousness (He is not Prajna, the causal self), not knowing all things simultaneously (He is not omniscient in that manner), yet not insentient either. He is invisible—not perceived by the eye, not grasped by any organ of action, beyond the reach of thought, beyond description in words, knowable only through the understanding that He alone is the Self in all states, the dissolution of the manifest world and all its multiplicity, peaceful, auspicious, and non-dual. The wise declare this fourth, this Turiya, to be so. He is the Self; He alone must be known.
Here the discourse is of the fourth or Turiya foot of the Self—that is, of Para-Brahman, the Supreme Reality. The sages speak of what is called Nirguna Brahman, the formless Absolute, and here its nature is expounded. This fourth foot of the Self is entirely distinct from the other three. The nature of that Para-Brahman is described thus—He is not possessed of inner knowledge, that is, He is not Taijasa. He is not possessed of outer knowledge, nor is He Vaishvanara. He does not possess the knowledge that lies between waking and dreaming. He is not Prajna, the mass of consciousness. He is not the knower of all things, yet neither is He bereft of consciousness. He is invisible—this eye cannot see Him. No organ of action can grasp Him, the mind cannot contemplate Him, words cannot fully describe Him.
"From which speech, together with mind, turns back, unable to reach it." (Taittiriya Upanishad, 2/4) [From whence the senses, speech, and mind turn back, unable to attain it.]
At the culmination of spiritual practice, in the state of nirvikalpa samadhi, the seeker perceives that Self, that Supreme Brahman, within consciousness alone. Thus the blessed Shankaracharya spoke of that Supreme Brahman—only a pure sentiment of the Self can be known in samadhi. In that samadhi, there exists no distinction between knower, known, and knowledge; the world's existence dissolves, and all sense of duality vanishes. Then He is peaceful, auspicious, without division—the Fourth, the Transcendent. To apprehend that Self, that Supreme Brahman in nirvikalpa samadhi in this manner is the supreme attainment of the spiritual seeker.
Nirvikalpa samadhi, or absorption into the Self beyond the sense of ego, is a submerged state of mind in which the movements of consciousness ascend to such a plane that the distinction between knower and known ceases; just as waves dissolve into water, as foam merges into the ocean. What distinguishes it from other meditative states is that in this samadhi, there is no possibility of descent into any lower plane of consciousness. Therefore, this alone is the true, the final knowledge. Meditation elevates the mind to a suprasensory self-consciousness, and an action arising naturally with cause and effect becomes united with the mind's suprasensory, divine nature. Even when the mind is engaged in action, that state does not vanish. Thus self-consciousness rises to universal consciousness—from self-bliss to the bliss of Brahman, from the meditative to the non-meditative—until at last, in yoga's fruition, universal consciousness attains its fullness in God-consciousness. The first light of knowledge reaches its complete radiance.
Like the body, sound too has three forms in deep sleep, dream, and waking—respectively, Pashyanti, Madhyama, and Vaikhari. From Para, an undifferentiated state, Pashyanti emerges; that is, Para itself is the causal condition of sound's Pashyanti form. The Para state is utterly without vibration; Pashyanti is its vibrating manifestation. Madhyama is the sound of Hiranyagarbha, the golden womb. This subtle sound and all corresponding meanings dwell in the subtle body, the linga sharira—mind, intellect, feeling-consciousness, and ego woven together as the soul's vesture. At creation's dawn, from the Creator's mind, the Pashyanti sound and all its corresponding meanings first emanate. The Creator then casts that subtle meaning into the world of sense-perception and, issuing from the throat through the mouth, gives it utterance as spoken sound—naming that meaning. This is Vaikhari, the gross sound. That sound and its sense-perceptible meaning rest upon the gross body. This final, gross sound is language itself—sentence, word, and letter—through which the mind's sentiments and mantras are expressed. When one examines the true nature of Pashyanti sound, it appears as a general or undifferentiated vibration—the first indistinct or obscure stirring of air in the very inception of utterance created by sound. Madhyama is essentially a differentiated kind of sound; here the air begins to assume definite form. Vaikhari is the more manifest sound—the distinct, articulated utterances of speech itself.
The Power of Consciousness has another name: 'Para,' the 'Supreme Word.' Though Maya manifests it upon receiving a glimpse of Consciousness, she cannot set it vibrating. The remaining three forms of sound are all vibrating conditions. Pashyanti speech is seated in the bindu principle.
The readiness to create is called Bindu. The first vibration produced is called Nada. Both Nada and Bindu are special conditions of power—conditions in which the 'power of action' becomes inclined toward manifestation, sprouting forth in abundance, resulting thereby in the densification of power and the arising of intention toward creation. The condensed state of power is called Bindu.
Pashyanti speech is "the revealer of undifferentiated vibration"—that is, this vibration has no particular form. It manifests from the muladhara to the navel region. It is called pashyanti because it is gnosis-bearing (in the Gita 13.6, consciousness is named a gnosis-bearing faculty of mind). Since mind accompanies it, it receives the aid of mind.
Madhyama speech is full of nada-bindu. It is the hiranyagarbha sound—manifesting from the navel to the heart region. Within it lie woven the principles of various specific intentions. This speech is named madhyama because intellect then exists in the madhyama state, the middle state. Madhyama means intermediary—standing between pashyanti and vaikhari. Pashyanti is the state of contemplation or reflection, while vaikhari is the state of utterance. That madhyama speech is neither like pashyanti nor clearly articulated and externalized like vaikhari; rather it holds an intermediate position between the two. Vaikhari is seed-natured, madhyama is sound-formed, and pashyanti is bindu-natured. Vaikhari speech manifests from the heart to the mouth. Raghava, the commentator of the Sarada-tilaka tantra, says the speech is named vaikhari because of special quickness. Bhaskara Ray, commentator of the Lalita-sahasranama-stotra, derives it thus: vi—intensely, khara—hard. According to the Saubhagya-sukhodaya: vai—certainly, kha—ear-cavity, ra—the root meaning motion.
In the third verse, "I meditate"—only the enlightened guru is entitled to this meditation, not the unenlightened student. For this reason the singular "I" is employed.
The word "sarvavidy"—all-knowledge—appears in Shankara's commentary on the Mundaka Upanishad, First Mundaka, First Khanda, First Verse, where it states "brahmavidya, the foundation of all knowledge," or as that by which "what is unheard becomes heard, what is unthought becomes thought, and what is unknown becomes known." From this teaching of the Upanishad we understand that through this knowledge, all that is knowable through other sciences becomes known—hence it is the foundation of all knowledge.
"I meditate." There are two kinds of gurus. First: he who is versed only in the verbal meaning of scriptures that expound or analyze the nature of Atman. Second: he who has himself realized the truth of Atman. The first kind of guru is an ordinary human, not Brahman; for he has not dispelled the illusion that he is a man. When such a guru explains the nature of Atman, only doubt arises concerning that matter—that is, experiential realization being absent, no decisive knowledge is born. He merely constructs various interpretations of scriptural statements through words alone. As a result, the Atman seems sometimes to exist, sometimes not to exist, sometimes as agent, sometimes as non-agent, sometimes pure, sometimes impure, and so forth. But the guru who has realized the truth of Atman is himself Brahman. When he explains Brahman as non-different from Atman, it is understood.
Bowing to Sri Bharati-tirtha and Sri Vidyaranya, the two masters of wisdom, I compose, according to my understanding, this commentary called "Nectar of Words" upon the teaching.
I compose this commentary called "Nectar of Words" (or the commentary upon that work) on the text called "Discrimination of Seer and Seen," bowing to Sri Bharati-tirtha and Sri Vidyaranya, the supreme among sages, according to my own understanding.
Not for gain of fame or honor is this commentary composed; liberation alone is the cause here, not the attainment of learning.
I have not composed this commentary in pursuit of fame, wealth, honor, or to display the learning I have acquired. The sole purpose of this commentary is to benefit myself and other seekers of liberation through careful examination of the text.
Now we shall consider why and how the opening of the most crucial first verse of the text *Drig Drishya Viveka* came to be as it is.
The venerable sage Bharatitirtha wished to commence the composition of a text, and the first verse was introduced with the intention that this work might grow and reach completion without hindrance. Without understanding the first verse, it becomes difficult to penetrate the heart of this text. Pious and learned persons observe the custom of invoking their chosen deity at the beginning of a work, and so the first verse performs an auspicious invocation in the form of remembrance of the Supreme Self—just as the Bhagavad Gita declares, "If you cannot fix your mind steadily on Me, then seek to reach Me through the discipline of constant remembrance" (Gita 12:9). For the word "witness" employed in the first verse points solely to that Supreme Self, which is the immutable, unchanging consciousness pervading all beings.
*Kutastha*—He who is motionless, who knows no transformation, who remains eternally the same—the Supreme Self is of such a nature; that is what *Kutastha* means. He who undergoes no transformation, who is forever uniform, who abides identically in the three states of waking, dreaming, and deep sleep—such is the Atman, the Supreme Person, the *Kutastha*. In verses 12:3 and 15:16 of the Bhagavad Gita, the term *Kutastha* denotes Brahman, dense with being-consciousness-bliss, immutable and forever uniform in essence. Though present in all places, times, objects, and beings, Brahman remains by its very nature eternally unchanging and uninvolved. It undergoes not the slightest alteration. Thus it is *Kutastha*. Just as an anvil, upon which various ornaments, weapons, and objects are fashioned, remains itself unchanged—similarly, though the emergence, persistence, and dissolution of the countless creatures and substances of the world continue unceasing, the Supreme Self forever remains as He is.
*Tatastha*—the boundary mark. "When we wish to identify something, we sometimes describe its surroundings. This is called the *tatastha* definition. When we call Brahman 'Being-Consciousness-Bliss,' we are in reality only describing certain features of the shore, so to speak, of that indescribable, transcendent reality"—as Swami Vivekananda has written in his *Devaani*. When a father plays horse for his child, the horse is the *tatastha* form of that person; the father is his true nature; and both the individual self and the Supreme Self are his *Kutastha* form.
To abide in the undivided, uniform, being-consciousness-bliss-nature—this alone is liberation. The direct knowledge arising from the meaning of the four great sayings of the Upanishads, and the refinement of the meanings of the words contained in each saying through logic of concordance and exclusion—without these, true understanding of each saying cannot arise.
Of the four great sayings, the first is an instructional statement; the other three are experiential statements.
(1) *Tat tvam asi*—Thou (tvam) art That (tat), which is Being (Sat) or Brahman—Thou art That Being (from the Chandogya Upanishad, which belongs to the Sama Veda, 6:8:7).
(2) "That Thou Art"—That (tat), the Self (the indwelling of Brahman in an individual, the pratyag-atman), is Brahman—this Self is Brahman (Brahman who is, in the indirect sense, the all-pervading reality, and in the direct sense, the Self). (Mandukya Upanishad, part of the Atharva Veda, 2)
(3) "I Am Brahman"—I (aham) am (asmi) Brahman—I am Brahman. (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, part of the Yajur Veda, 1/4/10)
(4) "Consciousness is Brahman"—Consciousness (prajnanam) alone is Brahman—this consciousness itself is Brahman (consciousness free of all limiting conditions is, through the distinctions of limiting adjuncts, the omniscient Lord, the indwelling Self, Hiranyagarbha, Virat, and has manifested in diverse forms from the deities down to the elephant). (Aitareya Upanishad, part of the Rig Veda, 3/1/3)
In the first statement, the word "thou" signifies individual consciousness; in the second, the word "Self"; in the third, the word "I"; and in the fourth, the word "consciousness"—all pointing to the individual soul. In the first statement, the word "That" signifies divine consciousness; in the second, third, and fourth statements, the word "Brahman" signifies divine consciousness. The unity of individual consciousness and divine consciousness, of the individual soul and the supreme self—this is the meaning underlying all four great declarations.
Divine consciousness, or the consciousness of the Divine—all-powerful, all-knowing, infinite, the Ruler of all, independent, transcendent, the master of Maya, and free from bondage and liberation. Individual consciousness, or the consciousness of the individual—limited in power, limited in knowledge, finite, dependent, bound by karma, immediate, subject to Maya (veiled by ignorance), and characterized by bondage and the possibility of liberation.
"Anvaya" (affirmation). For the reasons stated above, the unity of these two is not possible; yet the great declarations of the Upanishads are true. Therefore, unity becomes possible only if we reject the aspects of these two that contradict each other and accept the aspects of consciousness that are not in conflict.
"Vyatireka" (negation). Without such an understanding, unity is not possible.
That is: when in instances where a discerned phenomenon is present, there is always a single factor present among all the immediately preceding or following phenomena; and when in instances where this phenomenon is absent, that same factor is always absent among all the immediately preceding or following phenomena, then we must conclude that this factor is the effect, the cause, or a part of the cause of the phenomenon in question. This method is called Mill's method of concomitant variation, or the logic of affirmation and negation.
It should be noted that the intended meaning (lakshyartha) of words like "thou" in the great declarations—when used not in their literal sense but in a transferred sense—is pure consciousness, and similarly the intended meaning of words like "That" is pure consciousness. Thus unity of the two becomes possible.
"Immediate Knowledge" (aparoksha jnana). The traditional divisions of knowledge are three: "direct" (empirical), "indirect" (conventional, universal), and "immediate" (self-evident). "Immediate" knowledge represents the highest order. The ethical discipline born from the unity of existence, which transforms indirect knowledge into direct realization, cannot be transcended in the pursuit of immediate knowledge. "All this is verily Brahman" (sarvam khalvidam brahma) is indirect knowledge, but the realization of "I am Brahman" (aham brahmasmi) constitutes immediate knowledge.
"Refinement of Meaning" (artha-parishuddhi). In Vedantic philosophy, eight inner disciplines are taught:
(1) Discrimination: The faculty to discern between what is eternal or abiding—that is, Brahman—and what is not eternal, that is, the perishable. This is the capacity to distinguish between the eternal and the transient. (2) Dispassion: Revulsion toward all objects of enjoyment obtainable in this world and the next—all fruits of action, both in this life and hereafter. (3) The Six Treasures: Six virtues—tranquility of the inner faculties (shama), mastery over the external senses (dama), withdrawal of the senses from objects of enjoyment or renunciation of scriptural works (uparati), forbearance of the threefold afflictions (titiksha), faith in the teachings of the guru and the Vedas (shraddha), and one-pointed focus on Brahman and the guru (samadhana). (4) The Yearning for Liberation: Firm conviction that the world is inherently suffused with suffering, and an intense longing for moksha—for liberation from the cycle of birth and death. (5) Hearing: Listening to the teachings of the rishis concerning the Upanishads and Advaita Vedanta, and the study of Vedantic texts such as the Brahma Sutras. At this stage, the seeker learns the true nature of Brahman and the nature of the Self. (6) Reflection: At this stage, the seeker contemplates upon the teachings received. (7) Meditation: At this stage, one meditates upon the truth "Thou Art That" (Tat Tvam Asi). (8) Discrimination of Principles: The significance of this eighth practice is this—just as a swan separates milk from water mixed with it, and just as cowherd boys extract butter from buttermilk mixed with ghee, so too, following the sequence of the sentient and the insentient, cause and effect, substratum and what is superimposed upon it, the seer and the seen, the witness and the witnessed—the discrimination and separation of all these is what is meant by the refinement or discrimination of principles. In all the processes taught in the Vedantic scriptures, this discrimination of principles is virtually the underlying significance. For rightly understanding the meaning of the great mahavakyas, this discrimination of principles is particularly indispensable.
The threefold affliction. There are three kinds of suffering—spiritual, elemental, and celestial. The first is suffering born of the body and mind. The material body we inhabit is a dwelling place of countless ailments, aches, and pains, through which we suffer. Beyond this lies the suffering born of the mind—the anguish of separation from loved ones, sorrow from death, the pain of losing what is dear, the distress that comes from contact with what is unpleasant. The second is suffering inflicted by other beings—the bite of venomous creatures or animals, the depredations of thieves and brigands, the machinations of deceivers, all these bring us suffering. The third is suffering caused by the gods—earthquakes, storms, torrential rains, floods, scorching heat, bitter cold, and conflagrations brought about by natural forces—these bring us suffering.
Now let us turn to the matter of discrimination. First, we must refine the meaning of the term "thou" (tvam)—the word denoting the individual self in the great mahavakya "Thou Art That" (Tat Tvam Asi). This is essential, for the meaning of "thou," that "I" which is felt as "I" in every body, is well-known and universally understood. Once this is grasped, it becomes easier to explain the meaning of the obscure term "That" (Tat), which denotes Brahman or Being. One must clarify what is known in order to illuminate what is unknown.
With this very purpose in mind, the supremely compassionate Sri Bharatitirtha—intent upon expounding the world and Brahman on the basis of the body and the embodied, that great scripture called the "Shrimad Shariraka Bhashya," the commentary upon the "Uttara Mimamsa" or "Brahma Sutras" or "Badarayana Sutras" or "Shariraka Sutras" composed by Vyasa and commented upon by the revered Shankaracharya—taking note of what the commentator has there established, and moved by compassion toward the seeker of liberation, begins this discourse through the discrimination of seer and seen, the distinction between the perceiver and the perceived. The primary purpose of this discourse is to refine the meaning of the term "thou."