Thus consciousness is independent of other-manifestation, and being self-luminous, cannot itself be an object of vision—with this meaning does the fifth verse clearly teach that consciousness is wholly distinct from all terms or words devoid of consciousness, such as "you" or "this"—those two words that apply to certain objects. The fifth verse is an extended exposition of the phrase "nor is it seen" from the first verse.
It neither rises nor sets; it undergoes neither increase nor decrease. It shines of itself, and causes all else to shine—without need of aid. (5)
Syntactical construction: This consciousness neither rises nor sets, undergoes no increase, no decrease. It shines of itself, and thus without aid causes all other things to shine.
Translation: This consciousness has no rising (birth), no setting (disappearance), no growth, no decay. It is self-luminous (manifests through its own nature) and independent of proof (requiring no witness to establish its existence), and thus causes all other things to manifest.
Commentary: The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (3.4.1-2, 3.5.1) speaks thus—"That which is the Brahman directly and immediately perceived"—he who is not distant or remote as a seer, but rather is the very nature of the seer himself—such a non-mediated or directly-known or primary Brahman; that is, he who is the principal, direct, form-manifesting witness. This verse, by the words "this consciousness" or "this awareness," refers precisely to this direct, perceiving context.
What the word "I" signifies—that ego—and from it onwards the second person "you," and the neuter "this"—whatever can be denoted by these two words, all of them possess prior non-existence (pre-existence absence); that is, they did not exist before their coming into being. By way of example: what use has a lid if there is no vessel? Thus within the lid there dwells the prior non-existence of the vessel. The production or presence or bringing-forth of the vessel ends this prior non-existence. If "I" did not exist, from whence would "you" or "this" or all the rest arise? Therefore in every "you" or "this" there dwells the prior non-existence of "I." It is for this reason that they undergo coming-into-being or birth.
But the all-witnessing consciousness possesses no such prior non-existence. It is for this reason that "it neither rises"—it is not produced—and since it has no subsequent non-existence (the absence that follows destruction), therefore "it does not set"—it does not undergo destruction or perish.
"It undergoes neither increase nor decrease"—it does not gain growth or suffer diminution. Moreover, by these two is further signified that among the six transformations enumerated by Yaska, it also lacks the two other transformations called "(temporary) existence" and "transformation or completion or perfection." (It likewise lacks the remaining two transformations of coming-into-being and perishing.)
Here, by the term 'existence' we denote that which comes into being after origination; the future 'practical existence' falls within the domain of transformation, and thus it is negated or dissolved. Being comprises three orders: (1) the apparent (born of delusion or avidyā), (2) the empirical (born of knowledge or aparavidyā), and (3) the absolute (born of truth-knowledge or paravidyā).
When the rope is recognized not as a serpent but in its true form—as rope itself—the false existence of a serpent superimposed upon the rope cannot persist. That existence which is negated by unobstructed or determinate or specific consciousness is called apparent existence. To prevent the origination of this existence, knowledge of Brahman is not required. The perception of a serpent in the rope is apparent. To dispel it, one need not attain knowledge of Brahman; it suffices merely to distinguish the rope from the serpent.
That whose obstruction does not occur without the awakening of Brahman-knowledge, and whose substratum—the seer alone—persists when Brahman-knowledge awakens, while all else dissolves into illusion, is called empirical existence. Such is the existence of ignorance (knowledge devoid of self-knowledge) and of space and other material things. When Brahman-knowledge dawns, their existence merges into Brahman's being or consciousness. The perception of the rope itself in the rope is empirical.
That existence which is negated in none of the three times—past, future, or present—is called absolute existence. The existence of consciousness alone is the sole absolute existence.
The non-dualists acknowledge these three orders of being. This doctrine is called the doctrine of the threefold nature of existence. That which is never negated or appears as false is absolute existence—namely, Brahman. That which appears as true until the awakening of Brahman-knowledge, but is negated the moment Brahman-knowledge dawns, is empirical existence—namely, the world. That which is perceived for a moment, yet is later contradicted or proved false within the empirical state by another empirical perception, is apparent existence—such as the serpent seen in the rope during the confusion, or any object seen in a dream. Thus, the apparent is negated by the empirical perception, and the empirical by the absolute perception.
Strictly speaking, the apparent and the empirical cannot be called 'existence,' for both are merely 'false.' Yet even between them a distinction holds. The apparent is more transitory than the empirical—it is negated far more swiftly. Each morning the dream-delusion ends, and the serpent seen in rope or cord vanishes quickly. But the ending of cosmic delusion in the awakening of consciousness or Brahman is not so easily accomplished. It endures for an exceedingly long time, spanning births unnumbered—its destruction is impossible before the attainment of Brahman-knowledge.
Absolute existence alone is the true form or real being. In the verse under discussion, this existence's intrinsic nature is not negated, for consciousness remains unchanging in all states, identical and uniform in character, and therefore undergoes no transformation whatsoever. No transformation can apply to consciousness.
Why Consciousness lacks the six transformations of Being as expounded by Yaska—this is demonstrated thus: Since that Consciousness illumines itself (svayam bhati), and requires no other revealer to manifest it (ananyani sadhnam vina bhasyat)—precisely because it awaits no external instrument of revelation, it shines forth of its own accord and, after displaying its own nature as Existence-Consciousness-Bliss, it then reveals all else, all the superimposed objects that are other than itself.
The Upanishads declare (Katha Upanishad 2.2.15, Mundaka Upanishad 2.2.11, Shvetashvatara Upanishad 6.14): "Tam eva bhantam anubhati sarvam tasya bhasa sarvam idam vibhati"—Because He shines (tam eva bhantam), all things shine accordingly (sarvam anubhati); by His radiance (tasya bhasa) all this universe manifests in manifold forms (idam sarvam vibhati). All the world shines in accordance with Him who is radiant; by His splendor, this entire cosmos gleams forth in its infinite multiplicity.
The meaning: Because He is luminous and radiant, all the world and all things shine accordingly in His image; by His very radiance all of this manifests in countless forms. Therefore, He is the very nature of manifestation and appears distinctly revealed. Insentient objects like pots, or worldly things of that order, cannot themselves be revealers of others. In truth, fire alone burns; wood or torch do not burn. Yet when joined to fire, we speak of "wood or torch burning." Precisely thus does Brahmic Consciousness illumine all existence. (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 4.4.16)
From non-qualified knowledge springs forth qualified knowledge. How so? Let us examine this.
Perception is of two kinds: the ordinary and the extraordinary. Perception by means of the five senses is called ordinary perception. Ordinary perception itself is divided into two: indeterminate perception and determinate perception. In essence, indeterminate and determinate perception represent two distinct levels of perceptual knowledge.
In ordinary perception, we know the object at first as a mere object—that is, we gain knowledge only of its existence. We acquire no understanding of its class, its properties, or its name. At the first level of perception, when our senses come into contact with an object—say, a rose flower—we know it merely as an object. We do not yet know that it is a rose, that it has the color red, that it bears fragrance. This knowledge comes at the next level, when indeterminate perception—bare of name and designation—transforms into determinate perception. Thus indeterminate perception yields no precise or clear knowledge about the object. Such perception cannot be, and need not be, expressed through language. Indeterminate perception is direct apprehension alone.
Perception unattached to any name—this is what the ancient Naiyayikas call indeterminate perception. Indeterminate perception is perception free of relation, liberated from all association with name, class, or anything of that sort.
Through determinate perception, we come to know the properties and universal class of an object and gain clear knowledge of its nature. In determinate perception, we understand that an object—a rose flower, for instance—possesses redness and fragrance; that is, we acquire abundant information about the object's nature. We become acquainted with its class-characteristics, particular qualities, name, and so forth. The word "determination" (vikalpa) means the relation of substance and attribute; determinate perception contains this substance-attribute relation, which is absent in indeterminate perception.
Determinate perception cannot arise without indeterminate perception. If we do not first develop awareness of an object's existence, it remains impossible to know that the object is a rose flower and that it possesses various qualities. Only when the senses come into contact with an object, and the impressions generated by prior perceptions—impressions dormant in the unconscious mind—are brought together, does determinate perception occur. Thus, determinate perception may be called a process of presentation and re-evocation. The object presents itself to the senses, bringing about sensory contact; through this contact, past experiences associated with the object are revived and brought forth anew.
The venerable sage Vidyaranya offers a perfect reconciliation of this seeming contradiction between determinate and indeterminate perception:
স্বতস্তাবদিদং জগচ্চিজ্জড়োভয়াত্মকং ভাসতে। যদ্यপि शब्दस्पर्शाদिजड़वस्तुभासनायैवेन्द्रिय़ानि सृष्टानि "पराञ्चिखानि व्यतृणँत् स्वयम्भुः" इति श्रुतेः तथापि चैतन्यस्योपादनतया बर्ज्जयितुमशक्यत्वात्, चैतन्यपूर्वकमेव जड़ँ भासते। "तमेव भान्तमनुभाति सर्वँ तस्यभासा सर्वमिदँ विभाति" इति श्रुतेः। तथा सति पश्चाद्भासमानस्य प्रथमतो भासमानमेव चैतन्यँ बास्तवँ रूपमिति निश्चित्य जड़मुपेक्ष्य चिन्मात्रँ चिते बासयेत्।" ( जीवन्मुक्तिविवेकः, वासनाक्षयप्रकरणम्)
The meaning: This world by its very nature manifests itself in both consciousness and matter, in both forms simultaneously. Though the senses have been created to apprehend inert objects—sound, touch, and the rest—for, as the scriptures declare (Katha Upanishad, 2.1.1), "The Lord fashioned the senses outward-turned"—yet, because consciousness is the material cause of inert matter and therefore cannot be excluded, it is through consciousness that matter manifests. The scriptures proclaim (Katha 2.2.15, Mundaka 2.2.11, Shvetashvatara 6.14): "When that luminous Self shines, all things shine after Him; by His light all this universe is illumined." Understanding thus that consciousness, appearing first, is the true nature of matter appearing thereafter, we must disregard the material and lodge only the pure awakening of consciousness in the mind.
The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (3.7.23) proclaims:
He who dwells in water, yet is other than water, whom water does not know, whose body is water, who controls water from within—He is your Self, the inner guide, the immortal. Unseen, yet seeing; unheard, yet hearing; unthought, yet thinking; unknown, yet knowing. There is no other seer than He, no other hearer than He, no other thinker than He, no other knower than He. He is your Self, the inner guide, the immortal. All else is subject to suffering. Having thus spoken, Uddalaka Aruni fell silent.
In the generative faculty (in procreation, that is, in the presiding deity thereof). [It is now being explained why even these mighty deities of earth and other realms do not know the indwelling Self within them, nor the inner ruler who governs them]—Unseen (not himself the object of another's sight) [yet] the Seer (the witnessing consciousness present in the eye); Unheard [yet] the Hearer (the undiminished faculty of hearing present in all ears); Unthought (beyond the reach of mental conception) [yet] the Thinker (the one who contemplates); Unknown (not the object of determinate knowledge) [yet] the Knower. [But this does not mean the deities of earth and others are separate from their inner ruler; for] other than this inner ruler [there is] no other Seer; other than this no other Hearer; other than this no other Thinker; other than this no other Knower. The inner ruler is immortal—this very one is your Self.
He who dwells within the generative faculty, whom the deity of generation does not know, whose body is the generative faculty, who from within rules the deity of generation—he is the inner ruler and the immortal, and he is your Self. Though unseen, he is the Seer; though unheard, he is the Hearer; though beyond thought, he is the Thinker; though unknown, he is the Knower. No seer other than him exists; no hearer other than him exists; no thinker other than him exists; no knower other than him exists. The inner ruler and the immortal—he is your Self. All else that is other than him—he who is the witness, free from all the bonds of the world, the apportioner of the fruits of action to all beings—perishes. With this, Uddalaka Aruni rested.
He whose nature is sight and the rest cannot himself be the object of sight and the rest. It is through all eyes, ears, minds, and intellects that he alone manifests as seer, hearer, thinker, and knower. Beyond him, no seer, hearer, and the rest exist. He who is the consciousness of all is the Immutable. In Brahman there is neither distinction nor non-distinction (Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad 2/5/19, Mundaka Upanishad 2/1/1). The supreme Self, veiled in a body and senses marked by ignorance, desire, and action, is called the field-knower or the individual soul. That same Self, invested with eternal and infinite knowledge-power, is called the inner ruler, the Lord. Again, he himself, in his pure, unconditioned form, free from the attributes of distinction, is spoken of as the Immutable. Thus, by virtue of limiting adjuncts, that one Self assumes various names: Hiranya-garbha (the Lord, the creator), deity, human, and creature of other kinds.
You cannot see the seer of sight; you cannot hear the hearer of hearing; you cannot think the thinker of thought; you cannot know the knower of knowledge. Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad (3/4/2)
The seer of (worldly) sight—the witness-Self—you cannot see; the hearer of hearing you cannot hear; the thinker of thought you cannot think; the knower of knowledge you cannot know.
That is to say: no one can see the seer of sight; no one can hear the hearer of hearing; no one can think the thinker of thought; no one can know the knower of knowledge. (This one who dwells within all, in the heart of every being, is your Self; all else besides him passes away.)
Vision is of two kinds—the worldly and the transcendent. That faculty of the inner consciousness connected with the eye is called worldly vision. Worldly vision is colored by its objects and has origin and dissolution. It seems to be related or connected to transcendent vision. In truth, it is merely a shadow-image of the Self's vision, and is pervaded by the Self's vision. But the Self's vision is the very nature of the Self; it has neither origin nor dissolution (Brihadaranyaka, 4/3/23). Just as a lamp is manifest through worldly knowledge (how to make a lamp, how to light it), yet cannot itself reveal that knowledge, so too worldly vision, though illumined by the Self's vision, cannot as a witness reveal that vision. Because connection occurs with worldly vision—because worldly vision is pervaded by the Self—the witnessing Self appears to be the seer, the non-seer, and so forth; in truth He is actionless (Brihadaranyaka, 4/3/7). The same understanding applies to hearing, smell, taste, touch and other senses. One must distinguish the Self, which is the eternal vision, from worldly vision and the like.
Thus, by the intent of countless Vedic declarations, it is established that the Self exists and is all-pervading, unchanging, and the very form of eternal knowledge. For this reason, that which is the object of knowledge expressed as "you" or "this"—such knowledge has as its basis the visible things like the inner consciousness and so forth; whereas that which is the object of knowledge expressed as "I"—the immediate consciousness or transcendental consciousness or the unchanging consciousness that is the basis of such knowledge is the Seer; therefore, immediate consciousness itself is the Supreme Brahman—this is the ultimate truth.
Now the question arises: in the first verse it was said that all things designated by words such as "you," "this," or "that"—all things seen—reveal the "Witness." Yet in the fifth verse it is said that "consciousness" or "awareness" itself is what reveals those things. Is the meaning then contradictory? No, there is no contradiction; for the Witness proclaimed in the first verse is, in the fifth verse, designated as "consciousness" or "awareness."
Throughout each section of this treatise on "The Distinction Between Seer and Seen," up to its conclusion, an expanded explanation of the meaning of the first verse is provided, and in various places the word "Witness" refers to that very principle of consciousness. The terms "Witness," "consciousness," "pure consciousness," "awareness," "knowledge," "understanding," "the inner Self," "the unchanging"—and others like them—are synonymous, pointing to one and the same principle.
What is the inner consciousness? Vedanta teaches that the inner consciousness (the inner faculties) is divided into four aspects:
Ego (aham)—which identifies the Self with the body as "I" Intellect—which governs the faculty of determination Mind (manas)—which governs volition and intention Memory (chitta)—which presides over remembrance and forgetting
Let us understand relativity. The Shatapatha Brahmana declares:
Verily, in the beginning this was not, nor was it. As if not, as if—thus it was in the beginning. It was like mind alone.
Therefore the sages have spoken thus: "At that time, neither being was, nor non-being was." For the mind is neither like being nor like non-being. 2
That mind, once brought forth, became manifest in more defined and concrete form. It desired to attain itself. It performed austerity. It fell into confusion. It beheld thirty-six thousand fires of itself, made of mind, established firmly in the mind. 3
Translation: Before creation, it was neither like being (that which exists) nor like non-being (that which does not exist). It was neither present nor absent. It was something like that 'mind.' 1. Therefore the sages have said: "At that time, neither being existed, nor non-being existed." Mind is neither like being nor like non-being. 2. That mind, once brought forth, became manifest in more tangible and embodied form. It sought to attain itself. It performed penance. It swooned. It—the conscious principle, the world-cause—beheld from itself thirty-six thousand celestial fires made of mind, firmly established in mind. 3.
This teaches us that before creation there existed something like the mind—which can be called neither being nor non-being. It is this, manifesting itself in concrete form and attaining itself, that thereafter creates all things. The conscious principle that is the ground of the world achieves fulfillment through this manifestation of the cosmos. Without creation, consciousness would be without substance; and without consciousness, creation would have no reality whatsoever. Creation and consciousness are thus mutually dependent. According to this passage drawn from the Shatapatha Upanishad, is our mind indeed neither being nor non-being, and does it truly attain itself or find fulfillment only upon manifestation? Upon careful reflection, one sees that so long as the mind has not manifested itself in the form of objects, it remains merely a latent potential; and though it may be existent in essence, it is in effect non-existent, a mere possibility. Until it manifests, it does not attain itself or achieve fulfillment.
'Manifestation' (Prapancha). Vedanta is one of the six systems of Hindu philosophy. Its essence is this: Brahman is real, the world is illusory; here 'illusory' does not mean non-existent—Brahman is imperishable while the world is changing and transient. Man is veiled by Maya, and only when this Maya is dispelled does he attain union with Brahman. In brief, this is 'Mayavada.' Another name for this 'Maya' is 'Prapancha' (manifestation).
Naturally, the seer is dependent on the inner instrument. Then, if the entity denoted by the words 'you' or 'this' refers to the inner instrument, how can it be a seer? In that case, the inner instrument would behave exactly like a clay pot fashioned from earth.
Let us see what the Puranic teaching says—
The seer cannot possess the nature of the seen; the seen cannot possess the nature of the seer. In the seen, like a clay pot, the nature of seer is never manifest.
He who is the seer can never become the seen; and that which is seen can never become the seer. Objects of perception such as walls and the like have never been known to become seers.
Let me put it simply. When the world is the object seen, the senses are the seer. When the senses become the object seen, the inner faculty of mind is the seer. When the inner faculty becomes the object seen, consciousness is the seer. Consciousness is the supreme seer, and consciousness can never become an object seen. At any given level, the seer cannot simultaneously be both seer and seen; the seen cannot simultaneously be both seen and seer.
Because when the senses are the object seen, the inner faculty stands as seer, it is impossible for that faculty to experience the world or undergo change, even though at the next level, when the inner faculty becomes the object seen, it does experience the world or change. Yet by the same logic, one can demonstrate that he who possesses a nature opposite to ego, intellect, mind, and psyche—he who is immutable, self-luminous, the witness of direct and supreme knowledge—for him, from waking until liberation itself, it is impossible to experience the world or impermanence or mutability. For that witness is unattached and indifferent, which is to say, he is free from bondage, eternal, the supreme Brahman, unchanging, immutable; therefore the witness is eternally free from the world and eternally liberated.
The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (4.3.15) declares: asango hy ayam purushah—the purusha is unattached. The statement through which a conclusion is established is called the hetu, the reason, the basis. That the witness is unattached and indifferent—this cannot be called an unproven or unsubstantiated reason, for the witness's unattachment is established by Vedic testimony and thus faultless.
If both the inner faculty and its witness, consciousness, are shown to be free from the world, then the knowledge that ought to remove or dispel the world, impermanence, and mutability becomes pointless, since there is nothing to be removed. Then the knowledge that generates bondage, or ignorance, flourishes, and all Vedantic statements that establish knowledge become invalid and unproven.
The witness or self is, by all reasoning, devoid of or bereft of particularity. The Anubhutiprakasha (19.38) teaches that 'particularity' fundamentally means—quality, action, class, or relation. True, the witness possesses no such 'particularity,' yet the witness's quality or characteristic of 'being a witness'—witnesshood itself—might be counted as a 'particularity.' The possibility arises: does 'witnesshood' exist or not? Does the quality exist or not?
This eternally liberated witness, the self or Brahman, does not truly possess witnesshood; rather, it is superimposed upon pure consciousness through association with or imagination of the witnessed object, of the seen. The author of the 'Advaita Makarand,' a work graced with twenty-eight verses, the poet Lakshmidhara, has expressed this matter thus:
Chetyoparaga-rupa me saksitapyva tattaviki | Upalaksanameveyam nistaraggha-chidambudhehi || 20
Commentary: The self cannot be truly Brahman because the self harbors the modification of thought in the form of witnessing the world. The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (3.8.8) speaks of Brahman thus: He is not gross, not minute, not short, not long, not luminous, not without moisture, without shadow, without darkness, without wind, without space, unattached, without taste, without odor, without eyes, without ears, without speech, without mind, without vigor, without life, without mouth, without measure, without extension, and without interior. He neither consumes nor is consumed; he neither destroys nor is destroyed by another; nor does any other consume, destroy, or obscure him.
The Upanishads, in verses such as 2/3/1-6, 3/9/26, 4/5/15 and others, proclaim through the expression 'neti neti' concerning the Self—that is, Brahman, the Supreme Witness. 'Neti neti' means: "not this, not that," or "neither this nor that." This is the Vedic method of analysis through negation. It stands at the heart of Vedic inquiry. By its means, the knower repudiates his identification with all things in this world—all that is not the Self—thus negating the non-Self. (The Self is formless and indivisible; its true nature cannot be apprehended; the non-Self, by contrast, has form and parts, its nature can be perceived.) Through this process, he negates the mind and transcends all worldly experience. Everything is progressively negated until nothing remains but the Self alone. He repudiates body, name, form, intellect, senses, and all limited adjuncts, thereby achieving union with the Supreme Brahman, and from what remains, he discovers: the sole truth of the cosmos—the "I" or "Brahman" or "Self." Brahman is therefore beyond all conceptual elaboration.
Since the Self is a witness, it possesses witnesshood, and for this reason its nature as Brahman is unestablished—so runs the objection. To this we reply: without the false relation with inert matter, the apprehension of pure consciousness is impossible. This imagined relation of consciousness with false matter—this alone constitutes witnesshood.
Through the staining, modification, or coloring of the object or inert matter, or the pot—that is, through the dominion or effect of the pot—and because the entire realm of inert existence, the world-cycle, the cosmic manifestation casts its shadow or appears as a picture, the individual Self or Brahmic consciousness appears or is inferred to be a witness. Even this witnesshood of his is, for the sake of understanding, merely conceived and relative, not absolute or true. When the object or inert matter is unreal or false, the witnesshood that occurs in relation to it can never be absolute or true.
This witnesshood is in fact not mere unchanging witness-nature, not immovable fixedness, but merely a false indicator of that ocean of consciousness free from all action, all maya, all imposed imagination, all manifestation—consciousness undisturbed and waveless. Just as the world is the cause-and-effect relation for Brahman, so too is the pot the cause-and-effect relation for witnesshood. Cause-and-effect is that influence by which an event, process, state, or thing (the cause) contributes to the production of another event, process, state, or thing (the effect)—where the cause is partially responsible for the effect and the effect partially dependent upon the cause. Since the Self is truly beyond all conceptual elaboration, the Self's nature as Brahman is not unestablished.
This consciousness or sentience is the witness of all, and pervades or is intimately connected with all things and all vessels. 'Na udeti': it has no birth, 'na astam eti': it has no destruction. The manifestation or emergence of what did not exist is called birth. The loss of being or annihilation of what exists—that is called destruction. Such primary modification—birth—and final modification—destruction—do not occur in consciousness. Because these primary and final modifications are negated, the 'growth' or any transformation or modification between them is also negated. This is what is meant by the phrase 'na vridhi'—there is no growth. By the word 'growth' one should understand increase or nourishment, and by the word 'decay' one should understand decrease or diminishment.
A composite thing grows when its parts multiply, and diminishes when they waste away. Consciousness, being partless, admits of neither possibility. By the word 'transformation' we must understand change of state. Such change of state cannot occur without growth and decay; therefore, by denying growth and decay, we deny change of state itself.
Transformation in the form of existence means: persistence for a duration. When birth and death are declared impossible, that very mode of existence must also be understood as impossible. Why, then, are these six transformations of becoming—birth, subsistence, change, growth, decay, and dissolution—absent from consciousness? The present verse answers this through phrases such as 'it shines of itself.' By 'things constituted thus' we mean all objects possessed of such transformations, and by 'others' we mean other objects of like nature. It illuminates all these—'illuminates' in what manner? By generating appearance or mental impression? In no way whatsoever. For that would introduce transformation into consciousness itself, since we would then have to admit a change of state in it. The reasoning here is this: 'without instrumentality'—that is, without being an instrument, without itself becoming a means, without doing anything at all—consciousness, remaining undivided from all things, witnesses all manner of transformations without itself undergoing any. Thus there is not the slightest possibility of transformation attaching to consciousness.