Erroneous cognition is false understanding or mistaken perception—as when one sees a rope and mistakes it for a snake. Impressions (संस्कार): an experience, though mistaken, leaves a mark deep within the mind—and that mark can generate the same kind of error again in the future. For instance, if once in darkness a rope seemed to you a serpent, then later, seeing something coiled in the dark, fear will arise easily. Here the causal relationship works thus: erroneous cognition creates new impressions. Those impressions, in turn, birth new erroneous cognitions in the future. Thus they maintain a circular cause-and-effect relationship through each other. Here "there is no flaw," for one might ask—"What is the cause of error?" The answer is: error and impression function as cause and effect for one another. Therefore, there is no need to search for some external cause apart from them. In this, there is no logical defect or "flaw." By way of example: first, in darkness, you mistakenly took a rope for a snake—this is erroneous cognition. Fear and an imprint remained in your mind—this is impression. Later, seeing something similar again, the old impression will generate the error—again erroneous cognition arises. Thus erroneous cognition ↔ impression function in a cycle as cause and effect. Error and its imprint (impression) can be explained through each other without requiring any separate external cause. Since erroneous cognition and its impressions are mutually explained through cause-and-effect relationships, there is logically no flaw in this. Therefore, since the removal of erroneous cognition is accomplished through knowledge, knowledge requires auxiliary aids for this purpose. In Advaita Vedanta, ignorance takes two forms—which always work together: non-apprehension and misapprehension. 1. Non-apprehension—the failure to know, not knowing the truth. It is fundamentally a state of absence—there is no knowledge, and so nothing is clear. Example: a rope lies in a dark room. You see it, but do not recognize it. This is "not knowing"—you do not know that it is a rope. It does not by itself create error, but it prepares the ground for error to arise. 2. Misapprehension—false knowing—taking what is not, to be what it is. This is the positive aspect of ignorance—which gives rise to wrong ideas. Example: the same rope in darkness you take to be a "snake." Now there is not merely "not knowing," but "false knowing" has been added. From this arises fear, attachment, joy, sorrow—all mistaken reactions. What is the relationship between these two? Non-apprehension = the ground. Misapprehension = the superimposition. First comes not knowing → then comes false knowing. In the language of Advaita scripture, this is called: "अधिष्ठान" (the substratum) = the rope (truth); "आवरण" (the veil) = non-apprehension (not knowing); "अध्यास" (superimposition) = misapprehension (false knowing = mistaking it for a snake). At the spiritual level—non-apprehension = not recognizing the Self. Misapprehension = taking the body, mind, and senses to be "I." From this arise bondage, craving, fear, and suffering. Not knowing (non-apprehension) alone does not create error. Error is created when false knowing (misapprehension) is superimposed upon not knowing. We often receive erroneous cognitions—as when in darkness we mistake a conch for silver. Later, when we see it in light, or recognize it properly, pure knowledge is born—"This is not silver, it is a conch." This pure knowledge (correct perception) does not go about separately trying to "destroy" the error. It requires no auxiliary means to aid it. Rather, the moment new knowledge arrives, erroneous knowledge vanishes. Pure knowledge is a kind of positive entity—it reveals the actual truth. Erroneous knowledge too (such as "this is silver") is a kind of positive notion.# The Arising of Knowledge When new knowledge (the rope) is born, the former delusion (taking it for a snake) is erased at once. “Destruction is not a void” means that the dispelling of delusion does not result in something becoming “empty.” The reason is this—the arising of correct knowledge. If there were no cause, the very event of delusion being dispelled could not be explained. Delusion need not be erased separately. When pure knowledge is born, delusion vanishes of its own accord. Just as when light comes, darkness does not remain. This is why it is said: knowledge is the opposite of delusion. That is, when truth is known correctly, false understanding cannot persist—this is the essential teaching.
It has been said that sacrifice is the cause of bondage; through knowledge, aided by certain auxiliary means, the bondage caused by sacrifice is destroyed. But this claim too is false. As long as ignorance persists, the experience of the world continues with its distinctions between action, fruit, agent, instrument, and so forth. But when pure knowledge (which is free from all multiplicity) arises, how can these activity-based distinctions—action, fruit, sacrifice, and the rest—still be possible? That is, when non-dual knowledge emerges, the transactions of dual distinction cannot endure.
But why has sacrifice been equated with “false knowledge” or “doubt”? The Upanishads declare that sacrifice is indeed of the same order as false knowledge and doubt: “When the self is seen, the high and the low, then the knot of the heart is severed, all doubts are destroyed, and his works are ended” (Mundaka Upanishad, 2.2.8). The meaning is this: when the self is directly perceived, the knot of the heart (bondage) is cut, doubt vanishes, works (including sacrifice) cease. Therefore, there is no need to artificially bind sacrifice to knowledge by holding onto auxiliary means.
The framework that sacrifice is the cause of bondage and that knowledge, aided by auxiliary means, destroys ignorance or illusion—this does not hold. For when non-dual understanding arises, all dual-distinction-dependent activities and actions (sacrifice, fruit, and so forth) disappear of themselves. Thus sacrifice here is like false knowledge and doubt—their end comes with the vision of the self.
It is said that knowledge requires something else to achieve its purity; that is, auxiliary means are needed to make knowledge pure and stable. But this reasoning is ineffective. Why? Because doubt and false knowledge constitute the impurity of knowledge. Yet knowledge that arises from the correct means of knowledge (such as the Upanishadic threefold practice: listening, reflection, and meditation) cannot possibly be touched by doubt or error.
One might further argue that the true aim is direct knowledge. This knowledge differs from verbal knowledge (scriptural knowledge). For verbal knowledge still holds to the sense of multiplicity and distinction, whereas when direct knowledge is born, all sense of distinction is destroyed, and that itself is non-dual understanding. Through this direct knowledge, Brahman can be realized. Brahman cannot be grasped through the verbal knowledge that arises from the mutual relations of words and their meanings. This is why it is said that sacrifice, meditation, and the like are necessary for the arising of this direct knowledge. Knowledge that arises from a valid means of knowledge requires no further purification through auxiliary means. Yet many hold that sacrifice, meditation, and similar practices are preparatory means for obtaining direct Brahman-knowledge, which dispels all distinction.
The earlier reasoning—that “direct knowledge,” or “particular knowledge,” differs from verbal knowledge and is therefore desirable—this too is not sound. What is the specific quality of this knowledge that makes it desirable? If someone says that verbal knowledge (knowledge from the scriptures) is insufficient, and that some other kind of knowledge is sought beyond it, then the question arises: what is the special character of that additional knowledge? If it is said that it is desirable because of its clarity, then this has no real utility. If someone says, “No, that knowledge is special because it is more transparent,”—the answer is this: the function of knowledge is not “to be clear or opaque”; its function is to make something known. Knowledge is needed solely to make objects known. The purpose of knowledge is to convey knowledge of objects. Excess clarity serves no further purpose. When verbal cognition arises, an object becomes known. The moment knowledge of Self and Brahman comes through sacred utterance (as in “Thou art That”), there is no need to seek some separate, “clearer knowledge.” Knowledge’s function is to reveal truth. The cognition derived from testimony discloses truth. Therefore, to search for “more transparent” knowledge is beside the point; for once truth is known, that suffices. If it be argued that knowledge ultimately leads to direct perception, and that upon reaching such immediate knowing all the knower’s expectations cease—and that therefore this knowledge is desirable—then the question arises: if the object is already known, what further need exists? Why seek new knowledge again? What use is another means of knowledge? For the very function of means of knowledge is simply to make objects known. Once an object (or truth) is known, there is no need for means of knowledge to make it known again. If someone insists that a new means of knowledge is necessary to know the object anew, the reply is: the earlier means suffices to know the object repeatedly; there is no cause to seek a new one. Naturally, there is no reason to know again something already grasped; once it is known properly, the knower’s expectation ends. If someone suggests that the same object might be known through another means of knowledge, the answer is: yes, that other means might be regarded as desirable in itself, but since the object is already known, the knower has no new expectation remaining. Yet another might argue that the reason for knowing again is to attain a special kind of joy or exceptional satisfaction. To this the reply is: that satisfaction was already obtained through the first means of knowledge; should one know through that same means again, the same satisfaction returns, and therefore there is no need to introduce a new means of knowledge. Let me illustrate. Suppose you taste a mango—with the very first bite, you know: “This is a sweet mango.” You are satisfied thereby. A second bite will bring the same satisfaction; there is no need to seek some separate proof. To know anew that “the mango is sweet,” no different means of knowledge is required, for knowing once suffices. When an object is correctly known once, there is no need to know it again through a new means of knowledge. Should you desire the joy or satisfaction again, the very same means of knowledge that served before will procure it; therefore seeking a new means is unnecessary. Though an object has been known through direct perception, it may certainly be known also through another means (such as inference). For therein too that exceptional satisfaction arises, and between them there is no difference in this regard. They too, as means of knowledge, determine the nature of the object. One might say: direct perception always makes known an object that is present. That object possesses certain specific qualities—such as rejectability, acceptability, form, colour, and so forth. Other means of knowledge (such as inference or testimony), on the other hand, do not directly make known such a present object with its particular qualities. The answer to this is: here we may only inquire into the cause of immediacy in direct perception, but we need not seek another means of knowledge. For fundamental knowledge of the object has already been obtained; new means are unnecessary.